0001 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 2 3 TIMOTHY ARTHUR, et al., ) 4 ) Plaintiffs, ) 5 ) vs. ) No. A0307157 6 ) INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & ) 7 FRAGRANCES, INC., et al., ) ) 8 Defendants. ) 9 10 11 12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KAREN DUROS 13 Taken on Behalf of Plaintiffs 14 March 2, 2006 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Sherrie L. Merz, RDR/CSR/CCR 24 CSR NO. 084-002840 25 CCR NO. 995 0002 1 I N D E X 2 Page 3 Examination by Mr. Crick 7 Examination by Mr. Mace 164 4 Further Examination by Mr. Crick 202 Further Examination by Mr. Mace 218 5 6 EXHIBITS 7 Exhibit No. 1 Memo, 4-93 18 Exhibit No. 2 Baughman report 20 8 Exhibit No. 3 Lockey report 22 Exhibit No. 4 Roberts history and physical 26 9 Exhibit No. 5 Vaske questionnaire 28 Exhibit No. 6 Vaske questionnaire 30 10 Exhibit No. 7 Vaske claim 31 Exhibit No. 8 Certificate of Amendment 40 11 Exhibit No. 9 Certificate of Amendment 41 Exhibit No. 10 Certificate of Amendment 44 12 Exhibit No. 11 Letter, 6-14-95 54 Exhibit No. 12 Letter, 5-25-94 59 13 Exhibit No. 13 Baughman report 61 Exhibit No. 14 Memo, 9-13-93 63 14 Exhibit No. 15 Findings of Fact 66 Exhibit No. 16 Pinney report 69 15 Exhibit No. 17 Letter, 7-2-97 76 Exhibit No. 18 Confidentiality Agreement 77 16 Exhibit No. 19 Confidentiality Agreement 78 Exhibit No. 20 Interoffice memo 79 17 Exhibit No. 21 Interoffice memo 86 Exhibit No. 22 Ingredient data sheet 89 18 Exhibit No. 23 Respiratory Protection Action 92 Exhibit No. 24 Memo, 5-25-95 94 19 Exhibit No. 25 E-mail from Higley 98 Exhibit No. 26 Application for Award 102 20 Exhibit No. 27 Letter, 3-24-98 103 Exhibit No. 28 Higley affidavit 105 21 Exhibit No. 29 Letter, 3-29-96 113 Exhibit No. 30 Investigation update 116 22 Exhibit No. 31 Most Commonly Used Compounds 117 Exhibit No. 32 Material safety data sheet 120 23 Exhibit No. 33 Memo, 8-24-95 123 Exhibit No. 34 PowerPoint presentation 123 24 Exhibit No. 35 Confidentiality Agreement 124 Exhibit No. 36 Lockey invoice 127 25 Exhibit No. 37 Interoffice memo 131 0003 1 Exhibit No. 38 Letter, 4-13-96 134 Exhibit No. 39 Memo, 4-19-96 136 2 Exhibit No. 40 Memo, 8-9-95 137 Exhibit No. 41 Lockey invoice 140 3 Exhibit No. 42 Memo, 9-24-96 141 Exhibit No. 43 Letter, 3-5-97 151 4 Exhibit No. 44 Memo, 3-17-94 153 Exhibit No. 45 Letter, 5-94 164 5 Exhibit No. 46 Investigation update 167 Exhibit No. 47 Handwritten notes 170 6 Exhibit No. 48 Meeting notes 176 Exhibit No. 49 Letter, 6-26-87 184 7 Exhibit No. 50 Attorney work product 178 Exhibit No. 51 E-mail 186 8 Exhibit No. 52 Workers' Comp report 188 Exhibit No. 53 Letter to Workers' Comp 189 9 Exhibit No. 54 McGee claim form 189 Exhibit No. 55 Letter, 1-93 192 10 Exhibit No. 56 Calvert report 195 Exhibit No. 57 Report of Shea 197 11 Exhibit No. 58 Pathology report of Shea 197 Exhibit No. 59 Notice of hearing 210 12 Exhibit No. 60 Letter, 5-22-98 212 13 14 (The original exhibits were retained by the court reporter to be attached to Mr. Crick's transcript.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0004 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 2 3 TIMOTHY ARTHUR, et al., ) ) 4 Plaintiffs, ) ) 5 vs. ) No. A0307157 ) 6 INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & ) FRAGRANCES, INC., et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 9 10 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KAREN DUROS, 11 produced, sworn, and examined on behalf of Plaintiffs, 12 on the 2nd day of March, 2006, between the hours of 13 eight in the forenoon and five in the afternoon of 14 that day, at the offices of Pohlman Reporting Company, 15 211 North Broadway, Suite 2040, in the City of 16 St. Louis, State of Missouri, before Sherrie L. Merz, 17 Registered Diplomate Reporter, Certified Shorthand 18 Reporter and Certified Court Reporter, in a certain 19 cause now pending in the Court of Common Pleas, 20 Hamilton County, Ohio, between TIMOTHY ARTHUR, et al., 21 Plaintiffs, and INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, 22 INC., et al., Defendants. 23 24 25 0005 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 The Plaintiffs were represented by Steven 4 E. Crick, Esq., of the law firm of Humphrey, 5 Farrington & McClain, P.C., 221 West Lexington, Suite 6 400, Independence, Missouri 64051. 7 8 The Defendant Givaudan Flavors Corporation 9 was represented by Damond R. Mace, Esq., of the law 10 firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP, 127 Public 11 Square, Suite 4900, Cleveland, Ohio 44114. 12 13 The Defendants International Flavors and 14 Fragrances, Inc., and Bush Boake Allen, Inc., were 15 represented by Frank C. Woodside, III, Esq., of the 16 law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, 255 East Fifth 17 Street, Suite 1900, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. 18 19 The deposition was videotaped by Donald 20 Sether of Pohlman Reporting Company, 211 North 21 Broadway, Suite 2040, St. Louis, Missouri 63102. 22 23 24 25 0006 1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and 2 between Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Counsel for the 3 Defendants that this deposition may be taken in 4 shorthand by Sherrie L. Merz, Registered Diplomate 5 Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter and Certified 6 Court Reporter, and afterwards transcribed into print, 7 and the signature of the witness is not waived by 8 agreement of counsel and the witness. 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the videotaped 11 deposition of Karen Duros. Today's date is March 2, 12 2006, and the time is 10:04 a.m. This is the case of 13 Timothy Arthur, et al., Plaintiffs, versus 14 International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc., et al. 15 The case number is A0307157 in the Court of Common 16 Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio. My name is Donald 17 Sether. I'm the videographer representing Pohlman 18 Reporting Company located on 211 North Broadway, 19 St. Louis, Missouri. Counselors, will you state your 20 appearance. 21 MR. CRICK: Steven Crick for the 22 plaintiffs. 23 MR. MACE: Damond Mace on behalf of 24 Givaudan Flavors Corporation. 25 MR. WOODSIDE: Frank Woodside on behalf of 0007 1 defendants International Flavors and Fragrances and 2 Bush Boake Allen. 3 VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter 4 swear in the witness, please. 5 O-O-O 6 KAREN DUROS, 7 of lawful age, being produced, sworn and examined on 8 behalf of the Plaintiffs, and after responding "I do" 9 to the oath administered by the court reporter, 10 deposes and says: 11 * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. CRICK: 13 Q. Would you please state your name and 14 address for the record. 15 A. My name is Karen Duros. My address is 5289 16 Jefferson Roundabout in Carmel, Indiana. 17 Q. Jefferson Roundabout, is that the street? 18 A. Yes, it is. 19 Q. And the city again? 20 A. Carmel, Indiana. 21 Q. Now, we're here in St. Louis. 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Do you work in St. Louis? 24 A. Yes, I do. 25 Q. Where do you work? 0008 1 A. I work for Monsanto Company. 2 Q. And what's the address of your office in 3 St. Louis? 4 A. 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard. 5 Q. And you commute from Carmel, Indiana, to 6 St. Louis for your job? 7 A. On a weekly basis, yes. 8 Q. How long have you been with Monsanto? 9 A. Since October 1st. 10 Q. Of 2005? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Where were you before that? 13 A. Great Lakes Chemical Corporation. 14 Q. And is it true that at one time you were 15 vice president and general counsel of a company called 16 Givaudan? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Were you vice president and general counsel 19 for a flavorings company? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And who were you with? 22 A. Tastemaker. 23 Q. What years were you vice president and 24 general counsel for Tastemaker? 25 A. From 1992 to 1997. 0009 1 Q. Okay. Where were you before you were with 2 Tastemaker? 3 A. I was with Mallinckrodt. 4 Q. Mallinckrodt what? 5 A. Mallinckrodt Corporation -- Mallinckrodt, 6 Inc. 7 Q. Did that have a company called Mallinckrodt 8 Flavors? 9 A. I don't remember. 10 Q. Did it change its name? 11 A. Mallinckrodt? 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. No, I don't believe so. 14 Q. Are you familiar with a company called 15 Mallinckrodt Flavor and Fragrances, Inc.? 16 A. Not to my recollection, no. 17 Q. Are you familiar with Mallinckrodt Foods 18 and Flavors, Inc.? 19 A. No, I don't remember it. 20 Q. Are you familiar with a company called 21 Fries & Fries, Inc.? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Who was that? 24 A. It was a subsidiary of Mallinckrodt. 25 Q. Did you ever serve as an officer or 0010 1 director of Fries & Fries, Inc.? 2 A. I'm not sure. Perhaps. 3 Q. You're an attorney? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. How long have you been an attorney? 6 A. Since 1979. 7 Q. Did Fries & Fries, Inc., change its name to 8 Tastemaker? 9 A. No. 10 Q. We'll get into that in a minute. Did you 11 act as counsel for Fries & Fries? 12 A. Not on a regular basis, no. 13 Q. On some basis you did act as counsel for 14 Fries & Fries? 15 A. Yes, occasionally. 16 Q. What years were you acting as, doing work 17 for Fries & Fries? 18 A. Periodically when I was employed by 19 Mallinckrodt which would be 1983 to 1992. 20 Q. Were you ever a full-time employee of Fries 21 & Fries? 22 A. No. 23 Q. How did you come to work for Tastemaker? 24 A. I was, well, it was a Mallinckrodt 25 transfer, really. I was asked to join Tastemaker 0011 1 which was a joint venture as vice president and 2 general counsel. 3 Q. And you started that in 1992? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Now, when you started at Tastemaker in 6 1992, did you start as vice president and general 7 counsel? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And general counsel, for people on the jury 10 who don't know, what does that mean? 11 A. It means I was responsible overall for the 12 legal affairs of the company. 13 Q. You were the company's lawyer? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Did you have departments that reported to 16 you as vice president and general counsel of 17 Tastemaker? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did that include the environmental health 20 and safety department? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. So as vice president, did the -- excuse me, 23 strike that. Did environmental health and safety 24 report to you in your capacity as vice president or in 25 your capacity as general counsel or both? 0012 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. You were responsible for protecting the 3 health and safety of Givaudan's employees as vice 4 president and general counsel in charge of 5 environmental and health -- environmental health and 6 safety; is that right? 7 MR. MACE: Objection. Can you read it back 8 please? 9 (Transcript read by the reporter as 10 requested.) 11 MR. MACE: Objection, you can answer. 12 A. I would not characterize it that way. I 13 think there's just a lot built into that that I -- 14 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You disagree with that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Was there a department of environmental 17 health and safety at Tastemaker? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And was that department charged with the 20 responsibility of taking actions to protect the health 21 and safety of Givaudan employees? 22 MR. MACE: Objection. 23 A. No. 24 Q. (By Mr. Crick) No? Was the environmental 25 health and safety department charged with protecting 0013 1 the health and safety of Givaudan's customers? 2 MR. MACE: Objection. Counsel, you keep 3 using Givaudan instead of Tastemaker. I don't know if 4 that's -- 5 MR. CRICK: Then I'll change -- 6 A. I didn't work for Givaudan. 7 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me change the question. 8 Excuse me. As vice president and general counsel of 9 Tastemaker, were you responsible ultimately in your 10 reporting duties to the president for the actions of 11 the environmental health and safety department? 12 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 13 A. I don't think there's any responsibilities 14 designated that formally that I would put it that way. 15 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did the environmental 16 health and safety's department report to you at 17 Tastemaker? 18 A. Yes, it did. 19 Q. What was that department charged to do? 20 A. Well, it worked on environmental matters 21 for the company and health and safety matters. 22 Q. What does that mean, health and safety 23 matters? 24 A. Well, occupational health, regulatory 25 matters required by OSHA regulations, things like 0014 1 that. 2 Q. What does that mean, occupational health? 3 A. Well, again I would tie it to -- as a 4 lawyer, I guess I would tie it to OSHA's sorts of 5 matters. 6 Q. I'm asking you as vice president of 7 Tastemaker, what was the environmental health and 8 safety department charged to do with regard to 9 occupational health? 10 A. I'm sorry, I don't really remember any 11 particular points that would be part of a charge of 12 responsibility. I'm sorry, it just suggests it's more 13 formal than it really was. I just don't recall that 14 level of formality and -- 15 Q. Excuse me. But was there someone at 16 Tastemaker who was responsible for looking at the 17 company with regard to protecting the safety and 18 health of the employees? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. It wasn't someone in the environmental 21 health and safety department? 22 A. I'm sorry? 23 Q. Was it someone in the environmental health 24 and safety department? 25 A. Was what someone in the environmental 0015 1 health and safety department? 2 Q. Have you given a deposition before? 3 A. Once, I believe. 4 Q. What was that occasion? 5 A. It was an employment lawsuit. 6 Q. And who were you working for? 7 A. I was working for Great Lakes Chemical at 8 the time. 9 Q. And did the employment lawsuit concern 10 Great Lakes Chemical? 11 A. No. 12 Q. What did it concern? 13 A. It concerned a situation that arose out of 14 Taste -- well, I'm not sure it arose out of Tastemaker 15 or Givaudan, to be honest. 16 Q. Okay. And who was the employee? 17 A. John Hochstrasser. 18 Q. And was this his discrimination claim, or 19 what was his claim? 20 A. I don't remember. I know it was an 21 employment case. I don't recall the -- 22 Q. Mr. Hochstrasser brought a claim against 23 the company for the way that he was discharged? 24 A. I believe that's correct, yes. 25 Q. And you gave a deposition? 0016 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. You were Mr. Hochstrasser's boss; is 3 that correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Where was that suit pending at? Where was 6 that suit filed? 7 A. I don't remember. 8 Q. In Cincinnati, I would take it? 9 A. I don't remember. 10 Q. But you were represented by a Givaudan 11 attorney? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Now, you've been a lawyer since 1979? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. I want to go back to the issue of health 16 and safety. 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. As vice president and general counsel, it's 19 my understanding that the environment -- excuse me, at 20 Tastemaker it's my understanding that environmental 21 health and safety reported to the vice president and 22 general counsel, you; is that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Is it true that while you were vice 25 president and general counsel of Tastemaker that 0017 1 several employees were diagnosed with bronchiolitis 2 obliterans? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Do you know what bronchiolitis obliterans 5 is? 6 A. I have a layperson's understanding. 7 Q. Would you please tell me what you believe 8 bronchiolitis obliterans is? 9 A. It is a respiratory illness. 10 Q. When you say a respiratory illness, can 11 that be a serious illness? 12 A. It's my understanding that it can be. 13 Q. While you were at Tastemaker, there was a 14 concern that at least one employee had died from 15 bronchiolitis obliterans; is that correct? 16 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 17 A. I believe there was an employee who died, 18 and bronchiolitis obliterans may have been identified 19 as one possible illness. I don't remember that that 20 employee was actually diagnosed with bronchiolitis 21 obliterans, though. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) My question was there was a 23 concern that one employee who had worked at Tastemaker 24 had died of bronchiolitis obliterans? 25 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. You can 0018 1 answer. 2 A. I remember some discussion that that was a 3 possibility, yes. 4 Q. (By Mr. Crick) In fact, there was a 5 coroner's inquest regarding her death; is that right? 6 A. No, not to my recollection. 7 Q. Was the coroner's office involved at all in 8 the death of that Tastemaker employee? 9 MR. MACE: Objection. You keep referring 10 to it as a Tastemaker. It was a Fries & Fries person. 11 Objection. You can answer. 12 A. I'm sorry, could you repeat or rephrase 13 that? 14 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Was there a coroner's 15 investigation regarding the death of Janice Irick? 16 A. I don't know what you mean by coroner's 17 investigation. 18 (Exhibit No. 1 marked for identification.) 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me hand you what we've 20 marked as Duros Exhibit No. 1. 21 MR. MACE: Thank you. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Have you had a chance to 23 take a look at the document? 24 A. Yes, I have. 25 Q. Exhibit 1 is Bates stamped TM 009423. It 0019 1 appears to be an April '93 memo from John Hochstrasser 2 called Occupational Health Concerns, documentation 3 date February 18, 1993. You know John Hochstrasser? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. He reported to you? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. You've seen this memo before? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Up at the top, it says, "Concern, two 10 employees working in the Cincinnati facility were 11 diagnosed by a pulmonary physician as having 12 bronchiolitis obliterans. It is important to 13 determine if their disease is or could be related to 14 their occupation." You were aware of this in 1993; is 15 that correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. It says further, under the setting of 18 background, "November 23, 1992: Terry Bonar-Stewart 19 received a letter dated November 17, 1992 from the 20 Montgomery County, Ohio, coroner's office regarding 21 investigating the death of Miss Janice Meenach Irick, 22 a former employee of Fries & Fries. Miss Meenach 23 Irick had been on disability leave since 1987, and the 24 coroner requested any reports and health records 25 related to that disability." You were aware of this 0020 1 activity taking place in 1993 because you were vice 2 president and general counsel of Tastemaker? 3 A. Well, I remember that the company received 4 a letter from the coroner's office. 5 Q. And there was an investigation with the 6 coroner's office and within Tastemaker as to the cause 7 and diagnosis of Janice Meenach Irick; is that right? 8 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 9 A. Again, I don't know what you mean by 10 investigation. There was some work done regarding the 11 matter, yes. 12 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Thank you. As a part of 13 your work on the matter in the early '90s, you learned 14 that it's possible that bronchiolitis obliterans could 15 lead to the need for a lung transplant; is that right? 16 A. I don't remember that. 17 Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 2. 18 (Exhibit No. 2 marked for identification.) 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did you remember a woman by 20 the name of Mary Sue McGee? 21 A. I remember the name. 22 Q. Did Mary Sue McGee develop bronchiolitis 23 obliterans? 24 A. I believe a physician did diagnose Mary Sue 25 McGee with bronchiolitis obliterans. 0021 1 Q. And one of the physicians that diagnosed 2 her was James Lockey, M.D., a physician that had been 3 retained by your company; is that right? 4 A. Yes, I believe so, to the best of my 5 recollection. 6 Q. Would you look at Exhibit No. 2, please. 7 Is this a report of Robert Baughman, M.D., another 8 physician who had been retained by Tastemaker 9 concerning Mary Sue McGee? 10 A. This is a report by Dr. Baughman, yes. 11 Q. This is dated January 26, 1996. If you'd 12 look at the second page -- excuse me. Look at the 13 first page, the last paragraph. This says, "I think 14 there is not much question that Ms. McGee has 15 bronchiolitis obliterans." Do you see that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. She was an employee at your company? 18 A. No -- oh, yes, I'm sorry, she was, 19 Tastemaker. 20 Q. If you look at the second page, the fourth 21 paragraph, starts with "If Miss McGee." The letter 22 says, "If Ms. McGee does not respond to Cytoxan 23 therapy or starts to show further deterioration, then 24 I think one will have to strongly consider lung 25 transplantation as another option." Did I read that 0022 1 correctly? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. You learned about these things in your work 4 as vice president and general counsel at Tastemaker; 5 is that right? 6 A. Learned about these things meaning 7 specifically these two paragraphs? 8 Q. The possibility that Miss McGee could 9 require a lung transplant. 10 A. I know that from reading this paragraph, 11 yes. 12 Q. There were claims of employees at 13 Tastemaker that they developed breathing problems from 14 working around diacetyl and butter flavoring; is that 15 right? 16 MR. MACE: Objection. 17 A. No, I don't recall that at all. 18 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 19 No. 3. 20 (Exhibit No. 3 marked for identification.) 21 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Is this an August 24, 1995, 22 report from James Lockey concerning Clifford Walker? 23 A. I'm sorry -- 24 Q. Is this an August 24, 1995, report of 25 Dr. James Lockey concerning Clifford Walker? 0023 1 A. Yes, it is. 2 Q. And if you look up at the top, there's a 3 fax transmission that says "November 3, 1995, 10:14 4 from Corporate Legal to Frost Jacobs." Do you see 5 that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Frost Jacobs was the workers' compensation 8 counsel for Tastemaker; is that right? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. And Corporate Legal was your office? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. The first sentence of this letter says, 13 "Mr. Clifford Walker is a 48-year-old gentleman with 14 two children who was evaluated at the Center for 15 Occupational Health because of abnormal pulmonary 16 function tests. Chief complaint, shortness of 17 breath." Do you see that? 18 A. Yes, I do. 19 Q. If you look at the next page, under the 20 heading occupational history, the last sentence says, 21 "He noted the following chemical agents that would 22 cause him to have breathing problems: No. 1." 23 MR. MACE: Objection, rule of completeness, 24 not reading the rest of that paragraph. 25 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Colon, "No. 1, diacetyl. 0024 1 This would be added to butter. It would reach a 2 certain temperature and flash. He subsequently would 3 awaken at night with chest tightness and cough and 4 difficulty breathing. This would last approximately 5 four to five days and then resolve. There is no 6 associated fever, chills, muscle aches or pains. This 7 occurred two or three times per week until this butter 8 operation was transferred to the spray dry area 9 approximately two years prior to this evaluation." 10 Did I read that right? 11 MR. MACE: Objection, rule of completeness. 12 Haven't read about garlics, toasted, enzymes and the 13 other things that are listed here. 14 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did I read that correctly? 15 A. Yes, you read that one paragraph of this 16 five-page report correctly. 17 Q. My question was did Mr. Walker make claims 18 that he had suffered chest tightness and breathing 19 problems from working around diacetyl and butter 20 flavoring, and this is a document that you received in 21 1995? 22 MR. MACE: Objection, compound. Objection 23 to form. You can answer. 24 A. According to this report from the doctor, 25 he reported that to his physician. 0025 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And then this report to his 2 physician was then provided to corporate legal 3 counsel, the corporate legal department at Tastemaker, 4 which then forwarded the same to the workers' 5 compensation attorneys, Frost and Jacobs, correct? 6 A. I don't remember that, but based on looking 7 at this, I would say that's correct. 8 Q. Does it further go on in paragraph 2 -- 9 there's a section called garlic. You see that? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And in the garlic section, it says, "He 12 noted the onset of this approximately two to three 13 years prior to being evaluated. He would work with 14 garlic -- with garlics approximately twice per month. 15 He would have the same type of reaction with the 16 diacetyl except it was also associated with sinus 17 congestion and upper respiratory irritation. Again, 18 this would last approximately one week." Did I read 19 that correctly? 20 A. Yes, you read that paragraph correctly. 21 Q. Mr. Walker was not the only employee who 22 made complaints of breathing difficulties as a result 23 of working around butter flavoring or diacetyl; is 24 that right? 25 MR. MACE: Objection. 0026 1 A. Frankly, I think characterizing any 2 comments as complaints is an overstatement. 3 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Do you know if Mr. Clifford 4 Walker was diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans? 5 A. No, I don't know. 6 Q. Even today you don't know? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. Do you know who Terry Roberts is? 9 A. No, that doesn't ring a bell. 10 (Exhibit No. 4 marked for identification.) 11 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 12 No. 4. 13 MR. MACE: Is there more to this document, 14 Counselor? 15 MR. CRICK: Not that I know of. 16 Q. (By Mr. Crick) This document was produced 17 by Frost Jacobs, now known as Frost Brown. Does this 18 appear to you as a February 11, 1999, history and 19 physical of James Lockey concerning Terry Roberts? 20 A. That's what it appears to be based on what 21 it says, yes. 22 Q. This indicates in the first paragraph, 23 "Mr. Terry Roberts was referred to the Center for 24 Occupational Health for further evaluation of 25 decreasing pulmonary function parameters." Below it 0027 1 says, "At his place of employment, Givaudan Roure, he 2 noted approximately six years ago that he would have 3 intermittent accidental exposures to acid aldehyde 4 (sic) which would cause accuse shortness of breath 5 which would last approximately 10 to 15 minutes and 6 then resolve. Also at work certain types of dust as 7 well as butter mixtures will cause shortness of 8 breath." Did I read that correctly? 9 A. Yes, you did. 10 Q. Now, you were not working at Tastemaker in 11 1999, were you? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. You had left the company in '97? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. There were still other employees before 16 1997 that complained of breathing problems related to 17 diacetyl or butter flavoring, and that was brought to 18 your attention; is that right? 19 MR. MACE: Objection. 20 A. Again, I wouldn't characterize anything as 21 complaints that were brought to my attention, no. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Would workers' compensation 23 claims be called a complaint? 24 A. To be honest, I don't know whether one 25 files something, that would be a complaint in a 0028 1 workers' comp proceeding. They filed a claim anyway. 2 Q. If someone gets a lung disease called 3 bronchiolitis obliterans, do you think that might 4 qualify as being a complaint? 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q. Do you know who Walt Vaske is? 7 A. I remember the name. 8 Q. Is Walt Vaske an employee of Tastemaker? 9 A. Yes, he was. I believe he was, yes. 10 Q. Did Walt Vaske complain of breathing 11 problems working around diacetyl or butter flavoring? 12 A. Not to my knowledge. 13 (Exhibit No. 5 marked for identification.) 14 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 15 No. 5. At some point in your work at Tastemaker, were 16 employees required to complete medical questionnaires? 17 A. I believe so. 18 Q. Okay. This is the medical questionnaire of 19 Walt Vaske, September 11, 1995. Would you look at 20 page 9? Question 18, "At Tastemaker, are there any 21 chemicals or substances that you work with that seemed 22 to result in tingling, burning or stinging of your 23 eyes, nose or throat or frequent sneezing or 24 difficulty breathing? Check mark, yes. "If yes, 25 please answer 18A and 18B." Question 18A, "Which 0029 1 material or materials?" And do you see diacetyl 2 listed in that answer? 3 MR. MACE: Objection, rule of completeness. 4 A. I see it towards the end of a list of a 5 number of items, yes. 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) There were a number of 7 items that Mr. Vaske complained of breathing problems 8 around; is that right? 9 MR. MACE: Objection. 10 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Is that correct? 11 MR. MACE: Mischaracterization. 