EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 168 PageID: 35120
·1· · · · · · ·IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

·2· · · · · · · ·FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

·3

· · · ·KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS,· · · )

·4· · ·et al.,· · · · · · · · · )

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )

·5· · · · · · ·PLAINTIFFS,· · · )

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )

·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )

· · · · · · ·vs.· · · · · · · · )· · ·CIVIL ACTION

·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )· · NO. 11-CV-01754

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )

·8· · ·BASF CATALYSTS LLC,· · · )

· · · ·et al.,· · · · · · · · · )

·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )

· · · · · · · ·DEFENDANTS.· · · )

10

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·-· -· -· - -

· · · ·THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THOMAS W. BEVAN, ESQ.

12· · · · · · · · · · TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2018

· · · · · · · · · · · · · -· -· -· - -

13

14· · · · · The videotaped deposition of THOMAS W. BEVAN,

15· · ·ESQ., called by the Defendants for examination

16· · ·pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

17· · ·taken before me, the undersigned, Sarah R. Drown,

18· · ·Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public

19· · ·within and for the State of Ohio, taken at the

20· · ·offices of Thompson Hine LLP, 3900 Key Center, 127

21· · ·Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio, commencing at 9:03

22· · ·a.m., the day and date above set forth.

23

24

25

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 168 PageID: 35121
Page 2

·1· · ·APPEARANCES:

·2

· · · · · · On behalf of the Plaintiffs:

·3

· · · · · · · ·Harry M. Roth, Esq.

·4· · · · · · ·Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

· · · · · · · ·Two Commerce Square

·5· · · · · · ·2001 Market Street, Suite 2900

· · · · · · · ·Philadelphia, Pennsylvania· 19103

·6· · · · · · ·(215) 567-3500

· · · · · · · ·Hroth@cprlaw.com

·7

· · · · · · · · · · - and -

·8

· · · · · · · ·Jared M. Placitella, Esq.

·9· · · · · · ·Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

· · · · · · · ·127 Maple Avenue

10· · · · · · ·Red Bank, New Jersey· 07701

· · · · · · · ·(732) 747-9003

11· · · · · · ·Jmplacitella@cprlaw.com

12

13· · · · · On behalf of the Defendant

· · · · · · BASF Catalysts LLC:

14

· · · · · · · ·Eugene F. Assaf, Esq.

15· · · · · · ·Elizabeth Dalmut, Esq.

· · · · · · · ·Kirkland & Ellis LLP

16· · · · · · ·655 Fifteenth Street, Northwest, Suite 1200

· · · · · · · ·Washington, D.C.· 20005

17· · · · · · ·(202) 879-5000

· · · · · · · ·Eugene.assaf@kirkland.com

18· · · · · · ·Elizabeth.dalmut@kirkland.com

19

20· · · · · On behalf of the Defendants

· · · · · · Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP,

21· · · · · Howard G. (Peter) Sloane,

· · · · · · Ira J. Dembrow:

22

· · · · · · · ·Kyle A. Dolinsky, Esq. (Via phone)

23· · · · · · ·Pepper Hamilton, LLP

· · · · · · · ·3000 Two Logan Square

24· · · · · · ·Eighteenth and Arch Streets

· · · · · · · ·Philadelphia, Pennsylvania· 19103

25· · · · · · ·(215) 981-4000

· · · · · · · ·Dolinskyk@pepperlaw.com

Page 3

·1· · ·APPEARANCES CONTINUED:

·2

· · · · · · On behalf of the Defendant

·3· · · · · Thomas D. Halket:

·4· · · · · · ·Eric Tunis, Esq. (Via phone)

· · · · · · · ·Herold Law, PA

·5· · · · · · ·25 Independence Boulevard

· · · · · · · ·Warren, New Jersey· 07059

·6· · · · · · ·(908) 647-1022

· · · · · · · ·Etunis@heroldlaw.com

·7

·8

· · · · · · On behalf of the Defendant

·9· · · · · Arthur Dornbusch:

10· · · · · · ·John D. Tortorella, Esq. (Via phone)

· · · · · · · ·John A. Boyle, Esq. (Via phone)

11· · · · · · ·Marino, Tortorella & Boyle PC

· · · · · · · ·437 Southern Boulevard

12· · · · · · ·Chatham Township, New Jersey· 07928

· · · · · · · ·(973) 824-9300

13· · · · · · ·Jtortorella@khmarino.com

· · · · · · · ·Jboyle@khmarino.com

14

15

· · · · · · On behalf of the Deponent,

16· · · · · Thomas W. Bevan, Esq.:

17· · · · · · ·Kevin McDermott, Esq.

· · · · · · · ·Anthony Gallucci, Esq.

18· · · · · · ·McDermott & Hickey, LLC

· · · · · · · ·20525 Center Ridge Road, Suite 200

19· · · · · · ·Rocky River, Ohio· 44116

· · · · · · · ·(216) 712-7452

20· · · · · · ·Kevin@mcdermotthickeylaw.com

· · · · · · · ·Ag@mcdermotthickeylaw.com

21

22

· · · ·ALSO PRESENT:

23

· · · · · · Alex Cook, Videographer

24

25

Page 4

·1· · · · · · · · · W I T N E S S· I N D E X

·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE

·3· · · · · ·EXAMINATION

· · · · · · ·THOMAS W. BEVAN, ESQ.

·4· · · · · ·BY MR. ASSAF.........................· · 6

· · · · · · ·EXAMINATION

·5· · · · · ·BY MR. ROTH..........................· 387

· · · · · · ·REEXAMINATION

·6· · · · · ·BY MR. ASSAF.........................· 419

· · · · · · ·REEXAMINATION

·7· · · · · ·BY MR. ROTH..........................· 423

· · · · · · ·FURTHER EXAMINATION

·8· · · · · ·BY MR. ASSAF.........................· 425

·9

10

· · · · · · · · · · E X H I B I T· I N D E X

11

· · · · · · ·EXHIBIT· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE

12

13· · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 288..............· 263

14· · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 289..............· 264

15· · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 290..............· 267

16· · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 291..............· ·17

17· · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 291A.............· ·70

18· · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 292..............· 281

19· · · · · ·Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1................· 411

20· · · · · ·Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2................· 414

21

22

23

24

25

Page 5

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the

·2· · · · ·record.· Today's date is May 15, 2018.· The

·3· · · · ·time is 9:03 a.m.

·4· · · · · · · ·We're here in the case Kimberlee

·5· · · · ·Williams, et al., versus BASF Catalysts LLC, et

·6· · · · ·al., Case Number 11-CV-01754.

·7· · · · · · · ·The video operator is Alex Cook.· The

·8· · · · ·deposition is taking place at the law offices

·9· · · · ·of Thompson Hine in Cleveland, Ohio.

10· · · · · · · ·Counsel, could you please identify

11· · · · ·yourselves and state whom you represent.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · For Tom Bevan,

13· · · · ·Kevin McDermott.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. GALLUCCI:· · ·Anthony

15· · · · ·Gallucci on behalf of Kevin -- or on behalf of

16· · · · ·Tom Bevan.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I'm Harry Roth

18· · · · ·on behalf of the class plaintiffs.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. PLACITELLA:· ·Jared

20· · · · ·Placitella for the plaintiffs.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Gene Assaf for

22· · · · ·BASF.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MS. DALMUT:· · · ·Elizabeth

24· · · · ·Dalmut for BASF.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. TORTORELLA:· ·On the phone is

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 168 PageID: 35122
Page 6

·1· · · · ·John Tortorella for Arthur Dornbusch.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. TUNIS:· · · · On the phone,

·3· · · · ·Eric Tunis on behalf of Tom Halket.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. DOLINSKY:· · ·On the phone,

·5· · · · ·Kyle Dolinsky on behalf of Cahill Gordon &

·6· · · · ·Reindel.

·7· · · · · · · · · ·THOMAS W. BEVAN, ESQ.

·8· · ·of lawful age, called by the Defendants for

·9· · ·examination pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

10· · ·Procedure, having been first duly sworn, as

11· · ·hereinafter certified, was examined and testified

12· · ·as follows:

13· · · · · · EXAMINATION OF THOMAS W. BEVAN, ESQ.

14· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

15· · ·Q· ·Good morning, Mr. Bevan.

16· · ·A· ·Good morning.

17· · ·Q· ·Could you identify for me all of the times

18· · · · ·you've testified under oath?

19· · ·A· ·Twice in this case in the last few months; in a

20· · · · ·lawsuit against the Bureau of Workers'

21· · · · ·Compensation, I think that was last year; and I

22· · · · ·believe in a lawsuit against a former attorney

23· · · · ·in my firm probably 12, 13 years ago.· I think

24· · · · ·that's all that I recall.

25· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Any in court testimony?

Page 7

·1· · ·A· ·In a hearing in the case against the former

·2· · · · ·attorney in our office, there was in court

·3· · · · ·testimony.

·4· · ·Q· ·What --

·5· · ·A· ·It was not a trial.· It was a hearing.

·6· · ·Q· ·Was there a deposition as well?

·7· · ·A· ·Yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·And then where was that -- what was the name of

·9· · · · ·that case?

10· · ·A· ·I believe it was titled Bevan versus -- or

11· · · · ·Bevan & Associates versus Powell.

12· · ·Q· ·And you've never had any criminal charges filed

13· · · · ·against you?

14· · ·A· ·No.

15· · ·Q· ·What's your reputation for honesty within the

16· · · · ·community?

17· · ·A· ·You would have to ask people in the community.

18· · ·Q· ·What do you think your reputation for

19· · · · ·truthfulness is within the --

20· · ·A· ·I would think it would be good.

21· · ·Q· ·Have you ever been accused of a crime?

22· · ·A· ·I guess a traffic ticket.

23· · ·Q· ·Other than that, nothing?

24· · ·A· ·Other than that, no.

25· · ·Q· ·Have you ever had your pro hac vice denied?

Page 8

·1· · ·A· ·No.

·2· · ·Q· ·Have you ever had your pro hac vice withdrawn?

·3· · ·A· ·No.

·4· · ·Q· ·Have you ever been censured by any bar

·5· · · · ·association?

·6· · ·A· ·No.

·7· · ·Q· ·Have you ever been sanctioned by any court?

·8· · ·A· ·Sanctioned by a court?

·9· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

10· · ·A· ·We had a case probably 15 years ago, it was a

11· · · · ·Workers' Compensation appeal case in -- I

12· · · · ·believe it was in Butler County, and I believe

13· · · · ·there was a sanction order in that case.

14· · ·Q· ·Was it against your firm, or were you

15· · · · ·personally involved?

16· · ·A· ·I wasn't personally involved in the case. I

17· · · · ·don't handle the Workers' Comp cases typically.

18· · · · ·So I don't recall how the order read.

19· · ·Q· ·Did you have involvement, though, in the --

20· · · · ·were you sanctioned by the court, Tom Bevan?

21· · ·A· ·I don't -- it was a sanction order for attorney

22· · · · ·fees, and I don't recall how the order read.

23· · ·Q· ·And you didn't have any involvement in the

24· · · · ·underlying offense?

25· · ·A· ·I was involved in my name would have been on

Page 9

·1· · · · ·the pleadings, but I wasn't handling it at all.

·2· · ·Q· ·Okay.· You had no involvement in the pleadings

·3· · · · ·or the actions that led up to the sanction, it

·4· · · · ·just happened to be your firm?

·5· · ·A· ·It was my firm and my name was on the

·6· · · · ·pleadings, yes.

·7· · ·Q· ·Other than that, any other sanctions?

·8· · ·A· ·Not that I can recall.

·9· · ·Q· ·What was the -- what was the cause of the

10· · · · ·sanctions by the Butler Court?

11· · ·A· ·The -- it was a Workers' Compensation death

12· · · · ·claim that had been pending for some time is my

13· · · · ·recollection.· Our client's husband had died

14· · · · ·from an asbestos-related cancer.· We had filed

15· · · · ·the case administratively.

16· · · · · · · ·During the time of its pending, the widow

17· · · · ·had died, and so we filed the appeal on behalf

18· · · · ·of the widow's estate for the accrued Workers'

19· · · · ·Compensation death benefits, something we've

20· · · · ·done successfully in numerous other

21· · · · ·jurisdictions, and the court in Butler County

22· · · · ·said we weren't allowed to do it and sanctioned

23· · · · ·us for it.

24· · · · · · · ·It surprised us because we had won that

25· · · · ·exact issue many times before in other

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 4 of 168 PageID: 35123
Page 10

·1· · · · ·jurisdictions.· We were sanctioned and we

·2· · · · ·appealed it and lost on appeal as well.

·3· · ·Q· ·Was the reason an issue of law, or was it any

·4· · · · ·attorney -- allegation of attorney misconduct?

·5· · ·A· ·It was an issue of law, at least in my view, as

·6· · · · ·to whether or not the widow's estate was able

·7· · · · ·to pursue the Workers' Compensation death

·8· · · · ·claim, the accrued benefits.· And I think there

·9· · · · ·was an issue as to whether or not the widow's

10· · · · ·estate had been opened or not.· It had to do

11· · · · ·with those issues, the best I can recall.

12· · ·Q· ·Was there an issue regarding whether your

13· · · · ·client had actually signed and dated the

14· · · · ·pleadings that you were submitting to the

15· · · · ·court?

16· · ·A· ·I don't -- my recollection was that the client

17· · · · ·had signed the Compensation claim form and then

18· · · · ·died subsequently.· Something along those

19· · · · ·lines.· I don't recall.

20· · ·Q· ·Was there a -- was it a Rule 11 sanction

21· · · · ·against you for submitting a claim upon

22· · · · ·documents that were not signed by your client?

23· · · · ·Does that sound familiar?

24· · ·A· ·I don't recall.

25· · ·Q· ·You don't recall?

Page 11

·1· · ·A· ·No.

·2· · ·Q· ·We'll refresh your recollection a little later

·3· · · · ·on that.

·4· · ·A· ·Sure.

·5· · ·Q· ·Regarding the National Tire Workers lit --

·6· · · · ·withdrawn.

·7· · · · · · · ·Back to the sanction issue.· And did you

·8· · · · ·end up paying the sanction?

·9· · ·A· ·I think.· There may have been a settlement, but

10· · · · ·I don't recall.· I assume, but I don't know for

11· · · · ·sure.

12· · ·Q· ·You appealed to the appellate court and the

13· · · · ·appellate court affirmed the sanction?

14· · ·A· ·Yes.

15· · ·Q· ·And then you sought certiorari from the Supreme

16· · · · ·Court and the Supreme Court denied cert?

17· · ·A· ·I don't recall if we did that, took it to that

18· · · · ·level or not.

19· · ·Q· ·And so in terms of you mentioned before that it

20· · · · ·was an issue of law and that you had done it

21· · · · ·many times, that argument would be in your

22· · · · ·brief to the appellate court, correct, I mean

23· · · · ·if that were the basis of your defense to the

24· · · · ·sanction?

25· · ·A· ·I don't know.· I recall attaching at some stage

Page 12

·1· · · · ·orders where we had won that issue in the past.

·2· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Maybe we'll look at the brief later and

·3· · · · ·see if we can refresh your recollection on

·4· · · · ·that.

·5· · · · · · · ·Have you ever been a defendant in a

·6· · · · ·lawsuit?· Other than the ones that you

·7· · · · ·mentioned with your former attorney.

·8· · ·A· ·There was -- we had a -- twice we've had a

·9· · · · ·malpractice claim filed against the firm.

10· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And in the litigation with your former

11· · · · ·attorney, were you a defendant, were you the

12· · · · ·plaintiff?

13· · ·A· ·We were the plaintiff.

14· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So other than the two malpractice cases,

15· · · · ·you have never been a defendant in a lawsuit?

16· · ·A· ·I don't recall at this time any other ones.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Can we have a

18· · · · ·clarification?· Do you mean Mr. Bevan or the

19· · · · ·firm, the Bevan Firm?

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Let me try it

21· · · · ·both ways.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · All right.

23· · · · ·Just wanted to clarify that.

24· · ·Q· ·What did you understand my question -- how were

25· · · · ·you answering my question, Mr. Bevan?

Page 13

·1· · ·A· ·I'll answer it both ways, which I don't recall

·2· · · · ·any others other than those two.

·3· · ·Q· ·Okay.

·4· · ·A· ·That's all I can recall at this time.

·5· · ·Q· ·Were you involved in a lawsuit -- withdrawn.

·6· · · · · · · ·Bevan and Economus?

·7· · ·A· ·Economus.

·8· · ·Q· ·Economus.

·9· · · · · · · ·Is that your former firm?

10· · ·A· ·Bevan & Economus was an office sharing

11· · · · ·arrangement that involved my father and Dale

12· · · · ·Economus.· For my first several years of

13· · · · ·practicing, I was an independent attorney that

14· · · · ·practiced within that office sharing agreement.

15· · · · ·I would not say that was a predecessor of Bevan

16· · · · ·& Associates.· Bevan & Associates was formed in

17· · · · ·I believe 1995, I think.

18· · ·Q· ·And Bevan & Economus was the firm, though, that

19· · · · ·you were working with when, for example, you

20· · · · ·started representing Kimberlee Williams --

21· · ·A· ·Yes.

22· · ·Q· ·-- in the talc cases?

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So what was your arrangement at that

25· · · · ·point, when you started on the talc cases?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 5 of 168 PageID: 35124
Page 14

·1· · ·A· ·My arrangement was that I was self-employed and

·2· · · · ·I worked on asbestos cases with Dale Economus.

·3· · · · ·And initially I received a weekly draw, I

·4· · · · ·believe it was $400 a week.· And then not long

·5· · · · ·after that, I received a percentage of the fees

·6· · · · ·that were generated on those asbestos cases. I

·7· · · · ·believe it started out at 5 percent and worked

·8· · · · ·its way up.

·9· · ·Q· ·When you started off representing plaintiffs in

10· · · · ·the talc cases with Bevan & Economus, you

11· · · · ·signed pleadings on behalf of --

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Excuse me.

13· · · · ·Economus.

14· · ·Q· ·Economus.· Sorry.· Withdrawn.

15· · · · · · · ·When you started off representing talc

16· · · · ·plaintiffs when working with Bevan & Economus,

17· · · · ·you signed pleadings on behalf of Bevan &

18· · · · ·Economus, correct?

19· · ·A· ·I don't recall it.· I'm sure I signed

20· · · · ·pleadings.· How it read, I'm not sure.· It

21· · · · ·probably said "Bevan & Economus" on there, I

22· · · · ·imagine, in the signature section.

23· · ·Q· ·Well, you didn't have your own law office that

24· · · · ·you were signing pleadings on behalf of for the

25· · · · ·talc plaintiffs, did you?

Page 15

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·2· · · · ·form.

·3· · ·A· ·I'm not sure what that means, but I was a

·4· · · · ·self-employed attorney.· I didn't have a law

·5· · · · ·firm.

·6· · ·Q· ·You didn't have a law firm when you started

·7· · · · ·representing talc plaintiffs?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·9· · · · ·Asked and answered.

10· · ·A· ·I was a self-employed attorney.

11· · ·Q· ·And were you a self-employed attorney with

12· · · · ·Bevan & Economus?

13· · ·A· ·I practiced within the office sharing of

14· · · · ·Bevan --

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

16· · · · ·Asked and answered.

17· · ·Q· ·With respect to the Ohio Bar and the Ohio Bar

18· · · · ·records from 1994, would you be listed as

19· · · · ·associated with Bevan & Economus?· Withdrawn.

20· · · · · · · ·Would you expect the Ohio Bar records to

21· · · · ·be true and accurate regarding your association

22· · · · ·with law firms?

23· · ·A· ·I don't know.

24· · ·Q· ·Okay.· In 1994, what law firm, in any, were you

25· · · · ·associated with?

Page 16

·1· · ·A· ·I would have been associated with Bevan &

·2· · · · ·Economus.· It was an office sharing

·3· · · · ·arrangement.

·4· · ·Q· ·So you understand that Bevan & Economus was

·5· · · · ·also a defendant in some litigation, don't you,

·6· · · · ·when you were there?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·8· · · · ·form.

·9· · ·A· ·I'm not sure.· Maybe you could enlighten me and

10· · · · ·give me -- refresh my recollection.

11· · ·Q· ·Have you heard of the National Tire Workers

12· · · · ·Litigation Project?

13· · ·A· ·Yes.

14· · ·Q· ·In your last deposition, you seemed unclear of

15· · · · ·that term.

16· · ·A· ·I was not --

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to --

18· · ·A· ·I was not unclear --

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·-- form and

20· · · · ·foundation.

21· · ·A· ·-- in the last deposition.· If you want to show

22· · · · ·me a point where I said I was unclear --

23· · ·Q· ·Sure.

24· · ·A· ·-- please do so.

25· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

Page 17

·1· · · · · · (Defendants' Exhibit 291 was marked.)

·2· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - - -

·3· · ·Q· ·Will you look at page 119 of day two of the

·4· · · · ·custodian deposition and read it to yourself?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Hang on one

·6· · · · ·second, Mr. Assaf.

·7· · · · · · · ·Let me just take a look at that, Tom,

·8· · · · ·please, before you do.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Sure.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Thanks,

11· · · · ·Mr. Assaf.

12· · · · · · · ·There you go, Tom.

13· · · · · · · ·And what page, I'm sorry?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · You can start

15· · · · ·at 119.

16· · ·A· ·I've read page 119.

17· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Does that refresh your recollection as

18· · · · ·to whether you had any recollection our last

19· · · · ·time regarding the National Tire Workers

20· · · · ·Litigation Project?

21· · ·A· ·I believe I said I knew what it was.

22· · ·Q· ·Okay.

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·Did you work with the National Tire Workers

25· · · · ·Litigation Project in any way?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 6 of 168 PageID: 35125
Page 18

·1· · ·A· ·I believe -- at the bottom of that page, I

·2· · · · ·called the Stemple law firm one time when I was

·3· · · · ·a law clerk, probably in 1989, realized that

·4· · · · ·they had no idea what was going on and no

·5· · · · ·involvement.· And that was the only involvement

·6· · · · ·I had starting in May of 1989 with the Stemple

·7· · · · ·firm.

·8· · ·Q· ·And in 1989, Bevan & Economus was also a

·9· · · · ·defendant with the Stemple law firm, correct?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.· No

11· · · · ·foundation.

12· · ·A· ·I don't -- I don't know.· I started in May of

13· · · · ·1989.· I have heard that there was a lawsuit

14· · · · ·that was filed, I believe by Raymark.· And that

15· · · · ·was certainly -- I don't know the details of

16· · · · ·it, other than I'm sure Bevan & Economus and/or

17· · · · ·Dale Economus or Keith Bevan were dismissed

18· · · · ·from that lawsuit, because by May of 1989, that

19· · · · ·wasn't going on.

20· · · · · · · ·So you said 1989.· I don't know when that

21· · · · ·involvement --

22· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So when --

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Move to strike.

24· · ·Q· ·When you start --

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Move to strike

Page 19

·1· · · · ·your answer?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Both.· Question

·3· · · · ·and answer.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Basis?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Foundation.

·6· · · · ·You're asking hypotheticals, Counselor.· Get to

·7· · · · ·the facts.

·8· · ·Q· ·Was the Raymark versus Stemple a hypothetical

·9· · · · ·case, in your mind?

10· · ·A· ·I don't really know anything about it.

11· · · · ·Certainly I've heard about it, but as of May of

12· · · · ·1989, that case did not exist, as far as I

13· · · · ·know.

14· · ·Q· ·Did you ever have any discussions with lawyers

15· · · · ·for Bevan & Economus regarding the Stemple, the

16· · · · ·Raymark versus Stemple litigation?

17· · ·A· ·I recall either Dale Economus or my father,

18· · · · ·Keith, or both of them telling me that Raymark

19· · · · ·had filed a suit, they were very unhappy that

20· · · · ·they got named in a suit, but that they were

21· · · · ·dismissed from the suit.

22· · ·Q· ·And when your father or Mr. Economus told you

23· · · · ·that, did they tell you that they had been sued

24· · · · ·for fraud?

25· · ·A· ·I don't recall what the lawsuit was about.

Page 20

·1· · ·Q· ·Have you ever reviewed it?

·2· · ·A· ·No.

·3· · ·Q· ·Did you ever review any of the allegations in

·4· · · · ·the lawsuit with anyone?

·5· · ·A· ·No.

·6· · ·Q· ·Did you have any understanding of whether any

·7· · · · ·doctors were sued?

·8· · ·A· ·I don't know that.

·9· · ·Q· ·Do you know whether you had any relationship

10· · · · ·with any of the doctors in the Raymark versus

11· · · · ·Stemple lawsuit?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · ·A· ·I don't know anything about the doctors in the

15· · · · ·lawsuit.· So I don't know.

16· · ·Q· ·Have you ever worked with Dr. Gelbard?

17· · ·A· ·I've seen Dr. Gelbard's reports.· I've never

18· · · · ·spoken with her or done anything with her other

19· · · · ·than review some of her reports.

20· · ·Q· ·With respect to talc plaintiffs, have you used

21· · · · ·Dr. Gelbard's reports?

22· · ·A· ·No.

23· · ·Q· ·Have you used any reports for Dr. Rao?

24· · ·A· ·If you're talking -- which Dr. Rao?

25· · ·Q· ·Let's find out.· Dr. Rao.

Page 21

·1· · · · · · · ·Are there multiple Dr. Raos?

·2· · ·A· ·I know of two.

·3· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Which two?

·4· · ·A· ·There was B. Rama Rao, who was associated with

·5· · · · ·Stemple, because I've seen his reports, and

·6· · · · ·there's a L.C. Rao, who's a pulmonologist and B

·7· · · · ·reader in the Cleveland area.

·8· · ·Q· ·With regard to B. Rama Rao, have you used those

·9· · · · ·reports with respect to any talc litigation

10· · · · ·plaintiffs?

11· · ·A· ·No.

12· · ·Q· ·And what about Dr. Krishan Bharadwaja?

13· · ·A· ·I believe that name was on the same reports as

14· · · · ·B. Rama Rao and -- yes.· So I've heard that

15· · · · ·name before.

16· · ·Q· ·And have you used that doctor with respect to

17· · · · ·any talc plaintiff?

18· · ·A· ·No.

19· · ·Q· ·Have you ever heard the name Dr. Ray Harron?

20· · ·A· ·Yes.

21· · ·Q· ·Have you used that doctor with respect to any

22· · · · ·talc plaintiffs?

23· · ·A· ·I've used him as a B reader, yes.

24· · ·Q· ·Do you have any understanding of whether

25· · · · ·Dr. Harron was ever sanctioned or censured by

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 7 of 168 PageID: 35126
Page 22

·1· · · · ·any court?

·2· · ·A· ·I believe sometime in approximately 2004. I

·3· · · · ·don't know if he was sanctioned, but he

·4· · · · ·withdrew from the litigation and we didn't use

·5· · · · ·him again after that.

·6· · ·Q· ·Do you have any understanding of why he

·7· · · · ·withdrew from litigation?

·8· · ·A· ·I don't know all the details.

·9· · ·Q· ·Do you know any details?

10· · ·A· ·My recollection is it had to do with silicosis

11· · · · ·cases in Texas and x-rays that he had reviewed

12· · · · ·and came to different conclusions on either the

13· · · · ·same person or same x-ray.· That was my

14· · · · ·recollection of it.

15· · ·Q· ·Did you have any role in trying to help

16· · · · ·Dr. Harron in any of his legal troubles?

17· · ·A· ·No.

18· · ·Q· ·Do you think that Dr. Harron's legal issues had

19· · · · ·anything to do with legislation that was later

20· · · · ·passed in Ohio?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

22· · · · ·Vague.

23· · ·A· ·I don't recall that name coming up during the

24· · · · ·legislative process.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Move to strike.

Page 23

·1· · ·Q· ·Were you involved at all in House Bill 292?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·Did you oppose House Bill 292?

·4· · ·A· ·Yes.

·5· · ·Q· ·Did you attend any hearings regarding House

·6· · · · ·Bill 292?

·7· · ·A· ·Yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·Did any of the hearings that you attended

·9· · · · ·include a discussion of Dr. Ray Harron and the

10· · · · ·diagnosis that he gave?

11· · ·A· ·I do not recall that being discussed at the

12· · · · ·time.

13· · ·Q· ·Do you agree that it's important for attorneys

14· · · · ·when signing pleadings to be truthful and

15· · · · ·accurate with the Court?

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·And do you believe that it's important not to

18· · · · ·mislead litigants or judges when attorneys are

19· · · · ·signing pleadings?

20· · ·A· ·Yes.

21· · ·Q· ·When an attorney's submitting an affidavit, do

22· · · · ·you believe that it's important to be accurate

23· · · · ·with the Court?

24· · ·A· ·Yes.

25· · ·Q· ·Did you submit an affidavit in this case?

Page 24

·1· · ·A· ·I believe so.

·2· · ·Q· ·Was it accurate?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·4· · · · ·What affidavit are you talking about,

·5· · · · ·Counselor?

·6· · ·Q· ·How many affidavits did you submit in this

·7· · · · ·case, Mr. Bevan?

·8· · ·A· ·I don't recall.

·9· · ·Q· ·Have you submitted more than one?

10· · ·A· ·I don't recall.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

12· · ·A· ·I know -- I know you showed me one at the

13· · · · ·last -- or other counsel showed me one at the

14· · · · ·last deposition.· I don't recall the --

15· · ·Q· ·Well, let's start this way:· In any affidavit

16· · · · ·that you've submitted in this case, are you

17· · · · ·aware of it being inaccurate?

18· · ·A· ·Am I aware of being inaccurate?

19· · ·Q· ·Correct.

20· · ·A· ·No.

21· · ·Q· ·Okay.· No matter how many affidavits you

22· · · · ·submitted, you believe that they are accurate?

23· · ·A· ·I --

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

25· · ·A· ·I believe they're accurate.

Page 25

·1· · ·Q· ·Let me show you an affidavit previously marked

·2· · · · ·as exhibit -- Defendants' Exhibit 145.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Tom, let me

·4· · · · ·just take a look at it and make sure we're not

·5· · · · ·having apples and oranges.

·6· · · · · · · ·Okay.· Thanks so much, Mr. Assaf.

·7· · ·Q· ·Now, you understood -- have you had a moment to

·8· · · · ·review this, Mr. Bevan?

·9· · ·A· ·Sure.

10· · ·Q· ·You understood that it was being submitted to a

11· · · · ·federal court, correct?

12· · ·A· ·Yes.

13· · ·Q· ·And you understood that it was being submitted

14· · · · ·in support of a motion for class certification,

15· · · · ·correct?

16· · ·A· ·I don't know what it was being submitted --

17· · · · ·what the purpose of it was, but the affidavit

18· · · · ·says what it says.

19· · ·Q· ·Well, how did it come that you did an

20· · · · ·affidavit?

21· · ·A· ·I talked --

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

23· · ·Q· ·You can answer.

24· · ·A· ·I talked to people from, and I forget who it

25· · · · ·was, from the Placitella firm, and they

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 8 of 168 PageID: 35127
Page 26

·1· · · · ·prepared a draft, I made some changes to the

·2· · · · ·draft, and then I signed it.

·3· · ·Q· ·Did you keep the draft that you originally got

·4· · · · ·from the Placitella firm?

·5· · ·A· ·I don't know.

·6· · ·Q· ·Well, in our previous discussion, we asked you

·7· · · · ·about your email retention policies, right?

·8· · ·A· ·Yes.

·9· · ·Q· ·And I think -- well, let me ask you:· Since the

10· · · · ·beginning of this case, have you deleted emails

11· · · · ·regarding the Williams case?

12· · ·A· ·I don't think so.

13· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So since January of 2018, have you

14· · · · ·deleted any emails that you received from the

15· · · · ·Placitella firm?

16· · ·A· ·I don't believe so.

17· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So you would have it in your email, if

18· · · · ·you received it by email?

19· · ·A· ·I assume.

20· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And did you mark up a draft physically,

21· · · · ·or did you do it on your computer?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

23· · · · ·form.

24· · ·A· ·I don't recall.· I don't know.

25· · ·Q· ·Did you talk to anybody about your changes?

Page 27

·1· · ·A· ·I believe, but I don't -- whatever changes I

·2· · · · ·made, I think it just had to do with a number,

·3· · · · ·I think, that's down here.

·4· · ·Q· ·Okay.· I'll talk to you about that.· What

·5· · · · ·number?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I'm going to

·7· · · · ·object to any questions about conversations

·8· · · · ·with -- between Mr. Bevan and lawyers from the

·9· · · · ·Cohen, Placitella & Roth firm.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I'll join that

11· · · · ·objection.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·This is of

13· · · · ·course -- in the order, those are privileged.

14· · ·A· ·2,653.

15· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Was that a number --

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection. I

17· · · · ·think I'm actually going to instruct you not to

18· · · · ·answer.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · Okay.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·If I can.

21· · ·Q· ·Did the plaintiffs provide you with that

22· · · · ·number, or did you provide that number to them?

23· · ·A· ·The number --

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Same objection.

25· · · · ·Excuse me.

Page 28

·1· · · · · · · ·Mr. Assaf, we will agree to a 502(d).

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Sure.

·3· · ·Q· ·You can answer.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Continuing

·5· · · · ·objection to this line of questioning.

·6· · ·A· ·The number 2,653 was a number that was arrived

·7· · · · ·at by me and my partner, Pat, based on the

·8· · · · ·review of our client data and based on the

·9· · · · ·parameters of -- and I believe it's described

10· · · · ·in here.· The parameters of what the class

11· · · · ·certification, what it says here.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Did they have a different number in

13· · · · ·there when you received it?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

15· · ·A· ·It may have been a blank number.· I'm not sure,

16· · · · ·but I know we went through our data numerous

17· · · · ·times and finally came up with that number,

18· · · · ·2,653.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Continuing

20· · · · ·objection to this line of questioning.

21· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And when you said "based on the

22· · · · ·parameters," the parameters are in paragraph 3,

23· · · · ·correct?

24· · ·A· ·I think so, yes.

25· · ·Q· ·So paragraph 3, what did you understand the

Page 29

·1· · · · ·parameters to be for the number that you were

·2· · · · ·searching for to give to the Court in an

·3· · · · ·affidavit?

·4· · ·A· ·These were clients that we represented where we

·5· · · · ·filed a lawsuit against BASF's predecessors and

·6· · · · ·had either settled those suits or dismissed

·7· · · · ·them and they worked at sites where we believed

·8· · · · ·that they had exposure to Eastern Magnesia Talc

·9· · · · ·product.

10· · ·Q· ·Really?· So could you turn to paragraph 3 and

11· · · · ·tell me where it is in the parameters that you

12· · · · ·understood that it would include people who

13· · · · ·worked at sites who never filed lawsuits?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·It doesn't say

15· · · · ·that.· Excuse me.· Objection.

16· · · · · · · ·Can I have the last answer read back,

17· · · · ·please.

18· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

19· · · · ·(Requested portion of the record was read.)

20· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Right.

22· · · · ·Objection.· Move to strike the question.

23· · · · ·Without foundation.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I join in that

25· · · · ·objection.· No foundation, misleading.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 9 of 168 PageID: 35128
Page 30

·1· · ·Q· ·You can answer, Mr. Bevan.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·No, I'm

·3· · · · ·instructing you not to answer.

·4· · ·A· ·I'm not sure I understand what your question

·5· · · · ·is, so maybe --

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Continuing

·7· · · · ·objection to this.

·8· · ·Q· ·The parameters that you -- the parameters that

·9· · · · ·you were looking at included people who had

10· · · · ·voluntarily dismissed or terminated their

11· · · · ·lawsuit, correct?· That's A.

12· · ·A· ·I'm reading.· You read that correctly.

13· · ·Q· ·Or B, had their lawsuit involuntarily

14· · · · ·dismissed, correct?

15· · ·A· ·Yes.

16· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Does it have anything to do with sites

17· · · · ·where people worked?

18· · ·A· ·Well, it indicates in the proceeding prior to

19· · · · ·A, "filed a lawsuit against BASF."· Of course I

20· · · · ·assume that to include Eastern Magnesia Talc or

21· · · · ·any of its other names.

22· · · · · · · ·And the way we filed our cases during

23· · · · ·this relevant time frame was in bulk master

24· · · · ·consolidated complaints.· So, for instance, we

25· · · · ·would have -- for example, we would have U.S.

Page 31

·1· · · · ·Steel people mixed into the same complaint as

·2· · · · ·BFGoodrich people.

·3· · · · · · · ·Now, we didn't intend to file or pursue a

·4· · · · ·case against BASF, against -- or its

·5· · · · ·predecessors, on the U.S. Steel cases.· We were

·6· · · · ·intending to do it on the Goodrich cases.· So

·7· · · · ·that's how I interpreted that and came up with

·8· · · · ·that number of 2,653 cases.

·9· · ·Q· ·Where is there in the definition a reference to

10· · · · ·people who worked at locations?

11· · ·A· ·It's not defined one way or the other, but we

12· · · · ·weren't pursing an Eastern Magnesia Talc case

13· · · · ·for a site where our client would not have had

14· · · · ·any exposure to Eastern Magnesia Talc.

15· · ·Q· ·How would a Court know that you were including

16· · · · ·in the definition people who worked at a

17· · · · ·facility?

18· · ·A· ·Because it says it's a lawsuit against BASF.

19· · ·Q· ·And where -- did you include in your 2,653

20· · · · ·number those clients who could have filed but

21· · · · ·didn't file?

22· · ·A· ·No.

23· · ·Q· ·You didn't?

24· · ·A· ·No.

25· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Could you pull open your deposition from

Page 32

·1· · · · ·the last -- turn your attention to page 115.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Mr. Assaf, in

·3· · · · ·the future, before you hand the witness a

·4· · · · ·document, I'd like to look at it, please.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Well, I think

·6· · · · ·you have a copy.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I don't have a

·8· · · · ·copy.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · You do.· It's

10· · · · ·sitting right in front of you.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I want to make

12· · · · ·sure that my copy is accurate because two times

13· · · · ·it hasn't been accurate, all right?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · The

15· · · · ·deposition's not accurate?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · No, the copy

17· · · · ·that has been furnished to me.· So show it to

18· · · · ·me first before you show it to the witness.

19· · · · ·That's how you do things up in Ohio.

20· · · · · · · ·There you go, Tom.

21· · ·Q· ·Let's try it this way, Mr. Bevan.· I'm going to

22· · · · ·give you what's been previously marked as

23· · · · ·exhibit -- or what's been premarked as

24· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 244, and I'll give it to

25· · · · ·counsel too, because I think I'm going to be

Page 33

·1· · · · ·using this today.· Okay.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · So this is

·3· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 244, Counsel.· Take a

·4· · · · ·moment to recognize it and see if you have any

·5· · · · ·objections to it in terms of authenticity.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Let's go off

·7· · · · ·the record, please.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

·9· · · · ·The time is 9:36.

10· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

11· · · · · · · (Discussion held off the record.)

12· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

14· · · · ·the record.· The time is 9:37.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Excuse me.· I'm

16· · · · ·just going to interpose an objection to

17· · · · ·document Exhibit 244.· Is that correct?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · That's correct.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · This is the

20· · · · ·deposition of Thomas Bevan given on April 5,

21· · · · ·2018 in the Kimberlee Williams versus BASF

22· · · · ·Catalysts case, is that correct, and I'm

23· · · · ·looking at -- I've been given pages 63

24· · · · ·through --

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · No, you've been

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 10 of 168 PageID:

35129
Page 34

·1· · · · ·given the entire --

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · No, I have not

·3· · · · ·been given the entire deposition, I've been

·4· · · · ·given pages 63 through 131.· Don't tell me what

·5· · · · ·I've been given.· There is no errata sheet in

·6· · · · ·this exhibit.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Okay.· No.

·8· · · · ·You've been given day two, the entirety of day

·9· · · · ·two of the deposition.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I'm

11· · · · ·identifying --

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · You've been

13· · · · ·given --

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · -- the pages of

15· · · · ·what --

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · You have been

17· · · · ·given --

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · -- I have been

19· · · · ·given.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · -- day two of

21· · · · ·the deposition.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Don't raise

23· · · · ·your voice.· I've been given the pages I just

24· · · · ·outlined.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Correct.

Page 35

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · All right.· And

·2· · · · ·there is no errata sheet on this.· It is

·3· · · · ·incomplete.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Do you have an

·5· · · · ·errata sheet?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I do not.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Okay.

·8· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

·9· · ·Q· ·Well, let's --

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Apparently you

11· · · · ·don't either.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Mr. Bevan, could you turn to page 114?

13· · ·A· ·Yes.

14· · ·Q· ·It says, Question, "Further down in paragraph

15· · · · ·6, this is at the very bottom, you see the

16· · · · ·reference to 2,653 Bevan Law Firm clients who

17· · · · ·would meet the proposed class definition?"

18· · · · · · · ·Answer, "Yes."

19· · · · · · · ·"What documents or data were used to

20· · · · ·arrive at the figure of 2,653 Bevan Law Firm

21· · · · ·clients?"

22· · · · · · · ·Answer, "I believe they were clients that

23· · · · ·had filed suit against Eastern Magnesia Talc

24· · · · ·and/or could have filed suit against Eastern

25· · · · ·Magnesia Talc and either settled their claims

Page 36

·1· · · · ·with Eastern Magnesia Talc or had their claims

·2· · · · ·dismissed against Eastern Magnesia Talc.· And

·3· · · · ·they were at sites where there was a high

·4· · · · ·likelihood of Eastern Magnesia Talc exposure.

·5· · · · ·I believe those were the criteria that we were

·6· · · · ·looking at."

·7· · · · · · · ·Question, "So the figure 2,653 includes

·8· · · · ·clients who did file and clients who could have

·9· · · · ·filed?"

10· · · · · · · ·"Objection.· Form and foundation."

11· · · · · · · ·Answer, "I believe so, yes."

12· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

13· · ·A· ·Yes.

14· · ·Q· ·Is that testimony an error?

15· · ·A· ·To the extent that it says "and/or could have

16· · · · ·filed suit against Eastern Magnesia Talc," I

17· · · · ·went back and checked and I do not believe that

18· · · · ·number of 2,653 includes people who could have

19· · · · ·filed suit against Eastern Magnesia Talc, it

20· · · · ·only included those that had in fact filed suit

21· · · · ·against Eastern Magnesia, and I believe that's

22· · · · ·what I indicated on the errata sheet.

23· · ·Q· ·When did you go back and check that?

24· · ·A· ·When I reviewed -- at the time when I reviewed

25· · · · ·the deposition transcript.

Page 37

·1· · ·Q· ·Prior to reviewing the deposition transcript,

·2· · · · ·did anybody raise that issue with you?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·4· · ·A· ·I don't --

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Don't answer

·6· · · · ·that.

·7· · ·Q· ·Definitely answer that question.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·That's

·9· · · · ·attorney-client privilege.· Don't answer that

10· · · · ·question.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·Any basis for

12· · · · ·changing sworn testimony is not attorney-client

13· · · · ·privilege, my friend.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Listen, I'm

15· · · · ·not your friend, number one.· Number two, the

16· · · · ·objection stands.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·Let's get the

18· · · · ·judge on the phone.

19· · · · · · · ·Go off the record.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the

21· · · · ·record.· The time is 9:40.

22· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

23· · · · · · · · · · · (Off the record.)

24· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

25· · · · · · · · · · · (Telephone call.)

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 11 of 168 PageID:

35130
Page 38

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Good morning.

·3· · · · ·Roberto Rivera-Soto speaking.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·Good morning,

·5· · · · ·your Honor.· This is Gene Assaf and I'm here

·6· · · · ·with a number of lawyers at the Attorney Bevan

·7· · · · ·deposition.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Ah.· Mazel

·9· · · · ·Tov, as we say in Puerto Rico.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·Well, thank

11· · · · ·you, your Honor.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: How is

13· · · · ·everyone this morning?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·I think

15· · · · ·everybody is very well.· We just started.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Okay.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·I think we

18· · · · ·need a little guidance.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Okay.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·There's a --

21· · · · ·as you know, Mr. Bevan previously sat as a

22· · · · ·document custodian and in a prior deposition

23· · · · ·regarding an affidavit that he had submitted to

24· · · · ·the Court for class certification.

25· · · · · · · ·He was -- he said in the affidavit to the

Page 39

·1· · · · ·Court that there were 2,653 people who met the

·2· · · · ·class definition.

·3· · · · · · · ·In his deposition as a document

·4· · · · ·custodian, he said that that 2,653 included

·5· · · · ·clients who filed and clients who could have

·6· · · · ·filed.· He then after that deposition did an

·7· · · · ·errata sheet that clarifies that it doesn't

·8· · · · ·include the could have filed.

·9· · · · · · · ·I think I'm entitled to ask him why he

10· · · · ·did the errata sheet, what caused him, whether

11· · · · ·there were any conversations regarding that,

12· · · · ·and there's an instruction for privilege.· But

13· · · · ·my understanding is that when a witness does an

14· · · · ·errata sheet and has changes to sworn

15· · · · ·testimony, that one can inquire as to the basis

16· · · · ·for those changes and what conversations caused

17· · · · ·them, because it's just like a witness being on

18· · · · ·the stand.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Are you done,

20· · · · ·Mr. Assaf?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Yes.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Judge, this is

23· · · · ·Attorney Kevin McDermott.· You don't know me,

24· · · · ·I'm just a small --

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Is that a good

Page 40

·1· · · · ·thing or a bad thing?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·I was going to

·3· · · · ·say I think it's a good thing for most people.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Okay.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·My wife would

·6· · · · ·say so.· And I want to thank you for taking our

·7· · · · ·phone call.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: I'm happy to

·9· · · · ·do it.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Mr. Assaf is

11· · · · ·incorrect in a couple of ways.· First of all,

12· · · · ·he's handed Mr. Bevan, my client, a deposition

13· · · · ·that doesn't contain the errata sheet, and so

14· · · · ·the document is incomplete.· Okay.· And so the

15· · · · ·questions, which have kind of -- a little bit

16· · · · ·I've objected to on those grounds for lack of

17· · · · ·foundation and accuracy.

18· · · · · · · ·Also, two, he's begun to ask questions

19· · · · ·about what I believe could have been

20· · · · ·attorney-client privilege.· I really don't

21· · · · ·understand the ambit of the questions.

22· · · · · · · ·If he would produce the errata sheet and

23· · · · ·we would have a complete document, I think that

24· · · · ·he could then question Mr. Bevan accurately and

25· · · · ·fairly.· That's all I'm asking.

Page 41

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Well, and let

·2· · · · ·me just stop you there for a moment.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Sure.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Mr. Assaf.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·Yes.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Do you have

·7· · · · ·the errata sheet handy?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·Not only do I

·9· · · · ·not have it, your Honor, but I'm seeing emails

10· · · · ·and texts where nobody at Kirkland has it.

11· · · · ·Now, maybe --

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Okay.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·Maybe we're

14· · · · ·missing it.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Where is this

16· · · · ·deposition being taken?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·In Cleveland.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·In Cleveland,

19· · · · ·Ohio, your Honor.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: And is it

21· · · · ·Mr. Bevan's office or somewhere else?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·No, it's not.

23· · · · ·It's in the defendant's co-counsel's office,

24· · · · ·Judge.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Who's that?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 12 of 168 PageID:

35131
Page 42

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Thompson Hine

·2· · · · ·& Flory.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Okay.· Well, I

·4· · · · ·would assume, unless I'm totally, totally

·5· · · · ·crazed, which I try not to be, in fact, the

·6· · · · ·errata sheet should be readily available from

·7· · · · ·Mr. Bevan.· He can either have someone email it

·8· · · · ·to where you guys are located or hand deliver

·9· · · · ·it or, you know, Pony Express it there, but

10· · · · ·somehow get it there so that this sideshow can

11· · · · ·be put to rest.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·That would be

13· · · · ·great, your Honor.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·That would be

15· · · · ·great, yeah.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Thank you so

17· · · · ·much.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·Because none

19· · · · ·of the attorneys in the --

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Mr. Bevan --

21· · · · ·I'm sorry.· Mr. Bevan, are you there?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · ·I am, your

23· · · · ·Honor.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Mr. Bevan, can

25· · · · ·you do that for us, please?

Page 43

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · ·I will try my

·2· · · · ·hardest.· I'm going to send a text right now to

·3· · · · ·my paralegal.· And I assume she still has it.

·4· · · · ·She mailed and emailed it, whatever you do,

·5· · · · ·with the court reporter.· I know I completed it

·6· · · · ·and signed it and gave it to her to handle.

·7· · · · ·So ...

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Well, if she

·9· · · · ·doesn't have it, please have her retrieve it

10· · · · ·from the court reporter.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · ·Yes.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: It's got to be

13· · · · ·some place.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · ·Yes.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: And it's got

16· · · · ·to be some place that can readily retrievable

17· · · · ·so it can be used at the deposition.

18· · · · · · · ·To answer the second question -- is it

19· · · · ·Mr. McDermott?· Did I get that correct?

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Yes, Judge.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: I'm sorry, I

22· · · · ·didn't want to call you by a different names.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·That's okay.

24· · · · ·I'll answer to anything, your Honor.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Well, as long

Page 44

·1· · · · ·as you're not called late for dinner, I'm sure.

·2· · · · · · · ·But, Mr. McDermott, you had a second

·3· · · · ·question about whether the attorney-client

·4· · · · ·privilege applies.

·5· · · · · · · ·Just so that you know, the presiding

·6· · · · ·district court judge is Chief Judge Linares

·7· · · · ·here in the District of New Jersey, has ruled

·8· · · · ·that those privileges have been waived because

·9· · · · ·they've put the issue -- the matter into issue.

10· · · · · · · ·So I would hope that someone has given

11· · · · ·you the benefit of those earlier rulings, I'm

12· · · · ·thinking in particular of an August 3, 2017

13· · · · ·opinion that judge -- Chief Judge Linares

14· · · · ·issued in this case that sort of provides the

15· · · · ·blueprint of the deposition that Mr. Assaf is

16· · · · ·trying to take of Mr. Bevan.

17· · · · · · · ·So I would suggest to you that if you

18· · · · ·haven't had a chance to look at that, that you

19· · · · ·find some time before you make an

20· · · · ·attorney-client privilege objection, because it

21· · · · ·seems to me that it likely would not be

22· · · · ·well-founded and it also seems to me that

23· · · · ·interposing that objection at this stage might

24· · · · ·result in the imposition of sanctions in this

25· · · · ·case, because the issue, that's been litigated,

Page 45

·1· · · · ·frankly, fairly well, and it doesn't need to be

·2· · · · ·revisited again is my view.· So ...

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · · Your Honor,

·4· · · · ·it's Harry Roth.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Good morning,

·6· · · · ·Mr. Roth.· How are you?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · · I'm doing

·8· · · · ·great.· How are you?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: I'm not in

10· · · · ·Cleveland, so I'm okay.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · · Okay.· But the

12· · · · ·number of times I find myself saying yeah, but

13· · · · ·we won a Super Bowl, so it doesn't matter.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: That's the

15· · · · ·only --

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · · Right.

17· · · · · · · ·And I think the issue of Judge Linares'

18· · · · ·ruling about the limited waiver of

19· · · · ·attorney-client privilege has been gone over

20· · · · ·extensively with counsel.

21· · · · · · · ·The objection being raised now is one

22· · · · ·that would affect Mr. McDermott's communication

23· · · · ·with Mr. Bevan, which is a separate issue and

24· · · · ·well beyond the scope, in my view, of what

25· · · · ·Chief Judge Linares ruled with respect to

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 13 of 168 PageID:

35132
Page 46

·1· · · · ·privilege between Mr. Bevan and his clients in

·2· · · · ·the underlying cases or in facts, in discussion

·3· · · · ·of facts, as it may arise in the Williams case.

·4· · · · · · · ·And I would also add --

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: But work with

·6· · · · ·me here, Mr. Roth.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · · Yes.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Because if the

·9· · · · ·discussions that Mr. Bevan is having with

10· · · · ·Mr. McDermott are really about the subject

11· · · · ·matter that Chief Judge Linares has already

12· · · · ·determined is waived, you don't get to then

13· · · · ·repackage it under a privilege because you're

14· · · · ·talking to a different lawyer in respect to it.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · · I don't

16· · · · ·disagree with that, your Honor.· The square --

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Okay.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · · The square

19· · · · ·question posed by Mr. Assaf was whether there

20· · · · ·was any -- sorry, I shouldn't say "the square

21· · · · ·question."

22· · · · · · · ·The paraphrasing of the question was

23· · · · ·whether there was any discussion between

24· · · · ·Mr. Bevan and anyone that led to his reviewing

25· · · · ·the number of case files that satisfied the

Page 47

·1· · · · ·class definition.· So that --

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: I mean, that's

·3· · · · ·a yes or a no answer.· Whether there was any

·4· · · · ·discussion is a yes or no answer.· With whom.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Well, Judge --

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Well, with my

·7· · · · ·lawyer.· Oh, okay.· Then the privilege gets

·8· · · · ·into the --

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Fair enough,

10· · · · ·Judge.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: -- mix, but

12· · · · ·the question that was asked is did this happen?

13· · · · ·Yes or no, it didn't.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Judge --

15· · · · ·Judge, if I could just add to what Mr. Roth

16· · · · ·said.· The question was much broader than that,

17· · · · ·but it just -- to me, it was asking about any

18· · · · ·and all matters that I may have had

19· · · · ·conversations with my client regarding my job

20· · · · ·here, which is just to defend this deposition,

21· · · · ·again, nothing to do with the lawsuit in New

22· · · · ·Jersey, Judge, and that's why I objected,

23· · · · ·because privilege is privilege.· And I --

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Well, I

25· · · · ·understand that, Mr. McDermott, but the problem

Page 48

·1· · · · ·is that you're representing your client at a

·2· · · · ·deposition because he's been subpoenaed to

·3· · · · ·testify in a New Jersey District Court case.

·4· · · · · · · ·In that New Jersey District Court case,

·5· · · · ·rulings in respect of privilege dealing with

·6· · · · ·the earlier cases and what was known and what

·7· · · · ·was not known and what lead the clients then to

·8· · · · ·either not bring a case, bring a case and then

·9· · · · ·dismiss it, or bring a case and then settle it

10· · · · ·for a nominal value is at issue in this case

11· · · · ·and, therefore, waived by the plaintiffs' own

12· · · · ·actions.

13· · · · · · · ·So I understand what you're saying, but

14· · · · ·in the end, it doesn't strike me as being all

15· · · · ·that relevant.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·So, your

17· · · · ·Honor, I think -- yes, I think we're all --

18· · · · ·we're now all level set here.

19· · · · · · · ·The specific question that caused this

20· · · · ·is -- and it goes to your comment that, you

21· · · · ·know, did he talk to somebody about changing

22· · · · ·this.· But when a witness, whether on the stand

23· · · · ·or after he gives sworn testimony, changes that

24· · · · ·testimony, then a lawyer's entitled to inquire

25· · · · ·into what was said to -- if anything, to cause

Page 49

·1· · · · ·him to change that testimony, because it's --

·2· · · · ·it's just like being on the stand.

·3· · · · · · · ·If he went out into the hallway and then

·4· · · · ·came back and changed his testimony, a lawyer

·5· · · · ·would be entitled to find out what was

·6· · · · ·discussed regarding the reasons for the change.

·7· · · · ·And that's what I think I'm entitled to.

·8· · · · · · · ·He had -- he had submitted an affidavit

·9· · · · ·to Chief Judge Linares that had a very specific

10· · · · ·number in it.· He then testified where that

11· · · · ·specific number came from and the basis for

12· · · · ·that number.· Then in the errata sheet, which

13· · · · ·nobody here has yet, he's changed that and

14· · · · ·clarified it.· I think I'm entitled to now find

15· · · · ·out why the affidavit and the testimony

16· · · · ·regarding the affidavit has been clarified and

17· · · · ·what caused him to clarify it.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Judge, I can

19· · · · ·tell the Court I did not inform my client to

20· · · · ·change any bit of his testimony.· I informed my

21· · · · ·client to review his deposition and make

22· · · · ·changes as necessary.

23· · · · · · · ·And so these questions go outside that

24· · · · ·ambit.· They weren't that specific.· And maybe

25· · · · ·we just need to rephrase them, but the

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 14 of 168 PageID:

35133
Page 50

·1· · · · ·questions were so broad that I had to interpose

·2· · · · ·that objection, Judge.

·3· · · · · · · ·And I don't mean to get sideways with you

·4· · · · ·or with prior rulings down there in New Jersey,

·5· · · · ·but it was kind of outside of that fence.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·So if

·7· · · · ·Mr. Bevan's attorney is now saying that he

·8· · · · ·didn't discuss anything regarding the changes

·9· · · · ·with him except to review it, then I think it's

10· · · · ·a pretty easy answer, because if somebody else

11· · · · ·discussed it with him --

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Stop right

13· · · · ·there.· It's a pretty easy answer, period.

14· · · · · · · ·It strikes me that -- Mr. McDermott, I of

15· · · · ·course will take your representations as an

16· · · · ·officer of the court that you have not had any

17· · · · ·discussions concerning the errata sheet with

18· · · · ·Mr. Bevan.

19· · · · · · · ·And so, Mr. Bevan, you're ordered to

20· · · · ·answer those questions.· It's not any more

21· · · · ·complicated than that.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Judge, just to

23· · · · ·be specific, we never got the deposition and I

24· · · · ·told Mr. Bevan that if he had any changes, to

25· · · · ·sign them on the errata sheet.· And that's all

Page 51

·1· · · · ·I told him.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Okay.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·I didn't -- I

·4· · · · ·personally did not review the deposition,

·5· · · · ·because I didn't get it, and he hadn't gotten

·6· · · · ·it either.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Well, how did

·8· · · · ·he prepare an errata sheet if he didn't have

·9· · · · ·the deposition?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·I had to go

11· · · · ·hunt for it, because I kept asking the court

12· · · · ·reporter where it was and it never came.

13· · · · · · · ·I thought the original -- usually in Ohio

14· · · · ·when a witness asks to read, the original is

15· · · · ·sent to the witness, and then -- that's kind of

16· · · · ·pro forma how it's done, but apparently that

17· · · · ·was lost in translation here.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Well, I will

19· · · · ·tell you, in the jurisdictions in which I'm

20· · · · ·licensed, when a witness says that he'd like to

21· · · · ·read and sign a deposition, the transcript is

22· · · · ·sent directly to the witness.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Yes.· It was

24· · · · ·not in this case.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: It's sent to

Page 52

·1· · · · ·everybody else, but it's sent directly to the

·2· · · · ·witness.· Or it's sent to the lawyer

·3· · · · ·representing him with instructions to get it to

·4· · · · ·the witness, otherwise how is the witness going

·5· · · · ·to read and sign and/or provide an errata

·6· · · · ·sheet?· It just doesn't -- it's just not --

·7· · · · ·it's just not that complicated.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·I thought so

·9· · · · ·too, Judge, but maybe -- I thought New Jersey

10· · · · ·rules are different.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Well, there's

12· · · · ·a lot about New Jersey that is unique, I will

13· · · · ·concede that, but there's a great deal about it

14· · · · ·that is pretty run of the wheel --

15· · · · ·run-of-the-mill.· So this is one of those

16· · · · ·run-of-the-mill matters.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·So now that

18· · · · ·Mr. McDermott has made the representation, then

19· · · · ·if Mr. Bevan did have discussions with anybody,

20· · · · ·it would -- a fortiori or with somebody other

21· · · · ·than his lawyer and that's subject to

22· · · · ·examination.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·That's not

24· · · · ·been -- well, all right.· Judge.

25· · · · · · · ·Why don't you rephrase the question,

Page 53

·1· · · · ·Mr. Assaf, all right?· Let's not try to try the

·2· · · · ·case in front of the judge here.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: We're not -- I

·4· · · · ·can tell you right now we're not going to try

·5· · · · ·the case over the phone today.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·Okay.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·I think I

·8· · · · ·understand you, your Honor.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Okay.· You

10· · · · ·know, we'll -- hopefully you folks will be able

11· · · · ·to get through at least the next 45 minutes of

12· · · · ·this deposition without having to call me.· Not

13· · · · ·that I mind, I enjoy hearing from all of you,

14· · · · ·but let's try to get this deposition moving and

15· · · · ·completed.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·Judge, in 35

17· · · · ·years of being a lawyer, this is the second

18· · · · ·time I ever had to call a judge at a

19· · · · ·deposition.· I apologize.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: No apology

21· · · · ·necessary.· You did what you thought you needed

22· · · · ·to do and I'm absolutely fine with that.· And I

23· · · · ·can also claim to be your senior, because I've

24· · · · ·been a lawyer for 41 years.· So I know I look

25· · · · ·and sound much younger, but ...

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 15 of 168 PageID:

35134
Page 54

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·You do.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: That's where

·3· · · · ·we are.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · ·All right.

·5· · · · ·Thank you, your Honor.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · ·Thank you.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE RIVERA-SOTO: Thank you.

·8· · · · ·Bye-bye.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

10· · · · · · · · · (End of telephone call.)

11· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Let's put on

13· · · · ·the record that that was a 16-minute telephone

14· · · · ·conference with your Honor.· I'm not counting

15· · · · ·that against my time.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I thought you

17· · · · ·were going somewhere else with that.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · No.

19· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

20· · · · · · · · · · · (Off the record.)

21· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

23· · · · ·the record.

24· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

25· · ·Q· ·While we're waiting, Mr. Bevan, for the errata

Page 55

·1· · · · ·sheet to be printed, let's go back to the

·2· · · · ·sanctions issue that you and I discussed

·3· · · · ·briefly.

·4· · · · · · · ·I'm showing you a case called Baker

·5· · · · ·versus AK Steel from the Ohio Court of Appeals.

·6· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this case?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · This is Exhibit

·8· · · · ·228, correct?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · 228.

10· · ·A· ·Yeah.· This is the case I mentioned earlier.

11· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And in this case, it says that -- if you

12· · · · ·turn to the second page, headnote 13, it says,

13· · · · ·"Furthermore, Attorney Bevan violated Civil

14· · · · ·Rule 11 when he submitted a complaint based

15· · · · ·upon documents that were not signed and dated

16· · · · ·by Mrs. Cundiff."

17· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

18· · ·A· ·Yes.

19· · ·Q· ·Do you disagree with that court finding?

