Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
'
PLAINTIFF’SEXHIBIT
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT
a,
w
3
S'l‘li'l‘ffi O! MICHIGAN _i 'pthL Q} Con‘pgnqtg
II! IRVIUI'I COUR'I‘ FOXI 'Hli‘ COUNT": 0!‘ SISGINAI‘J
mnm. MGR
PRISCILLI. X‘IKNHHY, 141.11., .1
I’Jalnt . {"116 No. (VI—136367431; 'l PC‘I‘IZE CHRISTI“: WRIGHT
«vaw Honorable I. I; nlxuation 03. Mr. Haeromarcsm 4
HOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Fred i... {sorchard
IJeiiendanL. g;
M.
/ ‘4
ID
DEPOSITION OF PETElt CHRISTIRK WEIGHT 1]
12’
Taken by Plaintiif on rhce 30th day of June, 20014 ar 1:
5525» Colony Drive North, Saginaw, Michigan at 1: 1:.
p‘m‘ 1') EXHIBITS? DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED
16
BPPEARANCES: 1”? PXéI PEC Letter - 12—5-06 2.7
For the Plaintiff: HR. VICTOR J. HRSTROHARCO, Jli. 18
(934564)
The Hastromarco Firm 15;
1021: N. buchlqan Avenue”:
£10. Ho), 3197 20
Saginaw, Michigan 40605-3197
(989) 7524416 21
22
For the DEfendant: MR. EDWARD Ji BRRDELL] (P538110) 23
Warner, Norcoss I. Judd, LLP
:1} Lyon Street NW 24
900 Elftn third Center
Grand Rapids, Micfnivar‘,41950‘325,
(616) 752-2165 1 1.1 t IR 25”?!" ”H"
. :I H
,~
5,?! II will
\' ‘ ~
:2 H IHu. “Juli! . g Mg; mt: 'r.
Till—GIT? COURT REPORTERS. INC. TEE-CITY coum REPORTERS, INC.
2 4
APPEARANCES (Com...) 1 Saginaw, Michigan
2 Monday, June 36, 2008 ~— 1:17 p.m.
HE. ROBERT 21. lthl.‘ (P28193) 3 PETER CHRISTIAN WRIGHT
Jungerheln, Hahn I. Washburn, PC
5223 Colony Drive North é HAVING BEEN CALLED BY THE PLRIHTIF‘F MID SWORH:
PI). Box 6128
(989) 790o0000 E» EXAMINATION
C» IT HR. HASTROMARCO:
MR. SCOTT V. SCARPELLI (P642291 7 0. Could you state your full name, please.Tne Dar: Cnemical Company203. Dow Center E5 13. Peter Christian Wright.Midland, Mlchlgan 48674
(989) 638-2007 E) G. And Mr. Wright, you're an attorney, right?
10 ll. Correct.
Also Present: (~15. Priscilli.z Denney11 0‘ My favorite people. My best friends. How long have
12 you been an attorney for Dow?
REPORTED BY: Joanne Kendall, OER-568? 13 I... Slnce 1999.
Tri—City Court. Reporters.
5226 SLate Street 14 0. Prior to that where did you work?
Saginaw, Michigan 48602
(9893 7924712 If. h- [from 1396 to '99 I worked for Bryan Cave in St. hours.
16 beforca tha: I worked for Monsanto from ‘89 Lo '96. Imd
17 then I started practicing in '86, worked until '89 for
18 hate: I: Daniels 1n Indianapolls.
19 (t Okay. '86 EC '89 Baker 5 banlels?
20 1-,. Correct.
21 (I- ‘v’ea: that a bug firm or?
22’, 1‘“ Big for Indiana. One of lzlw two largest in Indlana.
33 0- What was L'IIE employer‘s name from '96 to ‘99, I didn't
24 get, that
21» ia. 'rrfv'
Cave, C—Is—V—E.
‘l H”) 1"“?
(3)“ H!” :W‘.-'13. .LJH ‘1“‘u‘
TY COURT REPORTERS, INC, TRI~CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC..4 m 1—. s m H
J{J lJ
u 14 1:.:i lG 17
20
2J.
23 24 2:.J
10 11 12 13 14 lo
16 17 lU 1 �!
20 21 22
23
ST/1.TL O! MJCHJGAJ: II! THI. :1m:u1T COlJP,'l FO!, '! '!IL COU!lT!. Of �ll1.GJHA\a,'
PHI SC: 1 LLl. !W!HlCY, Ph.!;., f'Ja1nr11:,
!JO\'J CHEMICAL COMPAM!, Fred L. Borchr.1rd Uefc11oanL.
DEPOSJTJO!: or PETE!< CHRISTIA!: �•/R1GHT
Tr:d-:e11 hy Plaintiff OT! t:he 30Li, day of June, 200t at
p.m.
APPEARAMCES: tor the PlainLiff:
FoT Lhe Defendant:
MR. VlC'I'Ot', J. MAS'!'ROMA.HCO, JR. { P34S64)
The Ma.stromarcu r'irm 1024 I�. Mich1qa11 lwenuc r�.o. Box 3197. Sa{1ina\:, Michigan 4 f:I 605-319"1 (9B9j 7S2-1414
MH. EDWARD J. 8ATTDELL1 ( P538 4 0) YJarner, lforcoss L ,Judd, LLf-' l 11 Lyo1, St.reet NW 900 F ift11 tturd Center Grand l1ici1i?ar! ,. I GlGJ r. i I '. ,
TRI -CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
APPEARANCSS (Cont.)
RCPORTED BY:
MF.. ROBERT /;. IIAHI! I P281 93) Junaerheld, Bahri l \'/c1shburn, PC s22S Colony fJri v-2, Morch P.O. Bo;.: 6128 I 98 9 I 7 90-0000
MR. SCOTT V. SCARPELLI ( P64229) Tne Dm: Cnemical cor,,.pany 2030 DOH Center Midland, Michigar1 48674 ( 98 9 l 638-2007
Ms. Priscilla Uenney
Joanne: Kendall, CER-5G87 Court Reporters
Street Saoina\-;, Michioan 4 8 G02 (9891 ·192-4712-
TP.1-CITY COUP.1 RC PORTERS, IMC,
l(J 11
13
1:, 1 G n
2(!
2.3
2:,
10 11 12 13 }t,
l.'., 16 ]7
I T/\l:H,L Of CotJ'J'Ell'l'E
h'I1'/lf:.SD: PJ--i.GL
PE:TE! C!H�JSTI/11, WF<lG!!'J
EXHIBITS: DESCP.I PTIO!� IDSllTIFIElJ
PX� l PEG Lett.er - 12-S-OG 27
TtU-CIT'/ COUR':.1 REPORTERS, INC.
Sagina\s, M1chi9an Monday, June 3G, 2008 -- 1:17 (j.m.
PETER CHP.ISTIAJI vlRIGHT HAVI!�G BEEtl DALLED BY THE PLAIIJTIH AllD SWOH!l:
EXAM IMATION BY MR. MJ,STROMARCV: o.
/\.
o.
/\. o.
lL o. /,.
(). /· .. (J. /, .. (J.
Could you state your full name, please. !-'eter Christian \Vright.. h,nd Mr. Wrigf1t 1 you'nc an atr.orney, right? Correct.. My favorite people. My best friends. How long have you heel! an attorney for Dow? Since 1999. [•rior to that v1here did you worl:? frorn 1996 to '99 1 v1orked for Bryan Cave in St. Louis. t>efore that I worked for Monsanto from 1 89 Lo '9C. Jmd theH 1 started practicing in '86, worked until '8� for l.1at:c1 i:. Daniels in Indianapolis. Okoy, '8G Le '8�1 Bul:cr r. !Janiels? Corr1:;ct. \tiaE that v !Jig firm or? Big for Indiana. One of t:hp t:1,-10 largest in Indiana. \·/hat was tile employer's name fro111 '9(, to '99, 1 did11'l
TRI -CIT'l COURT REPORTERS, lllC.
o.
. {ifs
Is that a.» lawyer?
It‘s a law firm. 17's uun of the, 20th, 2L, Snth
biggest firms in the country
All Light. Well that‘s why 3 don’t knox them, wv‘re
:5 or here in Sagine‘ We wouldt': bejust small iawy
czposen it that Lind o! thing.
but in any Event, you‘ve,» been with Um: to: a
number of yeart now?
Yes.
Wnat is your job there?
I'm the company's Dioxit lawyer r-r lack of u better
term. So 1 counsel the company on Diu21n matters on a
global basis.
Can you tell me as the Dioxin lawyer du you normally
dabble in human resource employee relations?
No.
What involvement did you have with Priscilla Denney?
Mk. IARDELLI: Object to the form of the
question. You can answer it if you understood it.
Mli. MItSTROMhRCO: He's a lawyer. He
understand: everything.
I don't know about that, but Dr. Denney was, you know,
part of the Michigar Didxiu Initiative and i worked
with the Michigan Dioxit initiative. So we worked
together in the contez: of, you know, my work
Watt}
And i navt he: recommendation, and that war
that But should to L u} he: concern wiLL he
bupervisoi, bet bakei.
Dic yot speat to anyohd after speaking it Di. UEnn
about wn Shh had indicated to you? And I'm talking
about fairly contemporaneously with that discussion.
l OOH'E recall specifically speaking witn anyone
else.
So you told he! tc LalL to her supervisor. hen Maker,
concerning he! concerns?
Correct.
Dig snc indicate to you that sns had already talkeo to
him or not?
I don't recall.
Did she indicate to you why she was coming to you with
thlL information as a lawyer?
I don't recall tnat she specifically told me that.
Any other involvement of any kind With M5. Denney
besides that discussion?
Mk. BARDELLI: Related to this particular
issue that we‘ve been talking about?
MR. MASTROMARCO: Yes, the lawsuit and what
we‘re here about.
MMS'l‘ROMitRCO:
3 mean yot might have seen her at a party sometime.
TRI~CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.TRI~CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
i,1.
A.
Q.
Ia.
A.
counseling with the Michigan Dioxin Initiative.
Anything specific that you recall concerning Ms. Denney
and any claims that she's made as they would relate to
the testing that was being performed by, I believe it's
PEC?
If I understand what's being asked, this relates to the
PEC': data validation?
Yes.
And 1 did have interaction on, if I recall, one
occasion with Dr. Denney about that topic.
What do you remember about that, your communication
with her?
My recollection is Dr. Denney after a regular Monday
morning update call asked to speak with me in the
hallway, and then 1 think we continued the discussion
in her office.
And my recollection is she indicated that
there was some problem with respect to the validation
of certain data.
What is it you recall about ~~ do you recall anything
more specific as to what the problem with the
validation of certain data was?
7 don‘t recall the parzicular, much detail about our
conversation. My recollection 15 it had to do with the
sampling of chemicals Ithei than Dioxins and Furans.
”Tiff Itm In“: ,.
_
it "W i!"ulfiuh
really don't care abou: that.
Just to make sure I understand your question. About
this particular topic did 1 have any further
discussions?
Not this topic. Have you had a chance to read the
lawSULt that's been filed?
Yes
Did you discuss with her anything that you can recall
today that dealt with that lawsuit or that deals with
issues I should say that are raised in that lawsuit?
I don't recall all of the details about the lawsuit
do recall I was cited in one i think paragraph of that
lawsuit and I recall that conversation. But I don‘t,
don't know all the details about all of the
paragraphs.
what is the gist of the paragraph you‘re referring
to?
Refers to a meeting held in my office.
What do you remember about that meeting?
14y recollection is that we had a discussion with Luz
Denney and Ben Baker about a project for Dr. Denney.
knything else you remember about it?
We talked about, you know, what we needed to do tr help
her get going on the; project.
what project was that?
I»
CITY COURT REPORTERS, 1NC. TEX—CITY COUR? REPORTERS, INC.
>4
/,.
(;.
/,.
1() (J.
/,.
JI, Q.
]:,
JG � ..
17
rn
2,,
2}
2$
10
11
le
Q.
/,.
Q.
I,.
Q.
Q.
13 /:,,.
11
15
lG
17
1P
19
20 Q,
2J
22
I� that ;, lawyer·,
Ult:., ?(JU,, !.,(JtJ,
1.1qht. \'/ell tnat' v11ly clo11'1 i:1101. u1c11,, \-H·' r�
0xpose<i 1 c u1at Lind oi lf!llllJ.
But 111 any evenL, you'V(- b0s1: \-1.lL/1 LJov:
Yes.
\'/nat is you! JOI, tllen:'?
J 1 m the company' t, [J.10,-:i1; lawyc1 tax lacl. of r., bet Le1
tern.. Sc., l counsel t:tH, company 011 U10:o.v matterE: 011
global basis,
Cari you LelJ me a!:. th<:· lJioxir, laHye1 de, you normalJ y
dabble in humarr resource: employee relations7
lk,.
\•/hat involvement did you have wit); Priscillii Uenncy?
Mh, DARDELLl: Object t.o tne form of th£i
question. You car, answer il if you understood 11:-.
MP.. MASTROMARCO; He's o lawyer. He
understands everything,
J don't knm1 anout that, but. lJl. Denney was, you l:11ow,
part of t:IH:' Hichigar, D.im:ii: lnitiatiVf" and J. worked
i,,ntli th'::c M1c11igm1 Uio�:.1.r; Initiative. Sc; wt: worl-:ed
together 111 thE:: contex: of, you knm;, my wor):
TRI -CIT'::" COUP.'! REPORTERS, INC,
counseling with t.hE: Michigan Dim:in lnit1at.i VE:.
lmythin9 specific that you recall concerning Ms. Denney
and any claims that she's made as they would relate to
Lhe testing thaL was being performed by, 1 believe it's
PEC?
If I understand v1ha1+ 's being asY.ed, this relat.es to tile
PEC':::, data validation?
Yes.