12 A. Based on reading this document, it appears 13 to say that. 14 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, 15 mustard seed oil, capsaicin, diacetyl, methyl sol -- 16 how do you say that -- solithalate? 17 A. I have no idea. 18 Q. Methyl solithalate? 19 MR. WOODSIDE: I believe it's salicylate, 20 but it's spelled wrong. 21 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Benzaldehyde, and below 22 that it appears to say butter. Do you see that? 23 MR. MACE: Objection. 24 A. I see that. 25 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 0030 1 No. 6. 2 (Exhibit No. 6 marked for identification.) 3 Q. (By Mr. Crick) This is a medical 4 questionnaire of Walt Vaske dated October 10, 1995, 5 and if you'd look at page No. 4. In October '95, you 6 were vice president and general counsel of Tastemaker; 7 is that -- 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. On page No. 4, question 3D, Mr. Vaske was 10 asked, "When you are at work, does your chest feel 11 tight?" And he checked, "Yes, sometimes." Do you see 12 that? 13 A. I'm sorry on page -- 14 Q. Page 4. 15 A. Which question? 16 Q. 3, at the top of the page, 3D. 17 A. Oh, yes, I see it. 18 Q. You see it? Says 3D, "When you are at 19 work. Does your chest feel tight?" And he checked, 20 "Yes, sometimes. Question 3E asks, "If yes to 3D, are 21 there any chemicals, substances, job activities or 22 particular areas of the plant that seem to result in 23 chest tightness or breathing difficulty." And written 24 below there is capsaicin, diacetyl, benzaldehyde, 25 acetaldehyde, punch oils, mustard seed oils." Do you 0031 1 see that? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did I read that right? 4 A. You correctly read the document. 5 Q. Mr. Vaske even filed a workers' 6 compensation claim over his lung injury; is that 7 right? 8 A. I believe so, yes. 9 (Exhibit No. 7 marked for identification.) 10 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 11 No. 7. Would it appear to you to be a copy of the 12 claim of Walter Vaske against Tastemaker filed in the 13 Bureau of Workers' Compensation in Ohio? 14 A. It appears to be a filing with the Bureau 15 of Workers' Compensation by Vaske, yes. 16 Q. And he lists under the paragraph that says, 17 "Describe the substance and details as to how you were 18 exposed to the substance and your work you were doing 19 when the disease began," Mr. Vaske wrote, "Inhalation 20 of a variety of chemicals which were put into the 21 flavorings." Did I read that correctly? 22 A. That is what is on this document. 23 Q. There were other individuals who worked at 24 Tastemaker who developed bronchiolitis obliterans in 25 addition to Miss Irick, Miss McGee, Mr. Walker, 0032 1 Mr. Roberts and Mr. Vaske. Are you aware of that? 2 MR. MACE: Objection. 3 A. I don't know, Mr. Roberts is not a name -- 4 was it Roberts? That was not a familiar name to me. 5 I don't remember. 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You know that there were 7 several individuals who worked at your company who 8 developed bronchiolitis obliterans? 9 A. I know that there were several individuals 10 who worked at Tastemaker who received a medical 11 diagnosis of bronchiolitis obliterans, yes. 12 Q. That was a concern at your company? 13 A. What was a concern? 14 Q. Were you concerned that individuals who 15 worked at your company were developing lung disease, 16 bronchiolitis obliterans? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Why were you concerned? 19 A. Because the circumstantial evidence or the 20 circumstantial information that we had suggested that 21 the symptoms of the bronchiolitis obliterans, the 22 breathing symptoms occurred after an acute exposure to 23 acetaldehyde. 24 Q. I'm going to move to strike your answer. 25 Were you concerned that there were incidences of 0033 1 bronchiolitis obliterans at Tastemaker? 2 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 3 You can answer. 4 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Were you concerned? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Is it your testimony that acetaldehyde 7 caused the bronchiolitis obliterans to be developed in 8 Tastemaker employees? 9 A. No. It was never determined what the 10 actual cause was. 11 Q. While you were vice president and general 12 counsel, you hired a Dr. Stuart Brooks to investigate 13 the outbreak of lung disease at the plant; is that 14 correct? 15 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 16 A. Dr. Brooks was retained to assist us with 17 an occupational health program. I don't think I would 18 characterize it quite the way you did, though. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Were you the person who 20 hired Dr. James Lockey to do work at the plant? 21 A. No, that's not accurate. 22 Q. Was Dr. James Lockey contracted to do work 23 at the plant concerning lung disease among its 24 employees? 25 A. Dr. Lockey was retained to assist the 0034 1 company with an occupational health program. I 2 wouldn't call that working at the plant, though. 3 Q. Both doctors reported findings of the 4 bronchiolitis obliterans among employees at 5 Tastemaker; is that right? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Neither Dr. Lockey or Dr. Brooks published 8 an article in the medical literature during that time 9 about their findings at the Givaudan Tastemaker plant; 10 is that right? 11 A. It was not a Givaudan Tastemaker plant at 12 that time. 13 Q. Neither Dr. Brooks or Dr. Lockey published 14 an article in a medical journal concerning their 15 findings at the Tastemaker plant; is that correct? 16 A. To the best of my knowledge, that's 17 correct. 18 Q. Both Dr. Brooks and Dr. Lockey were 19 required by you to sign confidentiality agreements; is 20 that correct? 21 A. They did both sign confidentiality 22 agreements. 23 Q. Ms. Duros, did you ever direct that 24 Tastemaker change its material safety data sheets to 25 disclose that exposure to vapors or dusts from the 0035 1 Tastemaker plant could possibly cause bronchiolitis 2 obliterans? 3 MR. MACE: Objection. 4 A. Could you repeat that, please? 5 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did you ever disclose -- 6 excuse me. Ms. Duros, did you ever direct that 7 Tastemaker change its material safety data sheets to 8 disclose that exposure to vapors or dust could cause 9 bronchiolitis obliterans? 10 MR. MACE: Objection, assumptions. You can 11 answer. 12 A. There are quite some assumptions there. I 13 didn't really have anything to do with the material 14 safety data sheets, so the answer would be no, I 15 didn't direct anything regarding that. 16 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Ms. Duros, as general 17 counsel of the company, did you have any 18 responsibility for reviewing the material safety data 19 sheets that went out with Tastemaker products? 20 A. No, that's not my area of the law. 21 Q. You never reviewed material safety data 22 sheets? 23 A. No. 24 Q. As general counsel for the company, did you 25 ever suggest to Tastemaker that it give a warning to 0036 1 customers that vapors or dust might cause 2 bronchiolitis obliterans? 3 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. 4 A. Again, that's not my area of the law 5 so . . . 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) As general counsel of the 7 company, did you ever advise your client, your 8 employer Tastemaker to give a warning to Tastemaker 9 customers that exposure to vapors or dusts in 10 Tastemaker products might cause bronchiolitis 11 obliterans? 12 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. 13 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did you ever do that? 14 MR. MACE: Objection. 15 A. No. 16 Q. (By Mr. Crick) As vice president and 17 general counsel for Tastemaker, did you ever disclose 18 to any customer that exposure to vapors or dust could 19 cause bronchiolitis obliterans? 20 MR. MACE: Objection. 21 A. I don't know that exposure to vapors and 22 dust do cause bronchiolitis obliterans, so of course I 23 would not direct some kind of disclosure about it. 24 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Do you know that there have 25 been people who have been exposed to butter flavorings 0037 1 who have developed bronchiolitis obliterans -- 2 A. No, I don't know that. 3 Q. -- from making microwave popcorn? 4 MR. MACE: Objection. 5 A. No, sir, I don't know that. 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You've never -- have you 7 ever heard that? 8 A. Say that -- heard that, again -- 9 Q. Are you aware that there have been findings 10 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 11 Health that workers at microwave popcorn plants have 12 developed bronchiolitis obliterans from their exposure 13 to butter flavorings containing diacetyl? 14 A. No, I haven't. 15 MR. MACE: Objection -- 16 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection to the form of the 17 question. 18 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Have you heard that? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Even today, you've never heard that? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Did you ever disclose to any customers of 23 Tastemaker that there had been concerns -- strike 24 that. Did you ever disclose to customers of 25 Tastemaker that there had been diagnoses of 0038 1 bronchiolitis obliterans among Tastemaker employees? 2 MR. MACE: Objection. 3 A. I never had any occasion to make such a 4 disclosure to customers. 5 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You have a legal degree; is 6 that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And where did you get that? 9 A. Washington University. 10 Q. What year, 1979? 11 A. 1979, yes. 12 Q. And at that time, did you go to work for 13 Mallinckrodt? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Where did you go to work? 16 A. A firm called Thompson and Mitchell, now 17 Thompson Coburn. 18 Q. How long did you work for Thompson Coburn? 19 A. Approximately four years. 20 Q. And at that point, where did you go? 21 A. To Mallinckrodt, Inc. 22 Q. And what is Mallinckrodt, Inc.? 23 A. Today it is a subsidiary of Tyco. It's 24 engaged in the medical products and pharmaceutical 25 chemicals business. 0039 1 Q. When you were with Mallinckrodt, what did 2 Mallinckrodt do? 3 A. It was in the business of, well, medical 4 diagnostic products and a line of chemical products. 5 Q. Was there a subsidiary called Mallinckrodt 6 Flavor and Fragrances, Inc.? 7 A. I don't remember that. There may have been 8 at one time. 9 Q. Do you know if there was a division within 10 Mallinckrodt that made flavors and fragrances? 11 A. There was a division that made flavors, and 12 there was an division that made fragrances. I don't 13 remember if they were the same division or separate. 14 Q. Thank you. What type of work did you do 15 for Mallinckrodt? 16 A. Corporate and commercial, a lot of mergers 17 and acquisitions primarily and a variety of other 18 general corporate and commercial work. 19 Q. Did environmental health and safety report 20 to you while you were at Mallinckrodt? 21 A. No. 22 Q. What was your position at Mallinckrodt? 23 Were you general counsel, or were you associate 24 counsel? 25 A. I had several positions there. 0040 1 Q. What positions did you have? 2 A. I have attorney, senior attorney, assistant 3 general counsel. Those are the only ones I remember. 4 Q. Do you know Michael Davis? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Who is Michael Davis? 7 A. He was the president and CEO of Tastemaker. 8 Q. Did Mr. Davis work at Mallinckrodt? 9 A. No -- well, perhaps I should -- I'm not 10 sure what legal entity he worked at. He worked at 11 Fries & Fries when it was owned by Mallinckrodt, but I 12 -- again, I don't know what legal entity was his 13 employer. 14 MR. CRICK: I'm sorry, Damond. I don't 15 have a copy of these. I'll pass it over to you as we 16 go. 17 (Exhibit No. 8 marked for identification.) 18 MR. WOODSIDE: If we could just identify 19 it. 20 MR. CRICK: Uh-huh. 21 MR. MACE: Want to glance at it, Frank? 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) I'm going to hand you 23 Exhibit No. 8 which is a Certificate of Amendment of 24 Certificate of Incorporation for Mallinckrodt Flavor 25 and Fragrances, Inc., dated January 1, 1989, signed by 0041 1 Michael E. Davis, President, attested by Mary A. 2 Palank, Assistant Secretary. I want to know if you're 3 familiar with Mr. Davis and Miss Palank, please. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Who was Miss Palank? 6 A. She was another attorney in our law 7 department. 8 Q. At the Mallinckrodt law department? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. This indicates that Mr. Davis was the 11 president of Mallinckrodt Food and Flavors, Inc.; is 12 that right? 13 A. Food and Flavors, Inc.? 14 Q. What was the name of the company on that, 15 please? 16 A. This says Mallinckrodt Flavors and 17 Fragrances, Inc. Hold on -- 18 Q. Thank you. I don't have a copy of it. It 19 indicates that Mr. Davis was president of that 20 company? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 9. 23 (Exhibit No. 9 marked for identification.) 24 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Does Exhibit No. 9 appear 25 to you to be a Certificate of Amendment of Certificate 0042 1 of Incorporation of Mallinckrodt Food and Flavors, 2 Inc., signed by Roger Keller, Vice President, and 3 attested by Jake Larimer, Secretary of Mallinckrodt 4 Food and Flavors, Inc.? 5 A. Yes, that's what the document says. 6 Q. And do you know those gentlemen? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Who was Mr. Keller? 9 A. He was general counsel, vice president and 10 general counsel of Mallinckrodt. 11 Q. And Mr. Larimer? 12 A. Mr. Larimer was also an attorney with 13 Mallinckrodt. 14 Q. And it indicates in that certificate that 15 Mallinckrodt Foods and Flavors, Inc., changed its name 16 to Fries & Fries, Inc.? 17 A. Yes, that's what it says. 18 Q. And you did legal work for Fries & Fries, 19 Inc., as well; is that right? 20 MR. MACE: Objection. 21 A. I occasionally did legal work for Fries & 22 Fries Division or Fries & Fries, Inc., I guess. 23 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Thank you. How did Fries & 24 Fries and Tastemaker come to have a relationship 25 together? 0043 1 A. Fries & Fries was the flavor business of 2 Mallinckrodt. The business of Fries & Fries, the 3 flavor business of Fries & Fries was put into a joint 4 venture with the flavor business of Hercules, Inc., 5 and that became Tastemaker. 6 Q. And what year was that? 7 A. '92, 1992. 8 Q. Did Tastemaker change its name to Givaudan 9 Roure Flavors Corporation? 10 MR. MACE: Objection. Read it back, 11 please. 12 (Transcript read by the reporter as 13 requested.) 14 A. I don't remember how the legal structure 15 and legal formalities were organized at that time. 16 Q. (By Mr. Crick) When did you leave 17 Tastemaker? 18 A. In 1997. 19 Q. At the end of '97? 20 A. No, I actually don't remember. April or 21 May, but I think May sometime of '97. 22 Q. Let me show you -- 23 A. I'm not sure. 24 Q. I'm sorry for interrupting you. 25 A. That's okay. 0044 1 Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 10. Let me 2 show your counsel, first. 3 (Exhibit No. 10 marked for identification.) 4 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 5 No. 10 which is a Certificate of Amendment of 6 Certificate of Incorporation of Tastemaker Corporation 7 dated June 17, 1997, signed by Albert Imesch as Senior 8 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and 9 Treasurer and attested by Stephanie Schrimpf Thomson, 10 Secretary. You're familiar with those individuals and 11 with the company; is that right? 12 A. Yes. Tastemaker Corporation is not the 13 same as Tastemaker, the joint venture, though, I don't 14 think. 15 Q. Who was Miss Thomson? 16 A. She was an attorney at Tastemaker. 17 Q. And who was the individual who signed the 18 document? 19 A. Albert Imesch came from Givaudan after 20 Givaudan bought Tastemaker. His -- I don't know his 21 position other than what it says here. 22 Q. Now, you said that Tastemaker Corporation 23 was different from the Tastemaker that was part of the 24 joint venture? 25 A. Yes. Tastemaker, the joint venture, was 0045 1 legally organized as a partnership. 2 Q. And do you know when Tastemaker Corporation 3 was incorporated? 4 A. No, I'm sorry, I don't. I don't remember. 5 Q. And do you know how Tastemaker, the 6 partnership came to -- or strike that. Did Tastemaker 7 the partnership dissolve, and was a new corporation 8 then formed? How did this happen? 9 A. Tastemaker was sold to Givaudan, Givaudan 10 Roure, but again I don't remember all the details and 11 the formalities of all the corporate structuring that 12 went into completing that transaction. 13 Q. You were general counsel. Can you tell me 14 what the general form of the transaction was? 15 A. I'm sorry. I would be speculating based on 16 a poor memory. 17 Q. And do you recall approximately what year 18 that took place? 19 A. In early 1997. 20 Q. And what happened to the partnership? 21 A. I'm sorry, what do you mean what happened 22 to it? 23 Q. You were gone by this time, weren't you? 24 A. I left shortly after the acquisition 25 closed. 0046 1 Q. Were you involved in the acquisition? 2 A. Oh, yes. 3 Q. And I don't have any of that paperwork, so 4 I might have to ask you questions about that another 5 time. Why did you leave the company? 6 A. Well, after the acquisition, basically I 7 had a change of control agreement that I exercised. 8 Q. You had a what? 9 A. Change of control agreement. 10 Q. What does that mean? 11 A. That means if the company didn't have the 12 same job for me, I could elect to stay if they offered 13 me a position, or I could elect to leave. 14 Q. And they didn't have a similar position for 15 you? 16 A. Not a similar position, no. 17 Q. And where did you go from there? 18 A. I went to Great Lakes Chemical Corporation. 19 Q. And what does Great Lakes Chemical 20 Corporation do? 21 A. Great Lakes is a chemical company in the 22 business of flame retardants and polymer additives. 23 Q. When you were with Tastemaker, what did the 24 company do? 25 A. It is a manufacturer of flavors for foods 0047 1 and beverages. 2 Q. So in other words, Tastemaker had 3 scientists that use or create chemicals to make foods 4 taste better? 5 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 6 A. I would say that would be correct. They 7 had scientists or flavorists who would create flavors 8 for foods and beverages, yes. 9 Q. (By Mr. Crick) In addition to having 10 flavorists at Tastemaker, did they also employ 11 chemists? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What other types of scientists were 14 employed at Tastemaker when you were there? 15 A. Well, Dr. Hochstrasser had a doctorate, I 16 believe, in industrial hygiene, and Dr. Higley's 17 background was toxicology. 18 Q. With regard to the actual manufacturer of 19 flavors, was Dr. Higley involved in that? 20 A. I don't know. 21 Q. Did she report to you? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You don't know what it is that Dr. Higley 24 did, though? 25 A. I know she was in charge of regulatory 0048 1 matters. 2 Q. What does that mean? 3 A. It means, well, she had responsibility for 4 ensuring that the company, well, regulatory and 5 product assurance. I don't really remember the 6 details of what her position involved. 7 Q. What does that mean, regulatory? 8 A. Well, for example, FDA regulations that had 9 to do with whether one could call a product natural or 10 not -- 11 Q. Was Dr. Higley at Taste -- 12 A. -- for example. 13 Q. -- I'm sorry, I interrupted you again. 14 A. That's okay. 15 Q. Was Dr. Higley with Tastemaker before you 16 got to the company? 17 A. Yes. She had been with Fries & Fries. 18 Q. And she was still at the company when you 19 left? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. She's a toxicologist? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you know what toxicology is? 24 A. Only a layman's understanding. 25 Q. Well, as the person who was her boss, what 0049 1 did a toxicologist do? 2 A. Well, again, I don't remember specifically 3 her job description. The only things I can really 4 recall that she was involved in, she was the company's 5 key representative to our industry association. 6 Q. Is that FEMA? 7 A. Yes, that's correct. 8 Q. Is toxicology the science that studies how 9 chemicals can affect the body? 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. Did Tastemaker have laboratories at the 12 company? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you ever as Dr. Higley's boss ever 15 direct that toxicology studies be performed on any 16 Tastemaker chemicals to find out if there was an 17 adverse effect on humans? 18 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 19 A. No, I didn't direct Dr. Higley as to 20 something like that. 21 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Are you aware of any 22 studies that had ever been performed at Tastemaker to 23 determine whether or not chemicals or flavors that it 24 was making had an adverse effect on humans? 25 MR. MACE: Objection. 0050 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Do you recall any such 3 studies? 4 A. No. 5 Q. As vice president and general counsel, we 6 already established environmental health and safety 7 was within your control? 8 A. It reported to me. 9 Q. Why was environmental health and safety 10 reporting to a lawyer? 11 A. It was, it didn't report to me the whole 12 time I was there. It was moved under me because 13 someone determined, and I'm not sure who, that it 14 should report to someone who had global 15 responsibilities rather than reporting just to the 16 U.S. manufacturing organization which is where it was 17 before that. 18 Q. Did you say global responsibilities? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What does that mean? 21 A. That means someone who had responsibility 22 for a function for Tastemaker's worldwide operations 23 rather than just the U.S. 24 Q. And so did environmental health and safety 25 for Tastemaker worldwide report then to you? 0051 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And that person below you who had that 3 chief responsibility was John Hochstrasser? 4 A. Dr. Hochstrasser, that's correct. 5 Q. Was John Hochstrasser a person that you 6 hired? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Was he with the company before you got 9 there? 10 A. No. 11 Q. How did Mr. Hochstrasser come to be 12 employed by Tastemaker? 13 A. He was hired after I joined the company, 14 not long after, and I don't really remember when or 15 any of the details. 16 Q. Tell me again the year you joined the 17 company. 18 A. 1992. 19 Q. If you'd look again at Exhibit No. 1, this 20 was the rough draft memo of John Hochstrasser 21 concerning occupational health concern, the memo that 22 referenced Janice Meenach Irick? 23 MR. WOODSIDE: Excuse me, what number -- is 24 this Duros Exhibit No. -- 25 MR. CRICK: 1. 0052 1 MR. WOODSIDE: Thank you. 2 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Says, it has a 3 documentation date of February 18, 1993. Is this 4 about the time that Mr. Hochstrasser would have joined 5 the company? 6 A. I don't remember. 7 Q. Would it have been in this nearby time 8 frame, between then and sometime in late '92? 9 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 10 A. Sometime between then and when I joined the 11 company in mid '92. 12 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Who made the decision that 13 Mr. Hochstrasser -- strike that. Did 14 Mr. Hochstrasser, was his a newly created position? 15 A. Yes, I believe so. 16 Q. Who made the decision that there needed to 17 be someone of Mr. Hochstrasser's background to be with 18 Tastemaker? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Would that have been Mr. Davis? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. Now, Mr. Hochstrasser reported to you, did 23 he report to you in 1993? 24 A. I don't remember the date he started 25 reporting to me. I don't believe it was 1993. 0053 1 Q. If you look at Exhibit No. 1, there's a 2 reference to a task force result -- or assigned to 3 resolve this concern about Janice Irick and Joey 4 Wallace and Cliff Walker. Your name is on that list. 5 Do you see that? 6 A. I wouldn't characterize the task force 7 quite the way did you, but my name is on this list, 8 yes. 9 Q. Well, I'll just read it. From the heading, 10 "December 8, 1992: The following personnel met to 11 discuss the concern. The group became the core of a 12 task force assigned to resolve this concern." And 13 below that it lists Mike Davis, Bob Pellegrino, Karen 14 Duros and others. Do you see that? 15 A. That's a correct reading, yes. 16 Q. And you were on a group within the company 17 assigned to investigate or look into this issue about 18 Janice Irick and Joey Wallace and Cliff Walker? 19 A. Again, I wouldn't characterize the issue 20 and the role of the group that way. 21 Q. Well, what was the goal of the group? 22 A. The objective of the group was to really 23 establish an occupational health program to look into 24 the situation that first came to light as a result of, 25 well, as a result of the information disclosed here 0054 1 about the possibility that employees might be 2 contracting or suffering bronchiolitis obliterans, and 3 it appeared to be related to acetaldehyde. 4 Q. You keep saying that. Does it say anywhere 5 in this memo acetaldehyde? 6 A. I don't see acetaldehyde in this one. 7 Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 11. 8 (Exhibit No. 11 marked for identification.) 9 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Do you remember the name 10 Joey Wallace? 11 A. I remember the name. 12 Q. He's one of the individuals referenced on 13 Exhibit No. 1? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. As a person on this group who was looking 16 into this issue and as general counsel for Tastemaker, 17 you were interested in knowing if there were 18 individuals at the company that were getting sick as a 19 result of their work; would that be fair to say? 20 A. I would say as a member of the management 21 of the company, yes, I would be interested in 22 determining whether there was a workplace connection 23 with any respiratory illnesses of employees. 24 Q. Absolutely. And that was the initial 25 concern regarding Ms. Meenach Irick and Mr. Wallace 0055 1 and Mr. Walker as to do they have a lung disease and 2 how did that happen? 3 A. I wouldn't -- well, I don't think I would 4 put Miss Meenach Irick in there since there was 5 historical information, but . . . 6 Q. I don't understand what you just said. 7 A. Well -- 8 Q. Was there a concern about Miss Meenach 9 Irick and her lung injury and death was a result of 10 her work? 11 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 12 A. Well, I would say we considered it relevant 13 information whether there might have been some way of 14 tying her illness to the workplace. 15 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You did a lot of specific 16 inquiry about Miss Meenach Irick yourself? 17 A. I don't remember that. 18 MR. WOODSIDE: Excuse me, could you pass 19 around Exhibit 11? 20 MR. CRICK: I haven't shown it to her yet. 21 MR. WOODSIDE: Okay. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 11. 23 Is this a June 14, 1995, letter from Thomas Colby, 24 M.D., of the Mayo Clinic Scottsdale to Karen Duros, 25 Vice President and General Counsel of Tastemaker? 0056 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Is it true that you consulted with the Mayo 3 Clinic about Janice Meenach Irick? 4 A. No, I did not consult with the Mayo Clinic 5 about Janice Irick. 6 Q. So this letter would be inaccurate? 7 MR. MACE: Objection. 8 A. Well, it suggests that someone sent him 9 slides relating to -- I'm trying to find where Janice 10 Irick appears in there. 11 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did you send Dr. Colby 12 slides? 13 A. No. 14 Q. It says in the first sentence, "I received 15 sets of slides bearing three different numbers from 16 you." That would be wrong? 17 A. I suspect he meant you in the, if I -- I 18 probably shouldn't speculate, but he received them 19 from someone on behalf of the company perhaps, but it 20 wasn't me. 21 Q. Thank you. Did you consult with Dr. Colby 22 at the Mayo Clinic regarding an employee of 23 Tastemaker? 24 A. Did I, no. 25 Q. Did the company consult with Dr. Colby 0057 1 about an employee at Tastemaker? 2 A. I don't know -- 3 MR. MACE: Object to Miss Irick as an 4 employee of Tastemaker. 5 A. Thank you. 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) If that's your concern 7 about my question, did Tastemaker consult with 8 Dr. Colby at all about anything? 9 A. I don't see Janice Meenach Irick mentioned 10 in here. Is that in here someplace? 11 Q. I'll show you all the other records if 12 that's necessary. My question to you, did Tastemaker 13 consult with Dr. Colby in any way whatsoever? Ma'am? 14 A. Say that again, please. 15 Q. Did Tastemaker consult with Dr. Colby in 16 any way whatsoever? 17 A. I don't know. 18 Q. Do you remember Dr. Colby? 19 A. I remember the name. 20 Q. How do you remember the name? 21 A. Looking at this document -- 22 Q. Does it refresh your recollection? 23 A. -- refreshes my recollection that someone 24 sent him slides. 25 Q. Okay. And what were the slides concerning? 0058 1 A. I don't know -- if I can read it, maybe it 2 says. 3 Q. Excuse me? 4 A. Well, it says slides bearing three 5 different numbers, and he was asked to review them 6 without full knowledge of the clinical history -- just 7 scanning through this, I don't see that it says in 8 here whose slides they were or what they were of. 9 Q. The concern initially at Tastemaker was 10 whether or not individuals were developing lung 11 disease and whether or not that lung disease was 12 caused by the work environment; is that right? 