20· · ·A· ·My recollection is that that -- I have to look

21· · · · ·at the pleadings again, because I believe when

22· · · · ·we filed that case in court, it was filed by

23· · · · ·the daughter who we believed to be the

24· · · · ·executrix of the estate, Amber Baker, which is

25· · · · ·the title of the case, not by Mrs. Cundiff.· So

Page 56

·1· · · · ·I guess that -- that statement doesn't make any

·2· · · · ·sense.

·3· · ·Q· ·You think the Court's wrong?

·4· · ·A· ·On that line, yeah, I think so.· I'm not

·5· · · · ·positive.· I have to take a look at the file

·6· · · · ·again, but my recollection was the lawsuit was

·7· · · · ·filed by Amber Baker as executrix of the estate

·8· · · · ·of Mrs. Cundiff.· It was acknowledged in the

·9· · · · ·lawsuit that Mrs. Cundiff was deceased.

10· · ·Q· ·Do you acknowledge that the Court found that

11· · · · ·you violated Rule 11?

12· · ·A· ·It says that here.

13· · ·Q· ·Do you disagree with that finding?

14· · ·A· ·I -- yes, I certainly do.

15· · ·Q· ·Could you turn to headnote 15 on page 3?

16· · · · · · · ·It says, "Because Attorney Bevan

17· · · · ·willfully filed Mrs. Cundiff's claim in bad

18· · · · ·faith, the trial court did not abuse its

19· · · · ·discretion when it awarded attorney's fees to

20· · · · ·AK Steel on the basis of Civil Rule 11."

21· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

22· · ·A· ·I see that.

23· · ·Q· ·Do you disagree with the Court's finding there?

24· · ·A· ·Oh, I certainly do.· I won that issue in other

25· · · · ·cases.· So in this jurisdiction, that is not a

Page 57

·1· · · · ·winning argument, but in other jurisdictions it

·2· · · · ·is.

·3· · ·Q· ·In "this jurisdiction," you mean Ohio?

·4· · ·A· ·No, I mean in whatever this -- the 12th

·5· · · · ·District of Butler County.· I would not do it

·6· · · · ·in Butler County, but I've successfully pursued

·7· · · · ·cases on behalf of deceased widows on Workers'

·8· · · · ·Compensation death claims and successfully done

·9· · · · ·it in the past.

10· · ·Q· ·In other jurisdictions within Ohio, have you

11· · · · ·then -- have you signed and initialed on behalf

12· · · · ·of clients?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · ·A· ·I -- I'm not sure what you're talking about.

15· · ·Q· ·Sure.

16· · · · · · · ·You understand in the Baker case one of

17· · · · ·the issues was that it wasn't the client's

18· · · · ·actual signature on certain papers, correct?

19· · ·A· ·Yes.

20· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And do you do that -- withdrawn.

21· · · · · · · ·Have you done that on behalf of talc

22· · · · ·plaintiffs?

23· · ·A· ·I guess I'm not sure.· I don't know what you

24· · · · ·mean by that, I guess.

25· · ·Q· ·Sure.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 16 of 168 PageID:

35135
Page 58

·1· · · · · · · ·Earlier you said and except for Butler

·2· · · · ·County, you continue this practice that you

·3· · · · ·were sanctioned for in Butler County.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·5· · · · ·the form.

·6· · ·Q· ·Okay.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·And -- excuse

·8· · · · ·me.· I'm sorry, Mr. Assaf.

·9· · · · · · · ·Objection to --

10· · ·A· ·I don't think that's what I said.

11· · ·Q· ·All right.· So what --

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Can I --

13· · ·Q· ·What do you --

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Excuse me.

15· · · · ·Gentlemen, can I make my objection?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Sure.· Sure.

17· · · · ·Objection.· I heard you.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I don't know

19· · · · ·that the court reporter did and then there was

20· · · · ·an answer.· So if we could slow down a little

21· · · · ·bit.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Sure.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Thanks.

24· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

25· · ·Q· ·So what practice do you continue that you think

Page 59

·1· · · · ·was -- got you into trouble in Butler County?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·3· · · · ·form and foundation.

·4· · ·A· ·The practice of pursuing Workers' Compensation

·5· · · · ·death benefit claims on behalf of a widow that

·6· · · · ·has died after her husband in attempting to

·7· · · · ·recover benefits for the period between her

·8· · · · ·husband's death and her death on behalf of the

·9· · · · ·estate.

10· · ·Q· ·Turning to footnote -- to note 13.

11· · · · · · · ·It says, "According, to Attorney Bevan,

12· · · · ·this practice serves to avoid unnecessary

13· · · · ·delays or rejection in the event that the

14· · · · ·documents are submitted to medical providers

15· · · · ·months after they are signed by the client.

16· · · · ·The firm dates the documents once they are

17· · · · ·forwarded to the requesting party.· In

18· · · · ·addition, Attorney Bevan admits that the FROI-1

19· · · · ·form, a BWC document used to initiate a

20· · · · ·workers' compensation claim in Ohio, was signed

21· · · · ·and dated by another member of the firm's

22· · · · ·staff.· However, in an attempt to counter the

23· · · · ·appearance of bad faith, Attorney Bevan

24· · · · ·emphasizes that the form contained the initials

25· · · · ·'MP' by Mrs. Cundiff's name to acknowledge that

Page 60

·1· · · · ·it was not her signature."

·2· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·3· · ·A· ·Yes.

·4· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Does the Bevan Firm have a practice of

·5· · · · ·encouraging clients to sign but not date forms?

·6· · ·A· ·Typically -- no, not typically, but in

·7· · · · ·situations, for instance, for medical releases,

·8· · · · ·because some providers won't take them after 60

·9· · · · ·days.· And so, you know, we'll ask them to sign

10· · · · ·a blank medical release, and then we'll put the

11· · · · ·date on there when we send it off to defense

12· · · · ·counsel.

13· · ·Q· ·Do you ask them to sign legal pleadings, such

14· · · · ·as affidavits or claims forms, and not date

15· · · · ·them?

16· · ·A· ·Certainly not an affidavit, because that's got

17· · · · ·to be notarized and dated at the time that it's

18· · · · ·signed by the fiant.

19· · · · · · · ·With Workers' Compensation forms, the

20· · · · ·FROI-1 form -- or actually, to file a Workers'

21· · · · ·Comp claim does not require the claimant's

22· · · · ·signature.· In fact, a lot of that stuff can be

23· · · · ·done electronically.· It does not require

24· · · · ·claimant's signature.

25· · · · · · · ·So we've had many instances where maybe

Page 61

·1· · · · ·the statute's coming up and we'll just, you

·2· · · · ·know, sign the form for the client, you know,

·3· · · · ·initial it and we indicate that it's not the

·4· · · · ·client signing it, but ...

·5· · ·Q· ·With respect to talc plaintiffs, have you

·6· · · · ·submitted claims to trusts with a signature by

·7· · · · ·somebody in the Bevan Firm that's then

·8· · · · ·initialed?

·9· · ·A· ·I don't believe the trust claims require a

10· · · · ·signature from anybody.· So the answer would be

11· · · · ·no.

12· · · · · · · ·The releases require a signature by the

13· · · · ·claimant, and those would be signed by the

14· · · · ·claimant, not by anybody from the Bevan Firm,

15· · · · ·but the claim that you file with the trust does

16· · · · ·not require a signature that I know of.

17· · ·Q· ·In terms of the talc plaintiffs, did any of the

18· · · · ·talc plaintiffs provide you with -- withdrawn.

19· · · · · · · ·Did you provide any of the talc

20· · · · ·plaintiffs with documents that you asked them

21· · · · ·to sign and not date?

22· · ·A· ·Not that I recall.

23· · ·Q· ·Would there be anything wrong with that?

24· · ·A· ·I don't know what documents you would be

25· · · · ·referring to.· You know, we don't always

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 17 of 168 PageID:

35136
Page 62

·1· · · · ·require a client date his or her signature.

·2· · ·Q· ·Have you talked to reporters about this case,

·3· · · · ·the Williams case?

·4· · ·A· ·A reporter called me a week or two ago and I

·5· · · · ·talked to her briefly.

·6· · ·Q· ·What reporter?

·7· · ·A· ·I believe she was from Reuters and I do not

·8· · · · ·recall the name.

·9· · ·Q· ·What did she ask you about the case?

10· · ·A· ·She was asking about Johnson & Johnson and

11· · · · ·whether or not this issue, these issues,

12· · · · ·involved Johnson & Johnson and -- that was my

13· · · · ·recollection.

14· · ·Q· ·What did you tell her, if anything?

15· · ·A· ·I believe it does involve Johnson & Johnson,

16· · · · ·because I believe that Johnson & Johnson had

17· · · · ·the liabilities up until a certain point in

18· · · · ·time for this, the talc that came out of that

19· · · · ·mine, Eastern Magnesia Talc.· So I believe

20· · · · ·these -- the issues in this case affects

21· · · · ·Johnson & Johnson as well, they have the

22· · · · ·liabilities.

23· · ·Q· ·Other than that recent conversation with the

24· · · · ·Reuters reporter, have you talked to any other

25· · · · ·reporters about this case?

Page 63

·1· · ·A· ·I believe there was another -- I think, yes.

·2· · · · ·There was a man.· I don't recall which -- who

·3· · · · ·he was with, but I believe so.· I believe that

·4· · · · ·was quite a while ago.

·5· · ·Q· ·Okay.· I'm going to show you this and see if I

·6· · · · ·can refresh your recollection.· I'll show you

·7· · · · ·what's been marked as Exhibit 237.

·8· · · · · · · ·Exhibit 237 is a printout of a Bloomberg

·9· · · · ·article from September 3, 2015.

10· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this, Mr. Bevan?

11· · ·A· ·Jef Feeley, that's the name I think I

12· · · · ·recognize, yes.

13· · ·Q· ·Did you talk to Mr. Feeley at some point?

14· · ·A· ·I believe Mr. Feeley came to my office.· We

15· · · · ·probably talked on the phone as well.

16· · ·Q· ·Did you talk on the phone before, after, or

17· · · · ·both, the office visit?

18· · ·A· ·Certainly before.· Whether we talked after the

19· · · · ·office visit, I don't recall.

20· · ·Q· ·Prior to talking to Mr. Feeley and meeting with

21· · · · ·him, had you known him?

22· · ·A· ·No.

23· · ·Q· ·How did you come to contact Mr. Feeley?· Or did

24· · · · ·he contact you?

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

Page 64

·1· · · · ·the form.

·2· · ·A· ·He called me and I returned his phone call.

·3· · ·Q· ·What did he say when he called you?

·4· · ·A· ·That he was doing a story on this particular

·5· · · · ·case having to do with BASF.

·6· · ·Q· ·Do you know how he got your name?

·7· · ·A· ·No.· I assume he got it from the Placitella

·8· · · · ·firm, but I don't know.

·9· · ·Q· ·Did the Placitella firm email you about this?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

11· · ·A· ·I don't recall.

12· · ·Q· ·And then the article came out, correct,

13· · · · ·Bloomberg?

14· · ·A· ·I believe I read this article when it came out,

15· · · · ·yes.

16· · ·Q· ·Did any of your friends read it?

17· · ·A· ·I --

18· · ·Q· ·Any of your friends in the Bar say, "Gee, I saw

19· · · · ·you quoted in Bloomberg today"?

20· · ·A· ·I've never had anybody comment that they saw me

21· · · · ·quoted in Bloomberg, no.

22· · ·Q· ·Anybody email it to you?

23· · ·A· ·I think maybe the reporter did.· I think.

24· · ·Q· ·Okay.· He emailed you the article?

25· · ·A· ·I think so.

Page 65

·1· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Well, where is that document, sir?

·2· · ·A· ·I don't know that I would have saved that

·3· · · · ·document.

·4· · ·Q· ·I thought that had to do with the Williams

·5· · · · ·case.· Didn't it?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·7· · ·A· ·It's this article.

·8· · ·Q· ·And the article's about the Williams case,

·9· · · · ·right?

10· · ·A· ·It's mentioned.

11· · · · · · · ·I don't see "Williams" mentioned.· Is it

12· · · · ·mentioned in here?

13· · ·Q· ·Well, let's try it this way.

14· · ·A· ·I see --

15· · ·Q· ·You gave a quote, didn't you, "This has really

16· · · · ·opened a Pandora's Box"?

17· · ·A· ·Yes.

18· · ·Q· ·And there's a reference to Cahill Gordon and

19· · · · ·the talc litigation.

20· · · · · · · ·Is it your testimony that you didn't

21· · · · ·think this had anything to do with Williams?

22· · ·A· ·I don't see Williams' name mentioned in here.

23· · · · ·Am I missing it?

24· · · · · · · ·Point it out to me.· I'm missing it here.

25· · ·Q· ·If you turn to the last page.· The second to

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 18 of 168 PageID:

35137
Page 66

·1· · · · ·last paragraph on page 6 of 7, it says,

·2· · · · ·"Placitella filed a federal lawsuit in New

·3· · · · ·Jersey against BASF on behalf of six

·4· · · · ·plaintiffs."

·5· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·6· · ·A· ·Yes.

·7· · ·Q· ·Do you have any idea what that might relate to?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·9· · ·A· ·I don't know.· I mean, it may involve the

10· · · · ·Williams case.· I -- it doesn't say "Williams"

11· · · · ·in there, so ...

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So as an experienced practicing lawyer

13· · · · ·who's been involved with the Williams case,

14· · · · ·when you read this article, you weren't sure

15· · · · ·whether it had anything to do with Williams?

16· · ·A· ·I didn't see "Williams" mentioned in here at

17· · · · ·all and it talks about Paduano -- or Paduano.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Paduano.

19· · ·A· ·Paduano.

20· · ·Q· ·When it says the six plaintiffs of a federal

21· · · · ·lawsuit in New Jersey, you have no idea what

22· · · · ·that refers to, do you, Mr. Bevan?

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

24· · ·A· ·I said that might involve this case.· I -- you

25· · · · ·know, you'll have to ask Mr. Feeley.

Page 67

·1· · ·Q· ·You didn't discuss Williams with Mr. Feeley?

·2· · ·A· ·I don't know if I discussed Williams or not

·3· · · · ·with Mr. Feeley.· I know I discussed Darnell

·4· · · · ·with Mr. Feeley.· If I discussed Williams, I

·5· · · · ·don't know.

·6· · ·Q· ·Darnell's a plaintiff in Williams, isn't she?

·7· · ·A· ·I believe Darnell's a plaintiff, yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So in terms of your approach, though, to

·9· · · · ·saving documents or producing documents, if an

10· · · · ·article like this doesn't mention the word

11· · · · ·"Williams," you're not sure whether you would

12· · · · ·have saved or produced this?

13· · ·A· ·I don't know whether I saved or produced it. I

14· · · · ·may have it in my computer, you know.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Note my

16· · · · ·objection to that question, please.

17· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Well, we don't have it.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I'm just

19· · · · ·objecting to the question.

20· · ·A· ·I think it's in your hand right now.· How are

21· · · · ·you saying you don't have it?

22· · ·Q· ·We don't have the email from Mr. Feeley.

23· · · · · · · ·Do you have it on your computer?

24· · ·A· ·I don't know.

25· · ·Q· ·Could you look?

Page 68

·1· · ·A· ·On my computer?· I don't have my computer.

·2· · ·Q· ·Do you have your phone?

·3· · ·A· ·I've got my phone.

·4· · ·Q· ·Can you look for it?

·5· · ·A· ·Sure.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·While he's

·7· · · · ·looking, I'll just make a foundation objection

·8· · · · ·in terms of scope of discovery requests.

·9· · ·Q· ·Do you have multiple emails from Mr. Feeley?

10· · ·A· ·I don't know.

11· · ·Q· ·Are you searching for the name "Feeley"?

12· · ·A· ·I don't know how to search on this thing, so

13· · · · ·I'm going through every -- I've got about a

14· · · · ·thousand emails.· I'll go through every one if

15· · · · ·you want me to.· I don't know how to search on

16· · · · ·my phone.

17· · ·Q· ·You don't have a search function?

18· · ·A· ·If I do, I don't know how it --

19· · ·Q· ·What kind of operating system do you have,

20· · · · ·Mr. Bevan?

21· · ·A· ·This is an iPhone.· I can search --

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

23· · ·A· ·-- at my office.· Okay?

24· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Could you do that?

25· · ·A· ·Is this really funny to you?

Page 69

·1· · ·Q· ·Well, I just -- I find it difficult --

·2· · ·A· ·If you went -- if you asked me to search in my

·3· · · · ·office, I could search in my office.· If you

·4· · · · ·want me to search on my phone, I could search

·5· · · · ·through 3,947 emails.

·6· · ·Q· ·Is that what you were just doing?

·7· · ·A· ·Yeah.

·8· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Well, would you be kind enough at the

·9· · · · ·lunch break to ask your assistant to search for

10· · · · ·all emails to and from Mr. Feeley or regarding

11· · · · ·Mr. Feeley?

12· · ·A· ·I would have to do that search myself.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·We'll check for

14· · · · ·the subpoena to make sure that that's a request

15· · · · ·that's within the scope of the subpoena.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Okay.

17· · ·A· ·So yeah.· So I could go back to my office and

18· · · · ·do it, but I would do it myself.· I'm not going

19· · · · ·to have my paralegal do it.

20· · ·Q· ·Okay.

21· · ·A· ·But I can do it.· And it wouldn't take me long.

22· · ·Q· ·All right.· Well, we'll see.· We'll see if we

23· · · · ·can -- and while you're doing that, could you

24· · · · ·see if you have any article -- any other emails

25· · · · ·regarding the Bloomberg article?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 19 of 168 PageID:

35138
Page 70

·1· · ·A· ·Any emails that I have regarding Mr. Feeley,

·2· · · · ·sure.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·So is this a

·4· · · · ·new discovery request?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · No, it's an

·6· · · · ·outstanding discovery request.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·That's why I

·8· · · · ·want to look at the subpoena and make sure.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Since his

10· · · · ·statement in the article -- he's quoted in the

11· · · · ·article and he talked to the reporter and it's

12· · · · ·neither logged nor produced.· I'm kind of

13· · · · ·curious to why not.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Okay.· I'm

15· · · · ·curious to see what's in the subpoena.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Unless you

17· · · · ·think it's nonresponsive.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I think it may

19· · · · ·be nonresponsive, but I'll look at the

20· · · · ·subpoena.· And let's move on.

21· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

22· · · · · ·(Defendants' Exhibit 291A was marked.)

23· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

24· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

25· · ·Q· ·We now have the errata sheet, D Ex 291.

Page 71

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Thank you.

·2· · · · · · · ·Can we mark that, please?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · It's D Ex 291.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Thank you.

·5· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Regarding the errata sheet, on the

·6· · · · ·second page of D Ex 291, you corrected page

·7· · · · ·114.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Excuse me.

·9· · · · ·Just for a point of clarification, D Ex 291, is

10· · · · ·this a new exhibit or is this the previous D Ex

11· · · · ·291?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Let's do this

13· · · · ·as 291A.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Thank you.

15· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Could you turn to page 114?

16· · · · · · · ·21 to 25.· "What documents or data were

17· · · · ·used to arrive at the figure 2,653 Bevan Law

18· · · · ·Firm clients?"

19· · · · · · · ·"I believe they were clients that had

20· · · · ·filed suit against Eastern Magnesia Talc" or

21· · · · ·could have -- "and/or could have filed suit

22· · · · ·against Eastern Magnesia Talc and either

23· · · · ·settled their claims with Eastern Magnesia Talc

24· · · · ·or had their claims dismissed against Eastern

25· · · · ·Magnesia Talc.· And they were at sites where

Page 72

·1· · · · ·there was a high likelihood of Eastern Magnesia

·2· · · · ·Talc exposure.· I believe those were the

·3· · · · ·criteria we were looking at."

·4· · · · · · · ·Okay.· And then you say change, "The

·5· · · · ·Bevan clients" -- what's that word?

·6· · ·A· ·"referenced."

·7· · ·Q· ·"referenced did."

·8· · ·A· ·"not include clients that did not file cases

·9· · · · ·against Eastern Magnesia Talc."

10· · · · · · · ·That's all one sentence.

11· · ·Q· ·Okay.· What's the reason for the change?

12· · · · ·Because you don't have it there, do you?

13· · · · ·Withdrawn.

14· · · · · · · ·The errata sheet -- you've worked with

15· · · · ·errata sheets in the past, haven't you?

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·And you clarify, identify the change, correct?

18· · ·A· ·Yes.

19· · ·Q· ·And then you provide the reason for the change,

20· · · · ·correct?

21· · ·A· ·I've never done it before.· It says -- yeah,

22· · · · ·and "Reason for Change."· I did not put the

23· · · · ·reason for change.

24· · ·Q· ·In 30 years of practice, you don't understand

25· · · · ·that you have to put the reason for the change

Page 73

·1· · · · ·in an errata sheet?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·3· · ·A· ·I've never -- I don't think I've ever done an

·4· · · · ·errata sheet where I've made changes.· Or if

·5· · · · ·the change is obvious, the change is obvious.

·6· · · · ·I don't -- you know, you're not making any

·7· · · · ·sense to me.

·8· · ·Q· ·You've never as a practicing attorney worked

·9· · · · ·with an errata sheet?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

12· · ·A· ·I've had a few things.· Usually it's a typo or

13· · · · ·something on there.

14· · ·Q· ·Usually a typo or something like that?

15· · ·A· ·Yes.

16· · ·Q· ·And then you would put "typo," correct?

17· · ·A· ·No.· I've never done that.

18· · ·Q· ·Okay.· You provide the reason why you're

19· · · · ·putting the change in, don't you, Mr. Bevan?

20· · ·A· ·I don't recall I've ever provided the reason

21· · · · ·why.· I mean if the reason's obvious.

22· · ·Q· ·Okay.· In your practice, as you sit here today,

23· · · · ·you can't recall ever providing the reason why

24· · · · ·you're changing something in a deposition

25· · · · ·testimony for an errata sheet?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 20 of 168 PageID:

35139
Page 74

·1· · ·A· ·I don't think so.· You know, it's usually

·2· · · · ·self-explanatory.

·3· · ·Q· ·And so "Reason for the Change," what does that

·4· · · · ·mean to you?

·5· · ·A· ·It means what is the change about.

·6· · ·Q· ·The reason for the change.

·7· · · · · · · ·What is the reason for your change?

·8· · ·A· ·The reason for my change was that the clients

·9· · · · ·that we referenced did not include cases where

10· · · · ·we did not file against Eastern Magnesia Talc.

11· · ·Q· ·So did you misspeak?· Was it a typo?· What was

12· · · · ·the --

13· · ·A· ·No, I was -- yeah, I misspoke.· I was incorrect

14· · · · ·on that.

15· · ·Q· ·You were incorrect on that.

16· · · · · · · ·And how did you realize you were

17· · · · ·incorrect?

18· · ·A· ·I went back and I talked to Pat to find out --

19· · · · ·well, when I got the deposition, I talked to

20· · · · ·Pat to find out exactly how we identified those

21· · · · ·2,000 some cases, and he confirmed with me that

22· · · · ·we did not include cases for people that could

23· · · · ·have filed against Eastern Magnesia Talc but

24· · · · ·did not.

25· · ·Q· ·Did you talk to anybody else besides Mr. Walsh

Page 75

·1· · · · ·about your testimony?

·2· · ·A· ·No.· I did the errata sheet.· I don't think I

·3· · · · ·talked to anybody about the errata sheet. I

·4· · · · ·gave it to a paralegal to send off.

·5· · ·Q· ·You didn't talk to anybody from Cohen,

·6· · · · ·Placitella -- this is a yes or no.

·7· · · · · · · ·You didn't talk to anybody at Cohen,

·8· · · · ·Placitella & Roth regarding that testimony

·9· · · · ·regarding 2,653?

10· · ·A· ·No.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Do you want me

12· · · · ·to answer that too?· You're looking right at

13· · · · ·me, Gene.

14· · ·Q· ·Did you talk to anybody -- did you talk to your

15· · · · ·lawyer about it?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

17· · ·A· ·Not the errata sheet.· Immediately after the

18· · · · ·deposition, we talked about the deposition,

19· · · · ·sure.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Privilege.

21· · ·Q· ·Did you talk about the 2,653?

22· · ·A· ·I believe, you know, Kevin asked me about how

23· · · · ·we got to that and how we arrived at those

24· · · · ·numbers and I told him.

25· · ·Q· ·And did he advise you that you had to clarify

Page 76

·1· · · · ·your testimony?

·2· · ·A· ·No.

·3· · ·Q· ·Did you know at that point you had to clarify

·4· · · · ·your testimony?

·5· · ·A· ·No.· I didn't know until I did this, whatever

·6· · · · ·date this was.· It was all on that same date.

·7· · · · ·May 4.

·8· · ·Q· ·It was a month after your deposition?

·9· · ·A· ·Yeah.· When I got the transcript, I reviewed it

10· · · · ·and checked with Pat on how we arrived at that

11· · · · ·number, confirmed it, and that's when I put

12· · · · ·that change in there.

13· · ·Q· ·And then if you turn to page 115, lines 1 to

14· · · · ·11.· I'll turn your attention to 7.

15· · · · · · · ·Question, "The figure 2,653 includes

16· · · · ·clients who did file and clients who could have

17· · · · ·filed?"

18· · · · · · · ·Answer, "I believe so, yes."

19· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

20· · ·A· ·Yes.

21· · ·Q· ·That's inaccurate testimony?

22· · ·A· ·Yeah, that was inaccurate.· We did not include

23· · · · ·clients that could have filed.· The number

24· · · · ·would have been much larger if we would have

25· · · · ·included that.

Page 77

·1· · ·Q· ·Did you have any -- did you and Mr. Walsh

·2· · · · ·generate any documents on this in trying to

·3· · · · ·check whether the 2,653 was correct?

·4· · ·A· ·No.· I mean, I could do the search again and

·5· · · · ·probably come up with that number again.

·6· · ·Q· ·Did you review the testimony with Mr. Walsh?

·7· · · · ·Did you show him the testimony?

·8· · ·A· ·No.

·9· · ·Q· ·When you left the deposition on April 4, is it

10· · · · ·fair to say that you knew that your affidavit

11· · · · ·was then wrong?

12· · ·A· ·No.

13· · ·Q· ·When you left the deposition on April 4, is it

14· · · · ·clear --

15· · ·A· ·I'm sorry.· Why is my affidavit wrong?

16· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

17· · · · · · · ·When you left the deposition on April 4,

18· · · · ·if you included people who did not file, your

19· · · · ·deposition would be wrong, fair?

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

21· · · · ·form.

22· · ·A· ·Yeah, you have to restate that question to me.

23· · ·Q· ·Sure.

24· · · · · · · ·If you had included people who did not

25· · · · ·file in that 2,653, then your affidavit would

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 21 of 168 PageID:

35140
Page 78

·1· · · · ·be inaccurate, fair?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Sorry.

·3· · · · ·Objection.

·4· · ·A· ·If I -- if I included people who -- that did

·5· · · · ·not file --

·6· · ·Q· ·File in that 2,653 number, then it would be

·7· · · · ·wrong under the class definition, fair?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·9· · · · ·form.

10· · ·A· ·I believe so.· I believe the class definition

11· · · · ·did not include people who could have but did

12· · · · ·not file.

13· · ·Q· ·And at the time of your deposition, did you

14· · · · ·realize that the class definition did not

15· · · · ·include people who could have filed?

16· · ·A· ·I think I had forgotten that.· I didn't realize

17· · · · ·that.· And I indicated that our number included

18· · · · ·people that could have filed, but it did not

19· · · · ·include that number of people.

20· · ·Q· ·Regarding that 2,653 number, are they people in

21· · · · ·the Bevan database?

22· · ·A· ·I believe so.

23· · ·Q· ·So if I had the -- access to the Bevan

24· · · · ·database, I could generate that 2,653 number?

25· · ·A· ·I believe so.· I believe they're all still in

Page 79

·1· · · · ·the database.· I -- you know, as far as I know,

·2· · · · ·I think that's how we did it.

·3· · ·Q· ·And you're familiar with the claims and the

·4· · · · ·allegations in the Williams case, correct?

·5· · ·A· ·Yeah, I'm somewhat familiar.· I read the

·6· · · · ·complaint.· I've read the circuit court

·7· · · · ·decision, which highlights it pretty well.

·8· · ·Q· ·You don't want to say you're familiar, you want

·9· · · · ·to say you're somewhat familiar?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

11· · · · ·the form.

12· · ·A· ·Yeah, I don't think I'm as familiar as probably

13· · · · ·you are familiar with it.· I don't think I'm as

14· · · · ·familiar with Mr. Roth or Mr. Placitella.

15· · · · ·So ...

16· · ·Q· ·Would the following statement be true:· Tom

17· · · · ·Bevan is familiar with the claims and

18· · · · ·allegations in the Williams case?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

20· · ·A· ·I said I'm somewhat familiar.· I think, yes.

21· · ·Q· ·Well, could you turn to your affidavit again?

22· · · · ·D Ex 145.

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·In paragraph 2, the last sentence, it says, "I

25· · · · ·am familiar with the claims and allegations

Page 80

·1· · · · ·made in the Williams class action."

·2· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·3· · ·A· ·Yes.

·4· · ·Q· ·Do you want to do an errata for that,

·5· · · · ·Mr. Bevan, and make it "somewhat familiar"?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·7· · · · ·form.· Why don't we be a little less

·8· · · · ·dismissive.

·9· · ·A· ·I would say that, you know, I could reread the

10· · · · ·complaint again and familiarize myself even

11· · · · ·more with it.· But certainly at the time that I

12· · · · ·did the affidavit, it was accurate.

13· · ·Q· ·So in January of 2018, you were familiar with

14· · · · ·the claims and allegations, fair?

15· · ·A· ·Fair.

16· · ·Q· ·And now you're somewhat familiar?

17· · ·A· ·Fair.

18· · ·Q· ·After sitting through two days of depositions?

19· · ·A· ·Yeah.

20· · ·Q· ·What did you do to prepare for today's

21· · · · ·deposition?

22· · ·A· ·I met with my attorneys.

23· · ·Q· ·Who?

24· · ·A· ·Mr. McDermott and Mr. Gallucci.

25· · ·Q· ·How long?

Page 81

·1· · ·A· ·A few hours.

·2· · ·Q· ·Anybody else there?

·3· · ·A· ·No.

·4· · ·Q· ·Anybody else on the phone?

·5· · ·A· ·No.

·6· · ·Q· ·Did you review any documents?

·7· · ·A· ·No.· No.· The last document I reviewed, I

·8· · · · ·reviewed my deposition prior to the last

·9· · · · ·deposition.· I reviewed this deposition a few

10· · · · ·weeks ago when I signed it.· I did not review

11· · · · ·any other documents in preparation.

12· · ·Q· ·How long did the preparation session last?

13· · ·A· ·I said I met with them --

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Asked and

15· · · · ·answered.

16· · ·A· ·A few hours I think I said.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

18· · ·Q· ·Two hours, four hours?

19· · ·A· ·Three, give or take an hour.

20· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And it was only discussions, you didn't

21· · · · ·look at any documents?

22· · ·A· ·Correct.

23· · ·Q· ·Were you shown anything on a screen?

24· · ·A· ·No.

25· · ·Q· ·Other than your two attorneys that you

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 22 of 168 PageID:

35141
Page 82

·1· · · · ·identified, did you talk to anybody from Cohen,

·2· · · · ·Placitella & Roth regarding today's deposition?

·3· · ·A· ·No.

·4· · ·Q· ·Did you have any communications with Cohen,

·5· · · · ·Placitella & Roth regarding today's deposition?

·6· · ·A· ·No.· I said hi to them this morning.

·7· · ·Q· ·Did you bring any documents with you today?

·8· · ·A· ·Nothing related to this case.

·9· · ·Q· ·Going back to 236.· Or I'm sorry, 237, the

10· · · · ·Bloomberg article.

11· · ·A· ·Yes.

12· · ·Q· ·Did you tell the reporter that you were

13· · · · ·involved in the Williams case?

14· · ·A· ·I don't recall.

15· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Or did you tell them you were involved

16· · · · ·in a federal court case involving six people in

17· · · · ·New Jersey that may or may not be Williams?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

19· · ·A· ·I don't recall.

20· · ·Q· ·All right.· So could you just turn to the

21· · · · ·second page of the Bloomberg printout.

22· · · · · · · ·It says, "'This has really opened a

23· · · · ·Pandora's Box,' said Tom Bevan, a lawyer in

24· · · · ·Boston Heights, Ohio, who represented hundreds

25· · · · ·of people who sued Engelhard in the 1990s and

Page 83

·1· · · · ·is involved in a current federal case against

·2· · · · ·BASF."

·3· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·4· · ·A· ·Yes.

·5· · ·Q· ·Do you have any idea of what -- withdrawn.

·6· · · · · · · ·When you read the article, did you have

·7· · · · ·any understanding of what the "current federal

·8· · · · ·case against BASF" referred to?

·9· · ·A· ·I assume it's this class action but ...

10· · ·Q· ·Williams?

11· · ·A· ·Yeah.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And when you read that, you knew it had

13· · · · ·to do with Williams, correct?

14· · ·A· ·You know, I don't know that I really gave it

15· · · · ·much thought.

16· · ·Q· ·Are you involved in any other federal case

17· · · · ·against BASF?

18· · ·A· ·I'm involved in the Ross case, and I don't

19· · · · ·recall -- I know it's filed in New Jersey.

20· · · · ·Whether that's a state court or federal court,

21· · · · ·I'm not sure.

22· · ·Q· ·Was the Ross case even filed at this time?

23· · ·A· ·I don't know when the Ross case was filed.

24· · · · ·That was probably filed in -- I don't know.

25· · · · ·I'm not sure when the Ross case was -- '16 or

Page 84

·1· · · · ·'15.

·2· · ·Q· ·The quote "This has really opened a Pandora's

·3· · · · ·Box," is that an accurate quote?

·4· · ·A· ·I think it is.

·5· · ·Q· ·You said that to the reporter?

·6· · ·A· ·I assume I said it.· I don't recall saying it,

·7· · · · ·but I would agree with that statement.

·8· · ·Q· ·And did you tell him you were involved in the

·9· · · · ·federal case?

10· · ·A· ·I don't recall.· I know I -- I know I told them

11· · · · ·I was representing Mrs. Holley, who's the

12· · · · ·executrix of the Darnell estate.

13· · ·Q· ·How are you involved in the federal case?

14· · ·A· ·Well, I still represent thousands of people

15· · · · ·that potentially are class members.· I'm not

16· · · · ·handling the federal case in any way.· I'm not

17· · · · ·counsel of record, but I am still the attorneys

18· · · · ·for these -- for Mrs. Williams, for Marilyn

19· · · · ·Holley, for the Ware family.· I'm the attorney

20· · · · ·for the Clark family.

21· · ·Q· ·But independent of your relationships with

22· · · · ·Holley, Ware, and the other plaintiffs, you

23· · · · ·have a fee agreement with Cohen, Placitella &

24· · · · ·Roth, correct?

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

Page 85

·1· · ·A· ·Say that again.· Independent of?

·2· · ·Q· ·Independent of your relationships with the

·3· · · · ·named plaintiffs, you have a separate

·4· · · · ·relationship with Cohen, Placitella & Roth --

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·6· · ·Q· ·-- correct?

·7· · ·A· ·I have relationships, yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·You have a fee arrangement with Cohen,

·9· · · · ·Placitella & Roth, correct?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

12· · ·A· ·Yes.

13· · ·Q· ·Has that been disclosed to your individual

14· · · · ·clients?

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Same objection.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Privilege.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Continuing

19· · · · ·objection about these questions.

20· · ·A· ·I'm -- I'm fairly certain that, for instance,

21· · · · ·on the Ross case, I assume that the client

22· · · · ·signed a fee agreement with both our firm on

23· · · · ·there and the Placitella firm.

24· · ·Q· ·Regarding the Williams case, have you disclosed

25· · · · ·your arrangements with Cohen, Placitella & Roth

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 23 of 168 PageID:

35142
Page 86

·1· · · · ·to the named plaintiffs in Williams?

·2· · ·A· ·I'm sure I have.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·4· · · · ·Privilege.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Continuing

·6· · · · ·objection to this line of questions.

·7· · ·Q· ·You're sure you have?

·8· · ·A· ·Yeah.

·9· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So when I depose them, they should know

10· · · · ·about it?

11· · ·A· ·If they recall.· If they don't -- this has been

12· · · · ·going on for a long time.

13· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Would it have been in writing or orally?

14· · ·A· ·Probably orally.

15· · ·Q· ·What would you have told them?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

17· · · · ·Privilege.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Not privileged.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Okay.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · He's -- let him

21· · · · ·finish.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·No.· No.· No.

23· · · · ·I can make --

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · I'll tell you

25· · · · ·why.· I'll tell you why it's not privileged.

Page 87

·1· · · · ·Not privileged because what he -- his

·2· · · · ·discussions with named plaintiffs, not

·3· · · · ·privileged.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·His discussions

·5· · · · ·with named plaintiffs about the facts

·6· · · · ·underlying the Williams claim are not

·7· · · · ·privileged, period.· Everything else is

·8· · · · ·privileged.

·9· · ·Q· ·You can answer.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I'll join in

11· · · · ·that objection.

12· · ·A· ·Why don't you repeat the question again.

13· · ·Q· ·Sure.

14· · · · · · · ·What did you tell them, the named

15· · · · ·plaintiffs, about your fee arrangements with

16· · · · ·Cohen, Placitella & Roth?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Same objection.

18· · ·A· ·I don't recall, other than I was working with

19· · · · ·Cohen, Placitella & Roth.

20· · ·Q· ·You told them you were working with them.

21· · · · · · · ·Did you tell them that you had a fee

22· · · · ·arrangement with them?

23· · ·A· ·I believe I did.· I don't recall what I told

24· · · · ·them.

25· · ·Q· ·You don't recall in words or in substance what

Page 88

·1· · · · ·you told them about your fee arrangement?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·3· · ·A· ·No.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Privilege.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Continuing

·6· · · · ·objection on this line.· I think I read a Court

·7· · · · ·order surrounding this.

·8· · ·Q· ·Regarding your familiarity, whether you're

·9· · · · ·somewhat familiar or familiar with the facts

10· · · · ·and claims in the Williams case, did you tell

11· · · · ·your plaintiffs, your named plaintiffs,

12· · · · ·clients, that you had familiarity with the

13· · · · ·allegations?

14· · ·A· ·I'm sure I explained the basic gist of the

15· · · · ·allegations.

16· · ·Q· ·When's the first time you heard about the

17· · · · ·allegations that Engelhard may have done

18· · · · ·something inappropriate?

19· · ·A· ·I believe it was either 2010 or 2011.

20· · ·Q· ·How did you hear about it?

21· · ·A· ·From Chris Placitella.

22· · ·Q· ·What happened?

23· · ·A· ·I believe Chris and I spoke on the phone, and

24· · · · ·he told me that there was evidence that Eastern

25· · · · ·Magnesia Talc contained asbestos, that they

Page 89

·1· · · · ·knew it and that they had been deceiving people

·2· · · · ·for many years.

·3· · ·Q· ·Did he ask for your help?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·5· · · · ·Privilege, work-product.

·6· · ·A· ·If he asked for my help, he asked if I -- you

·7· · · · ·know, if this was something that would interest

·8· · · · ·me on behalf of my clients.

·9· · ·Q· ·Did you convey to him what you recalled,

10· · · · ·regarding the facts, at that point?

11· · ·A· ·I'm sure I did.

12· · ·Q· ·What did you tell him?

13· · ·A· ·I'm sure I told him that they told me that

14· · · · ·their talc did not contain asbestos, that they

15· · · · ·sent me letters and affidavits, threatening

16· · · · ·letters, that they would seek sanctions if I

17· · · · ·did not dismiss them.· And as a result, we

18· · · · ·either dismissed them or settled with them for

19· · · · ·very low amounts.

20· · ·Q· ·You told them all of this in your first

21· · · · ·conversation?

22· · ·A· ·I am sure I did, because that's about a

23· · · · ·two-minute conversation, what I just told you.

24· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So Mr. Placitella calls you.

25· · · · · · · ·Prior to Mr. Placitella calling you about

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 24 of 168 PageID:

35143
Page 90

·1· · · · ·Engelhard for the first time, when's the last

·2· · · · ·time you had spoken to him?

·3· · ·A· ·The last time I had spoken to him?

·4· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

·5· · ·A· ·I don't know if we had ever spoken.· We may

·6· · · · ·have.· We may have corresponded by email, but

·7· · · · ·I'm not -- I don't recall.

·8· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And prior to you talking to

·9· · · · ·Mr. Placitella, when's the last time you had

10· · · · ·any conversations with any lawyer representing

11· · · · ·Engelhard?

12· · ·A· ·Me personally?

13· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

14· · ·A· ·Probably early 2000s.· Early to mid-2000s.

15· · ·Q· ·When's the last time you had reviewed any

16· · · · ·letters from Engelhard when you first talked to

17· · · · ·Mr. Placitella?

18· · ·A· ·Maybe mid-2000s.· I'm not sure.· You know,

19· · · · ·probably in the Graham case.· Maybe in 2008 or

20· · · · ·so.

21· · ·Q· ·By the way, did R.T. Vanderbilt have asbestos

22· · · · ·in its talc?

23· · ·A· ·I believe there's some evidence that R.T.

24· · · · ·Vanderbilt had asbestos in their talc.

25· · ·Q· ·Did Southern Talc had asbestos in the talc?

Page 91

·1· · ·A· ·I've seen some evidence of that, yes.

·2· · ·Q· ·Did R.T. Vanderbilt take the position there's

·3· · · · ·no asbestos in their talc?

·4· · ·A· ·I'm not sure.· I'm not sure what they -- what

·5· · · · ·position they take.

·6· · ·Q· ·Has R.T. Vanderbilt submitted pleadings to you

·7· · · · ·and letters to you saying there's no asbestos

·8· · · · ·in our talc?

·9· · ·A· ·I'm not sure.

10· · ·Q· ·You can't remember?

11· · ·A· ·I'm not sure, yeah.

12· · ·Q· ·And Southern Talc, has Southern Talc submitted

13· · · · ·pleadings saying there's no asbestos in their

14· · · · ·talc?

15· · ·A· ·I don't recall Southern Talc ever submitting

16· · · · ·anything.· I don't recall that.

17· · ·Q· ·Have they submitted letters to you saying

18· · · · ·there's no asbestos in the talc?

19· · ·A· ·I don't believe so.

20· · ·Q· ·With respect to R.T. Vanderbilt, what do you

21· · · · ·recall about R.T. Vanderbilt telling you

22· · · · ·there's no asbestos in the talc?

23· · ·A· ·The best that I can recall -- and I have not

24· · · · ·dealt with R.T. Vanderbilt in probably ten

25· · · · ·years.· The best that I can recall is -- the

Page 92

·1· · · · ·big fights I've always had with R.T. Vanderbilt

·2· · · · ·of course in the rubber plants was product ID,

·3· · · · ·was their product there, but I had one -- I

·4· · · · ·feel like I had a case where their product was

·5· · · · ·there, it wasn't out of the rubber industry,

·6· · · · ·and I don't recall what their argument was,

·7· · · · ·whether it was an argument that their talc

·8· · · · ·couldn't cause mesothelioma, their talc --

·9· · · · ·there was no evidence of mesothelioma with

10· · · · ·their employees.· We battled over that issue, I

11· · · · ·recall.

12· · ·Q· ·So Mr. Placitella calls you up, the first time

13· · · · ·you recall talking to him, and you tell him

14· · · · ·about these letters and positions that

15· · · · ·Engelhard had taken and you recalled them and

16· · · · ·you were able to tell him that with some

17· · · · ·specificity?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

19· · · · ·form and foundation.

20· · ·A· ·Yeah.· Yes.

21· · ·Q· ·And Vanderbilt -- you can't tell me what

22· · · · ·positions Vanderbilt's taken?

23· · ·A· ·They certainly didn't take an aggressive

24· · · · ·position like Eastern Magnesia Talc, as far as

25· · · · ·whether or not there was asbestos in their

Page 93

·1· · · · ·talc.

·2· · ·Q· ·So if I'm able to show you pleadings in cases

·3· · · · ·you've been involved in, including summary

·4· · · · ·judgments that you've lost and briefs in which

·5· · · · ·they're saying there's no asbestos in the talc

·6· · · · ·and you're saying they're lying, would that jog

·7· · · · ·your memory at all as to whether they've taken

·8· · · · ·an aggressive position?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

10· · · · ·form and foundation.

11· · ·A· ·It would jog my memory what -- I guess what I

12· · · · ·mean by an aggressive position is the threat of

13· · · · ·sanctions, the -- I can recall, for instance,

14· · · · ·Mr. Joslyn being very threatening in

15· · · · ·depositions or in breaks or after depositions.

16· · · · ·I can recall specific instances of Mr. Joslyn.

17· · ·Q· ·And you told Mr. Placitella that?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I'm sorry.

19· · · · ·Were you finished, Mr. Bevan?

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · Yeah, I'm

21· · · · ·finished.

22· · ·A· ·Whether I told him -- like this one incidence I

23· · · · ·recall of Mr. Joslyn, whether I've told that to

24· · · · ·Mr. Placitella, I don't know.· I can tell him

25· · · · ·now if you want me to.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 25 of 168 PageID:

35144
Page 94

·1· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So Mr. Placitella calls you.

·2· · · · · · · ·And do you then call any of your clients?

·3· · ·A· ·Within some time, yes.

·4· · ·Q· ·Who do you call?

·5· · ·A· ·I'm sure I talked to Marilyn Holley.· I know I

·6· · · · ·talked to Nancy Pease.· I believe I talked to

·7· · · · ·Mrs. Ware.· I don't -- I don't know if I

·8· · · · ·personally talked to the other two or not. I

·9· · · · ·don't recall.

10· · ·Q· ·Who are the other two?· Or who were they at the

11· · · · ·time?

12· · ·A· ·Well, the other one is Jennifer Graham's

13· · · · ·daughter, and I'm -- Donnette Wengerd and

14· · · · ·Kimberlee Williams are the other two.

15· · ·Q· ·They're the only five people you talked to who

16· · · · ·are clients?

17· · ·A· ·That's all I can recall that I've talked to.

18· · ·Q· ·So you personally called them?

19· · ·A· ·I know I personally talked to Nancy Pease,

20· · · · ·Marilyn Holley, and Mrs. Ware.· I don't recall

21· · · · ·talking to Kimberlee Williams or Donnette

22· · · · ·Wengerd.

23· · ·Q· ·Ever?

24· · ·A· ·Well, I've talked to them, yes.

25· · ·Q· ·But about Williams?

Page 95

·1· · ·A· ·About this case, I don't know if I have talked

·2· · · · ·to them about this case personally myself.

·3· · ·Q· ·As we sit here, you can't recall any

·4· · · · ·conversations with Ms. Wengerd or Ms. Williams

·5· · · · ·regarding this case?

·6· · ·A· ·I just don't recall.

·7· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So what did you say to Ms. Holley?

·8· · ·A· ·That we're looking into a potential fraud case

·9· · · · ·against BASF because her mother was exposed to

10· · · · ·talc or soapstone at Goodrich and Eastern

11· · · · ·Magnesia Talc lied to us and said that there

12· · · · ·was never any evidence of any asbestos in their

13· · · · ·talc.· And as a result of that lie, we settled

14· · · · ·for a nominal amount with Eastern Magnesia

15· · · · ·Talc, an amount that we would not have

16· · · · ·otherwise settled with them for, had they been

17· · · · ·truthful in their response to our discovery.

18· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Anything else that you can recall saying

19· · · · ·to Ms. Holley?

20· · ·A· ·That's all I can recall at this time.

21· · ·Q· ·Did she ask you any questions?

22· · ·A· ·I'm sure she asked me how my family was.

23· · · · ·Particularly pertaining to this case, I don't

24· · · · ·recall if she asked me questions.

25· · ·Q· ·How long did the conversation last?

Page 96

·1· · ·A· ·I'm sure it wasn't long.· Five minutes maybe.

·2· · ·Q· ·Was she the first client you called?

·3· · ·A· ·I don't recall.

·4· · ·Q· ·Was there anybody else with you when you called

·5· · · · ·her?

·6· · ·A· ·I don't think so.

·7· · ·Q· ·Did you talk to anybody else between your

·8· · · · ·Placitella conversation and Ms. Holley?

·9· · ·A· ·Well, I'm sure I talked to, you know, my

10· · · · ·partner, Pat, probably.

11· · ·Q· ·Probably or yes?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

13· · ·A· ·I may have.

14· · · · · · · ·I may have talked to my paralegal, Erin

15· · · · ·Clark.

16· · ·Q· ·So Mr. Placitella calls you, and then you call

17· · · · ·Ms. Holley and tell her that you're

18· · · · ·investigating a fraud claim, her mother was

19· · · · ·exposed to talc, Emtal lied about it, and as a

20· · · · ·result of the lie, you settled for less than

21· · · · ·you had to?

22· · ·A· ·That is probably a pretty good summary.

23· · ·Q· ·And you knew all of that from your own personal

24· · · · ·history in dealing with Engelhard and your

25· · · · ·initial conversation with Mr. Placitella?

Page 97

·1· · ·A· ·Well, I know what Engelhard told me -- or

·2· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc, because that's what I

·3· · · · ·always refer to them.· I know what they told me

·4· · · · ·over the years.

·5· · ·Q· ·And in terms of the lie, the alleged lie, how

·6· · · · ·were you concluding that there was a lie?

·7· · ·A· ·Nothing other than what Mr. Placitella told me.

·8· · ·Q· ·The basis for your conveying to your clients

·9· · · · ·that there was a lie was solely based on what

10· · · · ·Mr. Placitella told you, fair?

11· · ·A· ·Yes.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

13· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Now, Ms. Pease, could you tell me

14· · · · ·everything that happened in that conversation?

15· · ·A· ·It would have been a similar conversation.· It

16· · · · ·would have been the same.

17· · ·Q· ·And again, the basis for you telling the

18· · · · ·plaintiff, Ms. Pease, that there was a lie was

19· · · · ·solely based on what Mr. Placitella told you?

20· · ·A· ·Yes.

21· · ·Q· ·Ms. Ware, same conversation?

22· · ·A· ·It would have been the same conversation.

23· · ·Q· ·Same reliance --

24· · ·A· ·Yes.

25· · ·Q· ·-- on Mr. Placitella?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 26 of 168 PageID:

35145
Page 98

·1· · · · · · · ·And Ms. Graham and Ms. Kimberlee

·2· · · · ·Williams, you don't recall one way or the other

·3· · · · ·having a conversation with them?

·4· · ·A· ·I don't recall having a conversation with the

·5· · · · ·two of them.

·6· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Were there any clients that you

·7· · · · ·contacted and then did not become named

·8· · · · ·plaintiffs?

·9· · ·A· ·It was possibly the Myers case, but I don't

10· · · · ·recall for sure whether or not Harold Myers was

11· · · · ·a case that we considered and talked to

12· · · · ·Mrs. Myers.

13· · ·Q· ·Out of the five named plaintiffs, how many meso

14· · · · ·cases were there?

15· · ·A· ·I believe four of them were mesos.· Meso lung

16· · · · ·cancer.

17· · ·Q· ·Was there any reason why there were four mesos?

18· · · · ·Withdrawn.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

20· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

21· · · · · · · ·Did Mr. Placitella in words and substance

22· · · · ·ask you to find meso cases?

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

24· · · · ·the form and work-product.

25· · · · · · · ·Don't answer that question.· Please.

Page 99

·1· · ·Q· ·You can answer.

·2· · ·A· ·I will decline to answer.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · 502.

·4· · ·Q· ·You can answer.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·No.· Yeah, I

·6· · · · ·don't think there's a 502 on this.

·7· · ·Q· ·You're not going to answer the question?

·8· · ·A· ·I won't answer that, no.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Counsel, same

10· · · · ·instruction?

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I don't know

12· · · · ·anything about 502.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Are you

14· · · · ·instructing him not to answer?· Because I don't

15· · · · ·think Mr. Roth can.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I will instruct

17· · · · ·him not to answer.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · Thank you.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·That's why I

20· · · · ·said please.

21· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

22· · ·Q· ·Okay.· How long did the Holley, Ware, and Pease

23· · · · ·conversations last?

24· · ·A· ·I thought I told you.· About five minutes

25· · · · ·probably.· I don't think it would have been a

Page 100

·1· · · · ·long conversation.

·2· · ·Q· ·Five minutes each, or five minutes in total for

·3· · · · ·the three of them?

·4· · ·A· ·Five minutes each.

·5· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And then when's the next time you spoke

·6· · · · ·to them about the case that became known as

·7· · · · ·Williams?

·8· · ·A· ·I can't give you any specific dates.

·9· · · · ·Occasionally I've talked to Marilyn Holley.

10· · · · · · · ·I don't recall if I've ever talked to

11· · · · ·Mrs. Pease after the initial conversation, and

12· · · · ·then she developed Alzheimer's or dementia or

13· · · · ·something, so her sister, Gayle, has taken over

14· · · · ·and I spoke once with Gayle.

15· · · · · · · ·And Donnette Wengerd, I know I've talked

16· · · · ·to her once in the last year or two, a couple

17· · · · ·years.· I don't recall when.

18· · ·Q· ·When Mr. Placitella called you, did you take

19· · · · ·notes?

20· · ·A· ·No.

21· · ·Q· ·When you called the clients, did you take

22· · · · ·notes?

23· · ·A· ·No.

24· · ·Q· ·When you called Ms. Holley, Pease, and Ware,

25· · · · ·did you tell them to expect a call from

Page 101

·1· · · · ·Mr. Placitella, or did you arrange a meeting or

·2· · · · ·say -- what did you say?· How did you end it?

·3· · ·A· ·I'm certain I mentioned Mr. Placitella's

·4· · · · ·office.· And how I connected them, I don't

·5· · · · ·recall for sure, but somehow I connected them.

·6· · · · ·I probably had the paralegal, Erin Clark, you

·7· · · · ·know, connected too or let them know that hey,

·8· · · · ·they're going to be calling.

·9· · ·Q· ·When you talked to Ms. Holley, Ms. Pease, and

10· · · · ·Ms. Ware, did they provide you any factual

11· · · · ·information regarding why they settled their

12· · · · ·cases?

13· · ·A· ·No.

14· · ·Q· ·They wouldn't know why they settled, they were

15· · · · ·relying on you, fair?

16· · ·A· ·I'm sure they relied on me.

17· · ·Q· ·Right.

18· · · · · · · ·Did you ever provide them with any

19· · · · ·reasons why you were settling the Emtal cases?

20· · ·A· ·The settlement was not solely Emtal, it was

21· · · · ·with a group of talc defendants.· And I'm

22· · · · ·sure -- for instance, for all of them, I spoke

23· · · · ·with them, whether it was Mrs. Pease, I don't

24· · · · ·recall if it was -- Mrs. Clark alive at the

25· · · · ·time that I settled it.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 27 of 168 PageID:

35146
Page 102

·1· · · · · · · ·Same with the Darnell case.· I talked

·2· · · · ·with Kathryn Darnell very regularly.· Whether

·3· · · · ·that settlement was done while Kathryn was

·4· · · · ·still alive or if it was done afterwards and I

·5· · · · ·conversed with Marilyn, I don't recall because

·6· · · · ·it's a long time ago.

·7· · · · · · · ·But I spoke with these clients quite

·8· · · · ·regularly about what we were doing and why we

·9· · · · ·were doing it and made my recommendations to

10· · · · ·them.

11· · ·Q· ·And in your initial conversations with Holley,

12· · · · ·Pease, and Ware, did you convey to them in

13· · · · ·words or in substance that you wouldn't have

14· · · · ·not recommended a group settlement if you

15· · · · ·thought there was an asbestos -- a talc company

16· · · · ·out there who had evidence of asbestos in it?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

18· · · · ·form.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Object as to

20· · · · ·form.· There's two negatives in that question.

21· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

22· · · · · · · ·When you were talking to Ware, Pease, and

23· · · · ·Holley, did you tell them that you recommended

24· · · · ·a group settlement on the assumption that there

25· · · · ·was no asbestos in any of the talc defendants'

Page 103

·1· · · · ·products?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·3· · ·A· ·How that -- I stated that, I don't recall, but

·4· · · · ·I'm certain I would have alluded to that fact,

·5· · · · ·which was this is why we did what we did,

·6· · · · ·because we were of the belief that there was no

·7· · · · ·asbestos in Eastern Magnesia Talc.

·8· · ·Q· ·And if you had thought -- withdrawn.

·9· · · · · · · ·If you had a belief that there was

10· · · · ·asbestos in another talc manufacturer's

11· · · · ·product, you wouldn't have given them a benefit

12· · · · ·of the group settlement, fair?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · ·A· ·Well, no.· Just based on what you're -- just on

15· · · · ·those simple facts.· That's just not enough

16· · · · ·facts to go on.

17· · ·Q· ·Well, you knew that Southern Talc had documents

18· · · · ·showing asbestos in their talc, true?

19· · ·A· ·I believe I had something that said that there

20· · · · ·was asbestos in Southern Talc.

21· · ·Q· ·And you -- you also knew at the time of group

22· · · · ·settlement that R.T. Vanderbilt had documents

23· · · · ·showing asbestos in their talc, true?

24· · ·A· ·I believe I was aware of that, yes.

25· · ·Q· ·Correct.· And you still recommended a group

Page 104

·1· · · · ·settlement, true?

·2· · ·A· ·Based on the fact that I had no product ID,

·3· · · · ·yes.

·4· · ·Q· ·But you knew --

·5· · ·A· ·Do you understand what I mean by that?

·6· · ·Q· ·I know what you mean by product ID, Mr. Bevan.

·7· · ·A· ·There's two parts to it.

·8· · ·Q· ·There's --

·9· · ·A· ·Our clients -- was their product where my

10· · · · ·clients worked and did their product contain

11· · · · ·asbestos.· The evidence was very clear that

12· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc product, and a tremendous

13· · · · ·amount of it, was where my clients worked.

14· · · · · · · ·There wasn't evidence of much, if any,

15· · · · ·Southern talc or R.T. Vanderbilt talc where my

16· · · · ·clients worked during the years that they

17· · · · ·worked there.

18· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So -- and thank you for that

19· · · · ·clarification.· There are two important

20· · · · ·components --

21· · ·A· ·Yes.

22· · ·Q· ·-- of assessing claims against a talc

23· · · · ·manufacturer, whether there's asbestos in the

24· · · · ·talc?

25· · ·A· ·Yes.

Page 105

·1· · ·Q· ·And product ID, correct?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·And exposure, correct?

·4· · ·A· ·Yes.

·5· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So -- and then there could be other

·6· · · · ·issues that would go into your settlement,

·7· · · · ·whether there is a statute of limitations

·8· · · · ·problem, correct?

·9· · ·A· ·That could be an issue.

10· · ·Q· ·Whether, for example, you have some procedural

11· · · · ·problems, like your witness list is stricken?

12· · · · ·That could also factor into a settlement,

13· · · · ·correct?

14· · ·A· ·I suppose.

15· · ·Q· ·Whether there are alternative exposures,

16· · · · ·correct?

17· · ·A· ·Yes.

18· · ·Q· ·Whether a claimant is relying on a doctor whose

19· · · · ·credentials may be subject to attack under 292,

20· · · · ·correct?· Withdrawn.

21· · · · · · · ·You understand a number of talc cases

22· · · · ·were dismissed administratively as a result of

23· · · · ·House Bill 292, correct?

24· · ·A· ·I think so, yes.

25· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And do you think those people have been

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 28 of 168 PageID:

35147
Page 106

·1· · · · ·harmed by Engelhard?

·2· · ·A· ·I think yes.· Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·Would an administrative dismissal by a Court be

·4· · · · ·an issue similar to product ID, in your mind,

·5· · · · ·in trying to resolve cases?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·7· · ·A· ·If a court administratively dismisses a case --

·8· · · · ·you're going to have to repeat that.

·9· · ·Q· ·Sure.

10· · · · · · · ·You and I had a short discussion about

11· · · · ·House Bill 292, correct?

12· · ·A· ·I'm familiar with it.

13· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

14· · ·A· ·I don't recall you and I talking about it.

15· · ·Q· ·All right.· But you understand that after 292

16· · · · ·was enacted, there were a number of asbestos

17· · · · ·cases dismissed, correct?

18· · ·A· ·Yes.

19· · ·Q· ·And a number of your talc asbestos cases were

20· · · · ·dismissed, correct?

21· · ·A· ·I assume.· I don't know for sure, but I

22· · · · ·assume --

23· · ·Q· ·Do you think --

24· · ·A· ·-- there was some.

25· · ·Q· ·-- the people who had their claims

Page 107

·1· · · · ·administratively dismissed against Engelhard

·2· · · · ·should still have a claim against Engelhard?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·4· · ·A· ·I guess I don't understand your question.

·5· · ·Q· ·Sure.· Let's go back to your affidavit.· Okay?

·6· · ·A· ·Okay.

·7· · ·Q· ·When the definition is about claims that were

·8· · · · ·dismissed, do you understand that that includes

·9· · · · ·administrative dismissals as well?

10· · ·A· ·I don't know that that's what we looked at, as

11· · · · ·far as dismissal.· We were looking at cases

12· · · · ·that got dismissed either on summary judgment

13· · · · ·or were voluntarily dismissed.

14· · ·Q· ·So your testimony is that the 2,653 does not

15· · · · ·include administrative dismissals?

16· · ·A· ·No, that's not my -- what I'm telling you.

17· · ·Q· ·All right.· It does include administrative

18· · · · ·dismissals?

19· · ·A· ·Yes.

20· · ·Q· ·Of course, right?

21· · ·A· ·Well, if there was some.· I assume there was

22· · · · ·some.· Yeah, I don't how many, but ...

23· · ·Q· ·And administrative dismissals as a result of

24· · · · ·Bill 292 would also be included in that 2,653

25· · · · ·number, correct?

Page 108

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·2· · ·A· ·I believe there's probably some in there. I

·3· · · · ·don't know how many.

·4· · ·Q· ·You and Mr. Walsh never went back and tried to

·5· · · · ·figure out whether there were administrative

·6· · · · ·292 dismissals in that 2,653 number, did you?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·8· · ·A· ·No.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Can we take a

10· · · · ·break?

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · We have five

12· · · · ·minutes on tape.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Okay.

14· · ·Q· ·I would ask you not to discuss your testimony

15· · · · ·with anybody during the break.