And I did have int.erac::.ion on, if J recall, one
occasion v:ith Dr. [Jenney about that topic.
What do you remember about that, your communication
with her?
My recollect.ion is Dr. fJenney aft-er a regular Monday
morning update call asked to spea!: with me in the
hallway, and then
iri her office
thin!- we continued the discussion
And my recollection 1s she indicated that
there was somE; problem Hitli respect t.o tile validation
of certuin dat&..
What i!:: it you recall ubout -- do you recalJ anythirHJ
mor12 specific as Lo Hhat the problenr v1ilh the,
validatiori of certc11n data was?
1 don 1 L recall the particular, much detail about ou1
conversaL1on. My recollection is it had Lt, do v/ilh UH
::,mnpling of chemicals 0Lhe1 thar1 Dio}:ins and Fu rans.
('()Umt":ltfJ/1 l , ,. I�, h, ... j � ·\
TP.I-CIT"i COURT REflCJRTEHS, JMC.
(,.
/,.
(-'
J(l
/ ..
i;, (;.
H A.
lG
l�l L
H1 (;,
19
2{)
21
Lil\::· snc.. sIrnulc1 Lat{ 111 tH'=! concen, ,11 L! 11e,
s-uper 1-Jiso1, bn1, ha1:e1.
1 oon 't recal} spec.1fically SfH,icd:1n�1 H.i Lr: anyo11e
elss..
So you Lolcl ner LL t.alL t,, he:- supervisor, ber, hater.,
conccnu .. ns; her concerns'!
Corre.cl.
!Jio sn£c- indicate to you that sIIf::- had i.ilrE::ady Led teci t(,
iun, or rio1 ';
1 don' L recall.
l!ld sht: 1nd1cat� Lo you v1hy snt=· wa5 com.1ng Le, you v11 th
thi!..: 1nformat:ion a!.: o laHycr?
1 cton' L recall tnat she specifically told mr:o that..
/my other involvement of any !:ind \·Jiti, M.s. Llenney
besides that discussion?
l1f'.. BAHDELLI: fH:::latecJ LU Lhis particular
1ssuE: that we 1 ve been t.o.li:ing about?
MIL MASTROMARCO: Yes, thE- lawsuit and wh<H
we' rs here aoout.
13'{ Ml'.. MhS'l'ROMJ\RCO:
Q. mean yoL might. hav,:: see11 Her at, c party sometinn:,.
('n' If'/"-Fl 'ml/ IvlJt iU: � I �L
/-,,
Q.
/,.
0-
10
11 , •.
13
14
15
](, Q.
J7
lL /1.
}CJ Q.
20 !-..
(;.
23 /-:,
(l.
TRI-SI TY COUR'�' REPORTERS, IMC,
really don't: care abou::. that.
Just t.o make sure 1 understand your questio11, AbouL
this particular topic did 1 have any further
discussions?
!-lot thi.s topic. Have you had .:� chanct
laHSUl t tho t' s been filed?
read the
Yes.
Uicl you discuss v:ith Iler anyr.hing that you can recall
today that. dealt with that lawsuit. or that deals with
issues I should soy thal are raised in that la\1suit?
I don't recal} al1 of the details about tht:: lin,•su1t.
do recall I ,1as ci tee! in one 1 think paragrapli of that
lawsuit and I recall that conversation. Bul
don't knov,, all the details about all of the
para9raph.s.
don IL, 1
\'/hat. is the gist of thE paragrapl1 you' re refer:"ing
to?
Refers to a rnee;:,in�i held in my office.
What do you remember about that meeLing?
My recollection is tha::: Ht> had c discussion ,..:itL lJ1.
lJenney and Uen l-�aker about ci pro:iect fo1· Ur. Uenlley.
Anythin9 else you remember about il?
'i'l& talked about, you know, \-/hat VIE 11ee:d,;.;d LG du tc ll12lp
\•lhai project.. was t.hal?
'1'!1.1-CJ'l"i COUR'l f�EPUP.TEP.S, IIIC.
Q.
M} recollection it was an evaluation of natural
resource oamage settlements, ineludint} the GM
settlemen‘. connectetfi with the Saginaw RlVez.
Wny were you in this meeting?
Hit. BAHDELLI: You can answer 1‘! it was; [02'
purposes. otnex than giving iegai advice. 11 it, was
tor, you know, project responsibilities oz something
along those lines.
HR. HASTROMARCO. What do you mean? Giving
him the answer?
HR. BARDELLl: No. I'm trying, I don't want
hinito give prLVLleged information, Vic. I want the
witness to be careful with respect to divulging
conversations that are perileged.
Ho. But in this case, you knoy, the project had to do
with a legal topic if you will, natural resource
damages, although not directly Dow's natural potential
liabilities. And you know, 1 think this was because
thlS would be a subject of interest ultimately to the
legal team.
Do you have clerks that work there, like paralegals
that can do legal research?
We do have paralegals
I think I went to one and only, the last Hidland Bar
Association meeting one day. Host of those people that
N
to
m
N
m
..
to
w.
r.) U.
That‘
e cor rect,
that o: memorandumbe you Go a brief 0: anything
of law”:
'l'ney don“! al; wort to: me,
Wno‘s the head on), McCormick?
Heat; lawyer is? Chuck Leo.
l! I ask Mr. McCormick whether 0) not you could
delegate things to lawyers and he tell! me you can, is
that news to you then?
It IARDELLI: Object to tne form of the
question.
And again, Tom HcCormicL l5 not the house general
counsel.
Do you have a paralegal by the name of Tina?
Tina hittenua: is my paralegal, correct.
Do you routinely assign her progects?
Yes.
Why didn't you assign her this project?
HR. flARDELLI: Object to the torm of the
question. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Again, I didn't assign Ur. Denney the project. She
didn‘t report to me.
And then 1 come back full Circle. So what were you
even doing there then?
HR. BARDELLI: Asked and answered.
TRI-CIT‘! COURT REFORTEZRS, INC. TRI-CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
tn
5.
7
Q.
A.
10
were in there worked for Dov. How many people wori: for
Dow that are lawyers that work in the legal
department?
1 don't know the precise number
Approximately do you know?
We probably have over 100 lawyers, But many, few are
paralegals.
So you got a 100 lawyers. why didn't you assign that
task to a young lawyer working there?
HR. BARDELLI: Object to the form of the
question. It assumes that Hr. Wright assigned the
task.
8‘! H R . HAST ROHARCO:
Q~ I didn't know that Dr. Denney was a legal scholar, did
you?
HR. BARDELLI: Object to the form of the
question. Assumes facts not in evidence.
8 Y HR . HASTROHARCO:
O.
(Y1’ "l!
V" hm
that
Let's start with the first question. Were there
younger lawyers that that task could have been given
to?
There were no lawyers that report to me so no.
Just so I‘m clear Oh this. You can't give, you can't
direct anybody that works there in the legal department
to do a research project?
,
r
,7:
N
Again, it had to do with a legal topic so 1 was there
to provide advice. And it may have been, if it hadn't
already happened, and I'm a little vague on my
recollection, that we might have made some databases
available to Dr. Denney.
Let's see, like maybe case data, that one?
Correct.
All you have to do is e~mail it, right? Say, go to
case data, whatever it is. It's like a website or
something, isn’t it?
It’s not a webSite, per se. 1 mean it is —~
you can
access it via the Internet.
You can access it Intranet or Internet?
Internet with the proper passwords.
It's a legal database?
Yes.
who deCided to assign her that?
Well Dr. Denne)’ reported to Ben Baker so that would be
1m assumption that he aSSigned her.
So did Ben Baker call you and say: I want you to be at
this meeting?
I can't recall whether Ben Bakei‘ or Dr. Denney set up
the meeting.
I'm sorry, did you tell me earlier that Dr. Denney got
upset at the meeting?
TRI—CI'I‘Y COURT REPORTERS, INC. Till "CITY COURT REPOR’I‘BRS, IHC.
l(j
11
14
lG
17
20
21
22
2:)
10
11
1:,
13
14
15
lG
]7
ltl
Q"
IL
Q"
/,"
.resourc0 oamar.10 set.LJement:,, J.n-::lud1.nQ tilt:" GIi,
set tl emen:_ co1ir1E.!CU:cl �-1i ti, L!if' :...,101 na1<' Hive: .
Wny ,..,en, you 1.1, meer.1n9:'
MJ, .. BAHDELLI: Yot: car, aus,..1e1 j f
purpose;-, otnei rlia11 qi·✓1119 1eqo1 advice. 11 lt wat
i 01, you l:no,,.:, pro7ect responsitn.i1 Lie.<: 01 sonieLJ1111q
along li1os0 l.1.nes.
M[' .. MJ1.STHOMl\RCO: \'Ina� de, you Jrtf::au:' G1viw;_1
bin, th& answer?
MF •. BAHDCLLI: Nu. J'1L t:ry1.ng, don't wont
wunt tilt:
witnes� t0 be careful witli respect t0 divulging
conversations tmiat art: privileged.
Mo. liut iii this cast:, you l:nm-:, the, project had to do
vntL a legal topic if you will, natural resource:
damagc.s, although not directly lJm:'s nat.ural potential
liabilitie!:>. Jmcl you know, l third: this wn� because
thic1 would be c subJect of interest ult.imat.ely to thf:
legal tean,.
[Jo you have clerl:s that worl: there, like paralegal:s
that car1 do legal research?
\112 do havE: paralegals.
1 tninl: 1 went r.o one and only, the last Midland bar
P.ssociation meeting OnE:: day. Mosl of those- people that
TRI-CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
10
were in 'Chere worked for Dm·:. How many people work for
Om-1 that are lawyers that worl: in the legal
department?
1 don't knov1 thE precise number.
Appro>:imately do you know?
\•ie probably have over 100 laY1yers. But rnany, fey1 ai:0
paralegals.
So you got a 10() lawyers. \'lhy didn't you assign that
task to a young la\·Jyer wori:in9 tfwre?
MR. B/\RDELLI: Object to the form of the
question. It assumes that Mr. \'/right assigned the
task.
BY MR. MASTROMARCO:
()" didn't i:nov: that Dr. Denney was a legal scholar, did
you?
MR. BARDELL I: Object tu the form of the
question. Assumes facts not i11 evidence.
BY MR. MASTROMARCO:
19 Q. Let '::o start wj th the firsL question. Were there
younger lawyers that that tasl·, could havE: been given 20
21 to?
TherE we.rt:c no lawyers thal report tu me su no.
,Just sli J'n, clear or1 this, You can 1 t give, you can't
direct anybody that. works t.ht::n: ii! the le�Hi.l dcr:,art.mcnt
to do a research project?
(.u,, . .,11Jc· ''1 11·i 1I h, IL i,.J � I l.-
TftI -CI1''i COLJR'T RLPORTERS, IHC.
lU
lJ
]t,
1:, /,.
H, o"
n
18
19
20
1(,
11
12
/L
Q"
13 Q"
l:i Q.
lG /,,
17 Q"
ill
20 Q.
21
22 /;,
'J'nat 't;. corn,c!,,,
I.Jc you au " D.riei o� anytb.1n�1 lib:-· tl1fll Ci! me111cHilHOUII
law:
Tney don't aJ v1CJrl Lo; mE::.
nno':: thf - 11eaci quy, McCormick':
C:nuc,
lf 1 as]· 111. l·lt'...:orm1cl w11ethe! OJ llOl you COl.d(1
oele9au� thing." Lu lawyer� and nt tell�. II\!:- yuu can,
Mf .. BhH.OELLl: ObJeCt to t11t l'orn: of r,i10
questio11.
Jmd aqai1,, '1'011, Mccormic!: iG not t.hfc house ge11eroJ
counsel,
fJc, you have a puralega1 by the name, of Tina?
Tina lJit.tenba: is my pa1·ale9al, co:rrecL.
Du you routinely ass.1gr1 her proJects?
Yes
\'Jt1y didn't. you assign her thi!:: project-?
MR. 13AP.OELLI: ObJeCL to the iorn of th�
quest.ion. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Again, didn't assign Ur. I.Jenney the project. Sh€:'.
di ctn' t report. to me.
lmci the11 1 com� back full circle, Su what Herc you
everi aoing tr1erEc the11?
MR. BARDELL!: l>.sl:ed and answered.
TRI-CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
12
Again, it had to de, with a legal topic so 1 was thert
tv prov id'.:: advice. And it may have been, if iL hadn' l
already happened, and I'm a little vague 011 my
recollect.ion, that we might: have made some databases
available t:o Dr. I.Jenney.
Let's see, like mayoe case data., that one?
Correct.
All you have to do is e-mail it, right? Say, go to
case dace, whatever it is. It's like a websitE:: or
something, isn tt it?
It's not a websit�, per se. mean it is -- you ca11
access it via the Internet.
You can access it Intranet or Internet?
Internel with thEc proper passwords
It's a legal database?
Yes"
Who decided to assign her that?
Vi!;:ll Dr. Denney reported to Ben Bat:e1 so that would bE-
my assu1nptio11 thoL hE- a:::;oigned her.
So did Be11 Baker call you and say: 1 want you to be at
tl!i!:' meet.i ng?
I can't recall v1hether Ben Bal:er or Dr. [Jenney sot up
the meeting.
] '1i. sorry, ciio you tel1 mt earmier t:.iwt Ln. !Jennuy yot
upset al the meeting?
TEI -CI'l'Y COURT REPORTcgs' HlC.
l dlflli'f tel; you Lnaz,.
Okay, hid she"
No: that I recall.
Him! do you remember besides: what you’ve Lulu ms,-
ali’ead)’ ahou! what happened a'. that, meeting, ii
anything?
1 cm.‘1 thin}. 3 really recall anything else about that
lllEELng.
You don't remember about anthlng specifir you Lalked
about, what needed to be done about. the prOjEc1t,
anything like thaL"
I'o‘ nave to go bacl, and lool‘ aL my answers to see
wnether there's anything I could supplement then with,
but 1 don'L really recall anthlng particularly
remarkable about that meeting.