13 MR. MACE: Can you read it back, please? 14 MR. CRICK: You can put that down. 15 (Transcript read by the reporter as 16 requested.) 17 A. I would say that was part of the 18 information we were trying to gather. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) One of the employees on 20 Exhibit No. 1 that was referenced was a gentleman 21 named Joey Wallace? 22 A. Joey Wallace is mentioned in Exhibit 1, 23 yes. 24 Q. Joey Wallace's records were reviewed by 25 outside medical consultants for Tastemaker; is that 0059 1 right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And those would be doctors at the 4 University of Cincinnati? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you remember a doctor named Ann 7 Middaugh? 8 A. The name sounds familiar. I don't remember 9 that, though. 10 Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 12. 11 (Exhibit No. 12 marked for identification.) 12 Q. (By Mr. Crick) This is a document that was 13 produced by Frost Jacobs again, the workers' 14 compensation counsel for Tastemaker and Givaudan, 15 correct? 16 A. I'm sorry. 17 Q. Frost Jacobs was your workers' compensation 18 counsel? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Is this a March 25, 1994, letter from the 21 University of Cincinnati concerning Joey Wallace, 22 March 25, '94? 23 A. It appears to be a report, not a letter. 24 Q. Thank you. It says, "Joey Wallace is a 25 30-year-old man who was seen in consultation on 0060 1 referral from Esly Caldwell, M.D., regarding his 2 pulmonary disease. The purpose of this consultation 3 is to evaluate the occupational history and determine 4 whether there may be occupational or environmental 5 exposures relating to Mr. Wallace's unexplained 6 obstructive lung disease." Did I read that generally 7 accurately? 8 A. You read that paragraph correctly, yes. 9 Q. On the second page -- I'll point to it for 10 you -- right in the middle of that first full 11 paragraph, it says, "He began working at Tastemaker on 12 June 17, '91." Do you see that? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. If you go back to the first page under 15 history, it says, "Joey Wallace indicates that he had 16 no breathing problems whatsoever until the summer of 17 1992." Do you see that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. If you go back to the second page, 20 Dr. Middaugh gives a summary of the history given or 21 taken from Joey Wallace. And in that history, there's 22 a sentence that says, "There is a compound called 23 diacetyl that was irritating." Do you see that? 24 A. I see that sentence. 25 Q. Joey Wallace was diagnosed with 0061 1 bronchiolitis obliterans; you understand that? 2 A. I don't recall. 3 Q. Let me show you Exhibit 13. 4 (Exhibit No. 13 marked for identification.) 5 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Is Exhibit 13 a March 8, 6 1996, letter report from Robert Baughman, M.D., at the 7 University of Cincinnati concerning Joey Wallace? 8 A. (No response.) 9 Q. Can you read the question back? 10 (Transcript read by the reporter as 11 requested.) 12 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Is that correct, is this a 13 March 8, 1996, report from Dr. Baughman concerning 14 Joey Wallace? 15 A. It's a letter from Dr. Baughman to Smith 16 Hammelrath. 17 Q. And it says -- 18 A. Regarding Joey Wallace. 19 Q. Thank you. And it says in the first 20 sentence, "This is in regard to Joey Wallace, a 21 patient of mine, and Dr. Elyse Lower. I have been 22 seeing Mr. Wallace now for several years for his 23 bronchiolitis obliterans." Do you see that? 24 A. That's the first sentence. 25 Q. In the next paragraph, he says, "I had said 0062 1 in the previous letter that to the best of my 2 knowledge, there was a greater than 50/50 possibility 3 that Mr. Wallace had bronchiolitis obliterans which he 4 had acquired while working at Tastemaker." Do you see 5 that? 6 A. That is the first sentence of the second 7 paragraph, yes. 8 Q. Now, Exhibit 12, Dr. Middaugh's letter, 9 made a reference to diacetyl; do you recall that? 10 A. There is a sentence that says diacetyl -- 11 MR. MACE: Just have a continuing objection 12 to all the hearsay. We'll have to talk about 13 stipulations later. 14 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And if you'd look back at 15 Exhibit No. 3, Dr. Lockey's report concerning Clifford 16 Walker. 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. Dr. Lockey referenced Mr. Walker's 19 breathing problems around diacetyl -- 20 MR. MACE: Objection, characterization. 21 Q. (By Mr. Crick) -- in the second page. 22 A. Well, no, I don't think that's a correct 23 characterization of the document. Says he noted the 24 following chem -- he meaning the employee -- noted the 25 following chemical agents that would cause him to have 0063 1 breathing problems, and diacetyl is one of a list of 2 several. 3 Q. Was there any study done regarding 4 Mr. Wallace and Mr. Walker's exposures to diacetyl 5 specifically and whether that caused their lung 6 disease? 7 A. There was never any suggestion that 8 diacetyl was causing any problems in that facility. 9 Q. Even though Mr. Walker specifically said 10 that diacetyl was causing him breathing problems? 11 MR. MACE: Objection. 12 A. Something that is irritating and causing 13 breathing problems is not the same as a causative 14 agent of any respiratory illness. 15 Q. (By Mr. Crick) My question was was there a 16 specific investigation to determine whether or not 17 diacetyl caused their bronchiolitis obliterans? 18 MR. MACE: Objection. Please read it back. 19 (Transcript read by the reporter as 20 requested.) 21 A. No, there would be no reason to do that. 22 (Exhibit No. 14 marked for identification.) 23 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 24 No. 14. 25 A. That I know of. 0064 1 Q. Who is Randy Schmelzel? 2 A. He was the plant manager for Tastemaker. 3 Q. And John Hochstrasser was in charge of 4 environmental health and safety? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. And Nancy Higley was the company's 7 toxicologist? 8 A. Well, no, that's not her job. 9 Q. She was a toxicologist, and she worked for 10 Tastemaker? 11 A. She was a toxicologist by education, yes. 12 Q. Is this -- and both of them reported to 13 you? 14 A. I don't know if they did at this period in 15 time, but they did later on. 16 Q. This is a September 13, 1993, memo from 17 John Hochstrasser to Nancy Higley, subject, review of 18 toxicity information. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. In the second paragraph, it says, "Diacetyl 21 still appears to be a viable candidate as a possible 22 etiologic agent or at least one of the agents." Do 23 you see that? 24 A. I see that. It doesn't say agent for what, 25 though. 0065 1 Q. If you need to read the whole memo, go 2 ahead. 3 A. I'm sorry, you want me to read the memo out 4 loud? 5 Q. No, to yourself. It says in the first 6 paragraph, "A possible occupational exposure case has 7 been brought to our attention similar to the ones that 8 we previously reviewed." 9 MR. MACE: Same objection -- 10 Q. (By Mr. Crick) "Based on discussions with 11 the employee, we believe that the problem began in 12 February, and the onset of health effects were rapid. 13 The program requires your input to identify chemicals 14 which affect the respiratory tract and also chemicals 15 which are or could be sensitizers." Do you see that? 16 MR. MACE: Continuing objection with 17 respect to hearsay, reading from documents, asking the 18 witness with no foundation. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Do you see that? 20 A. That's what the sentence says, yes. 21 Q. In the second paragraph, he says, "Please 22 send me copies of the literature that you obtained on 23 diacetyl during the last exposure review. Diacetyl 24 still appears to be a viable candidate as a possible 25 etiological agent or at least one of the agents. 0066 1 Also, please rerun the literature search on diacetyl 2 to see if any new information has been published and 3 check with the EPA for additional information." Did I 4 read that correctly? 5 A. You read it correctly. 6 Q. Was there any research done while you were 7 overseeing environmental health and safety with regard 8 to diacetyl and its potential for causing 9 bronchiolitis obliterans? 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. Can we take a five-minute break? 12 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at 13 11:29 a.m. 14 (Break in proceedings.) 15 VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record at 11:39 16 a.m. 17 (Exhibit No. 15 marked for identification.) 18 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Joey Wallace filed a 19 workers' compensation claim, is that -- do you recall 20 that? 21 A. Yes. Not specifically, but yes, I believe 22 so. 23 Q. And the workers' compensation court made a 24 finding of fact and an order that Mr. Wallace's claim 25 was justified that he had a workers' compensation 0067 1 disease described as bronchiolitis obliterans; you 2 understand that? 3 A. I don't remember that. 4 Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 15. You would 5 have been made aware as general counsel if there had 6 been a workers' compensation finding against the 7 company; is that right? 8 A. Probably, right. 9 MR. MACE: Let me just get an objection for 10 the record on all the workers' comp claims, findings, 11 relevance, admissibility, to be decided later. 12 MR. WOODSIDE: Is this 15? 13 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Yes. Exhibit 15 is a 14 document called Findings of Fact and Order of the 15 Commission, the Industrial Commission of Ohio, 16 reference to Joey L. Wallace versus employer 17 Tastemaker. You would have been made aware of this at 18 or about the time that it took place; is that correct? 19 A. I don't remember. 20 Q. You would have been, as your normal 21 practice, advised by Frost and Jacobs, your counsel, 22 if there had been a finding in a workers' compensation 23 claim against Tastemaker; is that right? 24 A. I believe so, yes. 25 Q. And in this Finding of Fact by the 0068 1 Industrial Commission of Ohio, it stated, "Pursuant to 2 the judgment entry of the Hamilton County Court of 3 Common Pleas filed with the Industrial Commission on 4 May 2, 1997, it is ordered that claimant is entitled 5 to participate in the workers' compensation fund for 6 this claim for the condition described as 7 bronchiolitis obliterans." Did I read that right? 8 MR. MACE: Same objections. 9 A. It's not signed, I noticed, but yes, that's 10 what it says. 11 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And there's a stamp down 12 below that says findings mailed May 15, 1997. Do you 13 see that? 14 A. I see that stamp, yes. 15 Q. There were other employees who complained 16 of breathing problems from working around diacetyl; is 17 that right? 18 MR. MACE: Objection. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Than the ones we've 20 described? 21 A. I would not characterize anyone as having a 22 complaint about breathing problems around diacetyl. 23 People, I understand that people identified feeling 24 some irritation when they were around a number of our 25 chemicals. 0069 1 Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 16. 2 (Exhibit No. 16 marked for identification.) 3 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Is this a February 22, 4 1996, report from Susan Pinney, Ph.D., Assistant 5 Professor, Director of Medical Surveillance at the 6 University of Cincinnati, to Janice Dees of 7 Tastemaker, copying Karen Duros? 8 A. Yes. It's a letter from Dr. Pinney to 9 Janice Dees copying myself and a number of other 10 people. 11 Q. And Dr. Pinney was an epidemiologist? 12 A. That's my recollection, yes. 13 Q. What's epidemiology? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. Do you know why Dr. Pinney was consulted by 16 Tastemaker? 17 A. No, I don't recall. 18 Q. The letter from Dr. Pinney says, "Please 19 find enclosed copies of interim reports that we have 20 prepared from the pulmonary function tests and 21 questionnaire data provided by Tastemaker employees." 22 This is a reference to the pulmonary function test, 23 the breathing tests that were given to all the 24 Tastemaker employees; is that correct? 25 A. The pulmonary function medical monitoring 0070 1 that the company was doing, yes. 2 Q. Okay. And part of that monitoring involved 3 the employees filling out a questionnaire like the one 4 we saw of Walt Vaske earlier today? 5 A. That's my understanding. I don't recall. 6 Q. And you were copied on this letter. It 7 says cc Karen -- K. Duros, that's you? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. And even on the front page, there's 10 handwriting at the top that says cc Karen Duros? 11 A. Yes, I see that. 12 Q. Now, these pages all have Bates stamp 13 numbers on them, and what I'd like you to do is turn 14 to the page that's Bates stamped 6698. Are you on 15 that page? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. This is a chart, I suppose you could call 18 it. It's called Tastemaker Explanatory Questions, 19 Workers with a Nonzero Lower Respiratory Score or 20 Workers Who Listed Substances for Question 5E (Wheeze) 21 or Question 3E (Tightness). And below that it says, 22 "Question 18A, which chemicals caused burning eyes," 23 et cetera? 24 MR. MACE: Objection, rule of completeness. 25 Question 18 is also listed on that same line. 0071 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) See down below, you see 2 where I'm pointing to? 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. Q18. And we can get to question 18 if we 5 need it. It was on Walt Vaske's report. 6 MR. MACE: Well, it has it right on this 7 document, burning eyes, et cetera. 8 MR. CRICK: Thank you. 9 MR. MACE: And Question 18A is which 10 chemicals so . . . 11 MR. CRICK: Thank you. You're very 12 helpful. 13 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Question 18A from the 14 question was, "At Tastemaker, are there any chemicals 15 or substances that you worked with that seemed to 16 result in tingling, burning or stinging of your eyes, 17 nose or throat or frequent sneezing or difficulty 18 breathing?" And down below on this page of Exhibit 19 16, there's an employee number 22 who lists besides 20 his name or besides his number "acetaldehyde, 21 benzaldehyde, dimethyl sulfide, diacetyl, onion, 22 garlic oils, apple oils." Do you see that? 23 A. I don't know what this document represents, 24 but I see where you are reading. 25 Q. You see that? And below that, there's 0072 1 employee No. 23 who listed "diacetyl, acid aldihyde" 2 (sic), something I can't say. 3 MR. MACE: Benzaldehyde takes. 4 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Benzaldehyde takes breath 5 away, burns throat. You see that? 6 A. I see where you're reading. I don't know 7 why you're calling these employee numbers. I can't 8 tell that based on this. 9 Q. Did you receive this back in 1996? 10 A. I don't remember it. 11 Q. Were you involved in this work with the 12 University of Cincinnati? 13 A. I had some involvement in it, yes. 14 Q. And you were in senior management 15 overseeing the work for the company; is that right? 16 MR. MACE: Objection. 17 A. Part of the group overseeing, in general. 18 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You were the lawyer who was 19 involved on behalf of the company too; is that right? 20 A. I was a lawyer involved on behalf of the 21 company, yes. 22 Q. How many lawyers were involved in this 23 procedure? 24 A. Which procedure? 25 Q. This study. There was you. Were there 0073 1 other lawyers involved? 2 MR. MACE: Objection -- 3 A. Well, I would say that lawyers weren't 4 involved in a medical study. I mean, we were involved 5 in furnishing legal advice in the company certainly. 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) All right. Looking on the 7 carbon copies of this letter, are there any other 8 lawyers that are referenced? 9 A. No, I don't believe so. 10 Q. I want you to turn back two more pages to 11 page 6700. It's another chart, and we see an employee 12 with the number 40 answers or listed "diacetyl, off 13 work for one week after exposure, dust in air 14 lacerated both retinas." Do you see that? 15 A. I see where you're reading. 16 Q. And if you go to the next page, employee 17 No. 57 lists "ask me, diacetyl, orange dust makes 18 sneeze, yeast dust, punch." Do you see that? 19 A. I see where you're reading. 20 Q. And the next page, page 6702, the employee 21 No. 68 who says "mustard gas, alcohol, enzymes, 22 cheeses, garlics, onion, soap, caustics, too many to 23 list." Do you see that? 24 A. Which -- yes. I also see which chemicals 25 cause burning. Is this what this is in response to; 0074 1 is that right? 2 Q. It's in regard to their answers to question 3 18A, and I can read that for you again if I need to. 4 I don't think I need to. 5 A. Okay. 6 Q. And if you want to go to the next page. 7 A. I'm sorry, 03? 8 Q. Yes, ma'am. 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. Employee No. 81, it lists "acetaldehyde, 11 diacetyl, capisicum" (sic). You see that? 12 A. I see where you're reading. 13 Q. No. 82 says, "Too many to put on paper." 14 Look at the next page, 6704. Employee No. 90 lists 15 "diacetyl, acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde." You see that? 16 A. Yes. I don't know why you keep calling 17 these employee numbers. It's not clear -- I don't 18 understand what those numbers on that column mean. 19 Q. Did you read this document when you got it? 20 A. Oh, I don't remember. 21 Q. Wouldn't have been of enough concern for 22 you to read it? 23 A. Well, I don't understand it now, so I don't 24 recall whether -- 25 Q. My question is -- 0075 1 A. I don't recall. 2 Q. -- did you read it? As general counsel for 3 the corporation, would you have made it a practice to 4 read reports that had been copied to you regarding 5 issues of health concerns or health findings or 6 complaints of the employees? 7 A. I'm sorry. There were a lot of parts to 8 that question. Could you -- 9 Q. I'll restate it. As general counsel and 10 vice president for the company in charge of 11 environmental health and safety, did you take it upon 12 yourself when you were copied with letters from your 13 consultants to read them? 14 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 15 A. I would read or scan them in some level of 16 detail generally but perhaps not always. 17 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And you would have expected 18 that the people who have direct responsibility would 19 have followed up on those things and taken the 20 appropriate actions? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you recall Gary Shea in his diagnosis of 23 bronchiolitis obliterans? 24 A. I recall the name. I don't recall the 25 diagnosis. 0076 1 Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 17. 2 (Exhibit No. 17 marked for identification.) 3 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Gary Shea was an employee 4 at Tastemaker, correct? 5 A. This is dated 1997 after I was no longer 6 with the company. Let's see, does it say that? Yes, 7 I do recall he was an employee of Tastemaker. 8 Q. And you recall Dr. Lockey was a consultant 9 of Tastemaker? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Who is Dr. Stuart Brooks? 12 A. He was -- I don't recall his background, 13 but he was also, acted as a consultant to Tastemaker. 14 Q. And why was Dr. Brooks consulted by 15 Tastemaker? 16 A. Dr. Brooks was consulted when we first 17 obtained information that, actually I don't recall -- 18 well, when we first obtained information that some of 19 our employees might be having a respiratory illness, 20 he was contacted to help us develop a go-forward plan 21 and help advise us as to what we should do. 22 Q. What was your role with regard to 23 Mr. Brooks and his -- Dr. Brooks and his work? 24 A. I didn't really have a direct role. The 25 only thing I recall, I believe I did ask -- or send -- 0077 1 I don't really know who sent it, but I believe I was 2 involved in getting him to sign a confidentiality 3 agreement. 4 (Exhibit No. 18 marked for identification.) 5 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Is Exhibit 18 a copy of 6 that confidentiality agreement? 7 A. This is -- well, this is not really the 8 confidentiality agreement. This is sort of a 9 related -- 10 Q. What is Exhibit 18? 11 A. Well, it's not signed by him. It is a 12 letter, more of an engagement letter I guess I would 13 call it. I believe there was a confidentiality 14 agreement. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. The same date. 17 Q. This is an engagement letter, and in the 18 engagement letter it indicates that he will agree to a 19 confidentiality between, for his work with Tastemaker; 20 is that right? 21 A. Oh, yes. It does say that he would keep 22 information confidential and his work confidential, 23 yes. 24 Q. In fact it says -- 25 A. Oh, and he says, yeah, the enclosed 0078 1 confidentiality agreement, yes, which appears to be 2 the, actually the transmittal or cover letter to the 3 confidentiality agreement. 4 Q. Thank you. And in that first paragraph, 5 the last sentence, it says, "Copies of all written 6 reports and correspondence regarding the project 7 should be sent to me and marked 'privileged and 8 confidential, prepared at the request of counsel.'" 9 Did I read that correctly? 10 A. You read that sentence correctly. 11 Q. And on the second page, the signature 12 doesn't come through very well, but does that appear 13 to be your signature? 14 A. Yes. 15 (Exhibit No. 19 marked for identification.) 16 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Exhibit 19 is the 17 confidentiality agreement; is it not? 18 MR. MACE: 19? 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Yes, 19. 20 A. 19? That's correct, but it is also not 21 signed by Dr. Brooks. 22 Q. You requested Dr. Brooks to sign this 23 confidentiality agreement, and he did do so as to the 24 best that you know? 25 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes, he did. 0079 1 Q. Did you ever release Dr. Brooks from his 2 confidentiality agreement? 3 A. No, I did not. 4 Q. You met with Dr. Brooks, didn't you? 5 A. I don't recall. I believe I may have. 6 (Exhibit No. 20 marked for identification.) 7 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Is Exhibit 20 an 8 interoffice memorandum from John Hochstrasser to Mike 9 Davis and others including Karen Duros concerning 10 Stuart Brooks and his site visit? 11 A. (No response.) 12 Q. There was a question pending. 13 A. Oh, I'm sorry. What was the question. 14 Q. I'll just ask it again. I'm sorry, I 15 thought you were reading. Is this a June 2nd, 1994, 16 memo from John Hochstrasser to Mike Davis and others 17 including you concerning Stuart Brooks, M.D., and his 18 site visit? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And it indicates that Dr. Brooks visited 21 the plant on May 27 and 28 of '94 and that during that 22 visit he met with you? 23 A. Yes, it does. 24 Q. Okay. And you did meet with Dr. Brooks? 25 A. I don't recall it, but yes, I believe I 0080 1 did. 2 Q. Okay. Dr. Brooks, as a part of his work 3 confirmed that Janice Meenach Irick and Mary Sue McGee 4 had or have bronchiolitis obliterans? 5 A. It says that in paragraph 3. 6 Q. And he believed that Cliff Walker was 7 clinically similar to Miss Meenach Irick and Miss 8 McGee and that Cliff Walker might also have 9 bronchiolitis obliterans? 10 A. Yes, it says he might have it. 11 Q. And Dr. Brooks was proposing that he 12 oversee an investigation to find out if there were 13 others in the plant that were, that had lung disease 14 so that he could determine whether or not the 15 illnesses of Miss Meenach Irick and Miss McGee and 16 Mr. Walker were work-related and what would have 17 caused those lung ailments; is that correct? 18 MR. MACE: Objection to form. Objection, 19 compound -- 20 A. Well, I'm not seeing that in there. His 21 recommendations on page 3 says that he suggested that 22 we initiate a study that he would recommend, and he 23 defines several specific actions which we could 24 explore prior to initiating the study. And there's a 25 list of five items there. 0081 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Absolutely. One of the 2 points of his study, however, was to decide or find 3 out did these people have a lung injury caused by 4 work, and how could Tastemaker go about making sure 5 that it had a safe workplace for its employees; is 6 that right? 7 MR. MACE: Objection -- 8 A. I think that's -- no, that's an overbroad 9 characterization. There were several parts to your 10 statement there that I don't think are quite accurate. 11 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Why did you hire 12 Dr. Brooks? 13 A. For the purposes here, that we had 14 determined that we had found a number of employees who 15 appeared to be contracting bronchiolitis obliterans. 16 It was a bit suspicious. At some point in time, we 17 determined that acetaldehyde appeared to be the cause, 18 although there was nothing in any scientific 19 literature that identified bronchiolitis obliterans as 20 being caused by any of the thousands of chemicals we 21 used in the plant, and so we felt it was appropriate 22 to get some outside expertise to help us develop some 23 kind of a plan to go forward. 24 Q. Because you didn't know what it was that 25 was causing this disease in the plant, if anything, 0082 1 and you needed some outside consultant to give you 2 some direction? 3 A. And there was also some inconsistency about 4 whether that disease was in fact that disease, because 5 there were a lot of other things going on. He talks 6 here a lot about asthma. He talks a lot about 7 smoking. 8 Q. Absolutely. There was a concern -- 9 A. There was a lot of factors involved, yes. 10 Q. Absolutely. And you were trying to 11 investigate those to find out if there was a 12 relationship at all between workplace and lung 13 ailments that these people might or might not have? 14 A. That would be correct. 15 Q. What was the result of Dr. Brooks' work for 16 the company? 17 A. My recollection is Dr. Brooks was the one 18 who proposed and helped us develop the medical 19 monitoring program. I don't recall really the 20 details, but I believe he helped us develop the 21 medical monitoring program. I believe he is the one 22 who brought in Dr. McKay who actually performed and 23 designed these pulmonary function tests in that 24 program. 25 Q. What did Dr. Brooks conclude in his final 0083 1 report? 2 A. I don't believe he, I don't recall a final 3 report with a conclusion. 4 Q. He didn't do a final report? 5 A. I don't recall one. I don't know. 6 Q. Why didn't Dr. Brooks do a final report? 7 A. Because the program was an ongoing thing 8 that lasted quite some time. 9 Q. And did Dr. Brooks see that program through 10 to its conclusion? 11 A. Ultimately, at some -- and, again, I don't 12 recall the specifics of how this happened, but 13 Dr. McKay was affiliated with the University of 14 Cincinnati and over time, Dr. Lockey, who as I recall 15 Dr. Lockey's background, he is an occupational health 16 specialist, I believe, also affiliated with the 17 University of Cincinnati. So he then stepped in and 18 took over the role of seeing the employees, evaluating 19 the test results and that sort of thing. 20 Q. Dr. Brooks was initially hired, 21 contracted -- strike that. Dr. Brooks was initially 22 consulted to do this survey work, investigation for 23 Tastemaker, but you decided not to use him eventually? 24 A. No, I don't believe that's really accurate. 25 I don't think that there -- 0084 1 Q. Dr. Brooks -- 2 A. -- was any specific, I mean, everything was 3 so open ended at that time, I don't think one could 4 identify a specific role or job that Dr. Brooks had. 5 He was a consultant to help us figure out what to do, 6 and he did that. 7 Q. You stopped using Dr. Brooks? 8 A. Well, I don't know that we stopped using 9 him. Again, I think that's a somewhat inaccurate 10 characterization or assumes that we stopped using him. 11 I think the work was just picked up by Dr. Lockey and 12 the University of Cincinnati people. I don't think -- 13 Q. Dr. Brooks -- 14 A. -- it was ever -- 15 Q. -- Dr. Brooks says he was fired. 16 MR. MACE: Objection. 17 A. Oh -- 18 Q. (By Mr. Crick) By you. 19 MR. MACE: Objection. 20 A. I disagree with that, but okay. 21 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did Dr. Brooks, did you 22 ever authorize Dr. Brooks to publish an article in the 23 medical literature about the findings of bronchiolitis 24 obliterans at the Tastemaker plant? 25 MR. MACE: Would you read that back, 0085 1 please? 2 A. Yes, please. 3 Q. (By Mr. Crick) I'll ask it again. Let me 4 ask it again. Did you ever authorize Dr. Brooks to 5 write an article for publication in the medical 6 literature about his findings of bronchiolitis 7 obliterans at the Tastemaker plant? 8 MR. MACE: Objection -- 9 A. I did not authorize Dr. Brooks to publish 10 any article about anything. 11 VIDEOGRAPHER: Excuse me. I was just going 12 to tell you there is lunch on the counter for 13 everyone. 14 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Oh, thank you. Bear with 15 me a second. 16 A. Take your time. 17 Q. It's probably right in front of my face. 18 There it was all along. Who is Janice Dees? 19 A. She was the occupational health -- 20 occupational health nurse. I don't remember her exact 21 title. 22 Q. Why was Janice Dees hired? 23 A. I don't remember all the specifics but in 24 part to help work on this medical monitoring program. 25 Q. As a part of her work on the medical 0086 1 monitoring program, Ms. Dees did some research to try 2 to find out what might be involved at the plant that 3 could be causing this lung problem; you understand 4 that? 5 A. I don't know. 6 (Exhibit No. 21 marked for identification.) 