Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 4 5 -----------------------------------x 6 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY 7 LITIGATION 8 -----------------------------------x MDL No. 02741 9 10 * Confidential - Pursuant to Protective Order * 11 12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TODD RANDS 13 PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6) 14 and IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY 15 Washington, D.C. 16 Tuesday, February 12, 2019 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 GOLKOW LITIGATION SERVICES T 877.370.3377 F 917.591.5672 deps@golkow.com 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 1 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tuesday, February 12, 2019 7 9:02a.m. 8 9 10 11 12 The following is the transcript of the 13 videotaped deposition of TODD RANDS held at the 14 offices of Hollingsworth LLP, 1350 I Street, NW, 15 Washington, DC 20005. 16 17 18 19 Reported by: Linda S. Kinkade, RDR CRR RMR RPR CSR 20 Registered Diplomate Reporter, Nationally Certified 21 Realtime Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter 22 with Merit Distinction, 23 (CA), Notary Public, within and for the District of 24 Columbia, and official duly authorized to administer 25 oaths and/or affirmations. Golkow Litigation Services Certified Shorthand Reporter Page 2 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order A P P E A R A N C E S : 2 3 On Behalf of Plaintiffs: 4 Weitz & Luxenberg, 5 220 Lake Drive East 6 Suite 210 7 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 8 (856) 755-1115 9 By: 10 P.C. Jerry Kristal, Esq. jkristal@weitzlux.com 11 12 13 On Behalf of Defendants: 14 BartlitBeck LLP 15 Courthouse Place 16 54 West Hubbard Street 17 Chicago, 18 (312) 494-4446 19 By: 20 Brian.Prestes@BartlitBeck.com Illinois 60654 Brian S. Prestes, Esq. 21 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 3 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order A P P E A R A N C E S (continued): 2 3 On Behalf of Defendants: 4 Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 5 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 6 Washington, DC 20001 7 (202) 942-6216 8 By: 9 daniel.pariser@arnoldporter.com Daniel S. Pariser, Esq. 10 11 On Behalf of Defendants: 12 Hollingsworth LLP 13 1350 I Street, NW 14 Washington, DC 20005 15 (202) 898-5877 16 By: 17 eshimada@hollingsworthllp.com Elyse A. Shimada, Esq. 18 19 20 21 Also present: Daniel Holmstock, Legal Video Specialist 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 4 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order INDEX OF EXAMINATION 2 3 4 EXAMINATION OF TODD RANDS BY MR. KRISTAL 5 6 PAGE 13 455 BY MR. PRESTES 440 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 5 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 E X H I B I T S 2 3 NO . DESCRIPTION 4 Exhibit 1 Plaintiffs' Amended Notice to .... PAGE 5 Take the Videotaped Oral 6 Deposition of Monsanto Company 7 Exhibit 2 Plaintiffs' Amended Notice to .... 8 Take the Videotaped Oral 9 Deposition of Todd Rands 42 42 10 Exhibit 3 List of materials reviewed....... 45 11 Exhibit 4 Email correspondence from ....... 54 12 (topmost) M Lane sent 10/9/2014 13 re Analyst Reports MONGLY08152397 14 and attachment 15 Exhibit 5 Gulley & associates Stock analyst 16 Report from 2008 17 MONGLY03994301 - MONGLY03 9 94 314 18 Exhibit 6 Email correspondence from ....... 19 (topmost) N 20 7/16/2010 re GM Crops 21 MONGLY06974459 and attachments 64 69 Dinicola sent 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 6 Confidential 1 Exhibit 7 Pursuant to Protective Order Email correspondence from ........ 2 (topmost) J Christiansen to M 3 Helms sent 9/1/2014 re LT 4 Glyphosate Core Team Meeting 5 Follow Up MONGLY07776797 with 6 attachment 7 Exhibit 8 8 9 .... 94 Email correspondence from ........ 103 Monsanto statement re Product Stewardship and The Pledge Exhibit 9 10 (topmost) L Meyer to Christi 11 Dixon, etc. sent 3/14/2017 re 12 Monsanto Toxicologist Couldn't 13 Say Roundup Doesn't Cause Cancer 14 MONGLY07575061 - MONGLY07575063 15 Exhibit 10 Email correspondence from ........ 16 (topmost) D Farmer to J Combest 17 sent 9/21/2009 re Roundup article 18 in Fremantle Herald 19 MONGLY 01192115 20 82 Exhibit 11 Email correspondence from ........ 21 (topmost) R Garnett to Xavier 22 Belvaux sent 2/13/2007 re 23 re-entry time 24 MONGLY06813897 - MONGLY06813898 109 116 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 7 Confidential 1 Exhibit 12 Pursuant to Protective Order Email correspondence from ........ 2 (topmost) D Farmer to S Natarajan 3 sent 11/24/2003 re Agitation 4 against Roundup MONGLY00922458 5 Exhibit 13 International Agency for Research . 6 on Cancer IARC Monographs on 7 Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks 8 to Humans 9 Exhibit 14 10 11 IARC's Mission: Cancer research ... Exhibit 15 Email correspondence from ........ (topmost) T Sorahan sent 13 3/14/2015 re EPA openly discussed 14 IARC findings at a CLA meeting on 15 Thursday MONGLY00977035 Exhibit 16 Email correspondence from ........ 17 (topmost) W Heydens sent 18 1/20/2015 re Glyphosate IARC 19 MONGLY 02078142 20 Exhibit 17 PowerPoint JGTF Administrative 21 Committee Toxicology TWG Update 22 David Saltmiras 23 153 163 for cancer prevention 12 16 127 Exhibit 18 .. 171 181 203 Oxford Dictionary Orchestrate.... 209 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 8 Confidential 1 Exhibit 19 Pursuant to Protective Order January 2018 IARC response to the . 2 criticism of the monograph and 3 glyphosate evaluation 4 Exhibit 20 Email correspondence from ........ 5 (topmost) 6 re IARC Review Pearce, Blair 7 MONGLY 03827415 8 Exhibit 21 9 C Thorp sent 3/17/2015 Doubt is Their Product, How ...... Exhibit 22 Excerpts from Doubt is Their ..... 241 Product Exhibit 23 Email correspondence from ........ 14 (topmost) 15 2/6/2018 re Draft Revised Final 16 Minority Staff Report on 17 Glyphosate MONGLY07894889 18 240 Threatens Your Health 12 13 228 Industry's Assault on Science 10 11 213 Exhibit 24 241 S Kuschmider sent Email correspondence from ........ 19 (topmost) 20 sent 2/24/2015 re IARC Outreach 21 MONGLY 02063852 266 K Clauss to T Reynolds 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 9 Confidential 1 Exhibit 25 Pursuant to Protective Order Email correspondence from ........ 2 (topmost) J Listello to R Garnett 3 sent 2/25/2015 re IARC and 4 glyphosate materials 5 MONGLY 05467631 6 Exhibit 26 Email correspondence from ........ 7 (topmost) 8 re Draft email for experts to 9 help with IARC MONGLY01021648 10 Exhibit 27 Email correspondence from ........ (topmost) 12 re IARC materials MONGLY04773726 Exhibit 28 Email correspondence from ........ (topmost) B Badiou sent 3/19/2015 15 MONGLY 05600406 Exhibit 29 Email correspondence from ........ 17 (topmost) T Crawford sent 18 5/10/2016 re House Ag 19 MONGLY 07589543 20 Exhibit 30 325 K Link sent 2/27/2015 14 16 308 C Lord sent 2/27/2015 11 13 283 Email correspondence from ........ 21 (topmost) J Vicini sent 3/18/2015 22 re IARC Outcomes, 23 Response MONGLY02063568 335 340 342 Process, and 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 10 Confidential 1 Exhibit 31 Pursuant to Protective Order Email correspondence from ....... 2 (topmost) A Hood sent 3/20/2015 3 re Henry's IARC Article is Live 4 MONGLY 07040404 5 Exhibit 32 6 7 March Madness from the United .... Exhibit 33 Email correspondence from ....... (topmost) N Banner sent 7/5/2018 9 re Notes MONGLY14441101 Exhibit 34 11 12 Strategic Communications ...... Exhibit 35 Email correspondence from ....... (topmost) M McCall to C Young 14 sent 8/16/2016 re FTI July 15 Invoices MONGLY11909431 Exhibit 36 Email correspondence from ....... 17 (topmost) M McCall to C Young 18 sent 11/8/2016 re FTI October 19 Invoices 20 363 363 Appendix B SOW MONGLY11914282 13 16 348 Nations 8 10 345 Exhibit 37 363 363 MONGLY11930803 Email correspondence from ....... 21 (topmost) T Rands to S Partridge 22 sent 8/30/2016 re IARC political 23 strategy MONGLY09713999 363 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 11 Confidential 1 Exhibit 38 Pursuant to Protective Order Email correspondence from ........ 2 (topmost) with attachment from T 3 Rands to B Kennedy sent 5/2/2016 4 re Draft Aderholt LTC Reuters 5 Glyphosate final.docs 6 MONGLY 07577414 7 Exhibit 39 Email correspondence from ........ 