Any other involvement with her at all?
HR. IARDELLI: Again, in relation to what so
we‘re clear. You had asked earlier about u
MR. MASTROMARCO: Any involvement at all with
‘nez, any involvement at all.
MP». BRRDELLI: Since that meeting?
B‘f MR. HIKS'I’ROHARCO:
(J. At any time. We're going global now since you‘re
asking.
Sure. yes.
A ,‘ETall .sb
TRI-CIT‘! COUR'E' REPORTERS, INC.
10
ll
12
13
11:
Q .
Wnat other other involvement have you had?
Well from time to time Dr. Denney did different
projects that, you know, consulted with me.
1 want you to be as specific as you can. What do you
remember, what other involvement specifically?
Okay. Going in reverse chronological order, so from
the most recent I recall that I consulted with her wiLh
respect to EPA information request that related bacl: to
war): she had done on the s0~called PCOI projecL. We
may have done some worl: in connection with PCOK
project.
There would have been times when we would
have interacted with respect to the work that she did
with priority one and two project management, numerous
occasions.
My recollection 15 soon after she started
with the Dioxin projects, she actually d1d another
naLural resource damage related project. I don‘t
recall all the details of that. Iut it‘s kind 0 hard
to remember all of the Limes we interacted.
Anything else that you can recall that you did as far
as interacting with her ax, any time besides whaL you
not?
Now this M
can I assume this doesn't lncluoe SoClul
TRI—CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
n:
Yes.
We attendee numerous meetings Luneuxe: .
Dr: ym: recall anything specifically?
Mil. BARUEL 1: (It!) than when. yoxi’v: already
as had?
HI .. MAS'X‘ROMMRCCx
Besluer» what you've already told me, dc you rememne!
anything in addition Lu thaL'r
No, nothing particularly specific come: {16; mind.
Were you involved at all in any 01 the anESngaL’lOnS
tna: occurred as a- resull of anything that Dr. Denney
claimed?
Hli. IARDELLI: Object to tne four of the
question. lr's vague.
My answer would be yes.
whal was your involvement?
would have been involved I guess in two phases. One,
with respect to I guess any facts I knew about the
situation.
And secondly, about, I would have been asked
to provide some legal advice to assist in the
investigation.
WhaL did you, as far as the facts, the factual phase
one we'll call it, what did you provade :0 anyone
concerning facts; did you put them in writing?
TRI -CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
It.
1;.
16
I don't recall that I did.
You'd have to see it to refresh your recollection?
MR. BIKRDELLI: Assuming he did.
HR. MRSTROMARCO: Right.
Assuming I did l‘d have to see it.
Would that be your normal practice is to put things
like that in writing?
No.
Were you asked any questions about Mr. Iaker in the
investigation?
I don‘t specifically recall being asked any questions
about Mr. Iaker.
Did you talk to Mr. Cochran concerning my clienK. that
you can recall?
Yes.
Are you aware of the nonretaliation policy at Dow?
Yes.
What is your understanding of that policy?
My understanding of Dow’s nonreteliagion polncy is we
will not retaliate against the employees: who make
complaints through the ethics line or other similar
ethics complaints.
Vluether those complaints are det.eun1ned to be later
accurate or not?
Cor rect.
TR! ”CITY COURT REPOR’I‘ERS, Il-ICI.
/.,
/,.
][,
! •.
lo
l C (;.
17
18
2 d1ar:' t tel..:. you LhiiL.
01:ay. 1.Jid Sile?
!�ot that 1 recall.
c..tllt:odJ ahou! \•1hat 11appeneci a� tll,H me0t1n9, i1
l 001,'t third. n:sally recaU anything !o:ls� abuui tli,1:
meet111g.
You doll' t rememlie1 abouL anylhi119 specific you Lal ked
about, what needed tc., h� oonE: aoout the µro)eCt.,
anything likE: thnl'?
I' ci 11av0 to g0 bacl: and loo}· at my answE::rs LU seE.:
wnether there's anything 1 could supplement then with,
but 1 don' l rec;.lly recall anyllnng particularly
remarkable about that meeting.
Any ot:he1 1nvo1vement wit!. her at all?
MJL BARO!::LLI: Again, u, relation t,c, what sv
we I n, clear. You hac! asked earlier about
MR. M/\S'l'ROMARCO: Any involvernenl at al1 with
ner, any 1.nvol vement at all.
MR. BARDELL!: SincE: that. meeting?
I-..
(,.
ll1 0.
lf, 0.
J. ••
lb
2(1
BY MR. MAS'I'ROMARCO: 2�
10
11
12
13
14
17
2(1
Q.
h.
Ve
/,.
Q.
AL any time. vie' re going global noi,,: since you' re
asking.
TRI-CITY COOR'.: REPORTERS I INC.
Wnat other other involvement have you had?
Vlell from time t.CJ time Dr. Denney did different
projects that, you l:no,-; 1 consulted with me.
1 Hant you to bE:: as specific as you can. �lt1at do you
remember, what other involvement specifically?
14
Okay. Going in revers€: chronological order, so from
the most recent J recalJ that. I consulted witl1 her wiLh
respect tc, EPJ>, informa:.ion request that related bacL to
vJor !: she had done on tht so-called PCOI proj eel
may have done some Hork in connection with PCOI
proJect.
fie
There would have been times \'Jhen lt/E'. would
have interacted with respect to the war); that she did
v1ith priority one i:lnd u10 project management, numerous
occasions.
My recollection is soon after she started
with the Dim-:in projects, she act.ually did anothes
naLural resource damage related project. I don' l
recalJ all th€: details of that. But it I s kind of hard
tc, remembe:r all of the Limes we 1.nteracted.
Anything else that you can recall tllal you did as far
as 1nteractin9 with her at any time besides whal you
noted?
!�m-; this c:an assume this doesn't incluoe soc1.,c1}
occasions?
('1J:'.'::: 1�',r1 ·11·l,ll,; h•U\ \
TRI-CIT'! COURT REPORTERS, 1nc.
24
10
l}
12
Q.
I,.
(J.
(J.
/,.
o.
/,.
13 Q.
1:) Ii.
lG Q.
17 1,.
18 Q.
20
'.:]
(J.
h.
!Jc yot: recalJ anyth1nn spec.1i1caU
Bes1ae!' what you' Vt:: olrt:aoy Lo1cl tn(c, de yot.: rememue1
anytnlmJ i1, addiLio1, Lt, thal'!
Ne.,, uotilinq part.iculasly specific come;;., cc m111d.
�lert; you involved at all i11 any o1 the 1nvesL1gac1on.::
tnat occurred a.s c,; result of anyt.1iin�1 thaL l.Jr !Jenney
ML BhRDELLI: Object Lo tne forn: of thtc
question. 1 t I s vague.
My answer would br� yes.
�•/hat 1t1as your involve1nent'!
I woulci have neeri involved I guess in twc phases. CJnE:,
with respect to l guess any tacr:.s J knev; about the
si tuution.
11.nd secor1dly, anou-t::, I would have bee1, asked
t0 provide some lego:d advice to assist iIJ the
investigation.
What did you, as far as tl1e facts, the factual phas�
one w�'l1 call it, wliat did you provide :..c anyonE;
concerning facts; did you pu-c them ir1 writin9?
,r:rtl'I''! .. lin ... !'J i'\ ·
TRI -CITY COURT REPORTERS, IMC:.
I don't recalJ that 1 did.
You'd have to see it t.o refresli your recollect.ion?
MR. BARDELLl: A.ssumin9 he did.
MR. MJ--1.STROt·lARCO: Hight.
1-'.ssuming I did l 'd have to see it..
nould that be your normal practicD is tc, put things
like that in writing?
No.
\'Jere you asked any questions about Mr. Baker in the
investigation'!
1 don't specifically recall being asked any questions
about Mr. Baker.
Did you tall: to Mr. Cochran concernin9 my client. that
you can re cal 1?
Yes.
Are you m1are of the nonretaliation policy at IJoY:?
Yes.
Wl\at is your understanding of tt1at policy?
My understanding of Dm1' & 11onreta.liutio11 poli er .1�: wr::
v1ill not retoliate against tine employees 1t1ho maY.tc
complaints t.hrough the ethics line or ot:her siniilar
etiiics complai11Ls.
v/llether those complain::.s an:: det.e1m1ned tv be 1 a LC!
accurat,;; or not.?
Car rect.
TRI �CJ'J'J COUHT HEPOi\'fEHS, I!lC.
lG
1
itl‘e
l 9. If the employee, ox course, is acting: 11.0mm. ialtt ant:‘1 g.” The): ,correct.
:' believer: Clu’i', “1911 report is justified, true? 1‘ (,7 Haw» you been lSSUECi bar card by [no SLBLt‘ o!
1.. ‘x’ot. know I do! ': knox. the; details 02 it no lam». wneLnel 3 phchlgan‘fr
.; there': a particular Clause..3 .1.- 333,3,
‘
El. Ha. yol. know, have; you evez‘ sLudleo‘ the la»: 1!: Michigan ;, L, “0; (3“; you get L|\;|L';‘
i. as if relate: LC‘ PhliCiES and 7-“? EWPJOYGT'S ‘1”13' ‘4“l, 1.. hesiprocity aomisznon and sworn in.
follow policies, that tney have employed? ‘1 0 because you work in anothex state a: e.- law er, then you
i A. ND. 8 can come into Michigan and be a lawyer; is tnat it 3‘
.9 0. You're not aware of tnaL, anything abou! that? c; 1.“ Correct.
H; 1.. Never studied in the State of Michigan. 10 Q When did you get that license?
11 (2. [10 you believe that as a.» lawyer that policies that ars- 13 I.. 1 don't specifically recall. 1 can't recall if jg; wag;
15’ PUL 1" place ShOUld 55 {'01 lowed by an employer? 1? later in '95 II 2000. 1 don‘t recall particular
13 Ix. 1'". sorry, is that asking for & legal opinion? 13 date.
1’: (a‘. No. I'm asking for your. opinion. DC you thin}: the If. 0. when do you remember the mee:ing where you were present
1:: policies should be followed by an employml your 15 and you were talking about 301. duties, when, to the
1‘3 employer 15 DO“: d0 you thin}. they ShOUld [Di-1"" “W 1&3 best of your recollection as t(- when that happened,
17 policies? 17 what month?
l9 1.. YES: llnal's '“3' personal OPlnj-Ol“ 18 1;. I'm sorry, I don't quite understand which particulai
15) 0. Why [it you thin): that‘s important that they follow the.
19 meeting you‘re referring to.
20 policiES? 20 Q, The; meeting that you were at that Ben Baker asked you
2] In. Well my personal opinion would be I guess if they 2} to attend?
2.’ thought that they needed the policies in the first 2;- MR. BAROELL]: Object to the for". of the
23 place, Che)! ought :0 $0110“ them-23 question. Hischaraccerizes his testimony. He didn‘t
)4 Q. Do you, as, an employee, believe tnat you have a rignt 21: say that ben hater aslzeo him to attend.
23 to rely on policies tnat are in effect?25
H”! m: _‘
\|ME. l-lIsS’I‘ROMARCCI: All right.
t‘Oi’fflaL’Hm: C(l‘ii’iltlél l;-' . \‘x‘ 1L4.” ._
TRI-CITY GOURT REPORTERS, INCTEE-CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
182|
3 MR. EARDELLI: Object to the form of the1 BY MR. [mm-ROMARCQ:
2 question. 2 Q. The one that you were there at and Ben Baker was at and
3 k. Yes. 3 Dr. Denney was at. and you were talking about the issue
4 Q, Did you do any research on your own or at anyone's 4 concerning the C359 research.
5 [9‘3”ESL '35 t0 LEVEl ‘3 requirements? 5; A. And now I forgot what the question was about that.
6 MR. EARDELLI: Object to the form Of theQ Q. When did you think tha: meeting happened?
7 question. Level 4 what?7 A. January?
8 BY MR- MASTHOMARCOI{a Q. I don't want you to guess, just give me you.r best
9 Q, You can answer.9 recollection.
1| MR. EARDELLE you understand the 1“ MR. EARDELLI: If you know, you know.
11 question, you can answer. 1) Ii. That‘s my recollection, January or early in the year.
12 A. Well if I were asked to do any worl: with respect to 12 Q. Q; what year?
13 Level 4, that would have been for the purpose of 13 fl. Last year, 2007' I'm sorry, or was n this year?
14 providing my client's 19951 '3‘”le14 Q. I don‘t know. I'm losing my sense oi time. DO you
15 Q Who are your client's?15 thin): it was last year or this. year?
16 It NEll DOW Chemical COIHPBnY- 16 A. I‘m sorry, I guess it would have been this year, sorry.
1'? Q. That‘s your client? 17 01: is it?
“3 K That's my client.18 O. I thin): it is. I don't know.
1‘1 Q~ Aren't you '3 CBPt-WE employee there?19 MM. BARDEL‘l. We got to rely on you, guys.
20 A. Yes. Of course, I don‘t know exactly what the “-
30 MR. HASTROMARCO: I’m asking him the
21 (2 Did YUU P555 the Michigan 551721 questions here. I don't know: anything.
22’ ll. No, but I'm admitted to the Michigan Ear.MR. 5557,0511sz You’re asking the questions.
23 Q- 50 YOU never passed the l'liChj-QBH ”357 23 He's giving you the besx answer he can.
24 1.. Correct.34 MR. HAHN: aayue llll‘: iirst onswm' that he
25. Q. You never too). the Bar exam here, right?23 “85,3“ sure was probably “,5 hes: answer.
\ l." n ‘
LONMDW ALTill-CITY COURT HEPOHTERS, 1MB
'g‘ul —CI'I“:‘ COUPT REPORTERS, 1115:.