16· · ·A· ·Sure.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Thank you.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

19· · · · ·The time is 11:05.

20· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

22· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

24· · · · ·the record.· The time is 11:13.

25· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

Page 109

·1· · ·Q· ·I'm going to show you what's been previously

·2· · · · ·marked as D Ex1.· D Ex1 in the second amended

·3· · · · ·complaint in the Williams case.

·4· · · · · · · ·Have you seen this before?

·5· · ·A· ·Yes.· I've seen the Williams complaint.· The

·6· · · · ·second amended, I'm not sure.

·7· · ·Q· ·For the original complaint, did you review that

·8· · · · ·complaint prior to filing?

·9· · ·A· ·I reviewed it.· I don't know if I reviewed it

10· · · · ·prior to filing.

11· · ·Q· ·Have you ever made any suggested changes to the

12· · · · ·complaint?

13· · ·A· ·Not that I recall, no.

14· · ·Q· ·Did you ever tell Mr. -- withdrawn.

15· · · · · · · ·Have you ever told anybody from Cohen,

16· · · · ·Placitella & Roth that there were facts in the

17· · · · ·complaint that were inaccurate?

18· · ·A· ·Not that I recall.

19· · ·Q· ·Do you know whether there are any inaccuracies

20· · · · ·in the complaint?

21· · ·A· ·I don't know.

22· · ·Q· ·Do you view yourself as an agent for your

23· · · · ·various clients?

24· · ·A· ·Yes.

25· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And did you want to make sure the

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 29 of 168 PageID:

35148
Page 110

·1· · · · ·complaint was accurate, in order to protect

·2· · · · ·their interests?

·3· · ·A· ·I didn't feel that was my job in this

·4· · · · ·situation, no.

·5· · ·Q· ·So you talked to Mr. Placitella, you have five

·6· · · · ·minute conversations with three of the five

·7· · · · ·plaintiffs, and then what else do you do in

·8· · · · ·terms of the Williams case?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

10· · ·A· ·What have I done?

11· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

12· · ·A· ·Gathered documents in response to the subpoena.

13· · · · ·Testified.· I've read pleadings.· That's

14· · · · ·probably the extent of it.

15· · ·Q· ·What else have you done in terms of conveying

16· · · · ·your factual knowledge to people?

17· · ·A· ·I know I told Mr. Placitella what happened.

18· · ·Q· ·In that first conversation?

19· · ·A· ·In multiple conversations.

20· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So you had other conversations with

21· · · · ·Mr. Placitella apart from that first one?

22· · ·A· ·Yes.

23· · ·Q· ·Okay.· How many others?

24· · ·A· ·I have no idea.

25· · ·Q· ·Were they all on the phone, or were some in

Page 111

·1· · · · ·person?

·2· · ·A· ·We've spoken in person.

·3· · ·Q· ·Did he come out here to Ohio?

·4· · ·A· ·He's been out here at least once that I can

·5· · · · ·recall.· At least once.

·6· · ·Q· ·When did you convey, if ever, to Mr. Placitella

·7· · · · ·your understanding of the facts?

·8· · ·A· ·I'm sure I conveyed facts the first time we

·9· · · · ·talked.

10· · ·Q· ·Other than that first five-minute conversation.

11· · ·A· ·It's been many times.

12· · ·Q· ·Did you ever provide him anything in writing?

13· · ·A· ·You know, I'm sure there was emails exchanged.

14· · · · ·You know, emails.

15· · ·Q· ·And in those emails, were there facts that you

16· · · · ·had recalled and were trying to convey to him

17· · · · ·to help him out?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection. I

19· · · · ·think the Court has ruled on emails.

20· · · · · · · ·You don't have to answer that.

21· · ·Q· ·You definitely have to answer this one.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Can we -- hold

23· · · · ·on one second, please.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · I'm not asking

25· · · · ·him what was said.· I'm not asking what the

Page 112

·1· · · · ·facts are, Harry, I'm asking if he conveyed

·2· · · · ·facts to him.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Can we just --

·4· · ·Q· ·Could you -- witness, could you leave the room,

·5· · · · ·please?

·6· · ·A· ·Sure.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Go off the

·8· · · · ·record.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

10· · · · ·The time is 11:17.

11· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

12· · · · · · · (Discussion held off the record.)

13· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

15· · · · ·the record.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Tom, after

17· · · · ·conferring, we're just going to lodge an

18· · · · ·objection.

19· · · · · · · ·Go ahead and answer Mr. Assaf's last

20· · · · ·question.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · Can you read

22· · · · ·the question back to me?

23· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

24· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.· Withdrawn.

25· · · · · · · ·Did you convey facts to Mr. Placitella in

Page 113

·1· · · · ·these emails?

·2· · ·A· ·I believe that I probably conveyed some facts.

·3· · ·Q· ·And are these facts that you also conveyed to

·4· · · · ·the five named plaintiffs?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·6· · · · ·form.

·7· · ·A· ·You know, I'm not sure what I said in the

·8· · · · ·email, so I really can't accurately --

·9· · ·Q· ·Let's try it this way.

10· · ·A· ·-- say that for sure.

11· · ·Q· ·You never spoke to Ms. Wengerd or Ms. Graham or

12· · · · ·Kimberlee Williams --

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · ·Q· ·-- as far as you can recall regarding this

15· · · · ·case?

16· · ·A· ·I don't think I did.· I -- I -- no, I've

17· · · · ·probably spoken to Donnette Wengerd, but not

18· · · · ·early on.· I don't recall for sure.

19· · ·Q· ·And the Holley, Pease, and Ware conversations

20· · · · ·were five minutes, correct?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

22· · ·A· ·I'm estimating.

23· · ·Q· ·So now I'm trying to -- is it fair to say that

24· · · · ·you had more substantive, more detailed,

25· · · · ·factual conversations with Mr. Placitella than

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 30 of 168 PageID:

35149
Page 114

·1· · · · ·you did with the named plaintiffs?· Fair?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·3· · · · ·form.

·4· · ·A· ·Certainly from Mr. Placitella's end.· You know,

·5· · · · ·he knew more than, you know, my clients knew.

·6· · ·Q· ·You provided Mr. Placitella with more facts

·7· · · · ·than you provided to your clients, fair?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·9· · ·A· ·I think so.

10· · ·Q· ·Well, since you never spoke to Ms. Wengerd or

11· · · · ·Ms. Williams regarding the facts, by definition

12· · · · ·you had to provide Mr. Placitella with more

13· · · · ·facts, fair?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

15· · ·A· ·Me personally, yeah, sure.

16· · ·Q· ·And in providing these facts, some of the facts

17· · · · ·were in emails, correct?

18· · ·A· ·I think.· I'm not positive, but I think.

19· · ·Q· ·Have you reviewed these emails?

20· · ·A· ·I -- no.· I got a stack of emails, but I have

21· · · · ·not reviewed them.

22· · ·Q· ·When did you get a stack of emails?

23· · ·A· ·Some -- some time ago.· I printed out a stack

24· · · · ·of my emails.

25· · ·Q· ·A week, a month, two months?

Page 115

·1· · ·A· ·I don't recall when it was.

·2· · ·Q· ·And did you review them in the context of this

·3· · · · ·case?

·4· · ·A· ·I did not review them, I just printed them.

·5· · ·Q· ·Why did you print them?

·6· · ·A· ·In case I was going to have to turn them over.

·7· · ·Q· ·You weren't curious as to what were on the

·8· · · · ·emails?

·9· · ·A· ·It's a lot of emails.· I didn't have the time.

10· · · · ·I'm not going to review them if I don't have

11· · · · ·to.

12· · ·Q· ·What do you mean "a lot"?

13· · ·A· ·It's, you know, dozens of emails.· I mean it's

14· · · · ·probably a four-inch, five-inch stack of

15· · · · ·emails.

16· · ·Q· ·To and from Mr. Placitella and his colleagues?

17· · ·A· ·Yes.

18· · ·Q· ·And those emails, again, contain information

19· · · · ·that your clients don't have --

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

21· · ·Q· ·-- correct, the five --

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Form and

23· · · · ·foundation.

24· · ·A· ·I wouldn't agree with that.

25· · ·Q· ·Well, those emails contain facts that you

Page 116

·1· · · · ·didn't discuss with your clients, correct?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·3· · ·A· ·I don't know.

·4· · ·Q· ·You never discussed anything with Ms. Williams?

·5· · ·A· ·Me personally?

·6· · ·Q· ·Correct.· Correct.

·7· · ·A· ·No.

·8· · ·Q· ·And she's the named plaintiff in this case,

·9· · · · ·correct?

10· · ·A· ·I think she's the lead plaintiff.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

12· · ·Q· ·So if there are any facts in those emails,

13· · · · ·Mr. Placitella would have greater access to

14· · · · ·those facts than Ms. Williams, true?

15· · ·A· ·I can't answer that.· I don't -- I don't know.

16· · ·Q· ·Did you provide Mr. Placitella with facts

17· · · · ·regarding the underlying Engelhard cases?

18· · ·A· ·Again, I'm not sure what I put in the email.

19· · ·Q· ·Well, you said previously you did put facts in

20· · · · ·the --

21· · ·A· ·I said I think I did, but I don't know exactly

22· · · · ·what I put in.

23· · ·Q· ·And you wouldn't know until you or somebody

24· · · · ·reviewed them as to whether there are facts in

25· · · · ·those emails?

Page 117

·1· · ·A· ·That's true.

·2· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And would it -- would there be some

·3· · · · ·reason why you wouldn't convey to

·4· · · · ·Mr. Placitella facts in those emails?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·6· · ·A· ·Yeah, if it didn't come up.· If there wasn't a

·7· · · · ·need at the time.

·8· · ·Q· ·Well, in this four-inch stack of dozens and

·9· · · · ·dozens of emails, can you think of any reason

10· · · · ·why you wouldn't convey to him a fact that

11· · · · ·would be relevant to the case?

12· · ·A· ·If it didn't come up, I didn't put it in an

13· · · · ·email.

14· · ·Q· ·Well, what type of communications would you

15· · · · ·have with Mr. Placitella if you weren't

16· · · · ·conveying to him facts regarding the underlying

17· · · · ·action?

18· · ·A· ·Well, first of all, I've had communications

19· · · · ·with Mr. Placitella and people of his -- from

20· · · · ·his firm on things unrelated to this case.

21· · · · ·I've had conversations in email communications

22· · · · ·with them with respect to the Ross case.· That

23· · · · ·would all be in that same stack of emails.

24· · ·Q· ·So let's put the Ross case and other cases --

25· · · · ·let's just talk about the Williams case.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 31 of 168 PageID:

35150
Page 118

·1· · ·A· ·Okay.

·2· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Those emails contain facts that you are

·3· · · · ·historically familiar with after reviewing the

·4· · · · ·documents and after looking at your files,

·5· · · · ·right?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·7· · · · ·form.

·8· · ·Q· ·Well, let's start this --

·9· · ·A· ·I don't know.

10· · ·Q· ·-- way, Mr. Bevan.

11· · · · · · · ·When Mr. Placitella calls -- withdrawn.

12· · · · ·Withdrawn.

13· · · · · · · ·When Mr. Placitella calls you and tells

14· · · · ·you about what he's found and then you call

15· · · · ·your clients, didn't you go back to your files

16· · · · ·and start looking at them to see what the facts

17· · · · ·were and try to understand all of the

18· · · · ·correspondence and what happened in the cases?

19· · ·A· ·I don't think I went back to the client files,

20· · · · ·no.

21· · ·Q· ·How did you understand, then, what the facts of

22· · · · ·the underlying -- what happened in the

23· · · · ·underlying cases?

24· · ·A· ·Because I was there.· I handled it.· I was the

25· · · · ·one that had the conversations with Eastern

Page 119

·1· · · · ·Magnesia Talc lawyers.

·2· · ·Q· ·Okay.

·3· · ·A· ·I was the one that received the letters.· I was

·4· · · · ·the one that was there in the depositions when

·5· · · · ·they were there.· I was there in the court

·6· · · · ·hearings when they were there.· I handled the

·7· · · · ·cases.· I handled every aspect of it.· So I

·8· · · · ·recall what happened.

·9· · ·Q· ·You handled every aspect of the cases?

10· · ·A· ·Well, I mean I, you know --

11· · ·Q· ·You just said that.

12· · ·A· ·Yeah.· As an attorney, yes.

13· · ·Q· ·Okay.· All right.· I'm going to write that one

14· · · · ·down.· We're going to come back to that.

15· · ·A· ·Go ahead and write that one down.

16· · ·Q· ·Every aspect.· Okay.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·As an attorney.

18· · · · ·Make sure you get it right.

19· · ·Q· ·And then as part of your role as an attorney,

20· · · · ·when a client first comes to you, you review --

21· · · · ·you perform a thorough investigation to

22· · · · ·determine the underlying facts, correct?

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·And you also try to figure out from the client

25· · · · ·whether they've been exposed to asbestos,

Page 120

·1· · · · ·correct?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·You even have that on your website, correct?

·4· · ·A· ·Sure.

·5· · ·Q· ·Various ways how people could be exposed to

·6· · · · ·asbestos, correct?

·7· · ·A· ·Yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's been marked as

·9· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 241 and 242.

10· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize that as a screenshot of

11· · · · ·your website?

12· · ·A· ·Yeah, I haven't looked at it in years, but I

13· · · · ·don't dispute that fact.

14· · ·Q· ·Okay.· In terms of 242, there's a listing of

15· · · · ·products on that, correct?

16· · ·A· ·Well, it's some pictures of products.

17· · ·Q· ·Have you ever heard the term "photo array"?

18· · · · ·Photo array.

19· · ·A· ·Photo array?

20· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

21· · ·A· ·No.

22· · ·Q· ·When clients come in, do you show them photos

23· · · · ·of various products in order to help them with

24· · · · ·product ID?

25· · ·A· ·We have on occasion, but typically no.

Page 121

·1· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And in your photo gallery on your

·2· · · · ·website, there's no listing of talc?

·3· · ·A· ·There's no picture of talc.

·4· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Why is that?

·5· · ·A· ·I don't think I have a picture of talc.

·6· · ·Q· ·You're trying to inform your prospective and

·7· · · · ·new clients of various ways that they could

·8· · · · ·have come in contact with asbestos, correct?

·9· · ·A· ·No.· These are just -- these are just some

10· · · · ·pictures.· I mean, this is, you know, one-tenth

11· · · · ·of 1 percent of the types of asbestos products

12· · · · ·that exist.· So it's not meant to be

13· · · · ·exhaustive, if that's what you're asking me.

14· · ·Q· ·The entire client set?

15· · ·A· ·I don't think I've ever reviewed these pictures

16· · · · ·with my clients.

17· · ·Q· ·Are there any Bar rules regarding information

18· · · · ·contained on your website and whether it has to

19· · · · ·be accurate?

20· · ·A· ·Yeah, it should be accurate.

21· · ·Q· ·And it shouldn't mislead or omit important

22· · · · ·information for clients, correct?

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

24· · · · ·form.

25· · ·A· ·Yeah.· Yes.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 32 of 168 PageID:

35151
Page 122

·1· · ·Q· ·And so if a client came in with meso, you would

·2· · · · ·expect them to be able to look at this and see

·3· · · · ·whether they would have gotten meso or worked

·4· · · · ·with one of these products, correct?

·5· · ·A· ·No.

·6· · ·Q· ·Never?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·8· · ·A· ·No.

·9· · ·Q· ·You said you -- did you tell Mr. Placitella

10· · · · ·everything you can recall without looking at

11· · · · ·documents?

12· · ·A· ·I don't recall.

13· · ·Q· ·Well, did you review documents to try to convey

14· · · · ·facts to Mr. Placitella?

15· · ·A· ·The only documents I think I've reviewed was

16· · · · ·the talc settlement files that I referenced in

17· · · · ·the last deposition that was eight and a half

18· · · · ·inches thick.· That's the only one document

19· · · · ·that I recall that I reviewed at the time. I

20· · · · ·don't recall what was in there, if there was

21· · · · ·some letters in there from Eastern Magnesia

22· · · · ·Talc.· I don't recall.

23· · ·Q· ·In terms of the facts, if you conveyed facts to

24· · · · ·Mr. Placitella, how can I see those facts?

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

Page 123

·1· · · · ·the form and foundation.

·2· · ·Q· ·Are they anywhere else for me to see?

·3· · ·A· ·I guess you could ask me the facts.

·4· · ·Q· ·Well, what facts -- tell me -- could you tell

·5· · · · ·me everything you conveyed to Mr. Placitella in

·6· · · · ·terms of the facts of the case?

·7· · ·A· ·Things that I've conveyed to Mr. --

·8· · ·Q· ·Everything.

·9· · ·A· ·I'll tell you what I can recall, which is that

10· · · · ·we filed suits against Eastern Magnesia Talc

11· · · · ·starting in the very early '90s when I began to

12· · · · ·practice law, that I got threatening letters

13· · · · ·and phone calls --

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Mr. Bevan, hold

15· · · · ·on a second.· I want to make sure you have

16· · · · ·Mr. Assaf's full attention.

17· · ·Q· ·I -- definitely do.

18· · ·A· ·Okay.

19· · ·Q· ·I think I know where this is going.

20· · ·A· ·I received many threatening letters and phone

21· · · · ·calls, as well as personal conversations.

22· · · · · · · ·Typically the people I dealt with was an

23· · · · ·individual, I believe his name was Scott

24· · · · ·Martin, and then I know an individual named

25· · · · ·Allen Joslyn.· I don't recall if I dealt with

Page 124

·1· · · · ·anybody beyond that.· I would speak to them at

·2· · · · ·breaks in depositions or after depositions.

·3· · · · ·They would call me.· Well, Scott Martin

·4· · · · ·typically would call me.· They would send me

·5· · · · ·letters.· They would make sanction threats

·6· · · · ·against me.

·7· · · · · · · ·I recall a specific incident in a

·8· · · · ·deposition, it was the John Nardella

·9· · · · ·deposition, when Allen Joslyn came and, you

10· · · · ·know, very aggressively after the deposition

11· · · · ·about why I hadn't dismissed Eastern Magnesia

12· · · · ·Talc.

13· · · · · · · ·I recall that one specifically, because

14· · · · ·Mr. Nardella, who I represented who was a guy

15· · · · ·that wasn't afraid to speak his mind, when

16· · · · ·Mr. Joslyn walked away, he looked at me and

17· · · · ·said, "What an asshole."· And I had many

18· · · · ·conversations with both of them.

19· · · · · · · ·We dismissed cases.· We ultimately did a

20· · · · ·global talc settlement at numbers that were

21· · · · ·very low.

22· · · · · · · ·And our issue with the talc case was that

23· · · · ·the product ID we had was predominately Eastern

24· · · · ·Magnesia Talc product ID.· It was significant

25· · · · ·amounts of Eastern Magnesia Talc.

Page 125

·1· · · · · · · ·Most of my clients that worked in the

·2· · · · ·rubber plants, if not all, but certainly most

·3· · · · ·of them, talked about talc, or they referred to

·4· · · · ·it as soapstone exposure.· It was I would use

·5· · · · ·the word ubiquitous in the rubber industry.· It

·6· · · · ·was everywhere.

·7· · · · · · · ·And as a -- but the problem that I had in

·8· · · · ·pursuing the talc case was that, you know, from

·9· · · · ·a product ID standpoint, the only company I

10· · · · ·could make a good case against was Eastern

11· · · · ·Magnesia Talc, but their talc didn't contain

12· · · · ·asbestos, or so they said.· And that was the

13· · · · ·basis of our decision to settle the talc

14· · · · ·companies.

15· · · · · · · ·Another fact I recall is at one point I

16· · · · ·dismissed Eastern Magnesia Talc from some

17· · · · ·cases.· I received a phone call from Sam

18· · · · ·Martillotta, who was the lead defense counsel

19· · · · ·representing the talc entities in a global

20· · · · ·negotiation, and I received a very angry phone

21· · · · ·call from Mr. Martillotta, that why did I

22· · · · ·dismiss Eastern Magnesia Talc.· And I said

23· · · · ·"Well, because their talc doesn't contain

24· · · · ·asbestos."

25· · · · · · · ·And he said, well, you know, that makes

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 33 of 168 PageID:

35152
Page 126

·1· · · · ·it, you know, difficult for us to do any type

·2· · · · ·of deals.· And he still got a deal done.· And I

·3· · · · ·was always surprised that Eastern Magnesia Talc

·4· · · · ·was on the paperwork.· So he somehow got

·5· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc to continue to

·6· · · · ·participate.

·7· · · · · · · ·You know, there's probably more facts

·8· · · · ·involved.· That's what I can recall at that

·9· · · · ·time.

10· · ·Q· ·And you told Mr. Placitella all of that?

11· · ·A· ·I don't know if I ever told him the John

12· · · · ·Nardella story that I just told right now.

13· · ·Q· ·And did you tell any of your clients any of

14· · · · ·that in --

15· · ·A· ·Well --

16· · ·Q· ·-- these five minute conversations?

17· · ·A· ·You took the notes of what I said, and that was

18· · · · ·a summary of what -- what I said was a summary

19· · · · ·of those facts.

20· · ·Q· ·And any of those facts in the complaint that

21· · · · ·you know of?

22· · ·A· ·I don't recall.· I haven't looked at that

23· · · · ·complaint in quite some time, so I don't know.

24· · ·Q· ·In terms of the facts that you just gave me, do

25· · · · ·you have any other facts?

Page 127

·1· · ·A· ·I'm sure I have other facts.· I know that's

·2· · · · ·what I can recall right now.· I mean, I have a

·3· · · · ·lot of, you know, evidence that Eastern

·4· · · · ·Magnesia Talc sold very large quantities of

·5· · · · ·talc to the Akron rubber plants where my

·6· · · · ·clients worked.

·7· · ·Q· ·Goodyear Aerospace?

·8· · ·A· ·The Goodyear Aerospace is a little different,

·9· · · · ·because Goodyear Tire, the talc would have been

10· · · · ·used in the floor tile manufacturing.· In

11· · · · ·Goodyear Tire, the floor tile was made in the

12· · · · ·vinyl division, which was at the Goodyear

13· · · · ·Aerospace facility, and the employees there

14· · · · ·were Goodyear Aerospace employees working in

15· · · · ·that, but vinyl division was a Goodyear Tire

16· · · · ·division.· And so Goodyear Tire central

17· · · · ·purchasing did the purchasing for the vinyl

18· · · · ·division.

19· · ·Q· ·So you believe that Emtal talc was used at

20· · · · ·Goodyear Aerospace?

21· · ·A· ·I believe it would have been shipped from

22· · · · ·Goodyear Tire over to Goodyear Aerospace.

23· · ·Q· ·Do you have proof of that?· Withdrawn.

24· · · · · · · ·Did you ever supply a Court with proof of

25· · · · ·that and a Court believed you?

Page 128

·1· · ·A· ·I don't know that we ever litigated that,

·2· · · · ·because, again, it's the same problem, which

·3· · · · ·is, you know, the time when I was litigating

·4· · · · ·Goodyear Aerospace cases, I was under the

·5· · · · ·belief that based on Eastern Magnesia Talc's

·6· · · · ·statement that their talc did not contain

·7· · · · ·asbestos.

·8· · ·Q· ·Did you ever show to any Court that Goodyear

·9· · · · ·Aerospace used Emtal talc, yes or no?· Any

10· · · · ·Court.

11· · ·A· ·I don't believe that ever came up in a case.

12· · ·Q· ·Did you ever show any Court that Emtal talc was

13· · · · ·used at Goodyear Aerospace, yes or no?

14· · ·A· ·I don't believe that ever came up.

15· · ·Q· ·Did you ever make an offer of proof that -- or

16· · · · ·make an allegation that Emtal was used at

17· · · · ·Goodyear Aerospace to any Court?

18· · ·A· ·Yeah, I don't -- I don't recall.

19· · ·Q· ·You didn't mention Mr. Kluznik.

20· · ·A· ·That name I'm familiar with.· I don't -- I

21· · · · ·don't recall.· You know, I don't recall having

22· · · · ·any dealings with Mr. -- I may have, but I just

23· · · · ·don't recall that, because when we were

24· · · · ·litigating these cases predominantly in the

25· · · · ·'90s, early 2000s, it was always the Cahill

Page 129

·1· · · · ·Gordon people and it was always Scott Martin

·2· · · · ·and Allen Joslyn are the ones that I recall.

·3· · ·Q· ·Well, you mentioned three attorneys that you

·4· · · · ·had three discussions with that weren't

·5· · · · ·associated with you; Martin, Joslyn, and a

·6· · · · ·fellow named Sam Martillotta.

·7· · ·A· ·Yes.· Yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·By the way, do you know Mr. Martillotta?

·9· · ·A· ·I know him, yes.

10· · ·Q· ·Based on your dealings with him, do you think

11· · · · ·he has a reputation for honesty?

12· · ·A· ·I don't know.

13· · ·Q· ·Well, have you ever found him to be anything

14· · · · ·but honest?

15· · ·A· ·Not that I know of.

16· · ·Q· ·We'll mark this.· This is Defendants' 243.

17· · · · · · · ·Defendants' 243 is a printout from the

18· · · · ·Mansour Gavin website of Samuel R. Martillotta.

19· · · · · · · ·Is this the person that you mentioned in

20· · · · ·your recitation of the facts, Mr. Bevan?

21· · ·A· ·Yes, it is.

22· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And you had dealings with him and

23· · · · ·conversations with him regarding the settlement

24· · · · ·of various talc cases?

25· · ·A· ·Yes.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 34 of 168 PageID:

35153
Page 130

·1· · ·Q· ·And, in fact, you had both correspondence with

·2· · · · ·him and telephone calls with him, correct?

·3· · ·A· ·Yes.

·4· · ·Q· ·And he was representing a group of talc

·5· · · · ·defendants, correct?

·6· · ·A· ·Well, he was representing Southern Talc.· He

·7· · · · ·was -- as far as the settlement, he was the

·8· · · · ·liaison for them, so I don't -- I don't

·9· · · · ·believe.· He certainly didn't hold himself out

10· · · · ·that he was representing anybody else.

11· · ·Q· ·As far as you know, he was acting as settlement

12· · · · ·liaison counsel for a group of talc companies,

13· · · · ·correct?

14· · ·A· ·That's how I would describe it.

15· · ·Q· ·And based upon your dealings with him over the

16· · · · ·years, do you have any reason to question what

17· · · · ·he would say regarding the talc litigation that

18· · · · ·was anything but honest?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

20· · · · ·form.

21· · ·Q· ·Do you think he's a truth teller?

22· · ·A· ·You know, at this point, I don't know.· I don't

23· · · · ·know.· From the defense side, what I've seen on

24· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc shocks me, and so,

25· · · · ·frankly, I don't trust him all that much

Page 131

·1· · · · ·anymore either.

·2· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Do you have any -- what's your factual

·3· · · · ·basis for thinking that he's anything but

·4· · · · ·honest?

·5· · ·A· ·Well, if the Eastern Magnesia Talc and the BASF

·6· · · · ·people would so blatantly lie, why wouldn't

·7· · · · ·other defendants lie as well?

·8· · ·Q· ·Other than the answer you gave, do you have any

·9· · · · ·facts that you have personal knowledge of

10· · · · ·regarding Mr. Martillotta being dishonest?

11· · ·A· ·No.

12· · ·Q· ·So the answer you just gave me was you

13· · · · ·surmising.· You don't have any facts, do you,

14· · · · ·Mr. Bevan?

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

16· · · · ·form and foundation.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

18· · ·A· ·I didn't say it was a fact.· I said based on

19· · · · ·the way Eastern Magnesia Talc and Cahill Gordon

20· · · · ·handled this matter, I don't trust any of you.

21· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And you think that's fair based upon

22· · · · ·your dealings with Mr. Martillotta?· You

23· · · · ·can't even --

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

25· · ·Q· ·As another member of the Ohio Bar, you're able

Page 132

·1· · · · ·to sit here and say you don't know whether he's

·2· · · · ·honest or not?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·5· · ·A· ·That is correct.

·6· · ·Q· ·But you don't have any facts to back that up?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·9· · · · ·Asked and answered.

10· · ·A· ·No facts other than what BASF or Eastern

11· · · · ·Magnesia Talc and its lawyers, Cahill Gordon,

12· · · · ·did.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Move to strike.

14· · ·A· ·Hopefully Mr. Martillotta's more honest than

15· · · · ·your clients were.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Move to strike.

17· · ·Q· ·Do you have any facts?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Asked and

19· · · · ·answered.

20· · ·Q· ·You're a lawyer -- withdrawn.

21· · · · · · · ·You're a lawyer, right, practicing law

22· · · · ·for a long time in this jurisdiction?

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·Yes.· Okay.

25· · · · · · · ·Now I'm asking you for facts that you

Page 133

·1· · · · ·could tell a judge regarding why you think

·2· · · · ·Mr. Martillotta isn't honest.· Do you have any

·3· · · · ·facts?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·6· · · · ·Asked and answered.

·7· · ·A· ·I think I answered your question already.

·8· · ·Q· ·Do you have any facts?

·9· · ·A· ·I said I don't have any facts, I just don't

10· · · · ·trust him because of what Cahill Gordon and

11· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc did in this case.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Continuing

13· · · · ·objection to this line of questioning.

14· · ·Q· ·So let's turn to the second amended complaint.

15· · · · ·Let's start off with Ms. Pease.

16· · · · · · · ·Can you turn to paragraph 20 on page 21

17· · · · ·of D Ex 1?

18· · · · · · · ·By the way, in your meetings with

19· · · · ·Mr. Placitella, did he take notes?

20· · ·A· ·I never saw him take any notes.

21· · ·Q· ·Did you ever take any notes?

22· · ·A· ·No.

23· · ·Q· ·Did you ever provide him with any specific

24· · · · ·documents?· In other words, "Here's a document

25· · · · ·I found, you should look at it"?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 35 of 168 PageID:

35154
Page 134

·1· · ·A· ·Are we talking about Eastern Magnesia Talc or

·2· · · · ·other stuff?· I'm sure I've given

·3· · · · ·Mr. Placitella documents over the years

·4· · · · ·unrelated to Eastern Magnesia Talc.

·5· · ·Q· ·Well, I thought until this case you didn't know

·6· · · · ·Mr. Placitella?

·7· · ·A· ·I don't think that's what I said.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·9· · ·A· ·I said I don't think I ever spoke to him.

10· · ·Q· ·Spoke to him, okay.

11· · ·A· ·But I wasn't sure I said.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So but since -- so regarding anything

13· · · · ·regarding Engelhard, Eastern Magnesia Talc, the

14· · · · ·Williams case, did you provide specific

15· · · · ·documents to Mr. Placitella along the lines of

16· · · · ·"I found this" or "You should look at this"?

17· · ·A· ·I think I have provided him, but I'm not sure.

18· · · · ·I think I may have provided him something in

19· · · · ·the Ross case.

20· · ·Q· ·So these stack of emails I'm getting to, I'm

21· · · · ·going to ask a judge to review these emails and

22· · · · ·I want to find out, are there going to be

23· · · · ·emails in there in which you're conveying to

24· · · · ·Mr. Placitella either facts or your

25· · · · ·understanding of facts.

Page 135

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·So is there a

·2· · · · ·question?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Yeah.

·4· · ·Q· ·In those emails to Mr. Placitella, do you

·5· · · · ·provide him with your understanding of certain

·6· · · · ·facts or documents regarding this case?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.· No

·8· · · · ·foundation.

·9· · ·A· ·I thought I --

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Asked and

11· · · · ·answered.

12· · ·A· ·-- answered that multiple times, which is I

13· · · · ·think I gave him some facts.· I'm not sure what

14· · · · ·I put in the emails.

15· · ·Q· ·Regarding Ms. Pease.· So first of all, if you

16· · · · ·turn to paragraph 22, it says, "commenced an

17· · · · ·asbestos injury lawsuit in Cuyahoga County."

18· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

19· · ·A· ·Yes.

20· · ·Q· ·And further down, it says:· This suit replaced

21· · · · ·a Summit County asbestos personal injury case.

22· · · · · · · ·Correct?

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·There's nothing else about that, about that

25· · · · ·Summit County case in there, is there?

Page 136

·1· · ·A· ·I don't see anything else.

·2· · ·Q· ·Well, you said you handled every aspect of

·3· · · · ·these clients' cases, correct?

·4· · ·A· ·I said --

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·6· · · · ·form.

·7· · ·A· ·-- as a lawyer.

·8· · ·Q· ·As a lawyer, yeah.

·9· · ·A· ·I did the lawyering for them, yes.

10· · ·Q· ·So as a lawyer, would you explain to me what

11· · · · ·happened to that Summit County case?

12· · ·A· ·We dismissed the case and refiled it in

13· · · · ·Cuyahoga County.

14· · ·Q· ·And you dismissed it because the case wasn't

15· · · · ·going well, fair?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

17· · ·A· ·I would say we dismissed it because we felt

18· · · · ·that it was more prudent to pursue this case in

19· · · · ·Cuyahoga County where we would have a judge

20· · · · ·handling it.

21· · ·Q· ·You didn't think Judge Victor was up for the

22· · · · ·task?

23· · ·A· ·Judge Victor wasn't handling the case.

24· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's Defendants' Exhibit 135.

25· · · · · · · ·135 is a multiple page document entitled

Page 137

·1· · · · ·"Memorandum and Support of Motion for Summary

·2· · · · ·Judgment for Lack of Product Identification on

·3· · · · ·Behalf of Eastern Magnesia Talc Company."

·4· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·5· · ·A· ·Yes.

·6· · ·Q· ·You understand that Emtal moved for summary

·7· · · · ·judgment on product ID grounds in Summit

·8· · · · ·County?

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·And you believe that the Summit County Court

11· · · · ·was going to grant that and you told your

12· · · · ·client that it was better to dismiss and refile

13· · · · ·in Cuyahoga County, correct?

14· · ·A· ·Yes --

15· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

16· · · · · · · ·In words or in substance, you conveyed to

17· · · · ·your client that you should dismiss because you

18· · · · ·were going to lose on product ID grounds?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

20· · ·A· ·I thought we won this, by the way.

21· · · · · · · ·So I did not like having a magistrate

22· · · · ·handling the case.· It was Magistrate Shoemaker

23· · · · ·handling the case, and I thought we were

24· · · · ·better -- because the cases were starting to

25· · · · ·move in Cuyahoga County.· And so we dismissed

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 36 of 168 PageID:

35155
Page 138

·1· · · · ·and refiled it in Cuyahoga County.

·2· · ·Q· ·Did you file an opposition to the product ID

·3· · · · ·motion, or did you --

·4· · ·A· ·I'm not positive, but I thought we opposed that

·5· · · · ·and that the motion was denied, the Eastern

·6· · · · ·Magnesia motion was denied, but I --

·7· · ·Q· ·Let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 136.

·8· · · · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 136 is a document

·9· · · · ·from Summit County.

10· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize that?

11· · ·A· ·Yes.

12· · ·Q· ·What is it?

13· · ·A· ·This is a dismissal pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule

14· · · · ·41(A) (1) of voluntary dismissal, which we

15· · · · ·filed in Summit County and then refiled the

16· · · · ·case in Cuyahoga County.

17· · ·Q· ·Fair to say that you filed with a pending

18· · · · ·motion for summary judgment based on product

19· · · · ·ID?

20· · ·A· ·Again, I think what I said was I thought that

21· · · · ·motion for summary judgment on product ID was

22· · · · ·denied, but I'm not certain.

23· · ·Q· ·And then you refiled in Cuyahoga County,

24· · · · ·correct?

25· · ·A· ·Cuyahoga, yes.

Page 139

·1· · ·Q· ·And I'll show you Defendants' 137.

·2· · · · · · · ·Is this the complaint you filed?

·3· · ·A· ·It appears to be.

·4· · ·Q· ·At this time, what was your factual basis for

·5· · · · ·asserting that your client was injured by Emtal

·6· · · · ·talc?

·7· · ·A· ·Our belief was that Eastern Magnesia Talc

·8· · · · ·supplied very large quantities of talc or

·9· · · · ·soapstone to good -- BFGoodrich, where

10· · · · ·Mr. Clark worked, and that perhaps we could

11· · · · ·develop a case that showed that Eastern

12· · · · ·Magnesia Talc contained asbestos.

13· · ·Q· ·By June 20 of 1995, had Engelhard told you

14· · · · ·there was no asbestos in their talc?

15· · ·A· ·Yes, I believe so.

16· · ·Q· ·And did you rely on that information in

17· · · · ·dismissing prior cases?

18· · ·A· ·In dismissing prior cases, yes.

19· · ·Q· ·Did you believe Emtal when they told you there

20· · · · ·was no asbestos in the talc?

21· · ·A· ·I believed it when I dismissed them.

22· · ·Q· ·And then after you dismissed them, did you

23· · · · ·continue to believe there was no asbestos in

24· · · · ·the talc?

25· · ·A· ·I believed that it was very questionable,

Page 140

·1· · · · ·whether there was asbestos in their talc.

·2· · ·Q· ·But when you dismissed them, you said you

·3· · · · ·believed them, so, in other words, when Allen

·4· · · · ·Joslyn told you "Dismiss me because there's no

·5· · · · ·asbestos in the talc," you say you believed

·6· · · · ·him, correct?

·7· · ·A· ·Yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And how long did that belief last?

·9· · ·A· ·I believe it lasted until I heard from

10· · · · ·Mr. Placitella.· I believed that there was no

11· · · · ·evidence that there was asbestos in their talc.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So after Mr. Joslyn related that story

13· · · · ·about the Nardella deposition and Mr. Joslyn

14· · · · ·threatening you, right?

15· · ·A· ·Yes.· And I don't know when the Nardella

16· · · · ·deposition was.

17· · ·Q· ·Well, I think the Nardella deposition is

18· · · · ·actually in the prior motion for product ID.

19· · · · ·It's referenced.· I don't know, you tell me.

20· · · · · · · ·Take out the motion for summary judgment

21· · · · ·product ID.· Right here.· I think there's a

22· · · · ·reference to Nardella at the bottom.

23· · ·A· ·Assuming that was the only Nardella deposition.

24· · · · ·I don't know if there was more than one or not.

25· · ·Q· ·Okay.

Page 141

·1· · ·A· ·I don't know.

·2· · ·Q· ·So Joslyn tells you in your words that there's

·3· · · · ·no asbestos in the talc, right?

·4· · ·A· ·Yes.

·5· · ·Q· ·And you ask for proof of that, right?

·6· · ·A· ·Well, they sent me the affidavit or report.

·7· · ·Q· ·And you read those affidavits carefully,

·8· · · · ·correct?

·9· · ·A· ·I read them, yes.

10· · ·Q· ·In fact, you read them so -- in such detail

11· · · · ·that you actually had questions on them,

12· · · · ·correct?

13· · ·A· ·I think I may have, you know, questioned it.

14· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So Joslyn tells you no asbestos in the

15· · · · ·talc.· He sends you supporting affidavits,

16· · · · ·which you read carefully and in detail, fair?

17· · ·A· ·Yes.

18· · ·Q· ·And then at that point, in your mind, you say

19· · · · ·you believed the position that there was no

20· · · · ·asbestos in the talc?

21· · ·A· ·I believed that there was no evidence of

22· · · · ·asbestos in their talc.

23· · ·Q· ·And then after that, you continue to file

24· · · · ·cases?

25· · ·A· ·Yes.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 37 of 168 PageID:

35156
Page 142

·1· · ·Q· ·And so what's your -- your good faith factual

·2· · · · ·basis for filing a claim against Emtal saying

·3· · · · ·that there's asbestos in their talc?

·4· · ·A· ·The -- one of the reasons why we filed was

·5· · · · ·because the other defendants were pointing the

·6· · · · ·finger at the talc exposure and pointing it at

·7· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc, and the one that was

·8· · · · ·particularly aggressive on that was Owens

·9· · · · ·Corning.

10· · · · · · · ·And it created a problem if they're able

11· · · · ·to point to the empty chair.· And so by having

12· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc in the case, they're not

13· · · · ·pointing to the empty chair, because Eastern

14· · · · ·Magnesia Talc, they're saying, "No, our talc

15· · · · ·does not contain asbestos."

16· · · · · · · ·And then it was our intent to let the

17· · · · ·Court then settle it, and if the Court said,

18· · · · ·"No asbestos in the Eastern Magnesia Talc,"

19· · · · ·then that would cut off the defense by Owens

20· · · · ·Corning, amongst others, that it was the talc

21· · · · ·that was causing the mesothelioma, not their

22· · · · ·product.

23· · · · · · · ·So it was a -- a legal strategy is why we

24· · · · ·continued to sue Eastern Magnesia Talc.· That,

25· · · · ·plus the conversation with Sam Martillotta,

Page 143

·1· · · · ·which would have come after this time, which

·2· · · · ·was "Eastern Magnesia Talc's got to be at the

·3· · · · ·table if you want to have any deals.· Don't

·4· · · · ·dismiss Eastern Magnesia Talc."· And that was

·5· · · · ·why we continued to sue Eastern Magnesia Talc.

·6· · ·Q· ·So in terms of just the chronology, you say you

·7· · · · ·believed the position that Emtal had no

·8· · · · ·asbestos in the talc, or did you not believe

·9· · · · ·that?

10· · ·A· ·I believed what he told me, which was "We

11· · · · ·tested our talc multiple times, it never

12· · · · ·contained any asbestos.· There was no evidence

13· · · · ·of any asbestos ever in our talc."

14· · ·Q· ·You believed that?

15· · ·A· ·I believed it when he told me that.

16· · ·Q· ·So as a factual matter, in the 1990s, you

17· · · · ·believed that there was no asbestos in the

18· · · · ·Emtal talc, true?

19· · ·A· ·Yes.

20· · ·Q· ·So that's point one on facts.

21· · · · · · · ·But you continued to sue Emtal for legal

22· · · · ·strategic issues, correct?

23· · ·A· ·Correct.

24· · ·Q· ·The issue that another asbestos defendant

25· · · · ·suggested you should sue them for tactical

Page 144

·1· · · · ·reasons, for the empty chair?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·3· · · · ·the form.

·4· · ·A· ·Well, and, again, Sam Martillotta said they

·5· · · · ·needed to be at the table to be able to do

·6· · · · ·deals, one.

·7· · · · · · · ·And two, the other defendants were

·8· · · · ·pointing the finger at talc as being the cause

·9· · · · ·of my client's disease and rather than have the

10· · · · ·big, empty chair, which was Eastern Magnesia

11· · · · ·Talc, which was the big player in the Akron

12· · · · ·rubber industry, as far as talc goes, rather

13· · · · ·than have the empty chair there, we would sue

14· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc to allow them to defend

15· · · · ·their position.· Otherwise we would have had

16· · · · ·Owens Corning pointing at the talc as being the

17· · · · ·cause of it and not have a response to it.

18· · ·Q· ·Owens Corning doesn't have -- manufacture talc

19· · · · ·or produce talc?

20· · ·A· ·Not that I'm aware of.

21· · ·Q· ·Correct.

22· · · · · · · ·Owens Corning as an asbestos defendant

23· · · · ·was encouraging you to bring in talc defendants

24· · · · ·to shift responsibility?

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

Page 145

·1· · · · ·form.

·2· · ·A· ·I wouldn't say they were encouraging me to

·3· · · · ·bring in, they were pointing the finger at

·4· · · · ·talc.· And so in response to that, I thought it

·5· · · · ·was important to have the talc players there to

·6· · · · ·defend against that.· And in deposition, the

·7· · · · ·Owens Corning attorneys and the talc attorneys

·8· · · · ·would clash.

·9· · ·Q· ·Did Owens Corning ever convey to you in words,

10· · · · ·in substance, that they wanted you to bring

11· · · · ·Emtal into lawsuits?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

13· · · · ·Form and foundation.

14· · ·A· ·No.· They never asked me to bring anybody in.

15· · · · ·I did that in response to their defense

16· · · · ·strategy.· And that was my strategy in response

17· · · · ·to that.

18· · ·Q· ·So in terms of the other talc manufacturers or

19· · · · ·producers, did you believe at that point that

20· · · · ·there were any other talc companies that had

21· · · · ·asbestos in their talc?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·At what point

23· · · · ·are you talking about?

24· · ·Q· ·Mid-1990s.

25· · ·A· ·Evidence in the mid-1990s that I would have had

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 38 of 168 PageID:

35157
Page 146

·1· · · · ·would have included -- I recall a study of

·2· · · · ·Milwhite talc by I believe it was by NIOSH that

·3· · · · ·showed asbestos in Milwhite talc.

·4· · · · · · · ·Possibly Cyprus.· I'm not sure.· I don't

·5· · · · ·recall for sure on Southern Talc.· I don't

·6· · · · ·recall anything on Georgia Talc.

·7· · ·Q· ·I'll show you.· I'll show you Southern Talc in

·8· · · · ·a second.

·9· · ·A· ·Okay.· So yeah.· I mean I had some, yes, you

10· · · · ·know.

11· · ·Q· ·So I understand the Owens Corning tactical

12· · · · ·issue and I understand the Sam Martillotta

13· · · · ·alleged encouragement to bring Emtal in to

14· · · · ·share the pain of the litigation, but I'm

15· · · · ·trying to understand what was your good faith

16· · · · ·factual basis since you as an attorney

17· · · · ·believed -- you say you believed that when

18· · · · ·Emtal said they had no asbestos in their talc.

19· · · · · · · ·What was your good faith factual basis

20· · · · ·for bringing in Emtal?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

22· · ·A· ·Again, it was a -- it was a strategic reason,

23· · · · ·which was to provide a shield to this defense

24· · · · ·that Owens Corning was putting forth that it

25· · · · ·was the talc, not their product.

Page 147

·1· · ·Q· ·Aside from the tactical reason, the legal

·2· · · · ·tactical reason that -- regarding Owens

·3· · · · ·Corning, I'm asking what's your good faith

·4· · · · ·factual basis in 1995 to continue to file

·5· · · · ·lawsuits against Emtal?

·6· · ·A· ·I don't, you know, beyond that.· That's what my

·7· · · · ·reason was.

·8· · ·Q· ·But you -- you didn't have any good faith

·9· · · · ·factual basis to believe there was asbestos in

10· · · · ·the talc?

11· · ·A· ·I had no evidence that there was asbestos in

12· · · · ·the talc, that is correct.

13· · ·Q· ·Well, no, no, no.· You put it stronger than

14· · · · ·that, Mr. Bevan.

15· · · · · · · ·Your testimony is you believed there was

16· · · · ·no asbestos in the talc --

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

18· · · · ·form.

19· · ·Q· ·-- right?

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Foundation.

21· · ·A· ·No.· No.· I believed what Mr. Joslyn and

22· · · · ·Mr. Martin told me, that they had tested it and

23· · · · ·they never found any evidence of asbestos in

24· · · · ·it.· So it was an asbestos free talc.· I had no

25· · · · ·evidence that there was asbestos in the Eastern

Page 148

·1· · · · ·Magnesia Talc when I filed these cases.

·2· · ·Q· ·And yet you continued to file them?

·3· · ·A· ·Yes.

·4· · ·Q· ·And, again, I'm trying to understand under the

·5· · · · ·Ohio equivalent Rule 11 what's your good faith

·6· · · · ·factual basis for continuing to file against

·7· · · · ·Emtal?

·8· · ·A· ·And I'm telling you it was the other defendants

·9· · · · ·pointing the finger at the talc defendants.· So

10· · · · ·either they get out and that eliminates that

11· · · · ·defense by the other defendants, or they stay

12· · · · ·in and there's not an empty chair at trial.

13· · · · ·One or the other.· Or we settle the cases.

14· · ·Q· ·But they're -- would you agree with me, they're

15· · · · ·tactical reasons, they have nothing to do with

16· · · · ·Emtal's product and what you believe, they're

17· · · · ·your lawyer strategic reasons based on

18· · · · ·discussions with Owens Corning or your

19· · · · ·perception of Owens Corning?

20· · ·A· ·It wasn't based on discussions with Owens

21· · · · ·Corning, it wasn't my perception, it's what I

22· · · · ·saw Owens Corning doing in defense of these

23· · · · ·cases.· And so I had an entity out there saying

24· · · · ·there's asbestos in that talc.· And so that was

25· · · · ·my basis for filing the suit against Eastern

Page 149

·1· · · · ·Magnesia Talc.

·2· · ·Q· ·You had an entity out there saying what?

·3· · ·A· ·That there was asbestos in talc, in the talc,

·4· · · · ·and that's what caused my clients' injuries.

·5· · ·Q· ·Which entity was saying that?

·6· · ·A· ·That's Owens Corning.

·7· · ·Q· ·Okay.· But you just said they weren't saying

·8· · · · ·anything about Emtal, they were saying talc

·9· · · · ·generally?

10· · ·A· ·They were saying talc generally, and what I

11· · · · ·said was I didn't have discussions with Owens

12· · · · ·Corning about this, it's what I witnessed them

13· · · · ·doing in defense of rubber worker asbestos

14· · · · ·cases.

15· · ·Q· ·You never had a discussion with Owens Corning

16· · · · ·regarding Emtal?

17· · ·A· ·I don't -- I don't think so.

18· · ·Q· ·And you never saw any pleadings by Owens

19· · · · ·Corning saying there's asbestos in Emtal talc?

20· · ·A· ·I don't recall seeing any pleadings on it.

21· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's been marked as

22· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 138.

23· · · · · · · ·This is entitled "Motion for Summary

24· · · · ·Judgment and to Dismiss of Behalf of Eastern

25· · · · ·Magnesia Talc Company."

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 39 of 168 PageID:

35158
Page 150

·1· · · · · · · ·On the ground that the statute of

·2· · · · ·limitations has run and to dismiss the

·3· · · · ·consortium claim for insufficient service and

·4· · · · ·lack of personal jurisdiction.

·5· · · · · · · ·Do you see this?

·6· · ·A· ·Yep.

·7· · ·Q· ·Do you know what happened with this case --

·8· · · · ·with this motion?

·9· · ·A· ·I don't know what happened to it.· I assume it

10· · · · ·was denied, but maybe it was never ruled upon.

11· · · · ·I don't know.

12· · ·Q· ·Let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 139.

13· · · · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 139 is an order dated

14· · · · ·9/23/97.

15· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·It says, "Motion by Emtal for summary judgment

18· · · · ·is withdrawn as moot."

19· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

20· · ·A· ·Yes.

21· · ·Q· ·And do you know why it was withdrawn as moot?

22· · ·A· ·I don't know.· I believe that prior to that we

23· · · · ·had settled with the talc entities.· I don't

24· · · · ·know.

25· · ·Q· ·And you settled with the group of the talc

Page 151

·1· · · · ·entities, including Emtal, correct?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·Now let me show you this.· 247.

·4· · · · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 247 is a notice of

·5· · · · ·dismissal.· Georgia Talc, Harwick Chemical,

·6· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia, International Talc, R.T.

·7· · · · ·Vanderbilt, Johnson & Johnson, and Southern

·8· · · · ·Talc.· Do you see that?

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·So this was one of those group talc

11· · · · ·settlements?

12· · ·A· ·Yes.

13· · ·Q· ·And this is in -- on the fourth of December,

14· · · · ·1998, correct?

15· · ·A· ·I can't read it, but it sounds about right.

16· · ·Q· ·Now, at the time, you dismissed Southern Talc

17· · · · ·as part of this group, correct?

18· · ·A· ·Yes.

19· · ·Q· ·And at this point you have evidence that

20· · · · ·Southern Talc has asbestos in its talc,

21· · · · ·correct?

22· · ·A· ·I think I had something on Southern Talc, yes.

23· · ·Q· ·In fact, you told the Court you have evidence

24· · · · ·that there's asbestos in Southern talc,

25· · · · ·correct?

Page 152

·1· · ·A· ·You know, if we responded to a summary

·2· · · · ·judgment, we would have presented whatever

·3· · · · ·evidence we had that Southern Talc contained

·4· · · · ·asbestos.

·5· · ·Q· ·And notwithstanding the fact that you had

·6· · · · ·evidence of Southern Talc having asbestos in

·7· · · · ·it, you still allowed them to be part of the

·8· · · · ·group settlement?

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Let me show you what's been previously

11· · · · ·marked as Defendants' Exhibit 12.

12· · · · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 12 was previously

13· · · · ·marked.· It's Pease versus Owens Corning, et

14· · · · ·al, and if you turn to page 15, it says

15· · · · ·plaintiffs -- the bottom of the page,

16· · · · ·Mr. Bevan.

17· · · · · · · ·"Plaintiffs refer the Court to a

18· · · · ·September 10, 1971 Harwick Document in which

19· · · · ·Plaintiffs have highlighted a barely legible

20· · · · ·note written by Harwick personnel which states:

21· · · · ·'Jan Scotland has informed us that BFGoodrich

22· · · · ·is discontinuing the purchase of Code 26

23· · · · ·(A-White Talc) due to the asbestos content.· He

24· · · · ·indicated 'this is not a new problem...''

25· · · · · · · ·BFGoodrich, however, did not create a 'no

Page 153

·1· · · · ·asbestos' talc specification until seven years

·2· · · · ·later.· (See Exhibit 25)."· And then it

·3· · · · ·continues.

·4· · · · · · · ·"Also, BFGoodrich did not remove

·5· · · · ·asbestos-containing 'White Talc' from Southern

·6· · · · ·Talc from its supplier list until 1980.· (See

·7· · · · ·Exhibit 26)."

·8· · · · · · · ·Correct?

·9· · ·A· ·Correct.

10· · ·Q· ·Now, Nancy Pease's husband had worked at

11· · · · ·BFGoodrich prior to 1980, correct?

12· · ·A· ·Yes.

13· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So he would have been exposed to

14· · · · ·Southern Talc at BFGoodrich, according to your

15· · · · ·papers?

16· · ·A· ·There's where the product ID becomes

17· · · · ·problematic for us.· Southern Talc -- there was

18· · · · ·a document that said Southern Talc contained

19· · · · ·asbestos.· The question was evidence of

20· · · · ·Southern Talc sales to Goodrich, and that's

21· · · · ·where the problem arose.

22· · ·Q· ·Well, you refer to internal documents from

23· · · · ·BFGoodrich regarding Southern Talc, right, on

24· · · · ·page 15 and 16?

25· · ·A· ·Yes.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 40 of 168 PageID:

35159
Page 154

·1· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So you thought you had product ID

·2· · · · ·covered?

·3· · ·A· ·No.· I knew I had a problem with product ID

·4· · · · ·with Southern Talc.· I had a big problem with

·5· · · · ·product ID with Southern Talc.

·6· · ·Q· ·Not according to your papers.· Your papers

·7· · · · ·suggest that BFGoodrich used Southern Talc.

·8· · ·A· ·I don't have evidence that they did during this

·9· · · · ·time period.· Let's see.· 1971.· 1980.

10· · ·Q· ·Well, let's try it this way, Mr. Bevan:· If you

11· · · · ·had no evidence of product ID, why were you

12· · · · ·suing Southern Talc?

13· · ·A· ·I thought I would be able to develop evidence

14· · · · ·that they did.

15· · ·Q· ·At the time -- after this complaint, though, is

16· · · · ·it your position you understood that Southern

17· · · · ·Talc was not used by BFGoodrich?

18· · ·A· ·No.· No, I'm not saying that Southern Talc

19· · · · ·wasn't used.· My recollection is that there was

20· · · · ·some small sales late in time of Southern Talc,

21· · · · ·either the late '70s or the early '80s, small

22· · · · ·quantities.· And in the '70s, most of the '70s,

23· · · · ·it was -- and in the '60s it was Eastern

24· · · · ·Magnesia Talc.· That was what the evidence

25· · · · ·showed.

Page 155

·1· · · · · · · ·I had scant evidence of sales of R.T.

·2· · · · ·Vanderbilt, scant evidence of Milwhite. I

·3· · · · ·believe there was a shipment of Milwhite maybe

·4· · · · ·in the '80s.· Scant evidence for Cyprus,

·5· · · · ·International Talc, all of those.

·6· · · · · · · ·The predominant evidence was Eastern

·7· · · · ·Magnesia Talc.

·8· · ·Q· ·Could you turn to Exhibit 26?

·9· · ·A· ·Yeah.

10· · ·Q· ·It's towards the ends.· It's like five, six

11· · · · ·pages from the end.

12· · · · · · · ·Do you see it?

13· · ·A· ·Yes.

14· · ·Q· ·June 11, 1980.· It's an internal BFGoodrich

15· · · · ·document?

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·And it says, "Recent Raw Materials

18· · · · ·investigation has found that all talc supplied

19· · · · ·by Southern Talc contains significant amounts

20· · · · ·of asbestos-like particles, (tremolite)."

21· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

22· · ·A· ·Yes.

23· · ·Q· ·So at this point, in 1997, you know that there

24· · · · ·are internal documents showing that Southern

25· · · · ·Talc, wherever it's used, had evidence of

Page 156

·1· · · · ·asbestos-like particles in it, correct?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And you understood that Southern Talc

·4· · · · ·was used in other facilities in Ohio, correct?

·5· · · · ·You didn't have any product ID at all?

·6· · ·A· ·I have never seen -- the only product ID that I

·7· · · · ·can recall of Southern Talc would have been in

·8· · · · ·the early 1950s.· I don't think I've ever seen

·9· · · · ·any evidence of Southern Talc sales in the '60s

10· · · · ·and I don't think in the '70s.· Maybe around

11· · · · ·1980 or so, but I -- you know, there may have

12· · · · ·been some sales, but going back to looking --

13· · · · ·you were asking about other plants in Ohio.

14· · · · · · · ·I don't recall ever -- I'm not sure about

15· · · · ·Goodyear and General Tire and Firestone, other

16· · · · ·than if I had any evidence, it would have been

17· · · · ·in the early '50s or in the '50s sometime. I

18· · · · ·don't recall anything in the '60s or the '70s.

19· · ·Q· ·When did you come to the conclusion that you

20· · · · ·had no product ID evidence for Southern Talc in

21· · · · ·the Ohio plants?

22· · ·A· ·During the course of this case.· You know,

23· · · · ·you're seeing some documents here.· And, you

24· · · · ·know, if I would have had good evidence of

25· · · · ·exposure, I presumably would have put that in

Page 157

·1· · · · ·there.

·2· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So as of 1997, you would have concluded

·3· · · · ·that you had no product ID evidence for

·4· · · · ·Southern Talc in the Ohio facilities?

·5· · ·A· ·No, no good -- I mean, I'm not saying there's a

·6· · · · ·total lack of evidence, but no real good

·7· · · · ·evidence to be able to, you know, effectively

·8· · · · ·pursue.

·9· · ·Q· ·Why would you continue to be able to sue

10· · · · ·Southern Talc?

11· · ·A· ·It's the same situation as Eastern Magnesia,

12· · · · ·which is the other defendants are pointing at

13· · · · ·things, such as this document that you're

14· · · · ·pointing at here, and if I have an empty chair

15· · · · ·there, then it puts my client at a

16· · · · ·disadvantage.

17· · ·Q· ·So even though you factually believed there was

18· · · · ·no product ID support, you continued to file

19· · · · ·claims against Southern Talc, fair?

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

21· · · · ·Foundation.

22· · ·A· ·Yes, but factually, at that time, you know,

23· · · · ·you're seeing some of the best stuff I had,

24· · · · ·which is, you know, probably not enough to get

25· · · · ·by a summary judgment motion.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 41 of 168 PageID:

35160
Page 158

·1· · ·Q· ·But it's enough, in your mind, to meet your

·2· · · · ·Rule 11 obligation?

·3· · ·A· ·Yes.

·4· · ·Q· ·And have you told Southern Talc in pleadings

·5· · · · ·that you feel as though there's no evidence of

·6· · · · ·product ID?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·8· · · · ·Form, foundation.

·9· · ·A· ·I doubt it.

10· · ·Q· ·No.· And when you file a complaint, do you tell

11· · · · ·the Court that?

12· · ·A· ·No.

13· · ·Q· ·Why not?

14· · ·A· ·Because I'm able to try to develop my client's

15· · · · ·case.

16· · ·Q· ·But you say you've now looked at this and you

17· · · · ·know there's no product ID for Southern Talc?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

19· · ·Q· ·What are you trying to develop, Mr. Bevan?

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

21· · ·A· ·I guess the same thing that we developed now

22· · · · ·against Eastern Magnesia Talc, that maybe

23· · · · ·there's hidden records, maybe there's something

24· · · · ·there that the defense lawyers or the defendant

25· · · · ·is not being honest about, just like Eastern

Page 159

·1· · · · ·Magnesia Talc was not honest.

·2· · ·Q· ·So when you were filing, continuing to file

·3· · · · ·cases against Southern Talc throughout the late

·4· · · · ·1990s and 2000s, you were still skeptical as to

·5· · · · ·whether Southern Talc had product ID that they

·6· · · · ·were somehow concealing from you?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·8· · ·A· ·I would say that I was still hopeful that maybe

·9· · · · ·I would be able to develop some evidence.· At a

10· · · · ·bare minimum, it would fend off the defense of

11· · · · ·the other defendants.

12· · ·Q· ·What evidence could you have developed?· You

13· · · · ·seem like you knew exactly what -- let me

14· · · · ·finish.· Withdrawn.

15· · · · · · · ·What evidence after 1997 did you think

16· · · · ·you needed to develop in order to build a

17· · · · ·product ID case that you didn't have in 1997?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

19· · ·A· ·Perhaps somebody would have come forward with

20· · · · ·the sales records, that in fact they did sell

21· · · · ·during these relevant time frames.

22· · ·Q· ·Did you continue to ask for those sales

23· · · · ·records?

24· · ·A· ·Yes.

25· · ·Q· ·And did they continue to tell you that they

Page 160

·1· · · · ·didn't exist or they didn't show sales?

·2· · ·A· ·We never got anything.· So ...

·3· · ·Q· ·Why not?

·4· · ·A· ·Well, either they didn't make the sales, which

·5· · · · ·is what is probably the most likely excuse, or

·6· · · · ·they lied like BASF lied.

·7· · ·Q· ·Are you still filing cases against Southern

·8· · · · ·Talc?

·9· · ·A· ·I don't know that we've filed a case in some

10· · · · ·time against Southern Talc.

11· · ·Q· ·When was the last case you filed?