7 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 21. 8 Is this a May 10, 1995, interoffice memorandum from 9 Janice Dees to Mike Davis, Bob Pellegrino, Karen Duros 10 and others regarding an attached article abstract? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. She says, "Attached is an abstract from an 13 interesting article I found while doing a literature 14 review. This is the only article I can find to 15 demonstrate a possible relationship between dust and 16 bronchiolitis obliterans or emphysema. I will be 17 obtaining the entire health hazard evaluation for 18 further review." Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I do. 20 Q. And on the next page on the abstract, 21 there's a reference to the NIOSH study called Health 22 Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA-85-171-1710, 23 International Bakers Services, Inc., South Bend, 24 Indiana." You see that? 25 A. That's what the title says, yes. 0087 1 Q. And this is something that would have gone 2 to you, and you would have read it when you received 3 it? 4 A. I believe so, yes. 5 Q. If you would just take a second to go 6 through that again, to yourself. 7 (Witness complies.) 8 Q. This article or this abstract indicates 9 that NIOSH investigated a plant, the International 10 Bakers Service plant in Indiana because there were two 11 workers who had symptoms suggestive of bronchiolitis 12 obliterans or emphysema. You understand that? 13 A. Well, it says, "In response to a request 14 from International Bakers Services," but it's not 15 clear to me who the request was made to, or you 16 characterize it as a NIOSH investigation. That's not 17 clear to me based on just this one paragraph. 18 Q. Right at the top where it says NIOSH. 19 A. I see NIOSH -- 20 Q. Thank you. Do you know what NIOSH is? 21 A. I believe it is an organization that had 22 some affiliation with OSHA, but I don't really know 23 for sure. 24 Q. Thank you. In the middle of the paragraph, 25 it says, "The disease is suggestive of bronchiolitis 0088 1 obliterans or emphysema." Do you see that? 2 A. I see that sentence, yes. 3 Q. But then it goes further to say, "No 4 specific etiology of the illness was identified." And 5 they say, "They recommend that when a specific 6 etiology for a disease cannot be found, all airborne 7 dust exposures should be controlled in the mixing 8 room." Did I read that right? 9 A. You read that sentence correctly, yes. 10 Q. That was something, that was information 11 that you had back in 1995? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You mentioned Miss or Dr. Higley was the 14 Tastemaker representative to FEMA. What is FEMA? 15 A. In the flavor industry, FEMA is the Flavor 16 and Extract Manufacturers Association, I believe is 17 the title. 18 Q. And what does FEMA do? 19 A. It's an industry association. 20 Q. And I take it it's made up of others in the 21 flavor industry to share information and promote 22 flavors; is that fair? 23 A. I suppose that's in part what it does. 24 Q. What else does it do? I don't know. 25 A. It does what other industry associations 0089 1 do. I mean, industry associations typically work 2 together on regulatory matters that might affect the 3 industry. And as I recall, one example of FEMA's work 4 did have to do with standards for labeling flavors. 5 For example, one issue, one regulatory issue at that 6 time was things like whether it was natural or not, 7 that sort of thing. 8 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection, move strike, 9 speculative and without foundation. 10 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And one of the things that 11 FEMA does -- strike that. Are you familiar with 12 another group called RIFM, the Research Institute for 13 Fragrance Manufacturers? 14 A. Am I familiar with it, no, not really. 15 Q. You understand one of the things FEMA did 16 was it did some research with regard to flavors and 17 health? 18 A. I don't know. 19 Q. And they had what's called a flavor or 20 fragrance ingredient data sheet? 21 A. I don't recall. 22 (Exhibit No. 22 marked for identification.) 23 Q. (By Mr. Crick) One of the things that was 24 produced to us by Givaudan is this Exhibit No. 22, 25 flavor or fragrance ingredient data sheet regarding 0090 1 the chemical diacetyl, and it's got a date below it of 2 September 2nd, 1985. As members of FEMA, you would 3 expect that your company would have had access to any 4 information about chemicals that FEMA was putting out? 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q. You haven't seen this before? 7 A. I don't recognize it, no. 8 Q. Nobody brought this to your attention while 9 you were vice president and general counsel of 10 Tastemaker? 11 A. I don't recognize it, no. 12 Q. If you'd look at this, it says, it's a data 13 sheet regarding the chemical diacetyl, and on the 14 second page, there's a section called Human Health 15 Effects Data, under the section called Inhalation. 16 You see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. It says, "Harmful, sore throat, coughing 19 may be absorbed, high concentrations may case 20 irritation of the respiratory tract, capable of 21 producing systemic toxicity." Do you see that? 22 A. You read it in part, but you left out the 23 things that are in brackets there, and I don't know 24 what those mean. 25 Q. I think those are citations to authority. 0091 1 A. Oh, okay. 2 Q. I'll read those for you, though. "Harmful 3 (IHS), sore throat, coughing may be absorbed (HCS), 4 high concentrations may cause irritation of 5 respiratory tract, capable of producing systemic 6 toxicity (KOD)." You see that? 7 A. You read it correctly. 8 Q. Did anyone bring to your attention while 9 you were vice president and general counsel of 10 Tastemaker that FEMA had put out a document that 11 indicated that diacetyl was harmful and was capable of 12 producing systemic toxicity? 13 MR. MACE: Objection. 14 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. 15 A. First of all, you're assuming FEMA did in 16 fact do that. And I don't recall, if FEMA did, that I 17 don't recall anyone ever brought such a thing to my 18 attention. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You don't recall it? 20 A. I don't, no. 21 Q. Did Tastemaker eventually create a task 22 force to investigate this issue? 23 MR. MACE: Objection. 24 A. I don't really know what you mean by 25 investigate this issue, but Tastemaker . . . 0092 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Was there a group that was 2 charged with investigating this issue within 3 Tastemaker? 4 A. Well, again depending on what one means by 5 investigate this issue, there was a group called a 6 cross functional team that helped organize and follow 7 through with the recommendations from the outside 8 experts who were retained to help us evaluate and 9 structure a medical monitoring program and other 10 actions related to the possibility of bronchiolitis 11 obliterans. 12 Q. What was your role on that team? 13 A. I actually was not on that team. 14 Q. Did the team report to you? 15 A. I received periodic information from the 16 team, but I would not say the team reported to me, no. 17 Q. You were kept abreast of their activities. 18 A. Periodically. 19 Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 22. 20 (Exhibit No. 23 marked for identification.) 21 MR. WOODSIDE: I think this is 23. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) 23, thank you. This is 23 Bates stamped TM 005941 through 5947. Is this a 24 Tastemaker document called CFT-EHS Project: 25 Respiratory Protection Action Items? 0093 1 A. That's what the title is, yes. 2 Q. The first page says Toxicology, and there's 3 tasks with assignments listed below them. There's a 4 section on industrial hygiene, medical monitoring, 5 engineering and operations and management. Do you see 6 those? 7 A. Yes, I do. 8 Q. Under the section on Management on the last 9 two pages, there are several tasks that appear to be 10 assigned to K. Duros. That would be you? 11 A. Yes. I'm sorry, where? 12 Q. The last two pages, please. 13 A. Okay. 14 Q. Under the heading Management. 15 A. I see it, yes. 16 Q. Item No. 1, communicate safety board 17 charter and goals to work force assigned to Karen 18 Duros. Item 7, determine how to get the flavor 19 industry in examining this issue, assigned to Karen 20 Duros? 21 MR. MACE: Among others. 22 A. Among others. 23 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Of course. Item No. 8 and 24 9, both tasks assigned to Karen Duros and Ed Steiger. 25 So you had some role on some of the tasks? 0094 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Now, this would then, I take it, be a 3 document that would have been sent to you so you'd 4 know what the tasks of all the other team members 5 were? 6 MR. MACE: Objection. 7 A. I don't remember it, but that's possible. 8 Q. (By Mr. Crick) On the first page, under 9 the section toxicology, task 4 says, "Develop block 10 instructions for formula sheets, respirator use, 11 acetaldehyde, diacetyl, mustard seed oil, dimethyl 12 sulfide, regardless of exposure levels." Do you see 13 that? 14 A. I see where you're reading. 15 Q. Do you know if Mr. Ball, Miss Higley and 16 Mr. Hochstrasser actually completed that task? 17 A. I don't know. That's not reflected here. 18 Q. You understand that Janice Dees was 19 interested in research work concerning diacetyl? 20 A. I don't know. 21 (Exhibit No. 24 marked for identification.) 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 24. 23 Who is Lisa Schwinn? 24 A. To the best of my recollection, she was 25 Dr. Hochstrasser's administrative assistant. 0095 1 Q. How about Gary Wong? 2 A. I don't remember his position. It appears 3 he worked at our Lakeland, Florida, facility. 4 Q. Okay. Does this appear to you to be a memo 5 from Lisa Schwinn to Nancy Higley and others copying 6 Janice Dees on a chemical list review dated May 25, 7 1995? 8 A. It appears to be a printout of an e-mail 9 message. 10 Q. Thank you. It says, "Please review the 11 chemical list below for Janice Dees (Medical Services 12 Coordinator). She is interested in compiling a list 13 of chemicals that should be used for medical 14 monitoring program. Please respond with any additions 15 to the list." And below that she lists acetaldehyde 16 and among others, dimethyl sulfide and diacetyl. Do 17 you see that? 18 A. I see where you're reading. 19 Q. Were those chemicals used as part of the 20 medical monitoring program? 21 MR. MACE: Objection. 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Do you know if Janice Dees 24 is living? 25 A. I believe she's deceased. 0096 1 Q. Do you have any idea how she passed away? 2 A. No, I'm sorry, I don't. 3 Q. What was, you were aware that Janice Dees 4 was intimately involved in this task force in trying 5 to determine what products should be monitored, what 6 ingredients at the plant should be medically 7 monitored? 8 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 9 A. I don't know. That doesn't sound like an 10 accurate characterization. A lot of assumptions there 11 so no, I don't know that. 12 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Well, it indicates in this 13 Exhibit No. 24 that Janice Dees is wanting to use this 14 chemical list for the medical monitoring program. Do 15 you understand how the medical monitoring program was 16 to work? 17 A. The medical monitoring program was the 18 pulmonary function testing of the employees, and she 19 was a nurse. 20 Q. Do you understand how the medical 21 monitoring program was to work? 22 A. Not in detail, no. 23 Q. Do you understand why there would have been 24 a concern about which chemicals to look for -- 25 MR. MACE: Objection. 0097 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) -- why that would have been 2 important for a medical monitoring program? 3 A. Well, Dr. Higley was certainly -- part of 4 the overall project was Dr. Higley's piece of the 5 project which was to identify chemicals by various 6 classifications and determine whether, since there was 7 really no scientific information about exposures, 8 well, actually not much out there about permissible 9 exposures for most of the thousands of chemicals used 10 in the plant. So that was really something I 11 attributed to Nancy's role. 12 Q. That was one of the dilemmas you had was 13 that there were no permissible exposure levels known 14 for many of the chemicals in the plant? 15 A. That's correct. There were thousands of 16 chemicals, and there were no known exposure levels is 17 my understanding. 18 Q. And that's what you were charged to try to 19 find out with this dirth of information about so many 20 of the chemicals you used, what was it in the plant 21 that was causing problems, and that was a big task to 22 try to figure out? 23 A. Well, that was certainly a difficulty. I 24 think it's such an impossible -- my recollection was 25 we all thought, or the advisors actually told us it 0098 1 was quite an, nearly an impossible thing to do. 2 Q. In fact, you were advised not to study all 3 of the chemicals in the plant? 4 A. I don't know. I don't recall that. 5 Q. Let me show you Exhibit 25. 6 (Exhibit No. 25 marked for identification.) 7 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Is this an e-mail from 8 Nancy Higley to Janice Dees, cc'ing Karen Duros 9 regarding medical monitoring? 10 A. This is an e-mail printout, and that is, 11 medical monitoring is in the subject line, yes. 12 Q. Thank you. And this would have been an 13 e-mail that would have gone to you since you were 14 cc'd? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And you had the habit of reading your 17 e-mails? 18 A. Well, I've certainly tried to keep up with 19 them. 20 Q. The first e-mail at the bottom is from 21 Janice Dees to Nancy Higley, and it says, "I 22 understood you to say I would have some idea of 23 exposures and risks by the end of July. Are you and 24 the computer program ready to provide this info? If 25 no, when will you be ready?" Did I read that right? 0099 1 A. Yes, you read that sentence, two sentences 2 correctly. 3 Q. And Nancy Higley responded saying, "In 4 speaking with Jim Lockey, it is our professional 5 opinion that a risk assessment on all the chemicals is 6 a work-intensive effort that is unnecessary." Did I 7 read that right? 8 A. That's what the sentence says, yes. It 9 also says, "They're developing another approach." 10 Q. Absolutely. "We are developing another 11 approach that gets at the plant issues on a broad 12 basis rather than on an unmanageable 13 chemical-by-chemical basis." Did you ever direct or 14 are you aware of any direction that this chemical 15 diacetyl be specifically studied for its toxic 16 effects? 17 A. I don't know. 18 Q. Did you ever direct that diacetyl be 19 studied? 20 MR. MACE: Objection. 21 A. It would not be my practice to decide 22 what's -- because I'm not a chemist. I wouldn't tell 23 people what chemicals they should or shouldn't study. 24 I don't have that expertise. 25 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Given the fact that so many 0100 1 employees referenced butter flavoring or diacetyl as a 2 source of tightening of the chest or breathing 3 problems, can you explain to me today why did 4 Tastemaker not do a specific study on diacetyl? 5 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 6 A. Well, I don't know that there were so many 7 employees. I also don't agree that they -- I'm sorry, 8 you'll have to repeat what you said. What did you 9 say? 10 MR. MACE: Would you read it back, please? 11 MR. CRICK: Let me reask the question. 12 MR. MACE: Well, I'd like to have it read 13 back anyway. 14 MR. CRICK: I want to reask the question. 15 MR. MACE: All right. I want it read back. 16 (Transcript read by the reporter as 17 requested.) 18 MR. MACE: Thank you. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Go ahead and answer that 20 question. 21 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 22 A. As I said, your question was so many 23 employees, and I don't have information, first of all, 24 I don't know what so many employees means. I don't 25 have information there were lots of employees. I have 0101 1 seen several documents which I believe were the 2 medical monitor -- the questionnaire that a couple of 3 employees filled out where they, these employees 4 identified diacetyl among other chemicals as causing 5 some irritation. Our experts, there was never any 6 reason or information that came out of any of the work 7 that was done that suggested that diacetyl caused 8 long-term harm other than some irritation to 9 employees. There was never any reason, our experts 10 that we hired never recommended or suggested that we 11 focus on diacetyl. The focus was always on 12 acetaldehyde. 13 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Is it your testimony then 14 again today that acetaldehyde caused the bronchiolitis 15 obliterans among the employees at Tastemaker? 16 A. There was circumstantial evidence that 17 acetaldehyde was the likely suspect. To the best of 18 my recollection, there was never any conclusive proof 19 that it was acetaldehyde or any other specific 20 substance that caused bronchiolitis obliterans in any 21 Tastemaker employees. 22 Q. During the time you were at Tastemaker, did 23 Tastemaker agree and conclude that acetaldehyde caused 24 its employees to get bronchiolitis obliterans? 25 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 0102 1 You can answer. 2 A. No, there was no conclusion ever drawn or 3 ever concluded that acetaldehyde called bronchiolitis 4 obliterans that I'm aware of. 5 Q. (By Mr. Crick) In fact, are you aware that 6 there were claims brought against Givaudan -- or 7 excuse me, Tastemaker in workers' compensation claims 8 that Tastemaker had violated Ohio state safety 9 regulations? 10 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 11 A. I don't recall that. 12 (Exhibit No. 26 marked for identification.) 13 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 14 No. 26 -- I'm sorry -- yeah. I didn't pass it far 15 enough for you. This is a copy of a document from the 16 files of Frost Jacobs, now Frost Brown, in the name of 17 Mary McGee. It's a pleading filed with the Workers' 18 Compensation Industrial Commission of Ohio, Claims 19 Section. It's called Application for Additional Award 20 for Violation of Specific Requirement. And it's dated 21 January 1996. You were still with the company at this 22 time? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. You're aware now through reading this, does 25 this refresh your memory that Miss McGee made a claim 0103 1 against Tastemaker concerning her bronchiolitis 2 obliterans of the lungs, that the employer Tastemaker 3 violated several specific requirements of the Ohio 4 state regulations? 5 A. I understand that based on reading this 6 document, but frankly, it doesn't help me remember it 7 other than by reading the document. I don't really 8 remember this aspect of the workers' comp proceedings. 9 Q. Did Tastemaker pay those claims, pay that 10 claim? 11 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 12 A. I don't know. 13 (Exhibit No. 27 marked for identification.) 14 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 27. 15 Is this a letter from Robert Dimling to Mark Ferestad 16 dated March 24, 1998, regarding Mary McGee and others 17 and their claims? 18 MR. MACE: Also had an objection on Rule 19 407, 408. 20 A. I'm sorry, would you repeat your question? 21 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Is this a letter from 22 Robert Dimling of Frost and Jacobs to Mark Ferestad 23 regarding the workers' compensation claims of Walter 24 Vaske and others including Mary McGee? 25 A. That's what it says, yes. 0104 1 Q. It says blind carbon copy to Karen Witte 2 Duros, that's you? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. When I say Witte, did I say it correctly? 5 A. Witte. 6 Q. Witte, okay. If Mr. Dimling -- strike 7 that. Mr. Dimling was the attorney for Tastemaker; is 8 that right? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. And if he sent a blind copy, at least 11 according to this letter, then the likelihood is that 12 it did go to you; would you agree? 13 A. I would agree with that. 14 Q. And he says in his letter, "In response to 15 your letter dated March 18, 1998, Givaudan Roure 16 Flavors Corporation, Tastemaker's succeeding employer, 17 offers to settle the VSSR portion of each of the above 18 listed claims for the amount of $7,500 payable to each 19 claimant." Did I read that right? 20 MR. MACE: Same objection. 21 A. Actually it says, "payable to each 22 applicant," but yes. 23 Q. Thank you. Do you know as part of this 24 claim procedure, was there an investigation that was 25 performed by the State of Ohio Industrial Commission? 0105 1 A. I don't remember. 2 Q. You're not sure whether or not the State of 3 Ohio investigated safety violation claims concerning 4 your company? 5 A. I don't know. I don't recall. 6 Q. Do you know whether or not Nancy Higley and 7 others submitted affidavits to the State of Ohio 8 defending Tastemaker and its actions? 9 A. I don't know. 10 Q. Now, if Nancy Higley -- strike that. Let 11 me show you Exhibit No. 28. 12 (Exhibit No. 28 marked for identification.) 13 MR. CRICK: Did I already give you one? 14 MR. MACE: Huh-uh. 15 MR. CRICK: It's right here. 16 MR. MACE: Thank you. 17 Q. (By Mr. Crick) This is an affidavit of 18 Dr. Nancy Higley. Nancy Higley says, "I understand 19 that Walter Vaske may attribute his bronchiolitis 20 obliterans condition to exposure to acetaldehyde. 21 When I became aware of this issue, I conducted a 22 comprehensive review of scientific literature on the 23 subject of any relationship between bronchiolitis 24 obliterans and acetaldehyde and did not find any 25 report of association." Did I read that correctly? 0106 1 MR. MACE: Same objections. 2 A. Yes, that is paragraph 5 of the document. 3 Q. (By Mr. Crick) My question for you, does 4 -- as of the time that you left Tastemaker, was that 5 also your understanding that there was no proof of a 6 reported association between bronchiolitis obliterans 7 and acetaldehyde? 8 MR. MACE: Objection. 9 A. Say that again. 10 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Bad question. As of the 11 time you left the company, was that also your 12 understanding that there was no association between 13 acetaldehyde and bronchiolitis obliterans? 14 MR. MACE: Objection, asked and answered. 15 You can answer. 16 A. No. I don't think that would really be 17 quite accurate either. I mean, as I recall one of the 18 employees -- well, it's hard to say actually. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Well, what was your thought 20 when you left? Was there an association between 21 acetaldehyde and bronchiolitis obliterans? 22 MR. MACE: Objection. 23 A. The circumstantial evidence that the 24 company had pointed to acetaldehyde as the most likely 25 agent that would have caused bronchiolitis obliterans. 0107 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And so with that 2 understanding, did Tastemaker agree and satisfy and 3 pay the workers' compensation claims of Walter Vaske 4 and these other folks, or did Tastemaker oppose them? 5 A. I'm having a hard time with that 6 understanding. Well -- 7 Q. Let me ask it this way. When Walter Vaske 8 filed his workers' compensation claim claiming he had 9 bronchiolitis obliterans, if it was due to 10 acetaldehyde exposure, why did Tastemaker oppose his 11 claim? 12 A. I don't remember. 13 Q. Tastemaker did oppose his claim. Why did 14 Tastemaker oppose his claim? 15 MR. MACE: Let me just caution the witness. 16 We're obviously not waiving attorney/client privilege 17 to the extent you believe the question calls for that, 18 and to the extent it was the business judgment or what 19 was filed and public information, that's fine. But in 20 terms of attorney/client information, we're not 21 waiving the privilege. 22 A. Yes. Frost and Jacobs represented us in 23 those matters. 24 Q. (By Mr. Crick) So they would oppose you 25 without any direction from your, from their client? 0108 1 A. They would oppose -- 2 Q. Did Frost and Jacobs oppose workers' 3 compensation claims that were rightfully filed? 4 A. Well, I think you're getting into legal 5 strategy. 6 Q. I'm asking you. You're the client. If 7 acetaldehyde caused Walt Vaske's bronchiolitis 8 obliterans, why did Tastemaker oppose his claim? 9 A. I'm not -- I don't know. I'm not sure that 10 acetaldehyde caused Walt -- I'm getting the people 11 mixed up for one thing. I'm not sure that Walt Vaske 12 had bronchiolitis obliterans or that it was caused by 13 acetaldehyde. I simply don't recall all the facts. 14 Q. You understand there were some employees 15 that did make claims of bronchiolitis obliterans due 16 to exposure to acetaldehyde? 17 A. Yes, I understand that there were some 18 employees who filed workers' comp claims and claimed 19 that their exposure was due to acetaldehyde. My 20 recollection is the company did defend those claims 21 but did not defend them vigorously, because there 22 appeared to be a workplace relationship. And it 23 seemed appropriate that they go ahead and receive 24 benefits from the workers' comp system. 25 Q. Thank you. Can you explain then why did 0109 1 Nancy Higley sign an affidavit stating there was no 2 relationship between bronchiolitis obliterans and 3 acetaldehyde and filed that with the State of Ohio 4 Industrial Relations -- 5 A. I don't -- 6 MR. MACE: Objection, objection, 7 misstatement. You've inaccurately read and 8 mischaracterized the document. 9 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Do you know why she did 10 that? 11 MR. MACE: Objection. 12 A. No, I don't. 13 Q. (By Mr. Crick) That would have been 14 against your recommendations because it wasn't true? 15 MR. MACE: Objection. 16 A. (By Mr. Crick) Since I wasn't there in 17 1998, I wouldn't -- or January of 1998, I wouldn't 18 have had any business making a recommendation at all. 19 Q. And you wouldn't have recommended that she 20 sign that affidavit? 21 MR. MACE: Objection. 22 A. I can't say that. That would be 23 speculation at this time. 24 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did you ever direct that a 25 warning be given to Tastemaker's customers of 0110 1 acetaldehyde products that acetaldehyde could cause 2 bronchiolitis obliterans? 3 A. Keep in mind acetaldehyde is a raw material 4 that was used in the plant. Our workers were exposed 5 to acetaldehyde. But that isn't relative to the 6 flavor products that were actually delivered to the 7 customers. 8 Q. Did you ever direct that a product that 9 contained acetaldehyde be sold with a warning that 10 acetaldehyde may cause bronchiolitis obliterans? 11 A. Since I don't know that such a direction or 12 such a warning would be true, the answer to that would 13 have to be no. I'm not sure that's even true. 14 Q. All right. Now I'm not following you. 15 A. Well, you're asking about putting a warning 16 on a product, and since I don't know what the facts 17 are that might result in the need for any kind of 18 warning on a flavor product, it wouldn't be my role to 19 make directions about warnings that go on products. 20 That's just not something I worked on. 21 Q. Let me ask it this way. Did you ever 22 advise that any letters or a specific direction be 23 given to a customer that purchased an acetaldehyde 24 product from Tastemaker that Tastemaker employees had 25 developed bronchiolitis obliterans from exposure to 0111 1 acetaldehyde? 2 A. Okay. Tastemaker -- 3 MR. MACE: Objection -- 4 A. I'm sorry. 5 MR. MACE: Objection, and I'd like to have 6 it read back, please. 7 A. Again, Tastemaker employees -- 8 MR. MACE: Wait, I wanted to have it read 9 back. 10 A. I'm sorry. 11 MR. MACE: I wanted to have it read back. 12 (Transcript read by the reporter as 13 requested.) 14 MR. MACE: Objection, form. You can 15 answer. 16 Q. (By Mr. Crick) It's just a yes or no 17 question. 18 MR. MACE: Objection. 19 A. The answer is no, there wouldn't be any 20 reason to do that. 21 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did Givaudan perform any 22 studies to determine whether or not there is a safe 23 level of exposure by inhalation of acetaldehyde? 24 MR. MACE: Objection. 25 A. I don't know what Givaudan studies. 0112 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did Tastemaker while you 2 were there perform any studies to determine whether or 3 not there was a safe level of exposure to 4 acetaldehyde? 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q. I believe you already said that Tastemaker 7 did not do any studies to determine whether there was 8 a safe level of exposure to diacetyl? 9 A. I don't know. 10 Q. With regard to the claim of Walter Vaske -- 11 this is probably a good time to take a lunch break. 12 It's quarter to 1:00. Let me streamline my thoughts a 13 little bit for the rest of the deposition. 14 VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. Going off the record 15 at 12:50 p.m. 16 (Break in proceedings.) 17 VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the record at 1:35 18 p.m. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Miss Duros, we're still on 20 the record. We're on the record, and you're still 21 under oath. You understand that? 22 A. I understand that, yes. 23 Q. Before we broke for lunch, we were talking 24 about causes of bronchiolitis obliterans. You don't 25 have a specific report, and you're not aware of a 0113 1 specific report where the doctors, or Nancy Higley 2 specifically, concluded that acetaldehyde does cause 3 bronchiolitis obliterans, are you? 4 A. I'm not aware of a specific report that 5 concluded that. 6 Q. The doctors concluded that it was possibly 7 other chemicals at the plant that have contributed to 8 bronchiolitis obliterans in Tastemaker employees; you 9 understand that? 10 A. No. I don't believe they ever did conclude 11 that. I believe they concluded that there were a lot 12 of chemicals there, and acetaldehyde seemed to be the 13 most likely suspect, and most of the information 14 directed towards that conclusion, even though it was 15 never a very solid conclusion, I guess you would say. 16 (Exhibit No. 29 marked for identification.) 