](
1i
11,
le
lG
n
lP
1 �J
20
10
ll
12
13
]!
15
16
17
ll!
20
21
22
23
2:,
( . .
/,.
ii.
(J.
L.
!,.
(;,
/..
0.
/· ..
Q.
1! tht· employel:, 01 courst., 1:. acL1n�1 .11, qnnc :f ai Ll i:inG
Yoe knm·1 cioL': Y.nov. t.lH: aei:ailt of 1 t t,c, l:1101·, .. ,neL11e1
Lhen:' i i..a part1cu1a1 clause.
lit yot, }:11fH·<', have: ym. eve1 suidHHJ t!lL' lav:
a� i !_ rel a Le�. pu�icie..:: and lh<2 employer' :c, out)' Lo
follov<' pulicie.�. that tne\1 have employed'.'
No.
You'n:: noi:, aviarc of tnal, anytlung about t!lat':
Never studied in Lhc Seate of M.1cl119a11.
[J(, yo\J believe: chat as c 1a.-1ye1 that pol1.c1e:.; that arto
put 111 plac€:'. should bt, fol lowed by an emmloyer?
J 'IT, sorry, is thaL asking tor c; legal opin.1011?
Nu. 1 '1h asl:1.ng for yow· opinion. De, you think the
pulicies should bt followed by a11 employe1 1 your
employer 1.s Uow, du you thin!: they should foll01t: tm:
policies't
Yes, t:nat 's my personal opinior1,
\llhy de you lhi1d: that's immortant t:hal they tallow the
policies?
\I/ell my personal opinion would be I guess if they
thought that tt\ey needed thE: policie� in the first
place, t:hey ought to follo1--1 tnem.
Do you, a:: an employee, oelieve t.nat you havE: <CJ rignt
to rely on polic1es tnat arE: ir1 effe::::t:.?
('I'). '.'�'1r, ''ilT/A/ i. k,'il!tJ; •
A.
Q.
TRI -CITY COURT REPORTERS, IllC.
MR. BARDELL!: Object to the form of the
question.
Yes.
Did you do any research on your OHn or at anyone 1 s
request as to Level 4 requirernent.s?
MP.. BARDELLI: Object to the form of the
question. Level 4 what?
BY MR. MASTHOMAHCO:
(,,
I,,
Q.
A.
Q.
I,.
Q.
J...
(;.
A.
Q.
1,.
Q,
You can ansHer.
MR. BARDELLI: If you understand the
question, you can answer.
YJell if I were asked to do any worl: with .respect Lo
Level 4, that would have been for the purmost o f
providing m y client 1 s legal advicE:.
\IJho are your client's?
t'iell Doi,1 Chemical Company.
That's your client?
Tlla t' £ my client.
Are1i'L you a captive employee there?
Yes, Of course, I don't l:nov/ exactly what tile
Did you µass the Michigan nar?
No, but I 'm admitted to thE: Micl11ga1, Bar.
So you never passed the Michiga11 !Jar:
Correct.
You never tool: the Bar e;o:cm here, rig-ht?
TRI-CITY COURT HEP0Vi'ER5, 1nc,
le
(J.
/,.
(J.
1�.
l(l (!.
1} I ..
l?
JI, (J.
1::,
JG
17
H I ..
19
20 (,.
21
2�
Theil 'E', cor /'€:Cl .
!l<.1Vt: you Dee1, issue:ci i':. bar carci Dj' t:llc St.au> of
MJ.chlqan·:
becausf;'. you work ill another stat.t: a.:: c; lctwyi::r, t:heL you
uni come: intc Michiga11 and DE' a lawyer; if- tna1 it�'
Lor rect,
\I/lier: d1d you get that licellse?
1 don't spccifica..lly recall. J can'L recall if is wa:.-
laLer i1: •9�1 01 2000. J doL't recall particular
dat.e.
Whe1i du you remembe.:: tlw mee-:1ng wberE: you 1--1erc present
and you <,Jene tall:ing about JOI• duties, Hhen, tG lhE:c
oest of you1 recolleccior1 as tc, ,..,hen that f1apper1ed 1
what month?
I'm sorry, 1 don't, quit.e uncterst.and which particular
meeting you're referring to,
'l'm.: meeting that you i,1erE: at. that beti Baker asked you
t.o attend?
MR. BARDELL]: ObJect. to thE: form of th£-
question. 11isc11araccerizes his testimony. H� didn't
say that beri Ha�:er askeo him att.end.
COt�F:DEi !Tl Al MR. MASTROMARCCJ: All right.
TRI-CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC,
20
BY MR. Mll.STROHARCO:
10
11
12
13
14
15
Q.
A.
Q.
J;.
o.
/,.
Q.
/1.
Q.
Hi A,
17
JB
20
21
22
23
o.
The one that you werE: t.here al and Ben Baker was at and
Dr. Denney was at. anci you Here tall:ing about the 1-ssut:::
concerning the case research.
And now 1 forgot what th& question was about that.
When did you third: tha:: meeting happened?
January?
I don't want you to guess, just give me your best
recollection,
MR. BAH.DELLI: If you lmow, you l:now.
'l'hat 1 s my recollection, January or early ir1 the year.
Of what year?
Last year, 2007. J 1 m sorry, or was il this year?
I don't know. I'm losing my sense of lime. Do you
thinl: it was last yea1 or thi,:, year?
l'1r. sorry, guess it would liave beer1 tl1is year, sorry.
Or is it?
I thinl: it is. I don't t:now.
Mn. f3lo.RDELL1. Vlt: gol t.o re; ly on you, guys.
MR. HASTROMARCO: J 111 asl:in�J him the
quest.ions here, I don 1 t }:nov: anythi119.
11R. BARDELL]: You 1 rc asl:ing the qtiestions.
He's gi vin�J you the best answer ht can.
\·iasn't sun: was mrobably t.ile bes;: ansi,1er.
GONF/DEl�TIAt
'I'JU-CIT'i COUP.T ECFOR'fER.S, lllC:,
., ,(
1 THE VII'I‘NE.‘ Z: No: sure. 3 by the Environmental I‘i‘Otectiol: Agency or whatever
131' Mk, HAS'I‘KUHARCO; 1. the; call themselves now?
1: (J. Hm well Gt} you know {sen balmy} ., 1., Yes,
1’; 1“,. I know him very well. .1 (A. Why die you give it Le him?
‘. 0. hi, ynu socialize with him? 3, 1.. He. asked for it.
(, 1.. I play golf wltl. him. (, Q, Hm. did he tum; about it, did he tell you?
7 0- 3 60'1”» “101? l: 1’05 dill” DESI: DW- f‘b YOU 5V82' 90 ou’ 11. 1 (1011",, recall specifically but. generally, there was.
i anti nave e beer with him? i? presz; reporting, you know, anout Ur Uenhey's
la 1:. be}; ‘oesn‘t drin}: so no. 5; lawsuit.
10 it 50 he 3115'! 51K: there? 10 (2'. Ha: i1 after the- lawsuit waz: fiiec.‘ that he asked for
11 1,. He might, have a; Z guess a nonalcoholic drink. 11 it?
12 Q. Well anyway, he sounds like fun. what other tning: do 1:1 1,. 1 don‘t recall specifically,
13. you dr, with Ben be5ides golf? 13 0, Can you give me a timeframe tne best that you can
14‘ A. well socially I really can‘t thin]. of anything else, 14 recall, that': all we're asking, as to when you had
15 1'", his lawyer as he's the project, manager for the 13 this conversation with him and provioed him with the
16 Michigan [noun prOJect. 16 letter?
17 0. What about Cochran, do you do anything with him? 17 I... 1 can't recall whether it would have been either in the
18 14.. I played golf with Greg Cochran and I‘ve attended a 18 summer of last year or it might have been in the fall
1.9 couple few parties at his home. 19 of last year. 1 did quite a bit of dealings with
20 Q. The meeting with hen Baker and Priscilla you were not 20 Mr. Nelson throughout the second half of last year,
21 present physically at that meeting, You were there on 21 Q. Mr. Nelson is the lawyer though?
22 the phone? 2321 A, Yes,
23 la. You know I can't specifically recall. My recollection Q, we‘re talking about, okay, right, 1 got it, 1 don't
213 is I. after we seen the copy of the Complaint 1 looked 213 want to confuse which Nelson you’re talking about.
25 at my calendar, and 1'" getting.- confused as to the 25 MR. BARDELLl: 1 thin), we only got one
CONSSSHHAL
TRI~CITY COURT REPORTERS. INC. TRE-CIT‘I’ COURT REFORTERS, INC.
22 2/.
1 date, I looked at my calendar for the date referencing 1 Nelson.
2 the Complaint and that meeting was on my calendar. But 2 MR. MASTROMARCO: 1 thought we were dealing
3 1 don't specifically recall wnether we met in my office 3 a» what is your associate's name?
1i or on the telephone. I kind of think we actually met 4 ME. BARDELLI: Pet Nelson.
5 in my officE, but I might be wrong about that. 5 MR. MASTROMARCO: Yes. So that‘s what I'm
0 O. 1 want to take you back to the question that I asked 6 trying to make sure that we're not talking about the
7 you when Priscilla DEHHEY diSCUSSEd "it“ you the 7 same person that we're dealing with an associate
8 problems as she perceived them with the data that sht- 8 counsel on the case.
Si had and the information that she had received from PEC. 9 ME. BARDELLI: And his name didn't come up,
10 Do you remember those questions? 10 but I appreciate it.
11 la. I remember the questions. MR. MASTROMARCO: Right. I understand, but I
12 0. Did she provide you, do you remember her providing you 12 said Mr. Nelson and, you know, I‘ve been dealing with
13 with a letter from EEC? l3 him throughout the summer, last year. And 1 want to
14 It. I honestly don't recall whether or not she prOVided me 1/, make sure we're not talking abouL the associate in your
15 with a letter from PEC. 15 office, okay?
16 0. Do you remember giving Rhett Nelson a copy of that 16 mt, BARDELLI: Got it.
17 document? 17 81’ ME. HIsSTROMhRCO:
1! la. Yes, I recall giving Rhett, Nelson 5 copy of that 18 0, Now why didn‘t you tell him that it was confidential”
19 document. Actually, let me correct that, 0; making, 19 L I guess I don't recall, I, you know, 1 don‘t recall
20 PIOVlding “‘5‘ he got a COPY 01' the” document. I dO‘Vt 20 the document well enough to know what level of
21 recall if 1 physically handed it to him or even that 1 23 confidentiality was associated mu; 1t.
22 e—mailed it. 22 0 Well doesn’t Dow normally stamp the documents Dow
23 0. who is he? ..3 confidential when they are, confidential?
213 Is, Lawyer with EPA. 24 la. Its é. norlnel practice that would probably be the
O. I: lawyer with the EFL. in other words, he's employed 2; practice of thing: that: we generated that were
: ,, ,,
WWMMM_..
TRI~C1TY COURT REFOIZTERS, INC. TRE-CZI'I" COURT REPORTERS, lllL.
](J
l]
1::
ls
lS
lG
17
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
lG
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TIH \!/JTHE:;�;: no: sure.
Bi' HI�. Mh.STHOH/\HCO:
(•.
/ ..
(L
/,.
(J.
/ ..
(.J.
J-. ••
().
/L
Q.
/,.
Hm ao you l:nm·: be11 Bab:.r'
Wt::ll >
txJ you so::::1al1 zt \•:i U1 him';
play gulf ',Jl ll. ll.1111.
dori'L k110;.: if you dr.11ll uee1, bll: (le you evei qc, ou:
lJe!; aues11 't cir in!: sc, nu.
Sc, he JUSt 5iL!:: then::?
!-I':'. migm have c:. 1 9ue3s a nonalcoholic drinl:.
\!1ell any;.1ay, flt; sounds like tu,,. \!Jhal ot11e1 tning:: de
yoli dv wi Lb Ber, be.sides golf?
\•Jell socially J really can't thinL of anytlung elst.
I' 1r. his lawyei as he'$ the proJeCt manager £or the
Michigan fno:dr1 proJeCt.
What about Cochran, de, you du anything with ium?
1 played golf with Greg Cochra,, and J 1 vc attended v
couple: fey,, parties at.. his horn!;:.
Tht meeting 1,1ith be11 Baker and P.riscill.s you were., nol
present phy5ically al that meeting, You were: there mI
thE phone?
You i:nm•: 1 car;' t. specificoliy recall. My recollection
1s I, aft.er we seen che copy o: thi,; ComplainL 1 looted
at my calendar, and I' ff gettin9 confused as Le the
('Q'ltJ:t:'.1/l'I/ I v N, dl�1: :rL
(.J.
/,.
o.
/\.
Q.
A.
Q.
TRI-CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
22
date, I looY.ed at my calendar for the date referencing
the Complaint and that meeting was on my calendar. But
I don't .specifically recall wnether WC:; met in my office
or on the telephone. l l:ind of think WE:: actually met
in my office, but I might bE: wrong about that.
I v1ant to tat€ you bacl: to the question that 1 asked
you wher1 Priscilla [Jenney discussed with you the
problems as she perceived t:her.i with th£: data that sh�
had and the inforrnation that she had received from PEC.
Do you remember those questions?
1 remember the questions.
lJid she provide you, do you remember her providing you
with a letter from PEC?
1 honestly don't recall whether or not she provided me
with a letter from PEC.
Do you remember giving H11ett Nelson copy of that
document?
Yes, 1 recall giving Rhett Helson c copy of that
document. Actually, let me correct Lhal. 01 mal:ing,
proVlding thal he got o copy of that document. I don't
recalJ if
e-mailed i L.
\'/hu is he?
physically handed il to him or even that 1
Q. !-.. lawyer i11:ti tht. CPI· .. Ir, other \Wrds, he r � employed
('Q' '"Ir f"".lt I I i�f'1lkl� I '..