8 (topmost) 9 sent 6/10/2016 re Funding of IARC 10 11 MONGLY 03396470 Exhibit 40 Email correspondence from ........ (topmost) 13 7/8/2016 re approps 14 MONGLY 07579479 Exhibit 41 Email correspondence from ........ (topmost) 17 7/8/2016 re Crapo letter 18 MONGLY 07579482 20 Exhibit 42 418 K Moore to T Rands sent 16 19 412 P Miller to D Heering 12 15 364 427 K Moore to T Rands sent Department of the Interior re S . .. 428 3068 21 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 12 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order P R O C E E D I N G S 2 VIDEO SPECIALIST: We are now on the 3 record. 4 videographer for Golkow Litigation Services. 5 Today's date is February 12th, 2019. 6 9:02 a .m. 7 My name is Daniel Holmstock. I am the The time is This is the deposition -- I'm sorry -- this 8 deposition is being held at Hollingsworth LLP in 9 the matter of In Re: Roundup Products Liability 10 Litigation, MDL No. 02741. 11 before the United States District Court for the 12 Northern District of California, 13 Division. 14 The case is pending San Francisco Our deponent today is Todd Rands. Counsel's 15 appearances will be noted on the stenographic 16 record. 17 will now administer the oath. Our court reporter is Linda Kinkade, who 18 19 20 TODD RANDS, having been first duly sworn, was thereafter examined and testified as follows: 21 22 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. KRISTAL: Q. Good morning, Mr. Rands. 24 Jerry Kristal. 25 hands and said hello. My name is We met a few minutes ago, shook Golkow Litigation Services How are you? Page 13 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A. Good, Jerry. Thank you. 2 Q. I'm an attorney with the law firm of 3 Weitz & Luxenberg, and we, along with other 4 attorneys here, across the country represent a 5 number of men and women who have had the misfortune 6 of being diagnosed with a cancer known as 7 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and have brought a lawsuit 8 against Monsanto alleging, 9 exposure to Roundup contributed to the development in part, that their 10 of their 11 Monsanto failed to adequately warn them about 12 dangers of using Roundup. 13 14 15 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and that, in part, the Do you understand that generally as to what the lawsuits are about? A. Yes. 16 MR. PRESTES: Hey, Jerry, before we dive 17 in, just two things for the record, and I don't 18 want to interrupt your flow. 19 One, I just want to designate the transcript 20 as confidential subject to further review under the 21 protective order; and, two, just for the witness's 22 benefit, 23 deposition is of Mr. Rands. 24 spent about 15 years as in-house counsel at 25 Monsanto. I want to remind us that today's He's a lawyer. He Monsanto won't be disclosing privileged Golkow Litigation Services Page 14 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 communications or work product, protected 2 information at the deposition. 3 So, Mr. Rands, if an answer to one of 4 Mr. Kristal's questions involves privileged or 5 protected information or if you think it might, 6 ask you to alert us so that I can take appropriate 7 steps to protect the privilege. 8 Sorry. 9 Q. You understood all that? 10 a 11 Q. Okay. Go ahead, Jerry. . Yes. That, for me, is the most 12 important ground 13 understand what's being said. 14 I'd rule, so to speak, that you So if you're not understanding any question 15 that I ask, just let me know, and then the burden 16 is on me to change the question or reword it or do 17 something with it so you do understand. 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Having said that, Okay? is it fair that, 20 answer one of my questions, we can assume you 21 understood it? 22 a . Yes, I 23 Q. All right. if you think that's fair. And as Brian said, 24 interested in finding out attorney-client 25 privileged or work-product information. Golkow Litigation Services I'm not So I don't Page 15 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 disagree with his statement to you in terms of what 2 to do if you think an answer might involve that. 3 Okay? 4 A. O k a y . 5 Q. I'd like to start out 6 finding out about your career. 7 employer? 8 9 11 A. The word is aseptic 14 Who is your current pharmaceutical company. Q. Can you spell that? 13 with aY-S on it, if that helps. Q. That does. And is that a company that you formed a number of years ago? 15 A. No. 16 Q. When did you first start working for 17 18 19 20 21 22 Asepticys? A. It's been sort of a part-time thing for about a year and a half. Q. So for the last year and a half you've been working part-time for Asepticys? a . Yeah, just helping them, sort of 23 consulting. 24 helping them get off the ground a bit 25 by A. I work for Asepticys, a small 10 12 a littlebit I had invested in the company Q. Okay. and was as a startup. Do you have any other employment Golkow Litigation Services Page 16 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 other than the part-time work you've been doing for 2 about a year and a half for Asepticys? 3 A. Yeah, I've got a few consulting projects 4 I 've been sort of getting together on a part-time 5 basis. 6 Q. 7 A. No. 8 Q. 9 A. With FTI Consulting. 10 Q. Do you consult for Monsanto? Who do you consult with? Okay. And we're going to talk a little 11 at some point today about FTI Consulting. 12 you first start consulting with FTI? 13 14 A. Just recently, in the last week or so, since I left Monsanto, yeah. 15 Q. 16 A. Or left Bayer. 17 Q. 18 A. I left Bayer on January 26th, 19 Okay. When did you leave Monsanto? Q. 21 A. Y e s . 22 Q. 24 25 I think was officially my last day. 20 23 When did Of this year. Okay. What was your position when you left Bayer on January 26th, 2019? A. I had a title that was external affairs lead and strategic transactions counsel, Golkow Litigation Services if I've Page 17 Confidential 1 got that right. 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. Did you go directly into that position from whatever your last position at Monsanto was? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. When did you make that transition where 6 you were no longer a Monsanto employee but you 7 came -- became employed by Bayer? 8 9 A. I don't know technically when that transition occurred. So the deal was announced, 10 believe, 11 of '18, if I have the dates correct. 12 look atthe announcements. 13 in '16, and it officially closed in June Q. Okay. Upuntilapproximately I'd have to June 14 2018, your paychecks were from Monsanto; 15 fair to 16 I of is that say? a . Yeah. I think the Monsanto paychecks 17 continued until the very first of January. 18 may have even been a first paycheck from Monsanto 19 in January of '19, and then it switched over 20 officially to Bayer. 21 employer, 22 even though technically the paychecks came from 23 Monsanto. 24 25 But, yes, Bayer was my I think officially, Q. Okay. Did There you have from June onwards, any Monsanto stock that got purchased by Bayer as part of the Golkow Litigation Services Page 18 Confidential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pursuant to Protective Order transaction? A. Yes, as part of the transaction, all of our stock options and RSUs converted. Q. Okay. And how many shares did you convert? A. They were automatically converted. I don't recall the numbers. Q. Are you talking about tens, hundreds, thousands of shares? A. Numbers of shares I don't know. Dollar 11 figures, it's a few hundred thousand dollars worth 12 of shares . 13 shares, but ... 14 Q. 15 A. No, I don't think so. 16 Q. 17 A. It was close to five hundred probably. 18 Q. 19 A. Yeah, 20 Q. 21 I don't recall the exact number of Is it more than $500,000 that you got? Was it -- All right. Approximately $500,000? in that range. So if we wanted to figure out how many shares you had -- 22 A. Divide by 128. 23 Q. Exactly. 128 was the purchase price that 24 Bayer paid to buy up the stock of Monsanto as part 25 of the deal. Golkow Litigation Services Page 19 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Did you have all of the stocks -- the 3 stock that you owned, 4 invested, or was there stock options as part of 5 that as well? 6 in other words, was it all A. They were all options and what we call 7 RSUs that had accumulated over several years of 8 work as part of my incentive program. 