17 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 29 18 which is a March 29, 1996, letter from Dr. Baughman to 19 Lanahan Goodman, which is a document produced by Frost 20 Jacobs, your attorneys. You know Dr. Baughman? 21 A. I know of him. 22 Q. He did work for Tastemaker as well as for 23 some of the employees? 24 A. I'm not sure about that. He was the 25 employees' personal physician. I actually don't 0114 1 recall what kind of, what his relationship with 2 Tastemaker was. 3 Q. You know he was at the University of 4 Cincinnati just as Dr. Lockey? 5 A. That's what it says, yes. I didn't 6 remember that actually. 7 MR. MACE: Same objection as to hearsay and 8 foundation. 9 Q. (By Mr. Crick) In this letter, 10 Dr. Baughman is indicating that -- it's in regard to 11 Mary Sue McGee, and he's looking at the history and 12 the fact of Miss McGee's background and history as to 13 the cause for bronchiolitis obliterans, and he says, 14 "I am not sure whether the specific chemical 15 acetaldehyde has been clearly singled out as the agent 16 that causes this, but you tend to believe that this is 17 probably exposure to various compounds at the plant." 18 Did I read that sentence correctly? 19 A. Yes. I don't know what he was looking at, 20 but that is the sentence that is in the letter. 21 Q. And Dr. Lockey and Dr. Higley, neither of 22 them wrote a specific report that concluded that 23 acetaldehyde did in fact cause bronchiolitis 24 obliterans? 25 A. I don't know that for certain. 0115 1 Q. Okay. You're not aware of one? 2 A. I'm not aware of one. 3 Q. There were other chemicals besides 4 acetaldehyde that the company was looking at? 5 A. I don't know what you mean by looking at. 6 We had thousands of chemicals. 7 Q. As the cause of bronchiolitis obliterans, 8 ma'am. That's why we're here today. 9 MR. MACE: Objection. 10 A. The entire multipart program was designed 11 to consider a number of factors, most likely 12 acetaldehyde again, but one . . . 13 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did Joey Wallace work with 14 acetaldehyde? 15 A. I don't recall. 16 Q. Did Cliff Walker work with acetaldehyde? 17 A. I don't know. Employees in the plant moved 18 around a lot. They weren't really assigned to 19 specific areas or specific production processes, so I 20 don't know. They could have moved around a lot. 21 Q. I'm just asking you if you know if they 22 ever worked with acetaldehyde. 23 A. I don't know. 24 Q. Dimethyl sulfide, was that a chemical that 25 was researched also? 0116 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. Do you know what dimethyl sulfide is or how 3 it was used at the plant? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Let me show you Exhibit 30. 6 (Exhibit No. 30 marked for identification.) 7 Q. (By Mr. Crick) This was produced by 8 Tastemaker. It's called Respiratory Illness 9 Investigation Update, March 11, 1994. You're familiar 10 with that respiratory illness investigation; you were 11 somewhat a part of that? 12 MR. MACE: Objection, you can answer. 13 A. Well, apparently it was known by several 14 things. I don't think we called it that in some of 15 the other documents we've seen, but okay. 16 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Down below on the section 17 called industrial hygiene, it says, on the third line, 18 "Priority focus on dimethyl sulfide." Do you see 19 that? 20 A. Yes. 21 MR. MACE: Objection, rule of completeness. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) A list of other things too? 23 A. And a list of other things, yes. 24 Q. Nitrogen dioxide, allyl isothiocyanate? 25 MR. MACE: I just wanted to see if Steve 0117 1 could say it. 2 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Allyl isothiocyanate, 3 sodium sulfate, and dimethyl sulfide was the first one 4 listed. You saw that? 5 A. You read it correctly, yes. 6 Q. Did Tastemaker do any specific tests to 7 determine whether or not dimethyl sulfide caused 8 bronchiolitis obliterans? 9 A. I don't know. 10 Q. Dimethyl sulfide was used in Tastemaker's 11 butter flavorings? 12 MR. MACE: Objection. 13 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did you know that? 14 A. I don't know. 15 (Exhibit No. 31 marked for identification.) 16 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 31. 17 This is a document Bates stamped GIV-CA005790. It's 18 called Most Commonly-Used Compounds in Butter Flavors 19 for Microwave Popcorn, Golden Valley Microwave Foods, 20 December 11, 2001. 21 MR. MACE: Let me just note it's a 22 proprietary document under the protective order and 23 should be treated that way. 24 Q. (By Mr. Crick) I know you weren't there in 25 2001 when this document was written, but were you 0118 1 aware that dimethyl sulfide was an ingredient in 2 butter flavors? 3 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 4 A. No. 5 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Were you aware that it was 6 an ingredient in the products that were sold to Golden 7 Valley Microwave Foods? 8 MR. MACE: Objection. 9 A. No. 10 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did you ever give a 11 notification to Golden Valley Microwave that dimethyl 12 sulfide was an ingredient that was being investigated 13 as a possible respiratory illness causer? 14 MR. MACE: Objection. 15 A. I have no recollection of anything to do 16 with Golden Valley when I was employed by Tastemaker. 17 I think I know about it from the grocery store. 18 Q. (By Mr. Crick) So you didn't ever direct 19 any of your people in safety to actually contact 20 popcorn customers like Golden Valley to advise them 21 that there was an incident or incidents of 22 bronchiolitis obliterans at your plant? 23 MR. MACE: Objection. 24 A. Well, there's no real connection between 25 advising customers who buy flavor products and 0119 1 workplace exposures to employees who were using raw 2 materials that are used in those products. There's 3 just not the connection there. 4 Q. (By Mr. Crick) What did you base that on? 5 Did you do any tests to determine what the safe level 6 of dimethyl sulfide was? 7 A. Did I, no, of course not. 8 Q. Do you know, is there a safe level of 9 exposure to dimethyl sulfide? 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. What's the safe level exposure to diacetyl? 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. Did Tastemaker do any tests? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. Is that one of the tests -- the chemicals 16 where there is a permissible exposure level? 17 MR. MACE: What is what -- 18 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Diacetyl. 19 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 20 A. I don't know, but I believe in some of the 21 documents I reviewed, the answer is no. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Have you ever heard of a 23 company called Fritzsche Dodge & Olcott? 24 A. Fritzsche Dodge -- it is or was a flavor 25 company at one time. 0120 1 (Exhibit No. 32 marked for identification.) 2 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And did Tastemaker or 3 Givaudan acquire Fritzsche Dodge & Olcott? 4 MR. MACE: Objection. 5 A. I don't remember. That's going back a 6 little too far. 7 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 8 No. 32. It's a document that was produced to us by 9 Givaudan. This is a material safety data sheet from a 10 company called Fritzsche Dodge & Olcott, a unit of 11 BASF, K & F Corporation. You're familiar with BASF, 12 aren't you? 13 A. I've heard of BASF, of course. 14 Q. This is for the product called diacetyl. 15 You see that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. When this respiratory illness investigation 18 was going on, did your team contact Fritzsche Dodge & 19 Olcott about the diacetyl that it had sold to 20 Tastemaker? 21 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes, no 22 foundation. 23 A. I don't know anything about all the 24 elements of your questions there. 25 Q. (By Mr. Crick) When the research was going 0121 1 on about the possible causes of bronchiolitis 2 obliterans at the Tastemaker plant, did anyone contact 3 Fritzsche Dodge & Olcott about the diacetyl that it 4 had sold to Tastemaker? 5 MR. MACE: Objection, misrepresents facts. 6 A. First of all -- I'm sorry. I didn't know 7 Fritzsche Dodge & Olcott sold diacetyl to Tastemaker, 8 so I don't know. And I don't know the answer to the 9 rest of your question. 10 Q. (By Mr. Crick) I guess that begs a 11 question -- or let me ask this question. Was there 12 any instruction given to contacting the suppliers of 13 products -- 14 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 15 Q. (By Mr. Crick) -- to see what they knew 16 about the hazards? 17 A. I don't know, but it's my understanding 18 they're required to send, suppliers are required to 19 send MSDS sheets, so I would assume a company like 20 BASF would comply with that, but that's an assumption. 21 Q. My question is did you direct that anyone 22 in safety contact the suppliers of products to see if 23 they knew anything more about the hazards of the 24 products that they were selling to Tastemaker? 25 MR. MACE: Objection. 0122 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Were you aware that BASF 3 had performed an animal study on diacetyl in '93? 4 MR. MACE: Objection. 5 A. No. I don't know that. 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You didn't ask them? 7 MR. MACE: Objection. 8 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did you contact BASF? 9 A. No. I didn't know BASF supplied anything 10 to us. 11 Q. Did you look at any of the safety data 12 sheets? 13 A. I don't remember. 14 Q. Well, you see this -- 15 A. Any safety sheet ever? 16 Q. -- Exhibit 32 -- 17 A. No, I don't recognize this, if that's what 18 you're asking me. 19 Q. Look at Exhibit 32. 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. This was produced to us by your former 22 employer. It says Fritzsche Dodge Olcott, subsidiary 23 of BASF -- 24 MR. MACE: Objection. 25 Q. (By Mr. Crick) -- diacetyl. 0123 1 MR. MACE: Objection. 2 A. I understand that. 3 Q. (By Mr. Crick) My question is did you 4 contact BASF about its diacetyl? 5 MR. MACE: Objection. 6 A. No, I did not contact BASF about diacetyl. 7 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did you attend the August 8 24, 1995, meeting of the environmental health -- I 9 guess it was a seminar they had in August 24 of 1995? 10 MR. WOODSIDE: I'm sorry, Mr. Crick. I 11 didn't hear the first part of the question. What was 12 that -- 13 Q. (By Mr. Crick) I'll ask it again. Did the 14 environmental health and safety team periodically have 15 meetings to discuss what their function and role 16 should be? 17 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 18 A. I don't know. 19 (Exhibit No. 33 marked for identification.) 20 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 21 No. 33, and let me also show you Exhibit 34. 22 (Exhibit No. 34 marked for identification.) 23 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Exhibit 33 appears to be an 24 August 24, 1995, memo from Ed Steiger to a list of 25 people including Karen Duros, John Hochstrasser, Bob 0124 1 Pellegrino, Mike Davis and others regarding 2 environmental health and safety function at 3 Tastemaker. This is something that would have gone to 4 you, and you would have read in August of '95; is that 5 right? 6 A. I don't specifically recall it, but I 7 believe that I would have, yes. 8 Q. And Exhibit No. 34 appears to be a 9 PowerPoint presentation given at a meeting of the 10 Environmental Health and Safety Committee perhaps. 11 A. It appears to be a PowerPoint presentation 12 about environmental health and safety. I can't tell 13 from this what it was used for, and I don't recognize 14 it. 15 Q. Have you seen this document before? 16 A. Not that I recall. 17 Q. Okay. Well, we won't go through it then. 18 Dr. Lockey was an occupational medicine specialist at 19 the University of Cincinnati that Tastemaker retained 20 to assist with some studies at the plant; is that 21 right? 22 A. I'm not sure I would say to assist with 23 studies at the plant. He was retained to assist with 24 some occupational health initiatives. 25 (Exhibit No. 35 marked for identification.) 0125 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) What were those 2 initiatives? 3 A. Again, the occupational health, medical 4 monitoring and multipart program we were talking about 5 to address possible exposures to most likely 6 acetaldehyde and a connection to bronchiolitis 7 obliterans. 8 Q. And other chemicals. He wasn't asked to 9 only look at acetaldehyde, was he? 10 A. Well, he wasn't really asked to look at the 11 chemicals. He was asked to look at the patients and 12 medical results that came from the medical monitoring 13 program, as I recall. 14 Q. All right. Let me show you Exhibit No. 35. 15 Was Dr. Lockey hired under a confidentiality 16 agreement? 17 A. He did enter into a confidentiality 18 agreement with Tastemaker. 19 Q. And is Exhibit 35 a copy of that 20 confidentiality agreement? 21 A. Yes, it is. 22 Q. Why was it important for Givaudan to have a 23 confidentiality agreement with Dr. Lockey? 24 A. It's very customary actually to have 25 confidentiality agreements with anyone to whom the 0126 1 company could disclose confidential information about 2 products, processes, and, in addition, he would be 3 receiving a lot of personal information about 4 employees. And a lot of that's listed here, business 5 employees, organizations, facilities and so forth. 6 Q. Was Dr. Lockey ever given permission by 7 Tastemaker to write an article for a medical journal 8 about his findings of bronchiolitis obliterans at 9 Tastemaker? 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. Did you ever give him a release from his 12 confidentiality agreement to be able to write such an 13 article? 14 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes one was 15 needed. 16 A. Yeah, I don't know anything about any 17 publication of any articles by Dr. Lockey, with or 18 without permission. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) My question is did you give 20 release to Dr. Lockey so that he could write an 21 article about his findings about bronchiolitis 22 obliterans at the Tastemaker plant? 23 A. No, nor was I ever requested to. 24 Q. Did you work with Dr. Lockey? 25 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 0127 1 A. I had contacts with him periodically. 2 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Why did Dr. Lockey need to 3 meet with the chief attorney for Tastemaker? 4 A. Well, I'm trying to think if he ever met 5 with just me. He met with a number of people at 6 Tastemaker in connection with these programs. 7 Q. Why did Dr. Lockey need to meet with the 8 lawyer for Tastemaker? 9 A. I don't know. 10 (Exhibit No. 36 marked for identification.) 11 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Show you Exhibit 36. 12 Exhibit 36 is a November 2, 1995, invoice concerning 13 services provided by Dr. James Lockey to Tastemaker. 14 Shows it being approved for payment by John 15 Hochstrasser in November of '95. My question to you, 16 Ms. Duros, it indicates on his line for August 25, 17 1995, a meeting with Karen Duros. You're the only 18 person referenced in the meeting. Why did you meet 19 with Dr. Lockey? 20 A. I don't remember. 21 Q. Did you discuss with Dr. Lockey the work 22 that he was doing for Tastemaker? That's the logical 23 assumption. 24 A. Well, perhaps your logical assumption. I 25 don't remember. 0128 1 Q. Well, he billed for his time? 2 A. Yes, he did. 3 Q. I'm assuming you didn't talk about the 4 weather? 5 A. We might have. 6 Q. Did you discuss Dr. Lockey's work with 7 Dr. Lockey? 8 A. I believe some occasions I did discuss his 9 work with him. It's possible -- well, never mind, go 10 ahead. You ask a question. 11 Q. If you'd take a look at Exhibit No. 3. 12 A. Okay, my exhibits got out of order. 13 Q. You can look at my copy if you want. 14 A. Let me just look at my order. What is it 15 exactly? 16 Q. It's his report concerning Clifford Walker. 17 A. Okay. Okay. 18 Q. It was important that Dr. Lockey meet with 19 you apparently. Did you ask Dr. Lockey personally for 20 his thoughts about why people at your company were 21 getting bronchiolitis obliterans? 22 A. I don't remember. 23 Q. Dr. Lockey, if you look at Exhibit No. 3, 24 looked at Cliff Walker the day before his personal 25 meeting with you. Do you see that? His examination 0129 1 of Cliff Walker was August 24th, 1995. Your personal 2 meeting with him was on August 25th, 1995. Do you see 3 that? 4 A. That's what the documents appear, yes. 5 Q. Are you telling us that you don't know 6 whether or not Dr. Lockey told you that he had 7 examined or appraised an employee of Tastemaker who 8 had been diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans the 9 day before? 10 A. I don't remember the subject of a meeting 11 with Dr. Lockey on August 25th, 1995. 12 Q. Did you discuss with Dr. Lockey his 13 findings on any of the Tastemaker employees? 14 A. On that date? I don't remember. 15 Q. On any date. 16 A. I don't remember. 17 Q. You don't remember ever having a discussion 18 with Dr. Lockey about employees at Tastemaker having 19 bronchiolitis obliterans? 20 A. I'm sorry, I don't remember particular 21 conversations, no. 22 Q. Exhibit No. 3, Dr. Lockey's report 23 concerning Clifford Walker. On page 2, he noted that 24 Cliff Walker had breathing problems when he worked 25 around diacetyl. 0130 1 MR. MACE: Objection. 2 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Do you see that on page 2 3 of his report? 4 A. Well, again, diacetyl is paragraph one of 5 several paragraphs. 6 Q. Do you see that in his report? Do you see 7 that in his report? 8 A. I see what you are pointing to, yes. 9 Q. That was the day before your meeting. Are 10 you telling us that you don't know whether or not 11 Dr. Lockey told you about his examination of Cliff 12 Walker the very next day? 13 A. I don't remember the conversation with 14 Dr. Lockey on August 25th, 1995. 15 Q. Do you ever remember talking with 16 Dr. Lockey about Cliff Walker? 17 A. I don't remember, no. 18 Q. How about with -- about Joey Wallace? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. As a part of the work of this respiratory 21 illness committee, was an industrial hygienist hired 22 by Tastemaker? 23 A. An industrial hygienist was hired. I 24 wouldn't necessarily say it was part of this work. 25 Q. Who was hired? 0131 1 A. I believe that was Glenn Ingraham. 2 Q. Why was Glenn Ingraham hired? 3 A. I don't remember specifically but in part 4 to work for John Hochstrasser and do whatever 5 industrial hygiene people do. I'm sorry, I'm not sure 6 what the specifics would be. 7 Q. And what did Glenn Ingraham do for the 8 company? 9 A. Well, again he was the industrial 10 hygienist, and he worked for John Hochstrasser. I 11 don't remember the specifics of what his job . . . 12 Q. So Glenn Ingraham was hired in, somewhere 13 around 1995; you understand that? 14 A. I don't know the date. 15 Q. After you learned about the incident of 16 bronchiolitis obliterans with Janice Irick and Mary 17 McGee and Joey Wallace, Tastemaker hired a senior 18 industrial hygienist named Glenn Ingraham; is that 19 right? 20 MR. MACE: Objection. 21 A. Can you repeat that? There was a lot of 22 extra people that I'm not sure all that is connected. 23 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 24 No. 37. 25 (Exhibit No. 37 marked for identification.) 0132 1 A. Okay. 2 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Exhibit 37 is an 3 interoffice memo, appears to be from John Hochstrasser 4 to Dan Lesh, copying Karen Duros, regarding the 5 position of senior industrial hygienist evaluation. 6 It's May 3, 1995. 7 A. You read it correctly, yes. 8 Q. And it attaches the job description for the 9 person, and it looks like the fourth page of that job 10 description is the place for a signature up at the 11 top. 12 A. Several places for signatures, yes. 13 MR. MACE: What Bates number are you on? 14 MR. CRICK: 9581. 15 MR. MACE: Thank you. 16 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And it shows this job 17 description was approved by Karen Duros? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. And that's your signature? 20 A. K. W. Duros, yes. 21 Q. And down below where it says significant 22 duties and responsibilities -- by the way, this was 23 signed April of 1995? 24 A. That's correct. Well, it was dated April 25 1995. I don't know when I signed it. 0133 1 Q. Okay. But somewhere in that vicinity? 2 A. I would agree, yes. 3 Q. Among the significant duties and 4 responsibilities of this industrial hygienist was to 5 "Determine and evaluate real and potential chemical 6 and physical health hazards to which employees are or 7 could be exposed at their workplaces." Do you see 8 that? 9 A. That's the first bullet point under item 1 10 which is . . . 11 Q. I understand there were several, but that's 12 one of the duties of the new industrial hygienist? 13 A. According to this document, yes. 14 Q. Now, the first exhibit we looked at today, 15 Exhibit No. 1, was a 1993 memo of Mr. Hochstrasser. 16 You can look at my copy to speed things up. 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. It was a 1993 memo from Mr. Hochstrasser 19 about Miss Meenach Irick, Mr. Wallace. 20 A. Among other things. 21 Q. Yes. Why did it take two years for 22 Tastemaker to hire a senior industrial hygienist with 23 the specific goal of evaluating real and potential 24 chemical and physical health hazards to its employees? 25 A. I don't know. 0134 1 MR. MACE: Objection. 2 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Do you know who Roy McKay 3 is? 4 A. I know the name. 5 Q. Roy McKay was an industrial hygienist at 6 the University of Cincinnati that did work for 7 Tastemaker along with Dr. Lockey; is that right? 8 A. I know he was affiliated with UC, and he 9 was involved with this project. I actually didn't 10 recall that he was an industrial hygienist. 11 Q. Roy McKay reviewed the respiratory 12 protection plan that was being used at Tastemaker; is 13 that right? 14 A. I don't remember that. 15 (Exhibit No. 38 marked for identification.) 16 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 38. 17 This is an April 13, 1996, letter from Roy McKay to 18 Karen Duros. Up at the top there's some handwriting, 19 copy to Jerry Biscopink from KWD. Is that your 20 handwriting? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. In this letter from Dr. McKay, he reports a 23 summary of his observations about respiratory training 24 at Tastemaker and made some notes of problems that he 25 had observed. Do you agree with that? 0135 1 A. I'm sorry, I haven't read it all. I don't 2 know. Well, he certainly lists comments and 3 observations. 4 Q. Yes, he does. Among them he said that 5 there was a significant number of employees had not 6 seen the instruction or owner's manual provided with 7 the respirator. He said that the third and second 8 shift employees indicated that they did not have 9 access to replacement cartridges, filters and other 10 parts since the respirator equipment was locked up. 11 He said that a written cartridge and filter service 12 life policy was needed. And he pointed out some other 13 problems with the respiratory protection plan at 14 Tastemaker. You see that in the letter? 15 A. The second paragraph says prior to this 16 year, a respirator program was in place. It's not 17 clear to me whether he's talking about the respirator 18 program at that time or the prior one. 19 Q. He says on the next page then, "My 20 impression is that employees were often issued a 21 single sized respirator, large, without being given 22 the opportunity to preselect from several different 23 size face pieces." He said that, "A significant 24 number of employees coming to the fit test were unable 25 to pass simple leak check procedures to the respirator 0136 1 initially issued to them check." He said below, "It 2 was common for employees to come to the fit testing 3 session with damaged or dirty respirators." He made 4 all those comments in his letter to you; is that 5 right? 6 A. You've read those statements from page 2, 7 yes. 8 Q. And you, once you heard those comments from 9 him, endeavored to make sure that those problems were 10 corrected? 11 A. Well, I sent it to Jerry Biscopink. 12 (Exhibit No. 39 marked for identification.) 13 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 39. 14 Is Exhibit 39 your memo of April 19, 1996, to Paul 15 Farrell and Glenn Ingraham? 16 A. Yes, it is. 17 Q. And it's referencing Exhibit 38, Roy 18 McKay's letter to you of April 13, 1996. And you 19 asked in your memo for Mr. Farrell and Mr. Ingraham to 20 look at these issues and address the problems that 21 McKay raised. 22 A. Well, I asked them to respond to the 23 comments and observations that Dr. McKay raised. 24 Q. Absolutely, as a good employer would do. 25 You wanted to make sure that you were doing all the 0137 1 right things to make sure you had an adequate 2 respiratory protection program. 3 A. Of course. 4 Q. Now, did Dr. Lockey do an inspection of the 5 Tastemaker plant? 6 A. I believe he made at least a visit there. 7 I don't know if one would call it an inspection or 8 not, but he certainly visited the plant. 9 (Exhibit No. 40 marked for identification.) 10 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 11 No. 40. Is Exhibit 40 a copy of the memo concerning 12 Dr. Lockey's inspection of the Tastemaker plant? This 13 is dated August 9, 1995. It's from John Hochstrasser 14 to Jerry Biscopink with a copy to Bob Pellegrino, 15 Karen Duros and others. According to this memo, 16 Dr. Lockey conducted an inspection of the Tastemaker 17 plant and found issues of concern to him or things 18 that needed to be corrected, and he was advising 19 Tastemaker of what those things were; is that right? 20 A. I don't think that's really an accurate 21 representation of his, of the report here, no. It 22 says he toured the facility, and he makes 23 recommendations about exposures that require sampling 24 and monitoring. 25 Q. Okay. And among the places he called for 0138 1 sampling was the dust exposure at the Fitzmill? 2 A. That's No. 1. 3 Q. No. 6, exposures during open transfers of 4 chemical substances. You see that? 5 A. In the warehouse, yes. 6 Q. And the liquids department, No. 8, thought 7 there should be air sampling for general exposures to 8 vapors in the compounding room. You see that? 9 A. You've read that first part of No. 8 10 correctly. 11 Q. And spray dry, No. 10, he called for 12 exposure or monitoring of exposure to dust and 13 acetaldehyde in M-31. You see that? 14 A. Yes, I see that. 15 Q. No. 12 on the next page, he called for 16 monitoring concerning exposure to dust in a 17 blender/sieving/bagging operation because the employee 18 was exposed to dust when he used a compressor, when he 19 used compressed air to clean off powder deposits. You 20 see that? 21 A. You read part of it, yes. 22 Q. I'll read it all if you need me to. 23 "Exposure to dust in a blender/sieving/bagging 24 operation, employee was exposed to dust when he used 25 compressed air to clean off powder deposits in the 0139 1 ventilation exhaust hood. The use of compressed air 2 to remove powder should be forbidden since it 3 needlessly exposes the operator to excessive dust 4 levels." Did I read that right? 5 A. Yes, you did. 6 Q. Dr. Lockey made that statement or 7 observation during his visit to the plant. On No. 13, 8 Dr. Lockey said there should be monitoring concerning 9 exposure to general dust levels inside of building, 10 outside of the blend rooms, because dust is released 11 into the building when the blend room doors are 12 opened. Do you see that? 13 A. Yes, No. 13, yes. 14 Q. Could you explain to me why there were 15 these problems at the Tastemaker plant these several 16 years after it was discovered that there were people 17 from the plant who had been diagnosed with 18 bronchiolitis obliterans? 19 MR. MACE: Objection. 20 A. First of all, I don't know that there's a 21 connection between what you call these problems and 22 bronchiolitis obliterans. I will say, however, as a 23 part of the overall program, though, a number of 24 changes were made to the facility. Again, that was 25 part of the overall program in addition to medical 0140 1 monitoring was looking at the plant and making changes 2 to ventilation systems and also making changes to the 3 use of personal protective equipment by employees 4 where the expert determined that would be an 5 appropriate thing to do. 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did you meet with 7 Dr. Lockey in preparation for a meeting with Fragrance 8 and Extract Manufacturers Association? 9 A. I don't have a specific recollection of a 10 meeting with him for that, but I believe I did, yes. 11 (Exhibit No. 41 marked for identification.) 12 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 41 13 which is a bill of Dr. Lockey's from October 15, 1996, 14 showing a meeting that Dr. Lockey had with Karen Duros 15 and Nancy Higley on September 20th and then again a 16 meeting in Washington with Karen Duros and Nancy 17 Higley on September 27th of eight hours. That would 18 have been the meeting with FEMA? 19 A. I believe so, yes. 20 Q. What did you talk about when you were 21 meeting with Dr. Lockey in preparation for the meeting 22 with FEMA? 23 A. I'm sorry, I don't specifically remember. 