TRI-CIT'/ COURT P.EPOl0.TERS, INC.
l(J
},j
17
HI
2(!
21
2�
10
1!
12
13
JG
1 7
1B
2()
21
22
21,
/ ..
(L
/ ..
/ ..
0.
/ ..
().
/,.
Q.
h.
0.
\'1!1;/ d1c you 01vr l! inm:
Ht- ast:E:c for 1t.
HO\.' did h\c 1:nm: ai1ou! i L, dHi )1,o: tell you;'
aoc't n,calJ specifically but, 9en0rolly, uicn• Wei!
pres;;-, reportinq, you tnov:, auout !Ji !Jen11(�:''::-
laHsui L.
\'la.'::. it atte1 the lawsuit v1ar filec: that h& asked for
iL?
1 don't recall spE:cifically.
Ca1, you g1vr:: me c timefram<2 tns best t1wt you ca11
.recull, r.ha-:: 1� all we're asl:ing, a.s to whe11 you tiad
th1.s conversation with him ancl provioed hin, with t.hE:
letter?
1 can't recall whether it would have nee11 either i11 the
summe1 of last year or it n11ght 11ave bee11 111 t:hE: full
of la::;t year. 1 did quite a bit of dealltlg.c, iitli
Mr, Htdsor, throughout tht, second half of last year.
Mr. !1elsor1 i.s the lawyer though?
Ye.s.
\•k're "tal!:1.ng about, okay, right, 1 got it. I don 1 t
iant t.c, con[U!:;!::: Hhicl1 11e:lson yuu'rE: tall:ir1g about.
MR. BARDELL!: 1 tnllll'. IIH;!" 011ly got_ one
C()/dP/t'.!T1' L' I , I, luJ,I ,\.
TRI-CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Helson.
MP .. MASTROMARCO: 1 thought wf2 were dealing
-- what iE your associat.e Is name?
MP.. BARDELLl: Pet !Jelson.
MR. MASTROMARCO: Yes. So that 'Ee what I 1 m
trying to makE: sure that vie' re not taH:1.ng about t:he
same person that we' re dealing v1ith an a ssociate
counsel 011 the case.
MP.. BARDELLI: l\nd his nam<2 didn't come up,
but appreciate it.
MP .. 11ASTROMARCO: Right. 1 underst.and, but
said Mr. Helson and, you t:nm:, 1 've been dealing witli
him throughout t:.he summer, last year. And 1 \•1ant to
mat:e sure we' re not tali:in9 about the associate in your
office, okay?
MR. BAHIJCLLI: Got i l.
BY MF:. 1-11'.STROMARCO:
(,.
o.
L.
Mov: ihy d1dn'l you tell hi.m that it was confidenUol ?
J guesE l don't recall. I, you knm-1, don't r ecall
the documen� well enougii to kno\': ihat 1evel of
confidentiality wa:.::. ossociat.ed v:i ti: it.
\-leU doesn't Uow normally st.amp tlw documents Dow
cor1fidential ihe11 they ore confidential?
J,,s c: 11or1ncd proclic0 U1al viould ptotably be: t.bE
pracL1ce of th1ngrs tha:- Wf• generat.eci that 1.1ert
(·r1 1'tli f1ti1\I 1\J 'ii \1; 1-l 111 1l,
TR1-C:IT'/ COUH';' REl'PRT EP.�,, lllC.
4
1(3
11
o
)3
coht‘ioenLJui, wt would ma; then- as' confidential. nu:
tn)!- wasn': é: document prepareo by mm.
0, Right. But it we.“ prepared Dy 5': company that how
hired, right?
1%. Correct,
(.4. Se fire you saying tna: tnc document: prepared by (mine:
entitles. outside of Uov‘ are normally not market: bow
confidential when they’re received by (low?
E. No, I'm not saying that. The confidentiality statue
depend: on its particular document and kind of
assignment.
0. The reason why I‘m asking you tnaL is because there was
a pleading filed in this, case by Dow‘s lawyers that
suggested tnaL this documenL that you just told u: that
you gave Lb ML Rhett Nelson, the lawye: for the EPA,
was confidential and privileged.
You don‘L’ remember it having been marked bow
confidential, dc you?
MR. BlkRDELLI: Object to the form: of the
question in terms of ‘nov. 1! was marked.
A. Again, I don’t recall specifically how it was marked.
During the. second half of last, year when we were in the
course of EPA negotiationz we had in place with them a
confidentiality agreement.
Q, mm. the EPA? Wno worked that out, George Bush?
W.
question. \iullfil fol speculation.
BE ML. !~l/\3‘J'RO!~IAI(CO:
(5. 1:. (ha: wnm you: uncle standing is?
L. No.
0. Sn tin}: EP/ proposed this, is: that, you: Lestjnml’ly';
1.. Correct.
g), 1'vt 901 the latte: that was vulLLEb by PEG dated
hecemoez L, 2006, I'm. going to mail that as an exnimi
here.
(Whereupon Deposition Exhibit No. 3 was
marked to: identification purposes.}
8‘! ME, l-illS'l‘RO!~l/illCO:
(J. Now that's marked "Dow confidential" or: the botLonZ (if
the left corner. UL: you see tha‘.;?
1:. No, it doesn't say Dow confidential.
(2. IL says ”confidential" doesn‘t. it?
ME. BARDELLI: Ob'JecL to the form of the
question.
MP“ MASTROMARCO: Let me rephrase the
question.
BY MR. MIkS'l‘ROMARCO:
0. Does thaL document have the word "confidential" on the
left—hand corner of the document or is it the
right—hano corner:
1.. On the left-hand corner that's been placed on the
TRE’CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC,
26
MR. BARDELLI: Object to the forn. of the
question.
BY MR. I-USSTROMARCO:
0. You had a confidentiality agreement with the EPA?
lg. Correct.
Q. That was slick. who worked that out?
MR. HARDELLI: Object to the form of the
question. You don‘L have to answer that.
BY MR, HASTROHARCO:
Q. Who worked that. ouL?
Ii. EFF: proposed the confidentiality agreement.
Q Who at EPA, RhetL Nelson?
A, It might have been Rhett. I don't speCifically recall
which lawyer, but it could very well have been Rhett.
Q. Why would the EPI: want a confidentiality agreement?
HR. BARDELLI: ObjecL to the form of the
question. Call: for speculation.
BY MR. HASTROI-SARCO:
0. Did he tell you why?
A. The confidentiality agreement was used in the course of
the settlemeni discussions between Dow and EPA and the
StaLe of Michigan.
0‘ They didn't want the public to know what they were
talking about; is Lhai iL?
MIL BARDELLI: Object to the form: of Lhe
TEE-CITY COURT REPORTERS, IHCi
TRI-CITY COUR'J‘ REPORTERS, INC,
28
documenti
Qt 'I‘nat‘e the letter you provided to Rhett Nelson?
11. I don’t know that.
0. Well 1 want you to assume that, that was actually what
i purports tr» be there, that is the letter from PEC.
hssuming that is the case, is that the letter you
provided or not?
MR. BARDELLI: Ilgain, don't assume.
A. I wouldn’t assume;
HR. BARDELLI: First of all, you can testify
whether or not that‘s the letter you've been talking
abouti
BY MR . MAST ROI-LERCO :
CI. 15 that the letcer you thin): you've been talking
about?
7), Again, this letter has a document number on it and the
word "confidentialH‘ I don‘t. know when those were put
on, 1 don't know whether this. is what *~
(3. Those were put on in this lawsui: today. Not today,
but as a result. of document production in this- lawsuit.
That's why it's numbered and that's why it, says
confidential .
In. I don't recall. I mean I don't recall specifically
wnicn documenls were provided to IJJlE EPA. li, could
have included this letter, but I'd have to look.
TR2~CE'I“I COURT REPORTERS, INC.
1(
ll
1:,
](
]7
l B
19
20
21
24
(J,
(L
(J.
cori'.1oenL1i.d, 11t ,-1oulci marr uien iJ!: confidenL1.aJ. but
t11if, Hi:151: ': ;;, ciocumenL prepare{! by Urn·:.
Currecl.
art" yol: say1n9 tna: tnt:' documenc.i: preµa1c:o by c,tmle1
ent1LJe�. ouLsiCJfc' of [Jo�.· an - oormal.ly not 11tilrt:cc !Jo�/
Hu, J 1 11 not say.1nq tila: 'l'hc conficiential1Ly sLatus
depend� or1 1 u; parliculc:u documenl and kind of
'l'il0 reaso11 why J 'm asl:ing you tnat is DE:cauhc there wct.s
<; pleading filed ii: thi:: case by Do\>: 1 ia,.,1yers that
sug9eht.ed tnat t.hi.s document tilaL- you juht tole! us that
you gave r.0 M1. Rhett NE:.:lso1i, thE:: lawye1 for the EP!i.,
was confidential and privileged.
You don' L remember it having bee11 marted [Jm:
confiaential, de you?
Mh. B/\RDELLI: ObJect to th& form of the
question iri t.ermt of no\<: it wab marked.
Again, oon't recaL1 specifically how it wa� inarY.ed.
1Jur1ng th-2 hecond half a: laht year when we were ir, the
course of EPA negotiation.'.: we had ir, place witl1 them c.
conf identiaii ty agreement.
2:) Q. With the::: EPA? Vlno vJOrked that out, Georg£:: Buhh'!
('·0'·•1r1r)"'''�I '' 1,,,,,, �'1.il A1 I \! ib:w \ l.,
TRI -CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
2G
MR. BAROELLI: ObJect t:.o the forn, of the
question.
BY MR. MhSTROMl-\RCO:
Q.
You had a confidentiality agreement with th� EPA?
Correct.
That was slict:. �·/ho v1orked that out?
MR. BARDCLLI: Object to the forn: of the
quehtion. You don't have t.c, answer tl1at.
BY MR. MASTROMARCO:
m(j (1'
11 1 ....
12 Q.
13 J...,
14
me Q,
16
17
Who worked that ouL?
EPl� proposed the confioentiaii ty agreement.
\'Jnu al EPA, Rhett Nelson?
It might have been Rhett. I don It hpecifically recnlJ
v1hicf1 lawyer, but it could very well have been Rhett.
Vlhy would Lhe EPI, v1ant a confidentiality agreement?
MR. BARDELL!: ObJect t.O the form of the
quest.ion. Call.::: for speculation.
l3Y MR. Ml\STROJ,mHCO:
19 Q.
20 ,,._,,
::1
Did he t.ell you 1,-1hy?
The conf1cientialit:y agreement wat used in the cou.:se of
the settlement discussion£ betvieeri Dov, and CPI� and the
State; of Michigan.
They didn't v1anl the public to !:now what they were
tall;ing about; l� LhaL it?
MR. B/\P.DELLl: Object to thE-- form of the
TRI -CITY COUR'l REPORTERS, IHC.
que.st.J or,. £01 speCU.liiLlOI,.
B; ML. M/\S'HtOMhltCU:
j[J
m l
(,.
I.Jc, .
.Su tl1f CJ>J. pl'.OfJUSE:d thit,, J.! tna· you: Le:>LJ.!11(,ll\l.
CorrecL.
1 'V(· 901 tn� let tel tr,at \'/05 writ.Lei, hv PE(, di'JU�Cl
lJecemoe.r S, 20UC, I'rL going
(\'lr1ereupo11 !Jeposi tirni £>:hi bi l l�u.
marl:cci fo::. ident.ificat.ior: purpose.s.;
BY MF .. Ml\S'I'ROM/\HCO:
(,.
l', ! •.
lC 0.
17
18
19
2()
Nov: that 1 man:ed 11I.Jov: conf1c1enLial'' or, tiH::c bottow oi
t.hE: left corner. Uc yoc Sefc:' th.a::?
No, it doehn't hay Um: confider1r.ia1.
It say.:: "confidential" doesn' l it?
ME. BARDELL!: ObJect to thE: forn1 of the
ques!:io11.
Mf-' •. MASTHOMARCO: LeL mtc rephrahe the
question.
21 OY MR. 11/\S'l'ROMARCO:
2:: ().
Q.
/. ..
[;oeE that document havE: thE-:: word "confidentia]" or1 the
left-hand corner of the document or i� it the
right-hano corner:'
On tne ieft-hand corner r.hat' Dee11 placed or, t:he
TEI-CITY COURT REPORTERS, Inc.
document.
Tnat 's the lett:er you provided t:0 Rhet:t Nelhon?
I don ' t i;nm,; that .
\•/ell I v1ant you to ahsumE: that. that \<las actual.1 y v1hat
it:. purports tc be there, that is the letter from PEC.
lissuming that is the cah8, ih that thE Jetter you
provided or not?
MR. BARDCLLl: /I.gain, don't assume.
1 \•JOuldn' t ahsume.
28
MR. BAHDELLI: Firht of all, you car, tehtify
whether or nol that's the letter you've been t.alLing
about.
10
ml
12
13 BY MR. MASTROMARCO:
().
15
Hi /,.
l 7
1� Q.
20
2]
2]
ls that the let�er you think you've been tall�ing
about?
/\gair., this letter bas a document number on it a11d the
word "confldent.ial. I don' l knm-1 wheh thost:'. wen:'. put
on. J don't l:nm1 whet:her this is \•Jhat --
'fhose were put. Olt in this law3ui� today. Hot today,
but a.s a rt?nuJ t of docun1enr, production in this lowsui t.
That 1 t, w)1y 1t 1 s numbered and lhar:'s why it says
confidential.
] don 1 t recall. I mean I don't recal} specifically
v11nc11 docurnent.s were provioed to tiiEc EPi- L l t o.,n1lci
have iw::lucied Lhi::: le:ti:.er, but. I'd hnve t.0 loo\;.
TE1-CI1".t' COURT REPORTERS, IllC.
CONFlDENT
2<.