12· · ·A· ·I don't know.· I am not -- I have not litigated

13· · · · ·a case with Southern Talc in many years, maybe

14· · · · ·going on ten years.· Whether they're still

15· · · · ·pending in some pending cases, whether they're

16· · · · ·still a defendant in some pending cases, I

17· · · · ·don't know, but we have not, that I can recall,

18· · · · ·actively litigated a case against Southern Talc

19· · · · ·in many years.

20· · ·Q· ·Do you think it was fair for Southern Talc to

21· · · · ·continue to be sued by your client after you

22· · · · ·concluded there was product ID problems?

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

25· · ·A· ·I -- I didn't have a concern with it and

Page 161

·1· · · · ·Southern Talc didn't have a concern with it.

·2· · ·Q· ·So you continued to file cases against Southern

·3· · · · ·Talc and you think Southern Talc thought that

·4· · · · ·was perfectly fine?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Same objection.

·7· · ·A· ·I'm sure they didn't like getting sued, but it

·8· · · · ·was never brought to my attention that hey,

·9· · · · ·there's a problem with this.

10· · ·Q· ·Well, they probably didn't like being sued when

11· · · · ·the plaintiffs' lawyer had concluded that he

12· · · · ·had product ID problems and that Southern Talc

13· · · · ·actually wasn't in Ohio facilities that he was

14· · · · ·suing for.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

17· · ·A· ·I think you're mischaracterizing my statement,

18· · · · ·but I don't know if that's a question or not.

19· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So you settled with all of the talc

20· · · · ·manufacturers in this -- in Pease, correct?

21· · ·A· ·I believe so.

22· · ·Q· ·Even the ones that have product ID problems,

23· · · · ·correct?

24· · ·A· ·Yes.

25· · ·Q· ·And the ones that have asbestos in their talc,

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 42 of 168 PageID:

35161
Page 162

·1· · · · ·correct?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·And you settle for how much money?

·4· · ·A· ·My recollection was it was $1,000 a case across

·5· · · · ·the board for 290-some cases or something.

·6· · · · ·That's my recollection.

·7· · ·Q· ·Did you tell your clients, like Ms. --

·8· · · · ·withdrawn.

·9· · · · · · · ·Regarding Mrs. Pease, did you tell her or

10· · · · ·her husband why you were settling the talc

11· · · · ·cases?

12· · ·A· ·I'm sure we had a discussion, yes.· In fact, I

13· · · · ·believe that talc settlement came as a result

14· · · · ·of a Court ordered settlement conference. I

15· · · · ·don't know if Nancy Pease was there.· She may

16· · · · ·have been there out in the hallway.

17· · ·Q· ·Have you talked to Gayle Williams about the

18· · · · ·Pease case?

19· · ·A· ·I've talked to her one time.

20· · ·Q· ·You know she's a plaintiff in this case?

21· · ·A· ·Yes, I know that she's --

22· · ·Q· ·Did you talk to her about this case?

23· · ·A· ·I just -- I met her, you know, and we just

24· · · · ·exchanged pleasantries.· You know, she knew of

25· · · · ·me because I had been representing the family

Page 163

·1· · · · ·for many years, but I don't think we really

·2· · · · ·talked much in detail that I can recall.· We

·3· · · · ·may have.· It wasn't much.

·4· · ·Q· ·Did you convey to her whether you would be

·5· · · · ·compensated for the class action lawsuit?

·6· · ·A· ·I don't think that came up.· I don't recall.

·7· · ·Q· ·Well, if she's your client, right, you would

·8· · · · ·expect her to know?

·9· · ·A· ·Are you asking me a question?

10· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

11· · ·A· ·What's the question?

12· · ·Q· ·Would you expect your client to be informed by

13· · · · ·you of whether you have a fee arrangement to be

14· · · · ·compensated in the Williams class action?

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

16· · ·A· ·I don't -- I don't know that I have a fee

17· · · · ·arrangement on her case.· I don't -- you know,

18· · · · ·if they're successful in settling the Pease

19· · · · ·case, I don't know that I have a fee

20· · · · ·arrangement.· I don't know that.

21· · ·Q· ·I thought you said you do have a fee

22· · · · ·arrangement --

23· · ·A· ·I said I've got fee arrangements with them on

24· · · · ·the Clark case.· I don't know.· I would have

25· · · · ·to -- I would have to look.· I don't know.

Page 164

·1· · ·Q· ·You don't know whether you have a fee

·2· · · · ·arrangement with Cohen, Placitella regarding

·3· · · · ·the Williams class action?

·4· · ·A· ·I'd have to take a look at it, whether it

·5· · · · ·applies to -- no, whether it applies to the

·6· · · · ·Clark case is what you were asking me.

·7· · ·Q· ·She's a named representative in the Williams

·8· · · · ·case.

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·You don't think it applies?

11· · ·A· ·I'd have to take a look at the agreement to see

12· · · · ·whether it applies or not.

13· · ·Q· ·When did you enter into the agreement?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Same objection.

16· · ·A· ·I don't recall.· I think it was many years ago.

17· · ·Q· ·Was it written?

18· · ·A· ·Yes.

19· · ·Q· ·Was it negotiated?

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I'm sorry. I

21· · · · ·missed the last question.

22· · ·Q· ·Was it negotiated?

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Same objection.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Don't answer.

Page 165

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Don't answer

·2· · · · ·that.

·3· · ·Q· ·You can answer.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · You're ruling

·5· · · · ·on that.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · No, I'm not.

·7· · · · ·I'm not asking him the terms of it, I want to

·8· · · · ·know whether it was negotiated.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Those are the

10· · · · ·terms.· Please.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Are you

12· · · · ·instructing?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Not to answer.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · Okay.· I won't

15· · · · ·answer it.

16· · ·Q· ·Do you have a copy of it?

17· · ·A· ·Yes.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Same objection.

19· · ·Q· ·Have you ever provided notice of that written

20· · · · ·agreement to any of the named plaintiffs in the

21· · · · ·Williams class action?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

23· · · · ·form.

24· · ·A· ·I don't recall.· I know that there's a fee

25· · · · ·agreement that those clients signed on that

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 43 of 168 PageID:

35162
Page 166

·1· · · · ·case and I have to look at that fee agreement

·2· · · · ·to see what it says.· If it includes me or if

·3· · · · ·the fee agreement's just with the Placitella

·4· · · · ·firm, I don't know.· I have to take a look.

·5· · ·Q· ·Whose idea was the $1,000 a case?

·6· · ·A· ·You know, I think that -- that really came from

·7· · · · ·what the talc defendants did with several other

·8· · · · ·firms in a negotiation with Akron rubber worker

·9· · · · ·cases.· It included the Colley firm, the

10· · · · ·Spangenberg firm, and the Smith firm it was my

11· · · · ·recollection.· And I think on some of these

12· · · · ·cases they paid a little bit more on, but

13· · · · ·that's what I can recall, the best I can

14· · · · ·recall.

15· · ·Q· ·Did you and Mr. Martillotta discuss whether it

16· · · · ·would be 1,000 or 10,000?

17· · ·A· ·I'm sure we discussed it.· I think we discussed

18· · · · ·it more in terms of a total number and then we

19· · · · ·applied it to the cases.· They had it in their

20· · · · ·mind that it was whatever per case.· For us it

21· · · · ·was, yes, per case.· I don't know if our

22· · · · ·numbers were the same as their numbers, as far

23· · · · ·as --

24· · ·Q· ·When you say it was developed by the talc

25· · · · ·defendants, what do you mean by that?

Page 167

·1· · ·A· ·There was -- these weren't the first Akron

·2· · · · ·rubber worker cases to be settled with talc

·3· · · · ·defendants.· There was other cases that were

·4· · · · ·settled by those other three firms that I

·5· · · · ·mentioned, and I think this deal kind of fell

·6· · · · ·in line with those other deals.

·7· · ·Q· ·Is this the aggregate settlement program?· Is

·8· · · · ·that a name for this?

·9· · ·A· ·I would call it a global settlement.· That's

10· · · · ·what I would call it.

11· · ·Q· ·Okay.· In terms of the global settlement

12· · · · ·program, though, those numbers were being used

13· · · · ·by talc defendants who had strong product ID

14· · · · ·cases and weak product ID cases, correct?

15· · ·A· ·They were -- those types of talc defendants

16· · · · ·were part of that group.· What, you know, each

17· · · · ·defendant used for their numbers and how it

18· · · · ·divvied up, I was not privy to whether it was

19· · · · ·an equal -- equally split amongst the seven

20· · · · ·defendants I think or whether certain

21· · · · ·defendants paid more.· I was not privy to any

22· · · · ·of that.

23· · ·Q· ·All you know is your client got $1,000?

24· · ·A· ·Yes.

25· · ·Q· ·And that $1,000 came from a group of talc

Page 168

·1· · · · ·defendants who may have had a good product ID

·2· · · · ·case or a weak product ID case, correct?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·4· · · · ·the form.

·5· · ·A· ·Yes.

·6· · ·Q· ·They may have had asbestos in their talc or no

·7· · · · ·asbestos in their talc, correct?

·8· · ·A· ·Correct.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

10· · ·Q· ·They may have had a statute of limitations

11· · · · ·problem or no statute of limitations problem,

12· · · · ·correct?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · ·A· ·I don't recall a statute of limitations

15· · · · ·problem.

16· · ·Q· ·Well, we just saw that Pease was the subject of

17· · · · ·a motion for statute of limitation --

18· · ·A· ·That's what Eastern Magnesia said.· I don't

19· · · · ·believe there was a problem with that.

20· · ·Q· ·The seven different talc companies had

21· · · · ·different weaknesses and strengths, in terms of

22· · · · ·their defenses, fair?

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

24· · ·A· ·Yes.

25· · ·Q· ·And notwithstanding those strengths and

Page 169

·1· · · · ·weaknesses, your client was getting $1,000,

·2· · · · ·correct?

·3· · ·A· ·Yes.

·4· · ·Q· ·Were there any global settlements that you

·5· · · · ·negotiated with Mr. Martillotta that excluded

·6· · · · ·certain individuals because they said they had

·7· · · · ·a really strong case against a particular talc

·8· · · · ·manufacturer?

·9· · ·A· ·I don't recall that.· I think there may have

10· · · · ·been some plaintiffs that got paid more, but I

11· · · · ·don't --

12· · ·Q· ·As we sit here today, you can't identify a

13· · · · ·single plaintiff in which you negotiated an

14· · · · ·exception to the global talc settlements, true?

15· · ·A· ·An exception, yeah, I don't think so.· I mean,

16· · · · ·we may have -- as part of the global deal, that

17· · · · ·was all accounted for, but I don't recall doing

18· · · · ·a deal that we're settling these cases, but,

19· · · · ·you know, these eight cases over here being

20· · · · ·carved out.· No, that was not --

21· · ·Q· ·If there was an individual with a particularly

22· · · · ·strong case against a particular talc

23· · · · ·manufacturer, they still were part of the

24· · · · ·global from your client base?

25· · ·A· ·Well, we didn't have any strong cases, again,

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 44 of 168 PageID:

35163
Page 170

·1· · · · ·based on what we had to deal with, which was,

·2· · · · ·you know, what -- Eastern Magnesia Talc, from a

·3· · · · ·product ID, they were far and away the

·4· · · · ·strongest defendant.· And obviously from an

·5· · · · ·asbestos content, what we know now is that was

·6· · · · ·a very strong defendant as well, but at the

·7· · · · ·time, what we were dealing with was a very

·8· · · · ·strong product ID case but a weak or

·9· · · · ·nonexistent asbestos content case.

10· · ·Q· ·For the Bevan plaintiffs, were you able to show

11· · · · ·product ID against R.T. Vanderbilt?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

13· · · · ·form.

14· · ·A· ·I don't believe.· That was a real problem.· The

15· · · · ·product ID with R.T. Vanderbilt was a big

16· · · · ·problem, and I don't know that -- for instance,

17· · · · ·this group, this 290 that you gave me, those

18· · · · ·were Goodyear and Goodrich cases.· I don't

19· · · · ·believe we had any ID at Goodrich.

20· · · · · · · ·I believe there was a shipment in a

21· · · · ·specific year to Goodyear, maybe 1978, of a

22· · · · ·small amount of R.T. Vanderbilt talc, but R.T.

23· · · · ·Vanderbilt was a tough one from a product ID

24· · · · ·standpoint.· Very tough.

25· · ·Q· ·Do you continue to sue R.T. Vanderbilt, even

Page 171

·1· · · · ·though they're tough product ID cases?

·2· · ·A· ·I don't know when we last sued R.T. Vanderbilt.

·3· · ·Q· ·You have cases pending against them today,

·4· · · · ·don't you?

·5· · ·A· ·We've got cases pending.· So whether there's

·6· · · · ·talc defendants in those cases, I don't know,

·7· · · · ·probably.

·8· · ·Q· ·Have you ever told --

·9· · ·A· ·But I don't think that we're actively

10· · · · ·litigating any case against R.T. Vanderbilt

11· · · · ·right now that I'm aware of.

12· · ·Q· ·Have you --

13· · ·A· ·There might be a case.

14· · ·Q· ·Have you disclosed to R.T. Vanderbilt or any

15· · · · ·Court that you have a weak product ID case?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

17· · · · ·form.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Same objection.

19· · ·A· ·They know what our product ID case is and they

20· · · · ·challenge us on it.

21· · ·Q· ·And you continue to sue them?

22· · ·A· ·In some cases I have.

23· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So Pease.

24· · · · · · · ·By the way, out of all of the talc cases

25· · · · ·that you've handled, how many of them have you

Page 172

·1· · · · ·taken to trial?

·2· · ·A· ·None.

·3· · ·Q· ·You know there's an allegation here that the

·4· · · · ·plaintiff would have taken her case to trial,

·5· · · · ·correct?

·6· · ·A· ·Rather than take whatever they paid, sure.

·7· · · · ·Yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·So she would be the only one of the 2,653

·9· · · · ·people ever to have taken a talc case to trial?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

11· · · · ·the form and foundation.

12· · ·Q· ·At least within the Bevan Firm.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · ·A· ·No.· No.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Excuse me.

16· · ·A· ·I disagree.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Mr. Bevan, hold

18· · · · ·on one second.

19· · · · · · · ·Objection to form and foundation.· Thank

20· · · · ·you.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · Sorry.

22· · ·A· ·No, we would have -- if --

23· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

24· · ·A· ·-- Eastern Magnesia Talc was not going to pay

25· · · · ·fair settlements based on the truth, then we

Page 173

·1· · · · ·would have taken multiple cases to trial.

·2· · ·Q· ·Could you tell us how many talc cases you have

·3· · · · ·taken to trial in your career?

·4· · ·A· ·I think I --

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Asked and

·6· · · · ·answered.

·7· · ·A· ·-- already told you.· None.

·8· · ·Q· ·All right.· Let's do Holley.

·9· · · · · · · ·Okay.· Now, Ms. Holley, did you talk to

10· · · · ·her or Ms. Wengerd about this lawsuit?

11· · ·A· ·You're talking about two different cases, you

12· · · · ·understand?

13· · ·Q· ·I'm sorry.

14· · · · · · · ·Did you talk to Ms. Darnell about this

15· · · · ·lawsuit?

16· · ·A· ·Well, she was dead by the time we initiated

17· · · · ·this lawsuit.

18· · ·Q· ·And did you talk to Ms. Holley about it?

19· · ·A· ·Yes.

20· · ·Q· ·That was that five-minute conversation?

21· · ·A· ·Yes.

22· · ·Q· ·Did you have any discussions -- hold on.

23· · · · · · · ·Did you ever discuss the underlying

24· · · · ·Engelhard case with Ms. Holley?· Yes or no.

25· · ·A· ·What do you mean by "the underlying Engelhard

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 45 of 168 PageID:

35164
Page 174

·1· · · · ·case"?

·2· · ·Q· ·So Mr. Placitella called you up, and you I

·3· · · · ·think said you called Ms. Holley, and did you

·4· · · · ·tell her any facts regarding the underlying

·5· · · · ·case?· Why it was dismissed, what it was about,

·6· · · · ·how you were lied to in the underlying case?

·7· · ·A· ·I think I already told you that in detail and

·8· · · · ·you took notes about the things.· That Eastern

·9· · · · ·Magnesia Talc lied, her mother was exposed to

10· · · · ·talc, we had sued them, we took less than what

11· · · · ·we should have because Eastern Magnesia Talc

12· · · · ·lied to us.

13· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And so my question is:· Did Tom Bevan

14· · · · ·discuss with Marilyn Holley the underlying

15· · · · ·Engelhard case?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Asked and

17· · · · ·answered.

18· · ·Q· ·Did you discuss the underlying case with

19· · · · ·Ms. Holley during that initial conversation?

20· · ·A· ·Well, first, I never would have called anything

21· · · · ·the Engelhard case.

22· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

23· · · · · · · ·Did you discuss with Ms. Holley the --

24· · · · ·her mother's litigation after your conversation

25· · · · ·with Mr. Placitella?

Page 175

·1· · ·A· ·Yes.

·2· · ·Q· ·No doubt in your mind on that?

·3· · ·A· ·Yeah.

·4· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So let's do Exhibit 5.

·5· · · · · · · ·I'm going to show you what's been marked

·6· · · · ·as Defendants' Exhibit 5.· It's Darnell versus

·7· · · · ·BFGoodrich.

·8· · · · · · · ·Now, in terms of this case, did you

·9· · · · ·handle every aspect of this case?

10· · ·A· ·Yes.

11· · ·Q· ·And what was your view of the product ID

12· · · · ·defenses in this case?

13· · ·A· ·Well, that's a pretty broad question.

14· · · · ·Mrs. Darnell worked at Goodrich, I want to say

15· · · · ·from 1969 to mid to later 1980s.· She worked in

16· · · · ·the banbury area, she was around the curing

17· · · · ·areas.· She had some significant exposures.

18· · · · ·She testified, I'm certain, about a heavy talc

19· · · · ·or soapstone exposure.· She also had exposure

20· · · · ·to tire curing presses, insulation products,

21· · · · ·raw asbestos fiber.

22· · · · · · · ·Those were, I think -- one of the

23· · · · ·defenses.· You asked about defenses.· One of

24· · · · ·the defenses was that her brother died of

25· · · · ·mesothelioma, so there must have been something

Page 176

·1· · · · ·in common between the two that caused her

·2· · · · ·mesothelioma.· We figured out what that was and

·3· · · · ·I think that answers your question.

·4· · ·Q· ·Did she have mesothelioma?

·5· · ·A· ·Yes.

·6· · ·Q· ·And what was her settlement for?· How much?

·7· · ·A· ·With who?

·8· · ·Q· ·The talc companies.

·9· · ·A· ·I want to say I'm thinking 7,500, but I'm not

10· · · · ·certain on that.· A little bit more, a

11· · · · ·little --

12· · ·Q· ·Was it $2,000?

13· · ·A· ·Maybe it was 2,000.· You know, it might have

14· · · · ·been 2,000.· It was a low number.

15· · ·Q· ·And she was -- she settled with a number of

16· · · · ·asbestos manufacturers, correct?

17· · ·A· ·Yes.

18· · ·Q· ·In fact, I think you said she was exposed to

19· · · · ·raw asbestos in her job. --

20· · ·A· ·Yes.

21· · ·Q· ·-- correct?

22· · ·A· ·Yes, chrysotile.

23· · ·Q· ·You, though, in that case stipulated that there

24· · · · ·was no brand name, manufacturer, distributor

25· · · · ·evidence that she could supply, correct?

Page 177

·1· · ·A· ·For?

·2· · ·Q· ·For any soapstone or soapstone-related

·3· · · · ·products.

·4· · ·A· ·I stipulated to it?

·5· · ·Q· ·Did you?

·6· · ·A· ·I don't recall stipulating to it.· She was --

·7· · · · ·she was at Goodrich during the time that

·8· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc I believe was the sole

·9· · · · ·supplier and they supplied very large

10· · · · ·quantities during the time that she was there.

11· · · · ·And it was distributed through C.P. Hall

12· · · · ·Company, which was the entity that she and her

13· · · · ·brother had in common, because her brother

14· · · · ·worked for -- her brother who died of

15· · · · ·mesothelioma worked for C.P. Hall Company as

16· · · · ·well.

17· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's been marked as

18· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 14 and turn your attention

19· · · · ·to the bottom of page 226.

20· · · · · · · ·Line 23.· Mr. Bevan says, "Brent, we

21· · · · ·stipulated and we will stipulate again that she

22· · · · ·doesn't know the brand name, manufacturer,

23· · · · ·distributor or supplier of any insulation

24· · · · ·products as well as any soapstone products as

25· · · · ·well."

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 46 of 168 PageID:

35165
Page 178

·1· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·2· · ·A· ·Yeah.

·3· · ·Q· ·Does that refresh your recollection as to

·4· · · · ·whether there's a stipulation that she couldn't

·5· · · · ·make any product ID?

·6· · ·A· ·That's not what you asked me, but yes, that's

·7· · · · ·what that says.· But that's not what you asked

·8· · · · ·me.

·9· · · · · · · ·If you want to go back and reask me that

10· · · · ·question, I'll answer it the same way.

11· · ·Q· ·And did you -- she didn't -- she also, when you

12· · · · ·were litigating the case, didn't know what talc

13· · · · ·was, correct?

14· · ·A· ·I actually called -- they usually called it

15· · · · ·soapstone.· I mean, you know --

16· · ·Q· ·I'm not asking what they usually called it,

17· · · · ·Mr. Bevan, I'm asking what her testimony was.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I'm sorry.· Did

19· · · · ·you finish your answer?

20· · ·A· ·I did not finish my answer.

21· · · · · · · ·My answer was my rubber worker clients

22· · · · ·referred to it as soapstone.· It was called

23· · · · ·soapstone in the rubber industry.

24· · ·Q· ·Exhibit 13.· Could you turn to page 113, the

25· · · · ·bottom of it?

Page 179

·1· · · · · · · ·Question, "Do you draw a distinction,

·2· · · · ·ma'am, between soapstone and talc?

·3· · · · · · · ·A, "And talcum?"

·4· · · · · · · ·Question, "Talc, do you know what talc

·5· · · · ·is?"

·6· · · · · · · ·Answer, "No."

·7· · · · · · · ·"Okay."

·8· · · · · · · ·"You're talking about talcum?"

·9· · · · · · · ·"I'm talking about a material that is

10· · · · ·used in some industries that is referred to as

11· · · · ·talc."

12· · · · · · · ·Answer, "I've never heard of it."

13· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

14· · ·A· ·Yes.

15· · ·Q· ·Were you at that deposition?

16· · ·A· ·I think I was at all of her depositions, so I

17· · · · ·believe I was.

18· · · · · · · ·Yes.

19· · ·Q· ·And even when you weren't at your client's

20· · · · ·deposition, as part of knowing every aspect of

21· · · · ·their case, would you review those depositions?

22· · ·A· ·I don't know that I'd review every deposition,

23· · · · ·but, you know, I was at most of those

24· · · · ·depositions, most of my class depositions.

25· · ·Q· ·Well, if your client had been deposed and then

Page 180

·1· · · · ·was going to provide a statement to a Court or

·2· · · · ·to a trust, you would want to make sure that

·3· · · · ·trust statement was accurate, correct, it

·4· · · · ·wasn't inconsistent with what she said in her

·5· · · · ·deposition?· Or would that be okay?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Object to the

·7· · · · ·form.

·8· · ·A· ·I don't know what you're --

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Same objection.

10· · ·A· ·-- referring to, so I'm not --

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Vague.

12· · ·Q· ·I'm just asking you --

13· · ·A· ·You have to give me a bit more specifics.

14· · ·Q· ·You've had clients submit claim forms to

15· · · · ·asbestos trusts, correct?

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·As an officer of the court, do you do anything

18· · · · ·to make sure they're accurate?

19· · ·A· ·I have staff that files those claim forms.

20· · ·Q· ·And you wouldn't want your staff filing things

21· · · · ·that were inaccurate, correct?

22· · ·A· ·No.

23· · ·Q· ·And you certainly wouldn't want staff filing

24· · · · ·things that were inconsistent with sworn

25· · · · ·testimony of your clients, correct?

Page 181

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·2· · · · ·form and foundation.

·3· · ·A· ·It depends on the circumstance.

·4· · ·Q· ·What would be one of the circumstances where it

·5· · · · ·would be okay to have inconsistent sworn

·6· · · · ·testimony in a submission to a trust?

·7· · ·A· ·Well, for instance, if a client doesn't recall

·8· · · · ·a product in his or her deposition but a

·9· · · · ·coworker could recall a product or the product

10· · · · ·was there, then that client may file a claim

11· · · · ·against that trust, even though that client in

12· · · · ·the deposition did not recall that product.

13· · ·Q· ·Do you know how many cases you settled on

14· · · · ·behalf of Holley or Darnell?

15· · ·A· ·I don't.· I would estimate 30 to 40.· When you

16· · · · ·say "cases," I'm referring to different

17· · · · ·settlements.· I would estimate 30 to 40

18· · · · ·different settlements.· Maybe more but ...

19· · ·Q· ·Do you know how many defendants or trusts have

20· · · · ·provided money to Holley/Darnell?

21· · ·A· ·I would -- and again I'm estimating, 30 to 40,

22· · · · ·but that's a pretty rough estimate.

23· · ·Q· ·Does 98 sound right?

24· · ·A· ·98 sounds awfully high.· I would be surprised

25· · · · ·if it was 98, but I can count them up.· I'm

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 47 of 168 PageID:

35166
Page 182

·1· · · · ·sure I could come up with a list the files with

·2· · · · ·the files, but 98, I would be --

·3· · ·Q· ·When's the last time you --

·4· · ·A· ·-- surprised.

·5· · ·Q· ·Sorry.

·6· · · · · · · ·When's the last time you reviewed the

·7· · · · ·Holley/Darnell file?

·8· · ·A· ·You know, beginning to end, I've never reviewed

·9· · · · ·the whole file.· I mean, I was creating it as

10· · · · ·we were working on the case and, you know,

11· · · · ·whatever we have saved that we produced, I

12· · · · ·don't think I went through and reviewed the

13· · · · ·whole file.· I think we, you know, produced the

14· · · · ·file.

15· · ·Q· ·You said that you're familiar with I think

16· · · · ·every aspect of your clients' cases?

17· · ·A· ·You know, I don't know that that's what I said,

18· · · · ·but I've been involved in every aspect of their

19· · · · ·cases.

20· · ·Q· ·And when we talked about some strengths and

21· · · · ·weaknesses of various cases, do you think

22· · · · ·you're able to discuss what the strengths and

23· · · · ·weaknesses of various clients are?

24· · ·A· ·I've got a pretty good idea of what the

25· · · · ·strengths and weaknesses of the cases were.

Page 183

·1· · ·Q· ·In terms of reading films, do you think that

·2· · · · ·there are some films that give stronger cases

·3· · · · ·or weaker cases?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.· No

·5· · · · ·foundation.

·6· · ·A· ·You would have to be a bit more specific,

·7· · · · ·because I guess it would depend on the case.

·8· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Have you brought asbestosis claims

·9· · · · ·against talc manufacturers?

10· · ·A· ·Yes.

11· · ·Q· ·And lung cancer cases?

12· · ·A· ·Yes.

13· · ·Q· ·And mesothelioma cases?

14· · ·A· ·Yes.

15· · ·Q· ·Do you think that there's a difference in value

16· · · · ·in those cases?

17· · ·A· ·Typically, yes.

18· · ·Q· ·Why?

19· · ·A· ·Because mesothelioma is a signature asbestos

20· · · · ·disease, that the only known cause in this

21· · · · ·country is exposure to asbestos.· So there's

22· · · · ·not as many defenses.· It's also an

23· · · · ·extremely -- extremely progressive.· Those are

24· · · · ·cases where the people are dead, have

25· · · · ·tremendous pain and suffering.· There's no such

Page 184

·1· · · · ·thing as a mild mesothelioma case.· So those

·2· · · · ·typically have the highest value.

·3· · · · · · · ·Followed by -- secondly by lung cancers

·4· · · · ·that have less value, because there are other

·5· · · · ·causes that the defendants could point to of

·6· · · · ·lung cancer cases that they can't point to on

·7· · · · ·mesothelioma cases.

·8· · · · · · · ·And then asbestosis cases.· Again, I

·9· · · · ·think it depends on the severity of the

10· · · · ·asbestosis case.· There could be a really

11· · · · ·severe asbestosis case and there could be a

12· · · · ·mild asbestosis case.

13· · ·Q· ·What are the other causes of lung cancer?

14· · ·A· ·Cigarette smoking.· That's the one that jumps

15· · · · ·out first and foremost.· I'm sure there's

16· · · · ·others, but that's what I had to deal with

17· · · · ·usually is cigarette smoking.

18· · ·Q· ·In terms of interviewing your clients who are

19· · · · ·going to bring cases against talc

20· · · · ·manufacturers, did you ask them about their

21· · · · ·smoking?

22· · ·A· ·I believe on the intake when we take in a

23· · · · ·client we ask them about their smoking history.

24· · ·Q· ·And that's because, especially for lung cancer

25· · · · ·cases, there could be alternative causation

Page 185

·1· · · · ·with smoking, correct?

·2· · ·A· ·Yeah.· Yeah, it confounds things.· Now, the two

·3· · · · ·of them, the asbestos and cigarette smoking

·4· · · · ·acts synergistically, so the two combined

·5· · · · ·greatly increase the risk much more than any

·6· · · · ·one individual exposure would cause.· But it's

·7· · · · ·a factor.· It's a factor we have to deal with

·8· · · · ·in these cases.

·9· · ·Q· ·And a nonsmoker has -- all things being equal,

10· · · · ·a nonsmoker has a stronger case than a person

11· · · · ·who smoked a pack a day for 30 years, in terms

12· · · · ·of a lung cancer injury against an asbestos

13· · · · ·manufacturer?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

15· · · · ·form.

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·Correct?

18· · ·A· ·Yes.

19· · ·Q· ·And you weigh that as a lawyer, correct, in

20· · · · ·terms of assessing settlements and payouts?

21· · ·A· ·That is a factor that we would consider.

22· · ·Q· ·What are the other factors that you would

23· · · · ·consider, in terms of assessing the strengths

24· · · · ·and weakness of a case against a talc

25· · · · ·manufacturer?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 48 of 168 PageID:

35167
Page 186

·1· · ·A· ·Well, the most important factor would be

·2· · · · ·product ID.· You know, can I -- is that

·3· · · · ·defendant's product in my client's worksite and

·4· · · · ·was my client likely to be exposed to that

·5· · · · ·defendant's product in his or her worksite.

·6· · · · ·That's number one.

·7· · ·Q· ·Can we skew that as two?· Product ID, whether

·8· · · · ·it's sold to the facility, and then exposure,

·9· · · · ·whether the person worked in an area where they

10· · · · ·would have been exposed to it?

11· · ·A· ·That's fair.

12· · ·Q· ·Fair enough?

13· · ·A· ·That's fair.

14· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So we have product ID, we have exposure.

15· · · · · · · ·We have whether there's asbestos in the

16· · · · ·product, correct?

17· · ·A· ·That's extremely important.· Maybe that's

18· · · · ·number one.· Actually, that's probably number

19· · · · ·one, as far as exposure.

20· · ·Q· ·And do you believe that there's gradations in

21· · · · ·terms of value in the case?· Again I'm putting

22· · · · ·on your lawyer's hat advising your client and

23· · · · ·thinking about settlement and resolutions.

24· · · · · · · ·If there's a talc manufacturer with 3

25· · · · ·percent asbestos, do you think that's a

Page 187

·1· · · · ·stronger case for you than a talc manufacturer

·2· · · · ·with trace amounts of asbestos in sporadic

·3· · · · ·testing?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·5· · · · ·form.

·6· · ·A· ·If everything -- if all things are equal.· You

·7· · · · ·know, so if he's exposed to both of those

·8· · · · ·products the exact same amount and in an exact

·9· · · · ·same manner, then obviously the higher

10· · · · ·percentage creates a greater risk of exposure,

11· · · · ·if all things are equal.

12· · ·Q· ·Would it be fair to say higher amounts of

13· · · · ·asbestos make a stronger case?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Form and

17· · · · ·foundation.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Form and

19· · · · ·foundation.

20· · ·A· ·Again if all other things are equal.

21· · ·Q· ·And in terms of assessing the strengths and

22· · · · ·weaknesses of plaintiffs, all things being

23· · · · ·equal, in terms of factoring a case, would you

24· · · · ·agree with me that exposure over 30 years to an

25· · · · ·asbestos containing talc makes a stronger case

Page 188

·1· · · · ·than exposure over a month?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·4· · · · ·foundation.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Foundation.

·6· · ·A· ·Well, again, if all things are equal, then yes,

·7· · · · ·30 years is more exposure than 30 days.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Are we talking

·9· · · · ·about specific diseases?· That's what I'm just

10· · · · ·kind of missing here.· Mesothelioma versus lung

11· · · · ·cancer.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Please don't --

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · No.· No.· I'm

14· · · · ·asking so I can clarify my objection.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · No.· No.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · That's why I

17· · · · ·want to know.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Don't interrupt

19· · · · ·the questioning.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I am going to

21· · · · ·interrupt.· I don't --

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · No.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Understand

24· · · · ·it --

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · No.

Page 189

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · -- so I don't

·2· · · · ·know how my client can, all right?

·3· · ·Q· ·You can leave.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Don't tell me

·5· · · · ·what or what not to do, please.

·6· · ·Q· ·Witness, can you be excused?· Please step out.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Watch your

·8· · · · ·microphone.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

10· · · · · · · ·(Mr. Bevan no longer present.)

11· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I'm trying to

13· · · · ·have you --

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · No.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · -- clarify your

16· · · · ·question.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · It's form or

18· · · · ·foundation.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · All right.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · It's not

21· · · · ·interrupting trying --

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · No.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · -- to suggest

24· · · · ·answers to the witness.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · It's not a

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 49 of 168 PageID:

35168
Page 190

·1· · · · ·suggestion.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · No.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · You ask such

·4· · · · ·vague questions.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · You have form

·6· · · · ·or foundation.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · All right.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Let's get the

·9· · · · ·judge on again.· We have form and foundation.

10· · · · ·That's it.· You want --

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Okay.· Well,

12· · · · ·now we're off the record, why don't --

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · No, let's go on

14· · · · ·the record.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·We're now out

16· · · · ·of the hearing of the witness.

17· · · · · · · ·Mr. McDermott, can you explain to

18· · · · ·Mr. Assaf what your issue is, and maybe --

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · My issue

20· · · · ·is that --

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·-- you can

22· · · · ·clarify the question.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · My issue is

24· · · · ·this, is that it depends upon the disease to

25· · · · ·answer that question.· Your question wasn't

Page 191

·1· · · · ·clear.· For me to interpose a correct

·2· · · · ·objection, just tell me what disease you're

·3· · · · ·talking about, that's all.· That's all I --

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Then make a

·5· · · · ·form or foundation objection.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · But you can't

·7· · · · ·clear it up by form and foundation --

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · You're not

·9· · · · ·litigating the case --

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · -- Mr. Assaf,

11· · · · ·because you've been asking vague and

12· · · · ·hypothetical questions all day.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · It's not.· He's

14· · · · ·one of the most experienced plaintiffs asbestos

15· · · · ·lawyers in the country.· I think he understands

16· · · · ·my question.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I think I take

18· · · · ·issue with that.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · All right.

20· · · · ·Let's bring him back in.· Form or -- well,

21· · · · ·let's not.

22· · · · · · · ·Anything except form or foundation, let's

23· · · · ·get the judge on the line.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Just continue

25· · · · ·the deposition.

Page 192

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · All right.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·3· · · · · · · · · (Mr. Bevan now present.)

·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·5· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

·6· · ·Q· ·By the way, Mr. Bevan, did you discuss your

·7· · · · ·testimony during the prior breaks?

·8· · ·A· ·No.

·9· · ·Q· ·In terms of --

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·There was only

11· · · · ·one break.

12· · ·Q· ·In terms of -- yeah, the prior break.

13· · · · · · · ·In terms of your settlement of asbestos

14· · · · ·talc cases, how long have you been doing that?

15· · ·A· ·I think the first time I did a settlement with

16· · · · ·any talc defendant was in 1997 and I think the

17· · · · ·last time was probably in I want to say 2011

18· · · · ·maybe.

19· · ·Q· ·Could you tell me roughly how many talc cases

20· · · · ·you've settled?· Round numbers.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

22· · · · ·form.· Form and foundation.

23· · ·A· ·Boy, I'm not sure.· 1 to 2,000.

24· · ·Q· ·And could you tell me how many -- on behalf of

25· · · · ·how many plaintiffs you've settled asbestos

Page 193

·1· · · · ·cases apart from talc?

·2· · ·A· ·How many individual plaintiffs I have settled

·3· · · · ·asbestos cases for.· Probably I'm going to

·4· · · · ·estimate 20 to 30,000.

·5· · ·Q· ·All right.· Do you think you have a good

·6· · · · ·understanding of strengths and weaknesses of

·7· · · · ·matters when you're recommending settlements to

·8· · · · ·your clients?

·9· · ·A· ·When I have all of the evidence.

10· · ·Q· ·Let's take a break.· Lunch.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

12· · · · ·The time is 12:49.

13· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

15· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We're back on

17· · · · ·the record.· The time is 1:29.

18· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

19· · ·Q· ·Do you think that BASF spoliated documents?

20· · ·A· ·My understanding is that they did.

21· · ·Q· ·What's your understanding from?

22· · ·A· ·My understanding is that Eastern Magnesia

23· · · · ·tested their talc in the 1970s, found that it

24· · · · ·contained asbestos, and destroyed any documents

25· · · · ·related to that.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 50 of 168 PageID:

35169
Page 194

·1· · ·Q· ·What's your understanding from?· What source?

·2· · ·A· ·From what I've heard from Mr. Placitella and

·3· · · · ·what I've read in the complaint.· I'm not sure

·4· · · · ·if I've seen any documents to that extent, but

·5· · · · ·that's what I've been told.

·6· · ·Q· ·Did Mr. Placitella talk to you about any state

·7· · · · ·court proceedings regarding spoliation or

·8· · · · ·crime-fraud?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

10· · · · ·Form.

11· · · · · · · ·Hold on for a second.

12· · · · · · · ·That's a yes or no.

13· · ·A· ·I don't recall what's in state court, what's in

14· · · · ·federal court.

15· · ·Q· ·Did he tell you about any spoliation or

16· · · · ·crime-fraud hearings, period?

17· · ·A· ·I assume there was one in this case, because I

18· · · · ·thought that was one of the issues that was up

19· · · · ·at the circuit court, but I don't recall.

20· · ·Q· ·Has he talked to you about any -- withdrawn.

21· · · · · · · ·Regarding the spoliation allegations,

22· · · · ·what do you understand the facts alleged are?

23· · ·A· ·My understanding of the facts was what I just

24· · · · ·said and that sometime in the 1980s, they

25· · · · ·gathered up the documents and destroyed them.

Page 195

·1· · ·Q· ·And when did Mr. Placitella convey that to you

·2· · · · ·in words or in substance?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·4· · · · ·form and foundation.

·5· · ·A· ·It would have been 2010 or '11.· I believe it

·6· · · · ·was in the complaint as well.

·7· · ·Q· ·Other than that, have you had any conversations

·8· · · · ·with Mr. Placitella regarding spoliation

·9· · · · ·allegation?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

11· · ·A· ·No.

12· · ·Q· ·Have you initiated any efforts in Ohio to

13· · · · ·reopen any cases?

14· · ·A· ·No.

15· · ·Q· ·Why not?

16· · ·A· ·Because that's being handled by the Placitella

17· · · · ·firm as part of the class action.

18· · ·Q· ·Could you?· Withdrawn.

19· · · · · · · ·Do you have the capability and experience

20· · · · ·and resources to try to reopen individual cases

21· · · · ·here?

22· · ·A· ·I certainly have the resources.· You know, as

23· · · · ·far as the ability and experience, I think

24· · · · ·Mr. Placitella knows things that I don't know,

25· · · · ·and so I would think that he would be in a

Page 196

·1· · · · ·better position to do that than I would.

·2· · ·Q· ·Well, you know the facts better than he does,

·3· · · · ·in terms of the underlying cases, true?

·4· · ·A· ·Yes.

·5· · ·Q· ·And you're barred in Ohio?· You're a member of

·6· · · · ·the Bar?

·7· · ·A· ·Yeah, I'm a member of the Bar in Ohio.

·8· · ·Q· ·And you can associate with Mr. Placitella to

·9· · · · ·bring a case here, correct?

10· · ·A· ·Yeah.· Yeah.· Yeah, sure.

11· · ·Q· ·Is there any impediment to doing so?

12· · ·A· ·I don't know.· I haven't researched it to

13· · · · ·determine if there's any impediment, but we

14· · · · ·chose to pursue it the way it's being pursued.

15· · ·Q· ·Do you view yourself as kind of co-counsel in

16· · · · ·Williams?

17· · ·A· ·If -- I guess it depends if -- for instance,

18· · · · ·take the Darnell case and if the Darnell case,

19· · · · ·if we're set back to square one and Darnell's

20· · · · ·able to pursue the -- her claim against Eastern

21· · · · ·Magnesia Talc with all of the relevant

22· · · · ·evidence, than I would assume that I would be

23· · · · ·co-counsel because I know a tremendous amount

24· · · · ·of the Darnell case.

25· · · · · · · ·I wouldn't be able to do it by myself, I

Page 197

·1· · · · ·would need the assistance of the Placitella

·2· · · · ·firm because they know more about BASF and what

·3· · · · ·BASF knew, when they knew it, what they did

·4· · · · ·with the evidence, those things.

·5· · ·Q· ·Do you view yourself as having a co-counsel

·6· · · · ·relationship with Mr. Placitella?

·7· · ·A· ·Certainly in the Ross case and certainly --

·8· · · · ·yeah, if we get to that point that I described,

·9· · · · ·then yes.

10· · ·Q· ·At trial, would you be co-counsel?

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Trial of what

12· · · · ·case?

13· · ·A· ·It depends on what issue's being tried.

14· · ·Q· ·The Williams case.

15· · ·A· ·It depends on what issue's being tried in the

16· · · · ·Williams case.

17· · ·Q· ·Well, what issue can you imagine you would be

18· · · · ·co-counsel?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

20· · · · ·form and foundation.

21· · ·A· ·If, again, the Williams case was set back to

22· · · · ·square one and we were permitted to try our

23· · · · ·case, I'm familiar with the medical and the

24· · · · ·facts of the case.· I would assume that I would

25· · · · ·have a role in that as co-counsel.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 51 of 168 PageID:

35170
Page 198

·1· · ·Q· ·So yes, if the Williams case is either

·2· · · · ·certified or not certified, you would handle

·3· · · · ·whatever has to do with Ms. Darnell?

·4· · ·A· ·Again, it depends on what the issue is whether

·5· · · · ·I'm going to be handling it or not.

·6· · ·Q· ·Is that spelled out in the fee agreement?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·8· · ·A· ·I don't -- I don't recall.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Wait.· Wait.

10· · · · ·I'm sorry.

11· · · · · · · ·Okay.· Yeah.· Objection.· Privilege.

12· · ·Q· ·Why else -- withdrawn.

13· · · · · · · ·Where's the list of -- I'm sorry.· I know

14· · · · ·you gave me this list, Mr. Bevan, of which

15· · · · ·clients you talked to and which ones you

16· · · · ·didn't, so let me just try to find this. I

17· · · · ·think I have it.

18· · · · · · · ·Okay.· So Holley, Pease, and Ware.

19· · · · ·Holley, Pease, and Ware.

20· · · · · · · ·So in terms of Kimberlee Williams, we're

21· · · · ·going to get to her in a second, but I want to

22· · · · ·turn your attention to D Ex 1.

23· · · · · · · ·Kimberlee Williams was one of the people

24· · · · ·that you said you didn't talk to --

25· · ·A· ·I have not --

Page 199

·1· · ·Q· ·-- correct?

·2· · ·A· ·I don't recall when I last talked to Kimberlee

·3· · · · ·Williams, but it's been quite some time.

·4· · ·Q· ·And you certainly -- again, we went through

·5· · · · ·that initial phone conversation with

·6· · · · ·Mr. Placitella where you called three of the

·7· · · · ·plaintiffs, but you didn't called Wengerd and

·8· · · · ·you didn't call Kimberlee Williams?

·9· · ·A· ·I --

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

11· · ·A· ·Whether I called them or not, I don't recall

12· · · · ·talking to them.

13· · ·Q· ·Right.· Okay.

14· · · · · · · ·Could you turn to paragraph 19 on page

15· · · · ·21?· It begins at the bottom of page 20.

16· · · · · · · ·"Plaintiff Williams and her husband did

17· · · · ·not know that she and her husband have been the

18· · · · ·victim of Defendants' Fraudulent Asbestos

19· · · · ·Defense Scheme described herein while her

20· · · · ·husband was alive, and she did not learn of

21· · · · ·such fact until late 2010/early 2011, when she

22· · · · ·was first informed of same by her attorney."

23· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

24· · ·A· ·Yes.

25· · ·Q· ·Is that true?

Page 200

·1· · ·A· ·That's -- my paralegal contacted her.· She's

·2· · · · ·the one who talked to her.· I have not talked

·3· · · · ·to Ms. Williams.

·4· · ·Q· ·Well, it doesn't say your paralegal, it says

·5· · · · ·Tom Bevan.

·6· · ·A· ·Yeah.

·7· · ·Q· ·So that's not correct?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Does it say --

·9· · · · ·I'm sorry.· Does it say Tom Bevan?· Because I

10· · · · ·missed that part.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Okay.· "When

12· · · · ·she was informed of same by her attorney,

13· · · · ·Thomas W. Bevan."· Hold on.· We'll pause here.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Thank you.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · We'll go over

16· · · · ·it again.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·You don't have

18· · · · ·to go over it again, let me just catch up.

19· · ·Q· ·"of such fact until late 2010/early 2011, when

20· · · · ·she was first --

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Ah, thank you.

22· · ·Q· ·-- informed of same by her attorney, Thomas

23· · · · ·Bevan, Esquire."

24· · · · · · · ·Is that you?

25· · ·A· ·I'm Thomas W. Bevan, Esquire, yes.

Page 201

·1· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Who's your legal assistant that you

·2· · · · ·think --

·3· · ·A· ·Erin Clark would have contacted Mrs. Williams.

·4· · ·Q· ·Okay.· But Erin Clark's not in the complaint.

·5· · ·A· ·She contacted her on behalf of me.

·6· · ·Q· ·And she actually wasn't even in the plaintiffs'

·7· · · · ·initial disclosures, did you know that?

·8· · ·A· ·I don't know what you're talking about.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Object to form,

10· · · · ·foundation.

11· · ·Q· ·Well, you know what an initial disclosure is?

12· · ·A· ·I do not.

13· · ·Q· ·You don't know what a Rule 26 initial

14· · · · ·disclosure is, Mr. Bevan?

15· · ·A· ·No.· Is that federal court?

16· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

17· · ·A· ·Yeah, I have not practiced in federal court.

18· · ·Q· ·So that's wrong, as far as you know?

19· · ·A· ·No.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

21· · · · ·Form and foundation.

22· · ·A· ·Erin Clark contacted her on behalf of me.

23· · ·Q· ·It's correct if it means on behalf of Tom Bevan

24· · · · ·and that's how it would be correct?

25· · ·A· ·It would be if it says on behalf -- by some --

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 52 of 168 PageID:

35171
Page 202

·1· · · · ·on behalf.· It would be more specific I guess

·2· · · · ·is what I'm saying.

·3· · ·Q· ·And what did you tell Ms. Clark?

·4· · ·A· ·To contact Mrs. Williams and get her in touch

·5· · · · ·with the folks at the Placitella firm.

·6· · ·Q· ·Well, you told her more than that, didn't you?

·7· · ·A· ·Well, I told her what --

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·9· · · · ·form and foundation.

10· · ·A· ·-- you know, what was going on, why.

11· · ·Q· ·What did you tell her exactly?

12· · ·A· ·I told her that we were going to look into

13· · · · ·pursuing a fraud case against Eastern Magnesia

14· · · · ·Talc because they lied to Mrs. Williams or

15· · · · ·Mr. Williams at the time that the case was

16· · · · ·being litigated when they said that they had

17· · · · ·tested their talc and never found any evidence

18· · · · ·of asbestos in their talc.· That has now been

19· · · · ·proven to be a lie, and so we were going to

20· · · · ·look into a potential fraud against BASF, to

21· · · · ·contact Mrs. Williams and get her in touch with

22· · · · ·the Placitella firm.

23· · ·Q· ·An do you know if she did that?

24· · ·A· ·Oh, yeah, she did.

25· · ·Q· ·Did she tell you she did that?

Page 203

·1· · ·A· ·Yes.

·2· · ·Q· ·Did she take notes of that conversation, or you

·3· · · · ·don't know?

·4· · ·A· ·I don't know.· I doubt it.

·5· · ·Q· ·Why do you doubt it?

·6· · ·A· ·Why would she take notes?

·7· · ·Q· ·Did you check?

·8· · ·A· ·I do not believe she took notes.

·9· · ·Q· ·What's your factual basis for not believing she

10· · · · ·didn't take notes?

11· · ·A· ·She had no reason to take notes and I guess she

12· · · · ·would have told me if she took notes.· I can

13· · · · ·find out and tell you tomorrow whether she took

14· · · · ·notes or not.

15· · ·Q· ·Did you check her files?

16· · ·A· ·She doesn't have any files.

17· · ·Q· ·Does she keep a notebook?

18· · ·A· ·I've never seen her with a notebook.

19· · ·Q· ·Did she email you and tell you that she had

20· · · · ·talked to Mrs. Williams?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

22· · · · ·form, foundation.

23· · ·A· ·I highly doubt it.· Her office is about 10 feet

24· · · · ·from mine.

25· · ·Q· ·So we are starting with Ware.· Sorry for that

Page 204

·1· · · · ·little detour.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I don't think

·3· · · · ·you are.

·4· · ·Q· ·But keep D Ex 1 out.

·5· · · · · · · ·Ms. Ware.· So did you know Ralph Ware?

·6· · ·A· ·I've spoken with Ralph Ware, yes.

·7· · ·Q· ·Have you ever spoken with Donna Ware?

·8· · ·A· ·Yes.

·9· · ·Q· ·Honest?· Is she honest?

10· · ·A· ·I had no reason to believe that she wouldn't be

11· · · · ·honest.

12· · ·Q· ·I'm going to show you what's been marked as

13· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 46 -- 146.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I'm sorry?

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Defendants'

16· · · · ·Exhibit 146.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Thank you.

18· · ·Q· ·This is a complaint on or about August 5, 2002.

19· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this?

20· · ·A· ·Whether I specifically recognize this, I don't

21· · · · ·recall, but it looks similar to the complaints

22· · · · ·that we've filed.

23· · ·Q· ·Can you turn to page 35?

24· · · · · · · ·Tell me if that's your signature.

25· · ·A· ·Yes.

Page 205

·1· · ·Q· ·And you sued Engelhard here?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·And this was in -- this was I guess eight years

·4· · · · ·after you first believed that there was no

·5· · · · ·asbestos in Engelhard's talc?

·6· · ·A· ·Eight years before I was first told that.

·7· · ·Q· ·Eight years after?

·8· · ·A· ·Eight years after I was first told that, yes.

·9· · ·Q· ·And even though you say you believed --

10· · ·A· ·Well, hold on, let me --

11· · ·Q· ·Sorry.

12· · ·A· ·-- just find the date.

13· · · · · · · ·Yeah, I would say roughly eight years.

14· · · · ·It could have been more.· I'd say roughly eight

15· · · · ·years.

16· · ·Q· ·And you brought this lawsuit against Emtal even

17· · · · ·though you say you believed Cahill when they

18· · · · ·told you there was no asbestos in the talc?

19· · ·A· ·Yes.

20· · ·Q· ·What's Harshaw?

21· · ·A· ·Harshaw was a local distributor, supplier.

22· · · · · · · ·No I'm sorry.· Did you say Harshaw?

23· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

24· · ·A· ·Oh.· Harshaw was a chemical company that at

25· · · · ·some point in time merged with Engelhard.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 53 of 168 PageID:

35172
Page 206

·1· · ·Q· ·Have you brought cases against Harshaw?

·2· · ·A· ·I have brought premises cases against Harshaw.

·3· · ·Q· ·Would you explain to me what a premises case

·4· · · · ·is?

·5· · ·A· ·It's a lawsuit against the owner of a premises,

·6· · · · ·where one of my clients may have been exposed

·7· · · · ·to asbestos at the Harshaw plant but did not

·8· · · · ·work for Harshaw.· And so they filed a premises

·9· · · · ·liability lawsuit against the premises owner.

10· · ·Q· ·And, again, based on your 30 years of

11· · · · ·experience, are premises cases valued higher or

12· · · · ·lower than the direct exposure worker cases?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

14· · · · ·form and foundation.

15· · ·A· ·Oh, yeah, that's not a question I can answer

16· · · · ·because --

17· · ·Q· ·All right.

18· · ·A· ·-- there's just too many variables.

19· · ·Q· ·Are the Harshaw cases that you've been involved

20· · · · ·with talc cases?

21· · ·A· ·No.· If I -- if I sued Harshaw, that was

22· · · · ·because of a premises liability lawsuit not

23· · · · ·having to do with talc.

24· · ·Q· ·What was the factual basis for you bringing a

25· · · · ·lawsuit against Harshaw on behalf of Ware?

Page 207

·1· · ·A· ·This would have been a multi-plaintiff

·2· · · · ·complaint.· So presumably one of these people

·3· · · · ·had exposure at a Harshaw plant and that's why

·4· · · · ·Harshaw was named as a defendant.

·5· · · · · · · ·Typically what we did in those

·6· · · · ·situations, as the case began to go through

·7· · · · ·litigation, then we would dismiss out the

·8· · · · ·defendants that didn't belong in that

·9· · · · ·individual case.· So as far as I know, we

10· · · · ·weren't pursing a case against Harshaw for

11· · · · ·Mr. Ware.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Let me show you Defendants' 156 and 157.

13· · · · · · · ·Let me show you Defendants' 156A and 157.

14· · · · · · · ·So on 157 --

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · You must have

16· · · · ·an extra copy of 157 floating over there.

17· · · · · · · ·Thank you.

18· · ·Q· ·157.· Do you recognize this, Mr. Ware?· I think

19· · · · ·it's entitled "Defendants' Supplemental Answers

20· · · · ·to Plaintiffs'."

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Mr. Bevan.

22· · ·Q· ·I'm sorry.· Withdrawn.

23· · · · · · · ·Mr. Bevan, do you recognize Defendants'

24· · · · ·157 entitled "Defendants' Supplemental Answers

25· · · · ·to Plaintiffs' Master Discovery Requests"?

Page 208

·1· · ·A· ·I do not recognize this.· No, I do not

·2· · · · ·recognize this document.

·3· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Defendants' 156A.

·4· · · · · · · ·If you turn to the second page where it

·5· · · · ·talks about -- where there's a mention -- or

·6· · · · ·the third page.

·7· · · · · · · ·"Goodyear Aerospace/Aircraft," do you see

·8· · · · ·that?

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·Are you familiar with this document?

11· · ·A· ·Yes.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Did you understand -- do you have any

13· · · · ·questions to -- any reasons to disbelieve this

14· · · · ·document?

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

16· · · · ·the form and foundation.

17· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.· Let me try this way.

18· · · · · · · ·Do you believe that this document is in

19· · · · ·any way fraudulent?

20· · ·A· ·I have no knowledge that it's fraudulent. I

21· · · · ·haven't seen the records to back it up, but I

22· · · · ·have no knowledge that it's fraudulent.

23· · ·Q· ·Did you have any product ID evidence suggesting

24· · · · ·that Goodyear Aerospace and Aircraft had more

25· · · · ·than three 50-pound bags in 30 years?

Page 209

·1· · ·A· ·Yeah.· Most of the -- for, again, the vinyl

·2· · · · ·division, as I explained which was a Goodyear

·3· · · · ·Tire division, the purchasing was done by

·4· · · · ·central Goodyear Tire purchasing and so it

·5· · · · ·would not show up, I don't believe, on this

·6· · · · ·document, sales of -- or talc being used at

·7· · · · ·Goodyear Aerospace.

·8· · ·Q· ·So if you -- based upon all of your experience

·9· · · · ·and knowledge of these issues, if somebody had

10· · · · ·filed a product ID motion, if Emtal had filed a

11· · · · ·product ID motion, you surely, in order to

12· · · · ·protect your clients' rights, would have put

13· · · · ·that in opposing papers, correct?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

15· · · · ·form.

16· · ·A· ·No, not necessarily.· Depending on how we were

17· · · · ·handling the case.

18· · ·Q· ·Well, what situation would it be where you were

19· · · · ·not -- where you were handling the cases and

20· · · · ·decided not to tell the Court about your

21· · · · ·product ID theory?

22· · ·A· ·Well, in the case -- excuse me.

23· · · · · · · ·In the case of Eastern Magnesia Talc, if

24· · · · ·we did not have evidence that it contained

25· · · · ·asbestos, then the product ID part was somewhat

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 54 of 168 PageID:

35173
Page 210

·1· · · · ·moot.

·2· · · · · · · ·And so if -- for instance, if Eastern

·3· · · · ·Magnesia Talc would file a -- would have back

·4· · · · ·in the day before I knew what I know now would

·5· · · · ·have filed a motion for summary judgment on a

·6· · · · ·Goodyear Aerospace case, it wouldn't have been

·7· · · · ·a matter that we would have spent any time on,

·8· · · · ·because even if we were able to prove that the

·9· · · · ·raw materials for the vinyl division came from

10· · · · ·Goodyear over to Goodyear Aerospace, it still

11· · · · ·left us in the same position, which is we

12· · · · ·didn't have the evidence that Eastern Magnesia

13· · · · ·Talc contained asbestos.

14· · · · · · · ·So in a situation, if it was a Goodyear

15· · · · ·Aerospace case, I don't think I would have, you

16· · · · ·know, tried to, you know, connect all of those

17· · · · ·dots, because I know I couldn't connect the

18· · · · ·final dot, the most important one, which is did

19· · · · ·their product contain asbestos.

20· · ·Q· ·In fact, for Goodyear Aerospace, as long as

21· · · · ·you've been handling cases against Emtal, you

22· · · · ·never filed papers with this vinyl theory in

23· · · · ·them, did you, Mr. Bevan?

24· · ·A· ·Actually, I tried a case against Goodyear Tire

25· · · · ·& Rubber Company under that theory, that

Page 211

·1· · · · ·Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company was supplying

·2· · · · ·the raw asbestos fiber through central

·3· · · · ·purchasing, through this exact theory I'm

·4· · · · ·talking about.

·5· · ·Q· ·Regarding Emtal, you never raised that in any

·6· · · · ·Court papers on behalf of these thousands of

·7· · · · ·plaintiffs, did you, Mr. Bevan?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·9· · ·A· ·I don't believe I did.· Like I said, I did it

10· · · · ·on the raw asbestos side, but I wouldn't have

11· · · · ·done it on the Emtal because the evidence I had

12· · · · ·was that Emtal didn't have asbestos.

13· · ·Q· ·And even in 1994 when you had cases against

14· · · · ·Goodyear -- involving Goodyear Aerospace, you

15· · · · ·didn't raise the vinyl theory regarding Emtal

16· · · · ·at that point, did you?

17· · ·A· ·I'm trying to recall if I had any Goodyear

18· · · · ·Aerospace cases in 1994.· I don't know if I had

19· · · · ·any back then.· It's possible.· I don't recall

20· · · · ·any.

21· · ·Q· ·If you did have them, you would expect to --

22· · · · ·would you have -- withdrawn.

23· · · · · · · ·If I could show you a case in 1994

24· · · · ·regarding Goodyear Aerospace, would you expect

25· · · · ·to see your vinyl theory there regarding Emtal?

Page 212

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·2· · · · ·form.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·4· · · · ·Form.

·5· · ·A· ·I don't think -- I don't think we developed

·6· · · · ·that until it was in probably '98 or '99.· It

·7· · · · ·was a time when I was starting to litigate a

·8· · · · ·fair number of Goodyear Aerospace cases. I

·9· · · · ·think we had between 100 and 200 Goodyear

10· · · · ·Aerospace cases that arose around 1999.· And we

11· · · · ·were litigating those in the early 2000s,

12· · · · ·around 2000.· When we started --

13· · ·Q· ·Do you have any piece of paper showing Emtal

14· · · · ·being shipped from the vinyl facility to

15· · · · ·Goodyear Aerospace?

16· · ·A· ·No.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

18· · ·Q· ·But you have the thousands of cases that you've

19· · · · ·litigated.· You can't show me a single piece of

20· · · · ·paper?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

22· · ·A· ·My understanding, from what Goodyear's told me,

23· · · · ·they destroyed their records, so -- as part of

24· · · · ·their normal record keeping policy.

25· · ·Q· ·Let me show you 151.

Page 213

·1· · · · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 151 is a March 13,

·2· · · · ·2003 letter to Jan Spellacy?

·3· · ·A· ·Yes.

·4· · ·Q· ·From Dr. Parmar?

·5· · ·A· ·Yes.

·6· · ·Q· ·There's a reference in paragraph 2 to a B

·7· · · · ·reader report by Dr. Ray Harron dated May 16,

·8· · · · ·2002 with a narrative.

·9· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

10· · ·A· ·Yes.

11· · ·Q· ·Who's Dr. Harron?

12· · ·A· ·He was a B reader from West Virginia.

13· · ·Q· ·Honest and competent?

14· · ·A· ·I found him to be quite honest and competent in

15· · · · ·my dealings with him.· He saved some of my

16· · · · ·clients' lives.

17· · ·Q· ·So you think that a Court could rely on his B

18· · · · ·reads?

19· · ·A· ·Well, we don't use him anymore and he withdrew

20· · · · ·from the litigation.· I'm not so sure he's

21· · · · ·alive anymore.

22· · ·Q· ·As of 2003, did you believe that a Court should

23· · · · ·rely on the B reads of Mr. Harron?

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

25· · ·A· ·As of 2003, I think the Courts were relying

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 55 of 168 PageID:

35174
Page 214

·1· · · · ·upon B reads of Dr. Harron.· I believe. I

·2· · · · ·don't know when that -- I explained it earlier.

·3· · · · ·I don't know when that occurred, but I don't

·4· · · · ·believe it was as of 2003.· It certainly wasn't

·5· · · · ·as of 2002, which is the date indicated by the

·6· · · · ·B read in there.