9 Q. You're anticipating my next question. I 10 assume the stock you got from Monsanto was part of 11 an incentive or bonus program, so to speak? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. When did you first start working at 14 Monsanto? 15 A. In September of 2004. 16 Q. And what was your title when you began at 17 18 Monsanto? A. I was -- the title was corporate counsel, 19 and I think that may have included a subtitle, 20 intellectual property. 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Are you a patent guy? specialty, Is that your so to speak, patents? A. Yeah, originally I was a patent attorney, that's right. Q. And prior to starting at Monsanto in Golkow Litigation Services Page 20 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 September of 2004, you worked in private practice 2 as a patent attorney for a while? 3 A. Yes, that's correct. 4 Q. How many years approximately? 5 A. I think officially as a patent attorney 6 not too many years, maybe three years, because I 7 graduated from law school in 2001, and that's when 8 I took the bar andpassed 9 date wrong. the bar. I need topull out I may have that my resume to get it 10 exactly right, but I was going to school part-time 11 and going to -- going to law school at night 12 part-time. 13 I was working at a law firm. 14 15 And so it went on for some years while Q. Okay. And what law school did you graduate from? 16 A. George Mason University. 17 Q. And where are you barred? 18 A. In Virginia and in Missouri. 19 to correct that. 20 2003. 21 years. 22 I'm going I think I actually graduated in I started law school in 1999, went for four Sorry for the history, but ... Q. Okay. When you said, to be accurate, you 23 need to pull out your CV, do you have a copy of 24 your CV here? 25 A. No, not with me. Golkow Litigation Services Page 21 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Q. 2 A. Yeah, trying to remember 20 years ago, 3 4 5 You're pulling it out of your head? yeah. Q. What does FTI stand for? that that corresponds to? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. 8 9 10 Is there words Now you worked with FTI Consulting when you were a Monsanto employee; is that correct? A. That's correct, yes. Q. And you worked with FTI on the Monsanto 11 campaign regarding the International Agency for 12 Research on Cancer; is that correct? 13 A. It was broader than what you described, 14 but they were - - 15 Q. 16 A. It included some elements around the IARC Well, it included that, right? 17 announcements and the science that they had put 18 out, yes. 19 Q. And when you use the term "IARC," you're 20 referring to the International Agency for Research 21 on Cancer? 22 A. Yes, 23 Q. 24 25 I am. When did you first start working with FTI on any project when you were at Monsanto? A. The first work we did involved our Golkow Litigation Services Page 22 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 attempt to purchase Syngenta, and, if I have the 2 dates right, 3 or 2015, and they began to work with us on that 4 project. 5 6 I believe that takes us back to 2014 Q. How many different projects did you work with FTI on when you were at Monsanto? 7 MR. PRESTES: Mr. Rands, I'm just going 8 to caution you, we're not going to get into any 9 attorney-client privileged work or any work product 10 that FTI did or didn't do in connection with this 11 litigation or any other litigation. 12 A. Yes. I was just trying to remember 13 because they're consultants so they just come in at 14 different times and consult on things. 15 say there's roughly five or 16 had worked on. 17 18 19 But I would six projects that they Q. who comes up with the names of the projects? A. Sometimes they did. Sometimes we did. 20 it was just a common practice at the company 21 have a name for whatever the project was. 22 23 24 25 to Q. Is there any particular rhyme or reason in giving a name to a project? a . No. I actually intentionally try to just pick mundane names that don't have any Golkow Litigation Services Page 23 Confidential 1 significance. 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. Okay. You worked on Project Spruce with FTI ? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. what was Project Spruce? 6 A. Project Spruce relates to our work with 7 glyphosate and Roundup. 8 Q. You worked on Project Chrome with FTI? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. what was Project Chrome? 11 A. Project Chrome related to PCBs. 12 q . And that had to do with lawsuits that 13 were being filed by various 14 brought under the general nuisance 15 get Monsanto to help pay for the cleanup, generally 16 speaking? 17 a . Yeah. cities ortownships laws to try to That work focused on the public 18 nuisance lawsuits that were pending and still are 19 pending in California. Washington 20 well. 21 and Oregon as Q. Involving the attempt of various cities 22 and municipalities to recover the costs of cleaning 23 up PCBs from different waterways? 24 25 a . I think that's a general characterization of what the cities are claiming, yes. Golkow Litigation Services Page 24 Confidential - Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Q. 2 A. Project Ivy was more in the M&A sphere 3 That was the one that I mentioned about Syngenta Okay.. Project Ivy, what is that? 4 Q. 5 A. M&A, mergers and acquisitions. 6 Q. What does MNA mean? Oh. You can tell I never practiced 7 corporate law. 8 Redfish involved China? 9 10 A. Yes, that involved Syngenta's acquisition by a Chinese state-owned entity. 11 12 May be obvious, but ... Project Q. Project Varsity was another FTI project, was it not? 13 A. Yeah. I don't know what that really was. 14 i think that was a name somebody used early on for 15 Project Spruce, 16 That was just an earlier designation for the same 17 thing. if I -- if I recall correctly. 18 Q. Okay. 19 worked -- strike that. 20 The main project that you The main project that Monsanto worked with 21 FTI on that involved challenging the International 22 Agency for Research on Cancers finding that 23 glyphosate was probably carcinogenic was 24 Spruce? 25 A. Yeah. Project Again, your characterization - - w e Golkow Litigation Services Page 25 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 weren't really 2 challenge IARC as much as educate the public about 3 IARC. 4 activities that I'm sure you're going to ask me 5 about today, but the project, the main project, and 6 I think the only project we worked on with them 7 involving Roundup was Project Spruce, yes. 8 9 10 11 12 13 designating that project to And there's a whole broad swath of Q. Well, isn't it true that part of the project Monsanto was working on involved basically killing IARC? A. No, I don't think that's a fair characterization. Q. Well, Monsanto was trying to get the 14 United States to stop funding IARC, correct? 15 was part of the project? That 16 A. That was not part of our project, no. 17 Q. whose project was that? 18 A. I don't -- I'm not aware of any project 19 where we were trying to kill the funding for IARC. 20 I know that that activity was going on and 21 some evidence that people were introducing those 22 things into Congress, but that wasn't part of our 23 project. 24 q 25 we saw . You're saying Monsanto and FTI had nothing to do with that? Golkow Litigation Services Page 26 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order A. We were monitoring it and obviously 2 watching developments, but I don't recall an 3 instance where we were the ones trying to make that 4 happen as part of our project. 5 Q. You don't recall drafting letters on 6 behalf of Congress people relating to defunding 7 IARC? 8 9 10 A. I remember topics that came up around defunding IARC, but it wasn't -Q. I'm not asking you about topics. Do you 11 recall drafting letters on behalf of Congress 12 people to send to different agencies, 13 trying to get them to defund IARC without 14 disclosing that Monsanto had drafted the letter? 15 Do you recall doing that? 16 in essence, A. I recall talking to lots of Congressmen 17 and drafting materials for them that related to 18 IARC and the facts around IARC, yes. 19 20 Q. Well, the facts as Monsanto saw them, correct? 