You said Lna: you provided Av letter iron P}? L(; the
EFL. You don't recall if this, whaL you‘re looting! al
rich” nm: is the! letter':
3 non". recall specifically al.’ of the documents thai
were provided I11: EFL. I'm no! denying that this could
have been part o! the submissmn.
hid you provide nin» more that the letter then, if: lilm’.
what you’re saying now?
You know 3 don't specifically recall all of the
document: tha: were provided to EPA.
So there was more than jus: Chi- letter provided, you
thin)’ it’s possible”
Yes. There would have been more than JUSL this lettei
if this lettez was part of the submission.
When did you say the last time you talked to Rhett
Nelson was?
Well 1 didn't say when 1 last talked to him. 1
probably talked to him last week.
What did you tell Rhett Nelson about my client‘s
allegations?
HR. BARDELLI: Ob)EC[lOH, assumes facts not
i' h evidence.
I don’t specifically recall what. we discussed in
any kind of detail what the allegations were so i don't
really recall what we talker; about.
AL
TRl-CITY COUR'.v REPORTERS. INC.
0.
Cl
30
Do you believe that you discussed the allegations with
him?
I believe we had some discussions about the allegations
and the related documentation.
why would you be discussing my client‘s lawsuit with
him?
I didn't say that I was discussing your client's
lawsuit. And I don't recall if we ever discussed the
lawsuit.
Why would you be discussing her allegations with him?
i believe what I testified is that EPA inquired about
the allegations regarding the data validity or
validation, so I responded to EPIa's inquiries.
Did you mention my Client's name?
I don't specifically recallr
How often do you speak with Rhett Nelson on a monthly
basrs?
I don‘t. I don't speak with Mr Nelson on sort of a
regular basis. It's relate: more to, you know, it‘s
more of a transactional basis. St when we're
negotiating something, I have an occasion to tall: 9
him, but 1 would not be: routinely talking with him.
[Jo you ever go golfing with him?
Do you ever meet hin- a“, a social event?
am
'IlRl-CI'I‘)’ COURT REPORTERS. INC.
9
10
ll
CONE
u;
No.
When": he located/
Chicago.
h‘ny wasn‘t in. Denney Sen! tr ChJCBCjV when the
mam: u (11': Elm?[JX'GSEULBLJDL U
HE. BAHUELLI: (”new to the, iorm of the
not in evi dence;quesurm. ll"? vague. Assumes La
1! you understand wnat tne presentation: means.
3 don't understand what presentation you're talking
about .
The presentation of the data a: to, which was the very
issue that was being discussed in Exhibit No. l, the
presentation of that data tha\ PEC was disputing the
validity of. liny wasn't Dr. henney sent to Chicago to
tal). to the EFF. representatives there?
ML. BAPJJELLI: Ob)ect to the characterization
of Exhibit 1 to the deposition and the form of the
question, but you can answer.
Again, 1 don‘t recall that there: was any presentation
about the validity of, the data.
No. in fact, they just presented as if it was valid,
didn't they, to the EPA?
MR. BARDELLI: Object to the [om of the
question. it assumes fact: no: in evidence. It
doesn't define wno “tney” is in the question.
DEI‘ETIA‘L
TRE‘CITY COURT REPORTERS. INC.
CONE“;'
w ro
HRSTROMARCO:
"They" being Dow. right?
MR. BARDELLI: Same objection.
Again, I'm not completely sure what particular
presentation.
Oh, 3 thin}: you know exactly what I‘m. talking about.
MR. SCARPELLI: Ob)ect to the sarcasm to my
client.
HR. l~thTROMhRCOz You're not even in this
case.
MR. SCARPELLI: Yes, I am.
MR. MASTROMARCO: You aren't today. If you
want to start objecting then you can take over. I'd
love to have you do it. why don’t you act [or counsel
from the western side of the state? You want to handle
the case?
HR. BARDELLI: As}: the question.
MR. SCI-\RPELLE: Vic, 1 can wage whateve:
objection l want. I‘m a counsel of record.
HR. I~Ih3TROMARCOr No, you can't.
Mt. SCARPELL]: I'm a counsel of record and I
don't appreciate your_.
HR. MASTROMARCO: No, you cannot.
Mia. SCARPCLLI: -~
engage with my client.
ME. MASTEOMARCO: You cannot engage in
Till—CITY COUR'! REPORTERE, INC.
iO ll
lS l C
l7 ][',
20 21
23
2'.,
10 11 12 13 14 15 lC 17 18 19
2) 22
23
(,,
L
(;.
/ ..
l,.
(J.
/,.
o.
l ..
Q.
A.
Q.
Q. I,.
Q. A. Q.
c.
(J.
lOL sn1rJ Lila: you proV.ldF;(i c i [Of! PE'." LC thi-EPJ.. 'r'ou aor:' t rt:::calJ LHl�, what you j re- J.OOl:ll)(! al
} 001;' c n�c;.,11 specifically t:11r- aocument.f, rl1at wt:H" provicied re EPt,. 1 'u, not cieny1no t!iat Lhi,- couJd navt oeer1 pa rt 01 Lt112 suom1 s::,101,.
v11tat you' n:: say iny now·: YoL t:110,-: 1 don't specifically recal} all of t!l(;c docum8nL�· that 1i1e.re provided U EP1' .. So then; was more tnan JUS: t:tH, letter prov1aed, you td in!: it'::; russiiJlE::'! Ye!;;. There would have been more tda11 .7ust t:Oi!:; le tt.e1 if thi::: lett er was p art of tht .submission. Wher, did you s ay t.h(; last time you talked tc, Rhett Melson was? \tlell l didn' r, say wnen las:: talked to him. probably talted to t1im last wee1:. Wd at did you tel2, Rhett Melsm, about my client I s allegations?
MR. BARDELLI: ObJection, assumes facts not 1.r, ev iaenct. :r oon't specifically recall wnor., if we d iscussed in any }:ind of det.ail Hha:. tht allegations wert> so I don 1 t really recall what WE t.alked about.
TRI-CIT'/ COURT REPORTERS, INC.
30 [Jo you believe that you discussed td e allegations with r11m I believe we dad some discussions about the allegations and t he related documentation. \'lhy would y ou be di scussing m�1 client's lav,suit v1ith him? I d1dn' L say that I was discussing your client I s la1.-rnuit. J\nd 1 do n't recall if "le ever discussed t.he lawsuit. Y111y would you be discu::;s ing her allegations with him? I believe what J testi fied is that EPA inquired about the allegations regarding the data validity or validation, so I responded to EPA I s inquiries. Did yot.: rnentiori my client's name? I don't specifically recall. Hovi oft.en do you speai: \•1ith Rnett. Nelson 011 o montdly basis? J don'l. 1 don't spe ak witli M1. Helson on sort of a regular basis. lt 1 s relate!': more to, you t:no<,1, it's mun of o transactional basis. Sc when we' rE: negotiat:ing som ething, I hav1:; a11 occasion to tal I: with lii111, but J ,,,ould not bf:: routinely taH:ing v1ith him, [Jc, you ever go gulfing ":itli i11m? nu.
Dv you eve! meet hin· a- a socicl event?
(\( 11"'1" nu�\/'\ ): � 11"1,' 1 .. \ I \/ I 11-,l, ''"'
TRI-CI'I'Y COURT RCPORTCRS, INC.
l(J 11
1:, JG 17 1U ls 20 21
23
HI 11 12 13 14 15 lG 17 18 19 2lJ 21
l,.
\ .. l ..
(J.
A.
o.
!JG .
\'/lletL '!: IH- loci'il ed:
pret:;eriLaLlOJ: l✓i.! maw: t.( tlH ~ EP}-.': ML, BlHWELLJ: On1ect t.t, the iorn1 of Llie
quest101.. It'." vaqtH.;. l\�sume:- iact.!: not lf, ev1dencf:: If you unoerstancl 1111CH_ t:nt-: presenLnt1011 1nea11s. I aon't. underst-and what: prese ntac::ior1 you'rt:: tc1lf:in;1 about.. '!'hf: presentat.1or1 of the dat� a� l.o, whidi wus t11E: very 1.ssut trial was being d iscuss e d in ExfliUit Ho. 1, t11E: present.at.io1, o: that d atil thar PEC was dJ.spuLi11g t.1,c validity of. \•/ny wasn' "L Ur. lJenney sent tv Chicago tc1 talL t.o lhP EPh representatives t.here7
Ml-.. BAR.DELLI: Object LO the characterization of Exdibit 1 t0 the deposi t.ior, and the form of th£:questio11, bul you car1 answer. /-\ga111 1 l aon 't recall that the rt::- wa� any pres entation about tde val1di ty of t hE: date. No. lr, fact, they just pr esenLecl a� if i.t was valid, didn 1 t they, to thE: EPJ�?
MP.. BARDELL I: Object to the form of tht-quest.ton, It assumes fact.$ no;_ l.l; evidence:. doesn't oe:!:inE: v1nc, "they" is i11 t hE: question.
CONrlllEliTIJ\l
TRJ-CIT�· COURT REPORTERS, IMC.
32 BY MP.. MASTR0!1ARCO: o.
/;.
o.
"They" being lJow, right? MR. BARDELL I: Same object:.ion.
Again, :r 'n, not completely surE: what particular presentation. Oh, J think you know e;-:actly what I'111 t all:ing about.
client.
case.
MR. SCARPELLI: Object to the sarcasm t o m y
MR. MASTROMl\RCO: You I re not even in this
MP.. SCARPELLI: Yes, I am. MR. Ml\STROMARCO: You a r en ' t today. If you
want to st art objecting then you can take over:. I'd love to have you do it. \'lhy don't you act for counseJ fror.\ the w estern side of tde sl ate? You want to hand le the: case?
MR. BARDELL1: ]\sk the question. MR. SCARPELLI: Vic, 1 can wage whateve1
obJec::ion I Hant. I' rt 2 counsel of record. MR. MASTHOMARCO: 1-lti, you can ' t . M[. SCARPELLJ: I' n, 2: counsel of r ecord and J
don't appreciatf' your --MR. MhSTHOMARCO: No, you cannol. t·fr:. SCM1PE:LL1: engagE with my �lient MR. MA.S'fROMM-l.CU: You cannot e 11gage 1n
('1)/11;:i1 g::,1)""1 '1 /.1l1\ \i I ,w, , -
Tf·,I-CI'I'Y COUP!) HSPOP.TERS, Inc.
anything.
MK. SCARPELIJ: He'll take it up nitl. Lne
‘mouéz.
Ml‘. l-mS'l‘hOHARCL): On, 1 will because you’rt
no: entitlen to have rm: lawyers mating oinecmons-
ouring; &. deposition. Now 1 set that tht paid outsid:
how lawyers: nave nothing tr, 5in on this: topic.
t MR. 51551081.le We completely back up our
5* counsel ilr‘nouse. The objectill» has been stater; on Lnt':
lb recoro.
15 Mk. HAHN: We’ll save our presentatiol. for
15 tm, Judge.
1; BY ME. HRSTROMRRCO:
1/. Q. In any event, sir, why wasn't Dr. Denney at the
12 presentation in Chicago concerning the PC01 list?
16 A. Okay, ‘i do recall that presentation. I don‘t know why
17 Dr. Denney was not at that.
It Q. Do you remember that instead of Dr. Denney being there
19 they sent this Phil Simon?
20 1;. 1 don't recall that it was instead oi Dr. Denney, but
2} Phil Simon dio‘ attend and made a presentation on the
1) FCC! process.
2: 0. Die anybody tell you why Dr. Denney was not allowed to
2/: go?
23 MR. BARDDLLI: Asked and answered. Assumes
TRl-CITT COURT REPORTERS, INC.
34
3 facts not in eVidence. He diln'C testify that she was
2 not allowed to go.
3 A. 1 don't have any recollection about ——
4 MR. MAS'I‘ROMARCO: She wasn't, counsel, but
:3 go ahead.
6 Ix. I have no recollection about Dr. Denney not being
7 allowed to attend.
8 Q. Certainly, we knew that Dr. Denney was concerned With
‘1 Phil Simon's test results u
10 MR. BARDELLI: Object to the form of the
11 question.
12 Q.--
or his company's test results, right?
13 MR; BARDELLI: Objection. You haven‘t
1/. established a timeframe at all With respect to this
1: meeting or a concern about Phil Simon or anything like
10 that. it's an unfair question and I'm not going to let
1‘? Mn answer it.
18 HR. HASTROHARCO: Oh, come on.
19 HR. BARDELLI: It's an uniaii' question.
26 HR. HAS‘I‘ROMARCO: it may be a simple question
2'2 and you don't likt~ it because it's simple, but it's
32 very specific as far as what I'm asking him.
23 HR. BARDELLI: No, it isn't because it
"4 reiateo to the preVious question you just asked. If
35 you want to as): him in a vacuum if he's aware oi an
-‘ y.p . .
LOl‘lrlltlllllL
THE-CITY COURT REFOR'I‘ERS, INC,
issue witx, PEL, fine. but you’re relating i! bacr tn»
this meeting in. Citirzisgz.. lmc} thoSe two thing: don‘t
relate: if you don‘t establish e: Limer'rame.
Him. l~l.I'-.S'I‘P.Ox‘~1I\RCU: Ree-(l beer the QUCSLlOI;
again, please.
(While-upon the recoro was. reac benchl
B ”It, l~ll‘\S‘l’ROlr1hRCO:
BY I
Ii.
{)0
WI. know, ‘Onll we, tha: Dr. Denney was concerned with
l‘hii Simon's company's test: results; and came LE7 you
with a letter from Ms. l<osano~l<eese expressing that
this data was in technical noncompliant?
HI'I. BARDELLI: Object to the town of the
question. He testitied he didn't, knot: whetne: or not
she gave him a letter during tnat meeting. And tnat
mischatacterizes his testimony for that reason.
4k. 1- lASTROHARCO:
Go ahead ano answer.