·7· · ·Q· ·Could we agree that one of Mr. Ware's medical

·8· · · · ·reports supporting his diagnosis was a B reader

·9· · · · ·by Dr. Harron?

10· · ·A· ·No.· Not for his mesothelioma.· I think

11· · · · ·Mr. Ware was originally an asbestosis client

12· · · · ·and he developed mesothelioma.· So not for

13· · · · ·mesothelioma.

14· · ·Q· ·So Mr. Harron, as far as you can testify to,

15· · · · ·had no involvement with Mr. Ware's talc claim?

16· · ·A· ·Well, again, other than what I just said.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

18· · ·Q· ·Well, at this point in 2003, Mr. Ware had

19· · · · ·mesothelioma?

20· · ·A· ·Yes.

21· · ·Q· ·Right.· And this report is supporting that

22· · · · ·diagnosis of mesothelioma, correct?

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·And these were the claims that you were

25· · · · ·pursuing against talc claims -- talc

Page 215

·1· · · · ·defendants, correct?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·3· · ·A· ·Say that again.

·4· · ·Q· ·You were supporting -- you were pursuing

·5· · · · ·mesothelioma claims against talc defendants,

·6· · · · ·correct?

·7· · ·A· ·Yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·Do you think that a claimant who's relying on

·9· · · · ·Dr. Harron has some weakness in their case

10· · · · ·because of the fact that Dr. Harron's providing

11· · · · ·the diagnosis?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · · · ·Foundation.

15· · ·A· ·No.

16· · ·Q· ·Your professional practice and the way you

17· · · · ·conduct your practice is that you're perfectly

18· · · · ·comfortable relying on reads by Dr. Harron?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

21· · · · ·Foundation.

22· · ·A· ·I don't rely upon reads by Dr. Harron anymore

23· · · · ·and haven't since approximately 2004.

24· · ·Q· ·Do you think the allegations against Dr. Harron

25· · · · ·were well rounded?

Page 216

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·2· · ·A· ·I don't know.

·3· · ·Q· ·Really?

·4· · ·A· ·What's that strange look on your face for?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·6· · ·Q· ·Based on representing tens of thousands of

·7· · · · ·people and being one of the most distinguished

·8· · · · ·plaintiffs lawyers in the country for asbestos

·9· · · · ·claims, you don't have any understanding of

10· · · · ·what the claims were against Dr. Harron?

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·That wasn't --

12· · · · ·objection.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · I'm asking the

15· · · · ·question.

16· · ·A· ·I don't think that's the question you asked me,

17· · · · ·for starters.

18· · ·Q· ·I'm asking you now, though.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

20· · ·A· ·Why don't you repeat your question?

21· · ·Q· ·Sure.

22· · · · · · · ·Based upon your experience in handling

23· · · · ·asbestos claims, do you have any understanding

24· · · · ·of what the allegations were against

25· · · · ·Dr. Harron?

Page 217

·1· · ·A· ·I explained earlier in the deposition what my

·2· · · · ·understanding was of the allegations.

·3· · ·Q· ·And do you think that there was any factual

·4· · · · ·basis to those allegations?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·6· · ·A· ·I have no idea.

·7· · ·Q· ·Did you understand that Courts had in fact

·8· · · · ·found that Dr. Harron should not be relied on?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

10· · ·Q· ·Let's put it this way -- withdrawn.

11· · · · · · · ·You know that bankruptcy trusts won't

12· · · · ·rely on Dr. Harron's B reads, right?

13· · ·A· ·Correct.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

15· · ·Q· ·Right?

16· · · · · · · ·So is that a factor, then, in terms of

17· · · · ·your assessing the strength and weaknesses of a

18· · · · ·possible claim, whether you're relying on

19· · · · ·Dr. Harron's claim -- B reads?

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

21· · · · ·Foundation.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

23· · ·A· ·You know, I don't -- I guess I'm not quite

24· · · · ·understanding your question.· I can tell you

25· · · · ·that as of 2002 when Dr. Harron did a B read

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 56 of 168 PageID:

35175
Page 218

·1· · · · ·for Mr. Ware, there was no Court that had an

·2· · · · ·issue with him, no bankruptcy trust that had an

·3· · · · ·issue with him.· He had testified numerous

·4· · · · ·times, as far as I know.· I think he had

·5· · · · ·testified in cases that we had filed and won.

·6· · · · ·And so there was not an issue.

·7· · · · · · · ·Since 2004, we have not relied upon

·8· · · · ·Dr. Harron and, in fact, we got our cases

·9· · · · ·reread where Dr. Harron was involved.

10· · · · · · · ·So whether or not we had Dr. Harron on a

11· · · · ·case or not is not any indication to me whether

12· · · · ·or not the case is strong or weak.

13· · ·Q· ·As --

14· · ·A· ·And it certainly has no indication on the Ware

15· · · · ·case, which is a mesothelioma case.· And the B

16· · · · ·read that Dr. Harron did has nothing to do with

17· · · · ·Mr. Ware's diagnosis of mesothelioma.

18· · ·Q· ·Well, except at the bottom of page 2,

19· · · · ·Dr. Parmar bases his opinions on the review of

20· · · · ·Dr. Harron.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

22· · ·Q· ·Do you see that at the bottom of page 2?

23· · · · ·"Based on these reviews and studies, the

24· · · · ·following."

25· · ·A· ·Yeah, keep reading.

Page 219

·1· · ·Q· ·"the following are noted."

·2· · ·A· ·"Noted."

·3· · ·Q· ·Okay.

·4· · ·A· ·Not "I relied upon the following to make my

·5· · · · ·diagnosis."

·6· · · · · · · ·"the following are noted."· So he notes

·7· · · · ·there's a B read by Dr. Harron.· He doesn't

·8· · · · ·say, "I'm relying upon the B read of Dr. Harron

·9· · · · ·to make a diagnosis of mesothelioma."

10· · ·Q· ·What does "based upon these reviews and

11· · · · ·studies" mean to you?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Well,

13· · · · ·objection --

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·-- to form and

16· · · · ·foundation.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Foundation?

18· · · · ·That he's --

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Well, you're

20· · · · ·asking him --

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · -- acutely

22· · · · ·aware of all of the clients' cases?

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·If I'm allowed

24· · · · ·to say anything, you're asking --

25· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

Page 220

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·-- what's this

·2· · · · ·sentence mean to you.

·3· · ·A· ·I think I told you what the sentence means to

·4· · · · ·me.

·5· · ·Q· ·"Based upon these reviews and studies."· Do you

·6· · · · ·have an understanding of what that phrase

·7· · · · ·means?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·All right.

·9· · · · ·Objection.

10· · ·A· ·If you take it in the context of the following,

11· · · · ·"the following are noted."· He said based on

12· · · · ·these reviews and studies, he's noted the

13· · · · ·following.· Dr. Harron found this.

14· · ·Q· ·So when Dr. Parmar says "Based upon these

15· · · · ·reviews and studies," you understand that to

16· · · · ·mean the studies contained in this letter,

17· · · · ·correct?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

19· · ·Q· ·Fair?

20· · · · · · · ·It's not saying based on every possible

21· · · · ·study?

22· · ·A· ·He's listing what he's reviewed.

23· · ·Q· ·Okay.

24· · ·A· ·Okay.

25· · ·Q· ·A lawyer would figure that out by reading that?

Page 221

·1· · ·A· ·Just like a defense doctor --

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·3· · ·A· ·-- may say reviewed an x-ray of Dr. Harron.· He

·4· · · · ·saw Dr. Harron's x-ray interpretation.

·5· · ·Q· ·So as we sit here today, you don't have any

·6· · · · ·basis to question the integrity of reads by

·7· · · · ·Dr. Harron?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

10· · · · ·the form and foundation.

11· · ·A· ·No.· I found him to be a very effective and

12· · · · ·good B reader.

13· · ·Q· ·I'm going to show you Exhibit 150.

14· · · · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 150 is entitled T.H.

15· · · · ·Agriculture & Nutrition.

16· · · · · · · ·Have you seen this document before?

17· · ·A· ·I don't recall seeing it.

18· · ·Q· ·Did you see it at any time prior to --

19· · · · ·withdrawn.

20· · · · · · · ·Have you seen it at any time within the

21· · · · ·past year?

22· · ·A· ·I don't recall seeing it in the past year.

23· · ·Q· ·Did you see it in preparation for your

24· · · · ·deposition?

25· · ·A· ·No.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 57 of 168 PageID:

35176
Page 222

·1· · ·Q· ·Do you know what it is?

·2· · ·A· ·It appears to be an affidavit from Donna Ware.

·3· · ·Q· ·Do you know what it relates to?· Well,

·4· · · · ·withdrawn.

·5· · · · · · · ·Your Donna Ware's attorney, right?

·6· · ·A· ·Yes.

·7· · ·Q· ·And I think you said you're aware of all

·8· · · · ·aspects of their cases, correct?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

10· · · · ·Form and foundation.

11· · ·A· ·Yeah.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Do you know, what does this relate to?

13· · ·A· ·According to her, her husband, Ralph Ware, was

14· · · · ·exposed to asbestos contained in joint

15· · · · ·compounds and she initialed "Bondex joint

16· · · · ·compound."

17· · ·Q· ·Paragraph 2 says, "My spouse performed home

18· · · · ·repair and home remodeling jobs."

19· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

20· · ·A· ·Yes.· Uh-huh.

21· · ·Q· ·Do you know why that's in the affidavit?

22· · ·A· ·I don't know why.

23· · ·Q· ·Is this a form affidavit?· Did you create this

24· · · · ·for other clients?

25· · ·A· ·You know, it looks fairly consistent, you know,

Page 223

·1· · · · ·and sent off to a client and the client either

·2· · · · ·signs it or doesn't sign it, you know.

·3· · ·Q· ·Do you expect it to be truthful?

·4· · ·A· ·Yeah.

·5· · ·Q· ·Do you do anything to make sure it's true?

·6· · ·A· ·Once we get the -- if we get the notarized

·7· · · · ·affidavit, we put it in the client's file.

·8· · ·Q· ·Well, you mentioned, again, you're familiar

·9· · · · ·with various aspects of your clients' cases,

10· · · · ·and I asked you about are you familiar with

11· · · · ·their depositions.

12· · · · · · · ·And, you know, Mr. -- Ms. Ware, rather,

13· · · · ·was deposed, right?

14· · ·A· ·I don't recall if she was deposed or not. I

15· · · · ·don't recall.· I don't think I was at her

16· · · · ·deposition, if she was deposed.

17· · ·Q· ·Let me show you Defendants' 149.

18· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this?

19· · ·A· ·I don't know that I've ever seen it.· I may

20· · · · ·have.

21· · ·Q· ·Well, this deposition was taken at a time you

22· · · · ·were representing her, correct?

23· · ·A· ·Correct.

24· · ·Q· ·All right.· Could you turn to page 54 of the

25· · · · ·deposition?

Page 224

·1· · · · · · · ·Starting on line 2, question, "Did he

·2· · · · ·ever perform any remodeling or home improvement

·3· · · · ·work after that time?"

·4· · · · · · · ·Answer, "If he did -- he wasn't in that

·5· · · · ·type of work, he would have people do it for

·6· · · · ·us."

·7· · · · · · · ·"Did Ralph perform any of his own vehicle

·8· · · · ·maintenance?"

·9· · · · · · · ·"No."

10· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

11· · ·A· ·Yeah.

12· · ·Q· ·So did you understand that your client,

13· · · · ·Mrs. Ware, was saying under oath that Ralph

14· · · · ·didn't perform home remodeling work?

15· · ·A· ·Say that again.

16· · ·Q· ·Do you understand from this deposition of your

17· · · · ·client that your client was testifying that her

18· · · · ·husband did not perform home remodeling work?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

21· · · · ·Foundation.

22· · ·A· ·It looks like that's what she says in the

23· · · · ·deposition.

24· · ·Q· ·Based upon your experience in dealing with

25· · · · ·asbestos claimants and in dealing with

Page 225

·1· · · · ·Ms. Ware, can you provide any explanation of

·2· · · · ·why the affidavit is inconsistent with the

·3· · · · ·testimony?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·5· · ·A· ·I don't know whether that's inconsistent or

·6· · · · ·not.· I don't know.· Maybe she thought of

·7· · · · ·something else that he had done with respect to

·8· · · · ·joint compound.· I really don't know.

·9· · ·Q· ·Did you have -- prior to coming in today, did

10· · · · ·you have any understanding that the affidavit

11· · · · ·was inconsistent with her deposition testimony?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Foundation.

15· · ·A· ·I haven't -- I already told you I don't know

16· · · · ·that I've seen this document or the deposition.

17· · · · ·So ...

18· · ·Q· ·Would you expect that the lawyers at your firm

19· · · · ·would check the affidavit to make sure it was

20· · · · ·consistent with the deposition testimony?

21· · ·A· ·No.· I assume that if she put it in the

22· · · · ·affidavit, she put it -- and signed it, she was

23· · · · ·accurate about it.

24· · ·Q· ·You don't think the lawyer had any duty to

25· · · · ·check what was being sworn to was consistent

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 58 of 168 PageID:

35177
Page 226

·1· · · · ·with prior statements?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection --

·3· · ·A· ·No.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·-- to form and

·5· · · · ·foundation.

·6· · ·Q· ·Do you think defense lawyers have -- should

·7· · · · ·have the same approach, that they don't have to

·8· · · · ·check to see whether or not an affidavit is

·9· · · · ·inconsistent with prior sworn testimony?

10· · ·A· ·Again it depends on the situation.· You know,

11· · · · ·if the defense lawyers know that what they're

12· · · · ·putting out in an affidavit or in Court

13· · · · ·pleadings is a lie, I think they have an

14· · · · ·obligation to tell the truth.

15· · ·Q· ·Do you think that the Bevan attorneys had an

16· · · · ·obligation to make sure that Ms. Ware was

17· · · · ·telling the truth?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

19· · ·A· ·This is Ms. Ware's statement.· So, you know,

20· · · · ·all we can go on is what our client told us.

21· · ·Q· ·But you got compensation because she submitted

22· · · · ·that statement, right?

23· · ·A· ·I don't think so.

24· · ·Q· ·You don't think she received money from T.H.

25· · · · ·Agriculture & Nutrition?

Page 227

·1· · ·A· ·I don't think so.

·2· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Let's pull that out.

·3· · · · · · · ·Did you submit this to T.H. Agriculture?

·4· · · · ·Was it a trust?

·5· · ·A· ·I don't know if it was submitted or not.

·6· · ·Q· ·Who would know that?

·7· · ·A· ·I could find out from my people that handled

·8· · · · ·the claims.

·9· · ·Q· ·And do you know what the payouts were?

10· · ·A· ·For --

11· · ·Q· ·Yes.

12· · ·A· ·I don't know.

13· · ·Q· ·Could you check that for me?

14· · ·A· ·Yeah, I could find that out, what the end pay

15· · · · ·is on cases.· I --

16· · ·Q· ·No, whether Ms. Ware got money.

17· · ·A· ·Oh, whether she got paid.· Yeah, I could check

18· · · · ·that out.

19· · ·Q· ·I think she thinks she did.

20· · ·A· ·She thinks she did?

21· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

22· · ·A· ·I would be surprised.

23· · ·Q· ·Okay.

24· · ·A· ·But I could be wrong on that.

25· · ·Q· ·All right.· I could be wrong too.

Page 228

·1· · ·A· ·I would be surprised.

·2· · ·Q· ·I don't know.· Why don't you check that out?

·3· · ·A· ·I'll check it out.

·4· · ·Q· ·All right.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I'm not sure if

·6· · · · ·there were questions or just discussion --

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Just

·8· · · · ·discussion.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·-- but I think

10· · · · ·there's a foundation objection in there

11· · · · ·somewhere.

12· · ·Q· ·Would you agree with me that Ms. Ware

13· · · · ·submitted -- withdrawn.

14· · · · · · · ·Would you agree with me that a plaintiff

15· · · · ·who signed a false affidavit is differently

16· · · · ·situated than other plaintiffs who haven't

17· · · · ·submitted false affidavits?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

20· · · · ·Foundation.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Foundation.

22· · ·A· ·I don't know how -- that question doesn't make

23· · · · ·any sense to me, so I don't know.

24· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Let's try it this way.

25· · · · · · · ·We were talking about strengths and

Page 229

·1· · · · ·weaknesses of cases, right?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·In terms of your assessing the value of a case,

·4· · · · ·would you agree with me that if you have a

·5· · · · ·client who has an affidavit that's false, that

·6· · · · ·that makes it a weaker case, all things being

·7· · · · ·equal?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·9· · · · ·foundation.

10· · ·Q· ·Or you think it just doesn't matter?

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

12· · ·A· ·Yeah, again I don't -- I don't really know how

13· · · · ·to answer that question.

14· · ·Q· ·You can't answer that question?

15· · ·A· ·No.

16· · ·Q· ·Do you think there's any import to having a

17· · · · ·false affidavit?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

19· · ·A· ·It depends, I guess, on the circumstance,

20· · · · ·but --

21· · ·Q· ·Let's try it this way.

22· · · · · · · ·Based upon of all your experience in

23· · · · ·submitting claims and affidavits for clients,

24· · · · ·do you have any concern regarding a false

25· · · · ·affidavit by a claimant?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 59 of 168 PageID:

35178
Page 230

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·2· · · · ·form.

·3· · ·A· ·I don't recall it ever being an issue on any

·4· · · · ·case I've ever handled.

·5· · ·Q· ·Not a problem for you?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·8· · ·A· ·I can't recall ever having a problem with a

·9· · · · ·client doing a false affidavit.

10· · ·Q· ·Well, now knowing about Ms. Ware's sworn

11· · · · ·testimony in a deposition and this affidavit,

12· · · · ·are you going to go talk to her?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

15· · ·A· ·I guess I would have to get an Ouija board out

16· · · · ·to talk to Mrs. Ware.

17· · ·Q· ·Do you have any concerns of whether this was

18· · · · ·submitted to a Court or a trust?

19· · ·A· ·I don't know what her basis was for saying

20· · · · ·that, so I don't know and I can't determine

21· · · · ·that now.

22· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Do you know how much Mrs. Ware received

23· · · · ·in settlements?

24· · ·A· ·I do not.

25· · ·Q· ·Does a million dollars sound about right?

Page 231

·1· · ·A· ·It would be a guess, so I really don't know.

·2· · ·Q· ·Do you know whether Mrs. Ware settled with the

·3· · · · ·talc defendants?

·4· · ·A· ·I don't know.

·5· · ·Q· ·Well, when you had a discussion with Ms. Ware,

·6· · · · ·did you tell her that the talc defendants lied

·7· · · · ·to her or lied to you regarding her case?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·9· · ·A· ·I'm sure I did, yes.

10· · ·Q· ·So did they lie to you in settlement

11· · · · ·discussions, or was her case dismissed on the

12· · · · ·merits?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

14· · ·A· ·I don't know how her case was resolved.

15· · ·Q· ·You can't remember?

16· · ·A· ·No.

17· · ·Q· ·Well, what did you tell Mr. Placitella about

18· · · · ·it?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

21· · ·A· ·I don't recall.· Whatever happened happened.

22· · · · ·The case was either settled or dismissed

23· · · · ·against the talc company.· One or the other.

24· · ·Q· ·Well, since 2010, you've provided facts to

25· · · · ·Mr. Placitella regarding the Ware case,

Page 232

·1· · · · ·correct?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·3· · · · ·form.

·4· · ·A· ·I'm sure I gave them something.

·5· · ·Q· ·But you just -- as we sit here today, you can't

·6· · · · ·recall the facts regarding the settlement

·7· · · · ·negotiations or even if there were settlement

·8· · · · ·negotiations regarding Ware?

·9· · ·A· ·No.· I have to look at the file to see if there

10· · · · ·was a check that was paid to Mr. Ware or

11· · · · ·Mrs. Ware as a result of the talc settlement.

12· · · · ·That's what I would have to do.

13· · ·Q· ·But I'm asking about the facts regarding the

14· · · · ·negotiations.

15· · ·A· ·I don't recall.

16· · ·Q· ·But you must have recalled it sometime, because

17· · · · ·Mr. Placitella wasn't involved in the Ware

18· · · · ·settlement negotiations back in 2002, was he?

19· · ·A· ·He was not.

20· · ·Q· ·Right.· You were.

21· · ·A· ·I don't know what was discussed, if there was a

22· · · · ·settlement negotiation on the Ware case or not.

23· · · · ·I don't recall.

24· · ·Q· ·My question is, Mr. Bevan, how would

25· · · · ·Mr. Placitella learn the facts of what happened

Page 233

·1· · · · ·in the Ware case except from you?

·2· · ·A· ·I can go to the file and tell you whether or

·3· · · · ·not the talc companies paid Mr. Ware or if

·4· · · · ·Mr. Ware dismissed Eastern Magnesia without

·5· · · · ·payment.· That's what I can do.

·6· · ·Q· ·But I'm asking you:· Do you have any

·7· · · · ·independent recollection of what was said

·8· · · · ·regarding the Ware settlement negotiations at

·9· · · · ·the time of the Ware litigation?

10· · ·A· ·Yeah --

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

12· · ·A· ·-- with respect to Ware, no, I don't have any

13· · · · ·independent recollection of what was discussed

14· · · · ·with the talc -- with Eastern Magnesia Talc.

15· · ·Q· ·Back at the time closer to the events in

16· · · · ·question, 2009, 2010, when Mr. Placitella

17· · · · ·called you, did you have a better recollection

18· · · · ·of what happened with Ware?

19· · ·A· ·I don't think.

20· · ·Q· ·Did you, over the course of the last few years

21· · · · ·in communicating with Mr. Placitella, provide

22· · · · ·him with any facts other than "I don't recall"

23· · · · ·regarding Ware?

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 60 of 168 PageID:

35179
Page 234

·1· · · · ·form.

·2· · ·A· ·I believe I would have provided him with the

·3· · · · ·facts of where Mr. Ware worked, what his

·4· · · · ·disease was, when he worked there, and whether

·5· · · · ·or not we had filed suit against Eastern

·6· · · · ·Magnesia Talc or the Eastern Magnesia Talc

·7· · · · ·entities.· That would have been the information

·8· · · · ·that I would have given to him.

·9· · · · · · · ·And I may have looked at the file to

10· · · · ·determine if we got a talc settlement or

11· · · · ·didn't.· I don't recall.· I don't recall that,

12· · · · ·the answer to that.

13· · ·Q· ·Do you know when the Ware case was dismissed?

14· · ·A· ·I don't.

15· · ·Q· ·Do you know any of the circumstances regarding

16· · · · ·its dismissal?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

18· · ·A· ·No.

19· · ·Q· ·Did you ever provide information regarding

20· · · · ·whether the Ware case was dismissed because of

21· · · · ·some settlement to Mr. Placitella?

22· · ·A· ·If there was a settlement, it would be in the

23· · · · ·file.

24· · ·Q· ·But did you ever talk to him about it?

25· · ·A· ·I don't recall talking to him about it, no.

Page 235

·1· · ·Q· ·Did you ever email -- this four- or five-inch

·2· · · · ·stack of emails.· Did you ever email him about

·3· · · · ·it?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·6· · ·A· ·I don't recall emailing him about it.

·7· · ·Q· ·So anything that he got from the complaint

·8· · · · ·would have just been from the documents,

·9· · · · ·because you have no independent recollection?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

11· · · · ·Form and --

12· · ·Q· ·Of the Ware.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Form and

14· · · · ·foundation.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

16· · ·A· ·Of what ended up happening, whether Ware was

17· · · · ·settled or dismissed, I would go to the file to

18· · · · ·determine that.

19· · ·Q· ·So what is it in the file that -- could you

20· · · · ·turn to paragraph 28 in the second amended

21· · · · ·complaint, D Ex 1?

22· · ·A· ·Yeah.

23· · ·Q· ·In the middle, it says:· Reasonably relying and

24· · · · ·acting upon the misrepresentations and material

25· · · · ·omissions of Defendants regarding Emtal's [sic]

Page 236

·1· · · · ·talc product and the absence of any evidence

·2· · · · ·indicating Engelhard's talc contained asbestos

·3· · · · ·fibers that were made to their attorney and

·4· · · · ·representative, Thomas Bevan, Esquire, as more

·5· · · · ·particularly set forth herein, Plaintiff Ware

·6· · · · ·and her husband's estate in 2003 voluntarily

·7· · · · ·dismissed their lawsuit against Engelhard's

·8· · · · ·predecessors as part of a multi-plaintiff,

·9· · · · ·multi-talc defendant settlement that BASF's

10· · · · ·predecessors were party to, without receiving

11· · · · ·any full, fair and adequate compensation for

12· · · · ·their asbestos injury.

13· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

14· · ·A· ·Yes.

15· · ·Q· ·Do you know how Mr. Placitella knew that?

16· · ·A· ·It must be in the file.· I must have told him

17· · · · ·that, you know, we dismissed the case and that

18· · · · ·Ware didn't get paid by any of the talc

19· · · · ·companies.· I'm not sure about that 1997 date.

20· · · · ·That seems like maybe that's a typo.

21· · ·Q· ·How would I find out the facts regarding the

22· · · · ·multiparty defendant settlement referenced in

23· · · · ·paragraph 28?

24· · ·A· ·It would either be in those settlement files,

25· · · · ·so on a dismissal or something in there, or in

Page 237

·1· · · · ·the client's file that -- if there was a

·2· · · · ·settlement, you know, it would be in the client

·3· · · · ·file.

·4· · ·Q· ·So other than looking at documents that you

·5· · · · ·produced, you don't have any other information

·6· · · · ·to produce, to give to me?

·7· · ·A· ·No, I could probably go online to the court

·8· · · · ·system and see if I could find, you know, a

·9· · · · ·dismissal.

10· · ·Q· ·As we sit here today, Mr. Bevan, can you

11· · · · ·provide me with any information other than

12· · · · ·what's in the documents?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · · · ·Form and foundation.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

16· · ·A· ·As far as stuff that I recall that's not in the

17· · · · ·documents?

18· · ·Q· ·As far as regarding Ware's decision to

19· · · · ·voluntarily terminate and enter into a

20· · · · ·multiparty settlement.· Do you have any

21· · · · ·recollection of any of the facts other than

22· · · · ·what's in the documents?

23· · ·A· ·Yeah, I don't -- no, I don't recall exactly how

24· · · · ·the Ware case got concluded, as I sit here

25· · · · ·today.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 61 of 168 PageID:

35180
Page 238

·1· · ·Q· ·Okay.

·2· · ·A· ·If I spend some time researching it, I could

·3· · · · ·probably figure it out, but as I sit here

·4· · · · ·today, I don't recall exactly how the Ware case

·5· · · · ·resolved against Eastern Magnesia Talc.

·6· · ·Q· ·Is it the same for the other plaintiffs?· I'll

·7· · · · ·short circuit this.

·8· · · · · · · ·Do you have -- other than what's in the

·9· · · · ·documents, do you have any independent

10· · · · ·recollection of why any of the named plaintiffs

11· · · · ·cases were settled?

12· · ·A· ·Oh, I have --

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Excuse me.

14· · · · ·Objection to form and foundation.· You're --

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Okay.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·-- conflating

17· · · · ·your questions here and it's not fair.

18· · ·A· ·I have -- I think of the five cases, I would

19· · · · ·have the least recollection of the Ware case.

20· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Fair enough.

21· · · · · · · ·Okay.· Let's go to -- what's the one you

22· · · · ·have the most recollection of?

23· · ·A· ·Oh, it would probably be Darnell.

24· · ·Q· ·Okay.· How about Jennifer Graham's case?

25· · ·A· ·I have recollection of Jennifer Graham. I

Page 239

·1· · · · ·think I recall how that got resolved against

·2· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia.· I thought they got out on

·3· · · · ·summary judgment, but that's my recollection.

·4· · ·Q· ·Summary judgment on product ID?

·5· · ·A· ·I think it was summary judgment on asbestos

·6· · · · ·content, which would, you know, be a similar

·7· · · · ·product ID.· I mean, I think the Court looked

·8· · · · ·at that as one and the same.

·9· · ·Q· ·Product ID is --

10· · ·A· ·What's with the weird look on your face?· You

11· · · · ·know --

12· · ·Q· ·Because product ID is the same as asbestos

13· · · · ·content?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·That's not what

15· · · · ·he said.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

17· · ·A· ·I said I think that's looked at as the same.

18· · · · ·So what the Court is determining is was this

19· · · · ·person exposed to an asbestos product

20· · · · ·manufactured or supplied by the defendant, and

21· · · · ·that's a two-part test.

22· · · · · · · ·Okay.· One, did the defendant supply that

23· · · · ·product or sell that product to the worksite

24· · · · ·where the client worked.· And, two, did that

25· · · · ·product actually cause -- contain asbestos.

Page 240

·1· · ·Q· ·So you think a product ID analysis under Ohio

·2· · · · ·law includes whether there's asbestos in the

·3· · · · ·product?

·4· · ·A· ·Certainly.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·6· · · · ·form and foundation.

·7· · ·Q· ·And the cases that you've litigated regarding,

·8· · · · ·for example, R.T. Vanderbilt, had to do with

·9· · · · ·whether there was asbestos in the product, as

10· · · · ·opposed to whether they were just exposed to a

11· · · · ·product?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

14· · · · ·form --

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Form and --

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·-- and

17· · · · ·foundation.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · -- foundation.

19· · ·Q· ·Wow.· They don't like that question at all.

20· · · · ·I'll try a different one.· Withdrawn.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Thank you.

22· · ·Q· ·Let's talk about Ms. Graham.

23· · ·A· ·Sure.

24· · ·Q· ·Let's see where the complaint is.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · That was a good

Page 241

·1· · · · ·objection.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Thank you. I

·3· · · · ·really feel better.

·4· · ·Q· ·I'm going to show you Exhibit 39, Defendants'

·5· · · · ·Exhibit 39.

·6· · · · · · · ·This is a summons dated April 11, 2008

·7· · · · ·attaching a multiparty -- a multi-defendant

·8· · · · ·complaint on behalf of Jennifer Graham.

·9· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this?

10· · ·A· ·Yes.

11· · ·Q· ·So this is roughly how many years after you say

12· · · · ·you believed Cahill when they told you there

13· · · · ·was no asbestos in Emtal talc?

14· · ·A· ·I would say roughly -- roughly 15 years or so.

15· · ·Q· ·At any point did you call up Cahill and say "I

16· · · · ·believe you there's no asbestos in the talc,

17· · · · ·but I'm just going to keep filing cases

18· · · · ·anyway"?

19· · ·A· ·I don't think I ever had that conversation with

20· · · · ·them, no.

21· · ·Q· ·Did they ever have that conversation with you

22· · · · ·saying, "Hey, I thought we told you there's no

23· · · · ·asbestos in the talc and you keep filing these

24· · · · ·cases against my client"?

25· · ·A· ·I think they always threw it in my face, that

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 62 of 168 PageID:

35181
Page 242

·1· · · · ·we had dismissed them in the past, why am I

·2· · · · ·suing them again.

·3· · ·Q· ·And did you tell them it's because you don't

·4· · · · ·believe them or you do believe them or you had

·5· · · · ·tactical reason?

·6· · ·A· ·I told them -- I'm sure that I told them that

·7· · · · ·I've got other defendants pointing the finger

·8· · · · ·at you and I'm not going to have an open chair

·9· · · · ·and I got Sam Martillotta telling me that I

10· · · · ·can't -- I got to have you in on the cases if

11· · · · ·we're going to do any deals.

12· · ·Q· ·But did you tell them that you did believe them

13· · · · ·that there's no asbestos in the talc?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

15· · · · ·the form and foundation.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

17· · ·A· ·I don't know if I told them I believed them,

18· · · · ·but I told them, you know, I don't have any

19· · · · ·evidence to show that there was asbestos in the

20· · · · ·talc, so put forth your case, put forth your

21· · · · ·defense.

22· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So then -- withdrawn.

23· · · · · · · ·Who's John Mismas?· Mismas?

24· · ·A· ·He was an attorney that used to work at my

25· · · · ·firm.

Page 243

·1· · ·Q· ·Did he have dealings on the Emtal case for

·2· · · · ·Jennifer Graham?

·3· · ·A· ·On the Jennifer Graham.· He worked on the

·4· · · · ·Jennifer Graham case.

·5· · ·Q· ·Did he report to you on what was happening?

·6· · ·A· ·Yes.

·7· · ·Q· ·I'm going to show you what's been marked as

·8· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 46.

·9· · · · · · · ·It's a November 12, 2008 letter unsigned

10· · · · ·to John Mismas apparently from Jennifer

11· · · · ·Riester.

12· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this?

13· · ·A· ·I don't know if I saw this at the time or not.

14· · · · ·I'm not sure.

15· · ·Q· ·Do you have any independent recollection of

16· · · · ·this document?

17· · ·A· ·When I'm looking down and seeing these

18· · · · ·dismissals, it -- yeah, it rings a bell.· So I

19· · · · ·think I probably saw this at the time.

20· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Do you know Jennifer Riester?

21· · ·A· ·Yes.

22· · ·Q· ·Trustworthy?

23· · ·A· ·I don't know.

24· · ·Q· ·Reputation for honesty?

25· · ·A· ·I don't know.

Page 244

·1· · ·Q· ·Okay.

·2· · ·A· ·I would say if she knew what Cahill Gordon did

·3· · · · ·and Eastern Magnesia Talc, then she's not

·4· · · · ·trustworthy.

·5· · ·Q· ·You keep saying if they knew what Cahill Gordon

·6· · · · ·did.

·7· · · · · · · ·How do you know what Cahill Gordon did?

·8· · ·A· ·What's been reported to me.

·9· · ·Q· ·Based on what Mr. Placitella told you and what

10· · · · ·he wrote in the complaint?

11· · ·A· ·Yeah.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

13· · · · ·Form and foundation.

14· · ·A· ·If it's not true, then, you know.

15· · ·Q· ·Your factual basis for believing Cahill Gordon

16· · · · ·lied is Mr. Placitella?

17· · ·A· ·Yes.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Basis?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·You got your

22· · · · ·question, you get your answer.· Main objection.

23· · ·Q· ·Could you turn to the second page of this?

24· · · · · · · ·It says, "The Affidavit of William H.

25· · · · ·Ashton summarizes numerous investigations,

Page 245

·1· · · · ·examinations, and studies of the Johnson mine.

·2· · · · ·The conclusion derived from all of these

·3· · · · ·studies is that the talc produced from this

·4· · · · ·mine did not contain asbestos."

·5· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·6· · ·A· ·Yes.

·7· · ·Q· ·Have you ever reviewed the Ashton affidavit?

·8· · ·A· ·I assume that I did.· I probably did.· I don't

·9· · · · ·recall the names.· I reviewed the stuff that

10· · · · ·they had submitted to us over the years.

11· · ·Q· ·And you would have reviewed this carefully?

12· · ·A· ·I think I would have reviewed it carefully.

13· · ·Q· ·Okay.· It says here that the affidavit

14· · · · ·summarizes numerous investigations,

15· · · · ·examinations, and studies of the Johnson mine.

16· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

17· · ·A· ·Yes.

18· · ·Q· ·Does that mean to you that Ashton summarizes

19· · · · ·every investigation ever done on the Johnson

20· · · · ·mine?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

22· · ·A· ·Yes.

23· · ·Q· ·It does?

24· · ·A· ·I assume, yes.· I assume he wouldn't have left

25· · · · ·anything out.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 63 of 168 PageID:

35182
Page 246

·1· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So when it says "numerous," you think

·2· · · · ·that that means everything?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·4· · ·A· ·I see he says derived from all of the

·5· · · · ·studies -- these studies that the talc produced

·6· · · · ·did not contain asbestos.· So I assume that he

·7· · · · ·wasn't holding anything back.· Whether he was

·8· · · · ·or not, I don't know if he was or not.

·9· · · · · · · ·I assume that he wasn't holding anything

10· · · · ·back.

11· · ·Q· ·Well, it says, "these studies."· If you want to

12· · · · ·diagram this, going back to law school, "these

13· · · · ·studies" refer to what?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

16· · ·A· ·I assume it's studies from the -- of the

17· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc mine that he reviewed.

18· · ·Q· ·The numerous studies, correct?

19· · ·A· ·Uh-huh.

20· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So could you pull back out Exhibit 151?

21· · · · ·It's the Dr. Parmar declaration.

22· · · · · · · ·In the bottom of page 2 where he says

23· · · · ·"Based on these reviews and studies."· Now, do

24· · · · ·you read that phrase to mean based on every

25· · · · ·review and study ever done on Mr. Ware, or

Page 247

·1· · · · ·based on the things above?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·3· · ·A· ·I think he's saying based on everything that he

·4· · · · ·has, he's noting the following.· So I presume

·5· · · · ·he didn't hold anything back.

·6· · ·Q· ·So he lists six things, correct?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Which "he" are

·8· · · · ·we talking about?· I'm sorry.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Exhibit 151.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · From Dr. Parmar

11· · · · ·in the Ware case.

12· · ·Q· ·I have reviewed various medical records and

13· · · · ·studies.· And he lists six things, correct?

14· · ·A· ·Well, he's really listing nine things, because

15· · · · ·he's listed --

16· · ·Q· ·Fair enough.

17· · ·A· ·-- surgical pathology material.

18· · ·Q· ·Plus nine things.

19· · · · · · · ·So do you think that his opinion is based

20· · · · ·on the review of those nine items --

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

22· · ·Q· ·-- or something beyond those?

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

24· · · · ·form and foundation.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

Page 248

·1· · ·A· ·I think his opinion -- I think he has

·2· · · · ·considered every single thing that I gave him.

·3· · · · ·So I'm assuming -- or that my office gave him.

·4· · · · ·So I assume that he lists every single thing

·5· · · · ·that he got from us.

·6· · ·Q· ·Do you know that?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·8· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

·9· · · · · · · ·As we sit here today, do you know that

10· · · · ·Dr. Parmar's report lists everything that you

11· · · · ·gave him?· Can you testify to that?

12· · ·A· ·I can testify looking at what he's reviewed,

13· · · · ·this is what we would typically give him.

14· · ·Q· ·And why does he, based upon your experience,

15· · · · ·identify for the reader what he's basing his

16· · · · ·opinion on?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

18· · ·A· ·He's noting all of these pertinent medical

19· · · · ·effects.

20· · ·Q· ·Is there a reason why you don't want to say it

21· · · · ·refers just to the nine things?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

24· · · · ·Form.

25· · ·A· ·I'm saying that -- that's what I'm saying,

Page 249

·1· · · · ·these nine -- these things that we gave him.

·2· · ·Q· ·That's how you as a lawyer would read it, that

·3· · · · ·it's based upon these nine items that I'm --

·4· · ·A· ·I'm basing -- I'm reading it that he's basing

·5· · · · ·his opinion on every single thing that he had

·6· · · · ·in front of him to review in the Ware case.

·7· · ·Q· ·But it doesn't say that.· It says these nine

·8· · · · ·things.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

11· · ·A· ·Yeah, and I think that's probably everything

12· · · · ·that he had.

13· · ·Q· ·But you don't know that, do you, Mr. Bevan?

14· · · · · · · ·I'm --

15· · ·A· ·I think I answered your question.

16· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

17· · ·A· ·I said looking at what he listed, that's

18· · · · ·everything that we would typically give an

19· · · · ·expert.

20· · ·Q· ·I'm asking you questions as a factual witness,

21· · · · ·okay?

22· · · · · · · ·Can you tell me and the Court that you

23· · · · ·know that everything you gave him is listed

24· · · · ·here?· Can you tell me that for certain?

25· · ·A· ·I can tell you that it's extremely likely that

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 64 of 168 PageID:

35183
Page 250

·1· · · · ·everything that we gave him is listed there.

·2· · ·Q· ·Based upon these reviews and studies, you think

·3· · · · ·that means everything regarding Mr. Ware?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·5· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

·6· · ·A· ·Your question doesn't make any sense.

·7· · ·Q· ·So let's explore this a little bit.

·8· · · · · · · ·So your approach to lawyering is that if

·9· · · · ·there's an adverse opinion, like, for example,

10· · · · ·a doctor raises a question of whether somebody

11· · · · ·actively had meso, that that should be

12· · · · ·disclosed to a Court or opposing counsel or,

13· · · · ·say, a bankruptcy trust?· Is that how you

14· · · · ·approach your practice?

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

17· · · · ·form, foundation.

18· · ·A· ·You know, you're not giving me enough

19· · · · ·information so --

20· · ·Q· ·Well, you said you want to --

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Well, I'm

22· · · · ·sorry --

23· · ·Q· ·You want to identify everything.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Excuse me,

25· · · · ·Mr. Assaf.

Page 251

·1· · · · · · · ·Were you finished with your answer?

·2· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.· Withdrawn.

·3· · · · · · · ·Is it your opinion that a lawyer should

·4· · · · ·disclose everything, including adverse

·5· · · · ·evidence, to any opponent?

·6· · ·A· ·I think --

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·8· · · · ·Form and foundation.

·9· · ·A· ·Again it depends on what the evidence is.· So

10· · · · ·I'll just have to give you examples.· If --

11· · ·Q· ·It's really a yes or no question.

12· · ·A· ·No, it isn't a yes or no question.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

15· · ·A· ·You can be snarky as much as you want, it's not

16· · · · ·a yes or no question.· So if you want a yes or

17· · · · ·no answer, I can't give you a yes or no answer.

18· · ·Q· ·You can't answer the question whether you have

19· · · · ·an obligation to disclose adverse evidence?

20· · ·A· ·I said it depends on the circumstances.· If you

21· · · · ·would like, I can explain.

22· · ·Q· ·Based upon your experience, have you disclosed

23· · · · ·adverse evidence, whether somebody has

24· · · · ·mesothelioma, to bankruptcy trusts?

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

Page 252

·1· · ·A· ·We --

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·3· · ·A· ·-- submit to the bankruptcy trust, if it's a

·4· · · · ·mesothelioma case, a diagnosing medical report

·5· · · · ·diagnosing mesothelioma.· That's all we have to

·6· · · · ·submit to the bankruptcy court.· We don't give,

·7· · · · ·you know, 10,000 pages of records.

·8· · ·Q· ·And if there's a medical record -- if there's a

·9· · · · ·medical record suggesting that the person

10· · · · ·didn't have mesothelioma, do you submit that as

11· · · · ·well?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Object to form

13· · · · ·and foundation.

14· · ·A· ·No.· If there's one that suggested that he did

15· · · · ·have mesothelioma, we submit the report that

16· · · · ·indicates it's mesothelioma.

17· · ·Q· ·You submit the one that's favorable for your

18· · · · ·client?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROSH:· · · · ·Objection.

20· · ·A· ·The one that diagnoses mesothelioma, yes.

21· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So let's get out the -- we'll get out

22· · · · ·the Ashton affidavit in a second, but if you

23· · · · ·continue on, it says:· A sample from the

24· · · · ·Johnson mine was analyzed in 1982 using

25· · · · ·Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and EDS, as

Page 253

·1· · · · ·well as x-ray diffraction analysis and TEM.

·2· · · · ·The analysis revealed that no asbestos was

·3· · · · ·present in the sample.

·4· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·5· · ·A· ·Yes.

·6· · ·Q· ·Do you have any reason to believe that's

·7· · · · ·untrue?

·8· · ·A· ·I don't know one way or the other.

·9· · ·Q· ·Did you rely on that in settling the case?

10· · ·A· ·In what we've done in the past, I relied upon

11· · · · ·what Eastern Magnesia told us, which is there

12· · · · ·was no asbestos in our talc.· Whether it was

13· · · · ·the Ashton affidavit or whatever else they gave

14· · · · ·me, you know, whether it was their pleadings,

15· · · · ·whether it was their letters.· Whatever it was,

16· · · · ·that's what I relied upon.

17· · ·Q· ·Well, did you rely on -- withdrawn.

18· · · · · · · ·In determining to settle or dismiss

19· · · · ·cases, did you rely on statements from

20· · · · ·Engelhard that they had conducted testing in

21· · · · ·1982 and found no asbestos in the sample

22· · · · ·tested?

23· · ·A· ·I don't recall the year, when they said they

24· · · · ·tested.· I relied upon them saying there was no

25· · · · ·asbestos in their talc.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 65 of 168 PageID:

35184
Page 254

·1· · ·Q· ·But as a lawyer, you wanted to understand the

·2· · · · ·factual basis for that claim, correct?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·4· · ·A· ·I inquired to them and they said there was no

·5· · · · ·asbestos in their talc.· I'm not sure what else

·6· · · · ·to tell you.· I believed them.

·7· · ·Q· ·But they gave you other information to support

·8· · · · ·whatever claim was being made, didn't they,

·9· · · · ·Mr. Bevan?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

11· · ·A· ·They give me things.· They give me affidavits

12· · · · ·and/or reports along with their letter.

13· · ·Q· ·They told you that there was testing done in

14· · · · ·1982 from a sample and they found no asbestos.

15· · · · ·I'm just asking:· Did you rely on that or not?

16· · ·A· ·I don't -- again, for purposes of this case,

17· · · · ·the letter in this case, I don't think we

18· · · · ·dismissed Eastern Magnesia Talc.· I think they

19· · · · ·got out on summary judgment.· I think.

20· · ·Q· ·In terms of your career dealing with Eastern

21· · · · ·Magnesia Talc, did you rely on the Ashton

22· · · · ·affidavit in dismissing cases?

23· · ·A· ·I don't recall the name.· So I think it's in

24· · · · ·the records, the letters to them -- to me and

25· · · · ·what they provided me.· Whether it was Ashton

Page 255

·1· · · · ·or somebody else, I don't recall the names, but

·2· · · · ·they provided letters to me and they provided

·3· · · · ·reports that said there's no asbestos in our

·4· · · · ·talc.

·5· · ·Q· ·Is there a difference to you as a practicing

·6· · · · ·and experienced lawyer between a letter from

·7· · · · ·opposing counsel and between a sworn affidavit?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·9· · ·A· ·Well, there's certainly a difference.

10· · · · ·Whether -- you know, I treated them the same.

11· · · · ·I assumed that the lawyers weren't going to lie

12· · · · ·in their pleadings and their letters to me, in

13· · · · ·their conversations to me.

14· · ·Q· ·So you treat letters, even today, in litigation

15· · · · ·the same as you would treat an affidavit?

16· · ·A· ·I try to, yeah.· You know --

17· · ·Q· ·So --

18· · ·A· ·-- I guess I'm more skeptical today than I was

19· · · · ·20 years ago.

20· · ·Q· ·Because of what Mr. Placitella told you?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to --

22· · ·A· ·Because of what --

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·-- form and

24· · · · ·foundation.

25· · ·A· ·-- your clients did.

Page 256

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·2· · ·Q· ·Well, you don't know if they did anything, do

·3· · · · ·you, Mr. Bevan?

·4· · ·A· ·I guess if they didn't do anything and

·5· · · · ·Mr. Placitella's lying, then, you know, he's

·6· · · · ·the one that fooled me, not Eastern Magnesia

·7· · · · ·Talc.

·8· · ·Q· ·In dismissing or resolving cases with Engelhard

·9· · · · ·in 1992 to 2008, did you rely on the 1997 NIOSH

10· · · · ·study referenced in this letter?

11· · ·A· ·You mean 1977?

12· · ·Q· ·1977.

13· · ·A· ·I don't recall.· I don't know if that's what

14· · · · ·they gave me back in the day or not.· I don't

15· · · · ·recall.

16· · ·Q· ·If they gave it to you, you would have reviewed

17· · · · ·it?

18· · ·A· ·I would have reviewed it if they gave it to me.

19· · ·Q· ·You would have reviewed it with a critical eye

20· · · · ·and weighed whether it was credible or not,

21· · · · ·fair?

22· · ·A· ·I would have -- it would have just been one of

23· · · · ·the pieces of evidence that I looked at that

24· · · · ·they provided.

25· · ·Q· ·And in deciding to dismiss cases you do, you

Page 257

·1· · · · ·weigh various pieces of evidence; the NIOSH

·2· · · · ·study, samples, letters, affidavits, that all

·3· · · · ·goes into your judgment as an experienced trial

·4· · · · ·lawyer, correct?

·5· · ·A· ·It may or may not, depending on what it is.

·6· · ·Q· ·Well, in this case, you certainly wouldn't have

·7· · · · ·ignored the sample studies in terms of coming

·8· · · · ·to some reliance on Engelhard, would you?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

10· · ·A· ·In this case, I reviewed what Eastern Magnesia

11· · · · ·Talc gave me and in the context of them not

12· · · · ·giving me the studies that show that there was

13· · · · ·asbestos in their talc.· Had they given me the

14· · · · ·studies that showed that there was asbestos in

15· · · · ·their talc, it would have been an entirely

16· · · · ·different result.

17· · ·Q· ·Okay.· I'm not asking you about what would have

18· · · · ·been, I'm asking you what you relied on, okay?

19· · ·A· ·Yeah, but what I rely upon is not in a vacuum.

20· · · · ·Okay.· What I rely upon has to be taken into

21· · · · ·context.· It's in the context of Engelhard --

22· · · · ·or Eastern Magnesia Talc not giving me the

23· · · · ·correct information, the truthful information.

24· · · · ·And so they gave me this part and that's

25· · · · ·what -- that's all I had to rely upon.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 66 of 168 PageID:

35185
Page 258

·1· · ·Q· ·And again that answer is based upon

·2· · · · ·Mr. Placitella telling you that not everything

·3· · · · ·was given to you, correct?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·5· · · · ·form and foundation.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·7· · ·A· ·I think that's the extent of the information I

·8· · · · ·have on that.· I don't have any independent

·9· · · · ·information.· I believe there's some documents

10· · · · ·out there that are on appeal and hopefully at

11· · · · ·some point I'll get to look at them and I'll be

12· · · · ·able to answer with more information.

13· · ·Q· ·If Mr. Placitella didn't tell you that

14· · · · ·Engelhard had lied and not given you documents,

15· · · · ·your testimony would be different?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

17· · ·A· ·I would still be in the dark if he didn't tell

18· · · · ·me.

19· · ·Q· ·And your testimony as a fact witness would be

20· · · · ·different absent what Mr. Placitella told you,

21· · · · ·correct?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

24· · · · ·form and foundation.

25· · ·A· ·Again that depends on what's being asked of me.

Page 259

·1· · ·Q· ·Well, in terms of the reasons for settlement.

·2· · · · ·Withdrawn.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·4· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

·5· · · · · · · ·In terms of your reasons for settlement,

·6· · · · ·did you ever discuss with your client the

·7· · · · ·Ashton affidavit, any client?

·8· · ·A· ·I don't know if I ever used the name "Ashton

·9· · · · ·affidavit."

10· · ·Q· ·Did you ever tell your clients in words or in

11· · · · ·substance that Engelhard has tested samples?

12· · ·A· ·I believe my conversations with the clients

13· · · · ·would have been that I have no evidence that

14· · · · ·there was asbestos in the Eastern Magnesia

15· · · · ·Talc.· That's what I would have told them about

16· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc.

17· · ·Q· ·I'm not asking what you would have told them,

18· · · · ·I'm asking what you remember specifically

19· · · · ·telling people.

20· · ·A· ·Well, first of all --

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

22· · · · ·form.

23· · ·A· ·-- I disagree with what you just said --

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Right.

25· · ·A· ·-- but I did tell them that, yes.

Page 260

·1· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Did you tell them -- withdrawn.

·2· · · · · · · ·In terms of relying on what Engelhard

·3· · · · ·said to you, did you rely upon the RJ Lee

·4· · · · ·analysis of an Emtal talc sample?

·5· · ·A· ·Again, I don't know if that's one of the

·6· · · · ·reports that they sent to me.· It may have

·7· · · · ·been.· I don't know for sure which specific

·8· · · · ·reports they sent to me over the years.

·9· · ·Q· ·And --

10· · ·A· ·But obviously on this case they obviously sent

11· · · · ·something.· But again, I think this case was

12· · · · ·different, because I don't think we dismissed

13· · · · ·them on this case or settled with them on this

14· · · · ·case.· I think they got out on summary

15· · · · ·judgment.

16· · ·Q· ·As a general principle, though, if Engelhard

17· · · · ·sent you materials, you would have reviewed and

18· · · · ·considered those materials in deciding whether

19· · · · ·to recommend dismissal or settlement, fair?

20· · ·A· ·I would have considered those materials and the

21· · · · ·lack of any evidence that showed that there was

22· · · · ·asbestos in their talc.

23· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Let's show you Defendants' Exhibit 42.

24· · · · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 42, previously used

25· · · · ·as Defendant Eastern Magnesia Talc Company's

Page 261

·1· · · · ·motion for summary judgment.

·2· · · · · · · ·If you turn to the second page, the

·3· · · · ·bottom of the second paragraph says:· Plaintiff

·4· · · · ·has not offered any evidence that she was ever

·5· · · · ·exposed to a product manufactured or supplied

·6· · · · ·by EMT.

·7· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·8· · ·A· ·Yes.

·9· · ·Q· ·What does that mean to you?

10· · ·A· ·It's self-explanatory.· The plaintiff was not

11· · · · ·exposed to a product manufactured or supplied

12· · · · ·by Eastern Magnesia Talc.

13· · ·Q· ·And then the bottom of the third page, it says,

14· · · · ·"With regard to EMT, it has not been proven by

15· · · · ·plaintiff that such products were used by the

16· · · · ·plaintiff or her husband."

17· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?· The bottom of page 3.

18· · ·A· ·I see that.

19· · ·Q· ·And then if you turn to page 5, the first full

20· · · · ·paragraph, it says, "In the case at bar there

21· · · · ·is no such product identification."

22· · ·A· ·Yes.

23· · ·Q· ·Do you know what happened to this motion for

24· · · · ·summary judgment?

25· · ·A· ·I thought it was granted.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 67 of 168 PageID:

35186
Page 262

·1· · ·Q· ·Well, I think if you go up to the top, in that

·2· · · · ·box.

·3· · ·A· ·Yeah, it was granted.

·4· · ·Q· ·It was granted.

·5· · · · · · · ·And did you oppose it?

·6· · ·A· ·I assume we opposed it.· I don't -- I don't

·7· · · · ·know for sure.

·8· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Was Jennifer Graham exposed to R.T.

·9· · · · ·Vanderbilt talc?

10· · ·A· ·I believe she offered and identified Vanderbilt

11· · · · ·in her deposition.· That's the best I can

12· · · · ·recall.

13· · ·Q· ·Let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 47,

14· · · · ·verification of plaintiffs' second amended

15· · · · ·answers to interrogatory.· And if you turn to

16· · · · ·the Bates number in the bottom right-hand

17· · · · ·corner, 2334, there's a reference to "Talc

18· · · · ·manufactured by R.T. Vanderbilt and others."

19· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

20· · ·A· ·Maybe you can point that out to -- oh, right

21· · · · ·here.· Okay.· Talc -- yes.

22· · ·Q· ·And you were involved in these interrogatory

23· · · · ·responses.· In fact, I see you signed a couple

24· · · · ·of them.· Correct?· You signed the proof of

25· · · · ·service?

Page 263

·1· · ·A· ·Yes.

·2· · ·Q· ·So for Jennifer Graham at least, in July of

·3· · · · ·2008, you believed you had product ID for R.T.

·4· · · · ·Vanderbilt?

·5· · ·A· ·We believed it, yes.

·6· · ·Q· ·And at this point, you also had knowledge as an

·7· · · · ·attorney, based on your experience, that R.T.

·8· · · · ·Vanderbilt had evidence of asbestos in their

·9· · · · ·talc, true?

10· · ·A· ·We had some evidence of asbestos, yes, in R.T.

11· · · · ·Vanderbilt talc.· I believe we did.

12· · ·Q· ·I don't want to bury the lead, so while we're

13· · · · ·waiting, let me show you ...

14· · · · · · · ·All right.· Let me show you what I'm

15· · · · ·marking as Defendants' Exhibit 288.

16· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

17· · · · · · (Defendants' Exhibit 288 was marked.)

18· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

19· · ·Q· ·288 is defendant Vanderbilt -- R.T.

20· · · · ·Vanderbilt's motion for summary judgment,

21· · · · ·correct?

22· · ·A· ·Yes.

23· · ·Q· ·If you turn to page 5, it says, "Plaintiff,

24· · · · ·however, cannot maintain her claim against R.T.

25· · · · ·Vanderbilt because the product at issue does

Page 264

·1· · · · ·not contain asbestos as demonstrated by

·2· · · · ·scientific evidence, and as defined by state

·3· · · · ·and federal law."

·4· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·5· · ·A· ·Yes.

·6· · ·Q· ·And you were opposing counsel in this case,

·7· · · · ·correct?

·8· · ·A· ·I was plaintiff counsel in this case.

·9· · ·Q· ·Plaintiff's counsel.· I'm sorry.· You were

10· · · · ·plaintiff's counsel.

11· · · · · · · ·And you know that there were testing

12· · · · ·documents showing the presence of asbestos in

13· · · · ·R.T. Vanderbilt's talc product, correct?

14· · ·A· ·I think.

15· · ·Q· ·I'll show you --

16· · ·A· ·I'm not positive, but, you know.

17· · ·Q· ·Let me show you -- I'll show you your

18· · · · ·opposition.

19· · ·A· ·Yeah, that would help.

20· · ·Q· ·But if -- let me get this to you so it's fair.

21· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

22· · · · · · (Defendants' Exhibit 289 was marked.)

23· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

24· · ·Q· ·289 is plaintiff's brief in opposition to

25· · · · ·motion for summary judgment.

Page 265

·1· · · · · · · ·What exhibit number is that?· 289. I

·2· · · · ·think it's a duplicate of 104.

·3· · · · · · · ·If you turn to page 19, Mr. Bevan.

·4· · ·A· ·Okay.

·5· · ·Q· ·You write, "The central argument that R.T.

·6· · · · ·Vanderbilt makes in the case sub judice is that

·7· · · · ·Vanderbilt's talc does not now, nor ever has,

·8· · · · ·contained asbestos.· This argument is contrary

·9· · · · ·to tests that Vanderbilt has run on its talc,

10· · · · ·other entities have run on the talc, and

11· · · · ·specifically, the tests that were run on the

12· · · · ·talc by the Ohio Division of Safety & Hygiene."

13· · · · · · · ·And then you continue.· You cite some

14· · · · ·NIOSH documents and some other testing

15· · · · ·documents showing various tests of asbestos

16· · · · ·levels of 2 to 3 percent in R.T. Vanderbilt's

17· · · · ·talc.

18· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

19· · ·A· ·Yes.

20· · ·Q· ·So could we agree that at least as of February

21· · · · ·of 2009, Tom Bevan believed that there was

22· · · · ·evidence of asbestos in R.T. Vanderbilt's talc?

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·Notwithstanding this evidence that you knew of,

25· · · · ·R.T. Vanderbilt continued to take the position

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 68 of 168 PageID:

35187
Page 266

·1· · · · ·that there was no asbestos in their talc,

·2· · · · ·correct?

·3· · ·A· ·I believe they took that position.· I'm looking

·4· · · · ·at their summary judgment motion.· It looks

·5· · · · ·like they take that position.

·6· · ·Q· ·In fact, if you turn to their summary judgment

·7· · · · ·motion on page 6, they say, "Although there was

·8· · · · ·some confusion in previous decades due to the

·9· · · · ·complexity of its composition, prominent

10· · · · ·mineralogists who have analyzed R.T.

11· · · · ·Vanderbilt's product have concluded that it

12· · · · ·does not contain asbestos."

13· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

14· · ·A· ·On page 6?

15· · ·Q· ·Of their motion.

16· · ·A· ·Okay.· Yeah, there.· I see it now.

17· · ·Q· ·So, by the way, when R.T. Vanderbilt was

18· · · · ·telling Courts that they had no asbestos in

19· · · · ·their talc, did you ever tell a Court that they

20· · · · ·were engaged in some fraudulent scheme?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

23· · ·A· ·Not that I recall.

24· · ·Q· ·Well, you had documents showing tests of

25· · · · ·asbestos in their talc, correct?

Page 267

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·2· · ·A· ·I believe documents that they produced, yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·But they still told Courts there was no

·4· · · · ·asbestos in their talc, correct?

·5· · ·A· ·But they explained why.

·6· · ·Q· ·Okay.· But you didn't think that was

·7· · · · ·fraudulent, for them to continue to take the

·8· · · · ·position there's no asbestos in their talc?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

10· · ·A· ·Because they gave us the documents.

11· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

12· · · · · · (Defendants' Exhibit 290 was marked.)

13· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

14· · ·Q· ·Let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 290.

15· · · · · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 290 is the reply

16· · · · ·brief.· If you turn to page 4, the first full

17· · · · ·paragraph, the second sentence reads, "Instead,

18· · · · ·Plaintiff relies on reports --" sorry.· I'll

19· · · · ·wait for you.

20· · · · · · · ·Page 4 --

21· · ·A· ·I got it.

22· · ·Q· ·-- of Defendants' Exhibit 290.

23· · · · · · · ·"plaintiff relies on reports, one over 30

24· · · · ·years old, prepared prior to advancements in

25· · · · ·the understanding of and methodology used in

Page 268

·1· · · · ·the proper identification of asbestos, and

·2· · · · ·prior to current law regulations, like the OSHA

·3· · · · ·1992 Final Ruling, which recognized these

·4· · · · ·advancements and ruled accordingly."

·5· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·6· · ·A· ·Yes.

·7· · ·Q· ·"What may have been 'state of the art' over 30

·8· · · · ·years ago is scientifically ancient history

·9· · · · ·now, and cannot serve to defeat summary

10· · · · ·judgment."

11· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

12· · ·A· ·Yes.

13· · ·Q· ·I won't ask you about the second part, about

14· · · · ·defeating summary judgment, but the first part,

15· · · · ·it says, "What may have been 'state of the art'

16· · · · ·30 years ago is scientifically ancient history

17· · · · ·now."

18· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

20· · ·A· ·I see where they wrote that, yes.

21· · ·Q· ·Okay.· What did you understand that to mean?

22· · ·A· ·I understand that to mean yeah, people found

23· · · · ·asbestos in their talc but don't believe it,

24· · · · ·believe what we're giving you now.

25· · ·Q· ·Well, as an experienced asbestos lawyer, did

Page 269

·1· · · · ·you understand that since the 1970s until today

·2· · · · ·there have been developments in microscopy that

·3· · · · ·helps refine the testing of asbestos fibers?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·5· · · · ·Foundation.