21 A. We believed they were the facts. 22 Q. 23 A. Y e a h . 24 Q. 25 I understand that. And other people believed that they were not the facts; is that fair to say? Golkow Litigation Services Page 27 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order A. Yeah. We saw plenty of people lobbying 2 Congress on the other side of the issue as well, so 3 I think everyone was entitled to their perspectives 4 on those things. 5 Q. But you don't disagree that you were 6 involved as part of that project in drafting 7 letters on behalf of Congress people. 8 9 10 11 A. I don't think I ever drafted letters on behalf of Congress people, no. Q. Do you know Congressman Aderholt, Robert Aderholt? 12 a 13 Q. You don't recall drafting a letter that 14 . I know of him, yes. went out under hisname? 15 A. No. I don't believe we did that. 16 Q. How about a letter to Scott Pruitt, the 17 head of EPA? 18 on behalf of another Congressperson for that? 19 A. No. You don't remember drafting a letter I remember talking with both of 20 those offices about the issues and sending them 21 some written materials, but we never drafted a 22 letter that went out under their name that I'm 23 aware of. 24 25 q . And the goal in terms of that part of the project was to get the National Institutes of Golkow Litigation Services Page 28 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Health of the United States to stop sending money 2 to fund IARC, correct? 3 MR. PRESTES: Object to the form. 4 A. No, I actually had the opposite opinion. 5 I didn't think defunding IARC would have been very 6 effective because it wasn't a huge amount of money. 7 I felt like it was just something that Congression 8 -- that Congress was interested in, that they 9 wanted to understand how the money was being spent 10 and why it was being spent on IARC as a foreign 11 institution. 12 of what they were doing and how they were doing it, 13 and people wanted some answers. 14 q It raised a lot of questions in terms . But that was done at the behest of 15 Monsanto, 16 that by themselves; 17 to do that. 18 19 right? The Congress people weren't doing it was Monsanto lobbying them MR. PRESTES: Object. Object to the form. 20 A. We were certainly interested in raising 21 these questions and finding members of Congress 22 that were interested, 23 was a number of other folks out there doing 24 same. 25 district that was largely but what we found was there the And the Congressman himself came from a Golkow Litigation Services agricultural, and he was Page 29 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 concerned in hearing from his constituents that 2 that was an issue for him. 3 particular. 4 Congressman Aderholt in Q. So you're saying that Monsanto had 5 nothing to do with prompting Congressman Aderholt 6 to try to cut off the funds to IARC? 7 A . NO. 8 Q. Monsanto had nothing to do with it? 9 A. No, we sat down with him and we talked 10 with him about the issues and gave him materials 11 that he could help to understand the issue. 12 Q. As Monsanto saw the issue, correct? 13 A. As we saw the facts, yes, that's right. 14 q . when you began as corporate counsel for 15 Monsanto in September of 2004 for intellectual 16 property, did that work in that capacity involve 17 glyphosate or Roundup in any way? 18 A. Yeah, you know, it was sort of 19 interesting. 20 involved in the science on a lot of things and 21 that's kind of my passion, but the work I did early 22 on related to the processes for how we transformed 23 crops to make genetically modified crops. 24 25 I loved those days because we were And as I gained some experience, they gave me the docket that was for Roundup Ready crops and Golkow Litigation Services Page 30 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 for the use of glyphosate on those crops, part of 2 my patent responsibilities. 3 Q. So the jury understands, you're aware 4 that Roundup was first commercially sold in the mid 5 1970s; is that fair to say? 6 A. Yes, 7 Q. And then in the early 1990s, 8 Monsanto was involved in what's called 9 biotechnology in terms of genetically modifying 10 11 I've heard that. That's right. late 1980s, crop seeds? A. Yeah, I think around that time all of the 12 major pesticide companies began to develop 13 biotechnology traits in the late '80s and into the 14 early '90s. 15 Q. And Roundup Ready seeds that you 16 mentioned are seeds for a variety of crops that had 17 been genetically modified so that they are 18 resistant to Roundup. 19 A. Yes, that's correct. 20 Q. So if you didn't have Roundup on the 21 market, no one would need to buy Roundup Ready 22 seeds, correct? 23 A. I'm sorry. 24 Q. Sure. 25 A. Yeah. Golkow Litigation Services Say that again. Page 31 Confidential 1 2 Q. If Roundup was not on the market anymore, nobody would need Roundup Ready seeds. 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: a Object to the form. . Maybe back in those days that was -- that 5 might have been the case. 6 crops are stacked with multiple traits, 7 just all about Roundup and Roundup resistance 8 anymore. 9 of the major crops. 10 11 I think today all of the so it's not There's several other herbicides in most Q. When you say "several other herbicides," including glyphosate? 12 A. Yes, including glyphosate. 13 Q. So just so the jury understands, for the 14 first how many years were Roundup Ready seeds only 15 genetically modified to deal with glyphosate, 16 first 12, 15 years? 17 18 a . I don't know. estimate. 19 MR. PRESTES: to guess, 21 estimating -­ 23 24 25 Let me just see if I can Launched in the late '90s ... 20 22 the Mr. Rands, if you're going let us know you're guessing. Q. And nobody wants a guess. If you're I'm not interested in guesses. (Clarification by reporter.) A. Okay. Yeah, Golkow Litigation Services I was going to guess for Page 32 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 you, but I don't know the answer to that, that's 2 fair. 3 Q. Okay. But what you're saying is, more 4 recently in time, Monsanto has genetically modified 5 seeds so that they are resistant to other things 6 such as insects or other herbicides; 7 to say? 8 9 10 11 A. Yeah. is that fair I think probably sometime in the last 10 to 15 years that's when that really began to become a focus. Q. But the Roundup Ready trait, the trait of 12 the seeds that would be resistant to Roundup would 13 be a meaningless genetic modification if Roundup is 14 not being used; is that fair to say? 15 A. Yeah, in that hypothetical, if that was 16 the only trait, then those crops would just be -­ 17 they would still have yield advantages perhaps from 18 their breeding and the other advanced technologies 19 we apply to them, so they may be superior in that 20 regard, but in terms of weed resistance, without 21 Roundup there would be no reason to buy those, 22 that's why you were buying them. if 23 Q. Right. 24 a 25 Q. Now how long were you in the corporate . Yeah. Golkow Litigation Services Page 33 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 counsel intellectual property 2 of 2004 to when? 3 you were at Monsanto? 4 A. No. job, from September Or were you always in Well, that when I was in the legal department, 5 but my titles shifted over time. And I'm going to 6 have to apologize, 7 and year of the shifts, but I went from corporate 8 counsel 9 lawyer role. I don't remember the exact month to more of alicensing and commercial And then ultimately went to South 10 America and changed to a lawyer in charge of 11 building our licensing business in South America. 12 13 14 15 16 Q. So approximately how many years were you in your first job at Monsanto? A. I think it was about two years, and then I shifted to more of a commercial lawyer role. Q. Okay. So sometime approximately late 17 2006, without holding you to an exact month or 18 year, you say went into the licensing and 19 commercial part of your responsibilities? 20 a 21 Q. And how long were you in that position 22 . Yes. before you moved to South America? 23 A. I think that was also about two years. 24 Q. All right. 25 So sometime approximately the end of 2008 or so is when you moved to South Golkow Litigation Services Page 34 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order America? A. Yeah. I'm remembering South America in 3 that 2008-2009 time frame, and it was about a two 4 and a half year time period that 5 lived in Buenos Aires. I was in -- I 6 Q. And what were you licensing? 