24 Q. Why did Dr. Lockey go to a meeting with you 25 and FEMA in 1996? 0141 1 A. Tastemaker requested Dr. Lockey to go to 2 FEMA and meet with us because we wanted to inform FEMA 3 about the possible exposures of, to acetaldehyde and 4 the possible relationship between acetaldehyde 5 exposures and bronchiolitis obliterans and our 6 employees to enlist FEMA's help in asking questions 7 and helping us determine whether other flavor 8 manufacturers or other people in the industry might be 9 experiencing similar situations. 10 (Exhibit No. 42 marked for identification.) 11 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 12 No. 42. Is Exhibit 42 a September 24, 1996, memo that 13 you prepared regarding your briefing with FEMA? 14 A. It appears, yes, it appears to be a memo I 15 prepared before the meeting with FEMA. 16 Q. In preparation for the meeting? 17 A. I believe so, yes. 18 Q. Now, in this memo, under the discussion 19 points, near the bottom it says, "Based on his 20 understanding of information from the company, 21 Dr. Lockey believes that the workplace exposure is 22 probably not unique to Tastemaker." Did I read that 23 right? 24 A. Yes, you did. 25 Q. Below that it says, "Nancy to support with 0142 1 knowledge of chemicals used, products manufactured, 2 processes utilized." Did I read that right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. The word acetaldehyde is nowhere in this 5 memo, is it? 6 A. No, I don't see that. 7 Q. It was your understanding and your belief 8 in 1996 that the workplace exposure at Tastemaker was 9 probably not limited to or probably not unique to 10 Tastemaker; that was your thought too? 11 MR. WOODSIDE: Object, speculative. 12 MR. MACE: Objection. 13 A. That would call for me to speculate. I 14 don't know that much about the other flavor 15 manufacturers and their chemicals used and products 16 and so forth. 17 Q. (By Mr. Crick) The reason that you went to 18 FEMA was because there was the possibility that other 19 companies had comparable exposures, and you wanted to 20 make sure that they were able to protect their 21 employees too; is that fair? 22 MR. MACE: Objection. 23 MR. WOODSIDE: Object. 24 A. I would say that because people at our 25 company believed that other flavor manufacturers use 0143 1 similar raw materials in making their products and may 2 have plants similar to ours, that there was a 3 possibility that other companies, other flavor 4 manufacturers might be experiencing similar 5 situations. And we wanted to, again, ask FEMA to go 6 search that out and find out about it so that, so that 7 the entire industry would, yeah, of course protect its 8 employees if that were needed. 9 MR. WOODSIDE: Move to strike. 10 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You had an eight-hour 11 meeting with FEMA about this topic. Did you ever have 12 a meeting with any Tastemaker customers so that they 13 could be put on notice that they should take 14 precautions in their plants when using products that 15 contained these chemicals? 16 MR. MACE: Objection to the assumption 17 without evidence of an eight-hour meeting. Objection 18 to the form. 19 A. Yes, I don't believe the meeting, well, in 20 fact, I'm certain the meeting with FEMA was not eight 21 hours. I believe his bill has some travel time in 22 there. 23 Q. Okay. Well, then I'll ask -- 24 A. And customers don't, well, to my knowledge, 25 I don't know that customers -- let me restate that. 0144 1 The fact that Tastemaker uses acetaldehyde as a raw 2 material to make products that are sold to customers 3 doesn't have any relationship to what happens in 4 customers' plants. I don't know what happens in 5 customers' plants. I don't know whether they use 6 acetaldehyde or not. 7 Q. I move to strike that answer. Sorry. 8 A. That's okay. 9 Q. My question for you was you took the time 10 to go to Washington, D.C., and sit in a meeting with 11 FEMA because you were concerned, as a good citizen, 12 that other manufacturers of flavors might have 13 experiences like Tastemaker had at their plants; is 14 that right? 15 MR. MACE: Objection. 16 A. Yes. This was a workplace exposure in our 17 plant. 18 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection as before. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) My question then is, did 20 you ever invite customers of Tastemaker to a meeting 21 so that you could talk to them about bronchiolitis 22 obliterans? 23 MR. MACE: Objection. 24 A. I did not invite customers to a meeting to 25 talk about bronchiolitis obliterans. 0145 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Tell me what took place in 2 the meeting with FEMA in September of '96, please. 3 A. Again, I don't have a very good 4 recollection. I believe that this outline was 5 generally followed. Dr. Lockey was introduced, talked 6 about his qualifications and so forth. And I'm 7 forgetting the name of the FEMA representative who was 8 there -- Hallagan? 9 Q. John Hallagan. 10 A. And, again, I don't remember the specifics. 11 Really, my only recollection really is that he was 12 very appreciative of our coming to FEMA, and he did 13 agree that he would think about and take some steps to 14 talk with other flavor manufacturers in the industry 15 to, you know, ask them whether they were -- I'm not 16 sure, but to find a way to communicate to other 17 representatives in the industry. 18 Q. Did you provide FEMA with any of the 19 background data concerning the Tastemaker plant? 20 A. I don't remember what we provided him with. 21 Q. Did you provide Tastemaker with any of the 22 medical reports that showed specific employees of 23 Tastemaker and their diagnoses of bronchiolitis 24 obliterans? 25 A. Again, I don't remember -- 0146 1 MR. MACE: Objection, form. 2 A. -- what we provided at the meeting. 3 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You may have provided that? 4 MR. MACE: Objection to form. 5 MR. WOODSIDE: Object, speculate. 6 A. That would, yeah, I don't know. 7 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Well, what did you provide? 8 Did you provide any written papers to FEMA? 9 A. I don't remember providing written papers. 10 I know there was an oral discussion. I don't remember 11 written papers, no. 12 Q. But you told them the experiences you were 13 having at Tastemaker? 14 A. I believe so. 15 Q. Now -- 16 A. Or Dr. Lockey did. I didn't. 17 Q. Who was at the meeting besides you and 18 Dr. Lockey and John Hallagan? 19 A. I don't remember. 20 Q. Was there anyone else there? 21 A. Perhaps. 22 Q. Was Nancy Higley there? 23 A. Perhaps, but I don't remember. 24 Q. Dr. Hockey's bill for September 27 says a 25 meeting in Washington with Karen Duros and Nancy 0147 1 Higley. She probably was there? 2 MR. MACE: Objection. 3 MR. WOODSIDE: Object. 4 A. That would be a reasonable conclusion from 5 his bill. 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Do you recall, was the 7 meeting held at the FEMA offices? 8 A. I believe so. 9 Q. You know John Hallagan is an attorney? 10 A. Oh, thank you for refreshing my 11 recollection on that. I didn't recall that. 12 Q. Was there anyone from FEMA there besides 13 Mr. Hallagan? 14 A. I don't remember for sure, but I don't 15 think so. 16 Q. Did Mike Davis go to the meeting? 17 A. No. 18 Q. You know Mike Davis was on the board of 19 directors at FEMA? 20 A. I know he was on the board of directors at 21 some point in time. I don't really recall when. 22 Q. John Hallagan is an, was an employee of 23 FEMA; is that right? 24 MR. MACE: Objection. 25 A. I don't know his exact relationship. 0148 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Okay. You do know that 2 FEMA is a trade organization, and they're funded 3 primarily, if only, by membership dues from other 4 flavor associations, flavor companies? 5 A. I don't know the specifics about FEMA's 6 funding, no. 7 Q. Do you know how Mr. Davis happened to 8 become on the board for FEMA? 9 A. No, I don't. 10 Q. Now, did you ever serve in any capacity 11 with FEMA? 12 A. No. 13 Q. You said Nancy Higley was your 14 representative to FEMA. What did that mean? 15 A. Well, to my layman's, she went to a lot of 16 meetings with FEMA people on various issues. 17 Q. Okay. So did you speak at the meeting with 18 FEMA? 19 A. At this meeting, this meeting in September 20 of '96? 21 Q. Yes. 22 A. I don't remember, but I probably said 23 something. 24 Q. The intent of the meeting then was to tell 25 John Hallagan and FEMA what you had learned in these 0149 1 three years of investigating bronchiolitis obliterans 2 at the Tastemaker plant? 3 MR. MACE: Objection. 4 A. Well, yeah, I don't know that I would 5 characterize what we had learned in these three years 6 of an investigation, but it was certainly to inform 7 John Hallagan about our experiences with this 8 situation that appeared to relate acetaldehyde to 9 bronchiolitis obliterans in a number of our employees. 10 Q. Now, this meeting took place in 1996. We 11 saw from Exhibit No. 1 that this came to Tastemaker's 12 attention at least by 1993. Why did it take three 13 years to go to FEMA with this? 14 A. What came to Tastemaker's attention in 15 1993? 16 Q. Look at Exhibit No. 1. That's the memo 17 about Janice Irick and Joey Wallace and Cliff Walker. 18 You can look at my copy again. From February of '93, 19 and your meeting with FEMA was in September of '96. 20 Just wondering why did it take three years to go to 21 FEMA? 22 A. Well, at some point in time -- 23 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 24 A. At some point in time, someone at 25 Tastemaker -- and I don't remember who -- and it may 0150 1 have been more than one person -- believed that it 2 would be a good thing to discuss this with FEMA to, 3 you know, get some information or, you know, get some 4 questions at least asked of others in the industry. I 5 don't remember when or the specifics of, you know, 6 what led to that belief. I don't know whether it was 7 even a formal decision or conclusion. 8 Q. Who made the decision to go talk to FEMA? 9 A. I don't remember. 10 Q. Was that Mr. Davis? 11 A. I don't remember. 12 Q. You know that eventually FEMA did put on a 13 conference for flavor manufacturers about respiratory 14 protection in the flavoring workplace? 15 A. I recall that, yes. 16 Q. Did you go to that conference? 17 A. No. 18 Q. You understand that Tastemaker did send 19 John Hochstrasser and Glenn Ingraham to that 20 conference? 21 A. I don't recall what the date of that 22 conference was so . . . 23 Q. March of '97. 24 A. I don't recall who went or whether it was 25 Tastemaker or a successor organization that may have 0151 1 sent them. 2 Q. Let me show you Exhibit 43. 3 (Exhibit No. 43 marked for identification.) 4 Q. (By Mr. Crick) It's the letter from FEMA, 5 to FEMA members from Kim Prentice dated March 5, 1997, 6 and up at the top there's a fax transmission to Karen 7 Duros. So you learned of this FEMA conference in 8 March of '97; is that right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. It shows a fax transmission of the same 11 date, March 5, 1997, and up at the top in handwriting 12 it says cc John Hochstrasser, Glenn Ingraham. 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. And then I can't read what that other says, 15 "Okay, Mary"? 16 A. "Okay, Mary" -- Mary is my assistant, and 17 she would check it off when she sent them a copy. 18 Q. Indicating that -- this memo indicates that 19 there's going to be a FEMA seminar on a very important 20 topic of respiratory safety and the flavor and 21 fragrance workplace. It goes on to say that "Two 22 experts on workplace safety, Cecile Rose, M.D., and 23 John Martyny, Ph.D., would speak." Why didn't you let 24 Dr. Lockey free from his confidentiality agreement to 25 speak at that meeting? 0152 1 MR. MACE: Objection. 2 A. First of all, he called it a workshop, not 3 a seminar, and I don't know that Dr. Lockey was ever 4 invited to speak at the meeting. 5 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Was Dr. Rose -- 6 A. I didn't arrange the workshop. 7 Q. Was Dr. Rose or John Martyny in attendance 8 at your meeting with FEMA in September of '96? 9 A. No. I don't recognize those names. 10 Q. So Tastemaker never specifically even 11 consulted with Dr. Rose or with John Martyny? 12 A. Not to my knowledge. I've never heard of 13 them. 14 Q. Did you give permission to FEMA to disclose 15 to the conferees that Tastemaker had been, the company 16 found to have incidents of bronchiolitis obliterans at 17 its plant? 18 A. No. In fact, we asked FEMA to keep 19 Tastemaker's name confidential. 20 Q. Why? 21 A. Because we did not want to give our 22 competitors some information that they could use to 23 make noises about, you know, our facility possibility 24 being an unreliable source of supply, give them a 25 competitive advantage. 0153 1 Q. How would that have given them a 2 competitive advantage? 3 A. Because, again, if they were making 4 statements about Tastemaker's facility being an 5 unreliable source of supply, it might hurt our 6 reputation, for example. 7 Q. Did you ever tell anyone -- 8 A. In a commercial sense. 9 Q. Thank you. Did you ever tell anyone from 10 any of your customers that you were having this 11 problem? 12 A. I never told customers that we were having 13 -- I'm not sure what you mean by this problem 14 but . . . 15 Q. Well, let me ask you this -- 16 A. I didn't have discussions with customers 17 about the occupational health situation. 18 Q. Did Tastemaker ever do consulting for 19 customers on the topic of environmental health and 20 safety? 21 MR. MACE: Objection. You can answer. 22 A. I wouldn't characterize anything as 23 consulting per se, no. 24 (Exhibit No. 44 marked for identification.) 25 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 44. 0154 1 Exhibit 44 appears to be a memo from John Hochstrasser 2 to Bob Pellegrino with a copy to Mike Davis and Karen 3 Duros regarding environmental health and safety 4 opportunities. It's dated March 17, 1994. Is RCP 5 that's written in handwriting, is that Bob Pellegrino? 6 A. Yes, that would . . . 7 Q. And the handwriting in the upper right 8 where it says, "Please advise your thoughts, Bob," is 9 that Bob Pellegrino? 10 A. I believe so, yes. 11 Q. And up at the top where it says cc JAS 12 Hochstrasser, John Hochstrasser? 13 A. I see Hochstrasser all right. I don't know 14 what the JA or JAS or whatever that means, I don't 15 know what that is. 16 Q. Did you sit in the board of directors 17 meetings for Tastemaker? 18 A. Yes. Technically it wasn't called the 19 board of directors, though. 20 Q. Okay. Mr. Hochstrasser says in this 1994 21 memo, "Last year during my presentation to the board 22 of directors I was asked if I thought that there might 23 be business opportunities for Tastemaker in the EHS 24 field." You see that? 25 A. That's the first sentence, yes. 0155 1 Q. And that apparently was something that was 2 discussed that since you had this group of experts at 3 the Tastemaker plant that maybe they could offer their 4 services to other, to others outside the plant as a 5 way for making money for Tastemaker? 6 A. I think that was an assumption that this is 7 in any way related to the consultants and all of that. 8 I don't see that here. I don't think that's a valid 9 assumption to make from what this says. 10 Q. Well, he says, "I was asked if I thought 11 there might be business opportunities for Tastemaker 12 in the EHS field." What did that mean? 13 A. I don't know. EH and S stands for 14 environmental health and safety. 15 Q. Right. 16 A. Could mean any one of a number of things 17 that could fall into the environmental health and 18 safety field. I don't know. 19 Q. He says below, "When Leaf employees 20 experienced skin rash problems that they associated 21 with exposure to one of our products and when we 22 received a call from General Mills requesting exposure 23 control information due to a dermatitis problem, 24 possibly associated to employee exposure to one of our 25 butter flavors, we responded as if the exposures were 0156 1 to our own employees and extended every effort to 2 resolve the problems in a positive manner." Did I 3 read that right? 4 A. Yes, you did. 5 Q. He goes further to say, "The customers were 6 extremely pleased with our responses, and it appears 7 that business with at least one of those customers 8 could increase due to the efforts of EHS (Paul 9 Farrell) and regulatory affairs (Nancy Higley)." Did 10 I read that right? 11 A. Yes, you read that sentence. 12 Q. Did EHS ever go into that work to make 13 money for Tastemaker? 14 A. Go into what work to make money for 15 Tastemaker? 16 Q. Did EHS over provide environmental health 17 and safety work outside of Tastemaker for money? 18 A. Not to my knowledge, no, or at least not 19 for consulting fees, if that's what you mean. One 20 would say that their advice and help to a customer 21 might be useful in having good relationships with that 22 customer which could certainly increase sales 23 opportunities, if that's what you mean. 24 Q. You indicated earlier today that you did 25 not have any role with regard to the preparation of 0157 1 material safety data sheets; is that right? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Was that Nancy Higley's department? 4 A. I don't know. 5 Q. Do you have any idea who? 6 A. No, I'm sorry, I don't. 7 Q. Do you know how the safety data sheets were 8 put together? 9 A. No, I don't know. 10 Q. What research work went into putting them 11 together? 12 A. No, I don't know. 13 Q. Did you have any role with regard to what 14 labels were put on buckets, packages of Tastemaker 15 product? 16 A. No. I didn't know they were in buckets, in 17 fact. 18 Q. Did you know that Tastemaker sold liquid 19 products? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did you ever have any involvement with the 22 labeling that went on any of the packaging of 23 Tastemaker products? 24 A. Any involvement -- no. I suppose I may 25 have read one at a time or two, but no, I didn't have 0158 1 any involvement in labeling. 2 Q. Did you ever read a warning on a Tastemaker 3 product advising that acetaldehyde could cause lung 4 disease? 5 MR. MACE: Objection. 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did you ever read a warning 8 on a Tastemaker product that said that a 9 diacetyl-containing product could cause lung disease? 10 MR. MACE: Objection. 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Was there ever any 13 discussion within Tastemaker about putting more 14 explicit warnings on their packages? 15 MR. MACE: Objection. 16 A. I don't know. 17 Q. (By Mr. Crick) As general counsel, you 18 were never asked about that issue? 19 A. Not that I recall. Again, it's not my area 20 of expertise. 21 Q. Were there any other attorneys that would 22 have been consulted on the issue of labeling and 23 appropriate warnings? 24 A. If there were a need for that kind of 25 advice, we would have asked for assistance from 0159 1 outside counsel. 2 Q. And who did you use for outside counsel? 3 A. We used a variety of outside firms. 4 Q. Such as? 5 A. Well, you want the specific subject matter 6 area, or do you want me to just list our outside 7 counsel? 8 Q. On issues of safety, who would you have 9 contacted? 10 MR. MACE: Objection. 11 A. Well, again, it depends on the issue. We 12 used Frost and Dimling for certain work. We used Taft 13 Stettinius. I used Bryan Cave -- Taft Stettinius. I 14 don't remember how to spell it, I'm sorry. 15 MR. WOODSIDE: S-T-E-T-T-I-N-I-U-S. 16 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Do you know what "grass" 17 means? Have you ever heard that phrase or term? 18 A. It sounds familiar, but I don't know what 19 it means. 20 Q. When you hear this term "food grade," what 21 does that mean to you? 22 A. To me, again as a layperson, it means an 23 ingredient that meets some specifications that allow 24 someone to call it food grade. 25 Q. Now, if you picked up something, a package, 0160 1 and it said it was food grade, would you have a reason 2 to think that there might be a serious lung hazard 3 that could be involved from using that products? 4 MR. MACE: Objection. 5 A. I don't think there's any relationship 6 between food grade and lung conditions. 7 Q. (By Mr. Crick) If you heard the term 8 "generally recognized as safe," would you have any 9 reason to think that there might be a serious lung 10 hazard involved -- 11 MR. MACE: Objection. 12 Q. (By Mr. Crick) -- from a product that 13 contained that phrasing? 14 A. I can't answer that. It's too out of 15 context to any experience I have. 16 Q. What does that mean? 17 A. I mean, it's just words out of the English 18 language. I could look them up in a dictionary, and I 19 don't, you know, generally recognize that the -- 20 doesn't mean anything, really. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. I mean, I don't know if that means a 23 child's tricycle is generally recognized as safe to 24 ride or not. It could be anything. 25 Q. If you saw the phrase "generally recognized 0161 1 as safe" on a food packaging product, would you have 2 any reason to suspect that there might be a serious 3 lung hazard associated with that product? 4 MR. MACE: Objection. 5 A. I would relate that to more its edibility. 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You relate that more to its 7 edibility? 8 A. If I saw it on a food product? Yes. 9 Q. Now, if on that same food product there was 10 an actual health hazard to people using it, wouldn't 11 it be logical to think that there should be a warning 12 associated with that product? 13 MR. MACE: Objection. 14 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. 15 MR. MACE: Incomplete hypothetical, calls 16 for speculation. 17 A. It certainly calls for speculation, and I'm 18 not an FDA attorney. I don't know. FDA regulates 19 food, don't they? 20 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Just talking as a human 21 being, do you think that if there actually was a 22 health hazard associated with a product that said food 23 grade or generally recognized as safe that there 24 should be some sort of an instruction or warning on 25 the package? 0162 1 MR. MACE: Objection. 2 MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. (By Mr. Crick) As a human being, you don't 5 know? 6 A. It would depend on, again it would depend 7 on the context and what the product was and what the 8 health hazard was. 9 Q. Can you think of a good reason, in your 10 experience in flavoring as a vice president, as 11 general counsel for a flavoring company, as a person 12 who's purchased products before, can you think of a 13 good reason why, if a product is not safe to use, that 14 the manufacturer should not just say so on the 15 packaging? 16 MR. MACE: Objection. 17 MR. WOODSIDE: Object to the form of the 18 question. 19 A. That's just -- I can't answer that 20 question. I mean, diabetics aren't supposed to eat 21 sugar, but I don't think there's a warning on a packet 22 of sugar. 23 Q. Is sugar generally hazardous to most 24 people? 25 A. Not that I know of -- well, I don't know. 0163 1 One would wonder about that with the incidence of 2 obesity in this country, but I think we're getting 3 probably off the topic. 4 Q. Nobody ever consulted with you about 5 putting a warning on Tastemaker packages; is that 6 right? 7 A. I don't -- yeah, that's correct. I don't 8 believe anyone ever consulted with me about putting a 9 warning on Tastemaker packages. Of what? I assume 10 you mean end product being sold to consumers -- or, I 11 mean, to customers? 12 Q. Yes, yes. During the time that you were at 13 Tastemaker, did you ever release Dr. Lockey from his 14 confidentiality agreement so that he could publish 15 about his findings at Givaudan or at Tastemaker? 16 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. 17 A. No, I did not release Dr. Lockey from his 18 confidentiality agreement in regards to publication 19 nor was I ever asked to. 20 MR. CRICK: Why don't you give me a few 21 minutes, and then I'm probably done. Off the record. 22 VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record? We're off 23 the record at 2:44 p.m. 24 (Break in proceedings.) 25 VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the record at 2:50 0164 1 p.m. 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MACE: 3 Q. Ms. Duros, good afternoon. I wanted to ask 4 you some follow-up questions on some of the topics and 5 documents that Mr. Crick has shown you. You were 6 asked about Dr. Brooks. Was Dr. Brooks given full 7 access to all the available information? 8 A. Yes, he was. 9 Q. Let me show you what we're going to mark 10 for identification as Exhibit 45. 11 (Exhibit No. 45 marked for identification.) 12 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Exhibit 45 is a May '94 13 letter from Dr. Hochstrasser to Dr. Baughman, and 14 you're shown as being sent a carbon copy of that. 15 A. Yes, that's correct. 16 Q. And Dr. Hochstrasser is telling 17 Dr. Baughman to feel free to share with Dr. Brooks all 18 the information regarding the medical status of the 19 Tastemaker employees that he had seen. 20 A. That's correct. 21 MR. CRICK: Leading, objection. 22 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Is that consistent with your 23 memory of how Dr. Brooks was treated in terms of being 24 given all the available information? 25 A. Yes, absolutely. 0165 1 Q. Did Dr. Brooks ever identify diacetyl or 2 butter flavoring as a likely cause of any of the 3 respiratory issues? 4 A. No, he did not. 5 Q. Mr. Crick showed you Exhibit 20. Exhibit 6 20 was a June '94 report from Mr. Hochstrasser to you 7 and others, and it's about Dr. Stuart Brooks. And if 8 you go to the top of page 2, there's a report made to 9 you that Dr. Brooks could not identify if their 10 conditions were occupationally related. 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. I think you told Mr. Crick that Dr. Brooks 13 had mentioned about smoking and some other factors? 14 A. Yes. As I recall, when we looked at this, 15 when I looked at this memo before, he talked about 16 asthma. He talked about smoking. He identifies gum 17 arabic and enzymes as possible asthma-inducing agents. 18 That might be the only specific substances mentioned, 19 I believe. 20 Q. Nowhere in this report was there any 21 mention of diacetyl or butter flavoring, correct? 22 MR. CRICK: Leading. 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Was there any reference 25 to -- 0166 1 MR. CRICK: I'm going to make objections 2 quite a bit, so if you wouldn't -- 3 A. I understand. 4 MR. CRICK: -- mind taking a second. 5 A. Okay. 6 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Was there any reference to 7 butter flavoring or diacetyl anywhere in this memo? 8 A. No. There is not, in reference to diacetyl 9 or butter flavoring, flavorings in this memo. 10 Q. Is there a reference down under the 11 recommendations to involving local medical 12 professionals? Third to last paragraph. 13 A. Oh, yes. It does say that the study would 14 most likely involve local medical professionals with 15 guidance . . . 16 Q. And the University of Cincinnati, were they 17 local? 18 A. Yes, absolutely. 19 Q. Let me show you what was previously marked 20 as Exhibit 21 that was at Mr. Hochstrasser's 21 deposition. That's my only copy. 22 MR. CRICK: Well, I'd like to mark it here 23 too so we can -- not lose track of it. 24 Q. (By Mr. Mace) We're going to mark this as 25 Exhibit 46 that was also marked as Exhibit 21 at 0167 1 Dr. Hochstrasser's. 2 MR. WOODSIDE: Can I see it for one second? 3 MR. MACE: I'm sorry, yes. 4 (Exhibit No. 46 marked for identification.) 5 Q. (By Mr. Mace) That's a June 10, '94, 6 investigation update. I wanted to direct you over to 7 the Dr. Brooks site visit back at the second page. In 8 terms of the findings, could you read for us the 9 second to last bullet point? 10 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 11 A. "Implement a preventive medical program," 12 is that the one? 13 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Under the Dr. Brooks site 14 visit findings. 15 A. Oh, findings. I'm sorry. I was in 16 recommendations. 17 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 18 A. Okay, here we go. And I'm sorry, which one 19 again? 20 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Yeah, the second to last 21 finding. 22 A. "Identified gum arabic and enzymes as 23 potential causative agents." 24 Q. And again, anywhere in this update report 25 was there any mention of diacetyl or butter flavoring? 0168 1 A. Let me check to make sure. I don't see any 2 reference to diacetyl or butter flavoring. 3 Q. And under the action plan, over on the last 4 page, what was the first statement under the action 5 plan? 6 MR. CRICK: Objection to the form. 7 A. I'm sorry. The first statement of the 8 action plan is it implement Dr. Brooks' 9 recommendations. 10 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Mr. Crick also asked you 11 about Dr. Lockey. Was Dr. Lockey given full access to 12 all of the available information? 13 A. Yes, absolutely. 14 Q. Did Dr. Lockey attend some of the, I think 15 you called them cross functional team meetings? 16 A. It's my understanding, yes, I believe he 17 did attend a number of the cross functional team 18 meetings. 19 Q. Did Dr. Lockey ever identify diacetyl or 20 butter flavoring as a cause of bronchiolitis 21 obliterans or any respiratory injuries to any 22 Tastemaker employee? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Mr. Crick showed you Exhibit 40. That was 25 a document that, memo that was sent to you by 0169 1 Dr. Hochstrasser, sent to you and others, about 2 Dr. Lockey's visit. In paragraph 3, what was the 3 substance that was identified by Dr. Lockey? 4 A. Paragraph 3 talks about enzymes. 