·6· · ·A· ·I don't know that to be a fact.· I believe that

·7· · · · ·defendants try to make arguments that newer

·8· · · · ·studies are more reliable than older studies,

·9· · · · ·but I don't know that that's a fact.

10· · ·Q· ·You've never looked into whether modern

11· · · · ·science, in terms of microscopy, has advanced

12· · · · ·over the last 30 years?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

14· · · · ·the form and foundation.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

16· · ·A· ·Well, you're asking me a different question

17· · · · ·now.· I mean, I assume modern science in terms

18· · · · ·of microscopy has advanced --

19· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

20· · ·A· ·-- over the years, but with respect to whether

21· · · · ·something's asbestos or not, I'm not so sure

22· · · · ·that there's a difference between now and 1977.

23· · ·Q· ·So I'm sorry we keep missing each other.· When

24· · · · ·I ask you a follow up question, I -- it is a

25· · · · ·different question.· I try not to ask the same

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 69 of 168 PageID:

35188
Page 270

·1· · · · ·question over.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Okay.· I'll

·3· · · · ·object to that statement.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Okay.· All this

·5· · · · ·objection saying it's a different question,

·6· · · · ·well, of course it's a different question.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Yeah.· Okay.

·8· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So you don't -- you don't recognize that

·9· · · · ·there's been scientific developments in

10· · · · ·microscopy from 1975 until today?

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

13· · ·A· ·I didn't say that.· I think I said that there

14· · · · ·has been developments in microscopy since the

15· · · · ·1970s.

16· · ·Q· ·And do you also acknowledge that there has been

17· · · · ·developments in testing methods from 1975 until

18· · · · ·today for asbestos content?

19· · ·A· ·I would say I'm not an expert on that, so I

20· · · · ·don't know that I could answer that question.

21· · ·Q· ·Could you dispute that?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

24· · ·A· ·I don't know.· I would go to my -- you know, I

25· · · · ·would go to an expert and ask them whether or

Page 271

·1· · · · ·not they can dispute it.· I'm not a scientist.

·2· · ·Q· ·So even as a trained lawyer in the asbestos

·3· · · · ·field, you would find it necessary to hear what

·4· · · · ·an expert has to say on microscopy and testing

·5· · · · ·advances over the last 30 years, fair?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·7· · · · ·form and foundation.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·9· · ·A· ·I don't know how to answer that question, you

10· · · · ·know.

11· · ·Q· ·Just answer yes or no.

12· · ·A· ·I don't know.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

14· · ·A· ·I can't answer that in a yes or no.

15· · ·Q· ·Well, as a --

16· · ·A· ·You would have to -- you're asking it

17· · · · ·generally.· So you would have to be more

18· · · · ·specific.

19· · ·Q· ·Well, I just asked you about advances in

20· · · · ·testing for asbestos, correct, and you said,

21· · · · ·"I'd have to ask an expert."

22· · ·A· ·Yes.

23· · ·Q· ·Right?

24· · ·A· ·Yes.

25· · ·Q· ·And I'm saying:· Would you agree with me that

Page 272

·1· · · · ·it would?· Even for somebody like you who is an

·2· · · · ·accomplished plaintiffs lawyer in the asbestos

·3· · · · ·bar, you would want to hear what an expert has

·4· · · · ·to say before giving me a definitive answer on

·5· · · · ·whether testing methods have changed over the

·6· · · · ·last three decades?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·8· · ·Q· ·Fair?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Form,

11· · · · ·foundation, and relevance.

12· · ·A· ·That's probably fair.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Relevance a

14· · · · ·science thing.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I know what

16· · · · ·you're asking and it's not relevant to science.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Let's go off

18· · · · ·the record.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

20· · · · ·The time is 2:54.

21· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

23· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

25· · · · ·the record.· The time is 3:09.

Page 273

·1· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

·2· · ·Q· ·Mr. Bevan, I'm showing you what's marked as

·3· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 260.· It's entitled

·4· · · · ·"Judgment Entry."

·5· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this?

·6· · ·A· ·I don't, not per se.· I may have read it at the

·7· · · · ·time.

·8· · ·Q· ·We just reviewed R.T. Vanderbilt's filings for

·9· · · · ·partial summary judgment based on asbestos

10· · · · ·content before the break.

11· · ·A· ·Yes.

12· · ·Q· ·Here in the second paragraph, it says, "The

13· · · · ·main issue presented to the Court was whether

14· · · · ·Vanderbilt's talc product contained asbestos."

15· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·And then down further, it says, "As of August

18· · · · ·10, 2009, the Plaintiff has failed to submit

19· · · · ·expert reports on the asbestos content of

20· · · · ·Vanderbilt talc.· At the hearing on the Motion

21· · · · ·to Dismiss, Plaintiff indicated they would rely

22· · · · ·on the reports of Dr. Kahn, Dr. Castleman, and

23· · · · ·Dr. Rao.· The experts reports submitted do not

24· · · · ·provide any explanation for the changes in the

25· · · · ·studies from NIOSH, the Bureau of Mines and

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 70 of 168 PageID:

35189
Page 274

·1· · · · ·OSHA.· Plaintiffs' expert reports are

·2· · · · ·inadequate and fail to meet the evidentiary

·3· · · · ·burden required to establish causation.

·4· · · · · · · ·Accordingly, R.T. Vanderbilt's Motion for

·5· · · · ·Summary Judgment is Granted."

·6· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·7· · ·A· ·Yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·Why did you not submit adequate expert reports?

·9· · ·A· ·We didn't think it was needed.

10· · ·Q· ·Were you right?

11· · ·A· ·Not according to Judge Spellacy.

12· · ·Q· ·Did you appeal that?

13· · ·A· ·I don't know that we appealed it.

14· · ·Q· ·Did you settle then with R.T. Vanderbilt's

15· · · · ·talc -- R.T. Vanderbilt on behalf of Ms. Graham

16· · · · ·or Ms. Graham's estate?

17· · ·A· ·I don't know.· It would be in the file if we

18· · · · ·did.

19· · ·Q· ·You don't have any independent recollection of

20· · · · ·settlement negotiations?

21· · ·A· ·No.

22· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Let me show you what's been marked as

23· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 261.· It's a multiple page

24· · · · ·document entitled Emtal's Motion for Summary

25· · · · ·Judgment.

Page 275

·1· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this document?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·This was Emtal's motion for summary judgment

·4· · · · ·based on product ID?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·6· · · · ·form and foundation.

·7· · ·A· ·Motion for summary judgment.

·8· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And then plaintiffs responded to that

·9· · · · ·motion for summary judgment, correct?

10· · ·A· ·Correct.

11· · ·Q· ·I'll show you Defendants' Exhibit 262.

12· · · · · · · ·Did you work on this case for Ms. Graham?

13· · ·A· ·Yeah, I was definitely involved and I think I

14· · · · ·was present at her deposition.· It looks like

15· · · · ·this one was -- response was filed by Jessica

16· · · · ·Bacon.

17· · ·Q· ·And would you agree with me that you tried to

18· · · · ·establish product ID and you addressed the new

19· · · · ·Ohio HB 292 in this brief?

20· · ·A· ·It looks like we submitted the C.P. Hall

21· · · · ·records, as well as Jennifer Graham's

22· · · · ·testimony.· I thought I saw in there somewhere

23· · · · ·a reference to House Bill 292.

24· · · · · · · ·Yeah.

25· · ·Q· ·And then Defendants' 263 is plaintiffs -- or

Page 276

·1· · · · ·I'm sorry, Emtal's reply to your -- regarding

·2· · · · ·summary judgment?

·3· · · · · · · ·I think it's attached to two-sixty --

·4· · · · ·sorry.· There you go.· 262.

·5· · ·A· ·I see it.· I recall that.

·6· · ·Q· ·And then Exhibit 261, going back, this motion

·7· · · · ·was granted by the judge, correct, of

·8· · · · ·Ms. Graham?

·9· · ·A· ·Yeah, summary judgment was granted.

10· · ·Q· ·Did you seek an appeal?

11· · ·A· ·No.

12· · ·Q· ·Why not?

13· · ·A· ·We had no evidence that their talc contained

14· · · · ·asbestos at the time.

15· · ·Q· ·After you talked to Mr. Placitella in 2009 or

16· · · · ·early 2010, did you seek to reopen the Graham

17· · · · ·case?

18· · ·A· ·No.· We filed this case and included Graham in

19· · · · ·this case.

20· · ·Q· ·When you say "we filed"?

21· · ·A· ·Well, they filed.· We connected Donnette

22· · · · ·Wengerd with the Placitella firm and they filed

23· · · · ·the case.

24· · ·Q· ·When Mr. Placitella called you, did you think

25· · · · ·about trying to reopen the Graham or Wengerd

Page 277

·1· · · · ·case since it was so close in time?

·2· · ·A· ·I don't recall if we -- if I gave that any

·3· · · · ·thought.· That was what was suggested, and I

·4· · · · ·went along with that.

·5· · ·Q· ·Did you talk to Mrs. -- withdrawn.

·6· · · · · · · ·I have that Ms. Graham or Ms. Wengerd --

·7· · · · ·I don't think they're one of the people you

·8· · · · ·talked to.· Sorry.· I keep losing my list.

·9· · ·A· ·I don't recall if I talked Donnette Wengerd.

10· · · · ·I'm sure I didn't talk to Jennifer Graham,

11· · · · ·because she would have been long deceased.

12· · ·Q· ·So with respect to Ms. Wengerd, though, after

13· · · · ·Mr. Placitella called you, why wouldn't you

14· · · · ·have called her?

15· · ·A· ·I would have had somebody else call her.

16· · ·Q· ·Ms.?

17· · ·A· ·Probably Erin Clark.

18· · ·Q· ·You don't know one way or the other?

19· · ·A· ·I don't know.· She would have been the only one

20· · · · ·I would have had called.

21· · ·Q· ·But you just lost a case for Ms. Wengerd within

22· · · · ·the past year, correct, when Mr. Placitella

23· · · · ·called you?

24· · ·A· ·I don't know if it's within the last year.

25· · · · ·Let's see.· I'm assuming, you know, a year and

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 71 of 168 PageID:

35190
Page 278

·1· · · · ·a half to -- or so.

·2· · ·Q· ·Okay.

·3· · ·A· ·I'm basing that on the R.T. Vanderbilt. I

·4· · · · ·don't know when the -- I can't tell on this

·5· · · · ·when the Eastern Magnesia Talc was granted.

·6· · ·Q· ·I think June 18, 2009.

·7· · ·A· ·So a year and a half later or so.

·8· · ·Q· ·And you didn't think to call Ms. Wengerd?

·9· · ·A· ·No, I didn't say that.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I'm sorry.

11· · · · ·Objection to form.

12· · ·A· ·I said that I would have had somebody call,

13· · · · ·most likely Erin Clark from the office, to

14· · · · ·connect Ms. Wengerd with the Placitella firm.

15· · ·Q· ·What I'm trying to understand is why you,

16· · · · ·having just been involved in a case for her,

17· · · · ·wouldn't have picked up the phone and explained

18· · · · ·to her how this impacted her case.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

21· · · · ·form and foundation.

22· · ·A· ·I had Erin Clark handle it.

23· · ·Q· ·She's not a lawyer, is she?

24· · ·A· ·No.

25· · ·Q· ·And she didn't know any of the underlying facts

Page 279

·1· · · · ·regarding the Wengerd litigation, did she?

·2· · ·A· ·I -- I think that Erin Clark was with us during

·3· · · · ·that case, yeah.· So she was involved.

·4· · ·Q· ·So you think Ms. Clark does have knowledge of

·5· · · · ·the underlying cases on behalf of some of the

·6· · · · ·plaintiffs in this case?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·8· · · · ·Form and foundation.

·9· · ·A· ·No, she's familiar with the Graham case and the

10· · · · ·Wengerd -- and Donnette Wengerd.· And I had my

11· · · · ·paralegal call her to connect her with the

12· · · · ·Placitella firm.· I'm not understanding what

13· · · · ·you don't understand about it.· That's what

14· · · · ·happened.

15· · ·Q· ·Did you discuss with Ms. Wengerd at any time,

16· · · · ·ever, your understanding of the facts of what

17· · · · ·happened in her mother's case?

18· · ·A· ·I know I've talked to her in the last eight

19· · · · ·years.· I can't recall the specifics of our

20· · · · ·conversation, but I have talked to her in the

21· · · · ·last eight years.

22· · ·Q· ·Did you ever convey to her in words or in

23· · · · ·substance why you thought you lost her mother's

24· · · · ·case?

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

Page 280

·1· · · · ·form and foundation.

·2· · ·A· ·I don't recall.

·3· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's been marked as

·4· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 264.· It's a case on behalf

·5· · · · ·of Kimberlee Williams and Charles Williams

·6· · · · ·against a number of defendants.

·7· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this?

·8· · ·A· ·You know, it's been many years since I've seen

·9· · · · ·this, so I really can't.· I don't really

10· · · · ·recognize it per se, no.

11· · ·Q· ·At the time you filed this case, did you have a

12· · · · ·good faith factual belief that Emtal's talc

13· · · · ·contained asbestos?

14· · ·A· ·At the time that I filed this case, I had a

15· · · · ·good faith belief that Eastern Magnesia Talc

16· · · · ·was at Goodyear and that Mr. Williams would

17· · · · ·have been exposed to it, and at that time I

18· · · · ·wanted to explore whether or not I could prove

19· · · · ·that their talc contained asbestos.· So I

20· · · · ·didn't have any evidence at that time that

21· · · · ·their talc contained asbestos, I had a hunch.

22· · ·Q· ·Did you have a hunch about R.T. Vanderbilt?

23· · ·A· ·I'm sure if they're in there I would have had a

24· · · · ·hunch about them, yes.

25· · ·Q· ·Did you have a hunch about Vermont Talc?

Page 281

·1· · ·A· ·If they're in there, yes.

·2· · ·Q· ·So I thought you told me earlier that Southern

·3· · · · ·Talc did not really sell to the BFGoodrich or

·4· · · · ·Ohio facilities?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·6· · · · ·Foundation.

·7· · ·A· ·I don't think I said that.· I think what I

·8· · · · ·said -- no, that's not what I said.

·9· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Did they sell to the Ohio facilities?

10· · ·A· ·I think there's evidence that they made some

11· · · · ·sales to Ohio facilities, yes.

12· · ·Q· ·Because you included them here as well --

13· · ·A· ·Yes.· Yes.

14· · ·Q· ·-- as a defendant.· You must have had a good

15· · · · ·faith factual belief to include them.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

17· · · · ·form.

18· · ·A· ·Again, it was a hunch that their talc may have

19· · · · ·contained asbestos.

20· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's been marked as

21· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 265.

22· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

23· · · · · · (Defendants' Exhibit 292 was marked.)

24· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

25· · ·Q· ·And I'll also show you D Ex 292.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 72 of 168 PageID:

35191
Page 282

·1· · · · · · · ·Okay?

·2· · ·A· ·Yep.

·3· · ·Q· ·Defendants' Exhibit 265 is an April 23, 1992

·4· · · · ·letter.

·5· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this letter?

·6· · ·A· ·I believe I recognize this letter.

·7· · ·Q· ·Okay.· It was sent to Mr. Economus.

·8· · ·A· ·Yes.

·9· · ·Q· ·Now, is this the time when you were at the same

10· · · · ·office, or were you sharing cases, were you

11· · · · ·partners?· How did it work at this point?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

13· · ·A· ·We were both working on asbestos cases

14· · · · ·together.· I would essentially work under Dale.

15· · · · ·He was my mentor.· I was not an employee, but I

16· · · · ·was, you know -- you know, I handled the

17· · · · ·asbestos cases and that's all I pretty much did

18· · · · ·at that point in time.

19· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Did you discuss this letter with

20· · · · ·Mr. Economus?

21· · ·A· ·I recall -- yes, I believe so.· I believe that

22· · · · ·he gave me this letter and said, you know,

23· · · · ·"What do you want to do with this?"

24· · ·Q· ·And what did you say?

25· · ·A· ·I looked at it.· I think we eventually

Page 283

·1· · · · ·dismissed them.· I don't know when it was, but

·2· · · · ·we eventually dismissed them.

·3· · ·Q· ·Do you have any -- other than the document

·4· · · · ·itself, do you have any independent

·5· · · · ·recollection of the facts surrounding this

·6· · · · ·document?

·7· · ·A· ·Other than I had conversations with Scott

·8· · · · ·Martin and Allen Joslyn.· And there was

·9· · · · ·documents that -- it looks like some of it is

10· · · · ·in here.· That is my -- I guess that would be

11· · · · ·the extent of my recollection, was talking with

12· · · · ·Mr. Martin and Mr. Joslyn and reading their

13· · · · ·letters.· This one's a nice one.

14· · ·Q· ·And they provided you with some affidavits and

15· · · · ·expert reports, correct, as well as sales

16· · · · ·information?· I'm sorry, a specification sheet.

17· · ·A· ·Yeah, there was -- a specification sheet from

18· · · · ·Goodrich is in here.

19· · ·Q· ·Do you know how many cases at this point were

20· · · · ·pending?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

22· · ·Q· ·For tire workers against a talc company.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

24· · ·A· ·From my office --

25· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

Page 284

·1· · ·A· ·-- or total?

·2· · ·Q· ·From your office.

·3· · ·A· ·Five probably.

·4· · ·Q· ·Okay.

·5· · ·A· ·They list one, two, three.· I would think there

·6· · · · ·was a couple more in there.· Probably five.

·7· · ·Q· ·So I've also handed you the Ashton affidavit,

·8· · · · ·which is Exhibit -- Defendants' Exhibit 292.

·9· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this, Mr. Bevan?

10· · ·A· ·I believe this is an affidavit that was

11· · · · ·provided to us at some point.

12· · ·Q· ·Before dismissing clients' cases against the

13· · · · ·defendant, if they had provided you an

14· · · · ·affidavit like Ashton, you would have reviewed

15· · · · ·it in some detail, correct?

16· · ·A· ·I would have read it.

17· · ·Q· ·Could you turn to paragraph 2 on page 2 of

18· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 292?

19· · · · · · · ·It says, "From the 1940s through the

20· · · · ·1980s, talc mined in Vermont and specifically,

21· · · · ·the talc mined by Engelhard (and its

22· · · · ·predecessors) from the talc mine located in

23· · · · ·Johnson, Vermont has been considered to be talc

24· · · · ·free from contamination by asbestos.· This

25· · · · ·conclusion is the result of numerous

Page 285

·1· · · · ·investigations, examinations and studies of the

·2· · · · ·Johnson mine.· The following paragraphs

·3· · · · ·discuss, in chronological order, the studies

·4· · · · ·and investigations."

·5· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·6· · ·A· ·Yeah.

·7· · ·Q· ·And then they lay out a number of

·8· · · · ·investigations, correct?

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·And you would have reviewed what was set forth

11· · · · ·here, correct?

12· · ·A· ·I believe I did.

13· · ·Q· ·Is it your testimony that paragraphs -- all of

14· · · · ·the paragraphs following 2 set forth every

15· · · · ·study ever done on talc --

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

17· · ·Q· ·-- at the Johnson mine?

18· · ·A· ·I assumed that --

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

20· · ·A· ·-- this was all the studies that they did of

21· · · · ·the Johnson mine at the time.· That's what I

22· · · · ·believed.

23· · ·Q· ·And you -- based upon your experience as a

24· · · · ·plaintiffs asbestos lawyer, it was your

25· · · · ·understanding that this would have encompassed

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 73 of 168 PageID:

35192
Page 286

·1· · · · ·all of the testing ever done on the Johnson

·2· · · · ·mine for asbestos?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·5· · ·A· ·Oh, that was made clear to me.

·6· · ·Q· ·Because you had worked with other companies,

·7· · · · ·BFGoodrich, where you were aware that they were

·8· · · · ·testing talc from suppliers, correct?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

10· · ·A· ·I'm not sure if Goodrich or Goodyear tested the

11· · · · ·talc themselves.· Is that what you're asking

12· · · · ·me?

13· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

14· · ·A· ·I'm not sure on that.

15· · ·Q· ·In your litigation -- we saw earlier today the

16· · · · ·Southern Talc testing by BFGoodrich.· Do you

17· · · · ·remember that?

18· · ·A· ·Yeah, I don't recall --

19· · ·Q· ·Exhibit 26.

20· · ·A· ·I don't recall if Goodrich did the test or if

21· · · · ·they were relying on another test.· I would

22· · · · ·have to look at that document again.

23· · ·Q· ·But based upon your experience you knew that

24· · · · ·the Ohio facilities were conducting tests of

25· · · · ·talc for asbestos contact, correct?

Page 287

·1· · ·A· ·Well, I knew that they were looking into

·2· · · · ·whether there was asbestos in their talc.

·3· · ·Q· ·And you were --

·4· · ·A· ·Whether they were conducting the test

·5· · · · ·themselves or relying upon, for instance,

·6· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia to make that, I don't know.

·7· · ·Q· ·You had no idea even that BFGoodrich was --

·8· · · · ·withdrawn.

·9· · · · · · · ·We'll get out the document from earlier

10· · · · ·today.· You don't remember telling a Court that

11· · · · ·BFGoodrich had done testing on Southern Talc

12· · · · ·and had found asbestos?

13· · ·A· ·I have to look at the document again as to

14· · · · ·whether or not --

15· · ·Q· ·All right.

16· · ·A· ·-- Goodrich did the test or whether they were

17· · · · ·relying upon someone else to do the test.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Let's go off

19· · · · ·the record.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

21· · · · ·It is 3:28.

22· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

24· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

Page 288

·1· · · · ·the record.

·2· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

·3· · ·Q· ·I'm showing you Defendants' Exhibit 12 and

·4· · · · ·specifically Exhibit 26.

·5· · · · · · · ·Does this refresh your recollection as to

·6· · · · ·whether at some point you knew that BFGoodrich

·7· · · · ·was conducting its own talc test to try to

·8· · · · ·determine whether talc had asbestos?

·9· · ·A· ·It says, "Recent Raw Materials investigation

10· · · · ·has found that all talc supplied by Southern

11· · · · ·Talc Company contained significant amounts of

12· · · · ·asbestos-like particles."

13· · · · · · · ·I don't know whether Goodrich did the

14· · · · ·test or relied upon somebody else to do the

15· · · · ·test, and I think that's what I told you.

16· · ·Q· ·Based upon your review, though, of company

17· · · · ·documents and various asbestos and talc company

18· · · · ·documents, did you have any understanding of

19· · · · ·whether talc companies were conducting their

20· · · · ·own internal tests of whether there was

21· · · · ·asbestos in the talc?

22· · ·A· ·I recall a letter from Eastern Magnesia Talc to

23· · · · ·Goodrich or Goodyear stating that their talc

24· · · · ·did not contain any asbestos.

25· · ·Q· ·Well, could you tell me in terms of the Ashton

Page 289

·1· · · · ·affidavit, how many internal Engelhard tests

·2· · · · ·are referenced in the Ashton affidavit?

·3· · ·A· ·I don't know.

·4· · ·Q· ·Do you see any in there?

·5· · ·A· ·I don't know.· There's a reference to

·6· · · · ·Dr. Chidester.· I don't know whether that's an

·7· · · · ·internal Eastern Magnesia Talc person or

·8· · · · ·external.· I don't know.· I don't know who he

·9· · · · ·is.

10· · ·Q· ·Based upon all of your experience over the

11· · · · ·years with talc litigation, would you have

12· · · · ·expected to see some evidence of company

13· · · · ·testing of talc?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

16· · ·A· ·I don't -- I don't know.· I -- yeah, I don't

17· · · · ·know how to answer that question.· You know.

18· · ·Q· ·So let's go through Ashton.

19· · · · · · · ·Ashton identifies a 1949 study, correct,

20· · · · ·paragraph 3?

21· · ·A· ·Yes.

22· · ·Q· ·1951 U.S. Geological report --

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·-- correct?

25· · · · · · · ·A 1962 Geological Survey professional

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 74 of 168 PageID:

35193
Page 290

·1· · · · ·paper, correct?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·A scientific paper from 1976, do you see that?

·4· · · · ·Paragraph 6.

·5· · ·A· ·I see paragraph 6, yes.

·6· · ·Q· ·And in paragraph 7, there's reference, an

·7· · · · ·independent testing laboratory of talc samples

·8· · · · ·in 1982.· Do you see that?

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·And then 1983, there's reference, a

11· · · · ·Dr. Chidester deposition testimony excerpt.· Do

12· · · · ·you see that?

13· · ·A· ·It says "sworn testimony."· I didn't know if

14· · · · ·that was a deposition, but I think I see a

15· · · · ·deposition attached.

16· · ·Q· ·If you turn to Bates numbers 4786 -- 4787, I'm

17· · · · ·sorry, it's Westfall versus Whittaker, Windsor,

18· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc Company.

19· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

20· · ·A· ·Yes.

21· · ·Q· ·And Vermont Talc.

22· · ·A· ·Yeah.

23· · ·Q· ·When you reviewed that, did you have any

24· · · · ·questions as to what that deposition related

25· · · · ·to?

Page 291

·1· · ·A· ·I don't recall reviewing this.

·2· · ·Q· ·Well, given the care and attention that you pay

·3· · · · ·to these cases, you would have expected to

·4· · · · ·review these materials, correct?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·6· · ·A· ·I don't -- you know, I see the -- if all of

·7· · · · ·this stuff was attached, I probably would have

·8· · · · ·reviewed it, I just don't recall reviewing the

·9· · · · ·deposition.

10· · ·Q· ·Okay.

11· · ·A· ·I can't tell from this letter if that was

12· · · · ·all -- if all of these attachments were on here

13· · · · ·or it was just the affidavit.· A through G.

14· · ·Q· ·Well, let's try it this way, Mr. Bevan.

15· · · · · · · ·If you were given an affidavit by

16· · · · ·opposing counsel that referenced exhibits and

17· · · · ·they weren't attached, my bet is that you would

18· · · · ·have asked for the exhibits.

19· · ·A· ·I assume I would have.

20· · ·Q· ·Okay.· The 1982 test referenced here in

21· · · · ·paragraph 7 of two talc samples, did that have

22· · · · ·any weight in your recommendation to your

23· · · · ·clients to accept a settlement?

24· · ·A· ·Yeah, I would -- that would have, you know,

25· · · · ·carried some weight in the vacuum of not adding

Page 292

·1· · · · ·up the other evidence, sure.

·2· · ·Q· ·Do you have any independent recollection of

·3· · · · ·what you did with this affidavit in terms of

·4· · · · ·communicating to your clients?

·5· · ·A· ·I had numerous conversations with defense

·6· · · · ·counsel first, so at what point I talked with

·7· · · · ·the clients, I don't recall.

·8· · · · · · · ·Charles Williams and I talked frequently

·9· · · · ·and we, you know, talked frequently about his

10· · · · ·case.· And so I'm certain I talked with him

11· · · · ·about, you know, who we dismissed or what we

12· · · · ·were doing in the case.

13· · · · · · · ·The other ones, I just -- I don't have

14· · · · ·any specific recollection.· You know, Clay

15· · · · ·Compton and there was Loyd Brown I think was

16· · · · ·referenced in there.· There was another woman

17· · · · ·named Mable Gonzalez I think.· And there was

18· · · · ·somebody else and I don't recall right now.

19· · · · · · · ·But Charles Williams and I had regular

20· · · · ·conversations.

21· · ·Q· ·Do you have any specific recollection of what

22· · · · ·he said to you or what you said to him?

23· · ·A· ·I just know that he had a significant talc

24· · · · ·exposure.· I know that.· I believe he was a

25· · · · ·mill man.· The talc levels were very high in

Page 293

·1· · · · ·his area.· And, you know, we talked regularly.

·2· · · · · · · ·And specifically what I said about this

·3· · · · ·affidavit, I honestly don't recall.· I'm sure I

·4· · · · ·would have said, "Hey, we have no evidence that

·5· · · · ·this company's talc contains asbestos, so, you

·6· · · · ·know, we got to let them out."

·7· · ·Q· ·You recall saying that, or you're sure you

·8· · · · ·probably --

·9· · ·A· ·I'm sure I said it.· You know, how exactly I

10· · · · ·worded it, I don't recall.

11· · ·Q· ·And do you know what he said in response?

12· · ·A· ·Oh, he would go along with whatever we

13· · · · ·recommended.

14· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's been marked as --

15· · · · ·withdrawn.

16· · · · · · · ·After you received this letter, did you

17· · · · ·dismiss the cases immediately?

18· · ·A· ·I don't think we dismissed them immediately.

19· · ·Q· ·Let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 266.

20· · · · · · · ·Defendants' 266 is a multiple page

21· · · · ·document dated February 11, 1993.

22· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this, Mr. Bevan?

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·Did you write this?

25· · ·A· ·I believe I did.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 75 of 168 PageID:

35194
Page 294

·1· · ·Q· ·Why did you write it?

·2· · ·A· ·My recollection was that I -- whether we had

·3· · · · ·already dismissed them by then or not, but I

·4· · · · ·came across a document, it was a study from --

·5· · · · ·well, I think it says it here.

·6· · · · · · · ·Yeah, a 1950 correspondence from the

·7· · · · ·state of Vermont health department that

·8· · · · ·discussed a level of pneumoconiosis.· And I

·9· · · · ·don't know if it was this specific mine or if

10· · · · ·it was in talc mines in general in Vermont.· It

11· · · · ·refers to Waterbury and Johnson.

12· · ·Q· ·I'm going to show you what's been marked as

13· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 267.

14· · · · · · · ·It's a February 22, 1993 response from

15· · · · ·Scott Martin regarding your study in which he

16· · · · ·says, "The company referenced in the 1950

17· · · · ·correspondence is not our client."

18· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

19· · ·A· ·Yeah.

20· · ·Q· ·Did you think that was fraudulent?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

22· · ·A· ·That it was not their client?

23· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

24· · ·A· ·I assume it was -- I don't know.· Actually, I

25· · · · ·don't know at this point what to believe

Page 295

·1· · · · ·from --

·2· · ·Q· ·If Mr. Placitella told you it was fraudulent,

·3· · · · ·would you believe it was fraudulent?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·6· · ·A· ·Well, if he told me why.

·7· · ·Q· ·In the third paragraph, it says:· In reaching

·8· · · · ·your decision to dismiss Engelhard, your firm

·9· · · · ·reviewed, inter alia, the Affidavit of William

10· · · · ·Ashton, which summarizes numerous

11· · · · ·investigations, examinations, and studies of

12· · · · ·the mine.· The conclusion derived from all of

13· · · · ·these studies is that talc produced from the

14· · · · ·Johnson mine did not contain asbestos.

15· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·What does "inter alia" mean to you?

18· · ·A· ·I have no idea.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

20· · ·A· ·It's not a term I've ever used.· I've seen it.

21· · · · ·I don't know what that means.

22· · ·Q· ·Did you bother to look it up?

23· · ·A· ·No.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

25· · ·Q· ·"The conclusion derived from all of these

Page 296

·1· · · · ·studies," are they the studies referenced in

·2· · · · ·the Ashton affidavit?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·4· · ·A· ·I'm sorry, was that a question?

·5· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

·6· · ·A· ·What was the question?

·7· · ·Q· ·When it says "The conclusion derived from all

·8· · · · ·of these studies," does that mean to you the

·9· · · · ·studies referenced in the Ashton affidavit?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Inter alia.

12· · ·A· ·I don't know what he's referring to.· You know,

13· · · · ·what I read is, you know, all of the studies

14· · · · ·show no asbestos in our mine.

15· · ·Q· ·That's what the studies means to you?

16· · ·A· ·Yeah.· He didn't say, "Yeah, there was some

17· · · · ·studies that showed asbestos in our mines that

18· · · · ·we haven't given you, but, you know, we got

19· · · · ·these other studies that say it wasn't

20· · · · ·asbestos."

21· · ·Q· ·So when you read the Ashton affidavit, you

22· · · · ·thought there were only five studies ever done,

23· · · · ·five testing documents?

24· · ·A· ·Yeah.· Or -- I didn't count how many he

25· · · · ·referenced, but the studies that Cahill Gordon

Page 297

·1· · · · ·referred to, I assume they referred to all of

·2· · · · ·the studies from that mine.

·3· · ·Q· ·The RJ Lee test --

·4· · ·A· ·By the way, he says:· The only analysis which

·5· · · · ·we have not provided or previously forwarded to

·6· · · · ·you is RJ Lee.

·7· · · · · · · ·So they gave me a RJ Lee, which is more

·8· · · · ·indication that hey, we've given you everything

·9· · · · ·there is, there's only one more here that you

10· · · · ·haven't gotten, here it is.· We're still

11· · · · ·holding a few back that we're not going to give

12· · · · ·you because they're not good for us.

13· · ·Q· ·Kind of like a --

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Kind of like

15· · · · ·nothing.· Let's move on.

16· · ·Q· ·If you have an examination showing no meso, you

17· · · · ·would provide that to a --

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Kind of totally

19· · · · ·like that --

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·-- totally not

22· · · · ·like that.· Move to strike.

23· · ·A· ·Yeah, I wouldn't put that in the same category

24· · · · ·in the least.

25· · ·Q· ·Did you review the RJ Lee analysis?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 76 of 168 PageID:

35195
Page 298

·1· · ·A· ·I assume, because I recall a RJ Lee.· Whether I

·2· · · · ·reviewed it at this time, I probably did. I

·3· · · · ·know I've seen a RJ Lee analysis.

·4· · ·Q· ·Do you have any reason to believe that it's not

·5· · · · ·trustworthy?

·6· · ·A· ·Yes.

·7· · ·Q· ·Why?

·8· · ·A· ·Because when they did the test back in the

·9· · · · ·'70s, again, what Mr. Placitella told me, they

10· · · · ·found asbestos.· So I don't know what RJ Lee

11· · · · ·looked at, how they looked at it, when -- what

12· · · · ·they did, but yeah, I don't put a lot of faith

13· · · · ·in RJ Lee.

14· · ·Q· ·Your factual testimony today for this

15· · · · ·proceeding is predicated a lot on believing

16· · · · ·Mr. Placitella's rendition of the facts, fair?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

18· · · · ·Foundation.

19· · ·A· ·Yeah.· Hopefully at some point I'll get to look

20· · · · ·at all of your documents and then I will create

21· · · · ·some of my own foundation.

22· · ·Q· ·Defendants -- is that when you're counsel or

23· · · · ·when you're a witness?

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

Page 299

·1· · · · ·Move to strike.

·2· · ·A· ·I don't know the answer to that.· Whatever I

·3· · · · ·am.

·4· · ·Q· ·Well, are you serving as both?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·7· · ·A· ·I am counsel for these plaintiffs, whether I'm

·8· · · · ·a witness or not is up to you, I guess.

·9· · ·Q· ·So you're counsel for Ms. Wengerd but you

10· · · · ·still, from the time you heard Mr. Placitella's

11· · · · ·rendition of the facts until today, have never

12· · · · ·discussed the case with her?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · · · ·Foundation.

15· · ·A· ·No, I didn't say that.

16· · ·Q· ·When did you discuss the case with Ms. Wengerd?

17· · ·A· ·I told you I've talked to her in the last eight

18· · · · ·years.

19· · ·Q· ·About the case?

20· · ·A· ·I'm sure we talked about kids and family and

21· · · · ·mentioned this case.· I don't know details.

22· · ·Q· ·What did you tell her about the case and what

23· · · · ·did she tell you?

24· · ·A· ·I don't recall what we talked about of the

25· · · · ·case.· At the time when this all started, I

Page 300

·1· · · · ·don't believe I talked to her and I believe

·2· · · · ·that Erin Clark is the one that contacted her

·3· · · · ·for me.

·4· · ·Q· ·Let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 110.

·5· · · · · · · ·It's an October 6, 1993 letter from you

·6· · · · ·to Mr. Martillotta.

·7· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·8· · ·A· ·Yes.

·9· · ·Q· ·And there's a reference to Loyd Brown, who I

10· · · · ·think you stopped and noted in the previous

11· · · · ·letter correct?

12· · ·A· ·Yeah.· He's the only Brown, yes.

13· · ·Q· ·And he worked at Goodyear Aerospace from 1947

14· · · · ·to 1979?

15· · ·A· ·Yes.

16· · ·Q· ·And you believe he was entitled to compensation

17· · · · ·from Emtal, even though he worked at Goodyear

18· · · · ·Aerospace?

19· · ·A· ·As I sit here today, yes.

20· · ·Q· ·Because of what Mr. Placitella told you?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

22· · · · ·Foundation.

23· · ·A· ·No, I think I -- as I said before, I learned

24· · · · ·sometime, it was definitely not in 1993, it was

25· · · · ·sometime after that, that the vinyl division

Page 301

·1· · · · ·was a Goodyear Tire division at Goodyear

·2· · · · ·Aerospace, even though the employees were

·3· · · · ·Goodyear Aerospace employees.

·4· · ·Q· ·And you're going to get me those documents?

·5· · ·A· ·What documents?

·6· · ·Q· ·You said you learned it.· How did you learn it?

·7· · ·A· ·From testimony from the workers there.

·8· · ·Q· ·In your cases?

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And, as I said, is there any court

11· · · · ·pleading referencing that testimony?

12· · ·A· ·I'm sure there's court pleadings, yes.

13· · ·Q· ·In any talc case?

14· · ·A· ·I don't know about a talc case.· Most likely a

15· · · · ·supplier case against Goodyear Tire.

16· · ·Q· ·Could you turn to the second page?

17· · · · · · · ·You reference a Charles Williams with

18· · · · ·lung cancer and asbestosis.

19· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

20· · ·A· ·Yes.

21· · ·Q· ·And then you say, "From an exposure standpoint,

22· · · · ·these ten cases are similar to the Colley and

23· · · · ·Smith Cases.· From a disease standpoint, I

24· · · · ·believe these cases are more significant than

25· · · · ·the Colley and Smith cases, as far as the

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 77 of 168 PageID:

35196
Page 302

·1· · · · ·extent of damages and disability, as well as

·2· · · · ·the credibility of medical documentation."

·3· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·4· · · · · · · ·What do you mean by "credibility of

·5· · · · ·medical documentation"?

·6· · ·A· ·I think we had -- we've got a meso in here, a

·7· · · · ·lung cancer.· I think these individuals were

·8· · · · ·all treating for asbestosis, and that's how

·9· · · · ·they came to me.

10· · · · · · · ·If I recall correctly, Clay Compton had

11· · · · ·a -- was hospitalized for a pleural effusion.

12· · · · ·Mr. Duhart, I know Mable Gonzalez for sure,

13· · · · ·Mr. Kessel, and Charles Williams were all being

14· · · · ·treated by Dr. Fuenning, a local pulmonologist.

15· · · · · · · ·So they were -- they were -- these were

16· · · · ·symptomatic people with asbestosis that were

17· · · · ·treating.

18· · ·Q· ·When you say, "I believe these cases are more

19· · · · ·significant than Colley and Smith, as far as

20· · · · ·the extent of damages," what do you mean there?

21· · ·A· ·Because, again, these are people that are

22· · · · ·treating.· A lot of people with asbestosis

23· · · · ·aren't treating, there's nothing being done

24· · · · ·with them at the time, but these people were

25· · · · ·actually treating with doctors for asbestosis.

Page 303

·1· · ·Q· ·And then you make a settlement proposal,

·2· · · · ·correct?

·3· · ·A· ·Yes.

·4· · ·Q· ·Pardon me?

·5· · ·A· ·Yes.

·6· · ·Q· ·$3,000 for mesos, $2,000 for lung cancer,

·7· · · · ·$1,000 for asbestosis and pleural cases.

·8· · · · · · · ·And you say, "I will need a list of all

·9· · · · ·participating defendants prior to the

10· · · · ·finalization of settlement."

11· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

12· · ·A· ·Yes.

13· · ·Q· ·So you're asking Mr. Martillotta to provide you

14· · · · ·with a list of all of the defendants who want

15· · · · ·to join in on the settlement, correct?

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·And you thought that was full and fair, based

18· · · · ·on what you knew at the time?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

20· · ·A· ·I thought what was full and fair?

21· · ·Q· ·The 3,000, 2,000, 1,000.

22· · ·A· ·Oh.· Based on what I knew at the time, yeah.

23· · ·Q· ·And you did that even though you later learned

24· · · · ·that there were asbestos defendant --

25· · · · ·withdrawn.

Page 304

·1· · · · · · · ·You recommended 3,000, 2,000, 1,000, even

·2· · · · ·though you later learned that there was

·3· · · · ·asbestos in the talc of Southern Talc and R.T.

·4· · · · ·Vanderbilt, fair?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·6· · ·A· ·I later learned that, yes, I did.

·7· · ·Q· ·And you continued to settle these cases on a

·8· · · · ·global basis for these sums of money after you

·9· · · · ·found out there was asbestos in R.T. Vanderbilt

10· · · · ·and Southern Talc, fair?

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

12· · ·A· ·Well, I --

13· · ·Q· ·Fair?

14· · ·A· ·No.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

16· · ·A· ·I can -- no.· As I explained before, the issue

17· · · · ·with Southern Talc and R.T. Vanderbilt was --

18· · · · ·was the product ID, whether they sold and how

19· · · · ·much they sold and when they sold it to the

20· · · · ·places where my clients worked.· That was the

21· · · · ·problem that I had with those two entities.

22· · ·Q· ·Did you find out that R.T. Vanderbilt had

23· · · · ·asbestos in the talc, yes or no?

24· · ·A· ·I already said yes, at some point --

25· · ·Q· ·And did you find out that Southern Talc had

Page 305

·1· · · · ·asbestos in the talc?

·2· · ·A· ·I already answered your question.· Are you

·3· · · · ·going to ask me something new?

·4· · ·Q· ·And then you provided -- you still allowed them

·5· · · · ·to be part of a global settlement for $3,000

·6· · · · ·and --

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·8· · · · ·form.

·9· · ·Q· ·-- $2,000 and $1,000, right?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

11· · · · ·Foundation.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

13· · ·A· ·I -- the 1,000 I recall.· I'm not sure about

14· · · · ·the two and the three, because I believe, for

15· · · · ·instance, on Darnell, I believe they paid more.

16· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's been marked as

17· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 272.· Or is that a 3?· May

18· · · · ·I see?

19· · · · · · · ·272.

20· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize --

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Excuse me. I

22· · · · ·don't have a copy.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · I'm sorry.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I know you ...

25· · ·Q· ·272 is a document, July 18, 1996.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 78 of 168 PageID:

35197
Page 306

·1· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this document,

·2· · · · ·Mr. Bevan?

·3· · ·A· ·It looks like a letter that I wrote.· I don't

·4· · · · ·have a specific recollection of it, but ...

·5· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Let me show you what's been marked as

·6· · · · ·273.

·7· · · · · · · ·273 is dated July 19, 1996 to Sam

·8· · · · ·Martillotta from Tom Bevan.· It says, "The

·9· · · · ·following are our remaining filed and unfiled

10· · · · ·cases against the talc defendants."· And then

11· · · · ·you list a number of defendants.

12· · · · · · · ·"At this time, we can settle all of these

13· · · · ·cases for 280,000.· Our demand includes 30,000

14· · · · ·for the meso cases; 20,000 for lung cases;

15· · · · ·10,000 for the asbestosis cases; and 50,000 for

16· · · · ·the Jenkins case."

17· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

18· · ·A· ·Yes.

19· · ·Q· ·What happened to these cases?

20· · ·A· ·I believe we settled these cases, but I'd have

21· · · · ·to go to the individual files to see if we

22· · · · ·settled them and when we settled them and what

23· · · · ·we settled them for.

24· · ·Q· ·How much did you settle them for?

25· · ·A· ·I don't recall.· I would have to go to the

Page 307

·1· · · · ·individual files to see what we settled them

·2· · · · ·for.

·3· · ·Q· ·And these were group settlements against all

·4· · · · ·talc defendants?

·5· · ·A· ·I don't know if it was against all talc

·6· · · · ·defendants, but it was against numerous talc

·7· · · · ·defendants, I believe.

·8· · ·Q· ·And you expected talc defendants who had strong

·9· · · · ·product ID defenses and didn't have asbestos in

10· · · · ·their talc to still participate in the

11· · · · ·settlements if they wanted releases?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

13· · ·A· ·Did I expect it?· It was a proposal.

14· · ·Q· ·Did you sue companies with -- withdrawn.

15· · · · · · · ·Did you sue talc defendants who did not

16· · · · ·have asbestos in their talc, knowing what you

17· · · · ·know today?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

19· · ·Q· ·Having litigated these cases for 30 years.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

22· · ·A· ·I don't recall if I've seen any evidence that

23· · · · ·Georgia Talc had asbestos in their talc.

24· · · · ·That's the best I can answer that question.

25· · ·Q· ·Do you think it was fair to sue Georgia Talc?

Page 308

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·3· · ·A· ·I thought it was fair.

·4· · ·Q· ·Repeatedly, even though you knew there was no

·5· · · · ·asbestos in their talc?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·7· · ·A· ·I didn't say I knew that.· I didn't say that.

·8· · ·Q· ·Well, you continued to sue Emtal when you

·9· · · · ·believed there was no asbestos in the talc and

10· · · · ·you thought that was fine.

11· · ·A· ·I explained to you --

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

13· · ·A· ·-- the basis for that suit.

14· · ·Q· ·That there was a tactical reason to do so,

15· · · · ·correct?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

17· · ·A· ·That was what I explained to you.

18· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's been marked as

19· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 274.

20· · · · · · · ·"I have enclosed medical reports for our

21· · · · ·clients that are part of the global talc

22· · · · ·settlement."

23· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

24· · ·A· ·Yes.

25· · ·Q· ·When -- withdrawn.

Page 309

·1· · · · · · · ·Did the talc defendants ask for medical

·2· · · · ·reports for the various plaintiffs?

·3· · ·A· ·I presume.· I, you know, I enclosed them, so --

·4· · · · ·per my letter.

·5· · ·Q· ·And if you had medical reports that show that

·6· · · · ·there was no meso, even though you were

·7· · · · ·claiming meso, would you have produced that?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

10· · ·A· ·Again, I would have produced what the civil

11· · · · ·rule says I should produce.· We're talking

12· · · · ·about 1997.· I'm not sure why -- that wasn't an

13· · · · ·issue.

14· · ·Q· ·If you had a medical report showing that your

15· · · · ·client did not have meso and was still claiming

16· · · · ·meso, would you have provided that to the

17· · · · ·defendants?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

20· · ·A· ·It depends on the circumstance.

21· · ·Q· ·Oh, at the bottom of the page, you say, "If any

22· · · · ·of our clients do not wish to participate in

23· · · · ·the settlement, we will withdraw as counsel on

24· · · · ·their case."

25· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 79 of 168 PageID:

35198
Page 310

·1· · ·A· ·Yes.

·2· · ·Q· ·What did you mean by that?

·3· · ·A· ·I meant that we were recommending the

·4· · · · ·settlement to our clients and if our clients

·5· · · · ·didn't want to follow our recommendation and

·6· · · · ·advice, that they should probably seek

·7· · · · ·different counsel.

·8· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's been marked as

·9· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 275.

10· · · · · · · ·Is it fair to say that the talc

11· · · · ·defendants didn't find your suggestion that you

12· · · · ·might withdraw as acceptable?

13· · ·A· ·Repeat the question.

14· · ·Q· ·Is it fair to say that the talc defendants were

15· · · · ·not accepting your proposal that you might

16· · · · ·withdraw on behalf of some clients?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

18· · ·A· ·They were concerned with that.· I think he says

19· · · · ·concerned.

20· · · · · · · ·They said they were concerned.

21· · ·Q· ·And it says, "This is a new condition to

22· · · · ·settlement and is not acceptable to those of

23· · · · ·our clients who are settling these cases in an

24· · · · ·effort to have the entire block of litigation

25· · · · ·behind them."

Page 311

·1· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·2· · ·A· ·I saw it in there, yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·What did that mean to you?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·5· · ·A· ·They wanted to settle them all.

·6· · ·Q· ·It was all or nothing, correct?

·7· · ·A· ·Well, that's what they said in that.· Whether

·8· · · · ·they meant it or not, I don't know.

·9· · ·Q· ·Well, it ended up being all or nothing,

10· · · · ·correct?

11· · ·A· ·I believe my response to Mr. Martillotta was I

12· · · · ·don't think any of my clients are going to, you

13· · · · ·know, balk at this settlement.· If they are,

14· · · · ·I'll let you know and we'll cross that bridge

15· · · · ·when we get there.· But we never had to cross

16· · · · ·that bridge because the clients were all in

17· · · · ·agreement.

18· · ·Q· ·You brought all of the asbestos plaintiffs,

19· · · · ·talc plaintiffs, as a group to all of the talc

20· · · · ·defendants who were settling and it was a

21· · · · ·global deal, fair?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

23· · ·A· ·I don't know if every single -- I had a list of

24· · · · ·cases.· I think I list the number of cases in

25· · · · ·one of these here.

Page 312

·1· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's been marked as

·2· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 276.

·3· · · · · · · ·"Dear Sam:

·4· · · · · · · ·I have enclosed a list of recently filed

·5· · · · ·asbestos cases.

·6· · · · · · · ·Several of these cases were included in

·7· · · · ·our prior talc settlement. (Anderson, Bean,

·8· · · · ·Gumm, Lemasters, Walker, Xenias) Many of these

·9· · · · ·individuals were not rubber workers and had no

10· · · · ·talc exposure."

11· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

12· · ·A· ·Yes.

13· · ·Q· ·Rubber workers didn't have talc exposure?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

16· · ·A· ·You're not reading it correctly.

17· · ·Q· ·Okay.· What does it mean?

18· · ·A· ·It says, "Many of these individuals were not

19· · · · ·rubber workers and had no talc exposure."

20· · · · · · · ·So, for instance, Mr. Xenias I believe

21· · · · ·was a B&W worker and perhaps an Atlantic

22· · · · ·Foundry worker.· He was not in a site where

23· · · · ·there was talc.

24· · · · · · · ·Mr. Walker I believe was a B&W worker.

25· · · · · · · ·Mr. Anderson was definitely a Babcock &

Page 313

·1· · · · ·Wilcox worker.

·2· · · · · · · ·So I wasn't trying to settle a talc case

·3· · · · ·with them, because they were at a plant where

·4· · · · ·there was no talc.

·5· · ·Q· ·It says, "Please let me know if the talc

·6· · · · ·companies are interested in selling these five

·7· · · · ·rubber worker cases for $1,000 per case."

·8· · · · · · · ·Correct?

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·That was your offer to him?

11· · ·A· ·Yes.

12· · ·Q· ·He didn't negotiate that, you came and offered

13· · · · ·that, correct?

14· · ·A· ·Yes.

15· · ·Q· ·Let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 277.

16· · · · · · · ·It's a letter from Sam Martillotta, a

17· · · · ·draft letter or an unsigned letter, to Tom

18· · · · ·Bevan dated November 13, 2000.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Mr. Assaf.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Yeah.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·The copy I have

22· · · · ·is signed.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Oh.· Better

24· · · · ·yet.

25· · ·A· ·My copy's signed as well.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 80 of 168 PageID:

35199
Page 314

·1· · ·Q· ·Good.

·2· · ·A· ·You're looking at a different letter than this

·3· · · · ·one.· That's what you gave me.

·4· · ·Q· ·Ah.· Sorry.· I went ahead.

·5· · · · · · · ·Which exhibit are we?· 2 --

·6· · ·A· ·77.

·7· · ·Q· ·277.

·8· · · · · · · ·November 4, 1997 from Sam Martillotta.

·9· · · · ·"The talc counsel with whom you have settled

10· · · · ·are waiting for you to confirm that we will be

11· · · · ·receiving dismissals with prejudice."

12· · · · · · · ·Was dismissal with prejudice an important

13· · · · ·part of the settlement agreement with the talc

14· · · · ·defendants?

15· · ·A· ·Yes.

16· · ·Q· ·Why was that?

17· · ·A· ·Because they want finale.· They want out.

18· · ·Q· ·I'm going to show you Defendants' Exhibit 6.

19· · · · · · · ·February 15, 2001.· From Sam

20· · · · ·Martillotta -- to Sam Martillotta from you.· It

21· · · · ·says, "As I indicated to you previously, most

22· · · · ·of these Plaintiffs did not work in facilities

23· · · · ·where they would have been exposed to talc."

24· · · · · · · ·How did you know that?

25· · ·A· ·Because they would have been at places like

Page 315

·1· · · · ·Babcock & Wilcox or Atlantic Foundry.· Let's

·2· · · · ·see.· 2001, we would have had a good number of

·3· · · · ·U.S. Steel cases.

·4· · ·Q· ·Okay.· USX, B&W.

·5· · · · · · · ·U.S. Steel?

·6· · ·A· ·Well, U.S. Steel, USX.

·7· · ·Q· ·Right.

·8· · ·A· ·Atlantic Foundry.· Ford, Canton Forge.

·9· · · · ·Probably Ford, Walton Hills.

10· · ·Q· ·So plaintiffs who worked at USX, B&W, Atlantic

11· · · · ·Foundry, they should not be in the Bevan Ohio

12· · · · ·talc class as part of your affidavit, fair?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

14· · ·A· ·They should not be included in the 2,600 or

15· · · · ·whatever that number was, yes.

16· · ·Q· ·Okay.

17· · ·A· ·They would not be included in there.

18· · ·Q· ·All right.

19· · ·A· ·Unless of course they worked also -- you know,

20· · · · ·if they worked at two places.

21· · ·Q· ·And you kept track of where people worked,

22· · · · ·correct?

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·That was part of your -- I think your presuit

25· · · · ·investigation that you talk about on your

Page 316

·1· · · · ·website.· You take a detailed review of the

·2· · · · ·work history?

·3· · ·A· ·That would be one of the first things we would

·4· · · · ·look at.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·6· · ·Q· ·All right.· And it says, "The following

·7· · · · ·Plaintiffs did work in facilities where they

·8· · · · ·were exposed to talc."· And there's Kathy

·9· · · · ·Darnell.

10· · · · · · · ·It says, "Please let me know if the talc

11· · · · ·defendants would like to resolve these cases

12· · · · ·along with the plaintiffs from the Breckenridge

13· · · · ·complaint."

14· · · · · · · ·Correct?

15· · ·A· ·That's what it says.

16· · ·Q· ·And you also provide medical records, correct?

17· · ·A· ·It looks like we did, yes.

18· · ·Q· ·And would you agree with me that you knew that

19· · · · ·the medical records were important to the

20· · · · ·settling defendants in order to show some sort

21· · · · ·of injury that they were going to pay

22· · · · ·compensation for?

23· · ·A· ·They would want a diagnosis of an

24· · · · ·asbestos-related disease.

25· · ·Q· ·Okay.· I'm handing you Defendants' Exhibit 8.

Page 317

·1· · · · · · · ·By the way, was Ware or Darnell a Harshaw

·2· · · · ·case?

·3· · ·A· ·What do you mean "was it a Harshaw case"?

·4· · ·Q· ·Was it a Harshaw premises case?

·5· · ·A· ·No.

·6· · ·Q· ·How do you know that?

·7· · ·A· ·Because I'm familiar with their work history.

·8· · · · ·They did not work at Harshaw Chemical.

·9· · ·Q· ·So you don't think Ware worked at Harshaw?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

11· · ·A· ·I don't recall Ware working there.· Maybe I'm

12· · · · ·wrong on that, I don't know.· I'm certain that

13· · · · ·Darnell didn't, because I was -- I was at her

14· · · · ·depositions and that did not come up.

15· · ·Q· ·Would a Harshaw case be a talc case, in your

16· · · · ·mind?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

18· · ·Q· ·Would they be part of the Bevan 2,653?

19· · ·A· ·If a person worked their career at Harshaw

20· · · · ·Chemical, I don't believe they would be part of

21· · · · ·that 2,600.

22· · ·Q· ·As far as you know, there was no talc at

23· · · · ·Harshaw chemical?

24· · ·A· ·Not that I know of.· I guess it depends on the

25· · · · ·Harshaw Chemical.· The facility I was familiar

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 81 of 168 PageID:

35200
Page 318

·1· · · · ·with was out in Lorain County, I believe.

·2· · · · ·Elyria.

·3· · ·Q· ·I'm showing you Defendants' Exhibit 8.

·4· · · · · · · ·March 25, 2001.· And there's a list of

·5· · · · ·Breckenridge plaintiffs and Bevan 14

·6· · · · ·plaintiffs.

·7· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·8· · ·A· ·Yes.

·9· · ·Q· ·Regarding the Bevan 14 plaintiffs, there's a

10· · · · ·number of $19,000.

11· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

12· · ·A· ·I'm sorry.

13· · ·Q· ·On page 3.· Sorry.

14· · ·A· ·I'm sorry.· What are you asking me?

15· · ·Q· ·I'm saying there's a number that says $19,000.

16· · ·A· ·Okay.· Yes.· Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·Do you know what that $19,000 reflects?

18· · ·A· ·I really don't know.

19· · ·Q· ·Is it the 3,000, 2,000, 1,000 offer that you

20· · · · ·had put together earlier?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I'm going to --

22· · · · ·can we go off the record?

23· · ·A· ·It doesn't add up to that, so ...

24· · ·Q· ·Okay.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Can we go off

Page 319

·1· · · · ·the record?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Sure.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Mr. Bevan, can

·4· · · · ·you step out?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

·6· · · · ·The time is 4:08.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·8· · · · · · · ·(Mr. Bevan no longer present.)

·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·This is a

11· · · · ·document that came up in the original records

12· · · · ·custodian deposition of Mr. Bevan, I believe,

13· · · · ·and this did not come from the plaintiffs, it

14· · · · ·did not come from Mr. Bevan in this form.· And

15· · · · ·I believe what we learned, and part of that may

16· · · · ·have been with Mr. Farrell, is that the back

17· · · · ·two pages, page 2 and 3, of this document were

18· · · · ·the defense copy of this, which shows who's

19· · · · ·paying what.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Ah.· Okay.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·And so instead

22· · · · ·of getting in a fight with you about --

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Sure.· Fair

24· · · · ·enough.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·-- why this is

Page 320

·1· · · · ·an unfair question to him, he's never likely

·2· · · · ·seen this, except for at the deposition of the

·3· · · · ·custodian record.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Okay.· Fair

·5· · · · ·enough.· Thank you.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·9· · · · · · · · · (Mr. Bevan now present.)

10· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

12· · · · ·the record.· The time is 5:14 -- 4:14.

13· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

14· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's been marked as

15· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 154.· It's a letter or a

16· · · · ·memo of Claims Resolution Management

17· · · · ·Corporation.

18· · · · · · · ·You're familiar with this, Mr. Bevan?

19· · ·A· ·I think I am.· You know, I'm familiar with some

20· · · · ·of these names on here.

21· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Dr. Ballard?

22· · ·A· ·I've heard the name before.

23· · ·Q· ·I'm going to ask you -- I'm going to say the

24· · · · ·name, you tell me if you're familiar with them

25· · · · ·and whether you've used them for talc cases,

Page 321

·1· · · · ·okay?

·2· · ·A· ·Okay.

·3· · ·Q· ·Dr. Ballard?

·4· · ·A· ·I know the name.· I've never used him.

·5· · ·Q· ·Dr. Cooper?

·6· · ·A· ·Never heard the name.

·7· · ·Q· ·Dr. Coulter?

·8· · ·A· ·I don't know that name.

·9· · ·Q· ·Dr. Andrew Harron?

10· · ·A· ·I'm not sure.

11· · ·Q· ·Dr. --

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Not sure?· I'm

13· · · · ·sorry.

14· · · · · · · ·Do you know the name?

15· · ·A· ·The name I recognize.· Ray Harron had two sons

16· · · · ·and one of his sons did exams for us one time,

17· · · · ·but I don't know if that was Andrew Harron

18· · · · ·or -- I think he had more than one son.

19· · ·Q· ·Dr. Ray Harron?

20· · ·A· ·I know him, yes.

21· · ·Q· ·And he's done talc work for you?

22· · ·A· ·Well --

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

24· · ·A· ·-- I would not say talc work.· He's done B

25· · · · ·reads for us.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 82 of 168 PageID:

35201
Page 322

·1· · ·Q· ·Dr. Barry Levy?

·2· · ·A· ·I don't know him.

·3· · ·Q· ·Dr. George Martindale?

·4· · ·A· ·I've heard that name, but never have used him

·5· · · · ·as an expert.

·6· · ·Q· ·And Dr. Allen Oaks?

·7· · ·A· ·I think maybe I've heard that name as well, but

·8· · · · ·never used him as an expert.

·9· · ·Q· ·And it says in the beginning, "The reliability

10· · · · ·of reports prepared by the doctors and

11· · · · ·screening facilities listed below has been

12· · · · ·challenged and is the subject of federal grand

13· · · · ·jury and congressional investigations into

14· · · · ·alleged fraud."

15· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·"Based on the evidence presented in the silica

18· · · · ·MDL, the challenge is credible and compels

19· · · · ·suspension of the acceptance of these reports."

20· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

21· · ·A· ·I see it.

22· · ·Q· ·Did you stop using Dr. Harron because of the

23· · · · ·credible evidence regarding the fraud --

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

25· · ·Q· ·-- identified by the Claims Resolution

Page 323

·1· · · · ·Management Corporation?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·4· · ·A· ·I probably stopped using Dr. Harron before this

·5· · · · ·letter.

·6· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Let me show you what's been marked as

·7· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 287, a composite exhibit,

·8· · · · ·Mr. Bevan.

·9· · · · · · · ·And I'm sorry, I apologize in advance for

10· · · · ·how small of writing it is, but I was trying to

11· · · · ·get it all on one page.· It's from your

12· · · · ·database.

13· · · · · · · ·As you recall from your custodian

14· · · · ·deposition and the discovery in this case, 30

15· · · · ·files were selected from the talc cases for the

16· · · · ·defendants to review, correct?

17· · ·A· ·No.

18· · ·Q· ·Oh.

19· · ·A· ·30 files reviewed from my cases.· You added

20· · · · ·"talc" to it.

21· · ·Q· ·Oh.· It was just any case?

22· · ·A· ·It was just any -- yeah, it was any case.

23· · ·Q· ·So we got files -- we got files from any of

24· · · · ·your asbestos cases from the last 25 years?