7 A. In South America it was mostly about 8 soybeans. 9 for our soybean products. 10 Roundup? So we were building a licensing business Q. Did your work after you left the 11 intellectual property position involve 12 through the time you left your position in South 13 America? 14 Roundup A. I no longer did any patent work for any 15 of the Roundup or Roundup crops or anything like 16 that after I left that first position. 17 Q. So when did you -- strike that. 18 I'm assuming you came back to the 19 United States after being in Buenos Aires for two 20 and a half, three years? 21 A. Yes. 22 q 23 A. Sometime 24 Q. Okay. 25 . when was that? around 2011. And what was -- you continued working at Monsanto? Golkow Litigation Services Page 35 Confidential 1 2 A. Yes, everything has always been with Monsanto. 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. And what position were you in at that time? 5 A. They put me in a hybrid role of - - I was 6 doing strategic licenses and deal support with our 7 strategy team as their lawyer, and at the same time 8 I was also in charge of our Brazil -- I'm sorry, 9 not our Brazilian -- our South American legal 10 function. 11 the day-to-day function of our legal department. 12 13 So I had a broader responsibility for Q. And in that position were you dealing with glyphosate or Roundup? 14 a . You know, the glyphosate business was 15 certainly -- it was something they sold in South 16 America, 17 lawyer at the time who had direct responsibility 18 for that business on a global level. so, yes, but there was also a separate 19 Q. who was that? 20 a . Melissa Duncan, or it may have been Nancy 21 Adioli. I can't remember which. They've both held 22 that role, and I don't remember at that exact 23 moment. 24 day-to-day responsibilities for the legal issues 25 around Roundup down there. So I don't think that I really had Golkow Litigation Services Page 36 Confidential 1 Q. Pursuant to Protective Order So when you got back to the United States 2 sometime around 2011, where were you physically 3 working? 4 A. In St. Louis. 5 Q. 6 7 to that? A. It became legal director for South 8 America. 9 Q. 10 And did your job title change subsequent When did that happen? A. When I came b a c k . There may have been a 11 little -- it may have happened slightly before I 12 came back . 13 14 15 Q. I don't recall exactly. And how long were you legal director for South America for Monsanto? A. You know, I'd have to look at the résumé 16 again, but there was -- there was an overlapping 17 period while I was still down there where they gave 18 me that role. 19 say maybe about a year, something like that. 20 21 22 Q. And then when I came back, I would So did your job title change sometime in 2012, 2013? A. Yeah. See, I worked -- I need to -- I'm 23 guessing now, but, yes, I think that's probably 24 about right. 25 Q. And what was your new responsibilities? Golkow Litigation Services Page 37 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order A. They gave me a role that helped with our 2 venture capital business and our biologies 3 business, and, again, strategy, deal support, but 4 as a lawyer doing the legal work for those 5 different groups or functions. 6 7 Q. Anything to do with Roundup or glyphosate? 8 9 10 A. Only to the extent we were doing licensing deals on crops with other companies, but not directly on Roundup that I recall. 11 Q. When did you first get assigned to work 12 with FTI regarding the International Agency for 13 Research on Cancer's evaluation of the 14 carcinogenicity of glyphosate? 15 16 A. That happened when we had started our project to prepare for theacquisition of Syngenta. 17 Q. when was that? 18 A. I want to say 2014. 19 Q. How did those two things relate? 20 get it. 21 on two things at the same time? 22 23 I don't Was it just a time frame, you were working a . In 2014? What time period are you talking about? 24 Q. You said that you started on working with 25 FTI regarding the International Agency for Research Golkow Litigation Services Page 38 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 on Cancer, and that had happened, 2 our project to prepare for the acquisition of 3 Syngenta." 4 "we had started Were those two things related, IARC's 5 evaluation of glyphosate and the acquisition of 6 Syngenta? 7 a . The IARC -- the project we did with FTI, 8 the Project Spruce relating to Roundup -- started 9 in 2016, and, if I've mischaracterized that timing, 10 11 that project didn't begin until 2016. The project with FTI to work on the 12 acquisition, potential acquisition, of Syngenta 13 started in 2014, and that was 14 worked with them. 15 our first time we Q. And was that project, the Syngenta 16 acquisition project, did that have anything to do 17 with glyphosate or Roundup? 18 a . None at a l l . 19 Q. Okay. So the first work that you did 20 with FTI relating to IARC's evaluation of 21 glyphosate would have been around 2016? 22 a . Yes, that's right. 23 Q. Prior to that had you had any knowledge 24 of the science of glyphosate vis-a-vis whether or 25 not it causes cancer? Golkow Litigation Services Had you ever evaluated that? Page 39 Confidential 1 2 3 4 A. No. I generally wasn't aware of all these things that had been going on. Q. Did you ever work for Monsanto India Limited? 5 A. No. 6 Q. 7 Pursuant to Protective Order And Monsanto India Limited is a subsidiary of Monsanto, is it not? 8 A. I don't know what it is. 9 Q. 10 Okay. Does Monsanto currently have any employees ■? 11 A. Y e s . 12 Q. 13 A. Although let me correct that. And - I don 't 14 know that Monsanto has any employees now that the 15 acquisition of Bayer has occurred, 16 the answer to that really. 17 Q. Okay. so I don't know As far as you know, no one is 18 receiving a check from the Monsanto Company for 19 work; is that fair to say? 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I think that's correct as of January of this year , 2019, they made that formal switch ov e r . Q. Is the Monsanto Company name being retired, as far as you know? A. I don't know. I don't know what the status of it is . Golkow Litigation Services Page 40 Confidential 1 2 Q. Well, what does the Monsanto Company, as far as you know, consist of currently? 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: Object to the form. A. I actually don't know. I don't know if 5 they've -- I'm not privy to all of the paperwork of 6 the final transaction and what they've done or not 7 done in terms of the entity or its name. 8 don't use the name. 9 references Bayer now on the website and in their 10 But we Everybody has got titles and job descriptions and things. 11 Q. So nobody says I work for Monsanto now. 12 a 13 Q. Do you know why you were selected to work . No. 14 with FTI on the issues involving the International 15 Agency on Research for Cancer's evaluation of 16 glyphosate's carcinogenicity, why were you the 17 person selected? 18 a . I think because my boss had been asked to 19 do some work in this project, and so he came to me 20 and asked about ways we could approach this. 21 Q. And who's your boss? 22 a 23 Q. When you say he approached you about ways 24 25 . Scott Partridge. to approach this, what do you mean? A. He said that he was asked to get involved Golkow Litigation Services Page 41 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order in our efforts involving Roundup and glyphosate. 2 Q. 3 A. I'm not exactly sure. 4 I would assume one of his bosses. 5 Q. 6 the time? 7 Who asked him? Okay. How high up was Mr. Partridge at What was his job? A. He reported to Kerry Preete, the vice 8 president of strategy. 9 MR. KRISTAL: I'm going to mark as 10 Exhibits 1 and 2 the two notices of deposition that 11 bring you here today. 12 (Exhibit 1 marked for 13 identification: Plaintiffs' Amended 14 Notice to Take the Videotaped Oral 15 Deposition of Monsanto Company) 16 (Exhibit 2 marked for 17 identification: Plaintiffs' Amended 18 Notice to Take the Videotaped Oral 19 Deposition of Todd Rands) 20 MR. KRISTAL: 1 is the U.S. District 21 Court for the Northern District of California 22 notice. 23 A. Thank y o u . 