5 Q. Paragraph 10, what was being referenced 6 there? 7 A. Paragraph 10 talks about dust and 8 acetaldehyde. 9 Q. In paragraph 14, what substance was being 10 mentioned there? 11 A. Alcohol vapors and allyl alcohol. 12 Q. Again, in this report, Dr. Lockey's site 13 visit, was there any reference to diacetyl or butter 14 flavoring? 15 A. There is no reference to diacetyl or butter 16 flavorings in this report. 17 Q. Do you recall anything that Dr. Lockey 18 recommended that Tastemaker did not do? 19 A. No, I don't recall anything that Tastemaker 20 didn't do that he recommended. 21 Q. If you could turn to Exhibit 36. 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. Exhibit 36 was a, one of the invoices that 24 the University of Cincinnati sent to Tastemaker. And 25 Mr. Crick pointed out that there was a meeting 0170 1 referenced there, August 25th of '95. Do you see that 2 reference? 3 A. Yes, I do. 4 Q. Did you from time to time keep handwritten 5 notes when you had meetings with various individuals? 6 A. Yes, I did keep handwritten notes from time 7 to time. 8 Q. Go ahead and mark what we're going to call 9 Duros 47. 10 (Exhibit No. 47 marked for identification.) 11 Q. (By Mr. Mace) I'll ask you first, ma'am, 12 is that your handwriting? 13 A. Yes, it is. 14 Q. And what's the date that you have on that? 15 A. It says 8/25. 16 Q. And what's it say right after that? 17 A. "Meeting, Dr. Lockey, KWD," which would be 18 me. 19 Q. And on the middle of the second page, you 20 have something -- is that still your handwriting? 21 A. Yes, it is. 22 Q. You have something underlined with a colon. 23 What does that say? 24 A. "It says likely causes," colon . . . 25 Q. And under the No. 1, what do you have down? 0171 1 A. No. 1, it says "likely causes" -- well, it 2 says "total respirable dust." 3 Q. Okay. And then there's something, 4 "action," underlined. What does it say after that? 5 A. "Action, John, program to measure total 6 dust levels and respirable dust levels spray dry in 7 blending areas." 8 Q. Okay. At the bottom, what is that, what is 9 your language at the bottom there? 10 A. Very last line or two lines? 11 Q. Last two lines, yes. 12 A. It says, "And select worst case as ID'd 13 meaning identified by workers, capsium." In parens it 14 says peppers. I'm not sure I spelled that correct. 15 Q. All right. And then in terms of likely 16 causes, you told us 1. What do you have down for 2? 17 A. No. 2 is, well, it says "acid anhydrides." 18 Q. And what do you have down for 3? 19 MR. CRICK: I don't know where you're 20 reading. Where are we reading here? 21 Q. (By Mr. Mace) The third page. What do you 22 have down for 3? 23 A. No. 3 is capsium. 24 Q. What did you have down as 4? 25 A. Proteolytic. 0172 1 Q. And then you have some other language by 2 the margin, looks like a "why." I can't read, what's 3 your writing there? 4 A. I'm sorry -- oh, okay. That says "why now, 5 what's changed"? Then it says "volume" underlined. 6 "Increases overall." I believe the discussion may 7 have been what was changed or what was happening in 8 our facility that was different now from years of 9 operation of this facility without ever having cases 10 of bronchiolitis obliterans, and I believe we were 11 wondering whether it might have been an increase in 12 the volume of the plant. We closed another plant in 13 New York, called Middletown, New York, and moved a lot 14 of production to this facility. 15 Q. And what's your next statement there? 16 A. The next statement is "could be a peak, 17 start-up problems." 18 Q. And is that information Dr. Lockey was 19 giving you? 20 A. I believe so. 21 Q. Okay. And was there anywhere in your notes 22 that, from talking to Dr. Lockey that day where he, 23 there was any mention of diacetyl or butter flavoring? 24 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 25 A. I don't see any reference to diacetyl or 0173 1 butter flavoring in my notes. 2 Q. (By Mr. Mace) And what is your memory? Do 3 you recall Dr. Lockey ever mentioning diacetyl or 4 butter flavoring as being the cause to any permanent 5 lung injury to any of the employees? 6 A. No. I don't recall ever any indication of 7 anything to do with diacetyl or butter flavorings in 8 connection with these respiratory situations of 9 employees. Again, as I said earlier, really, the 10 focus of the information, that we had really focused 11 on acetaldehyde, and occasionally some other things 12 would come up as he describes here in terms of capsium 13 and these enzymes and things like that like you 14 mentioned. 15 Q. Mr. Crick asked you about the 16 confidentiality agreements with Dr. Lockey and 17 Dr. Brooks. Was it usual for Tastemaker to get 18 confidentiality agreements from third parties? 19 A. No, not at all. 20 Q. Why not? 21 A. Confidentiality agreements are very common 22 really in the industry is my understanding. The 23 products, processes are all by and large trade 24 secrets, so it's very common to have a confidentiality 25 agreement with anyone who might visit the plant and be 0174 1 exposed to products and processes, flavoring formulas, 2 that sort of thing. 3 Q. If you could turn to Exhibit 35 that 4 Mr. Crick marked. 5 A. Okay. 6 Q. Exhibit 35 was the confidentiality 7 agreement with Dr. Lockey. Now, reading through that, 8 I notice Tastemaker had the right to do various 9 things. You had the right to demand back documents. 10 To your knowledge, did Tastemaker ever do that? 11 A. No, not to my knowledge. 12 Q. Under paragraph 5, you had the right to 13 designate materials at attorney/client privilege. To 14 your knowledge, was that ever done by Tastemaker? 15 A. To the best of my recollection, no, we 16 never did that. 17 Q. And in terms of you were asked about 18 whether Dr. Lockey ever published or whether 19 Dr. Brooks ever published, in terms of what the 20 provisions were for that, I mean, what was your 21 understanding of how that would work? 22 A. There's certainly no prohibition against 23 publishing. I mean, they're researchers and 24 scientists. They could certainly publish, you know, 25 just as they normally would but, you know, they 0175 1 would -- let me read this. But certainly if their 2 publication would disclose confidential information 3 relating to Tastemaker, we would have to consent to 4 that disclosure. 5 Q. And did you have in paragraph 4 a provision 6 about that? 7 A. Let me read that again. 8 MR. CRICK: Objection to the form. 9 A. So you referred to 4? 10 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Paragraph 4, the agreement 11 Dr. Lockey has. 12 A. Yes. It says that Dr. Lockey would not 13 communicate confidential information to anyone other 14 than certain named persons or other persons -- well, 15 certain named persons or anybody else without getting 16 Tastemaker's prior consent. 17 Q. Okay. And what was the purpose of that 18 prior consent? 19 A. Again, to protect trade secret information. 20 Q. And that was, your agreement with 21 Dr. Lockey was in July, the date on that Exhibit 35, 22 what was that? 23 A. The date is, the date of the letter is July 24 10, 1995. I can't quite read the date he signed it. 25 It's July something, 1995. 0176 1 Q. Let me show you a document from a little 2 bit earlier than that. We'll mark Exhibit 48. 3 (Exhibit No. 48 marked for identification.) 4 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Ms. Duros, so this document 5 is some notes from a meeting on April 21 of '95, a 6 little bit earlier than the agreement with Dr. Lockey. 7 You see your name up at the top? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Janice Dees, Ray McKay, Susan Pinney, you 10 see those names? 11 A. Yes. 12 MR. CRICK: Object to the form, no 13 foundation. 14 Q. (By Mr. Mace) And in terms of item 2, can 15 you read what item 2 says? 16 A. Item 2 says, "Publicity UC has right to 17 publish but must clear through Tastemaker. I can't 18 read the next word. "Right to review production 19 information, scientific issues but cannot -- or cannot 20 say don't publish." 21 Q. And was that your understanding of what the 22 agreement arrangements were with Dr. Lockey? 23 A. Yes. 24 MR. CRICK: Objection to form, leading. 25 A. No prohibition against publishing. Just, 0177 1 you know, we would want the right to be able to make 2 sure that our confidential information wasn't 3 disclosed. 4 Q. (By Mr. Mace) To your knowledge, did 5 Dr. Brooks or did Dr. Lockey ever ask to publish 6 anything that Tastemaker refused to allow them to 7 publish? 8 A. No, not to my knowledge. 9 Q. Mr. Crick asked you about FEMA, F-E-M-A. 10 Whose idea was it to go to FEMA? 11 A. Someone at Tastemaker's, but I don't really 12 remember whose. 13 Q. And why, why was it that you were going to 14 FEMA? 15 A. Well, as I said earlier, FEMA is the 16 industry association, and we thought that would be a 17 good way of finding out whether other companies in our 18 industry who might have similar situations occurring 19 in their plants with their employees using similar raw 20 materials might be encountering bronchiolitis 21 obliterans or some other respiratory illnesses. And 22 we wanted to find out about or get some information 23 about that to determine whether this was more of just 24 a local situation at our plant or whether this was 25 something that might be affecting others in the 0178 1 industry. 2 Q. And were you one of the persons that went 3 to FEMA? 4 A. Yes, that's correct. 5 Q. And what was the report that you got back 6 from FEMA? 7 A. My recollection is the report we got back 8 was that none of the other companies had experienced 9 any similar situations. 10 Q. Let me show you what was marked as Exhibit 11 23 at Mr. Hallagan's deposition. 12 MR. CRICK: Let's mark it here too. 13 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Mr. Crick wants to label it, 14 so put Exhibit 50 on it. 15 (Exhibit No. 50 marked for identification.) 16 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Just so you have the 17 background, when Mr. Hallagan was deposed, he was 18 asked about this was an agenda of his meetings with 19 Drs. Rose and Martyny before the seminar was put on in 20 March of '97. And under the problem, you see his 21 three bullet points there, company X case, 22 International Bakers, no other companies? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Is that consistent with what your memory 25 was from the time that you were told by FEMA there 0179 1 were no other companies having similar problems? 2 MR. CRICK: Objection. 3 A. Yes, that's correct. We were told there 4 were no other companies that had similar problems. 5 MR. CRICK: Move to strike. 6 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Did you as part of the 7 Tastemaker management team looking into the 8 respiratory issues consider who disclosure should be 9 made to? 10 A. Yes. We did. 11 Q. And who did you feel that disclosure should 12 be made to? 13 A. Well, certainly one of the first and most 14 important disclosures was to our employees that were 15 working in the plants and, I believe, laboratories 16 also, people who were exposed to chemicals in general, 17 and in particular the chemical that was the most 18 suspect, acetaldehyde. I don't recall when but at 19 Steiger, and others gave a presentation to all of our 20 manufacturing employees. And as I believe also R and 21 D employees over several sessions within a day or two, 22 though, talking about workplace safety in general, 23 talking about the pulmonary function medical 24 monitoring program we had and why. I believe also we 25 -- I believe we specifically talked about acetaldehyde 0180 1 and the need to be very cautious about that and, I 2 believe, other kinds of plant safety, awareness. 3 Q. And were there others that you -- 4 A. Oh, yes, other disclosures -- 5 Q. Yeah, were there other people that you -- 6 A. -- yeah, certainly. 7 Q. -- felt disclosure should be made to? 8 A. Well, certainly when we make reports on the 9 required OSHA logs, that was public information. And 10 FEMA, of course. Complete disclosure to the doctors 11 and consultants and experts that were working with us. 12 Nothing else is coming to mind. 13 Q. And you said you left in Spring of '97? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. At the end of the day, what was your 16 understanding of the cause of the respiratory issues 17 at Tastemaker? 18 A. End of the day, my understanding was that 19 the circumstantial evidence and most likely cause was 20 exposure to acetaldehyde. It could not be 21 conclusively determined that it was acetaldehyde, in 22 part because there were no scientific journals or 23 anything like that that tied it to acetaldehyde. But 24 it's my understanding that that was the most likely 25 cause, that it was acetaldehyde, and the company took 0181 1 a number of steps to develop this program that 2 consisted of medical monitoring, improvements to the 3 plant, changes to the ventilation, enhanced worker 4 steps in the plant regarding personal protective 5 equipment and then a number of other steps that were 6 taken. 7 Q. During this period when you were looking 8 into these issues, was there any discussion about 9 individual susceptibility? 10 A. Yes, there was. I don't recall specific 11 occasions, but I do recall discussion that certain 12 individuals for whatever, personal -- may have 13 personal characteristics that would make them more 14 susceptible to contracting a respiratory illness 15 including bronchiolitis obliterans. 16 Q. I'm going to have you go do Exhibit 1 that 17 Mr. Crick asked you about. 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. Exhibit 1 was the internal memo from April 20 of '93 that Mr. Hochstrasser wrote. And you were 21 shown as being one of the people who met to discuss 22 these issues. The top of page 3, there's an entry for 23 December 18, '92. What do the first two sentences 24 there say? 25 MR. CRICK: Objection to the form. 0182 1 A. "December 18, 1992, Dr. Baughman examined 2 Mr. Wallace" -- I believe that would be Joey Wallace 3 -- "and reported in part, 'It appears that Mr. Wallace 4 has obstructive airway disease.'" Goes on to say, 5 "But the patient's asthma, if it did occur, was 6 probably not work-related. So it appears Dr. Baughman 7 thought he had asthma that was not work-related. 8 Q. In terms of the third page -- 9 MR. CRICK: Move to strike. 10 Q. (By Mr. Mace) -- the next page, on 11 February 2nd, '93, there's a reference to another 12 meeting of the task force, and in terms of Mr. Walker, 13 what was the report there? 14 A. Let's see, Mr. Walker -- it says, 15 "Mr. Walker does not have bronchiolitis obliterans 16 according to Dr. Baughman." 17 MR. CRICK: Move to strike. Delayed 18 objection to form. I didn't get a chance to make my 19 objection. 20 A. I'm sorry. 21 Q. (By Mr. Mace) In terms of the conclusions 22 at the bottom, what were the first two conclusions? 23 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 24 A. It says that, "There is no indication that 25 Miss Meenach Irick's bronchiolitis obliterans was 0183 1 caused or aggravated by her exposures to chemicals in 2 her workplace. No causative factors for Miss Meenach 3 Irick could be identified, and the second -- that was 4 the first conclusion. And the second conclusion is 5 that Messrs. Wallace and Walker had asthma that might 6 be exacerbated by their workplace exposure to chemical 7 substances. 8 MR. CRICK: Move to strike. 9 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Go to Exhibit 11, please. 10 Exhibit 11 was a letter that you were sent by 11 Dr. Colby in 1995, and Mr. Crick inferred that the 12 first page here was referring to Ms. Irick. Did 13 Dr. Colby report to you -- it's in the beginning of 14 the last paragraph on the first page -- that there 15 appeared to be pleural and subpleural scarring 16 reminiscent of what one sees in exogenous lipoid 17 pneumonia? 18 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 19 A. Yes, that's correct. 20 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Okay. And down at the 21 bottom of the page, in terms of the major pathologic 22 changes, did Dr. Colby report to you that it did not 23 appear, appeared not to primarily affect the small 24 airways? Was that reported to you? 25 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. Why do you 0184 1 ask all these leading questions? They're all leading 2 questions. 3 A. It does say that it appears not -- the 4 pathological changes in the lung, and I won't try to 5 pronounce some of those others words -- it appears not 6 to primarily affect the small airways. 7 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Okay. What did Dr. Colby 8 report to you back in June of '95 about the small 9 airways? 10 A. Based on his review of these slides that 11 the -- let's see -- small airways -- shows mucostatis. 12 Q. What did he report to you about the major 13 pathologic changes and whether they affected the small 14 airways? 15 A. It said they didn't -- 16 MR. CRICK: No foundation. 17 Q. (By Mr. Mace) What did you say, ma'am? 18 A. I'm sorry, it says that the major -- the 19 small airways were not affected. 20 (Exhibit No. 49 marked for identification.) 21 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Hand you what we've marked 22 as Exhibit 49. Were there other records from 23 Dr. Baughman and others on a number of these employees 24 that Mr. Crick did not show you? 25 A. Obviously this is dated in 1987. 0185 1 Q. And in terms of the investigation that 2 Tastemaker did and the records that were obtained and 3 the records on Miss Meenach Irick, was there a report 4 regarding relationship to general anesthesia? 5 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 6 A. Bear with me -- yes. It says she had 7 symptoms including severe cough and shortness of 8 breath that dated back to, well, having a fistula 9 repaired, and she was under general anesthesia. And 10 her coughing started when she woke up from the general 11 anesthesia. 12 MR. CRICK: Move to strike. 13 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Do you remember that there 14 were issues as to whether Miss Meenach Irick and some 15 of the other employees' various symptoms were related 16 to the workplace at the end of the day? 17 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 18 A. I recall that -- it was uncertain in a 19 number of cases whether, what the disease was, whether 20 it was bronchiolitis obliterans in some cases or 21 whether it was perhaps asthma or other respiratory 22 diseases. And there was uncertainty in some cases 23 about whether it really was related to the workplace 24 or not, perhaps related to other non-workplace 25 situations or perhaps in some cases -- seems to me I 0186 1 recall one place where there might have been a 2 question whether it was related to some other 3 employer's workplace. 4 Q. (By Mr. Mace) If you could look at Exhibit 5 2. Mr. Crick asked you about some statements in this 6 letter related to Mary Sue McGee. He didn't ask you 7 about the first paragraph. Is there a reference to a 8 specific compound or substance in the first paragraph 9 of the letter? 10 MR. CRICK: Move to strike the commentary. 11 Object to the form. 12 A. Yes. The first paragraph refers to, I 13 believe, an incident that I actually recall hearing 14 about, and that is that Mary Sue McGee experienced an 15 incident in the facility where she had an immediate, 16 an acute exposure to a large amount of acetaldehyde 17 when she was working on some process involving a tank 18 that had acetaldehyde in it. 19 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Show you a document we'll 20 mark as Exhibit 51. 21 (Exhibit No. 51 marked for identification.) 22 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Does that appear to be a 23 printout of an e-mail of yours back at Tastemaker? 24 A. Yes, it does. 25 MR. WOODSIDE: Did I miss Duros 50? 0187 1 MR. CRICK: I can't figure it out either. 2 MR. MACE: I'm just going by the labels 3 here. 4 MR. CRICK: I think he marked 50 and then 5 he marked 49, so now we're at 51. I think 50 was the 6 John Hallagan notes. And then we went backwards to 7 49, and now we're at 51. 8 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Is the e-mail below one that 9 you received from Janice Dees? 10 A. Yes, it looks like she forwarded to me an 11 e-mail that she originally sent to Dr. Higley. 12 Q. And in terms of Mary Sue McGee, what were 13 you informed about it? 14 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 15 A. Again, this relates to a report or 16 statement by Mary Sue that she was exposed to 17 acetaldehyde in February of '93 prior to her getting 18 her symptoms. 19 Q. (By Mr. Mace) The files of these workers' 20 comp claims that Mr. Crick referred to, those would 21 have been kept under the legal department at 22 Tastemaker? 23 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 24 A. I believe we kept files on the workers' 25 comp cases, yes. 0188 1 MR. MACE: Hand that back to me, please. 2 Q. (By Mr. Mace) 52. 3 (Exhibit No. 52 marked for identification.) 4 Q. (By Mr. Mace) You had mentioned you were 5 informed about acetaldehyde, Mary Sue McGee. Showing 6 you Exhibit 52 which is a report from the workers' 7 comp investigation on Mary Sue McGee and an affidavit 8 that Ms. McGee that's being reported on there. 9 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 10 Q. (By Mr. Mace) If you could look at the 11 middle of this paragraph at the bottom of the page, is 12 that consistent with what you recall in terms of what 13 you learned about Miss McGee in your investigation? 14 MR. CRICK: Object to the form, no 15 foundation, leading. 16 A. Well, she talks about some of the jobs that 17 she had and then, yes, consistent with what I recall 18 hearing about. She said her greatest -- "My greatest 19 concentration of acetaldehyde exposure came while 20 employed as a compounder." She talks about 21 acetaldehyde being an ingredient which was used in a 22 lot of compounds she prepared. 23 MR. CRICK: Move to strike. 24 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Did the company also obtain 25 documents from some of the treating physicians for 0189 1 these individuals as part of the investigation? 2 A. Yes, it did. 3 (Exhibit No. 53 marked for identification.) 4 MR. MACE: Give that to me when you're 5 done. 6 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Showing you what we've 7 marked as Exhibit 53, letter to the Bureau of Workers' 8 Comp from Miss McGee's treating physician. Does that 9 also make reference to acetaldehyde? 10 MR. CRICK: Object to the form, no 11 foundation, leading. 12 A. Yes. The doctor reports that in February 13 of '93, she experienced an intense exposure to 14 acetaldehyde, and she talks about this large 20-foot 15 tall tank, again which is consistent with what I 16 recall at the time. 17 Q. (By Mr. Mace) In terms of the workers' 18 comp claim forms, would those come into the legal 19 department? 20 A. I believe so. 21 (Exhibit No. 54 marked for identification.) 22 MR. MACE: I need that back, please. 23 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Let me show you another 24 document produced by Tastemaker, a claim form for Miss 25 McGee. You see her signature down at the bottom? 0190 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. And in terms of her description of 3 the substance and the details -- 4 MR. CRICK: Damond, can I have my objection 5 -- I object to the form, because I don't think she 6 knows Miss McGee's signature to be able to recognize 7 and authenticate it. No foundation. 8 A. I do see a signature that says it's Mary 9 Sue McGee. You're correct. 10 Q. (By Mr. Mace) In terms of describing the 11 substance and the details of what she was doing when 12 the disease began, what does it say? 13 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 14 A. That section of this report relates that 15 from February 1993 up to the present time, her job -- 16 "My job at Tastemakers" -- misspelled -- "has required 17 me to work with a chemical acetaldehyde when mixing 18 chemicals in the compounding room and when setting up 19 taste samples in the organoleptic lab." She goes on 20 to relate that over the last three years, her job 21 exposed her on a continuous basis to various levels of 22 acetaldehyde vapors -- sorry, "exposed me on a 23 continuous basis to various levels of acetaldehyde 24 vapors." The next sentence, the last sentence of that 25 section, says, "I was diagnosed with a lung disease 0191 1 called bronchiolitis obliterans in February of 1994." 2 Q. Let me ask you about Exhibit 3, which was a 3 document Mr. Crick showed you about Cliff Walker. 4 Under occupational history, I made an objection, rule 5 of completeness. Under occupational history on page 2 6 of that, you see the reference on page 2 under 7 occupational history that he'd worked at Grace 8 Chemical for a year filling hoppers with an unknown 9 powder chemical, had frequent chest colds during that 10 year of employment? 11 A. Yes, it does say that, yes. 12 Q. Are you aware of any -- 13 A. And he did not wear a respirator. 14 Q. Are you aware of any investigation that was 15 done to what substance he was exposed to at Grace 16 Chemical in relation to these chest colds he was 17 getting? 18 A. I don't know, no. 19 Q. And Mr. Crick asked you about the diacetyl 20 reference. Were there references to other substances 21 as well in this? 22 A. Yes. It says he worked, he noted the 23 following chemicals that would cause him to have 24 breathing problems. In addition to diacetyl, it says 25 garlic, toasted, and enzymes. 0192 1 (Exhibit No. 55 marked for identification.) 2 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Let me show you what we're 3 marking as Exhibit 55. We had seen some references in 4 Exhibit 1 to the task force meetings and some reports 5 that you were getting about what Dr. Baughman was 6 saying about various of these employees. I'm showing 7 you what we've marked as Exhibit 55. It's a January 8 '93 letter from Dr. Baughman on Mr. Walker. And do 9 you see that he's reporting -- he's reporting to 10 Tastemaker? 11 A. Yes. 12 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 13 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Who was he reporting to? 14 A. This says attention Carol Kiper. 15 MR. CRICK: Object to her just reading a 16 document she's never seen before. 17 MR. MACE: Which is what you had her do, 18 Counsel. 19 MR. CRICK: She's not my witness. She's 20 yours. Object to the form. She's your witness. 21 MR. MACE: I made similar objections. 22 MR. CRICK: There's rules. 23 MR. MACE: Well, not for what you were 24 doing. 25 Q. (By Mr. Mace) You see the statements in 0193 1 the second paragraph in terms of whether they could be 2 tied to work or not? 3 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 4 A. According to Dr. Baughman's letter, the 5 patient denied any previous history of lung disease, 6 and he states that his symptoms were gradual in onset 7 and could not really tie them with his work. 8 MR. CRICK: Move to strike. 9 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Look at Exhibit 4, please. 10 Mr. Crick asked you some questions about Mr. Roberts, 11 and he showed you this document. And was there a 12 reference to acetaldehyde in this document Mr. Crick 13 showed you? 14 MR. CRICK: What are we looking at? 15 MR. MACE: Exhibit 4. 16 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. This also 17 postdates her employment with the company, so no 18 foundation. 19 MR. MACE: So what was your basis for 20 asking her questions on that? 21 MR. WOODSIDE: He liked it. 22 MR. CRICK: I didn't know she wasn't with 23 the company then. 24 MR. MACE: All right. 25 MR. CRICK: You didn't tell me that before 0194 1 I got here. 2 Q. (By Mr. Mace) In the document about 3 Mr. Roberts that Mr. Crick showed you, is there a 4 reference to acetaldehyde, second to last paragraph? 5 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 6 A. According to this report from Dr. Lockey, 7 he notes that he -- "approximately six years prior had 8 intermittent accidental exposures to acetaldehyde and 9 that that caused acute shortness of breath." 10 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Were you ever informed -- 11 MR. CRICK: Just a second. Just as, for 12 the rule of completeness, I just want to read the last 13 sentence of that paragraph. "Also at work, certain 14 types of dust as well as butter mixtures will cause 15 shortness of breath." 16 MR. MACE: And that's the sentence you 17 read. I was including the sentence on acetaldehyde 18 which I asked you to include earlier. 19 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Were you ever informed about 20 Mr. Robert's prior work at Durkee and what he was 21 exposed to there? 22 MR. CRICK: No foundation. She's already 23 gone. 24 A. Not to my recollection, no. 25 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Mr. Crick asked you some 0195 1 questions about Mr. Vaske in Exhibit 5, and he asked 2 you over at page 9 regarding question 18. And he 3 characterized these responses as being difficulty 4 breathing. Was that what the question was limited to? 5 MR. CRICK: I object to your statement. 6 Which exhibit? 7 MR. MACE: It's exhibit No. 5, page 9. 8 A. This question number -- okay. Question 9 No. 18 of this confidential medical questionnaire of 10 Walt Vaske asks whether "at Tastemaker are there any 11 chemicals or substances that the employee works with 12 that seem to result in tingling, burning or stinging 13 of eyes, nose or throat or frequent sneezing or 14 difficulty breathing." 15 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Okay. 16 MR. CRICK: Move to strike. 17 Q. (By Mr. Mace) And Mr. Crick had read you 18 some of this long list of items that were listed under 19 18A, correct? 20 A. That's correct. 21 MR. CRICK: You want to read them again? 22 MR. MACE: Give that back to me. 23 (Exhibit No. 56 marked for identification.) 