25· · ·A· ·I was given a list of 30 cases, and that's what

Page 324

·1· · · · ·I gave you.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Off the record.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

·4· · · · ·The time is 4:18.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

·9· · · · ·the record.· The time is 4:35.

10· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

11· · ·Q· ·At some point, Mr. Bevan, were you asked to

12· · · · ·help compile a list of 30 files that would be

13· · · · ·provided to the defendants to review as part of

14· · · · ·discovery?

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·That's not how

17· · · · ·it worked.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · I'm sorry?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Object to the

20· · · · ·form and foundation.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Go ahead.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·The Court

23· · · · ·directed that we pull out -- we randomly pull

24· · · · ·out 30 files from a list of cases.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Yeah, get the

Page 325

·1· · · · ·email out.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Is that my

·3· · · · ·email to Peter?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Yeah.

·5· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

·6· · ·Q· ·At some point do you understand that the Court

·7· · · · ·ordered that there be -- that Excel's

·8· · · · ·randomizing function be used to identify 30

·9· · · · ·files of absent putative class members for the

10· · · · ·Bevan office to pull?

11· · ·A· ·I was given a list of 30 files and we printed

12· · · · ·the files out.

13· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And did you understood that they were

14· · · · ·putative class members?

15· · ·A· ·I don't know exactly what that means, but I was

16· · · · ·just given a list of 30, and that's what we

17· · · · ·did.

18· · ·Q· ·Okay.· You didn't believe that they had

19· · · · ·anything -- withdrawn.

20· · · · · · · ·Were the 30 files encompassed within the

21· · · · ·2,653 number?

22· · ·A· ·No.· I think they were encompassed within I

23· · · · ·think my entire client database, but I'm not

24· · · · ·sure.

25· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Well, let's try this.· I'm putting 287

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 83 of 168 PageID:

35202
Page 326

·1· · · · ·in front of you.

·2· · · · · · · ·And you were the one who worked with your

·3· · · · ·lawyers to provide that information, correct?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·5· · ·Q· ·You were the person at the Bevan Firm who was

·6· · · · ·the contact for Mr. Little and others and

·7· · · · ·Mr. Roth to provide that information?

·8· · ·A· ·Yes.· And I was given a list.· I gave that to

·9· · · · ·my paralegal, Erin Clark, to print out those

10· · · · ·files, and then we got them to counsel.

11· · · · ·Whether she scanned them -- I don't know how

12· · · · ·she did it.

13· · ·Q· ·All right.· Let's start with -- so I put

14· · · · ·together what I called the Bevan 30,

15· · · · ·information from the Bevan database.· So 30

16· · · · ·randomized files.· And I tried to put it all in

17· · · · ·one sheet, but not with every field, because if

18· · · · ·it were every field, it would go on forever.

19· · · · ·Military, history, et cetera.

20· · · · · · · ·So this is, though, an extract from the

21· · · · ·files.· I haven't changed the data, this is

22· · · · ·what I had, but I did take out certain fields

23· · · · ·to get it all on to one page, okay?

24· · ·A· ·Okay.

25· · ·Q· ·All right.· Anthony Bennett.· Primary employer,

Page 327

·1· · · · ·Ford.· And it says, "asbestosis 1/0."

·2· · · · · · · ·What does, by the way, "asbestosis 1/0"

·3· · · · ·mean?

·4· · ·A· ·That's the profusion reading on the B read.· So

·5· · · · ·he was given a profusion of 1/0, along with

·6· · · · ·pleural disease.

·7· · ·Q· ·Would you agree with me, in terms of valuing

·8· · · · ·cases, the 1/0 is the weakest of the reads in

·9· · · · ·terms of valuing a case?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

12· · ·A· ·I don't think that bears much on the value of

13· · · · ·the case, the 1/0, no.· It is probably the

14· · · · ·lowest profusion that I would consider

15· · · · ·asbestosis, but I don't think that that is an

16· · · · ·indication of the value of the case.

17· · ·Q· ·You understand that some 1/0s are viewed by

18· · · · ·Courts as actually not being asbestosis cases?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

20· · ·Q· ·Fair?

21· · ·A· ·I've not -- I've never come across that.

22· · ·Q· ·Is that one of the reasons Dr. Harron got in

23· · · · ·trouble?

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

Page 328

·1· · ·A· ·I don't recall that at all, no.

·2· · ·Q· ·All right.· So was Mr. Bennett a talc case?

·3· · ·A· ·Based on what you've printed out here, he

·4· · · · ·worked at Ford, Canton.· That would be the

·5· · · · ·Ford, Canton Forge plant in Canton, Ohio.

·6· · · · · · · ·What I don't have is any secondary or

·7· · · · ·other places.· So if he didn't work at another

·8· · · · ·place where there would be talc exposure, he

·9· · · · ·would not be one of those 2,600 some cases that

10· · · · ·we consider for my affidavit of being the talc

11· · · · ·cases.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.· McKenzie Benson worked at B&W with an

13· · · · ·asbestosis of 1/0 and a secondary read by

14· · · · ·Dr. Harron.· Is that a talc case?

15· · ·A· ·No.· That would be a Babcock & Wilcox.· Same

16· · · · ·answer as the Ford, Canton.· If he didn't work

17· · · · ·at one of the rubber plants, then I would say

18· · · · ·that would not be a talc case.

19· · ·Q· ·Samuel Biggers.· Talc case?

20· · ·A· ·Yes.· He worked at Firestone.

21· · ·Q· ·And that's another asbestos 1/0?

22· · ·A· ·Yes.

23· · ·Q· ·There's no secondary diagnosis for Mr. Biggers?

24· · ·A· ·No.

25· · ·Q· ·And he stopped working at Firestone in 1973.

Page 329

·1· · · · ·Do you see that?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·If there was no asbestos in the talc up to

·4· · · · ·1973, would he then be a proper plaintiff for

·5· · · · ·recovery?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·8· · ·A· ·Are you asking me a hypothetical?

·9· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

10· · ·A· ·So hypothetically if there is no asbestos in

11· · · · ·the talc, then I would not be able to make an

12· · · · ·asbestosis claim on his behalf against a talc

13· · · · ·defendant.

14· · ·Q· ·Okay.· For Larry Briggs, Firestone plant,

15· · · · ·asbestosis 1/2.· Is that a talc case?

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·And that's a talc settlement case, according to

18· · · · ·your records, too?

19· · ·A· ·It says "settled" there, yes.

20· · ·Q· ·Settled.

21· · ·A· ·Same with the prior one too, I believe.

22· · ·Q· ·By the way, do you view your database as

23· · · · ·reliable, in terms of the information in it?

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

25· · ·A· ·It's fairly reliable to get -- for some of the

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 84 of 168 PageID:

35203
Page 330

·1· · · · ·older cases, like I testified in the last

·2· · · · ·deposition, for instance, say on the Williams

·3· · · · ·case, we didn't have this database at the time

·4· · · · ·of the Williams case, so I would go to the file

·5· · · · ·to try to find information.

·6· · ·Q· ·Melvin Brown, Ford, U.S. Steel, General Motors.

·7· · · · ·Talc case?

·8· · ·A· ·Same as the other -- the Ford and Babcock &

·9· · · · ·Wilcox.· Based solely on those employers, no.

10· · ·Q· ·Daniel Cheezan?

11· · ·A· ·Same answer.

12· · ·Q· ·Not a talc case?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · ·A· ·Again assuming there was no other employment

15· · · · ·that brought him into contact with talc.

16· · ·Q· ·Clay Compton is listed there, but there's

17· · · · ·actually no information in the database?

18· · ·A· ·Yeah, I think it's because that case was so

19· · · · ·old.· It long predated the database.· He was a

20· · · · ·Goodrich worker.· It would be a talc case.

21· · ·Q· ·Would be a talc case?

22· · ·A· ·Yes.

23· · ·Q· ·Do you know what his reads were?

24· · ·A· ·I believe he was a pleural effusion.· Pleural

25· · · · ·disease case.· I think he was hospitalized for

Page 331

·1· · · · ·his pleural effusion, in fact.

·2· · ·Q· ·Ray Cottrill.· Goodyear Tire & Rubber,

·3· · · · ·asbestosis 1/0, and his doctor is Ray Harron.

·4· · ·A· ·Yes, that would be a talc.

·5· · ·Q· ·Angel or Angel Cuevas.· It looks like there's

·6· · · · ·no information there.

·7· · ·A· ·I'm not -- I'm not sure what that case

·8· · · · ·involves.

·9· · ·Q· ·So Beth told me some of these, because I guess

10· · · · ·you produced two separate databases, they're

11· · · · ·going to be on the second page.· So we'll get

12· · · · ·to Mr. Cuevas.

13· · ·A· ·Okay.

14· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Clyde Curry looks to be the third page.

15· · · · ·Ford Motor Company, asbestosis 1/0, Dr. Ray

16· · · · ·Harron.

17· · ·A· ·Yeah.· Again assuming no other -- no other

18· · · · ·exposures, no other employment where there was

19· · · · ·talc present, then that would not be a talc

20· · · · ·case.

21· · ·Q· ·Donald, Johnny, which I think is the second

22· · · · ·page, Firestone/Thew Shovel.· Firestone to 1964

23· · · · ·and then Thew Shovel '64 to '78.· Dr. Ray

24· · · · ·Harron, asbestosis 1/0.

25· · ·A· ·I believe a talc case, but I'm not sure on

Page 332

·1· · · · ·that.

·2· · ·Q· ·Would Thew Shovel be a talc case?

·3· · ·A· ·I'm not sure on that.

·4· · ·Q· ·So if there was no asbestos in the talc up

·5· · · · ·until 1964, he wouldn't be a proper plaintiff?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·7· · ·A· ·Same answer.· If there's no asbestos in talc,

·8· · · · ·in any talc defendant's product, then, you

·9· · · · ·know, we would be, where I was 20 years ago,

10· · · · ·not able to prove a case.

11· · ·Q· ·Jimmie Gasper?

12· · ·A· ·I believe he was a Goodyear.· Yes.

13· · ·Q· ·So that's a talc case?

14· · ·A· ·Yes.

15· · ·Q· ·Roosevelt Harris.· Harshaw Chemical, primary

16· · · · ·employer.

17· · ·A· ·I don't believe that would be a talc case,

18· · · · ·unless that was some other employment that's

19· · · · ·not listed on here.

20· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Lester Henline?

21· · ·A· ·Again I don't believe that was a talc case

22· · · · ·because he worked at Babcock & Wilcox, unless

23· · · · ·there was some other place of employment not

24· · · · ·listed.

25· · ·Q· ·And why is he listed as referring attorney,

Page 333

·1· · · · ·TWLP2?

·2· · ·A· ·We used that, and I think I explained that in

·3· · · · ·the last deposition, how to -- when we were

·4· · · · ·trying to keep track of clients, groups of

·5· · · · ·clients.· And the TWLP1s were actually the

·6· · · · ·cases that came originally from the National

·7· · · · ·Tire Workers Litigation Project.

·8· · · · · · · ·And then when I started in 1991 and

·9· · · · ·started to sign up a handful of cases and file

10· · · · ·those cases, we called those TWLP2s.· So they

11· · · · ·would be Charles Williams, Clay Compton, the

12· · · · ·Clark case, Nardella, whatever this one was --

13· · · · ·oh, Henline, yes.· And there was maybe 10 or 15

14· · · · ·of those TWLP2s.

15· · · · · · · ·And then cases that I picked up in '95,

16· · · · ·'96 were TWLP3s.· And then I just stopped using

17· · · · ·that altogether.· It didn't serve its purpose

18· · · · ·anymore.

19· · ·Q· ·The referring attorney, though, referenced how

20· · · · ·much of a contingency or referral fee an

21· · · · ·attorney would get, correct?

22· · ·A· ·Well, in some cases, yes.

23· · ·Q· ·Well, in Clair Wilkerson's case, it's "Vince

24· · · · ·40%."

25· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 85 of 168 PageID:

35204
Page 334

·1· · ·A· ·Yes.· Uh-huh.

·2· · ·Q· ·Who's Vince?

·3· · ·A· ·He's an attorney that referred us the Wilkerson

·4· · · · ·case.

·5· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And so there were no referral fees

·6· · · · ·associated with TWLP2 or 3?

·7· · ·A· ·No.· No.

·8· · ·Q· ·Hoffman, U.S. Steel?

·9· · ·A· ·Same answer.· Unless there was some other

10· · · · ·exposure, not a talc case.

11· · ·Q· ·Marvin Johnson, U.S. Steel?

12· · ·A· ·Same answer.

13· · ·Q· ·Tom Knight, Sunoco/U.S. Steel?

14· · ·A· ·Same answer.

15· · ·Q· ·Not a talc case?

16· · ·A· ·Unless there was some other exposure that's not

17· · · · ·listed there.

18· · ·Q· ·Issa Michael.

19· · ·A· ·Same answer on that one.· It says Republic

20· · · · ·Steel/Ford Motor Company.

21· · ·Q· ·Samuel Monty.· It looks like Firestone.

22· · ·A· ·Firestone.· He would be a talc case.

23· · ·Q· ·A 1/0 and Dr. Harron.

24· · ·A· ·I think it's a 1/1 and 1/0.

25· · ·Q· ·Okay.

Page 335

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Which one was

·2· · · · ·that, I'm sorry?· Monty?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Monty.

·4· · ·Q· ·Joseph Nebgen?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Hold on. I

·6· · · · ·object to the Harron question.

·7· · ·Q· ·Joseph Nebgen?

·8· · ·A· ·He's a Firestone.· It would be a talc case.

·9· · ·Q· ·Richard Rinehart?

10· · ·A· ·That would be a Goodyear Aerospace.· So that

11· · · · ·would be a talc case.

12· · ·Q· ·Under your theory of vinyl?

13· · ·A· ·Yes.

14· · ·Q· ·If the vinyl theory isn't proper, then it's not

15· · · · ·a talc case?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

18· · ·A· ·It's proper.· I know it.· So it's proper.

19· · ·Q· ·And you have those documents, you're going to

20· · · · ·get them to us?

21· · ·A· ·I think I indicated that it was testimony from

22· · · · ·the workers there is what I indicated.

23· · ·Q· ·You'll get that to me?

24· · ·A· ·I'm not going to dig through depositions.

25· · ·Q· ·All right.· Richard Rinehart I think we talked

Page 336

·1· · · · ·about.

·2· · · · · · · ·Paul Sestili, U.S. Steel?

·3· · ·A· ·U.S. Steel would be the same answer.· If, you

·4· · · · ·know, there was no other place of employment

·5· · · · ·that would have put him by talc, that would not

·6· · · · ·be a talc case.

·7· · ·Q· ·Not a talc case.

·8· · · · · · · ·Donald Sparks?

·9· · ·A· ·Same answer.

10· · ·Q· ·Not a talc case.

11· · · · · · · ·Richard Turpin?

12· · ·A· ·Same answer.

13· · ·Q· ·Not a talc case.

14· · · · · · · ·Gary Venus?

15· · ·A· ·Same answer as Mr. Rinehart.

16· · ·Q· ·It would be a talc case if your vinyl theory is

17· · · · ·correct?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

19· · ·A· ·My vinyl theory's correct, I know it.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

21· · ·Q· ·Eugene Villers?

22· · ·A· ·That's a talc case.

23· · ·Q· ·General Tire and Mohawk Rubber?

24· · ·A· ·Yes.

25· · ·Q· ·Donald Wagner?

Page 337

·1· · ·A· ·That's a talc case.

·2· · ·Q· ·Charles Whitaker?

·3· · ·A· ·That would be a talc case.

·4· · ·Q· ·Clair Wilkerson?

·5· · ·A· ·That would be, again, if there was no other

·6· · · · ·employment other than what's listed there, then

·7· · · · ·that would not be a talc case.

·8· · ·Q· ·And Michael Wittreich?

·9· · ·A· ·Same answer.

10· · ·Q· ·If you'd turn to the second page.

11· · · · · · · ·I think we did Melvin Brown.· Ford, U.S.

12· · · · ·Steel, General Motors.· Talc case?

13· · ·A· ·Again, if those were the only places that he

14· · · · ·worked, then no.

15· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Angel, Angel Cuevas?

16· · ·A· ·Same answer.

17· · ·Q· ·Not a talc case?

18· · ·A· ·Not a talc case, unless there was other

19· · · · ·exposures not listed there.

20· · ·Q· ·Donald Johnny?

21· · ·A· ·I think we covered that one.

22· · ·Q· ·And Michael Issa?

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · We covered that

24· · · · ·one.

25· · ·A· ·I think we covered that one too.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 86 of 168 PageID:

35205
Page 338

·1· · ·Q· ·If you turn to Clyde Curry, I think we covered

·2· · · · ·that one.

·3· · · · · · · ·And then from your database, Marilyn

·4· · · · ·Holley, BFGoodrich.· That's a talc case,

·5· · · · ·correct?

·6· · ·A· ·Yes.

·7· · ·Q· ·And there's an indication there that that was

·8· · · · ·settled, correct?

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·Ralph Ware?

11· · ·A· ·That is a talc case.

12· · ·Q· ·And was it settled or not settled?

13· · ·A· ·I don't recall on that one.· That was the one I

14· · · · ·told you I just didn't recall.· I would have to

15· · · · ·look in the file to see if there was a

16· · · · ·settlement in there.

17· · ·Q· ·So if your database indicates no settlement,

18· · · · ·how do you know?· You would have to go to the

19· · · · ·file?

20· · ·A· ·I would have to go to the file.

21· · ·Q· ·You would have to pull all of these files?

22· · ·A· ·Yeah.· You know, yeah, for --

23· · ·Q· ·So for every -- of the 2,653, in order to

24· · · · ·verify the information, you would have to go to

25· · · · ·the files?

Page 339

·1· · ·A· ·Well, I think on a fair number of those it

·2· · · · ·would indicate whether there was a settlement

·3· · · · ·or not.· And so I would not say in all of them,

·4· · · · ·no, but if there's a blank, if it's not listed

·5· · · · ·in there, I'd probably want to go to the file

·6· · · · ·just to make sure.

·7· · · · · · · ·But most of those 2,600 are the newer

·8· · · · ·cases when this database was in place.· When we

·9· · · · ·were looking at these cases, a number of these

10· · · · ·are very old ones.

11· · ·Q· ·If the 2,653 has the asbestosis read of 1/0 or

12· · · · ·1/1, where -- would that information be in the

13· · · · ·file to confirm that?

14· · ·A· ·The B read should be in the file, yes.

15· · ·Q· ·And in terms of the doctor, if it's Dr. Ray

16· · · · ·Harron or for others, would that also be in the

17· · · · ·file?

18· · ·A· ·Yeah, the medical should be in the file.

19· · ·Q· ·And again, the settlement, to the extent

20· · · · ·there's settlement information with talc, the

21· · · · ·way to confirm that would be to go to the

22· · · · ·files?

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·Because here, out of the five named plaintiffs,

25· · · · ·it only has an indication of settlement for

Page 340

·1· · · · ·one, correct?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·So for Ralph Ware, there's no indication, even

·4· · · · ·though in the complaint it says that it

·5· · · · ·settled?

·6· · ·A· ·Oh, it says -- yeah.· If it says that it

·7· · · · ·settled, yeah.· There's no indication in the

·8· · · · ·database.

·9· · ·Q· ·So what would be the controlling document,

10· · · · ·Mr. Placitella's rendition of the facts in the

11· · · · ·complaint or the database?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

13· · ·A· ·The file would be the controlling document. I

14· · · · ·would go to the file to determine that.

15· · ·Q· ·Williams/Clark, Nancy Pease, there's no

16· · · · ·indication of settlement.

17· · ·A· ·Yeah.· That one, I'm fairly certain that was

18· · · · ·settled.· That's just that case is so old.· It

19· · · · ·was before this database, so it's not in there.

20· · ·Q· ·And Mr. Placitella in his complaint says that

21· · · · ·it was settled as well.

22· · · · · · · ·So in terms of understanding whether the

23· · · · ·case was settled and on what terms, the place

24· · · · ·to go would be Mr. Placitella's rendition of

25· · · · ·the facts or the complaint or the database or

Page 341

·1· · · · ·the file?· Which would have the most reliable

·2· · · · ·information?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·5· · ·A· ·Well, I'm going on personal recollection that

·6· · · · ·that case settled with the talc defendants.· So

·7· · · · ·I know that to be a fact.· If I wanted to see

·8· · · · ·the amounts and any documentation that we have,

·9· · · · ·I would go to the file and try to find it in

10· · · · ·the file.

11· · ·Q· ·I'm just trying to figure out if I'm looking at

12· · · · ·the database or somebody's looking at it trying

13· · · · ·to figure out is this reliable in terms of

14· · · · ·trying to figure out the data, especially on

15· · · · ·the settlement, it is much more reliable to go

16· · · · ·to the files to figure out whether there's a

17· · · · ·settlement, fair?

18· · ·A· ·Well, if it says "settled," then it was

19· · · · ·settled.· So if it's a blank, then to be sure,

20· · · · ·I would go to the file.

21· · · · · · · ·Now, there's instances where I wouldn't

22· · · · ·bother going to the file.· For instance, if it

23· · · · ·was a, you know, U.S. Steel person and it's

24· · · · ·blank, you know, I know that we didn't settle

25· · · · ·with the talc defendants and I wouldn't -- it

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 87 of 168 PageID:

35206
Page 342

·1· · · · ·would be a waste of an effort to go to the file

·2· · · · ·to see if there was a settlement to talc.

·3· · ·Q· ·Presumably the 2,653 should not include the

·4· · · · ·U.S. Steel people, or does it?

·5· · ·A· ·It does not -- no, it should not include the

·6· · · · ·U.S. Steel people.

·7· · ·Q· ·What happened, did -- if they sue Emtal for

·8· · · · ·some reason, would they be in the 2,653?

·9· · ·A· ·No.

10· · ·Q· ·It's only talc cases?

11· · ·A· ·Yes.

12· · ·Q· ·Or is it by defendant?

13· · ·A· ·It's only talc cases.· So it would not include

14· · · · ·the U.S. Steel cases.

15· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So if somebody sued Engelhard as a

16· · · · ·successor to Harshaw, would that be in the

17· · · · ·2,653 or not in the 2,653?

18· · ·A· ·Well, if they sued Engelhard as a successor to

19· · · · ·Harshaw based on a premises liability claim

20· · · · ·against Harshaw, well, one, it wouldn't be in

21· · · · ·the 2,653.· That would not be.

22· · ·Q· ·What did you search for to generate the 2,653?

23· · ·A· ·Whether we had settled with the talc

24· · · · ·defendants, whether they worked at a site where

25· · · · ·talc would most likely be, such as the rubber

Page 343

·1· · · · ·plants, and whether we named them.

·2· · ·Q· ·Named them in the complaint?

·3· · ·A· ·In the complaint, yes.

·4· · ·Q· ·So Engelhard?· Or Emtal?

·5· · ·A· ·I think it was usually -- yeah, Eastern

·6· · · · ·Magnesia Talc I think is usually how we named

·7· · · · ·them, but we may have named them at Engelhard.

·8· · · · ·I don't recall for sure.

·9· · ·Q· ·So you searched for places where they worked.

10· · · · ·And could you list all of the places where you

11· · · · ·thought --

12· · ·A· ·I could list a good number of them.· They would

13· · · · ·be Goodyear, Goodrich, Firestone, General Tire,

14· · · · ·Mohawk, Seiberling Rubber, probably R.C.A

15· · · · ·Rubber, Cooper.· That's what jumps out at me

16· · · · ·right now.

17· · ·Q· ·Well, you said, "probably R.C.A Rubber."· Is

18· · · · ·that in the 2,653 or not in the 2,653?

19· · ·A· ·I think that's probably in the 2,653, yeah.

20· · ·Q· ·Who came up with that list for the 2,653, the

21· · · · ·list of where they worked?

22· · ·A· ·I did.· Yeah.

23· · ·Q· ·Did you tell Mr. Placitella or anybody from his

24· · · · ·firm how you were doing that?

25· · ·A· ·I don't recall if we discussed that or not. I

Page 344

·1· · · · ·was asked to come up with the number of cases

·2· · · · ·that we had that would have had talc exposure,

·3· · · · ·would have named the talc defendant -- or named

·4· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc and settled or dismissed

·5· · · · ·with Eastern Magnesia Talc.· I was given those

·6· · · · ·parameters, and that's what I did.

·7· · ·Q· ·So, for example, R.C.A Rubber, if there's a

·8· · · · ·product ID issue there, would that show up in

·9· · · · ·your database?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

11· · · · ·form.

12· · ·A· ·What do you mean by that?

13· · ·Q· ·Well, if they -- if the Engelhard records show

14· · · · ·that there were no sales or very few sales or

15· · · · ·certain times of sales, would that turn up in

16· · · · ·your database?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

19· · ·A· ·I don't -- I don't think so, no.

20· · ·Q· ·All right.· So if R.C.A Rubber, for example,

21· · · · ·bought Engelhard talc or Emtal talc from 1964

22· · · · ·to 1970 and then stopped buying it, would that

23· · · · ·be reflected in your database?

24· · ·A· ·Would those sales be reflected, no.

25· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

Page 345

·1· · · · · · · ·And then you had a plaintiff who started

·2· · · · ·working there in 1972 and the rubber companies

·3· · · · ·started using R.T. Vanderbilt talc.· Would that

·4· · · · ·be somehow captured in your database?

·5· · ·A· ·I don't -- I don't believe it would be.

·6· · ·Q· ·So the timing of the talc sales wouldn't be

·7· · · · ·reflected in your database?

·8· · ·A· ·I don't think so.

·9· · ·Q· ·And, similarly, the talc sales themselves

10· · · · ·wouldn't be reflected in your database?

11· · ·A· ·No.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·How much time

14· · · · ·do you have left?

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · We're rolling.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·That didn't

17· · · · ·help me.

18· · ·Q· ·I'm showing you Defendants' Exhibit 238,

19· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 239, and Defendants'

20· · · · ·Exhibit 240.

21· · · · · · · ·By the way, when you were pulling these

22· · · · ·30 randomized files, did you tell

23· · · · ·Mr. Placitella or anybody at his firm that

24· · · · ·those cases had nothing to do with talc so why

25· · · · ·am I pulling them?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 88 of 168 PageID:

35207
Page 346

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·2· · ·A· ·I don't recall if we had a conversation or not.

·3· · · · ·I was given a list of 30 and that's what we

·4· · · · ·did.

·5· · ·Q· ·Did it seem odd to you that you were producing

·6· · · · ·files for people who were not even unnamed

·7· · · · ·class members?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·9· · ·A· ·I --

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Well, hold on

11· · · · ·one second.

12· · · · · · · ·Did it seem odd that the Court ordered

13· · · · ·the production of files that were unnamed class

14· · · · ·members?· Yeah, that seemed odd.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · No, that's not

16· · · · ·my question.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Okay.

18· · ·Q· ·My question is:· Did it seem odd to you that

19· · · · ·you were pulling files from people who were not

20· · · · ·unnamed class members?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

23· · ·Q· ·So if somebody just had asbestos exposure at

24· · · · ·USX, did you just at some point say, "Gee, I've

25· · · · ·been doing this a long time and I understand a

Page 347

·1· · · · ·little bit of this case, how are these people

·2· · · · ·at all relevant to discovery in this case?"

·3· · ·A· ·My recollection, I got a list, I gave it to the

·4· · · · ·paralegal, I said, "Get these files out."· And

·5· · · · ·that's what we did.

·6· · ·Q· ·So how did you -- how did the plaintiffs

·7· · · · ·generate the list of the 30?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·9· · ·A· ·I didn't generate the list.· I don't know how

10· · · · ·it was generated.· It was given to me.

11· · ·Q· ·Did you give them information to allow them to

12· · · · ·generate the list?

13· · ·A· ·We must have given a database or something. I

14· · · · ·don't know how they -- you have to ask them how

15· · · · ·they got it.· I was under the impression it

16· · · · ·came from the Court, but I don't know.

17· · ·Q· ·All right.· Defendants' Exhibit 238 is an entry

18· · · · ·and an opinion -- and I'm sorry, this is from

19· · · · ·microfiche, on January 6, 2006 from Judge Harry

20· · · · ·Hanna, Leo Spellacy, and Francis Sweeney --

21· · · · ·regarding House Bill 292.

22· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this?

23· · ·A· ·I think I've seen this, yes.

24· · ·Q· ·Exhibit 239 is again a microfiche article from

25· · · · ·Mealey's Litigation Report regarding the

Page 348

·1· · · · ·administrative dismissal from a panel based on

·2· · · · ·House Bill 292.

·3· · · · · · · ·And it says in the paragraph, "The

·4· · · · ·three-judge Cuyahoga County Common Pleas panel

·5· · · · ·on March 22 ruled that because it was unlikely

·6· · · · ·that Dr. Ray Harron and Dr. James Ballard would

·7· · · · ·testify at any evidentiary hearing questioning

·8· · · · ·whether their reports met certain criteria,

·9· · · · ·cases relying solely on their diagnoses should

10· · · · ·be dismissed."

11· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

12· · ·A· ·Yes.

13· · ·Q· ·And then Exhibit 240 is an example or a listing

14· · · · ·of certain administrative dismissals.

15· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize this?

16· · ·A· ·I recognize some of the names.

17· · ·Q· ·As your clients?

18· · ·A· ·Yes.

19· · ·Q· ·And would the administrative dismissals be

20· · · · ·included in the Bevan database, the 2,653?

21· · · · ·Withdrawn.

22· · · · · · · ·If a case were brought and then

23· · · · ·dismissed, so it was filed against Engelhard

24· · · · ·then administratively dismissed, would it be

25· · · · ·captured in the 2,653?

Page 349

·1· · ·A· ·I think yes, but I'm not certain of that.

·2· · ·Q· ·You don't have a reliable answer on that that a

·3· · · · ·Court could rely on?

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Basis?

·6· · ·A· ·I would have to -- I would have to look at it

·7· · · · ·closer.· We -- we had cases reread, that's why

·8· · · · ·you saw on that thing there was multiple B

·9· · · · ·reads on there.· So I assume that some of these

10· · · · ·cases that were dismissed were reactivated

11· · · · ·and -- based on the new B reads.

12· · ·Q· ·And if your database only lists Dr. Harron as

13· · · · ·the reader, would you have to go to the files

14· · · · ·to figure out whether there was an additional B

15· · · · ·read?

16· · ·A· ·I would go to the file to look to see if there

17· · · · ·was an additional B read.

18· · ·Q· ·The reliable way to figure out whether there

19· · · · ·was an additional read if it's not on your

20· · · · ·database would be to go to the file, correct?

21· · ·A· ·Yeah.· Yes.

22· · ·Q· ·Let me show you what's been marked as

23· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 234.

24· · · · · · · ·Paragraph 234 is entitled "Ohio Ethics

25· · · · ·Guide Client File Retention" by the Board of

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 89 of 168 PageID:

35208
Page 350

·1· · · · ·Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of

·2· · · · ·Ohio.

·3· · · · · · · ·Have you ever heard of this document or

·4· · · · ·seen this document?

·5· · ·A· ·I don't think I've ever seen it.

·6· · ·Q· ·Do you have IOLTA trust accounts for your talc

·7· · · · ·clients?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·9· · · · · · · ·Mr. Bevan, will you step out of the room,

10· · · · ·please, so I can put something on the record?

11· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

12· · · · · · · ·(Mr. Bevan no longer present.)

13· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Do you want to

15· · · · ·stay on the video record?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·It doesn't have

17· · · · ·to be on the video record.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Mr. Bevan's

20· · · · ·been subjected to records custodian

21· · · · ·depositions, he's been challenged about his

22· · · · ·knowledge about the Ohio Ethics or insurance

23· · · · ·requirements for and preserving records, he's

24· · · · ·testified respective of whatever the rules are

25· · · · ·and whatever he is required to do, that he has

Page 351

·1· · · · ·maintained all of this records.

·2· · · · · · · ·This -- you know, if you want to spend

·3· · · · ·your time on this, by my count, we get to 5:15,

·4· · · · ·that's seven hours, including a half hour break

·5· · · · ·for lunch, a 16-minute call with Justice

·6· · · · ·Rivera-Soto, and probably less than 15 minutes

·7· · · · ·when we took a break regarding your

·8· · · · ·spreadsheet.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · I don't think

10· · · · ·that's right.· Well, the videographer has the

11· · · · ·time.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 6:28, but that

13· · · · ·includes the call.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · So I have

15· · · · ·roughly six hours.· I have another 50 minutes.

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I've been wrong

17· · · · ·before.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Okay.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Given that we

20· · · · ·started at nine and it feels like 10 hours.

21· · · · · · · ·But, you know, I'm objecting to this.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Okay.· Let's

23· · · · ·bring him back in.

24· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

25· · · · · · · · · (Mr. Bevan now present.)

Page 352

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

·3· · · · ·the record.

·4· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

·5· · ·Q· ·Do you have IOLTA/trust account records for any

·6· · · · ·clients?

·7· · ·A· ·Yes.

·8· · · · · · · ·I'm sorry.· Trust records?

·9· · ·Q· ·Trust account.

10· · ·A· ·Trust accounts, yes.

11· · ·Q· ·For IOLTA, I-O-L-T-A?

12· · ·A· ·Yes.

13· · ·Q· ·Could you turn to page 3?

14· · · · · · · ·It says, "IOLTA/trust account records

15· · · · ·shall be kept by lawyer for seven years after

16· · · · ·termination of representation."

17· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

18· · ·A· ·Yes.

19· · ·Q· ·Do you follow that?

20· · ·A· ·Yes.

21· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Could you turn to page 5 -- to page 7?

22· · · · · · · ·It says:· Email constitute papers or

23· · · · ·property which the client is entitled to under

24· · · · ·Professional Rule 1.16(d).

25· · · · · · · ·It goes on to say a lawyer shall retain

Page 353

·1· · · · ·emails that have a substantive impact upon a

·2· · · · ·client's future representation.

·3· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·4· · ·A· ·Yes.

·5· · ·Q· ·And do you conduct your business with emails

·6· · · · ·consistent with those statements?

·7· · ·A· ·You know, I don't correspond with the clients

·8· · · · ·by emails, so it doesn't really come up with --

·9· · · · ·in my practice.

10· · · · · · · ·So if I have a -- if I do get the

11· · · · ·occasional email, and I might get a couple a

12· · · · ·year from a client, you know, I'll print it out

13· · · · ·and it will go into the client's file.

14· · ·Q· ·It says, "The retention and maintenance of

15· · · · ·client-related emails shall be incorporated

16· · · · ·into the firm's file retention policy."

17· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

18· · ·A· ·Yeah.

19· · ·Q· ·Have you incorporated the retention of

20· · · · ·client-related emails into your firm's file

21· · · · ·retention policy?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

24· · ·A· ·I think I testified before we don't have a

25· · · · ·formal client file retention.· Our files are

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 90 of 168 PageID:

35209
Page 354

·1· · · · ·electronic and we store them indefinitely.

·2· · ·Q· ·The last sentence says, "Consequently, a lawyer

·3· · · · ·shall undertake steps to collect and store

·4· · · · ·emails by client and matter to ensure they are

·5· · · · ·physically and electronically associated with

·6· · · · ·the client file."

·7· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·8· · ·A· ·Yes.

·9· · ·Q· ·Does your firm do that?

10· · ·A· ·No.· Other than if I get an email from a

11· · · · ·client.· I'll print it out and scan it to his

12· · · · ·file or her file.

13· · ·Q· ·Let's go back to D Ex 1, please.

14· · · · · · · ·Can you turn to paragraph 228?· It says:

15· · · · ·When negotiating these aggregate settlements

16· · · · ·and deciding to recommend and obtain its

17· · · · ·clients' consent and authorization to

18· · · · ·participate in them, the Bevan Law Firm

19· · · · ·reasonably relied upon and acted upon Cahill

20· · · · ·Gordon and BASF's (or its predecessors')

21· · · · ·representations from 1992 forward."

22· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

23· · ·A· ·Yes.

24· · ·Q· ·With respect to the five named plaintiffs,

25· · · · ·could you identify for me when you obtained

Page 355

·1· · · · ·their consent and authorization to settle with

·2· · · · ·Emtal and the circumstances surrounding each?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·5· · ·A· ·You're talking about the five representative

·6· · · · ·plaintiffs?

·7· · ·Q· ·Yes.

·8· · ·A· ·Well, for starters, Graham did not settle with

·9· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc.· So that gets us to

10· · · · ·four.

11· · · · · · · ·So the Williams/Clark.

12· · · · · · · ·I told you I wasn't sure about the Ware

13· · · · ·case, whether we settled or not, so I can't

14· · · · ·answer that, but with Williams and Clark, that

15· · · · ·was back in the '90s at some point.· So it was

16· · · · ·20 years ago.· I don't recall exactly, you

17· · · · ·know, when we had that conversation or

18· · · · ·discussion.

19· · · · · · · ·With respect to Darnell, that would have

20· · · · ·been in the early 2000s, probably 2001, maybe

21· · · · ·2002, and I would have had conversations either

22· · · · ·with Mrs. Darnell or Marilyn Holley, but I

23· · · · ·can't give you a date.

24· · ·Q· ·Did you obtain their consent for each and every

25· · · · ·settlement that you entered into?

Page 356

·1· · ·A· ·Yes.

·2· · ·Q· ·So if they were to say that you just presented

·3· · · · ·them with what the settlement terms were, would

·4· · · · ·that be accurate?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·7· · ·A· ·I presented them with these are what the

·8· · · · ·settlement terms are.· If you want to do this,

·9· · · · ·sign, sign and return it to us.

10· · ·Q· ·And did you -- with respect to Ware, and I

11· · · · ·think you said -- the two you didn't talk to,

12· · · · ·Ware and Wengerd?

13· · ·A· ·I said we didn't settle with Wengerd.

14· · ·Q· ·Right.

15· · ·A· ·Or Graham at the time.

16· · · · · · · ·And Ware, I don't recall if we settled or

17· · · · ·not with Ware.

18· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And then with respect to Williams and

19· · · · ·Darnell and Pease, could you tell me what their

20· · · · ·reaction was to the settlement with the talc

21· · · · ·companies?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

24· · ·A· ·I don't recall their reaction, other than they

25· · · · ·went along with it.· I don't recall them being

Page 357

·1· · · · ·jubilant or being upset.· I don't recall what

·2· · · · ·their reaction was.

·3· · ·Q· ·Did you tell them about the settlement with the

·4· · · · ·talc companies, or did you have a legal

·5· · · · ·assistant or colleague tell them?

·6· · ·A· ·I'm sure with Darnell, I'm sure with Williams,

·7· · · · ·I'm sure with -- I'm sure with all three of

·8· · · · ·those.· I told you, I think maybe Pease was at

·9· · · · ·the -- or -- yeah, Nancy Pease may have been at

10· · · · ·the settlement conference when that settlement

11· · · · ·occurred.

12· · ·Q· ·There was a settlement conference for the talc

13· · · · ·settlement?

14· · ·A· ·Yes.

15· · ·Q· ·When was that?

16· · ·A· ·I would be willing to venture that it was

17· · · · ·August 14 of 1997.· And I base that on I know

18· · · · ·it was the day before my sister's birthday,

19· · · · ·which was the day before her wedding, because I

20· · · · ·know where I went after that settlement

21· · · · ·conference.

22· · ·Q· ·Who was at the settlement conference?

23· · ·A· ·Bruce Mandel was there.· I believe -- I believe

24· · · · ·it was Scott Martin or -- or Allen Joslyn I

25· · · · ·believe.· I'm sure Sam Martillotta was there.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 91 of 168 PageID:

35210
Page 358

·1· · · · ·I think -- Victoria Vance I think was

·2· · · · ·representing Johnson & Johnson.· Somebody from

·3· · · · ·the Buckingham firm I believe was representing

·4· · · · ·Harwick.· I think those are the players that

·5· · · · ·would have been there.

·6· · ·Q· ·Was it a Court supervised settlement

·7· · · · ·conference?

·8· · ·A· ·Yes.

·9· · ·Q· ·What judicial officer or mediator was present?

10· · ·A· ·I believe it was Judge James J. Sweeney that

11· · · · ·was present.

12· · ·Q· ·And what did Ms. [sic] Judge Sweeney say

13· · · · ·regarding settlement?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

15· · ·A· ·I don't recall, other than trying to get all of

16· · · · ·the parties to settle.· And he was successful.

17· · ·Q· ·Did the parties provide Judge Sweeney with any

18· · · · ·written information prior to the mediation?

19· · ·A· ·I don't believe so.

20· · ·Q· ·Did you have --

21· · ·A· ·There may have been pending summary judgments,

22· · · · ·I'm not sure, but Judge Sweeney never required

23· · · · ·any type of, you know, mediation statements or

24· · · · ·anything like that.

25· · ·Q· ·Did you tell Judge Sweeney that you believed

Page 359

·1· · · · ·based on what Cahill told you there was no

·2· · · · ·asbestos in the talc?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·4· · ·A· ·I don't recall if that was discussed or not.

·5· · · · ·I'm sure that was thrown in our face by Cahill

·6· · · · ·Gordon, but whether I told that to Judge

·7· · · · ·Sweeney -- I'm sure they told Judge Sweeney.

·8· · ·Q· ·Did you tell Judge Sweeney that there was

·9· · · · ·asbestos in Southern Talc?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

12· · ·A· ·I don't know what I knew about Southern Talc at

13· · · · ·that point, if I knew that then or not.· I'm

14· · · · ·not sure.· I don't recall.

15· · ·Q· ·In words or in substance, did Judge Sweeney

16· · · · ·recommend to you that you settle the case?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

18· · ·A· ·I don't think so.· He wasn't the kind of -- he

19· · · · ·wasn't an arm-twister.· I mean, he got

20· · · · ·everybody together and talked to people, but he

21· · · · ·was not the kind of judge that tells one side

22· · · · ·their case is really bad and brings in the

23· · · · ·other side and tells them their case is really

24· · · · ·bad and tries to -- you know, that wasn't his

25· · · · ·style.· So I don't recall that.

Page 360

·1· · ·Q· ·Did you want to settle the case?

·2· · ·A· ·We were agreeable to settling it.

·3· · ·Q· ·Do you believe that Mr. Martillotta said

·4· · · · ·anything at that settlement conference that was

·5· · · · ·misleading or false?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·7· · ·A· ·I don't recall him saying anything misleading

·8· · · · ·or false.

·9· · ·Q· ·Did you tell Mr. Placitella about that

10· · · · ·settlement conference?

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

12· · ·A· ·I don't think so.· I think this is the first

13· · · · ·time I've thought about it in 20 plus years.

14· · ·Q· ·Did you have a number going into that

15· · · · ·settlement conference that was in your mind?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

17· · ·A· ·I don't recall.· I don't recall.

18· · ·Q· ·Were you pleased with the settlement?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

20· · ·A· ·I wasn't -- I didn't go out and celebrate.· It

21· · · · ·was a settlement and we moved forward with

22· · · · ·other cases.

23· · ·Q· ·For any of the thousands of talc cases that you

24· · · · ·had, did you ever hire any geologists as an

25· · · · ·expert?

Page 361

·1· · ·A· ·I don't recall hiring a geologist.· We had

·2· · · · ·Dr. Abraham I think on one case.· Whether he

·3· · · · ·is -- I know he's a pathologist.· Whether he's

·4· · · · ·a geologist, I don't think so.· We may have --

·5· · ·Q· ·He's a pathologist?

·6· · ·A· ·I think he's a pathologist, Dr. Abraham, yeah.

·7· · ·Q· ·Yeah.· That's different than a geologist.

·8· · ·A· ·I said whether he's --

·9· · ·Q· ·Right.

10· · ·A· ·You know, he --

11· · ·Q· ·I think we'll stipulate that geologists are

12· · · · ·different than pathologists.

13· · ·A· ·So I don't recall hiring a geologist.

14· · ·Q· ·In terms of the thousands of talc cases that

15· · · · ·you handled, did you ever retain as an expert

16· · · · ·an epidemiologist?

17· · ·A· ·No.

18· · ·Q· ·In terms of the thousands of talc cases that

19· · · · ·you handled, did you ever retain as an expert

20· · · · ·an industrial hygienist?

21· · ·A· ·We've retained industrial hygienists.

22· · ·Q· ·For the talc cases?

23· · ·A· ·Whether to specifically address talc --

24· · ·Q· ·Yes.

25· · ·A· ·I don't recall if they specifically addressed

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 92 of 168 PageID:

35211
Page 362

·1· · · · ·talc or not.· I'm not sure.

·2· · ·Q· ·The best that you can recall, with respect to

·3· · · · ·the thousands of talc cases you've litigated,

·4· · · · ·can you identify for me any expert that you

·5· · · · ·retained for testimony?

·6· · ·A· ·Oh, we would have retained --

·7· · ·Q· ·Apart from doctors.

·8· · ·A· ·Oh, apart from doctors.

·9· · · · · · · ·We had retained an industrial hygienist

10· · · · ·by the name of Thomas Eggers.· I think we may

11· · · · ·have retained Ken Cohen.· There was a

12· · · · ·Dr. Brustein, who was both a doctor and an

13· · · · ·industrial hygienist.

14· · · · · · · ·I'm not recalling other industrial

15· · · · ·hygienists at this time.

16· · ·Q· ·And you retained them for testimony in talc

17· · · · ·cases?

18· · ·A· ·I think so, yes.

19· · ·Q· ·Which ones?

20· · ·A· ·I think -- I think Brustein we retained on a

21· · · · ·number of cases back in the '90s, which ones

22· · · · ·for sure, I'm not positive.

23· · · · · · · ·Same with Eggers.· We retained him

24· · · · ·numerous times back in the '90s, I just can't

25· · · · ·tell you which cases.

Page 363

·1· · ·Q· ·So do you remember on the R.T. Vanderbilt

·2· · · · ·summary judgment motion it said you retained

·3· · · · ·some experts?

·4· · ·A· ·Yes.

·5· · ·Q· ·But they didn't provide sufficient opinion?

·6· · ·A· ·According to whoever -- whatever judge that

·7· · · · ·was, Judge Spellacy or Judge Hanna, yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·Were they -- were those opinions ever accepted

·9· · · · ·by any Court?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

11· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.· Bad question.

12· · · · · · · ·Regarding any of the experts you retained

13· · · · ·in the talc cases, were any of those opinions

14· · · · ·ever accepted by any Court?

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

16· · ·A· ·I used affidavits in response to summary

17· · · · ·judgment from Dr. Eggers, from Ken Cohen, I

18· · · · ·believe from Dr. Brustein on a number of

19· · · · ·occasions.

20· · ·Q· ·With respect to talc cases?

21· · ·A· ·I think with respect to talc cases.

22· · ·Q· ·And would that be anywhere in the database?

23· · ·A· ·No, I don't think so.· I don't think.

24· · ·Q· ·Do you have a separate file regarding your

25· · · · ·settlement negotiations with Emtal or Cahill or

Page 364

·1· · · · ·any talc company?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·3· · · · ·form.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·5· · ·A· ·I already answered that.· I think it was an

·6· · · · ·eight and a half inch high stack of files that

·7· · · · ·were my old talc settlement files going back 20

·8· · · · ·years.

·9· · ·Q· ·But no individual Tom Bevan notes?

10· · ·A· ·Whatever was in that file.· If my notes were in

11· · · · ·that file, if there were any notes from that,

12· · · · ·you know.· You know, there might be some

13· · · · ·handwriting from me in those files.

14· · ·Q· ·With respect to the named plaintiffs in this

15· · · · ·case, apart from the three that you contacted

16· · · · ·after Mr. Placitella called you, those

17· · · · ·five-minute conversations, and then seeing some

18· · · · ·of them to say hi and how are you, have you had

19· · · · ·any substantive conversation regarding the

20· · · · ·Williams case at all?

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

22· · · · ·form.

23· · ·A· ·With those folks?

24· · ·Q· ·Correct.

25· · ·A· ·Nothing that I would consider substantive.

Page 365

·1· · ·Q· ·Is there a reason why you haven't discussed

·2· · · · ·with them the case?

·3· · ·A· ·There hasn't been --

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·5· · ·A· ·-- a reason for me to discuss anything with

·6· · · · ·them and Placitella's been handling that and

·7· · · · ·dealing with the clients.· So I just haven't

·8· · · · ·had a need to.

·9· · ·Q· ·You never felt it was appropriate for you to

10· · · · ·call them and tell them about how you view this

11· · · · ·case or what the facts were or what your

12· · · · ·understanding of the settlements were?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

15· · ·A· ·Other than the initial conversations that I

16· · · · ·referred to.· I haven't felt the need to go

17· · · · ·beyond that.

18· · ·Q· ·Have you ever attended any meetings with any

19· · · · ·plaintiff in this case and representatives from

20· · · · ·Cohen, Placitella & Roth?

21· · ·A· ·I don't believe so.· I've popped in in the

22· · · · ·conference room if they were meeting with a

23· · · · ·client and said hi.

24· · · · · · · ·We may have had a meeting with Mike Coren

25· · · · ·and Marilyn Holley early on in this process,

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 93 of 168 PageID:

35212
Page 366

·1· · · · ·and I think maybe I stayed in for that whole

·2· · · · ·meeting.

·3· · ·Q· ·What was that meeting about?

·4· · ·A· ·Just about this case.

·5· · ·Q· ·What was said --

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·7· · ·Q· ·-- regarding this case?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I'm sorry.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Same objection.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

11· · · · ·Privilege.

12· · ·Q· ·You can answer.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · Are you going

14· · · · ·to let me answer that?· That was between two

15· · · · ·attorneys and their client.· I think that's

16· · · · ·clearly privileged.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Yeah.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · I would not

19· · · · ·answer that.· In fact, I don't care what you

20· · · · ·guys say, I'm not answering that.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Then I'll ask

22· · · · ·you not to answer it.· If you can't answer it

23· · · · ·without revealing attorney-client privilege,

24· · · · ·then please do not.

25· · ·A· ·It would be discussions with me and attorney

Page 367

·1· · · · ·Mike Coren and Marilyn Holley was there.· And I

·2· · · · ·don't know if anybody else was there.

·3· · ·Q· ·How long did the meeting last?

·4· · ·A· ·I don't recall.

·5· · ·Q· ·Where was it?

·6· · ·A· ·In my conference room.

·7· · ·Q· ·Did you meet with any other of the plaintiff

·8· · · · ·representatives and representatives of Cohen,

·9· · · · ·Placitella?

10· · ·A· ·I don't recall if anybody else was there at

11· · · · ·that meeting.· That's the only meeting I

12· · · · ·recall.· I recall stepping into the conference

13· · · · ·room and introducing myself to Gayle -- is she

14· · · · ·Williams?

15· · ·Q· ·Williams.

16· · ·A· ·Yeah, Gayle Williams, who I had not -- you

17· · · · ·know, I met her two sisters many times and her

18· · · · ·brother many times and her parents, but I had

19· · · · ·never -- I don't think I had ever met her

20· · · · ·face-to-face.· So I went in and introduced

21· · · · ·myself.· But I did not participate in the

22· · · · ·meeting.

23· · · · · · · ·I'm sure I popped in the conference room

24· · · · ·to say hi to Donnette Wengerd and ask her about

25· · · · ·her children.· I'm sure there was -- from time

Page 368

·1· · · · ·to time, if Marilyn Holley was out meeting with

·2· · · · ·them, I would pop in and say hi to Marilyn.

·3· · ·Q· ·Regarding this first meeting with Mr. Coren and

·4· · · · ·Ms. Holley, during that meeting, did you

·5· · · · ·discuss the facts of the underlying litigation,

·6· · · · ·why the case was settled and why you would have

·7· · · · ·settled it or didn't settle it?

·8· · ·A· ·I'm not going to discuss a meeting that --

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

10· · ·A· ·-- I had with my client, conversations that I

11· · · · ·had with my client.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I instruct you

13· · · · ·not to --

14· · ·Q· ·I'm asking for a yes or no.· Did you discuss

15· · · · ·the facts?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

17· · ·A· ·I'm not going to answer that question.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Privilege.

19· · ·Q· ·Did you discuss the facts?

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

21· · · · ·Privilege.

22· · ·A· ·That's no different question than saying "Tell

23· · · · ·me what you discussed."

24· · ·Q· ·No, I'm not --

25· · ·A· ·Okay.· That's the same -- that's the same

Page 369

·1· · · · ·thing.

·2· · ·Q· ·Did you discuss --

·3· · ·A· ·If I were to say "I discussed the facts," it's

·4· · · · ·the same thing.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Conversation is

·6· · · · ·privileged.

·7· · ·Q· ·Did you discuss any of the underlying facts of

·8· · · · ·Ms. Holley's case with Mr. Coren and

·9· · · · ·Ms. Holley?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Tom, don't

11· · · · ·answer that question.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Let me speak to

13· · · · ·counsel.

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

15· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

17· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

19· · · · ·the record.· The time is 5:33.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I want to just

21· · · · ·go on the record.· I've been given some

22· · · · ·clarification on the infield fly rule of

23· · · · ·privilege in the Williams matter, and I'm going

24· · · · ·to withdraw my instruction for you not to

25· · · · ·answer and I want to see if Mr. Assaf can

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 94 of 168 PageID:

35213
Page 370

·1· · · · ·rephrase his question whether I'll invoke that.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · Okay.

·3· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

·4· · ·Q· ·Regarding this meeting with Ms. Holley and

·5· · · · ·Mr. Coren, did you discuss any of the

·6· · · · ·underlying facts of the case?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·So --

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · You want to do

·9· · · · ·this?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I got it.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Okay.

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I'm going to

13· · · · ·object to the question as phrased.· If by

14· · · · ·"underlying case" you mean the case that was

15· · · · ·either dismissed or settled against Emtal or

16· · · · ·Engelhard, then there is no objection.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · I still need, I

18· · · · ·think, a bit more clarification.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Let me try it

20· · · · ·this way.

21· · · · · · · ·As part of the discussion we had with

22· · · · ·Judge Linares, and Mr. Assaf will correct me if

23· · · · ·he thinks I'm misstating, the way that

24· · · · ·Justice --

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Whoa.· Whoa.

Page 371

·1· · · · ·Whoa.· Stop.· Let me explain it.· If you -- I

·2· · · · ·just -- I don't want to suggest an answer.

·3· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

·4· · ·Q· ·My first question is:· Did you discuss any of

·5· · · · ·the facts regarding Ms. Holley's case against

·6· · · · ·Engelhard; why it was settled, why it was

·7· · · · ·brought, you know, what you knew about it, you

·8· · · · ·know, any of those facts?· Did you -- yes or

·9· · · · ·no.

10· · ·A· ·About Kathryn Darnell's case against Eastern

11· · · · ·Magnesia and why we sued them, why we settled

12· · · · ·with them?

13· · ·Q· ·Yeah.· Did you discuss any of that?

14· · ·A· ·I don't recall if we discussed that or not.

15· · ·Q· ·What did -- what generally -- what topic did

16· · · · ·you discuss if you didn't discuss the facts?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

18· · ·A· ·What --

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

20· · · · ·Privilege.· Isn't this outside the ambit of the

21· · · · ·ruling?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·It is.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Don't answer

24· · · · ·it, Tom.

25· · ·Q· ·You don't know how long this meeting lasted,

Page 372

·1· · · · ·Mr. Bevan?

·2· · ·A· ·If I had to estimate, I would say a half hour

·3· · · · ·to an hour and a half.

·4· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And in this 30- to 90-minute meeting,

·5· · · · ·did you answer any questions from Mr. Coren

·6· · · · ·regarding what happened in your experience

·7· · · · ·litigating against Emtal?

·8· · ·A· ·No.· I don't think he asked me any questions.

·9· · ·Q· ·Did you provide him any information regarding

10· · · · ·what your -- any of the facts related to the

11· · · · ·Williams complaint?

12· · ·A· ·I don't --

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · ·A· ·I don't --

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·You can answer.

16· · ·A· ·I don't think I provided him any facts.

17· · ·Q· ·Were you just there listening?

18· · ·A· ·Yeah, I was pretty much just there listening.

19· · ·Q· ·And did Ms. Darnell -- or I'm sorry,

20· · · · ·Ms. Holley, provide you with any information

21· · · · ·during that meeting?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

23· · · · ·Privilege.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Privilege.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I think you can

Page 373

·1· · · · ·answer yes or no, but ...

·2· · ·A· ·I don't recall her providing any facts.

·3· · ·Q· ·All right.· So this 30- to 60-minute meeting,

·4· · · · ·there's no discussion of any of the facts

·5· · · · ·related to the Williams case?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·7· · · · ·Form and foundation.

·8· · ·A· ·That's not what I said.

·9· · ·Q· ·Is there a discussion of the facts relating to

10· · · · ·the Williams case?

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

12· · · · ·Privilege.

13· · ·A· ·To the extent that Mr. Coren went through a

14· · · · ·rendition of what the Placitella firm had

15· · · · ·discovered from BASF regarding the fraudulent

16· · · · ·statements and misrepresentations, I'm sure

17· · · · ·that that was explained.

18· · ·Q· ·To you and Ms. Holley?

19· · ·A· ·It had already been explained to me, to

20· · · · ·Ms. Holley.

21· · ·Q· ·And did you ask Mr. Coren any questions about

22· · · · ·those facts that he was conveying to you?

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

24· · · · ·Privilege.· We're outside the scope of what is

25· · · · ·permitted.· I'm going to ask you not to answer.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 95 of 168 PageID:

35214
Page 374

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Tom, don't

·2· · · · ·answer.

·3· · ·Q· ·So you sit in this meeting for 30 to 60 minutes

·4· · · · ·with Ms. Holley and Mr. Coren, fair?

·5· · ·A· ·Yes.

·6· · ·Q· ·And you don't mention a single thing regarding

·7· · · · ·Ms. Holley's case, Mr. Darnell's case, in that

·8· · · · ·30 to 60 minutes?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

11· · ·A· ·Yeah, I think you're mischaracterizing it.· So

12· · · · ·I stand by what I told you.· I told you what I

13· · · · ·can recall being discussed.

14· · ·Q· ·In this 30- to 90-minute meeting with

15· · · · ·Mr. Coren, you, Tom Bevan, don't provide

16· · · · ·Mr. Coren or Ms. Holley with a single fact that

17· · · · ·you know?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

19· · ·Q· ·Fair?

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Form,

22· · · · ·foundation.

23· · ·A· ·Yeah, I don't recall providing any facts.

24· · ·Q· ·Other than this meeting with Ms. Holley and

25· · · · ·Mr. Coren, did you attend any other meetings

Page 375

·1· · · · ·with Cohen, Placitella, Roth and any named

·2· · · · ·plaintiffs?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Asked and

·4· · · · ·answered.

·5· · ·A· ·Nothing other than what I've mentioned.

·6· · ·Q· ·And have you discussed this case with anybody

·7· · · · ·else other than Coren, Placitella, and Roth?

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Did you just

·9· · · · ·elevate Mr. Coren?

10· · ·Q· ·Withdrawn.

11· · · · · · · ·Did you discuss this case with anybody

12· · · · ·else other than the Coren -- Cohen, Placitella

13· · · · ·firm?

14· · ·A· ·Other than Erin Clark and Pat Walsh.

15· · ·Q· ·And the reporter?

16· · ·A· ·And the reporter that I had mentioned, yes.

17· · ·Q· ·Well, two reporters, correct?

18· · ·A· ·Yes.· Yes.

19· · ·Q· ·So is it fair to say that you have provided

20· · · · ·reporters with more factual information than

21· · · · ·you provided to Mr. Coren?

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Wow.

24· · · · ·Objection.

25· · ·A· ·No.

Page 376

·1· · ·Q· ·Did Mr. Coren -- this is a yes or no.

·2· · · · · · · ·Did Mr. Coren or anybody from the

·3· · · · ·Placitella firm ever interview you regarding

·4· · · · ·your understanding of the facts?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·7· · · · ·Privilege and work-product.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Just interview.

·9· · ·Q· ·You can answer.

10· · ·A· ·I would say that I never felt that I was being

11· · · · ·interviewed, so I would say no to that.

12· · ·Q· ·Did you ever review any interrogatory responses

13· · · · ·provided by the plaintiffs?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

15· · ·A· ·In this case?

16· · ·Q· ·Yes.

17· · ·A· ·I don't recall if I reviewed -- their answers

18· · · · ·in this particular case, yeah, I don't recall

19· · · · ·if I did or not.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Let's go off

21· · · · ·the record.· I think I'm almost done.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

23· · · · ·The time is 5:40.

24· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

Page 377

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

·3· · · · ·the record.· The time is 5:43.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · That's Volume

·5· · · · ·I.· Sorry, everybody.

·6· · · · · · · ·Let's go back off the record.· I have to

·7· · · · ·find my copy.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

10· · · · · · · · · · · (Off the record.)

11· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

13· · · · ·the record.· The time is 5:45.

14· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

15· · ·Q· ·Let me show you Ms. Holley's deposition from

16· · · · ·February 21, 2018.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Volume II?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Yep.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I think I have

20· · · · ·your copy.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Ah.· That's why

22· · · · ·I couldn't find it.

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I didn't have

24· · · · ·to give it to you either.

25· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Could you turn to page 228?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 96 of 168 PageID:

35215
Page 378

·1· · · · · · · ·Line 3, "It says, 'Have you had

·2· · · · ·discussions with Mr. Bevan regarding the facts

·3· · · · ·in this case, the Williams case?· Just answer

·4· · · · ·'yes' or 'no.''· Do you see that?"

·5· · · · · · · ·And she says, "I may be mistaken, but I

·6· · · · ·thought you said you haven't spoken to --

·7· · · · ·Mr. Roth I think is pointing to the Williams

·8· · · · ·case.· I think when I was asking about the

·9· · · · ·Williams case in your first deposition, we were

10· · · · ·talking about the underlying allegations and

11· · · · ·the facts of the Williams case.· Do you see

12· · · · ·that?"

13· · · · · · · ·"So did you discuss the facts?"

14· · · · · · · ·And she said, "I may have misunderstood

15· · · · ·the question."

16· · · · · · · ·And then if you turn to the next page --

17· · · · ·actually, 239.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · 239?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · 239.

20· · ·Q· ·Line 19.· "Mr. Coren and Mr. Bevan had

21· · · · ·discussions?"

22· · · · · · · ·"Right.· Right.· Right."

23· · · · · · · ·"Regarding the facts?"

24· · · · · · · ·Answer, "Right."

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I'm sorry,

Page 379

·1· · · · ·Gene.· Am I missing something?· We went from

·2· · · · ·228 to --

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·He's skipping.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · You can read

·5· · · · ·the whole thing if you'd like but ...