24 Q. 25 And 2 -- I don't think I brought the other one • Golkow Litigation Services Page 42 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order There were two dep notices, correct, as far as you recall? 3 MR. KRISTAL: Do you have one of them 4 with you so we can mark it for the record, or did 5 you put these together? 6 MR. PRESTES: I do not. 7 VIDEO SPECIALIST: 8 MR. KRISTAL: Counsel, your mic. Thank you. 9 Q. You understand that you're testifying 10 here both in your personal capacity and in your 11 capacity as Monsanto's corporate representative on 12 certain topics? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. I'm going to not mark yet, but 15 intellectually mark number 2 and we'll get a copy 16 of that for later. 17 18 19 20 a . What was number 2? Was that the 3 0 (b)(6)? Q. Yes, thedeposition notice that brings you here as Monsanto's corporate representative. 21 A. Okay. 22 Q. what topics is it your understanding that 23 you've been designated asMonsanto's 24 representative? 25 corporate A. You know, the exact wording was pretty Golkow Litigation Services Page 43 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order complicated. 2 Q. No, I know. 3 A. But the gist of it was there was one 4 relating to our outreach with U.S. Congress 5 relating to IARC, I believe, and the other was 6 something with our digital advertisements, our 7 Internet advertisements. 8 Q. The paid searches? 9 A. I don't recall the words exactly, 10 was in there, but ... 11 12 if that Q. Actually I misspoke. Exhibit 1 is the 3 0 (b)(6) notice. 13 A. Oh. 14 Q. So if you'd take a look at that and let 15 me know specifically by number which topic you 're 16 here on, and I'll get a copy of the deposition 17 notice for you in your personal capacity. 18 19 A. Sure. Counsel, help me out here, if you know which number it is. 20 Q. I believe it's towards the end. 21 22 Good. MR. PRESTES: Mr. Kristal, would it help if I just reminded -- 23 MR. KRISTAL: 24 doing the designating, 25 record. Yes, y e s . You're the ones so I just want a clear It doesn't matter to me where it comes Golkow Litigation Services Page 44 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order from or who it comes from. 2 MR. PRESTES: We've designated Mr. Rands 3 to testify on behalf of Monsanto on Topics 11, 12, 4 and 26 that appear in the Plaintiffs' Amended 5 Notice to Take the 6 Monsanto that you've marked as Exhibit 1. 7 Videotaped Oral Deposition of MR. KRISTAL: Great. Okay. I also have 8 found the personal notice. Marking as Exhibit 2, 9 United States District Court for the Northern 10 District of California, deposition notice in your 11 personal capacity. 12 a . Thank you. 13 Q. Do you see that? I'm marking as Exhibit 14 3a list of things that you -- that we've been told 15 you have reviewed in terms of your preparation for 16 today's deposition. 17 and ask you if that is the list of materials that 18 you have reviewed. 19 I'm going to hand this to you (Exhibit 3 marked for 20 identification: List of materials 21 reviewed) 22 23 24 25 a . I'll represent that, if this is what my attorney sent you, that this is what I reviewed. q . And did you assemble these documents or were they given to you? Golkow Litigation Services Page 45 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: Objection. I think what 2 the MDL order requires us to do is to provide a 3 list of materials reviewed, and I think it 4 specifically says that counsel is not entitled to 5 get into who provided the documents or the 6 circumstances under which the witness reviewed 7 them. 8 9 So if you want to ask him do these look like the documents he reviewed in preparation for his 10 dep, fine, but we're not going to get into the 11 details of whether counsel selected them, whether 12 Mr. Rands selected them, 13 14 Q. Have you ever on your own searched for any Monsanto documents? 15 16 MR. PRESTES: 19 20 Object to the form. A. In -­ 17 18 etcetera. Q. Involving this litigation, glyphosate/Roundup. A. On many occasions I've had opportunities to review documents relating to the litigation. 21 Q. Okay. 22 a 23 Q. I'm not asking you if you've had . Yes. 24 opportunities to review them. 25 have personally ever conducted a search of Golkow Litigation Services I'm asking if you Page 46 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order documents. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And when was that? 4 When was the first time you did that? 5 MR. PRESTES: 6 Object to the form. A. Yeah, throughout the last year I've been 7 involved in documents relating to glyphosate and 8 have looked for documents in various -- at various 9 times. 10 Q. To what end? 11 A. Just -­ 12 13 Q. No, why were you doing that? MR. PRESTES: And I'm going to caution 14 you, to the extent that you were collecting or 15 assembling or reviewing documents at thedirection 16 of counsel, outside of the context of the 17 deposition preparation, 18 we're not going to go there. 19 were assembling or collecting or searching for 20 documents either to give legal advice or receive 21 legal advice, 22 into that either. that's work product and And to the extent you I'm going to instruct you not to get 23 So if you can answer the question without 24 getting into protective work product and without 25 getting into any attorney-client privileged Golkow Litigation Services Page 47 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 communications that you were a part of, go for it, 2 but to the extent it involves work product or 3 privileged 4 communications, don't answer. A. Yeah. Most of it was Internet searches 5 for documents that were in the public domain 6 relating to glyphosate. 7 Q. Have you ever personally conducted a 8 search of documents that had been produced in the 9 Roundup litigation? 10 MR. PRESTES: 11 Same instruction. Q. Yeah, that instruction goes for every 12 question I ask. I'm not interested in 13 attorney-client. I'm just asking what 14 done. 15 16 17 18 19 you have Have you ever done a search of documents that were produced in the Roundup litigation? a . Not outside of an attorney-client privilege setting. Q. Okay. When did you become involved with, 20 for lack of a better word, assisting in the Roundup 21 litigation? When was that part of your job duties? 22 A. I think right around the time that I came 23 on board with the project in '16 I became more 24 engaged with our lawyers and understanding and 25 discussing litigation issues. Golkow Litigation Services Page 48 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. So you were aware, then, at the time 2 that -- shortly after the International Agency for 3 Research on Cancer determined that glyphosate was 4 probably carcinogenic, 5 with people who were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's 6 lymphoma? that lawsuits had been filed 7 A. Sometime in 2016 I became aware of that, 8 but I hadn't been following it prior to that point 9 too closely. 10 Q. And at or around that time is when you 11 began to get involved in assisting in the 12 litigation? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. Is it fair to say that you 15 reviewed, in terms ofinternal 16 little over 500 documents? 17 correct? 18 19 A. That sounds Bates numbers, a Is that approximately about right. Some ofthem were pretty long, butyeah. 20 Q. Been there. 21 a 22 Q. That number of documents, . Yeah. somewhat over 23 500, is about a half of 1 percent of the over a 24 million documents that have been produced? 25 MR. PRESTES: Golkow Litigation Services Object to the form, assumes Page 49 Confidential 1 facts. 2 3 Q. A. I've heard that. Q. 10 11 12 Okay. A. It's more of a guess, but it's what I've heard, is over a million is a number I've heard people say. Q. Okay. A. Y e s . 14 Q. 18 Five hundred is half a percent of a million? 16 17 So then it's just a matter of arithmetic? 13 15 Something in that order is your understanding? 8 9 I haven't ever seen the tally, but ... 6 7 Well, you're aware that over a million documents have been produced in this litigation? 4 5 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: A. Yes, Object to the form. if that's the right number, but I d o n 't - - whatever the number is, it is. 19 Q. 20 A. Y e a h . 21 Q. Whatever the number is, it is. Okay. The documents that you reviewed 22 for this deposition, 23 came from what is called your custodial file. 