IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO TIMOTHY ARTHUR, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. A-03-07157 INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC., et al., Defendants. TRANSCRIPT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS SUBJECT TO A STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF STEPHEN BLOCK, a witness, taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs, pursuant to Notice, on the 26th day of April, 2006, at the offices of INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC., 150 Docks Corner Road, Dayton, New Jersey, before TERRI HUSETH, RPR, of AAA Court Reporting Company, a Registered Professional Reporter, Certified in the states of Missouri and Kansas. APPEARANCES For the Plaintiff: MR. KENNETH B. McCLAIN MR. STEVEN E. CRICK HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN, PC 221 West Lexington, Suite 400 Independence, Missouri 64051 For the Defendant International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.: MR. FRANK C. WOODSIDE, III, M.D., J.D. MR. J. DAVID BRITTINGHAM MS. MARY JO MIDDELHOFF DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 For the Defendant Givaudan Flavors Corporation: MR. J. PHILIP CALABRESE SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P. 4900 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cincinnati, Ohio 44114 Videographer: MR. JOHN CLINE TBC VIDEO PRODUCTIONS, INC. PO Box 20 Greenwood, Missouri 64034 INDEX WITNESS: STEPHEN BLOCK PAGE: Examination by Mr. McClain 3 Examination by Mr. Calabrese 63 EXHIBITS: MARKED: 27 - June 2002 e-mail 13 28 - April 2004 e-mail 15 29 - e-mail with NEJM article attached 28 30 - IFF document regarding flavor 85032 32 31 - March 2004 e-mail 56 32 - Warning 58 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on record. This is April the 26th of 2006. It is 10:34. Will you please swear in the witness. STEPHEN BLOCK, a witness, being first duly sworn, testified under oath as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. McCLAIN: Q. Mr. Block, would you please state your full name for the record. A. Stephen Andrew Block. Q. Where do you live, sir? A. Manhattan Beach, California. Q. Mr. Block, were you at any time in your life an employee of International Fragrances -- Flavors & Fragrances? I'm sorry, let's start again. At any point in time were you an employee of International Flavors & Fragrances? A. Yes. Q. What was your job? A. I was senior vice president, general counsel and secretary. Q. And how long did you hold that position? A. I held the position of chief legal officer from December 1992 through the end of nineteen ninety -- of 2003. The title of senior VP/general counsel/secretary I had since January 1, 2000. Q. And in December of 2003, what did you do? A. I left the company on a daily basis. Q. Did you retire or did you -- A. Well, I retired from the position of general counsel. Q. Are you still an employee? A. Yes, I am. Q. What is your -- what is your position? A. I have no official position at the moment. Q. Are you engaged in any type of other gainful employment? A. I'm -- I serve on the board of a company and that's it. Q. What board do you serve on? A. The company's called Senomyx, S-E-N-O-M-Y-X. Q. And what business are they in? A. They are a -- they're in the flavor business, but they're -- they use the human genome to try to identify new molecules that will help reduce things like salt, sugar, and MSG. Q. Are they a competitor of International Flavors & Fragrances? A. No. They have no products at the moment. Q. And did you have to receive IFF's permission to serve on that board? A. Yes. Q. And did they grant you that permission? A. Yes. Q. Does IFF have any type of investment in that company? A. No. Q. Now, we're in New Jersey today. Did you live in the northeast at the time you were the chief legal officer of IFF? A. Yes, I did. Q. Where did you live? A. Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. Q. And when did you relocate to California? A. February 15th, 2004. Q. Mr. Block, were you the chief legal officer when IFF merged with BBA? MR. WOODSIDE: Object to the form of the question. A. Yes, I was. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) And was that in or about the year 2000? A. Yes, it was. Q. And when we say "BBA," we're referring to Bush Boake and Allen? A. Yes, Bush Boake Allen. Q. And they were before 2000 a competitor of International Flavors & Fragrances, isn't that true? A. They were in the same industry, correct. Q. All right. And subsequently, did IFF continue to operate the Chicago plant of BBA after 2000? A. For some period of time, correct. Q. And are you aware that at that plant they manufactured a butter flavor which was sold to a microwave popcorn plant in Jasper, Missouri? A. Yes, I was. After the acquisition. Q. Were you involved in the acquisition of a company called Arrowtech? A. No. Q. Are you aware that IFF acquired Arrowtech? A. No. Q. During your tenure with IFF, did you have any contact or communication with an organization called FEMA? A. Yes. Q. And FEMA is another acronym for the Flavor & Extract Manufacturers Association; is that true? A. That's correct. Q. What contacts or roles did you have with FEMA? A. When I first joined IFF, I was a member of its government relations committee and I later became a member of its board of governors. Q. And approximately what year did you become a member of the board of governors? A. I believe it was 1996. Q. And did there come a time when you served as the president of FEMA? A. Yes, I did. Q. When did you serve as president of FEMA? A. From May 2003 -- '4, I'm sorry, to May 2005. Q. And as a member of the board of FEMA, did you come to know a man by the name of Mike Davis? A. Yes, I did. Q. Who was Mr. Davis? A. He was I believe the president of the flavor division of Givaudan Roure now known as Givaudan. Q. Had he previously been in that same position at Tastemaker? A. Yes, he had. Q. And Tastemaker had been purchased to your understanding by Givaudan? A. Yes. Q. And both of those companies, Givaudan and Tastemaker, were competitors of IFF? A. Yes. Q. I want to take you to an item that was -- that while you were on the board was of some interest, both to you at IFF and to the flavoring industry, and that was the publication of a study in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled "Clinical Bronchiolitis Obliterans in Workers in a Microwave Popcorn Plant." Are you familiar with that report? MR. WOODSIDE: Excuse me, do we have an exhibit? THE WITNESS: It's Exhibit 11. MR. WOODSIDE: Thank you. MR. CALABRESE: Move to strike the preamble. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Well, do you disagree with my preamble? MR. WOODSIDE: Time out; time out. Since there's been some colloquy, I don't even remember what the preamble was. Could we state it again? MR. McCLAIN: Yeah. Would you just read my preface to -- in handing him Exhibit 11, please. (The requested portion of the record was read by the reporter.) MR. CALABRESE: I object and move to strike that statement. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) First of all, is there anything that I said that was incorrect? A. Well, I don't know because the question is the assumption of whether it was of interest is -- is sort of a conclusion without a question so ... Q. Wasn't it of interest to you? A. Yes, it was. Q. And wasn't it of interest to the board of FEMA? A. Yes, it was. Q. All right. Now, let's now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's look at Exhibit 11, if we can. This study reported findings of NIOSH regarding the outbreak of lung disease at a microwave popcorn plant; isn't that true? MR. CALABRESE: Object to the form, object to hearsay, best evidence rule. Mischaracterizes. MR. WOODSIDE: I know we're operating under the assumption that an objection made by one is an objection made by all. For the record, I would like to have a continuing objection to any and all references to use of this document with him so -- so I do not have to repeat it; is that acceptable? MR. McCLAIN: I guess I need to know what your objection to using it is. MR. WOODSIDE: Same thing. Same thing Mr. Calabrese said: Hearsay. MR. McCLAIN: Let's address it. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) You're familiar with this article? A. I have read the article. Q. You saw it at the time that you were a vice president and chief legal officer of IFF; is that correct? A. Yes, it -- yes, I did. Q. And also in your role as a board member of FEMA? A. I can't recall whether I actually saw it in that capacity. Q. It was discussed at FEMA? A. Yes, it was. Q. All right. MR. WOODSIDE: I don't object to any of those questions. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) All right. Now -- MR. WOODSIDE: I object to any reading of it as it's based on hearsay and I assume you'll allow me to have a continuing objection and then we can proceed. MR. McCLAIN: Yeah, you can have that objection. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) What did you understand this study to be about, Mr. Block? A. Well, I'm not a scientist, Mr. McClain, so I relied on scientists to explain the significance of the study to me. Q. I didn't ask you anything about significance. I asked what you understood it to be about. A. I understood it to be about certain things that happened at a microwave popcorn plant. Q. Okay. And was this the Jasper, Missouri, popcorn plant that had been supplied butter flavor by BBA? A. I can't recall whether the name of the plant was mentioned in the -- in the study or not so I can't answer that question definitively. Q. You did understand that to be the case? A. It was my understanding, but I -- it -- it -- there's no mention as far as I recall of the specific plant in the article. Q. The conclusion here, "The excess rates of lung disease and lung function abnormalities and the relation between exposure and outcomes in this working population indicates that they probably had occupational bronchiolitis obliterans caused by the inhalation of volatile butter-flavoring ingredients"; do you see that? MR. CALABRESE: Same objections. MR. WOODSIDE: Objection, you may answer. A. I see it, yes. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) And -- MR. CALABRESE: Also rule of completeness. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) And was that discussed with the board of FEMA? A. Was the conclusion discussed with the board of FEMA? Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes, it was. Q. And was it discussed internally at IFF? A. Yes, it was. Q. Now, you mentioned the fact that -- that you're not a scientist and you relied upon scientists to interpret this report for you; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. And principally you looked to FEMA to help direct you in regard to the science; isn't that true? A. No, it's not. Q. Let's take a break and we'll look at a document to help refresh your recollection about that. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Stand by, we're going off record. (Recess.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Stand by, please. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) I'm going to mark as our next exhibit an e-mail to you in June of 2002, Mr. Block. We'll mark it as Exhibit 27. (Deposition Exhibit No. 27 was marked for identification.) MR. CALABRESE: I'm sorry, is there another copy for me? Thank you. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) This is an e-mail. It's probably already been marked. I should have found it because we used it yesterday with Mr. Bates. Do you know Mr. Bates? A. Yes, I do. Q. Tom Bates. And this is an e-mail that was sent to you from Bates and he summarizes a lecture that he had attended in advance of the publication of the NIOSH study in the New England Journal of Medicine, in which he reports NIOSH was looking at diacetyl and 150 volatile organic compounds. And you write to him and say, "This is exactly the information that we have been getting through FEMA." So up until this time, FEMA had been monitoring NIOSH's investigation at the Jasper popcorn plant; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And based upon your e-mail and reading it now, isn't it true that you were relying upon FEMA for information regarding the conclusions of the study? A. FEMA was one source on which I was relying. That was what I was trying to get at in response to your original question. Q. All right. Now, in fact, we'll look at an exhibit that we will mark as Exhibit 28. (Deposition Exhibit No. 28 was marked for identification.) Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) FEMA continued to be out front on the issue of the meaning of the NIOSH studies and what they meant in terms of hazards to persons using the products of the flavoring industry; isn't that true? A. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "out front." Q. Okay. Well, let me show you what I mean by out front. It's in an e-mail that you wrote, Exhibit 28. A. I've read the e-mail. Q. Okay. A. At least the portion of the e-mail that I sent. Q. The words "out front" were your words, right? A. Yes. Q. And it was in IFF's interest to have FEMA out front on the issue involving disease at the Jasper popcorn plant and other popcorn plants around the country, true? A. It was -- it was in the interest of most members of the industry to have FEMA as a spokesman on a number of issues over the years. The purpose of being in the trade association and participating is to have that opportunity and have that -- that experience. Q. But in particular, in regard to the outbreak of bronchiolitis obliterans in relation to butter flavor, it was your view that IFF was best served by having FEMA out front on that issue particularly? MR. CALABRESE: Object to form. A. Again, by the words "out front," I have a feeling that you and I mean different things. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) I'm just using it exactly as you stated it. I've not defined it at all. I'm using your words. A. Well, let me define it for you. Q. Okay. Well, just answer my question first and then -- A. In the con- -- in the -- in the -- in the sense that FEMA would be the public spokesperson on the issue as opposed to any one company, that FEMA would be out front. It doesn't mean that FEMA would be leading any effort with respect to either litigation or response to any report. Q. All right. As you've defined it, FEMA was to be out front? A. I think I've answered the question. Q. Then the answer is yes? A. The answer is what I said it was. If the reporter would like to read it back, I'll have it repeated. MR. WOODSIDE: Let's not have any argument, gentlemen. THE WITNESS: Okay. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) No. The question is just as you defined it -- A. FEMA -- Q. -- FEMA was to be out front; is that correct? A. FEMA was to be the spokesperson; that's correct. Q. All right. Now -- now, in this same set of e-mails, it attaches -- MR. WOODSIDE: Excuse me, "this" is Exhibit 28? MR. McCLAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WOODSIDE: Uh-huh. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) It attaches some newspaper reporting that was ongoing in March of 2004, which was about the same time as the first popcorn trial; do you recall that? A. Do I recall the date of the trial or do I recall the attachment? Q. Good answer; bad question. A. I'm sorry. Q. No. You're not wrong, I was. Do you recall that the first popcorn trial, that is Eric Peoples' trial, was in March of 2004? A. I really don't. By that time I was no longer really involved day to day at IFF, so I can't specify or remember the exact date on which the first trial took place. MR. WOODSIDE: Mr. McClain, just so we're clear, even though I was there, I don't remember the dates. MR. McCLAIN: Well, I do, so -- and I was there, too. MR. WOODSIDE: You have repeatedly advised me that your memory is better than mine, but just so -- MR. McCLAIN: Right. MR. WOODSIDE: If you have some dates, so be it. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) The memo that we have in front of us is dated -- or the e-mail is dated March of -- of 2004, is it not? A. It's dated April 6th. April 6th, 2004. MR. WOODSIDE: April. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) April -- April -- April of 2004, I'm sorry. A. Correct. Q. And it attaches an April article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch; isn't that true? A. I would have to look at it. I haven't gone beyond the first paragraph of that e-mail. So may I have a moment to examine it? Q. Sure. A. Thank you. MR. CALABRESE: Objection to the hearsay. A. It appears to attach three different items which are headed "St. Louis Post-Dispatch." Whether they were articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch I can't tell or whether they appeared in the on-line version of the paper only, I don't know. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Okay. At the time did you read them? A. I probably did. I don't recall specifically. Q. Well, the first article deals with the Jasper, Missouri, workers, and then the second story that's attached deals with the Ohio popcorn workers; do you see that? A. Let me examine the second article for a moment. MR. CALABRESE: Continuing objection to hearsay. MR. WOODSIDE: To the extent you're going to ask him questions about the contents and ask him to read these, I will object on the basis of form, foundation, and hearsay, and I'll assume I have a continuing objection on that basis unless -- MR. McCLAIN: Yes, sure. MR. WOODSIDE: -- you indicate otherwise. A. The article appears to refer to a ConAgra plant in Ohio. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) It talks in the first paragraph about a man named Keith Campbell. It says, "A coughing fit jerks Keith Campbell's body tight, as if he's being strangled by invisible demons." MR. CALABRESE: Continuing objections. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) "When the spasm passes, he leans his head back into his worn orange recliner and closes his eyes to let the dizziness pass. Until two years ago, Campbell, 45, prided himself on being able to work 12-hour factory shifts and still take on odd jobs. These days, a trip to Wal-Mart leaves him exhausted. He doesn't have the strength to hold his baby grandson for long. 'They said it was safe, I thought it was safe,' Campbell said wearily, occasionally hacking into a handkerchief. 'It's a food plant. What could be dangerous?'"; do you see that? A. I hear you reading it. I haven't been following the language that you are reading. I assume that what you read appears in the article. MR. CALABRESE: Same objections. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) It goes on to say on the second page, page 92, "She referred Campbell to Dr. James Lockey, a Cincinnati pulmonary expert who had diagnosed several other cases of lung disease in workers who made microwave popcorn and flavoring ingredients. In June of 2002, Lockey confirmed Campbell's fears: He had bronchiolitis obliterans from breathing butter flavoring vapors at work"; do you see that? A. Again, I wasn't following it as you were reading it, I was looking at you and listening, but if that, in fact -- I assume that's what it says. Q. Here's the question to you, Mr. Block: When you received these, and it was addressed not only to you but also the articles were addressed to the FEMA board executive committee, did Mr. Davis tell you about what he knew about Mr. Campbell's case? A. No. MR. CALABRESE: Objection. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Or Dr. Lockey? A. No. MR. CALABRESE: Objection. Q. (BY MR. MCCLAIN) Or that Dr. Lockey had been a consultant to Givaudan for over -- MR. CALABRESE: Objection, mischaracterizes, form. MR. McCLAIN: I'm sorry, you know, you're a rude lawyer. You interrupt every time in the middle of a question. And the next time you do it, I'm going to stop the deposition and bring the witness back at your cost because I'm tired of being interrupted. You wait until I'm done with the question, I will allow you to object before the witness answers, but I'm tired of being interrupted. MR. CALABRESE: I apologize for interrupting. It's a practice I learned from Mr. Loudon in your office. MR. McCLAIN: Well, it's unfortunate that you took lessons from Mr. Loudon in anything, but you didn't learn it from me. MR. CALABRESE: I apologize. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) All right. Mr. Block, I apologize to you for subjecting you to that argument. Here's the -- back to my question. MR. McCLAIN: Can I hear my -- can I hear the last question I asked back so I don't miss my point? MR. WOODSIDE: It had to do with Mr. Campbell. MR. McCLAIN: Yeah, I know that. And it had to do with Mr. Davis. (The requested portion of the record was read by the reporter.) Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) For nearly ten years, by 2004, did Mr. Davis ever disclose that to you? MR. CALABRESE: Objection, form, mischaracterizes. A. Mr. Davis and I never discussed that issue. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Were there settings in which the FEMA board did discuss the general issue of bronchiolitis obliterans and its effect on people working with flavors? A. There was -- there were settings in which the board discussed the allegations of a connection between exposure in flavor ingredients -- I'm sorry, in flavor manufacturing -- not flavor manufacturing, popcorn manufacturing plants and -- and respiratory illness including bronchiolitis obliterans. But there was never any conclusion that, in fact, there was a causation. Q. Now, but my point is, not getting to the substance of what you did discuss, just my sense is that there were settings which, if Mr. Davis had chosen to disclose to you as IFF's representative on the FEMA board, that, in fact, this James Lockey that was being discussed in the newspaper was a consultant of theirs, he could have done so; am I right about that? MR. CALABRESE: Object to the form. Also argumentative and compound. A. Yes. I don't remember, however, Mr. McClain, whether Mr. Davis was still on the FEMA board at this time. I believe that he -- and this is just my recollection, that he was no longer a member but was, in fact, having a two-year service for his company in Switzerland. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) All right. But they -- but Givaudan had a representative on the board, did they not? MR. CALABRESE: Object to the form. A. I would assume so. I guess it must have been, at that time, if it wasn't Mike Davis, it was Nancy Higley. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Okay. And are you -- did Nancy Higley ever volunteer that James Lockey had been hired by Givaudan and, in fact, that she had extensive interactions with James Lockey in regard to bronchiolitis obliterans -- MR. CALABRESE: Object to form. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) -- at the Givaudan plant? A. That -- MR. CALABRESE: Sorry. Object to form. Also mischaracterizes, compound. A. I -- I mean, there was no discussion and I have no knowledge of whether, in fact, there were -- that there was the relationship that you outlined. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Well, we're going to come to some documents that I'm going to show you and ask whether you were ever told about various facts. A. Okay. Q. But my question is different than that right now. My question to you is: Were there settings in which, because of the nature of the discussion, that it would have been possible for a Givaudan representative, whether it was Higley or Davis, to disclose to you that, in fact, James Lockey, the person diagnosing bronchiolitis obliterans in Ohio, had been a consultant to them? MR. CALABRESE: Object to form. Also mischaracterizes. Assumes. A. It's a very -- it's sort of a very subjective question. It -- it obviously would depend upon the nature of the discussion and -- and how it came up. So it's hard for me to answer that. I really -- I really can say I can't recall to be honest with you. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) I understand. But the point is you would have been interested in that information; am I right? MR. CALABRESE: Objection. A. Depends on the context whether I would have been interested. It all depends on -- on how it would have been brought up, in what context we were discussing the issue. I don't mean to be evasive in any way. It's just that the question is a little bit broad so it's hard for me to -- to really answer it precisely. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Well, Mr. Block, let's get right down to it. While you were serving on the FEMA board, you were interested in protecting worker health, were you not? A. Absolutely. Q. Any information that you had about the nature and source of any hazard to workers, whether it was your own workers or to customers, would have been of interest to you? MR. CALABRESE: Object to the form. A. Yes. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Your job, not only on the FEMA board but also at IFF, was to protect the company from a legal standpoint; am I correct? A. Among other things, correct. Q. All right. And so any information that was being generated about ways in which you could protect the company from legal liability certainly would have been of interest to you? A. Correct. Q. And just to bring it full circle: No one from -- no one from Givaudan told you that James Lockey had been a consultant to them or that they had bronchiolitis obliterans in their own plant; am I right about that? MR. CALABRESE: Object to form, it mischaracterizes, assumes facts not in evidence. A. During this period, no. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Now, let me show you what we'll mark as Exhibit 29. THE WITNESS: Excuse me, do you mind if I take a sip of water? MR. McCLAIN: Oh, no, go ahead. And if you need a break at any point, let me know. THE WITNESS: I might if I keep drinking so much water. MR. McCLAIN: No, and we'll edit all that out. Here. THE WITNESS: Thank you. (Deposition Exhibit No. 29 was marked for identification.) Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Now, this brings us back to the New England Journal of Medicine article and FEMA's role in regard to publicity following its publication. A. May I read the article -- Q. Absolutely. A. -- and the e-mail before it? Q. I just gave a prefatory statement of what the e-mail is about. A. Yes. I received this e-mail. Obviously my name is on it. I don't recall it, but since my name is on it, I assume I received it. Q. It says several things that I want to go over with you in regard to the press release which FEMA had formulated to release for the -- to coincide with the release of the New England Journal of Medicine report. It says in the first paragraph, "It's unacceptable that workers handling food ingredients at the popcorn plant in Jasper, Missouri, were not shielded from harm." Did you approve this statement which seems to blame the popcorn plant for this incident? MR. CALABRESE: Object to the hearsay, object to the form. A. Did I -- I don't -- I don't know whether I had the right to approve the statement. I think I would have agreed with the statement. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Okay. Did you know that the MSDS that was supplied by BBA to the plant said that there was no known health hazard with this material? MR. WOODSIDE: Objection, mischaracterization. A. I -- I -- I don't necessarily believe that that was the case, Mr. McClain. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Well, are you unaware that that's what it said? A. I have -- MR. WOODSIDE: Same objection. A. I'm not -- as I said, I don't think that you've characterized the MSDS correctly. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Do you know that it said that -- that in regard to respiratory protection that it wasn't normally required? MR. WOODSIDE: Objection, mischaracterization. A. I believe it also said that if the material was to be heated that -- that full-blown OSHA -- OSHA-authorized respirators were to be worn. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) No, that's not what it says. But are you aware in general that the statement that respiratory protection was not normally required was contained in the material safety data sheet? MR. WOODSIDE: Object to the form, mischaracterization. A. I mean, whatever was in the material safety data sheet was in the material safety data sheet. I read the material safety data sheet obviously on a number of occasions, at least that was in effect at that time. And I really remember what I just mentioned to you about heating and the wearing of respiratory protection. That's what I remember. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) And do you recall that it said that there were no known health hazards? A. No, I don't recall that. MR. McCLAIN: Do you have a copy of the material safety data sheet for the BBA products here, Steve? MR. CRICK: Uh-huh. MR. McCLAIN: Why don't we -- why don't we take a break and refresh Mr. Block's recollection about that. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Stand by, we're going off record. It's 11:09. (Recess.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on record. It's 11:09. Please continue. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Let me hand you what we've marked as Exhibit 37 at a previous time. We'll mark it as Exhibit 30 here. (Deposition Exhibit No. 30 was marked for identification.) MR. CALABRESE: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Do you see on the last page -- A. Is that the third page? Q. -- page three of three, in the hazard statement, "no known health hazards"; do you see that? A. I see the statement, correct. Q. All right. And look up at the respiratory protection. Do you see, it says "not normally required"? A. Yes. MR. WOODSIDE: Mr. McClain, I object. That is a mischaracterization. Those are the first three words of a probably 15- or 20-word sentence. MR. McCLAIN: I'm going to read it all, Mr. Woodside -- MR. WOODSIDE: Thank you. MR. McCLAIN: -- if you wouldn't interrupt me. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) "Not normally required," do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And then it says the part that you remembered, "But if vapor concentration is high due to heat, use a NIOSH-approved organic vapor respirator. A. I misspoke. NIOSH instead of OSHA. I apologize. Q. Okay. And -- and would a NIOSH-approved organic vapor respirator protect workers from bronchiolitis obliterans? A. I am not in a position to answer that question. I have no scientific or technical knowledge that would qualify me. Q. You are fully aware that currently all workers in IFF plants wear full-face air-supplied respirators, do they not, when working around butter flavors? A. I don't know. Q. And do you know that NIOSH itself has approved working with butter flavors at the Jasper plant only in a fully air-supplied environment? MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. A. I -- I don't know. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) But in any case, the statement -- the statement contained in the press release from -- from FEMA attempted to place the blame on the popcorn plant at Jasper; is that correct? MR. CALABRESE: Object to the form. A. Whatever the statement says, it says. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) And IFF did not take any responsibility itself for this event to the public at that time; is that correct? MR. WOODSIDE: I object. A. Whatever IFF said, it said, and I'm not going to characterize what IFF said other than -- other than what IFF itself either issued or filed or what FEMA issued or filed, that was either consistent with what IFF said or it was not. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Is there anything within this document, which you would characterize as -- MR. WOODSIDE: By "this" document? MR. McCLAIN: I'm talking about Exhibit -- MR. WOODSIDE: 29? MR. McCLAIN: -- 29. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Exhibit 29. Is there anything within Exhibit 29 that you would characterize as IFF accepting any responsibility for the occurrence at the Jasper popcorn plant? A. As I read the -- the release, the article doesn't refer to any company at all. All it talks about is Jasper and -- and -- and the safety of flavors. Q. Well, you're answering your own question, not my question. My question was: Is there anything in this release in which IFF accepts any responsibility for the outbreak of bronchiolitis obliterans at the Jasper popcorn plant? A. I -- MR. CALABRESE: Objection to the hearsay. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. MR. WOODSIDE: I -- I object. The document speaks for itself. I also object on the First Amendment right to petition. THE WITNESS: May I answer the question? MR. WOODSIDE: Uh-huh. A. The -- the document wasn't issued by IFF and IFF isn't even referred to in the document. So therefore, it wouldn't be relevant what IFF believed to that document. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Okay. Am I right that it does not mention IFF accepting any responsibility for the events? A. It doesn't mention IFF at all. Q. And IFF never put out its own press release indicating any responsibility at all for the events at Jasper? A. I haven't followed what IFF has done since December 2003 in that respect and so I can't answer the question. Q. Up until that time had they ever done that? MR. WOODSIDE: Objection. A. Whatever IFF releases had been made or filings with the FCC had been made, they speak for themselves. I just don't recall the specifics of those -- of those documents. I'm sorry. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Internally did IFF accept any responsibility based on your conversation with other executives for the events at Jasper popcorn? A. I -- THE WITNESS: Have you waived privilege? MR. WOODSIDE: To who? A. Whatever I said to the other executives within IFF with respect to that litigation is privileged in my capacity as the general counsel of the company. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Roberts -- now, who was Mr. Roberts that's mentioned in this press release? A. Glenn Roberts? Q. Well, that's what I am asking you. A. I assume it's Glenn. I just don't know. It says -- it says Glenn. Yeah, Glenn Roberts. He was the executive director, and still is I believe, of FEMA. Q. All right. And it says, "Roberts added: We take each report of a potential problem with the safety of flavors in manufacturing settings very seriously. Fortunately, such incidents are very rare in our industry." Was that your understanding at the time? A. Yes. Q. "Our goal is to understand what happened and work with the best medical and workplace safety experts to recommend to our members and customers any additional workplace safety measures that may be needed." It says next, "The first case of potential respiratory effects linked to handling flavors during manufacture was reported to FEMA in 1996, and the trade group soon thereafter intensified its efforts to educate its members on state-of-the-art respiratory safety practices." Was that true as far as you knew? MR. CALABRESE: Continuing objection to hearsay. Also objection to form. A. I recall as a member of the board of FEMA being told that a company, unnamed company, had reported a -- a single case of respiratory illness. I don't recall at the time whether -- whether there was any conclusion as to what that illness was, although I know there was a discussion at the time of bronchiolitis obliterans and suggestions that the etiology of the disease would not make it consistent with its being caused by a flavor material. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) That's what you were told? A. That -- MR. CALABRESE: Objection. A. That's the understanding that I had at the time. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) One case, not really caused by flavoring chemicals? MR. CALABRESE: Object to the form, also mischaracterizes. A. One case -- one case -- I -- we really were talking more -- I believe the focus of that case was acetaldehyde, not diacetyl. And I believe that there was a discussion within the FEMA board, which it was really led by, and the FEMA staff, saying that -- that it's unlikely that any respiratory illness was caused by acetaldehyde. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Okay. Look over at the second page here it says, "FEMA and its members have taken the following actions to protect workers since this issue came to light: Instituted an industry-wide incident reporting system, which ensures that if workplace-related issues arise, the industry knows about them." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And was that your belief as of 2002, that an industry-wide reporting system existed for members to report to FEMA so that FEMA could monitor just how many cases, if any, of respiratory illness were caused by flavoring chemicals? MR. CALABRESE: Object to the form. Also continuing objection to hearsay. A. I -- I know that FEMA requested that its members make those reports. I can't state at all whether FEMA members complied with that request. It wasn't mandatory. It was simply a voluntary request. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) And the only case that you recall being reported to FEMA was one case by an anonymous member company; is that correct? A. Yes. MR. CALABRESE: Object to the form. Also mischaracterizes. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Through 2002? MR. CALABRESE: Same objections. A. I can't recall. If you -- I can't recall the answer to that question. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) You don't recall any others being reported, is that fair, through 2002? A. I -- I -- I can't answer that because there came a point, obviously, about which we knew more than the -- than the one case that was reported in 1996 when the litigation arose. And I can't remember the exact date of the first filing in that case, in the Jasper case. Obviously we became aware of allegations of additional cases. Q. I understand that and we're not communicating. But -- but Jasper popcorn plant was not a member company of FEMA? A. No, correct. Q. Okay. So those were cases outside of the FEMA membership; am I right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So from the FEMA membership the only one that you were aware of up until the time of the Jasper popcorn reports, was one case by a member which FEMA told you was not caused by a flavoring chemical as far as they could tell? MR. CALABRESE: Objection to the form, continuing objection, mischaracterization. Assumes facts. A. I only -- I remember only one case. I -- as I said, the discussion was that it was not likely that the etiology of the disease indicated that it was caused by acetaldehyde. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) All right. Let's look at some other documents. Let me show you Exhibit 20 that was marked yesterday. MR. WOODSIDE: Let me make a comment about Exhibit 20 so the record is clear. I did indeed show that to Mr. Block I believe earlier this year. I'm not waiving the privilege about what we did or did not discuss about it, but I will represent to you that he had not seen the document outside of the attorney-client relationship. MR. McCLAIN: I understand. MR. CALABRESE: I also just want to point out, note for the record, that this is a document that's been marked confidential under the protective order and should be treated as such. Also object to foundation. MR. WOODSIDE: Do you have another copy? MR. McCLAIN: Not in front of me I don't. MR. WOODSIDE: Oh, I'm sorry. Is this 20 from yesterday? MR. McCLAIN: Yes, it is. A. Yes. I -- I see -- I see the document. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) This is a document, by way of introduction, that was produced to us in this litigation by Givaudan. And it's a report from a -- the chief health officer of the parent company of Givaudan to John Hockstrasser who was in charge of environmental safety and health at Givaudan. And he left in 1997 so we know that this is before that time period. It says, "Listed below are the eight current or past employees with a confirmed diagnosis of bronchiolitis obliterans and the one suspect case," and then it lists them; do you see that? A. I see a list of people. I see something written to John. I don't have any indication of from where the document came. It doesn't have a letterhead in any way on it. Q. I understand. MR. CALABRESE: Same objections to form. Also object to the preamble. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) The question I have is this: We saw from the previous document that through '96 you had only been informed about one case and told it was not being caused by the chemicals. I just want to confirm that no one from FEMA or no one from Givaudan told you in any of your meetings, up through 2002, "Hey, we have eight confirmed cases of bronchiolitis obliterans from our plant." They did not tell you that, did they? MR. CALABRESE: Object to form. Also mischaracterizes the prior testimony. A. To the best of my recollection, there was no -- no -- no mention of cases by Givaudan. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) And look at Exhibit 21, if you would for a minute. A. Do I have that already? Q. I am going to hand it to you. MR. WOODSIDE: Mr. McClain, just for the record -- THE WITNESS: Excuse me one second. MR. McCLAIN: I don't know where the marked copy of 21 is. Did I already pull that out? This is 21. Do you have the marked copy over there, Frank? MR. WOODSIDE: No, sir. I have one yesterday that was used in that deposition. MR. McCLAIN: Yeah. I had it out, I thought, the marked copy, but let me find it. MR. WOODSIDE: In the interest of time, I'm happy to share my copy with you, Mr. McClain. MR. McCLAIN: I've got another copy. I just don't have the marked copy in front of me and I don't want to have two marked exhibits floating around here if we can avoid it. But I guess to speed it along, we'll go ahead and mark this one as 21. Let's get a blank one and just mark it twenty -- they're not 31. Well, okay, we'll mark this as 31. It's another copy. MR. WOODSIDE: Why don't you just mark it handwritten down there "duplicate 21"? MR. McCLAIN: All right. MR. WOODSIDE: Just so we're clear. MR. McCLAIN: You still object to it? MR. WOODSIDE: No. MR. McCLAIN: Here's the marked copy. MR. WOODSIDE: I did not have any prior discussions nor did I show this document to Mr. Block. MR. McCLAIN: All right. MR. CALABRESE: I note for the record that Exhibit 21 is confidential and should be treated as such. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Now, do you see that the first person on Exhibit 20 is a fellow by the name of Cliff Walker? Looking back at Exhibit 20? A. Yes. MR. WOODSIDE: Not on this one. Q. And do you see that this is a -- A. It's actually the second person on 21. Lockey, James E. Lockey, is the first. MR. WOODSIDE: No, no, No. Excuse me. Excuse me. He's referring to Exhibit 20. THE WITNESS: Oh, 20. I'm sorry, Exhibit 20, I apologize. A. Right. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) He is the first confirmed case listed? A. He's the first person listed on that exhibit. Q. And I'm showing you his report and you see James Lockey there who we saw before, remember? A. You mentioned his name before. Q. We saw him in the -- in the previous article that was discussing the case of Mr. Keith Campbell and how Dr. James Lockey had diagnosed him? A. Uh-huh. Q. Do you remember we looked at it? A. I remember an article to that effect, yes. Q. And you see Dr. James Lockey's name on this document as well? A. Yes, on Exhibit 21. Q. And you see Cliff Walker's name? A. Yes. MR. CALABRESE: Object to foundation. Object to form. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Look at the second page. Do you see where his chief complaint was diacetyl; do you see that? MR. CALABRESE: I object again to the hearsay. Also rule of completeness. Also referenced garlics, toasted, enzymes. A. May I have the opportunity to read the document in its entirety so that we don't -- so that I don't have to keep referring to it when you and I are talking? Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Take your time. A. Thank you. Yes, I've read the article -- I've read the report. Q. Do you see that he was not exposed, at least according to Dr. Lockey, to acetaldehyde? MR. CALABRESE: Object to the form, hearsay Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Do you see any reference in there to acetaldehyde? A. No, but it doesn't necessarily say he wasn't -- wasn't exposed to it. What it says is that Mr. Walker noted the following chemical agents that would cause him to have breathing problems. And then there are four different agents listed I believe, one of which is diacetyl, and not one of which is acetaldehyde, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his anecdotal reporting would not have -- you know, would be accurate. MR. WOODSDIE: Do you have an extra copy? Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Well, Mr. Block, you're not a scientist, you're -- A. Nope. Q. -- not making any scientific judgement? A. No, I'm not. Q. My only question is what the document says. It makes no reference to acetaldehyde, does it? A. The document makes no reference to acetaldehyde. MR. CALABRESE: Object to form, leading. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) And the question is: Was this fact reported to you at FEMA by Givaudan or by the FEMA staff? MR. CALABRESE: Object to form. A. What fact? I'm sorry. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) That Mr. Walker had bronchiolitis obliterans and that he was exposed to diacetyl. MR. CALABRESE: Object to form. Also rule of completeness. Exhibit 21 references garlics, toasted, enzymes, does not contain the words bronchiolitis obliterans. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) All right. Did they report any of that to you? MR. CALABRESE: Object to form. A. Givaudan, as far as I know, did not make any reports with respect to Mr. Walker or any -- any problems he might have had. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) And I take it, getting back to our first point, because you were interested in protecting the legal interest of IFF, such reports would have been of interest to you? A. Yes, they would have. Q. You would not have ignored them? MR. CALABRESE: Objection. A. No, we would not. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) If there was a way that you could have protected your customers from the types of injuries that occurred at the Jasper popcorn plant, you would have done so; am I right? MR. CALABRESE: Objection. A. We would have provided our customers with all information that would have helped them to protect their -- their employees. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) And certainly this information could have been protective from the situation that developed at Jasper? A. Well -- MR. CALABRESE: Object to the form. Also, object to foundation. A. The information, I'm not sure it would have been at all. I'm not sure that a link would have been drawn. After all, this was in a plant manufacturing these flavors and the Jasper plant was a plant using them. And I don't know what the variant -- you know, the differences in concentrations or usage or environment was, so I'm not sure that it would have been helpful or not helpful. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) But it was something that should not have been ignored and at least IFF would have looked at it -- MR. CALABRESE: Object to form. Also assumes. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) -- true? A. We would have been interested in the information. Q. And certainly it was not provided to you at FEMA? MR. CALABRESE: Objection. A. As far as I recall, it was not. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) And are you aware that Givaudan actually intended for you not to know it? MR. CALABRESE: Objection. A. I can't respond to that. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) I want to show you the deposition of Karen Duros. Did you know Karen Duros? A. I met Karen Duros. Q. Okay. She was -- A. I didn't know her well. Q. She was a lawyer at Givaudan, right? MR. CALABRESE: Objection. A. I don't know whether she was ever with Givaudan so I can't answer that question. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) You knew her when she was at Tastemaker? A. I met her when she was at Tastemaker, correct. Q. Okay. I just want to read her testimony to you. This is from page 152 and 153 of her testimony. MR. CALABRESE: I object to the use of this testimony, but go ahead. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) "Did you give permission to FEMA to disclose to the conferees that Tastemaker had been the company found to have incidents of bronchiolitis obliterans at its plant? "ANSWER: No. In fact, we asked FEMA to keep Tastemaker's name confidential. "ANSWER (sic): Why? "Because we did not want to give our competitors some information that they could use to make noises about, you know, our facility possibly being an unreliable source of supply, give them a competitive advantage." "How would that have given them a competitive advantage?" was the question. "Because again, if they were making statements about Tastemaker's facility being an unreliable source of supply, it might hurt our reputation, for example, in a commercial sense." First of all, would IFF have used an outbreak of occupational illness as a competitive advantage, Mr. Block? MR. CALABRESE: Object to form, assumes, speculation. A. I -- I doubt if it would. The industry has traditionally been very supportive of itself, within itself, other companies. It depends, in fact, on I think open disclosure among members of issues that arise so that all members can -- can take whatever action is appropriate. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Does it surprise you that Givaudan purposely withheld this information from you? A. I can't -- MR. CALABRESE: Object to form, argumentative, mischaracterizes. A. I can't -- I can't answer the question as you put it. I am surprised that I did not learn of it. I can't say whether or not Givaudan intentionally withheld it. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) It was your expectation, wasn't it, that the members of FEMA would openly share with one another issues that could concern other members? A. I think that there was -- was some -- was an expectation both at the board level and at committee levels. Q. And if, in fact, the products of the industry could cause serious disease, that's something that you had an expectation would have been shared with other members? A. Well, I -- MR. CALABRESE: Object to form, assumes, over broad. A. I think that -- that if -- if there were questions about an ingredient or a product in the industry, the members would have shared the issues with each other and then either their own regulatory or toxicological staffs or the staffs working with the FEMA staff would evaluate the problem and the cause of the problem to determine what the cause was. And if there was a -- a link, then appropriate action would be taken with respect to the ingredient either to -- to change the way it was manufactured, to inform customers, or simply to suggest that in the plants, flavoring plants themselves, that better ventilation or working conditions be handled. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) That was your expectation? A. Yes. Q. And it was not possible to do those things if that information was withheld from the members, true? MR. CALABRESE: Objection. A. Well, I mean, if we didn't get information, we obviously couldn't act on information. MR. McCLAIN: Thank you. Let's take our -- let's go ahead and take a break. THE WITNESS: Okay. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Stand by. We're off. (Recess.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on record, please continue. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Now, following the verdict in the Jasper popcorn plant, IFF wanted to place labels on its products; isn't that true? A. On certain of its products there was -- yes, there was -- there were issues relating to that. Q. And the other members of the FEMA board did not want IFF to label its products; isn't that right? A. I don't recall that. I don't frankly recall. I think there was a debate within the FEMA board, but obviously IFF would make its own decisions. Q. True. But I'm talking about the reaction of the rest of the industry to IFF's decision to label. (Deposition Exhibit No. 31 was marked for identification.) Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) This is Exhibit 31. And when we say "label," it was a -- first of all, before we get into the document, just so that we're clear, a label that warned customers that flavoring chemicals could cause lung disease, correct -- A. Uh-huh. Q. -- in general terms? A. Uh-huh. Q. "Uh-huh" meaning yes? A. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm reading this. I apologize. I didn't really hear the question. Let me read this and then I'll answer your question. Is that all right? Okay. Q. All right. First of all, the label that IFF was proposing was a warning regarding flavoring chemicals causing serious lung injury or words to that effect? A. I honestly don't remember. I was -- as I said, this was -- I was the -- I was involved in FEMA at that time but not involved in the day-to-day activities of IFF, so I don't really recall that. Q. Let me show you what we've marked -- what we'll mark as Exhibit 1 -- or, I'm sorry -- MR. WOODSIDE: 32. (Deposition Exhibit No. 32 was marked for identification.) Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) -- 32 -- MR. WOODSIDE: Uh-huh. Q. -- which is, in fact, the label that IFF put on the product. A. Right. Q. In 2004. A. I see this. Q. Okay. So and just so the record is clear, it reads, "Warning: Breathing certain flavoring chemicals in the workplace may lead to severe lung disease. Before using this product, read and follow the information in the material safety data sheet that has been supplied to your employer for this product." Now, looking at the e-mails, Dennis Meany -- MR. WOODSIDE: In Exhibit 31? Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) -- in Exhibit 31, Dennis Meany, who was -- who had succeeded you apparently -- A. Yes. Q. -- as senior vice president, general counsel and secretary, sent an e-mail to you regarding the proposal to label the products, correct? A. Label -- this e-mail says specifically pursuing the thought of labelling all flavors through IOFI as well as FEMA. Q. Okay. And you said in your response, "Finally, although we have one unfortunately large verdict involving butter flavor, to my knowledge this is the first verdict against a flavor manufacturer in a workplace case and we should not overreact to it, either as a company or an industry, by automatically doing something affecting flavors generally." The reason I read that is because I think what it says to me is that you were unaware even by this date of the large number of bronchiolitis obliterans cases at Givaudan; am I right? MR. CALABRESE: Object to the form. Also mischaracterizes the document. A. I -- I -- I was not aware of -- of any Givaudan cases at all at that point and in -- that's the answer. Okay. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Yes. So the answer to my question is, "Yes, Mr. McClain, you're right"? A. You're right, Mr. McClain. Thank you. MR. CALABRESE: Objection, mischaracterizes. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Now, the -- now, the point -- the point is is that you believed as reading this -- from reading this memo, at least interpreting your thoughts, was that this was an isolated event and still might be restricted to the Jasper, Missouri, popcorn plant? A. I don't recall because I don't recall -- I think the answer is no because I think by that time at least the Marion case had been filed. So we were aware of -- of -- of at least one other allegation of -- of respiratory illness caused by -- allegedly caused by diacetyl. What I was focusing on here was not necessarily labeling what I'll call low volatile products: diacetyl, acetaldehyde and those related products. What I was reacting to was Dennis's suggestion that perhaps we ought to label every product we own, or at least we sell. And I was concerned that it would be -- it would have an adverse effect not only on the industry but on our customers as well. Q. Now, look up above, because it appears to me that you were getting unfavorable comments from other industry members, because it says, "As I mentioned to Glenn, if IFF insists on pushing it, and expects me to champion it, I may be in an untenable position," meaning that that was IFF's position but the rest of the industry was not in favor of labeling; am I right? A. No. MR. CALABRESE: Object to the form, compound, calls for speculation. A. No, that's not correct. This simply reflects my view, personal view, that general labeling was not an appropriate step. As I said in the response to Dennis, that it is reasonable to consider labeling on certain products as a result of the -- the allegations that had been made in the lawsuits, but that trying to label every product would be an overreaction. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Well -- A. And this was not -- this was merely my -- my comment to Glenn to alert him that this might -- this would come up at the FEMA board as an issue and I don't believe general labelling ever did come up as a FEMA -- as an issue. I think IFF backed off it before it did. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Isn't it true that the warning that they placed on the butter flavor was, "they" being IFF, placed on the butter flavor was criticized by other board members? MR. CALABRESE: Objection. A. I don't recall. In all honesty I do not recall that. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Do you know whether or not Givaudan ever followed IFF's lead and labeled their butter flavoring products with the same label? MR. CALABRESE: Objection. A. I do not know what any other company in the industry did. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Are you aware that -- that shortly thereafter IFF stopped selling butter flavor to microwave popcorn plants? A. I wasn't -- I think I was made aware of that only a few days ago. MR. WOODSIDE: Yeah. I believe he would have only learned that. THE WITNESS: I think -- I believe -- that's right. A. I think I learned it from Frank. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) Did you ever learn that Givaudan picked up that business even after IFF went out of it? MR. CALABRESE: Objection. A. Not before a few days ago. Q. (BY MR. McCLAIN) But now you are aware of it? A. I was told -- MR. CALABRESE: Objection. A. I was told that. I don't -- I don't have, you know, any evidence of it. I was just told that anecdotally. MR. McCLAIN: Thank you. MR. WOODSIDE: Are you done? Well, you're never done, but... MR. McCLAIN: Yeah, well, I have a question but I won't ask it. Go ahead. I'm done. MR. CALABRESE: I just have a small handful of questions that I -- THE WITNESS: Sure. EXAMINATION BY MR. CALABRESE: Q. Mr. Block, I'm Phil Calabrese, counsel for Givaudan Flavors Corporation. If I understand your prior testimony correctly, the FEMA staff was one source of information on which you relied for information and other activities, correct? A. In other -- what do you mean by "other activities"? Q. Well, strike that part. That you relied on them as one source of information? A. For? Q. With respect to providing information to you about industry-wide concerns. A. Yes. Q. Including industry-wide concerns relating to what we've been discussing today, butter flavoring, etc.? A. Yes. Q. And, in fact, Tastemaker reported that it had respiratory injuries at its plant in Cincinnati to the FEMA staff, correct? A. I don't know that. MR. McCLAIN: Objection. Q. (BY MR. CALABRESE) Well, you -- okay. A. All I know is there was one company that reported a single case. At least my understanding at the time that one company, company X, reported a single case and it was -- it was -- when we were told, when the board was told that it was told that the company had requested confidentiality and that FEMA would be asking other companies in the industry to sort of check their own records and their own practices to see whether there was any -- anything that could be found that was similar. Q. So you would have made a report -- you were made aware of a report? A. Yes, the board was made aware of a report. Q. And you now understand that that report involves Tastemaker? MR. McCLAIN: Object to the form of the question. A. I think -- I think the first -- I think the first I knew or learned from anybody that the report involved Tastemaker was -- I don't remember, was it, I guess from -- somehow recently and I don't remember that. I don't remember how. MR. WOODSIDE: And Mr. Calabrese, just -- I've been a little lax here. To the extent we're asking Mr. Block to learn information that he learned from me, some little things slip out. I'm not waiving anything and I'm going to get a little more instructive here if we keep this up. Q. (BY MR. CALABRESE) No, and let me just be clear. I'm not requesting anything you learned -- A. I understand. Q. -- from Mr. Woodside in connection with this litigation. A. I understand. Q. I'm just trying to get at what you learned at the time. So in terms of the details, you were not part of the meeting at which the report was made? A. To FEMA? Q. To FEMA. A. No, that was a report -- Q. That's something that -- that you -- A. I don't even know who was present at that meeting other than I know that John Halligan was present. Q. Okay. And so from John Halligan then you learned that the report was made? A. Yes. He reported to the board. Q. And you relied on John Halligan for all the details about what he was told at that meeting? A. Correct. MR. McCLAIN: Object to the form of the question. You kept him -- you kept him under a non-confidentiality -- or a confidentiality order. How could he have disclosed it? MR. CALABRESE: Move to strike. MR. McCLAIN: Well, your question is deceptive. It presumes that Halligan could disclose it when we know that according to Duros, that he could not. MR. CALABRESE: Move to strike the speaking objection. Also mischaracterizes the agreement into which Halligan entered. Q. (BY MR. CALABRESE) So you don't know from your own firsthand knowledge whether the report was one worker, five workers, eight workers? A. I don't. MR. McCLAIN: Object to the form of the question. We know for a fact it was one worker according to Halligan. A. That's -- that's -- I mean, I can -- I can say that it was my understanding from the way the report was made by John Halligan that he -- that the company X was -- had reported a single case. Q. (BY MR. CALABRESE) That's something that John told you, correct? A. Yes. Q. That's not something that company X told you? A. No. Q. That's not something you have other independent knowledge of, correct? A. No. MR. CALABRESE: Okay. Thank you. No further questions at this time. MR. McCLAIN: Nothing further. MR. WOODSIDE: I have no questions. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Stand by, we're going off record. This is the end of Tape No. 2. It is 12 o'clock. (Recess.) RE: Timothy Arthur, et al. -vs- International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. PG/LN Correction Reason ___________________________________________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ | | ______|__________________________|_________________ ______________________ STEPHEN BLOCK TH RE: Timothy Arthur, et al. -vs- International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. ____ I certify that I have read my testimony and request that NO changes be made. ____ I certify that I have read my testimony and request that the above changes be made. ______________________ STEPHEN BLOCK Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of ____________, 20____ ______________________ Notary Public State of _____________ County of ____________ My commission expires ____________ TH C E R T I F I C A T E I, Terri Huseth, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of Kansas, do hereby certify: That prior to being examined, the witness was first duly sworn; That said deposition was taken down by me in shorthand at the time and place hereinbefore stated and was thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction; That the foregoing transcript is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; That I am not a relative or employee or attorney or counsel of any of the parties or a relative or employee of such attorney or counsel or financially interested in the action. Witness my hand and seal this 12th day of May, 2006. Terri Huseth Kansas Supreme Court Certified Shorthand Reporter