Hk. HARDELLI: 'I‘hat mischaracteriies his;
testimony. What question do you want him to answer?
I'm not quite Clear what the question is.
Mli. l-iltS'l‘iiOl-ilxRCO: Just read it bacl; to hin:
again.
(Whereupon the recoro was reao bacl .)
‘5“? try tc. answer the question. ‘l’here‘s a lot of
parts there. 01:. Simon's company it'S my understanding
llRlTZETAL
TIRE-CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
(L
It.
0.
(:0
36
didn‘t have any test results.
They hired the company tnat did the testing, right?
That's my understanding. I don't know that for a fact,
but that's my understanding.
Go ahead with that understanding.
Hell ATS, Dr. Simon‘s company, hired another company-—
'I‘ril-iatr'ir Laboratories, correct?
That's. sounds correct.
To do the analysis, correct?
Correct.
llnd that analysis was being, the validity of that
analysis was being disputed by Dr. Denney, correct?
HR. BARDELLI: Object to the form oi the
question. It mischaracterizes the documents in the
previous testimony,
My understanding is Dr. Denney raised concerns about
the validity of that data from 'I‘riHatriz.
So the gentleman, Simon, who works for ATS who hired
'l‘i'iHatr‘iz Laboratories, whose studies were being put in
question at least by Dr. Denney, is invited to the
conference fo,Y the presentation to the {LP}- in Chicago,
but my client isn't ano you can't tell us why; is that
true?
Hi1. {SARDELDE Object tn the {arm 0! the
question. Puts no timeframe on it at all and it
NFtlEliTl/ll
TRI~CITY COURT REPOR'I‘ERS, 111C.
10
]]
anyt111.no.
)UClQE;.
Mh. SC:M�PEL:..1 : \'IP' t.al:E: it u,, YiltL Lnf::
Ml MJ�S'J'hO!·lARCU; 0;,, 1 becauss- you' re
110: en Li Lleo tu iinv-2 LYH lcn,yert, mai.111q O!)Jt::ct1011,
ou11n(; c. deposi ::..1rn,. \iLJ\·! 1 set: tl1at the paH; outsldL
!;01, 1<1Hyer�: nave nor:lnn�: tr, .say or1 Lhi!: Lop1.c.
Ml� < fjl-\HDELLI: Wt completely biiCk ur. Olll
counse} .11,-rioust::. 'rlie object1011 ha� beet, staceci 01i tilt:
record.
savt:- ou1 presentat.101; fo1
t!H.: J ucigf' ..
Bi' Mh. HAS'I'fl.OMARCO:
1G A.
J7
1L Q.
1�
2& 1,.
21
lri a11y event, sir, why wasn't Ur. fmnney at tllE
presentatiot, ir., ChicagrJ concerning the, PCO! list?
Oi:a), l 00 recall that presenr.aLio1i. J dor, 1 L ):now w11y
Ur. Denney 1•1as not at t.liat.
[Ju you rememoer that instead of Dr. !Jenney oe1ng there
they sent thi!:' Phil Simon?
1 don't reccill r,hat it was inst.ead of Dr, [Jenney, but
Phil S1.1nor1 did attend and made a presentation oli the
PCOI process.
[n.d anybody cell you w11y Dr. [Jenney was not allowed to
MR. BARDCLLI: ?.sked and answered. Assumes
CONFIIENTI/\!
l(,
ll
h,
Q.
l? Q.
13
)i]
](,
2(1
21
TR1 -CITY COURT REPORTE:RS, INC.
34
facts not in evidence. HE.c dion't testify that she: was
not allowed go.
1 aon I t hav0 any recollection about --
MR. MASTROMARCO: She Hasn't, counsel, but
go ahead.
1 have, no recollection about !Jr. Denney not. t)eing
allowed tc1 attend.
Certainly, we kne\•: that Dr. iJenney was cor1cerned Hith
PhiJ Simor,' s test resul ls
MR. BARDELL!: Object t.o the forr,i of the
question.
-- or his company's test results, right?
MR. BJ\RDELLI: Objection. You haven't
established a timeframe at all with respect to this
meet.ing or a concern about Phi} Simon or anything lite
that. It's an unfair questioi, and I'm not going to let
111.n answer it.
ME. MASTROMARCO: Oh, comE on,
MP .. BARDELI,1: It's an unfair question.
MR. Ml\S'l'R0MARC0: 1t may be a simple questiori
a11d you don 1 t like: it because it's sirnple 1 btit it's
very specific a.s far as \-/hat I'm asking him.
MR. BARDCLLl: Ho, it isn't because j l
related Lv tbC:: previous question you just asl:ed, If
you �1unt t.0 asl: him in a vacuum if he's awan: of an
COl�FID::NTIAl
TEI-CITY COlJRT P.EPORTEHS, ltlC.
tlu: m&el1n�1 lL Cii1Gi:H}(�. J:rnc1 those t�1u th1nu; non't
Mf ... MASTHOMARCU: Her:,cl Dad Lnc qnc;,:.101
(\'/11&1 E:Upoi. tile record ,w.:, rE::ac Uriel:.!
B'/ 1-ll.< MI,S'I'ROHARCU:
J(J
l�
],;
1:.::
We t:1wv,, cton'1 wt, th<r� lJr. [Jenney Has concer11ecJ v1il!i
!'hi] Simor:' t' company's tes: resu1 tf, ancl camE::: t:.c, you
\H tli o iet.ter f ro11, 11.s. Ho::;anc,-l-<ees0 expresB.ln(J that
th1c dau, wa:, i11 technical noncompliant?
MIL BARDELLI: O))Ject tci thE: io:rn, of tht
quesLiort. He Lestifiec.l 11� didn't l:no\•: whelner or not
shf- gave hin, c let,t:.e1 during tnat meet.iflq. And tnat
miscnaracterize!:: his t.estimon)' foT that reason.
lC BY Mh. J.lASTHOMARCO:
(i.
20 1..
/ ..
Gr_; ahead and answer.
Mh. BARfJELLI: That mischaracterize.s hi!?
Lestimony. \'/hat questioir du you i,,iant him Lt, answerpt
I 'n, nol quit£-' clea1, what the question is.
ML. M/-\S'l'HOMAHCO: Just read it bacl: lo him
aga111.
(\'/nereupon the record was read bacl:.)
try LC ansv,e.r t.he quesLion. 'I'herCc I s c. lot of
parts there:. D1:. Sim01:'c;: company it'5 my undersi:anding
('Ql lr1r·"' 1�lt 1· \In 1)1"':j' \ J , �( 1 .. �h Ii,
o.
Q.
().
l(i /.,..
11
l3
l4
le,
]7
lf>
21
(J.
(,.
TR1-CIT'f COURT REPORTERS, INC.
36
didn 1 t have any test results.
'l'ney hired the company tnat did the testing, right?
That•� my understanding. don't know that for a fact,
but. that's my understandinq.
Go ahead with that understanding.
�Jell AT;;, Dr. Simon I s company, hired anoLher company -
TriMatrb: Laboratories, correct?
That'�; sounds correct.
To do the analysis, correct?
Correct.
lmd that analysis was being, the validity of that
analysis was being disputed by Ur. Denney, correct?
MP.. Bl\RDELLI; Obj eel to the: form of t.he
question. It rn1.scharacterizes the documents in the
previous testimolly.
My unoerstanding i� Dr. Denney raised concerns about
thE:: validity of that data from TriMatrix.
So tht gentleman, S.1.moll, i.-1ho vmrks for A'!'S v1ho hired
'l"riMau:b: Laboratories, Hhose studie!S \'1ere bein9 put 111
questio11 aL least by Or. Uenney, is invited tcJ the
confei-encE: fo1 the presentation to the C PJ,. in Chica90,
buL my c11enL isn'l and you can 1 t tel} us vthy; i::; tbat
r. rurc:?
MP.. Bi1fl..DCLi�l: Objf::ct t/c. tiiE: form of the
quest..1,011. Puts no LimefratnE ori il at all and it
TRJ -CITY COURT P.SPORTERS, IllC.
XIllSCnBLaCEEIlZF his, prim testimony.
1;. Again, my answei would be, you know, I don‘t know
Specifically why Dr. Uenney wat not. a: that meeting.
Em! we die navc~ at tha: IHEELJI'M; tht individual, tin
consultanz whose. fine hat] taken the samples, as we, hat}
nthez consultants: at Lhat meeting,
0. Did you tell the El"): at; that meeting, or anyone
BESSDCLBLEH wit]: the EPA at that meeting, that 11:.
Denney or people that were directly on the Lean, wen:
Concerned about the validity of those data- samples?
Mk. BARDELLI: Object to the form 0! the
question. it clearly mischaracterizes the- priOi
testimony. ’I‘hat mecLing was~ the testimony's
established wasn‘t about the data, iL was about tht
I’COl list. You're confusing the two. And I'm going te
continue to object to make sure we get it right so it‘s
accuraLe. I'm not going to let him answer it when you
muddle it up like that.
HR. MIKS‘J‘ROMARCD: Well I thin]: my question
)5 proper.
HR. BIiRDELLI: It wasn't, Vic, because it
mischaracterizes his testimony.
MP. MASTROMARCO: You know what? 'l‘hen that‘S
your objection.
HE. BRRDELLIt But I‘m not going to let him
con“1er z \‘t-
TRI-CIT‘! COURT REPORTERS, INC.
1E;
39
answer those kinds of questions, Vic. You‘ve already
established it was about the PC10 list, not about data
validation. And no»: you keep asking him about data
validation at the meeting. That didn't happen at that
meeting.
BY MR. ['1ASTROHARCO:
Q. I'm going to as}: you just one question. Did you tell
anyone from the EPA at that meeting that the data, the
integrity of the data was in dispute- by one of your
doctors that was directly involved in the validation
process?
HR. BIiRDELLI: Object to the form of the
question. Lac) of foundation. Haven't even
established that Mr. Wright was at that meeting.
'Ic be clear there was a meeting with EPA which
Dr. Simon attended and at which part of that meeting
was a presentation of the PCOI process.
I don't recall specifically whether there was
any discussion about anything related to data
validation at that meeting.
Sc you don‘t believe that you can recall M well at
this time you don‘t recall anything being discussed one
way or another, you don't recall, you don't have a
memory as to data validation?
with respect to that meeting I don‘t recall anything
CON".'DEi\'TiAl
TRleCI’I‘Y COURT REPORTERS, INC.
wit). respect it date; \IéilidaLi-r. at that meeting.
nin’ you eve: at any Lime prior tc tnai "188!an oz afte:
tnaz meeting, contemporaneous y Close trv Lhfli mee( inn,
indicate to Rnetil Nelson 0: anyone Bl EH: Lliat
internally you had a ciocLoi wm was disputing the
validity of Lne data that PPS was; providing?
1.. My prior testimony was. tnat EPI; raised tne issue about
the allegations witn bow. Tnai ‘2. my recollection and
requested information.
(I. but my question is did you ever tell then; anyLliingi
about it before that?
I-.. You know as I previously testified J‘n: not, I don't
recall specifically the sequence of events. But the
only thing I do recall is they requested some
information in conjunction: with, you know, reported
allegations.
0. What did the EPF. do with that information do you know,
did tney ever tell you?
1:. 2i: fax a: I know nothing.
Q. Within about 2: month of that meeting in Chicago or scan
after that meeting, the EPA pulled out of negotiations
with Don, did they not?
It. 3 don't specifically recall when that meeting took
place. EPI; terminated the negotiations January the 11th
to my recollection.
rwnm Iru
COMME'JAL
TRI—CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
40
G. And tney cited or at least they claim -- I'm sorry, let
me rephrase it.
HR. BARDELLI: Can we geL the year? He said
January Ilth.
THE; WITNESS: Of this year, 200E.
BY MR. HBSTROMARCO:
0 Did they indicate, did they cite, at least claim I
should say, that the reason, one of the- reasons they
were doing that was because of what they perceived as a
lac): of good faitl’; on behalf of Dow?
A. No.
0. You don‘t remember those words?
I-t. No.
0. Or bad faith?
It. I don‘t recall that as an allegation.
0. Did they tell you why they pulled out?
[\- The EPI. made some public statements about why they
pulled out. But of course, the -— other than their
public statements, would have been subject to that same
reference, confidentiality agreement.
0. St: did they tell you reasons other than they gave- to
the publit. as LL: why they were pulling out?
MR. BARDELLI: Objection, subject to the
confidentiality agreement.
A. I mean any other reasons would have been subject to the
CON'FfflEJlH/ll
Till—CITY COURT REPORTERS. INC.
1()
lo
H,
17
2(;
21
10
11
12
l]
15
lG
l 7
19
20
22
J,.
(,.
1niscnaracter1.zt h.1!- pr101 LeSL1mony.
Ji.9a1n, my anewei 1·1ould oe, you tno1-.·, don't f:1101·!
specificalJy why rn. Uenney wa:o 110� a· tila1_ mP.eLinq
hut W { - dio nav(- at tha:_ meet1n(_: tht ind1t.•iaual, Lht
consu1Lant who:,c :irn hacl Lat:er th<:· samp1e:;, at �H l1ari
othe, consultant-: tJ1at meetin9
Dici yoL: tell the El'•h at that meeL1ng, anyone:
a.sso::.;iaten with tht" CP/, iH u,at meeting, that lJ1.
[Jenney 01 peoplf.:c: that were� din,c�ly OL tht' Lean. wen
concerned about tilt::- validity of t.hoeE dau, samples';
Ml' .. BARDELLI: ObJect tu the forn, of the
queetio1i. It clea.!:ly miecharacter1.zeti the prio1
test.1mony. That meetin9 was -- the: teerimony' !';
eetabliehed waen't about the data., it was about thL
PCOl lieL, You' n, confueing the r.,v,o. And J 'n, going tu
continue LU obJect tc make: eun:: we get it right eo it '1;
accuratE,. I'm not going to let him anewer it wher1 you
muddle it up likEc that.