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. in part, were documents that Is that right? Golkow Litigation Services Page 50 Confidential 1 2 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: Object to the form. A. I believe that's what people refer to it as, yes. Q. Okay. And there were lots of documents 5 that were from other Monsanto employees' custodial 6 files; is that fair to say? 7 8 9 MR. PRESTES: A. There were some documents in there that were not necessarily documents I created or 10 received, 11 people's files, yes. 12 13 Q. 16 Well, the vast majority of them were not MR. PRESTES: Q. The vast majority of the documents you MR. PRESTES: Object to the form. A. I don't know what you mean by "vast 19 maj ority." 20 documents , yes. 21 Objection. reviewed were not from your custodial file? 17 18 so they must have come from other from your files, right? 14 15 Object to the form. Q. I saw a mix of different kinds of Well, your custodial file began with the 22 Bates number, after the words MONGLY, M-O-N-G-L-Y, 23 with 075, right? 24 25 MR. PRESTES: Q. Object to the form. Do you know that from looking at the Golkow Litigation Services Page 51 Confidential 1 documents? 2 3 A. I don't recall the numbers and where they started. 4 5 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. Okay. Do you recall whose documents you did review other than your own? 6 A. I remember in the file that this document 7 represents there were some emails from Sam Murphey, 8 there were some presentations that I wasn't 9 involved in. There were a few other Monsanto 10 personnel where they were either the To or the From 11 on the emails, but they weren't emails that I 12 remember receiving and I wasn't listed on them. 13 Q. Other than documents thatmight have been 14 generated by third parties, meaning a published 15 article that might have been attached to an email, 16 other than that, were the documents that you were 17 reviewing documents thatwere created 18 of Monsanto and maintained in the regular course of 19 business by Monsanto? 20 21 MR. PRESTES: Object to the form. If you need to reference the list, you got it there. 22 q 23 A. Yeah. 24 25 by employees . Yeah, sure. MR. PRESTES: Are you asking him whether all -- Golkow Litigation Services Page 52 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. KRISTAL: No, just -­ Q. On the first page you list deposition 3 transcripts and you list a number of what I would 4 call popular press articles, 5 A. Mm-hmm. 6 Q. Yes? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I just 9 A. Sorry. 10 11 12 so to speak. need a yes or no. My fault. Q. No, we all understood what you meant, but you're aware of making a record. Other than those and other than documents 13 that have a MONGLY number that might have been 14 created by a third party, all of the MONGLY 15 documents that you reviewed were created and 16 maintained in the regular course of Monsanto 17 business other than the ones that I just excepted. 18 19 MR. PRESTES: A. Yeah, Object to the form. I don't recall any documents with 20 your exclusions applying that weren't kept in the 21 normal course of business, the emails, To and From 22 recipients of Monsanto employees seem to be kept -­ 23 is your phrase the normal course of business? 24 q . Regular course of business. 25 A. Regular course of business, yes. Golkow Litigation Services Page 53 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. And there were PowerPoints that were 2 presented at meetings during your regular course of 3 business, some of them? 4 A. I believe so. We can -- if there's any 5 specific documents, we can go back and look at them 6 that might raise a question, but I didn't see 7 anything that didn't look that 8 wasn't a Monsanto business record, yes. 9 10 like a document And just to be clear, you were excluding the transcripts of depositions from that and ... 11 Q. Exactly. 12 a 13 Q. I was excluding everything 14 15 . Yeah. Good. that was written by -­ A. Third parties. 16 Q. -- third party, unless it happened to 17 have been received so it might become part of a 18 Monsanto business record, 19 by Monsanto. 20 but it wasn't generated A. I think that's fair. Golkow Litigation Services Page 54 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 55 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 56 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 57 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 58 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 59 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 60 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 61 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 62 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 63 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 64 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 65 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 66 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 67 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 68 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 69 Page 70 Golkow Litigation Services Confidential Pursuant tO Protective Order Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 71 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 72 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 73 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 74 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 75 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 76 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 77 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 78 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 79 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 80 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 81 Confidential 14 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. KRISTAL: All right. At counsel's 15 request, we'll go off the video record and take a 16 few minutes break. 17 VIDEO SPECIALIST: 18 we're going off the record. 19 (Proceedings recessed) 20 VIDEO SPECIALIST: 21 22 The time is 10:22, and The time is 10:34 a.m., and we are back on the record. (Exhibit 7 marked for 23 identification: Email 24 correspondence from (topmost) J 25 Christiansen to M Helms sent Golkow Litigation Services Page 82 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 9/1/2014 re LT Glyphosate Core Team 2 Meeting Follow Up MONGLY07776797 3 with attachment) 4 BY MR. KRISTAL: Golkow Litigation Services Page 83 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 84 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 85 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 86 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 87 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 88 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 89 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 90 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 91 Confidential 12 Q. Okay. Pursuant to Protective Order We'll switch topics now because I 13 think the cash cow is dead and I don't want to beat 14 a dead cow. 15 A. All right. 16 Q. That's the extent of my farm puns today. 17 You're familiar with the term "stewardship" 18 19 20 21 from your work at Monsanto? A. It's a term I've heard before in a lot of different contexts, yes. Q. Well, in the context of selling a 22 pesticide, you're familiar with the term 23 stewardship? 24 25 a . Yes. It's context-dependent. talking aboutit around pesticides, Golkow Litigation Services Even in there's a lot Page 92 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 of different ways it gets used, but I've heard the 2 term many times. 3 Q. 4 Have you ever been on the Monsanto website to look at what they say about stewardship? 5 A. No. 6 Q. 7 A. Y e s . 8 Q. 9 There is a Monsanto website, correct? And part of the project that you were involved in with FTI involved posting a number of 10 items on the Monsanto website about the 11 International Agency for Research on Cancer's 12 finding of probable carcinogenicity for glyphosate, 13 right? 14 A. No. 15 Q. 16 A. I was aware that there was a team working You were aware that was happening, 17 on things like that to put information on the 18 website. 19 Q. 20 right? I wasn't involved in it. Okay. Had you been to the Monsanto website recently? 