EXHIBIT B 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 568-2 Filed 06/12/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 40787
·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 568-2 Filed 06/12/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 40788
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 568-2 Filed 06/12/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 40789
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 568-2 Filed 06/12/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 40790
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 568-2 Filed 06/12/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 40791
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 568-2 Filed 06/12/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 40792
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 568-2 Filed 06/12/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 40793