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · I'm just trying

·7· · · · ·to get clarification.

·8· · ·Q· ·I'm just trying to understand.· Ms. Holley

·9· · · · ·seems to think that you and Mr. Coren discussed

10· · · · ·the facts during your meeting.· Do you think

11· · · · ·she's mistaken?

12· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

13· · · · ·Form and foundation.

14· · ·A· ·You know, I'm looking up at the lines 11

15· · · · ·through 18 on page 239.· "Mr. Bevan was just

16· · · · ·part of that meeting.· I don't recall Mr. Bevan

17· · · · ·saying anything to me personally.· It was that

18· · · · ·Mr. Coren did most of the talking because he

19· · · · ·had just finished a case of this sort and it

20· · · · ·was Mr. Coren who suggested that we bring the

21· · · · ·claim.· And he had discussions with Mr. Bevan,

22· · · · ·but I wasn't privy to those discussions."

23· · · · · · · ·So that's consistent with my recollection

24· · · · ·and I believe it's consistent with what I

25· · · · ·testified to.

Page 380

·1· · ·Q· ·So you don't recall discussing any facts in

·2· · · · ·front of Ms. Holley?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Asked and

·4· · · · ·answered.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·6· · ·A· ·I answered your question.

·7· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Other than the Holley meeting, did you

·8· · · · ·have any -- withdrawn.

·9· · · · · · · ·Other than the meeting, did you have any

10· · · · ·telephone communications with any of the named

11· · · · ·plaintiffs other than the Placitella early

12· · · · ·calls?· Withdrawn.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

14· · ·Q· ·Other than the initial three calls after

15· · · · ·Mr. Placitella's call, did you have any other

16· · · · ·telephone communications with any of the named

17· · · · ·plaintiffs?

18· · ·A· ·I have to go one by one.· Mrs. Ware, I do not

19· · · · ·believe so.· Gayle Williams, no.· Marilyn

20· · · · ·Holley, I don't think I've had a phone call

21· · · · ·with her about it, but I don't recall for sure.

22· · · · ·Donnette Wengerd, I don't believe I've had a

23· · · · ·phone call with her.· And Mrs. Williams, I do

24· · · · ·not believe I've had a phone call with her.

25· · · · · · · ·So I think the answer would be no to

Page 381

·1· · · · ·that.

·2· · ·Q· ·You and I have had discussions about your

·3· · · · ·recollection of the documents and the

·4· · · · ·settlement communications with Cahill and

·5· · · · ·Mr. Martillotta today, and a lot of your

·6· · · · ·recollection is just the documents, fair?

·7· · ·A· ·Just what Cahill Gordon sent me?

·8· · ·Q· ·Yes.

·9· · ·A· ·Yes, I recall that.

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

11· · · · ·Foundation.

12· · ·Q· ·Regarding -- if your four- or five-inch stack

13· · · · ·of emails had recollections regarding these

14· · · · ·discussions with Cahill in the underlying

15· · · · ·cases, would you be willing to look at those in

16· · · · ·order to refresh your recollection?

17· · ·A· ·I don't think there's anything there that would

18· · · · ·refresh my recollection, but I could look at

19· · · · ·it.· I mean, my recollection I think today is

20· · · · ·the same as it was, you know, eight years ago

21· · · · ·when I first talked to Mr. Placitella about

22· · · · ·this.

23· · ·Q· ·When you sent this four- or five-inch stack of

24· · · · ·emails to Mr. Placitella or people at his firm,

25· · · · ·did they contain facts that you didn't testify

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 97 of 168 PageID:

35216
Page 382

·1· · · · ·to today or you don't know?

·2· · ·A· ·I don't --

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection to

·4· · · · ·the form.

·5· · ·A· ·You know, when I was printing them out, I kind

·6· · · · ·of looked, but I didn't -- I don't think so. I

·7· · · · ·mean, well, there's -- yeah, there's certainly

·8· · · · ·stuff about things, nothing related to this,

·9· · · · ·you know.

10· · ·Q· ·Well, you said you kind of looked.· What do you

11· · · · ·mean by that?

12· · ·A· ·No, I was -- I printed all of those out myself.

13· · ·Q· ·And when did you print those out?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

15· · ·A· ·I don't know.· The last month.· I'm not sure.

16· · ·Q· ·Since your last deposition?

17· · ·A· ·I think I printed those -- I think I printed

18· · · · ·those when I think you guys filed a motion to

19· · · · ·compel the production.· And I knew it would

20· · · · ·take some time to print those, so I think I

21· · · · ·printed those out just in case I got an order

22· · · · ·from the Court that said I had to produce them.

23· · · · ·I had them ready.

24· · ·Q· ·And did you print them in chronological order?

25· · ·A· ·I printed them in chronological order.· Yeah, I

Page 383

·1· · · · ·think I started from the oldest one and printed

·2· · · · ·forward.

·3· · ·Q· ·Did you notice in any of the documents whether

·4· · · · ·there were attachments?

·5· · ·A· ·I don't recall if there was attachments.· I'm

·6· · · · ·sure there would be some attachments on the

·7· · · · ·Ross case I'm sure.

·8· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Other than the Ross case, were there

·9· · · · ·attachments to your email to Mr. Placitella?

10· · ·A· ·I don't recall.· I think maybe, but I don't --

11· · · · ·yeah, I don't recall for sure.

12· · ·Q· ·Were there emails regarding any of the

13· · · · ·settlement negotiations in this case?

14· · ·A· ·Settlement negotiations?

15· · ·Q· ·Between the plaintiffs and defendants.

16· · ·A· ·On this case?

17· · ·Q· ·Yeah.

18· · ·A· ·No.· I've never seen any emails on that that I

19· · · · ·recall.

20· · ·Q· ·Do you have any -- without disclosing what, do

21· · · · ·you have any information regarding any

22· · · · ·settlement negotiations between the plaintiffs

23· · · · ·and the defendants?

24· · ·A· ·My understanding was --

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

Page 384

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·2· · ·A· ·My understanding was there was some mediation

·3· · · · ·or something and that the case didn't settle.

·4· · · · ·And I don't really know anything more than

·5· · · · ·that.

·6· · ·Q· ·Regarding these emails, do you have them at

·7· · · · ·your office?

·8· · ·A· ·Yes.

·9· · ·Q· ·Would it be a burden to produce them to the

10· · · · ·Court to review?

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Well,

12· · · · ·objection.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · It's a

14· · · · ·burdensome question.· It's burdensome.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I understand

16· · · · ·what the question.

17· · ·A· ·Well, it would be a burden to me, first of all,

18· · · · ·to go through them and pull out what has

19· · · · ·nothing to do with this talc case.· That would

20· · · · ·be a burden.

21· · ·Q· ·It would be a burden to go through the four or

22· · · · ·five inches of emails?

23· · ·A· ·That's probably 6, 700 pages, maybe more. I

24· · · · ·don't know, it's probably 800.· I mean, it's,

25· · · · ·you know.

Page 385

·1· · ·Q· ·800 pages of emails?

·2· · ·A· ·What's a ream of paper, that big?· I mean, I

·3· · · · ·don't know how many.· It's a lot of pages.

·4· · ·Q· ·So there are 800 pages of emails without

·5· · · · ·attachments?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Form and

·9· · · · ·foundation.

10· · ·A· ·I did not print out any attachments.

11· · ·Q· ·So the 800 pages that you're referring to are

12· · · · ·emails, not documents attached to emails, true?

13· · ·A· ·There --

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

15· · ·A· ·Let me explain.· They are every email that I

16· · · · ·ever sent or received that either had Chris

17· · · · ·Placitella on it, Jared Placitella, Mr. Roth on

18· · · · ·it, or Mr. Coren.· So the four of those.· It's

19· · · · ·every email.

20· · · · · · · ·Some of them relate to Eastern Magnesia

21· · · · ·Talc, some of them might relate to some gasket

22· · · · ·company out of Philadelphia or something.· It

23· · · · ·had nothing to do with this.· So I just printed

24· · · · ·out everything and figured if I had to go

25· · · · ·through it, at least the printing part was

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 98 of 168 PageID:

35217
Page 386

·1· · · · ·done.· If I had to go through it, I could at

·2· · · · ·least have that part done.

·3· · ·Q· ·Well, prior to you talking to Mr. Placitella

·4· · · · ·about the Williams case, you didn't have any

·5· · · · ·dealings with him in terms of cases?

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·7· · · · ·Asked and answered.

·8· · ·Q· ·Gasket cases or otherwise.

·9· · ·A· ·There may be some emails prior to that.· You

10· · · · ·know, he may have asked for something and maybe

11· · · · ·it was something I was able to assist him with.

12· · ·Q· ·Other than the burden that you claim in having

13· · · · ·to review the 800 pages before you turn them

14· · · · ·over to the Court, is there any financial

15· · · · ·burden on you in producing those to the Court?

16· · ·A· ·Whatever my time takes.

17· · ·Q· ·Do you have any objection to providing those to

18· · · · ·the Court to review?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

21· · ·A· ·Yes.

22· · ·Q· ·Why?

23· · ·A· ·The same objections that were stated in our

24· · · · ·objection to your motion to compel and the

25· · · · ·Court's ruled on it.· And the Court, as far as

Page 387

·1· · · · ·I know, has ruled on it and says I don't have

·2· · · · ·to produce those.· So ...

·3· · ·Q· ·Do you think it would be helpful to your case

·4· · · · ·or hurtful to your case?

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Don't answer

·8· · · · ·that.

·9· · ·A· ·I'm not going to answer that.

10· · ·Q· ·I'm done.· No more questions.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I've got a

12· · · · ·couple.

13· · · · · · · ·Unless you want to take a break.

14· · · · · · EXAMINATION OF THOMAS W. BEVAN, ESQ.

15· · ·BY MR. ROTH:

16· · ·Q· ·I apologize at the outset for jumping around a

17· · · · ·little bit.· We're all going to have to dig

18· · · · ·through some -- we're going to have to dig

19· · · · ·through some piles of stuff.

20· · · · · · · ·You were shown by Mr. Assaf some

21· · · · ·settlement letters sent from you to Sam

22· · · · ·Martillotta with some settlement proposals.· Do

23· · · · ·you recall that?

24· · ·A· ·Yes.

25· · ·Q· ·I'm looking at one, it's Exhibit 276, when you

Page 388

·1· · · · ·were proposing on October 7, 1998 settling five

·2· · · · ·rubber worker cases for $1,000 per case.

·3· · · · ·That's Exhibit 276.

·4· · ·A· ·Yes.

·5· · ·Q· ·And there was another where you proposed, and I

·6· · · · ·don't have this one in front of me, settling

·7· · · · ·mesothelioma cases for $3,000 a case.· Do you

·8· · · · ·recall that?

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·Where you have chronic identification, proof of

11· · · · ·exposure, and proof that the product in which

12· · · · ·the client has been exposed, is a mesothelioma

13· · · · ·case worth $3,000?· Is that a fair settlement

14· · · · ·value?

15· · ·A· ·If I have --

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

17· · ·A· ·If I have product ID, exposure by that

18· · · · ·plaintiff, proof that the product contained

19· · · · ·asbestos --

20· · ·Q· ·Yes.

21· · ·A· ·-- it's worth much more than $3,000.

22· · ·Q· ·And you've testified that you didn't try these

23· · · · ·talc cases, but given your experience as an

24· · · · ·asbestos -- as a plaintiffs lawyer representing

25· · · · ·people who have gotten an array of diseases

Page 389

·1· · · · ·from asbestos exposure, is a jury verdict

·2· · · · ·potential in a talc case where you have proof

·3· · · · ·that the product has -- that the product

·4· · · · ·contains asbestos, you've identified the

·5· · · · ·product in the plaintiff's workplace and the

·6· · · · ·plaintiff's exposure to the product?· Is the

·7· · · · ·jury verdict exposure for a defendant greater

·8· · · · ·than $1,000 per case or $3,000 per case if that

·9· · · · ·plaintiff suffered mesothelioma?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

11· · · · ·Form, foundation.· He's testified he's never

12· · · · ·tried a talc case.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·So form,

14· · · · ·foundation, that's the objections today, right?

15· · · · ·Work privilege?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Yeah.

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Okay.

18· · ·A· ·It's much greater than that, and I would base

19· · · · ·that on my -- what I've seen from verdicts

20· · · · ·around the country and verdicts in Ohio.· You

21· · · · ·don't get a thousand dollar verdict on an

22· · · · ·asbestos case.· You can get zero verdicts, but

23· · · · ·when there's verdicts there, they're quite

24· · · · ·substantial on asbestos cases from what I've

25· · · · ·seen.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 99 of 168 PageID:

35218
Page 390

·1· · ·Q· ·In Ohio, can a plaintiff bringing a lawsuit

·2· · · · ·claiming an asbestos injury recover from a

·3· · · · ·defendant if they can't prove that that

·4· · · · ·defendant's product contained asbestos?

·5· · ·A· ·No.

·6· · ·Q· ·Is that something that you would expect lawyers

·7· · · · ·both on the plaintiffs side and the defense

·8· · · · ·side to know?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

10· · · · ·Foundation.

11· · ·A· ·Certainly.· And that's one of the things I

12· · · · ·pointed out earlier in my testimony, is that's

13· · · · ·one of the key parts of any asbestos case; does

14· · · · ·the product contain asbestos.

15· · ·Q· ·If the product does not contain asbestos in

16· · · · ·terms of either -- well, does it matter how

17· · · · ·good your product identification is?

18· · ·A· ·No.

19· · ·Q· ·Does it matter how good your proof of exposure

20· · · · ·is?

21· · ·A· ·No.

22· · ·Q· ·In terms of these other elements of the claim,

23· · · · ·that is product identification and exposure, I

24· · · · ·want to make sure I understand that a little

25· · · · ·bit.· And maybe it was just to me.· It sounded

Page 391

·1· · · · ·as if some of the questions made that a binary

·2· · · · ·issue, that is you can either have product

·3· · · · ·identification or you don't.

·4· · · · · · · ·Are there cases where you develop product

·5· · · · ·identification during the course of a lawsuit?

·6· · ·A· ·Well, that's -- in most instances, during the

·7· · · · ·course of a lawsuit, we're developing the

·8· · · · ·product identification.· We don't always have

·9· · · · ·everything that we need to be able to be

10· · · · ·successful in a case at the time that we filed

11· · · · ·a case.· So we file the case based on a

12· · · · ·reasonable belief that we may be able to

13· · · · ·establish a case and then we try to establish

14· · · · ·that during the course of the litigation.

15· · ·Q· ·Can you establish product identification if the

16· · · · ·plaintiff doesn't know what product was in the

17· · · · ·workplace?

18· · ·A· ·Yes.· In most -- that's very common, where a

19· · · · ·plaintiff doesn't know what product -- the name

20· · · · ·of the product or who the manufacturer or

21· · · · ·distributor is of the product that he or she

22· · · · ·was exposed to.· And they rely upon us to do

23· · · · ·the investigation to find out whose product

24· · · · ·that was that the individual was exposed to.

25· · ·Q· ·What are the types of ways or the types of

Page 392

·1· · · · ·evidence that you look for in your

·2· · · · ·investigation to establish product

·3· · · · ·identification?

·4· · ·A· ·We will look for coworkers.· Well, first we'll

·5· · · · ·talk to the client.· Secondly we'll talk to

·6· · · · ·coworkers.· We will go to the defendant to find

·7· · · · ·out what evidence the defendant has that's

·8· · · · ·relevant to the case.· That helps us establish

·9· · · · ·product identification.

10· · · · · · · ·There could be historical photographs.

11· · · · ·There could be -- there could be government

12· · · · ·records.· Sometimes that could be relevant.

13· · · · ·Sometimes the employer has records that would

14· · · · ·be relevant.

15· · ·Q· ·So, generally speaking, you're looking for

16· · · · ·direct or circumstantial proof that the

17· · · · ·product, the asbestos containing product, was

18· · · · ·in a place where your client was working?

19· · ·A· ·Yes.· Many of these cases are circumstantial,

20· · · · ·in that, you know, the client says I was

21· · · · ·exposed to -- in this case we'll say talc or

22· · · · ·soapstone, and then we have the evidence of who

23· · · · ·supplied the talc or soapstone during that

24· · · · ·relevant time that the client was exposed.

25· · ·Q· ·When you mentioned you sometimes go to the

Page 393

·1· · · · ·defendant's -- strike that.· Let me take a step

·2· · · · ·back.

·3· · · · · · · ·You were shown by Mr. Assaf Ohio Rules of

·4· · · · ·Professional Conduct relating to document

·5· · · · ·retention.· Do you recall that?

·6· · ·A· ·Yes.

·7· · ·Q· ·Are you familiar with rules, professional

·8· · · · ·responsibility in Ohio that require counsel to,

·9· · · · ·although zealously advocate for their clients,

10· · · · ·also do so with fairness and candor to their

11· · · · ·opponents?

12· · ·A· ·I believe that's a -- I don't think that's

13· · · · ·limited to just Ohio.· I think that's limited

14· · · · ·to the practice of law in this country, that

15· · · · ·you can't lie.

16· · ·Q· ·And when you receive responses from defendants

17· · · · ·in discovery, do you assume that those

18· · · · ·responses are going to comport with the

19· · · · ·professional obligations of candor and fairness

20· · · · ·to opponents?

21· · ·A· ·I always have.

22· · ·Q· ·And I apologize, I'm taking a little side track

23· · · · ·here, but there was an extensive discussion

24· · · · ·about R.T. Vanderbilt's talc.· Do you recall

25· · · · ·that?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 100 of 168 PageID:

35219
Page 394

·1· · ·A· ·Yes.

·2· · ·Q· ·And a summary judgment motion where it was

·3· · · · ·disputed whether or not R.T. Vanderbilt's talc

·4· · · · ·contained asbestos?

·5· · ·A· ·Yes.

·6· · ·Q· ·And in opposition to that motion, you provided

·7· · · · ·test results that showed that the asbestos --

·8· · · · ·that the talc did contain asbestos?

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·Where did you get those test results?

11· · ·A· ·I believe we got them from R.T. Vanderbilt.

12· · ·Q· ·So those were test results or documents that

13· · · · ·would have been in the scope of discovery that

14· · · · ·were responded to?

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

16· · · · ·Leading.

17· · ·A· ·Yes.

18· · ·Q· ·And when R.T. Vanderbilt supplied -- they

19· · · · ·disputed the validity of those tests, is that

20· · · · ·correct?

21· · ·A· ·I believe so, yes.

22· · ·Q· ·Okay.· But it wasn't an issue of there was no

23· · · · ·evidence?

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

25· · · · ·Leading.

Page 395

·1· · ·Q· ·Was there an issue where they said there was no

·2· · · · ·evidence of asbestos in their talc?

·3· · ·A· ·No.· They didn't claim that.· I think I

·4· · · · ·testified to that earlier.· They gave us those

·5· · · · ·records but said, "Well, we have stuff that we

·6· · · · ·think trumps those records."

·7· · ·Q· ·And in terms of the -- well, strike that.· I'll

·8· · · · ·come back to that.

·9· · · · · · · ·But if you have no evidence of asbestos

10· · · · ·in the talc, are you going to undertake an

11· · · · ·investigation of product ID or exposure in a

12· · · · ·case?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

14· · · · ·Leading.

15· · ·A· ·Could you rephrase that question?

16· · ·Q· ·Sure.· Although I don't think it was leading,

17· · · · ·let me try it again.

18· · ·A· ·Okay.

19· · ·Q· ·If there is no --

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Actually, yeah,

21· · · · ·you're right.· It's a good question.· It is

22· · · · ·good.

23· · · · · · · ·You can answer it.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Okay.

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · I'm

Page 396

·1· · · · ·withdrawing the objection.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·That's fine.

·3· · · · ·The witness asked that I rephrase it.

·4· · ·Q· ·If there is no proof -- if there's no asbestos

·5· · · · ·in the talc, do you undertake an investigation

·6· · · · ·of product identification or exposure?

·7· · ·A· ·We would -- yeah, we would not dig into that

·8· · · · ·deeply.· There would be no need to dig into it,

·9· · · · ·because if I don't have evidence that there's

10· · · · ·asbestos in the talc, there's no reason to

11· · · · ·devote resources and effort into trying to

12· · · · ·establish anything beyond that.

13· · ·Q· ·I don't know if you have it handy, it's

14· · · · ·Exhibit -- Defendants' Exhibit 265.· This is an

15· · · · ·April 23 letter from Scott Martin to

16· · · · ·Mr. Economus.

17· · · · · · · ·I have an extra copy if you --

18· · ·A· ·That would help.

19· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So in this letter, Engelhard's -- well,

20· · · · ·let me try it a different way.

21· · · · · · · ·When you received this letter, what did

22· · · · ·you understand it to mean, in terms of the

23· · · · ·strength of your case against Engelhard?

24· · ·A· ·That we couldn't establish a case because they

25· · · · ·had tested their talc and there was no asbestos

Page 397

·1· · · · ·in their talc and, therefore, we wouldn't be

·2· · · · ·able to establish a case against Eastern

·3· · · · ·Magnesia Talc.

·4· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And so under cover of this letter, you

·5· · · · ·also got these three affidavits, one by

·6· · · · ·Mr. Ashton and two by Charles Carter, correct?

·7· · ·A· ·That's what it indicates, yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And in the context of being -- let's

·9· · · · ·take a look at the Ashton affidavit.

10· · ·A· ·I've got it.· And I have the Martin letter.

11· · · · ·You can have that back.

12· · ·Q· ·I'm sorry?

13· · ·A· ·I got the Martin letter too.

14· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Hold on to it.

15· · · · · · · ·In the context of being asked to dismiss

16· · · · ·cases because you cannot prove that there's

17· · · · ·asbestos in the talc -- actually, strike that.

18· · · · · · · ·In the context of being asked to dismiss

19· · · · ·cases on the basis that the talc produced by

20· · · · ·Emtal contains no asbestos, what was your

21· · · · ·understanding of the import, the purpose of

22· · · · ·this Ashton affidavit?

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

24· · · · ·Foundation, competency.

25· · ·A· ·It was to give -- convince me or any other

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 101 of 168 PageID:

35220
Page 398

·1· · · · ·attorneys that there was no asbestos in the

·2· · · · ·talc that Eastern Magnesia Talc mined and sold.

·3· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And if you turn to the second page of

·4· · · · ·that letter, I'll ask you to look at the third

·5· · · · ·full paragraph that begins "There is

·6· · · · ·substantial precedent for my request."

·7· · ·A· ·Yes.

·8· · ·Q· ·First of all, at the time you received this

·9· · · · ·letter or that the firm received this letter in

10· · · · ·April of 1992, did you know Jeffrey Schwartz or

11· · · · ·Allen Rothenberg?

12· · ·A· ·I did not.

13· · ·Q· ·Does this letter suggest -- did this letter

14· · · · ·suggest to you whether or not they were given

15· · · · ·the same information that Mr. Martin was giving

16· · · · ·to you?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

18· · · · ·Leading, foundation, form.

19· · ·A· ·I was certainly of the impression that they

20· · · · ·were giving the same stuff to other attorneys.

21· · ·Q· ·And then does Mr. Martin describe what, if any,

22· · · · ·decision they made with respect to their cases?

23· · ·A· ·And, by the way, the letter says, "The enclosed

24· · · · ·documents were provided to Jeffrey Schwartz of

25· · · · ·the Allen Rothenberg law firm."· And it says,

Page 399

·1· · · · ·"After this review, Mr. Schwartz voluntarily

·2· · · · ·dismissed Engelhard and Emtal from that

·3· · · · ·litigation."

·4· · · · · · · ·So he's telling me that he gave the same

·5· · · · ·stuff to another law firm and they dismissed

·6· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc and we should do the

·7· · · · ·same.

·8· · ·Q· ·Right.· And let me show you what has been

·9· · · · ·previously marked as Exhibit 127.

10· · · · · · · ·Do you recall receiving this letter from

11· · · · ·Scott Martin?

12· · ·A· ·This looks familiar.· Again, I believe that

13· · · · ·this would have come in to Dale Economus. I

14· · · · ·don't why there's -- it's addressed to

15· · · · ·Mr. Economus, why there's no name on there, but

16· · · · ·I believe that Dale Economus would have given

17· · · · ·this to me, because I believe I was the one

18· · · · ·that was talking with Scott Martin.

19· · ·Q· ·But did you or Mr. Economus misplace the

20· · · · ·material that was sent to you under cover of

21· · · · ·the April 23, 1992 letter?

22· · ·A· ·I don't think we misplaced it.· I think we

23· · · · ·reviewed it.

24· · ·Q· ·I want to show you what's been previously

25· · · · ·marked as Exhibit 198.

Page 400

·1· · · · · · · ·This is a letter dated December 21, 1992

·2· · · · ·from Scott Martin to Dale Economus.

·3· · · · · · · ·As you were working with Mr. Economus in

·4· · · · ·the asbestos cases, is this a letter you would

·5· · · · ·have seen?

·6· · ·A· ·Yes.

·7· · ·Q· ·And in the context of asking that the cases be

·8· · · · ·dismissed, does it reference "various

·9· · · · ·affidavits and other documents" sent to you

10· · · · ·earlier?

11· · ·A· ·Yes.

12· · ·Q· ·And am I reading it correctly, that it says,

13· · · · ·"documents forwarded to you with my previous

14· · · · ·correspondence, talc produced by EMTal from

15· · · · ·it's sole mine and mill in Johnson, Vermont

16· · · · ·contained no asbestos"?· And that's underlined,

17· · · · ·right?

18· · ·A· ·That's correct.

19· · ·Q· ·In the context of the correspondence that you

20· · · · ·had received asking you to dismiss these cases,

21· · · · ·what did you understand Mr. Martin was

22· · · · ·conveying to you and Mr. Economus?

23· · ·A· ·He was clearly conveying that there was no

24· · · · ·asbestos in Eastern Magnesia Talc and that,

25· · · · ·therefore, we should dismiss Eastern Magnesia

Page 401

·1· · · · ·Talc.

·2· · ·Q· ·And in addition to receiving these letters, you

·3· · · · ·testified you had discussions with Mr. Martin

·4· · · · ·and Mr. Joslyn in that regard?

·5· · ·A· ·Yes.

·6· · ·Q· ·Did at any time anyone on behalf of Engelhard

·7· · · · ·make reference to any other testing that had

·8· · · · ·been done of Emtal's talc?

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

10· · · · ·Foundation.

11· · ·A· ·No.· Other than what they gave me, no.

12· · ·Q· ·In responses to any discovery, did Engelhard

13· · · · ·make reference to -- or Engelhard and/or

14· · · · ·Cahill -- strike that.

15· · · · · · · ·In responses to discovery served, did

16· · · · ·Engelhard and/or Cahill make any reference to

17· · · · ·any test results of Emtal talc other than what

18· · · · ·had been provided to you in April of 1992?

19· · ·A· ·No.

20· · ·Q· ·Did you know in 1992 or in '93 of a scientist

21· · · · ·employed at Engelhard named Hemstock?

22· · ·A· ·No.

23· · ·Q· ·Did you know of an Engelhard employee named

24· · · · ·Peter Gale?

25· · ·A· ·Peter who?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 102 of 168 PageID:

35221
Page 402

·1· · ·Q· ·Gale.

·2· · ·A· ·No.

·3· · ·Q· ·How about an employee named Triglius

·4· · · · ·[phonetic]?

·5· · ·A· ·No.

·6· · ·Q· ·I want to go back to the letter, and I think it

·7· · · · ·was 116 [sic].· It was dated February 22, 1993.

·8· · · · ·Mr. Assaf asked about that.

·9· · · · · · · ·I have an extra copy.· I don't know that

10· · · · ·it was marked.

11· · ·A· ·I have it.· 266?

12· · ·Q· ·February 22.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Why don't you

14· · · · ·take a look at that.

15· · ·Q· ·This is in response to your letter Mr. Assaf

16· · · · ·asked you about with regard to a report that

17· · · · ·you found from the Vermont Department of

18· · · · ·Health, correct?

19· · ·A· ·Yes.

20· · ·Q· ·And in the third paragraph of that letter, they

21· · · · ·write, "The conclusion derived from all of

22· · · · ·these studies is that the talc produced from

23· · · · ·this mine did not contain asbestos."· And

24· · · · ·that's underscored, right?

25· · ·A· ·Yes.

Page 403

·1· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And then you pointed out the next

·2· · · · ·sentence in this letter.· Could you read that,

·3· · · · ·please?

·4· · ·A· ·"The only analysis which we have not previously

·5· · · · ·forwarded to you is one just completed by the

·6· · · · ·RJ Lee Group which showed no evidence of

·7· · · · ·asbestos minerals, nor of their nonfibrous

·8· · · · ·analogs, and found the talc to be a platy

·9· · · · ·nonfibrous variety."

10· · ·Q· ·In the context of the letters that we've been

11· · · · ·looking at and the request to dismiss Engelhard

12· · · · ·because there's no -- because the Emtal did not

13· · · · ·contain asbestos, what did you understand this

14· · · · ·letter to mean with respect to whether there

15· · · · ·were other studies?

16· · ·A· ·There was no other studies, that they gave me

17· · · · ·everything that they had, informed me of all of

18· · · · ·the studies that they had done, and all of the

19· · · · ·studies showed there was no asbestos in their

20· · · · ·talc.

21· · ·Q· ·Mr. Assaf asked whether you had hired a

22· · · · ·geologist.

23· · · · · · · ·In your experience as a lawyer

24· · · · ·representing people who are injured or die from

25· · · · ·asbestos-related diseases, what purpose would a

Page 404

·1· · · · ·geologist serve in reviewing asbestos cases?

·2· · · · ·And I'm not just talking about talc, but

·3· · · · ·generally.

·4· · ·A· ·I'm not certain what purpose a geologist would

·5· · · · ·serve.

·6· · ·Q· ·Are there experts who you could consult with

·7· · · · ·who could assess samples of a material to see

·8· · · · ·if it contained asbestos?

·9· · ·A· ·Yes.

10· · ·Q· ·What are those experts called?

11· · ·A· ·I would call it a material scientist.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.

13· · ·A· ·Is probably what I would call them.

14· · ·Q· ·I want to show you what has been marked as

15· · · · ·Exhibit 7.

16· · · · · · · ·This is an affidavit of Charles Carter

17· · · · ·dated September 20, 1988.· It's attached in the

18· · · · ·April 23, 1992 letter from Mr. Martin to

19· · · · ·Mr. Economus.· Do you recall seeing this

20· · · · ·affidavit?

21· · ·A· ·I thought this was in that stack there.

22· · · · · · · ·Yeah, it was in the -- it was attached to

23· · · · ·the April 23, 1992 letter from Mr. Martin to

24· · · · ·Mr. Economus.

25· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And in the context of being asked to

Page 405

·1· · · · ·dismiss Emtal because its talc does not contain

·2· · · · ·asbestos, what is this affidavit telling you,

·3· · · · ·or how did you understand it?

·4· · ·A· ·That they're not selling Emtal anymore.· And I

·5· · · · ·thought another one indicated that it was

·6· · · · ·flooded, that --

·7· · ·Q· ·I'm going to show you that in a minute.

·8· · ·A· ·That there was no more -- no way to get another

·9· · · · ·sample to test.

10· · ·Q· ·And that's where I'm going.

11· · · · · · · ·This is Exhibit 8, also attached to that

12· · · · ·April 23 letter.

13· · ·A· ·Yes.

14· · ·Q· ·And again in the context of being asked to

15· · · · ·dismiss Engelhard because its talc does not

16· · · · ·contain asbestos, what information do you get

17· · · · ·from this affidavit signed by Mr. Carter on

18· · · · ·June 19, 1989?

19· · ·A· ·That there would be no way to get a sample of

20· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc to have it tested by a

21· · · · ·material science expert.

22· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And it gives two reasons for that in

23· · · · ·paragraph 4, correct?

24· · ·A· ·They said it was closed, and as a consequence,

25· · · · ·it's presently filled with water, making it

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 103 of 168 PageID:

35222
Page 406

·1· · · · ·impossible to obtain any samples of talc from

·2· · · · ·the mine.

·3· · ·Q· ·Does Mr. Carter swear in his affidavit whether

·4· · · · ·there are or are not samples that could be

·5· · · · ·shared with counsel?

·6· · ·A· ·He further states that "Engelhard does not

·7· · · · ·currently possess any samples of the talc

·8· · · · ·produced by this mine."

·9· · ·Q· ·Okay.· The third affidavit of Charles Carter,

10· · · · ·this has been marked as -- previously as

11· · · · ·Exhibit 6 and is dated August 18, 1989.

12· · · · · · · ·Have you seen this affidavit before?

13· · ·A· ·It -- I don't know this was attached to this,

14· · · · ·the letter from Scott Martin or not.· So I

15· · · · ·don't know for sure.· It looks familiar, but

16· · · · ·I've got several other affidavits from

17· · · · ·Mr. Carter.· So I'm not certain of that, but I

18· · · · ·think most likely.

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

20· · · · ·Move to strike.· Competency, foundation.

21· · ·Q· ·You were asked about whether there were other

22· · · · ·studies.

23· · · · · · · ·Take a look at paragraph 3 and see

24· · · · ·whether or not Mr. Carter references whether or

25· · · · ·not Engelhard possesses any testing data other

Page 407

·1· · · · ·than what was sent under cover of the Ashton --

·2· · · · ·or attached to the Ashton affidavit.

·3· · ·A· ·He indicates that Engelhard does not currently

·4· · · · ·possess any testing data other than data

·5· · · · ·provided to you --I don't know who "you" is --

·6· · · · ·by way of the Ashton affidavit and the report

·7· · · · ·of Dr. Pooley.

·8· · ·Q· ·And Dr. Pooley's report -- well, there's -- on

·9· · · · ·an August 23, 1992 letter from Scott Martin to

10· · · · ·Mr. Economus, there is reference to a report of

11· · · · ·Dr. Pooley.

12· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?

13· · ·A· ·Dated -- which letter?

14· · ·Q· ·The August 23 letter, 1992.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · April?· April

16· · · · ·23?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·What did I say?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · August.

19· · ·A· ·Oh, April 23.

20· · ·Q· ·I apologize.

21· · ·A· ·Okay.· Yeah, it references Dr. Pooley, yes, and

22· · · · ·Charles Carter and William Ashton.

23· · ·Q· ·And with respect to the -- well, I'm sorry.

24· · · · · · · ·In the context of the cases you were

25· · · · ·representing plaintiffs against Engelhard, did

Page 408

·1· · · · ·you receive any testing data other than what

·2· · · · ·was in these letters that we've just been

·3· · · · ·describing?

·4· · ·A· ·No.

·5· · ·Q· ·Let me show you a letter from November 12, 2008

·6· · · · ·that's marked as 145.· I thought Mr. Assaf

·7· · · · ·marked it today, but I could be wrong.

·8· · · · · · · ·John Mismas is an attorney in your

·9· · · · ·office?

10· · ·A· ·He was an attorney in my office at the time.

11· · ·Q· ·And do you recall Mr. Mismas showing you a copy

12· · · · ·of this letter?· Have you seen this before?

13· · ·A· ·I believe so, yes.

14· · ·Q· ·And this is a letter from Jennifer Riester, who

15· · · · ·is -- was representing Engelhard at the time?

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·Did Ms. Riester provide you with any additional

18· · · · ·information regarding testing performed on

19· · · · ·Emtal talc beyond that which you had received

20· · · · ·up through 1993 and 1994?

21· · ·A· ·I don't believe so.· And I'm looking -- she

22· · · · ·lists what she provided and it included the

23· · · · ·Ashton affidavit and the RJ Lee report.

24· · ·Q· ·And you were asked about the motion for summary

25· · · · ·judgment that was filed in Graham.· Do you

Page 409

·1· · · · ·recall that?

·2· · ·A· ·Yes.

·3· · ·Q· ·And I apologize for not having copies.· Did the

·4· · · · ·judge write an opinion when summary judgment

·5· · · · ·was granted?

·6· · ·A· ·I don't think so.· I think that what counsel

·7· · · · ·gave me, it just had stamped "granted" on the

·8· · · · ·front, if I recall correctly, but let me see if

·9· · · · ·I can find that again.· I'm not positive.· One

10· · · · ·of those it said -- it just said "granted."

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Here you go.

12· · ·A· ·Yeah, this says "granted" on the top.

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · What number is

14· · · · ·that, Tom?

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· · · This was

16· · · · ·Defendants' Exhibit 42.

17· · ·Q· ·Just give me a minute while I dig through and

18· · · · ·get my copy out.

19· · · · · · · ·All right.· I'm sorry.· I don't think I

20· · · · ·have a copy of this.· I don't think it was

21· · · · ·produced.

22· · ·A· ·Yeah, and Defendants' Exhibit 261 is also

23· · · · ·the -- the -- whatever the filing -- what do

24· · · · ·you call it.· A copy of it.· It just says,

25· · · · ·"Defendant's motion for summary judgment is

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 104 of 168 PageID:

35223
Page 410

·1· · · · ·granted" there.· I don't believe there was a

·2· · · · ·written opinion.

·3· · ·Q· ·Right.· And what I wanted to show you was the

·4· · · · ·Defendant Eastern Magnesia Talc Company's reply

·5· · · · ·to the plaintiff's brief in opposition.· It had

·6· · · · ·been previously marked as Exhibit 156.

·7· · · · · · · ·And there's a highlighted block here.

·8· · · · ·What are the issues that Engelhard -- or

·9· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia at the time moved for summary

10· · · · ·judgment in regard?

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · All of the

12· · · · ·issues, or the issues that you blocked?

13· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·The issues in

14· · · · ·the flyer I think address all the issues.

15· · ·A· ·It indicates, "As will be shown, none of this

16· · · · ·evidence creates a genuine issue of material

17· · · · ·fact as to whether the plaintiff was ever

18· · · · ·exposed to any talc sold by EMT, that any talc

19· · · · ·sold by EMT contained asbestos, or that any

20· · · · ·such talc was a substantial factor contributing

21· · · · ·to plaintiff's disease."

22· · ·Q· ·Thank you.· I'll take that back.· I don't want

23· · · · ·to lose it.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · I think I

25· · · · ·marked it.

Page 411

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·I thought you

·2· · · · ·did too, but I couldn't -- I thought you did

·3· · · · ·too.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · I did.

·5· · ·A· ·Yeah, I think it was marked.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·We can clean

·7· · · · ·that up afterwards.· My piles have piles right

·8· · · · ·now.

·9· · ·Q· ·Mr. Bevan, did you ultimately dismiss,

10· · · · ·voluntarily dismiss, the Charles Williams case?

11· · ·A· ·I believe so, yes.

12· · ·Q· ·All right.· Let me show you -- and we'll mark

13· · · · ·this as Bevan Exhibit 1.

14· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

15· · · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 was marked.)

16· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

17· · ·Q· ·Just describe what this is, please.

18· · · · · · · ·What is that series of documents?

19· · ·A· ·I believe this is the cover letter transmitting

20· · · · ·our notice of voluntary dismissal of Engelhard

21· · · · ·from the Charles Williams case that was filed

22· · · · ·in federal court in the Northern District of

23· · · · ·Ohio.

24· · ·Q· ·And in -- I'm sorry.

25· · ·A· ·And by the way, also on the cover letter we --

Page 412

·1· · · · ·apparently we dismissed also Clay Compton, Loyd

·2· · · · ·Brown, and Mable Gonzalez at that time as well.

·3· · ·Q· ·In reaching the decision to voluntarily dismiss

·4· · · · ·cases that you had filed against Engelhard,

·5· · · · ·what information did you rely upon?

·6· · ·A· ·What was provided to me by the Cahill Gordon

·7· · · · ·firm and Eastern Magnesia Talc.

·8· · ·Q· ·Have you tried other asbestos cases?· And by

·9· · · · ·"other asbestos," I mean other than talc cases

10· · · · ·which you've testified you did not try.· Have

11· · · · ·you tried other asbestos injury cases?

12· · ·A· ·Yes.

13· · ·Q· ·How many?

14· · ·A· ·Well, to verdict, probably five perhaps. I

15· · · · ·probably started another five and settled

16· · · · ·during the course of trial.· Maybe ten settled

17· · · · ·during trial.· And then of course you know,

18· · · · ·many, many, many cases that we were litigating

19· · · · ·that we settled during the course of the

20· · · · ·litigation.

21· · ·Q· ·Is it fair to say that most of the cases,

22· · · · ·asbestos injury cases, settle, in your

23· · · · ·experience?

24· · ·A· ·Oh, most cases settle, yes.

25· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Why don't we take a break for a minute.

Page 413

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

·2· · · · ·The time is 6:34.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on

·7· · · · ·the record.· The time is 6:42.

·8· · ·BY MR. ROTH:

·9· · ·Q· ·This falls around the jump around category and

10· · · · ·I apologize.

11· · · · · · · ·You were shown Defendants' Exhibit 135.

12· · · · ·I don't know whether you have it handy or not.

13· · ·A· ·Well, if you can tell me what it is, I can --

14· · ·Q· ·It was the motion for summary judgment filed in

15· · · · ·the Clark versus Owens Corning fiberglass case

16· · · · ·in front of Judge Victor in Summit County.

17· · ·A· ·Yes, I have that.

18· · ·Q· ·Okay.

19· · ·A· ·138?

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. PLACITELLA:· ·135.

21· · ·A· ·Okay.· Yes.

22· · ·Q· ·Do you have that?

23· · ·A· ·Yes, I have it.

24· · ·Q· ·Okay.· I believe you testified you weren't sure

25· · · · ·but you thought you won that motion for summary

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 105 of 168 PageID:

35224
Page 414

·1· · · · ·judgment.

·2· · · · · · · ·I want to show you what we'll mark as

·3· · · · ·Bevan Exhibit 2.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·5· · · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2 was marked.)

·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·7· · ·Q· ·Does this refresh your recollection of the

·8· · · · ·outcome of this case?

·9· · ·A· ·This is what I recall.· And I was correct, the

10· · · · ·court denied the motion for summary judgment on

11· · · · ·the Clark case, yes.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And even though you won -- you defeated

13· · · · ·summary judgment in that case, you,

14· · · · ·nevertheless, refiled it in Cuyahoga County?

15· · ·A· ·Yes.

16· · ·Q· ·Not related to your victory in the summary

17· · · · ·judgment motion, I assume?

18· · ·A· ·That was not a reason for me to dismiss the

19· · · · ·case.

20· · ·Q· ·You were asked a couple of questions about the

21· · · · ·Raymark lawsuit against Stemple and others.

22· · · · · · · ·You were not named as a defendant in that

23· · · · ·case?

24· · ·A· ·No, I was not.

25· · ·Q· ·And do you recall the outcome, with respect to

Page 415

·1· · · · ·your father and Mr. Economus?

·2· · ·A· ·I was told that they were dismissed.· I don't

·3· · · · ·recall ever reading any documents to that

·4· · · · ·extent.· I wasn't involved and it was over with

·5· · · · ·by the time I became a law clerk, as far as I

·6· · · · ·know, in May of 1989.

·7· · ·Q· ·Okay.· And if there were published opinions to

·8· · · · ·that effect, would you be surprised to learn

·9· · · · ·that they were dismissed by federal judges?

10· · ·A· ·That would confirm what they told me at the

11· · · · ·time, yes.

12· · ·Q· ·Okay.

13· · ·A· ·That would not surprise me.

14· · ·Q· ·One of the things you mentioned regarding

15· · · · ·conversations you had with Mr. Martin and

16· · · · ·Mr. Joslyn was being threatened with sanctions.

17· · · · ·Tell us more about that, please.

18· · ·A· ·Well, that would -- I repeatedly got threatened

19· · · · ·with sanctions, I believe more so by Mr. Joslyn

20· · · · ·than Mr. Martin.· It was -- my recollection was

21· · · · ·that it was a kind of a good cop, bad cop thing

22· · · · ·and Mr. Martin was the good cop and Mr. Joslyn

23· · · · ·was the bad copy.· And he would be quite

24· · · · ·aggressive and threatening with the sanctions,

25· · · · ·usually after a deposition was over or during

Page 416

·1· · · · ·the break of a deposition.

·2· · · · · · · ·And the one instance I recall was

·3· · · · ·Mr. Joslyn confronting me at the end -- or at a

·4· · · · ·break of the John Nardella deposition.· And I

·5· · · · ·recall that one specifically because -- I still

·6· · · · ·kind of laugh to this day when I recall,

·7· · · · ·Mr. Nardella, who has since passed away and

·8· · · · ·what he said about Mr. Joslyn when Mr. Joslyn

·9· · · · ·walked away.

10· · ·Q· ·What was the -- what was your understanding of

11· · · · ·what Mr. Joslyn thought was sanctionable in

12· · · · ·your conduct?

13· · ·A· ·That I had no evidence and there was no

14· · · · ·evidence of asbestos in Eastern Magnesia Talc

15· · · · ·and, therefore, the claims against them,

16· · · · ·asbestos claims against them, were frivolous

17· · · · ·and sanctionable.

18· · ·Q· ·You were questioned by Mr. Assaf about your

19· · · · ·filing of lawsuits against Engelhard or Eastern

20· · · · ·Magnesia after you got the information in 1992

21· · · · ·and '93.

22· · ·A· ·Yeah.

23· · ·Q· ·Have you been involved in cases where

24· · · · ·defendants, in terms of how cases develop,

25· · · · ·where defendants may develop evidence that you

Page 417

·1· · · · ·did not have about another defendant?

·2· · ·A· ·Yeah, certainly.· And I know that the Owens

·3· · · · ·Corning was trying to go that route as well.

·4· · · · ·And that was what was happening in these cases.

·5· · · · · · · ·Owens Corning was aggressively trying to

·6· · · · ·point the finger at the talc defendants and

·7· · · · ·trying to establish a case against the talc

·8· · · · ·defendants.

·9· · · · · · · ·And so, you know, I had no evidence that

10· · · · ·they had asbestos in their talc but, you know,

11· · · · ·I continued to try and I continued to be

12· · · · ·deceived by Eastern Magnesia Talc.

13· · ·Q· ·In these cases that you filed, whether you were

14· · · · ·sent some product identification, that it was

15· · · · ·weak or exposure might be weak, were you ever

16· · · · ·sanctioned or were you ever the subject of a

17· · · · ·Rule 11, under whatever Ohio's Rule 11 motion

18· · · · ·practice is?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · In the talc

20· · · · ·cases or any other case?

21· · ·Q· ·In the talc cases.

22· · ·A· ·No.

23· · ·Q· ·Did Engelhard or anyone from Cahill question

24· · · · ·the diagnosis of your clients?

25· · ·A· ·Not that I recall.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 106 of 168 PageID:

35225
Page 418

·1· · ·Q· ·Let me show you -- and again this may have been

·2· · · · ·marked too and I apologize.· It's Exhibit 131.

·3· · ·A· ·I don't think this one was.

·4· · ·Q· ·And this is a letter to you from Scott Martin

·5· · · · ·dated July 24, 1996?

·6· · ·A· ·Yes.

·7· · ·Q· ·In the context of requesting the voluntary

·8· · · · ·dismissal of the Strickland case, what is

·9· · · · ·Mr. Martin telling you about whether Emtal has

10· · · · ·asbestos in it?

11· · ·A· ·He indicated there is no evidence whatsoever

12· · · · ·that talc mined or milled by Emtal contained

13· · · · ·asbestos.

14· · ·Q· ·I only mean to be a little bit glib, but do you

15· · · · ·need to be a scientist or do you need a

16· · · · ·scientist or did you need an expert in 1996 to

17· · · · ·decipher what Mr. Martin meant when he wrote to

18· · · · ·you that there is no evidence whatsoever that

19· · · · ·talc mined and milled by Emtal contained

20· · · · ·asbestos?

21· · ·A· ·It's clear what he meant.

22· · ·Q· ·I don't have any other questions.· And I think

23· · · · ·we're done.

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Whoa.· Whoa.

25· · · · ·Whoa.· I have a couple.

Page 419

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·You're at seven

·2· · · · ·hours.· What are you --

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · I don't think

·4· · · · ·so.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Well, what was

·6· · · · ·the time before we went to plaintiffs' side?

·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: He was at 6:51.

·8· · · · · ·REEXAMINATION OF THOMAS W. BEVAN, ESQ.

·9· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

10· · ·Q· ·Ready?

11· · ·A· ·Sure.

12· · ·Q· ·Mr. Roth asked you a bunch of questions about

13· · · · ·how to prove product ID based on all of your

14· · · · ·experience.· Right?

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

16· · ·A· ·He asked me a couple questions, sure.

17· · ·Q· ·By the way, you never had any problems

18· · · · ·answering Mr. Roth's questions, did you?

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

20· · ·A· ·His questions were much more direct and simpler

21· · · · ·than your questions.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Thank you very

23· · · · ·much.

24· · ·A· ·They were better questions.

25· · ·Q· ·You would like to see Mr. Roth win, correct?

Page 420

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Move to strike.

·3· · ·Q· ·Well, is that not true?

·4· · ·A· ·I think --

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·6· · ·A· ·And I'm not sure what you mean by that.

·7· · ·Q· ·You'd like to see the plaintiffs win this case?

·8· · ·A· ·The plaintiffs should win this case --

·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

10· · ·A· ·-- yes.· Absolutely.

11· · ·Q· ·In terms of showing product ID, one of the ways

12· · · · ·you show it is from interrogatory responses

13· · · · ·from the defendant, correct?

14· · ·A· ·Yes.

15· · ·Q· ·Sales records from the defendants, correct?

16· · ·A· ·Yes.

17· · ·Q· ·The sales -- or I'm sorry.· The purchasing

18· · · · ·records from facilities, for example,

19· · · · ·BFGoodrich purchasing records, correct?

20· · ·A· ·If they exist, yes.

21· · ·Q· ·And you also show it through your own client

22· · · · ·recollection by showing them pictures of

23· · · · ·various products to see if they could identify

24· · · · ·it --

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Asked and

Page 421

·1· · · · ·answered.

·2· · ·Q· ·-- correct?

·3· · ·A· ·Sometimes we show them pictures.· Usually not.

·4· · ·Q· ·And do you have any evidence -- withdrawn.

·5· · · · · · · ·Over the 15 years you were litigating

·6· · · · ·with Emtal over product ID for its talc, did

·7· · · · ·you ever feel as though you weren't getting the

·8· · · · ·proper information from Emtal, in terms of

·9· · · · ·their sales records?

10· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

11· · ·A· ·As I sit here today, I don't believe I did. I

12· · · · ·think they approached it that we had no

13· · · · ·asbestos in our talc so we're not giving you

14· · · · ·anything.

15· · ·Q· ·Okay.· So prior to talking to Mr. Placitella in

16· · · · ·2010, did you have any reason to believe that

17· · · · ·you weren't getting the sales information from

18· · · · ·Emtal that you were seeking?

19· · ·A· ·Prior to --

20· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

22· · ·A· ·Prior to the conversation with Mr. Placitella,

23· · · · ·I had no reason to believe that Eastern

24· · · · ·Magnesia wasn't being forthright.

25· · ·Q· ·And you got all the sales information you

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 107 of 168 PageID:

35226
Page 422

·1· · · · ·requested?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·3· · ·A· ·I don't know if I did.· I don't -- I'm not

·4· · · · ·certain that I did.· I got sales records from

·5· · · · ·C.P. Hall that showed sales of Eastern Magnesia

·6· · · · ·Talc.· Whether I got anything from Eastern

·7· · · · ·Magnesia, I'm not certain that I did.

·8· · ·Q· ·You never got interrogatory responses?

·9· · ·A· ·I'm sure I got interrogatory responses that

10· · · · ·said there's no asbestos and we're not

11· · · · ·answering anything else.

12· · ·Q· ·Did you ever move to compel responses for

13· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc for product ID?

14· · ·A· ·I think I tried to work with them.· I talked

15· · · · ·with them and they gave me what they gave me

16· · · · ·and, you know, insisted that there was no

17· · · · ·asbestos in their talc and I believed them.

18· · ·Q· ·Did you ever move to compel, Mr. Bevan, yes or

19· · · · ·no?

20· · ·A· ·I don't recall.

21· · ·Q· ·Will you come to New Jersey for a class

22· · · · ·certification hearing?

23· · ·A· ·If requested I will.

24· · ·Q· ·Okay.· Mr. Allen Rothenberg, did you ever talk

25· · · · ·to him regarding talc cases?

Page 423

·1· · ·A· ·I don't think I've ever had a conversation with

·2· · · · ·Allen Rothenberg.

·3· · ·Q· ·And did you have any conversations with anybody

·4· · · · ·outside of Ohio regarding the talc cases, any

·5· · · · ·other plaintiffs lawyer?

·6· · ·A· ·With respect to this class action or with

·7· · · · ·respect to --

·8· · ·Q· ·With respect to the reasons you dismissed

·9· · · · ·Engelhard.

10· · ·A· ·No.

11· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

12· · ·A· ·I don't think so.

13· · ·Q· ·No more questions.

14· · · · · ·REEXAMINATION OF THOMAS W. BEVAN, ESQ.

15· · ·BY MR. ROTH:

16· · ·Q· ·Before learning that when Scott Martin said

17· · · · ·there was no evidence whatsoever that talc

18· · · · ·mined and milled by Emtal contained asbestos --

19· · · · ·I'm sorry.· Strike that.

20· · · · · · · ·Before learning that there were test

21· · · · ·results conducted by or on Engelhard's behalf

22· · · · ·about Emtal talc that were positive for

23· · · · ·asbestos, did you know that Scott Martin's

24· · · · ·statement to you that there's no evidence

25· · · · ·whatsoever that talc mined and milled by Emtal

Page 424

·1· · · · ·contained asbestos was false?

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

·3· · · · ·Beyond the scope.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Absolutely not.

·5· · ·A· ·I did not know that.

·6· · ·Q· ·Before learning that there were test results

·7· · · · ·done by or on behalf of Emtal or Engelhard that

·8· · · · ·showed that Emtal talc contained asbestos, did

·9· · · · ·you know that Mr. Martin's statement to you

10· · · · ·that the only analysis which we have not

11· · · · ·previously forwarded to you other than the

12· · · · ·Ashton and Carter affidavits and the Pooley

13· · · · ·report is one completed by the RJ Lee Group

14· · · · ·which showed no evidence of asbestos mineral,

15· · · · ·did you know that statement was false?

16· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

17· · · · ·Leading and beyond the scope.

18· · ·A· ·No, not until I talked to Mr. Placitella.

19· · ·Q· ·Do you know -- do you know today whether or not

20· · · · ·Engelhard's scientists had testified at

21· · · · ·deposition in 1983 and verified findings that

22· · · · ·showed that Emtal contained asbestos?

23· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Objection.

24· · · · ·Beyond the scope and leading and foundation.

25· · ·A· ·The extent of what I know is what was told to

Page 425

·1· · · · ·me by Mr. Placitella and what I've read in that

·2· · · · ·complaint.· If it was that level of detail, I

·3· · · · ·don't recall.· I think I heard that level of

·4· · · · ·detail, but I don't recall for sure.

·5· · ·Q· ·No further questions.

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ASSAF:· · · · Recross.

·7· · · · FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THOMAS W. BEVAN, ESQ.

·8· · ·BY MR. ASSAF:

·9· · ·Q· ·Regarding your responses to Mr. Roth's

10· · · · ·questions right now, your position that Cahill

11· · · · ·did something wrong is based solely on your

12· · · · ·conversations with Mr. Placitella and documents

13· · · · ·written by Mr. Placitella?

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

16· · ·A· ·I wouldn't say solely.

17· · ·Q· ·Primarily?

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

19· · ·A· ·I wouldn't say primarily.· I would say half of

20· · · · ·it was based on what Mr. Martin and what

21· · · · ·Mr. Joslyn said to me in writing, said to Dale

22· · · · ·Economus in writing, what they said to me

23· · · · ·orally.· That's half of it.· The other half is

24· · · · ·the truth, which is what Mr. Placitella told

25· · · · ·me.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 108 of 168 PageID:

35227
Page 426

·1· · ·Q· ·Your testimony of what the truth is is based

·2· · · · ·solely on Mr. Placitella, correct?

·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Asked and

·6· · · · ·answered.

·7· · ·A· ·Yeah, I have not -- I don't know that I've seen

·8· · · · ·any documents.· I don't recall that he gave me

·9· · · · ·any documents to this extent.· I know there's

10· · · · ·documents that are at issue, as to whether or

11· · · · ·not I will at some point be allowed to see

12· · · · ·them, but I have to rely upon what

13· · · · ·Mr. Placitella --

14· · ·Q· ·If Mr. Placitella's rendition of the facts and

15· · · · ·recitation of the facts is wrong, then you're

16· · · · ·wrong?

17· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · Objection.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. ROTH:· · · · ·Objection.

19· · ·A· ·Well, it depends on in what way they're wrong.

20· · ·Q· ·No more questions.

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·MR. McDERMOTT:· · We'll read.

22· · · · · · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.

23· · · · ·The time is 6:57.

24· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

25· · · · · ·(Deposition was concluded at 6:57 p.m.)

Page 427

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·2· · · · · · · · · · (Signature reserved.)

·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

·4

·5

·6

·7

·8

·9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 428

·1· · · · THE STATE OF OHIO,· ·)· ·SS:

·2· · · · COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA.· )

·3

·4· · · · · · ·I, Sarah R. Drown, a Registered Professional

·5· · · · Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State

·6· · · · of Ohio, duly commissioned and qualified, do hereby

·7· · · · certify that THOMAS W. BEVAN, ESQ., was first duly

·8· · · · sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth and

·9· · · · nothing but the truth in the cause aforesaid; that

10· · · · the testimony then given by him was by me reduced to

11· · · · stenotypy in the presence of said witness,

12· · · · afterwards transcribed on a computer/printer, and

13· · · · that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript

14· · · · of the testimony so given by him as aforesaid.

15· · · · · · ·I do further certify that this deposition was

16· · · · taken at the time and place in the foregoing caption

17· · · · specified.· I do further certify that I am not a

18· · · · relative, counsel or attorney of either party, or

19· · · · otherwise interested in the event of this action.

20· · · · · · ·IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

21· · · · and affixed my seal of office at Cleveland, Ohio, on

22· · · · this 18th day of May, 2018.

23

24· · · · · · · · · · · ·Sarah R. Drown, RPR, Notary Public

· · · · · · · · · · · · ·within and for the State of Ohio

25· · · · · · · · · · · ·My Commission expires April 22, 2022.

Page 429

·1· · · · THE STATE OF· · · · · · · ·)

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· · SS:

·2· · · · COUNTY OF· · · · · · · · · )

·3

·4

·5

·6· · · · · · ·Before me, a Notary Public in and for said

·7· · · · state and county, personally appeared the

·8· · · · above-named THOMAS W. BEVAN, ESQ., who acknowledged

·9· · · · that he did sign the foregoing transcript and that

10· · · · the same is a true and correct transcript of the

11· · · · testimony so given.

12· · · · · · ·IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed

13· · · · my name and official seal at

14· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·this· · · · · · day of

15· · · · · · · · · · · ·, 2018.

16

17

18

19· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·THOMAS W. BEVAN, ESQ.

20

21· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Notary Public

22· · · · My Commission expires:

23

24

25

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 109 of 168 PageID:

35228
Page 430

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET

·2· · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

·3· · · · Reason for change:

· · · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

·4

· · · · · Reason for change:

·5· · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

·6· · · · Reason for change:

· · · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

·7

· · · · · Reason for change:

·8· · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

·9· · · · Reason for change:

· · · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

10

· · · · · Reason for change:

11· · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

12· · · · Reason for change:

· · · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

13

· · · · · Reason for change:

14· · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

15· · · · Reason for change:

· · · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

16

· · · · · Reason for change:

17· · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

18· · · · Reason for change:

· · · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

19

· · · · · Reason for change:

20· · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

21· · · · Reason for change:

· · · · · Page No.· · · · · Line No.· · · · ·Change to:

22

· · · · · Reason for change:

23

24· · · · SIGNATURE:· · · · · · · · · · · · ·DATE:

25

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 110 of 168 PageID:

35229
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 111 of 168 PageID:

35230
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 112 of 168 PageID:

35231
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 113 of 168 PageID:

35232
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 114 of 168 PageID:

35233
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 115 of 168 PageID:

35234
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 116 of 168 PageID:

35235
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 117 of 168 PageID:

35236
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 118 of 168 PageID:

35237
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 119 of 168 PageID:

35238
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 120 of 168 PageID:

35239
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 121 of 168 PageID:

35240
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 122 of 168 PageID:

35241
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 123 of 168 PageID:

35242
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 124 of 168 PageID:

35243
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 125 of 168 PageID:

35244
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 126 of 168 PageID:

35245
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 127 of 168 PageID:

35246
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 128 of 168 PageID:

35247
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 129 of 168 PageID:

35248
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 130 of 168 PageID:

35249
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 131 of 168 PageID:

35250
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 132 of 168 PageID:

35251
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 133 of 168 PageID:

35252
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 134 of 168 PageID:

35253
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 135 of 168 PageID:

35254
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 136 of 168 PageID:

35255
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 137 of 168 PageID:

35256
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 138 of 168 PageID:

35257
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 139 of 168 PageID:

35258
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 140 of 168 PageID:

35259
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 141 of 168 PageID:

35260
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 142 of 168 PageID:

35261
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 143 of 168 PageID:

35262
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 144 of 168 PageID:

35263
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 145 of 168 PageID:

35264
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 146 of 168 PageID:

35265
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 147 of 168 PageID:

35266
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 148 of 168 PageID:

35267
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 149 of 168 PageID:

35268
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 150 of 168 PageID:

35269
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 151 of 168 PageID:

35270
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 152 of 168 PageID:

35271
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 153 of 168 PageID:

35272
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 154 of 168 PageID:

35273
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 155 of 168 PageID:

35274
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 156 of 168 PageID:

35275
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 157 of 168 PageID:

35276
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 158 of 168 PageID:

35277
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 159 of 168 PageID:

35278
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 160 of 168 PageID:

35279
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 161 of 168 PageID:

35280
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 162 of 168 PageID:

35281
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 163 of 168 PageID:

35282
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 164 of 168 PageID:

35283
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 165 of 168 PageID:

35284
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 166 of 168 PageID:

35285
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 167 of 168 PageID:

35286
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 168 of 168 PageID:

35287