24 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Handing you what we've 25 marked as Exhibit 56 with regard to Mr. Vaske, a 0196 1 report from Mr. Calvert. 2 MR. CRICK: Preparatory objection. This is 3 dated 1999. You were already gone from the company by 4 then, weren't you? You weren't with Tastemaker then, 5 right? 6 A. Am I answering his questions or your 7 questions? 8 MR. CRICK: Well, if you were there at 9 Tastemaker, I'll have more questions. 10 A. I'm sorry? 11 MR. CRICK: If you were still at Tastemaker 12 in 1999, I'll probably have more questions. 13 Q. (By Mr. Mace) And do you see in the 14 document, the report from Tastemaker's file that 15 Mr. Vaske repeated references to acetaldehyde? 16 MR. CRICK: Objection to the form. 17 A. In this report, there are a number of 18 references to acetaldehyde. 19 Q. (By Mr. Mace) And do you see any 20 references in the report of Mr. Vaske to butter 21 flavors or diacetyl? 22 A. No, I don't. 23 Q. Who did -- you referred to Janice Dees 24 several times. Who did Janice Dees report to? 25 A. She reported to John Hochstrasser. 0197 1 Q. Handing you exhibit 57. 2 (Exhibit No. 57 marked for identification.) 3 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Report on Mr. Shea from '96. 4 Again, do you see references in the report of Mr. Shea 5 to acetaldehyde? 6 A. Under the paragraph which starts out chief 7 complaint, about a few lines down it says that, "The 8 patient was exposed to acetaldehyde fumes which took 9 his breath away." 10 MR. CRICK: I will make an objection to 11 form after the fact. I couldn't get it in. 12 A. I'm sorry. 13 Q. (By Mr. Mace) And again, do you see any 14 reference in this report from Dr. Lockey on Mr. Shea 15 to diacetyl or butter flavoring? 16 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 17 A. There's no reference to diacetyl or butter 18 flavors in this report. 19 (Exhibit No. 58 marked for identification.) 20 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Show you what we're marking 21 as Exhibit 58. It's a pathology report for Mr. Shea. 22 Ordering physician is Dr. Baughman. 23 MR. WOODSIDE: Did you give that 58? 24 MR. MACE: Yes. 25 Q. (By Mr. Mace) And in terms of the 0198 1 diagnosis, what do you see in the second reference on 2 the bottom? 3 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 4 A. This says "negative for histologic features 5 of bronchiolitis obliterans." 6 Q. (By Mr. Mace) I think you had mentioned to 7 Mr. Crick that there was some question as to whether 8 some of these people actually had bronchiolitis 9 obliterans or not? 10 A. Yes, that's correct. That's my 11 recollection. 12 Q. Mr. Crick had you look at Exhibit 16. This 13 was the report, the letter from Dr. Pinney that went 14 to Janice Dees in February '96, copy went to you. And 15 he went through with you those pages in the back where 16 several people had noted benzaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 17 onion, garlic, apples, sour cream, numerous things 18 including diacetyl. And in terms of the response that 19 that was responding to, was that again this question 20 18? 21 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 22 A. Yes. These pages at the back have a 23 reference to Q18 and Q18A. 24 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Which as you went over 25 before, that was the question related to burning or 0199 1 tingling of eyes, nose, throat, sneezing? 2 A. That document is also attached here. The 3 questionnaire is an earlier document as part of this 4 packet and question 18 is whether "at Tastemaker, are 5 there any chemicals or substances that you work with 6 that seem to result in tingling, burning or stinging 7 of your eyes, nose or throat or frequent sneezing or 8 difficulty breathing?" 9 Q. So again, that question, was that question 10 limited to difficulty breathing? 11 A. No, it is not. 12 Q. Okay. Mr. Crick had you look at Exhibit 13 21. And this was the May 1995 -- Miss Dees was 14 forwarding to you and others an attached article 15 abstract. And what was her description of it in the 16 second sentence that she sent to you? 17 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 18 A. She says it is -- "This is the only article 19 I can find that demonstrates a possible relationship 20 between dust and bronchiolitis obliterans or 21 emphysema. 22 Q. (By Mr. Mace) And her transmittal or any 23 discussions she had with you about it, did she mention 24 anything about diacetyl or butter flavoring? 25 A. No. My recollection of this study or 0200 1 situation was the dust. 2 Q. Exhibit 31, counsel showed you, and he told 3 you that, he used this document to say dimethyl 4 sulfide was used in butter flavors. In terms of item 5 8, do you see the reference to dimethyl sulfide? 6 A. Yes, I do. 7 Q. And in terms of the level at which it's 8 used, was there any reference to that? 9 MR. CRICK: Object to the form. 10 A. It says it's used at low levels for butter 11 flavors. 12 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Okay. And in terms of 13 exactly what percentages or amounts it's used in 14 butter flavors, is that anything you have information 15 on? 16 A. No. I wouldn't know that. 17 Q. Mr. Crick asked you about Exhibit 43, and 18 that was the notice that went out to FEMA members 19 about this workshop that was going to be put on in 20 March of '97. It referred to Dr. Rose and 21 Dr. Martyny. And Mr. Crick was asking you some 22 questions about whether you gave permission for 23 Dr. Lockey to speak there. Did Dr. Lockey ever ask 24 for permission to speak at that conference? 25 A. Not to me. 0201 1 Q. Did FEMA or anyone else to your knowledge 2 ask Dr. Lockey to speak at that seminar? 3 A. Not to my knowledge, no. 4 Q. Mr. Crick asked you several times today 5 about whether either you personally or whether you 6 directed anybody to go talk to any customers of 7 Tastemaker regarding the respiratory issues that you 8 were looking into, and you said you did not. Why not? 9 A. Well, again, the respiratory issues that we 10 were looking into related to employees in the 11 Tastemaker facility in Cincinnati who were using 12 certain raw materials and were exposed to raw 13 materials in their work in our facility. Exposures in 14 our workplace really don't have any logical 15 relationship to the, you know, exposures of all the 16 other materials that would be, you know, go into and 17 in the product. A flavor product that is sold to 18 customers, they're not the same material. They're not 19 the same exposure, so there's just no relationship or 20 reason to -- at least unless some expert would tell 21 us, and they certainly didn't, there would be no 22 reason to talk to customers about products that we 23 were selling them based on exposures in our own 24 manufacturing facility. 25 MR. MACE: I have nothing further for you 0202 1 at this time. Thank you. 2 MR. WOODSIDE: The record will reflect at 3 this point in time I have no questions. 4 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. CRICK: 5 Q. I've got a few. Would you mind looking at 6 Exhibit No. 44? And I'll just hand you my copy. 7 A. I have it right here. 8 Q. You have it in front of you? Mr. Mace 9 asked you about why you didn't talk to customers about 10 the findings of bronchiolitis obliterans in your 11 plant. He just asked you that the last question, and 12 you gave a long answer about different levels of 13 exposure as being the reason. 14 A. Well, if there's any exposure. 15 Q. Now, in Exhibit No. 44 we see that General 16 Mills contacted Tastemaker because they were having 17 problems with dermatitis due to employee exposure to 18 one of your butter flavors. Customers actually had 19 contacted Tastemaker in the past about problems they 20 were having with butter flavoring -- 21 MR. MACE: Objection, form. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) -- despite the fact that 23 their exposure level might not have been to pure 24 chemicals like in the Tastemaker plant; is that right? 25 MR. MACE: Objection characterization, 0203 1 foundation, calls for hearsay. 2 A. I don't believe that that is a clear, 3 correct conclusion based on just this which says that 4 "We received a call from General Mills requesting 5 exposure control information due to a dermatitis 6 problem possibly associated to employee exposure to 7 one of our butter flavors." 8 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And that butter flavor 9 wasn't made of pure chemicals; it was a mixture of 10 chemicals. It wasn't made of one single chemical; it 11 was a mixture of chemical, right? 12 MR. MACE: Objection, foundation. 13 A. I'm not an expert in making butter flavors. 14 I don't know what it was made of. 15 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You're not an expert in 16 butter flavors, but you do know from this document 17 that a microwave popcorn company contacted Tastemaker 18 about problems concerning irritation from a butter 19 flavoring product made by Tastemaker, correct? 20 MR. MACE: Objection, calls for hearsay, 21 foundation, characterization. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Says it right in the 23 document -- 24 MR. MACE: Objection -- 25 A. -- General Mills' cereal. I don't know 0204 1 about microwave popcorn. I like Cheerios. 2 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You know that General 3 Mills, from this document, contacted Tastemaker 4 because of irritation problems that it was having, 5 that it believed was associated with exposure to 6 butter flavoring? 7 MR. MACE: Objection. 8 A. It says dermatitis problem. 9 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Do you see that? It does 10 say that, dermatitis problems. So when you learned -- 11 MR. MACE: Objection, form. 12 Q. (By Mr. Crick) -- when you learned about 13 Cliff Walker and his complaint that he was having 14 breathing problems associated with -- that he 15 associated with diacetyl and butter flavoring, did you 16 contact General Mills? 17 MR. MACE: Objection, foundation, no 18 establishment that she was aware of that. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did you contact General 20 Mills? 21 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes. 22 A. Well, I would only have learned about his 23 comments about diacetyl and/or butter flavoring being 24 an irritant to him based on the medical reports that I 25 may have received at the time. 0205 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) So when you received 2 medical reports that indicated that Cliff Walker 3 thought he was having breathing problems associated 4 with being around diacetyl, did you go speak to 5 Mr. Walker? 6 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes she received 7 it. Haven't established that. No foundation. Move 8 to strike. 9 A. I did not speak directly to Mr. Walker. 10 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Mr. Mace showed you a 11 pathology report on Gary Shea. He showed you a 12 medical report concerning Gary Shea. He showed you a 13 medical report concerning Walter Vaske. Have you seen 14 any of those documents before today? 15 A. I don't remember. 16 Q. Now, you were asked numerous -- 17 A. I'm sorry, let me correct that. I saw them 18 yesterday. I don't remember in the past, though. 19 Q. By the way, are you being compensated for 20 your time today? 21 A. By whom? 22 Q. By Mr. Mace or by Tastemaker, Givaudan, 23 anyone? 24 A. No, not by any of those people. I'm still 25 being compensated by my current employer for today. 0206 1 Q. You're not charging a bill for your time 2 today? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Mr. Mace asked you questions about several 5 documents where there were references to breathing 6 problems associated with various chemicals. And I can 7 pick them all through, but we've heard about 8 acetaldehyde, gum arabic, garlic, toasted, various 9 ingredients that people at Tastemaker had claimed 10 they'd had breathing problems around? 11 MR. MACE: Objection to characterization. 12 A. I don't know that those documents actually 13 said they claimed they had breathing problems. They 14 described a variety of symptoms. 15 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Okay. People also made 16 claims concerning diacetyl and butter. You've seen 17 that in Mr. Walker and Mr. Roberts, in the interim 18 report I showed you a little bit ago. 19 MR. MACE: Objection. 20 Q. (By Mr. Crick) There were some people that 21 claimed chest tightening or breathing problems from 22 working around diacetyl or butter flavoring? 23 MR. MACE: Objection, foundation, 24 mischaracterization, move to strike. 25 A. Again, I would say that a comment about 0207 1 some symptom relating to those things in a medical 2 report is not a claim. But there were comments in 3 medical reports about symptoms possibly related to 4 exposure to a number of substances, some of which it 5 listed. 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And we know from Exhibit 14 7 that Mr. Hochstrasser thought that diacetyl was an 8 ingredient that should be looked at as a possible 9 causative agent? 10 MR. MACE: Objection, foundation, haven't 11 established, not her document, she's not on it, you 12 haven't shown she ever saw it before, move to strike. 13 A. What was the question again? 14 Q. (By Mr. Crick) We know from this document 15 that Mr. Hochstrasser thought that diacetyl was a 16 possible causative agent. 17 MR. MACE: Objection, mischaracterizes, 18 misstatement. 19 A. Well, it says appears to be a viable 20 candidate as a possible causative agent or one agent, 21 but it doesn't say agent of what. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You were asked a question 23 about that NIOSH abstract, the memo from Miss Dees 24 concerning the NIOSH report which was Exhibit 21. 25 A. Okay. 0208 1 Q. There was uncertainty at Givaudan, at 2 Tastemaker, as to what exactly it was that was causing 3 Tastemaker employees to develop lung disease; am I 4 correct? 5 MR. MACE: Objection. 6 A. There was uncertainty about whether a 7 number of employees had or what kind of lung disease, 8 if they had lung disease, and there was a question 9 about whether it was related to the Tastemaker 10 workplace and if so, what. 11 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And in this NIOSH study, in 12 this abstract on the second page, NIOSH said in 1995 13 -- and you said you saw this -- "They recommend that 14 when a specific etiology for a disease cannot be 15 found, all airborne dust exposures should be 16 controlled in the mixing room." Did I read that 17 right? 18 A. You read that sentence correctly, yes. 19 Q. You were asked some questions about 20 Mr. Vaske and his workers' compensation claim and the 21 fact that he had, or that there was a reference to 22 acetaldehyde in the report. Almost done. Nancy's 23 affidavit, I thought I had it pulled. I only have 24 that and another thing to go through. 25 MR. MACE: Might have it in a different 0209 1 pile. 2 MR. WOODSIDE: It would be Exhibit 28. 3 MR. CRICK: Can I see your copy of that? 4 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Would you look at Exhibit 5 28, please? 6 MR. MACE: Objection, foundation, hearsay. 7 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Nancy Higley in her 8 affidavit to the Division of Workers' Compensation 9 swore as the vice president of product safety and 10 regulatory assurance for Tastemaker that she did a 11 comprehensive review of scientific literature on the 12 subject of bronchiolitis obliterans and acetaldehyde, 13 and she could find no literature showing a 14 relationship between bronchiolitis obliterans and 15 acetaldehyde -- 16 MR. MACE: Objection. 17 Q. (By Mr. Crick) -- and that's consistent 18 with what you thought when you left the company; is 19 that right? 20 MR. MACE: Objection, mischaracterization, 21 foundation, a misstatement of the record, move to 22 strike. 23 A. First of all, it's not apparent on the face 24 of this document that it was for the workers' comp or 25 whatever it was you identified it as being for. And 0210 1 paragraph 5 does say that she found no scientific 2 literature describing or on the subject of a 3 relationship between bronchiolitis obliterans and as 4 acetaldehyde, scientific literature. But, again, the 5 circumstantial evidence based on the facts reported 6 from our facility made acetaldehyde the most likely 7 suspect, but that's not scientific literature 8 obviously. 9 MR. CRICK: What are we up to? 10 MR. MACE: 59. 11 (Exhibit No. 59 marked for identification.) 12 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 59. 13 Exhibit 59 is a two-page document. The first page is 14 the notice of hearing in the matter of Walter Vaske 15 before the Industrial Commission of Ohio, and the 16 second page is the record of proceedings -- 17 MR. MACE: Objection, no foundation, 18 hearsay. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) -- from June 7, 1996. You 20 see that it shows an appearance for the employer of 21 Zerbst. Hilla Zerbst was an attorney at Frost Jacobs; 22 is that right? 23 A. First of all, my document has three pages. 24 Q. Yes, ma'am. 25 A. I'm sorry -- 0211 1 Q. On the second page. 2 A. And you said the date? 3 Q. Second page, record of proceedings from 4 June 7, 1996, in the matter of Walter Vaske. And in 5 the middle of the document, there's a showing of an 6 appearance for the employer? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And it shows Zerbst, who I believe is Hilla 9 Zerbst from Frost Jacobs. 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. And it also shows Duros, which would be 12 you. 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. So you were actually in attendance at Walt 15 Vaske's workers' compensation hearing? 16 A. This proceeding, yes. 17 Q. And it indicates that the commission ruled 18 as followed: "It is therefore ordered that this claim 19 be allowed for bronchiolitis obliterans due to 20 exposure to acetaldehyde." Did I read that right? 21 MR. MACE: Objection, move to strike, 22 reading from documents. 23 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Did I read that right? 24 A. You read it correctly. 25 Q. Were you aware that following the hearing 0212 1 that Tastemaker objected to that order and had it 2 changed? 3 MR. MACE: Objection. 4 A. I don't remember that, actually. 5 (Exhibit No. 60 marked for identification.) 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Let me show you Exhibit 7 No. 60. Exhibit 60 was produced by Frost Jacobs. 8 It's a May 22, 1998, letter to John Havener, Staff 9 Hearing Officer -- 10 MR. MACE: Objection, she's gone by then, 11 foundation, hearsay. 12 MR. CRICK: Can I please finish my 13 question? Please don't interrupt. 14 MR. MACE: You interrupted me, Counsel. 15 MR. CRICK: Just don't be rude. 16 MR. MACE: I thought you were as well. 17 MR. CRICK: Says you, says me. 18 MR. MACE: Sauce for the goose should be 19 sauce for the gander. 20 MR. CRICK: Come on, let's finish up. I 21 tried not to overspeak you. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Exhibit 60 is a May 22, 23 1998, letter from Frost Jacobs' attorney, Joanne 24 Wissman Glass, to John Havener, Staff Hearing Officer, 25 Industrial Commission of Ohio, in reference to 0213 1 claimant Walter Vaske. Miss Duros, were you aware 2 that in May of 1998, counsel for Tastemaker wrote a 3 letter to the Industrial Commission of Ohio asking 4 that the order that I just showed you as Exhibit 59 be 5 changed to delete the reference to acetaldehyde in the 6 findings concerning Walter Vaske? 7 MR. MACE: Objection. 8 A. I don't remember that, but that appears to 9 be what this document says. 10 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Mr. Mace showed you some 11 records concerning Mary McGee and her exposure to 12 acetaldehyde, and you thought that was significant to 13 you in your thought process regarding what was 14 happening at Tastemaker. Do you recall those 15 questions? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. My question to you is why did you think 18 that the statements made by Mary McGee were 19 significant and you gave those credence, but the 20 statements of Cliff Walker did not have any 21 significance to you? 22 MR. MACE: Objection. 23 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And you don't even remember 24 them? 25 MR. MACE: Objection. 0214 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) How can that be? 2 MR. MACE: Objection. 3 A. I'm sorry, I don't remember which 4 statements of Cliff Walker you might be referring to. 5 Q. (By Mr. Mace) That he had breathing 6 problems when working around diacetyl. 7 MR. MACE: Objection, no foundation. 8 Q. (By Mr. Mace) Exhibit No. 3, we talked 9 about it numerous times today. Why don't we go to it 10 again. 11 MR. MACE: Objection, hearsay. 12 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Can you look at Exhibit 3? 13 Here it is. It's the August 24, '95, report from 14 Dr. Lockey concerning Cliff Walker. We're on the 15 second page. Dr. Lockey references that Mr. Walker 16 complained of having breathing issues around diacetyl. 17 MR. MACE: Objection, hearsay, 18 characterization, no foundation. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) My question to you is why 20 did you give credence to Mary McGee's statements to 21 the doctor, but you did not give any credence to Cliff 22 Walker? 23 MR. MACE: Objection. 24 A. I'm simply not familiar enough with the 25 medical history and medical diagnosis of the two 0215 1 people to compare why information about one would 2 carry a certain level of significance and another 3 would not. It's speculation on my part, and it's way 4 outside my area of expertise. 5 Q. (By Mr. Crick) The bottom line is during 6 the time that you were vice president and general 7 counsel at Tastemaker, there were people that raised 8 an issue of breathing difficulties around diacetyl as 9 well as other chemicals at the Tastemaker plant, 10 correct? 11 MR. MACE: Objection. 12 A. I believe that is a mischaracterization of 13 the situation at the time. No, that's not correct. 14 Q. (By Mr. Crick) There were people that 15 raised questions about their breathing around diacetyl 16 and butter and acetaldehyde and other chemicals that 17 were at the Tastemaker plant -- 18 MR. MACE: Objection, compound. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) -- we can agree with that? 20 MR. MACE: Objection to form. 21 A. Based on what I recall reviewing these 22 documents, and there were some medical questionnaires 23 filled out by employees that related some irritating 24 factors due to exposures to diacetyl, butter 25 flavorings and a bunch of other things. 0216 1 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And contrary to the 2 recommendations of NIOSH, you did not recommend that 3 your customers take precautions around all chemicals 4 that they were using -- 5 MR. MACE: Objection. 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) -- you didn't tell any 7 customers about it at all? 8 MR. MACE: Objection, mischaracterization, 9 assumes facts not in evidence, move to strike. 10 A. This does not say that one should notify 11 customers of anything. 12 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And you didn't notify any 13 customers of anything? 14 MR. MACE: Objection. 15 A. Is that a question? 16 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Yes. You did not notify 17 any customers of anything concerning findings of 18 bronchiolitis obliterans at the Tastemaker plant, did 19 you? 20 A. I had not, I did not have discussions with 21 customers about bronchiolitis obliterans. There was 22 no reason to. 23 Q. And you did not ask John Hochstrasser or 24 Nancy Higley to make any comment to any customers 25 about the fact that there were people diagnosed with 0217 1 bronchiolitis obliterans at the Tastemaker plant at 2 any time? 3 MR. MACE: Objection, assumes, objection to 4 form. 5 A. Again, I knew things that were happening at 6 our plant regarding raw materials that our employees 7 were exposed to. I just don't think a relationship -- 8 Q. (By Mr. Crick) And lastly -- 9 A. -- why there would be some reason to do 10 that. So no, I did not. 11 Q. Lastly, I hate to beat a dead horse, but 12 you commissioned no studies to show whether or not the 13 exposures to people using your products made for 14 customers were less hazardous than the exposures to 15 raw materials in your plant, did you? 16 MR. MACE: Objection. 17 A. I don't know what studies may have been 18 conducted by any number of people about whatever. 19 Q. (By Mr. Crick) You don't recall any -- 20 A. Customers, raw materials, products, I don't 21 know what studies may have been conducted about. 22 Q. You were very confident a minute ago that 23 there was a distinction between what the customers 24 used and what you used, your employees used at 25 Tastemaker -- 0218 1 A. Several distinctions. 2 Q. -- you're not aware of any tests that 3 showed there actually was a distinction, are you? 4 MR. MACE: Objection. 5 A. Any tests? 6 Q. (By Mr. Crick) Any test, any study, any 7 report that showed there was a lesser hazard to the 8 customers of Tastemaker than there were to the 9 employees of Tastemaker. 10 A. I don't know what kind of studies may have 11 been done about that topic. 12 MR. CRICK: All right. I don't have any 13 questions. 14 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. MACE: 15 Q. Ma'am, in terms of discussions with 16 customers, did any of these experts, Dr. Brooks, 17 Dr. Lockey, any of the experts that Tastemaker brought 18 in to assist on this project, make any suggestion to 19 you or, to your knowledge, anyone at Tastemaker that 20 you notify customers about anything? 21 A. No. There was never any suggestion that we 22 should be notifying customers about anything, to me 23 and to my knowledge, not to anyone else. 24 Q. And Mr. Crick again has asked you, you did 25 not make any such contacts. Why didn't you make any 0219 1 such contacts? 2 A. Well, again, I'm not an expert in this 3 field, and if the experts that we retained to help us 4 with this whole program didn't recommend that we do, 5 it wouldn't be responsible for me to run off and do 6 something like that. 7 Q. And in terms of this, Mr. Crick referred to 8 this list of substances that had caused irritation to 9 employees' eyes, nose, throat, or anything else, and 10 mustard seed oil, acetic acid, acetaldehyde, 11 butyraldehyde, there were quite a long list of things, 12 were there not? 13 A. There were -- yes, a long list of things. 14 There are thousands of chemical substances in that 15 facility, and many chemical substances are known to be 16 irritating to eyes and, you know, sneezing and itching 17 skin and those sorts of symptoms. 18 Q. And in terms of the various medical reports 19 Mr. Crick had used with you, some medical reports for 20 Irick, McGee, Walker, Roberts, Vaske and some others, 21 had you seen any of those before he showed them to 22 you? 23 A. I'm sorry. 24 Q. Yeah. Mr. Crick had showed you a number in 25 his questioning this morning and into the early 0220 1 afternoon on a number of these former employees, 2 various medical records. Were all of those things 3 that you had in fact seen before? 4 A. I believe I've seen a number of them 5 before. 6 Q. Okay. And had you seen all of them before? 7 A. I think I saw many of them just yesterday. 8 Q. But prior to that? 9 A. Prior to that, I don't have specific 10 recollection of many of them. I believe I probably 11 did, though. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. But I don't remember. 14 MR. MACE: I have nothing further for you 15 at this time. Thank you. 16 MR. WOODSIDE: I have no questions at this 17 time. 18 VIDEOGRAPHER: That concludes the 19 deposition at 4:12 p.m. 20 (Whereupon, signature was not waived and 21 the witness was excused.) 22 23 24 25 0221 1 CERTIFICATE 2 I, SHERRIE L. MERZ, Registered Diplomate 3 Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter and Certified Court Reporter, do hereby certify that there came 4 before me at the offices of Pohlman Reporting Company, 211 North Broadway, Suite 2040, in the City of 5 St. Louis, State of Missouri, 6 KAREN DUROS, 7 who was by me first duly sworn to testify to the truth and nothing but the truth of all knowledge touching 8 and concerning the matters in controversy in cause; that the witness was thereupon carefully examined 9 under oath and said examination was reduced to writing by me; and that this deposition is a true and correct 10 record of the testimony given by the witness. 11 I further certify that I am neither attorney nor counsel for nor related nor employed by any of the 12 parties to the action in which this deposition is taken; further, that I am not a relative or employee 13 of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto or financially interested in this action. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 15 subscribed my name this 10th day of March, 2006. 16 17 ________________________________ 18 SHERRIE L. MERZ, RDR, CSR, CCR 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0222 1 STATE OF _______________) ) SS. 2 COUNTY OF ______________) 3 4 COMES NOW THE WITNESS, KAREN DUROS, and having read the foregoing transcript of the deposition 5 taken on the 2nd day of March, 2006, acknowledges by signature hereto that it is a true and accurate 6 transcript of the testimony given on the date hereinabove mentioned. 7 8 ____________________________ KAREN DUROS 9 10 11 Subscribed to before me this __________ day of 12 _______________________________, 2006. 13 14 15 ____________________________ Notary Public 16 17 My commission expires: 18 _____________________ 19 20 21 22 (KAREN DUROS Deposition) TIMOTHY ARTHUR, et al. vs. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & 23 FRAGRANCES, INC., et al. Reporter: Sherrie L. Merz, RDR/CSR/CCR 24 Date Taken: March 2, 2006 25