MR. MASTROMARCD: W!:!ll J thin): my queetion
1.s proper.
MR. Bl-\RDELLI: It waen't, V1 c, becaUSCc j t
miecharacterizes his teetimony.
MF�. MASTROMARCO: You knm,' what? 'l'llen that's
your oDJect.1or,.
MR. BARDELLI: But I'm not going to let hirr
/1101\1�, n=1t1'I It, I �! h) � � h1.--
TRI-CITY COURT REPORTERS, ItK.
3P.
anewer thoee bnde of queet.ione, Vic. You 1 ve already
eet:abliehed it \>1ae about the PC:10 liet, not about data
validation. And nov1 you keep ael:ing him abolll data
va 1 ida tior, at the meeting. That d1dn' t happen al that
tneeting.
BY MR. MASTROMARCO:
Q.
,,.
Q.
/,.
l 'm going to ae}: you juet onE:: queetion. Did you tel1
anyone from the EPA at that meeting that th€ data, thE>
integrity of the data wae in diepute by one of your
doctors that was direct.ly involved in the validation
procees?
MIL Bl\RDELLI: Object t:o the form of the
queetion. Laci: of foundation. Haven 1 t even
eetabliehed that Mr. Wright wae at that meeting,
1·c he cleai there was a meeting Hith EPT� which
l.n:. Simon attended and at which part of that meeti119
1,1as o preeentation of thf::! PCOI proceee.
J don IL recall epecifically whether there v1as
any discuseion about anything related to dat,a
validation at that meet.ing.
Sc you don't believe that you can recall -- v,el.l al
thie time you don' l recall anything being discuseed one
;-;ay or another, you don I t recall, you don' l have c:i
memory as dat.a validation?
\·/1tb reepe::l Lo that meeting J don I t n:call anyth1n9
CONFIDEl�Tit\l
TRI-CIT'f COURT RSPORTERS, lHC.
1(;
l:?
]t,
17
lll
19
20
21
10
11
13
JC
17
14
2(\
21
} ..
(,.
c,.
!,.
!,.
1·1i tL reepect dr.!Lb Vi'.d)dilllOL at Lhat meet1.n9
I.JHi yc>L: eve1 at onr L.llhb prior t;t. tna1 meet.inq o, nf Le!
Lna! meetlfl�i, conLemporaneously c.lost- Lr· t.l,at meet uni,
111ci.1cat.f� L(J 1{1iet t l�eleo11 01 <H1yun•� at EPh that
inLernally yot1 hod i, doCL01 VHH' 1,'/il.f, d1epllllll�1 tl1E-
My pr10; tesL1mony wat: tna:. EPJ. raised tnc:• issut' about
the- r1llE:gations will, I.Jov:, Tnat':c, my recullect:1011 and
requeelc:d .1ntorma t.ioi1.
but my queetion i:; did you ever ttll ther1; anytllin9
about it befon_ t:hat?
You t:nov: as 1 previouely teetified :r 'tL noL, 1 don't
recull epecifically thE: sequence of eventt;. Bu:: the
orily thing 1 do recall iE they requeeted eome
1.nformation in conjunct.ion witn, you l:nov1, report.ed
allegatione.
\.'/hat die! tht £PA do with that information do you knm�,
did tney ever tell you?
J,s .La1 a.s l kno�: nothing.
Within about o montli of that meeting in Chicago or e0011
after that meeting, thE: EPI--. pulled out of negotiation!.i
with Dm;, did they nol?
1 don't epecifically recall wnen that meeting tool:
place.. EPl-. terminated t.ne 11egotiat1ons January t.hE:: l)th
LC my recollect:ion.
COivF ID�iJIIAl
0.
TR1-CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
40
And tney c.1t.ed or at ltaet they claim -- I'm eorry, let
me rephraee it.
MR. BAR DELLI: Can we get the year? Ile eaid
January 4th.
THE \'1ITl�ESS: Of thie year, 200U.
BY MR. MASTROMARCO:
Q.
A.
Q.
Q.
!,.
Q.
!,.
/. ..
Did they indicate, did chey cite, at leaet claim I
ehould eay, that t:hE reaeon, one of the reaeone they
wen: doing that was becauee of what they perceived as o
lac!: of good faith on behalf of Do�;?
l�o.
You don' l rememoer thoee worde?
No.
Or bad faith?
I don 1 L recall chal ae an allegation.
Diel they tel2, you 1-:hy t.hey puJ led out?
The EPJ, made eome public etatements about v1hy they
pulled out. But of couree, the -- other than their
pul.Jlic etatemente, would have been eubject Le, thal same
reference, confidentiality agreement.
So dicl they tel) you reaeone other than they gnve Lo
the public.. as l(, why they were pulling out?
MR. BARDELLI: Obj8ct.ion, subjeci� to the
conf ide11tiali ty agreement.
1 mean any oth-::r retir,one would have been subject to lhi.=:
TH1-Cl'l''i CCJURT REPOP.TEP.S, lllC.
COHflOenLlallE3’ agreement.
C” ’l'ne confidentiality agreement that protects, even: mm:
faith, is that it?
ML, BARDELL}: Dmect tr» “'12 form 0! Lin-
questlon. Lack: foundation.
1'» Ann imam, I anrz'i understand (.m: question about terms
of, Z cicn't nnm: if there's an allegation~~
whose the
allegation being: made 0! bad faith. but that's no: al.
allegaLiox: i recall being made.
0. bid the EPA say that you can't tell anybody the real
reasons, did they tell you thatil
1%. No. EPIa didn't specifically say thatw but again, the
negotiations were subject [0 a confidentiality
agreement“
HR. BHRDELLI: I‘ll object to the form of the
question because it assumes facts not in eVLdencav about
real reasons
BY MR. MASTROMHRCO:
CL Are you familiar with the Freedom of Information Act!
k. I guess generally, yesr It's a Federal Freedom of
information Act,
HR. BARDELLI: late you asking about the-
Federal Freedom of Information Act or the Michigan one?
MR MASTROHHRCD: Well 1 thin): that both
might apply but.
(u ur‘ My 1‘!
u)x::’§ulv!’lll;in \
TEE-CIT? COURT REPORTBRS, INC.
In?
I an‘ not disclosing the information that 3 knmu only
uecaust; oi the Coniidsntiaiiu; agreement,
I- ., BARUELL]: dnsx Sf we're Clem OI: 1h:
record. waft»; instructing “3” no: Ln answuz Lnose
({119£;Li01|t.. He‘s not sitting here refusing Lr answer.
Hx'». l‘SAE}TROMHRCU: 3 understand than. 3 don't
haw any futtlm: qUCSKJOIIL’ a: this: time. We do intend
tr as}; the Court to allow us my question fun. further on
tnes‘: issue: of public concern and on the EPL‘:
confidentiality agreement.
but than», you very much for you: time. 'I’nam.
you for rescheduling that deposition that‘:; sex for
later today.
MR. BARDELLI: Sure.
(Deposition concluded at 2:25; p.1h.)
.b. m
MP“ BARDELLI: I‘m just. wondering what you're
question applies to, that's allr Are you asking him
about Freedom of Information Act?
HR. MHSTRmeRCD: I just asked a general
question .
BY HR. HHSTROHHRCO:
Are you aware of it?
Yes,
Am l correct in that Freedom of Information, that
public entities aren't supposed to be withholding
information from the public, right?
MR. IARDELLI: Objection. calls for legal
conclusion. There's several exceptions to that.
HR. MASTRIMARCO: Some other exceptions I'm
not sure. ~
MR. BARDELLI: There's exceptions to it, you
can read the sLatute.
Right. 1 was going to say there are exceptions to
information that's required to be disclosed.
He‘ll have to ask Mrr Nelson about those exceptions
So you're refusing to answer any questions concerning
what Hr. Nelson may have told you as to reasons that
they were pulling out that would not necessarily have
been made public because of the confidentiality
ag reement?
CON? DEHTJAL
TRI-CITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
)
COUNTY OF SHGINAW )
«Numb.
TRKcCXTY COURT REPOR'X'ERS. INC.
44
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
I certify that this transcript.
consisting of 44 pages, is a complete, true, and
correct record of tne testimony of PETER CHRISTIAN
WRIGHT held in tnis case on June 30, 2008.
1 also certify that prior Lo taking this
deposition PETER CHRISTIAN WRIGHT was duly sworn to
tell the truth.
1 also certify that I am neither counsel
for nor related to any party to said action nor in any
way interested in the outcome thereof.
W21 q< is : i.>\D‘—j&P)_.
anne Kendall, CEIZeSGS’?
Notary Public, Isrenac CountyMy Commission Expires: July 30, 2012
mu, m .y'“!
'5": .3H
I‘1x\L
TRIACIT‘J‘ COUR‘T REPORTER? . INC,
10 11
12 13
14 le,
lG i 7 18 l �l 2G 21
(:.
/ ..
conf iaent.iali t}' agreement-. '1'11e conficient:1al1 ty agreemE:n: thnt r,rotectt, evei. nae:
ML. BARDELL} : Ou1 ect the [om ol l!k queslio1,. Lackt iou11dat.io11. And iiqai,,, 1 OOL It underslano t.ll<,, C)llCSLioH rl!JOllt term, ofs ; t101:' 1 1:nm,1 1f there'::- a1, allegat.io11 WllOSt, the allegallor; llelnq made of bad fait!i. but tlia.r '�: not ar. allegauoi: I r8ca.11 being mad<:. ,
11 !Jid thE:- EP!t say that yot: can't t.elJ anybody t11c rea1 reason!:., did ttiey tt:ll you that�! lfo. EPh. didn't specifically say that. but aga..lT,, ttit-negotiations wen, sUbJecl tu c: confidentiality agreeinenl.
lC MR. BARDELLI: 1 1 lJ obJect. tc: the iorn, of thE:
question because it assumes facts not. i11 evidence about real reasons,
l! BY Mi<. MASTP.OMARCO: 1 �J Q. Are you familiar Hith tht Freedom of lnformat1or1 Adt'!
1 guess generallys yes, It I s a Federal Freedom of lntormatiori Act.
20 /.,. MR. BARDELL!: An, you asking about thE;
Federal Freedom of lnformat1or) Act or the Michigan one MP.. l·ll\STROM!-1RCO: Well 1 third: that both
might apply bu:. l•')""lfl''' i·r1.,l l /i,i/· 'lnJ\r /IiA." 1it1w.i ,l h
TRI-CITY COURT REPORTE:RS, IMC.
MR. BARDELL!: I 'rr, just v1ondering what you I rE: question applies to, that's all. Are you as ting tun, about Freedom of Information Act?
MR. MASTRC1'1ARCO: I just asted a genera] quesu.on.
BY MP.. MASTROMARCO: Q. Are you a1;1are of it? A. Yes. Q. Arn l correct ir, that. Freedom of Informations that
public entities aren I t supposed to be withholding information from thEo public, right?
/,. Q,
MR. BARDELL!: Objection, calls for legal conclusion. There 1 s several exceptions to that.
MR. MASTIWMARCO: Some other exceptions J 'n, not sure.
MR. &ARDCLLI: There's except ions to it, you don read the statute. Hight. l was going to say there are exceptions to information that's required LD bE disclosed. \.'le '11 ilave to asl: M:.:. !1elson al.Jout those e.-.:cep'.::ions. So you' re refusing to answer any questions doncernlDCJ what Mr. Helson may have told you as to reasons that they were pulling out that would not necessarily liav�oeer, maaE: public becaust of th!:'. confidentiaJ agreement?
TRI -CITY COUP.'! R2PORTER5s It.JC.
10 11 12 13 1<1 15 lG l 7 lfl } 9 21
21J
H, 11
14 JS lG 17 rn l'J 20 22
2'1
/,. 1 an, nc1L di.scl0Ji119 tht inionnar:1.or, that rwcaus(c oi tflic- conLictentlii..'..it.J uqreen1en�.
Ml' .. UAr.;,.DCLLl: '11.l!>l sc 1;1f:' rt· c:lciU oi, t IH re.curd, 1:n ' qu0:,tio11s. Hie-'�, no;,. siLt.irH,i hE.:rt refu!:i1.oo u ansi.-Je1.
ML. MASTfWMARCU: uncterst.alld t11n·-. do11' l bilvt any furclu:c que!:it.lOII.'.: a:_ t.hi.c:: L1n1b. \II,;::: de J n t.er1d tc asL t:ht· courl tc allo\-: u.s t.c, questlo11 ftJn i.urthe1 or, t11es!: :i..ssues of pulilir- cu11cen, and or1 tttc CPL 1 £ conf ldent.ioli ty agreement.
but than I, you very much for yow time. 1'11a11) you fo1 rescrrnduling that deposit..ioi, that' !i set to1 later today.
STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY or SAGINA\-i
MR. BARDSLLI: Sun:. (Deposition condluded at 2:2:, p.JL.)
TR1-C ITY COURT REPORTERS, INC.
ss
1 certify that thi.s transcrip.:,s consisting of 44 pages, is a complete, trues and correct record of tne r.estimony of PETEP CHRISTIAH WRIGHT held ir, t.his case on June 30s 2008.
also certify that prior t0 �aking this deposition PETER CHRISTIAN WRIGHT was duly S\o1orn tu tell the truth.
I also certify that I am neither counse:l for nor related to any part.y to said action nor 11 1 any wa)' interested i11 the outcome thereof.
('()! \f'i', "I 1':'! I I I H; I Ii� ' l l \,", .. 1.n� 1 I ,1 \1c-
� \) •c�r�\y,--.., ti �,.c-<lo, .. 3S/< I ' a.nnt: Kendall, CER-5Ci87 Notary Public, krenac Count)· My Commissior1 Expires: July 30, 7-012
TEI-CI'l'Y COUR'; H.Cl'ORTEP.Ss HlC.