21 A. No. 22 Q. 23 website. 24 the page on the website entitled "Product 25 Stewardship and The Pledge." This is a document from the Monsanto I printed it out January 7th, 2019. Golkow Litigation Services It's And I've attached the Page 93 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 International Code of Conduct on Pesticide 2 Management, which is linked to this document. 3 (Exhibit 8 marked for 4 identification: Monsanto statement 5 re Product Stewardship and The 6 Pledge) 7 Q. Now in the Monsanto statement under 8 "Product Stewardship and The Pledge," Monsanto 9 states, in part, that it has high stewardship 10 standards. 11 there? Do you see that in the first paragraph 12 a . I do. 13 Q. And thenunder the section "Stewardship 14 of Crop Protection Products," there's the words 15 International Code of Conduct on Pesticide 16 Management that's underlined. Do you see that? 17 a 18 Q. And crop 19 MR. PRESTES: 24 25 of Objection, form. Q. It's a crop-protection product. 22 23 protection is the sort general bailiwick under which Roundup fell? 20 21 . I do. MR. PRESTES: Objection, form, foundation. a . Yes, glyphosate and Roundup are crop-protection products, among others. Golkow Litigation Services Page 94 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. And if you turn to the next page, the 2 International Code of Conduct on Pesticide 3 Management, 4 printed out. 5 words International Code of Conduct on Pesticide 6 Management, 7 have a number of different PDFs in different 8 languages. 9 these are the links I was just -­ In other words, if you clicked on the it takes you to the page where you can Do you see it has a little icon there with 10 the International Code of Conduct cover page? 11 you see that to the left of where it has Arabic, 12 Chinese, English, French? 13 14 15 A. So I see what you're referencing there with the little icons, yes. Q. Right. And if you turn two more pages 16 you come to that actual document. 17 MR. PRESTES: 18 19 Do You're not asking him whether that's true; you're just telling him that? MR. KRISTAL: I'm representing as an 20 officer of the court -- and we went through this in 21 one of the depositions recently. 22 the exercise of going through the link, if we want. 23 We can go through Q. But this document was attached, 24 to the website, 25 A. Okay. linked, if you followed the path. I'll keep following you, if you're Golkow Litigation Services Page 95 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 saying you're representing that this is the actual 2 document. 3 Q. I'm representing it. Yes,I am. If you 4 turn to the third page, this is the International 5 Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management from 2014. 6 Do you see that at the bottom? 7 A. O k a y . 8 Q. Is this 9 thefirst time you've heard that there's an International Code of Conduct on 10 Pesticide Management? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And this is written by the World Health 13 Organization, 14 Organization of the United Nations. 15 responsible at Monsanto for product stewardship? 16 17 18 the Food and Agricultural A. The majority of that, is done by Q. And if you would turn to VII in the right-hand side, theforward 20 Organization, director general, 21 you see that? 22 a 23 Q. All right. 25 I think, our regulatory team. 19 24 Who was by theWorld Health Margaret Chan. Do . I do. In the second paragraph Ms. Chan writes: "The main objective of the code of Golkow Litigation Services Page 96 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 conduct is to maximize the benefits 2 of pesticides to effectively 3 control pests in public health and 4 agriculture while protecting human 5 and animal health and the 6 environment from their harmful 7 effects." 8 Do you see that? 9 10 MR. PRESTES: Object, form, foundation. Again , a document the witness has never seen. 11 A. Yeah, you've read that correctly. 12 Q. Okay. Is that generally your 13 understanding of what crop protection product 14 stewardship involves? 15 16 MR. PRESTES: A. Yeah, Same objection. I don't know. I've never really 17 thought about the definition of the term. 18 be more expansive than that. 19 been involved in these types of issues -- They may I just have never 20 Q . Okay. 21 A. -- with the business. 22 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. 23 Were you done? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. On page 6 there's actually a definition Thank you. Golkow Litigation Services Page 97 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 section. Nice of the World Health Organization to 2 do that. Not VI, number 6. 3 A. O k a y . 4 Q. Upper right-hand corner there's a 5 definition of product stewardship, 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. "Productstewardship means correct? the 8 responsible and ethical management of a pesticide 9 product from its discovery through to its ultimate 10 use and beyond." 11 World Health Organization is providing? 12 13 14 15 16 That's the definition that the MR. PRESTES: Objection, form, foundation. a . Yeah, I -- I see that that's the definition they have provided here, yes. Q. Is that more in line with your general 17 understanding of what product stewardship means in 18 the crop protection product area? 19 A. Yeah, I was more familiar with product 20 stewardship in the context of our biotech crops, 21 but this definition isn't unfamiliar. 22 There's -­ the ethical management of pesticide products is 23 something I think we would absolutely agree with 24 throughout our development cycle and 25 commercialization. Golkow Litigation Services Page 98 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. And if you turn to the first page, 2 Monsanto under the stewardship says that Monsanto 3 subscribes : 4 "We subscribe to international 5 stewardship standards, 6 the International Code of Conduct 7 on pesticide management issued by 8 the United Nations food and 9 agricultural organization and fully including 10 supported by responsible care 11 global charter." 12 Do you see that? 13 A. Yeah, 14 Q. Were you aware that Monsanto subscribed I see that. 15 to international stewardship standards, and this 16 one in particular? 17 A. It doesn't surprise me. I hadn't spent a 18 lot of time reading the content of our website 19 previously, but we talk about product stewardship a 20 lot and its importance a lot in our internal 21 meetings and our training modules. 22 practice in Monsanto. 23 So it's common Q. On the same page that we looked at the 24 product stewardship definition, 25 the definition of product Golkow Litigation Services I'd like to look at (or pesticide product). Page 99 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A. Can you remind me the page? 2 Q. Page 6. 3 A. Thank you. 4 Q. Okay. Yes, I see the definition. I want to read that definition. 5 And this draws a distinction, and that's what I'm 6 going to be asking you about, between the active 7 ingredient, 8 pesticide product meaning Roundup. 9 10 such as glyphosate, and the actual So with that in mind, let me read this and then I'll ask you about that. 11 A. Sure. 12 Q. "Product 13 formulated product 14 and/or co-formulants) 15 packaged and sold." 16 All right? Okay? (or pesticide product) means the (pesticide active ingredients in the form in which it is Do you see that? MR. PRESTES: Objection, . I see the words. foundation. 17 a Yes, you read that. 18 Q. And that's consistent with your 19 understanding of the difference between an active 20 ingredient and an actual product. 21 22 MR. PRESTES: a . You know, Objection, foundation. I'm not a specialist in that, 23 but my personal belief, yeah, 24 active ingredient and formulated product are two 25 different things. Golkow Litigation Services I would say that the Is that that what you're asking? Page 100 Confidential 1 2 Q. Pursuant to Protective Order Right. The active ingredient is one of the components of the formulated product? 3 A. Yes, in the case of Roundup, I don't know 4 if in every instance that's true. 5 sometimes they're the same, but in this case that's 6 right. 7 Q. Okay. Like maybe And the definition here of 8 pesticide product means the actual -- in the case 9 of Roundup -- it means the Roundup in the container 10 sold to the person buying it. 11 MR. PRESTES: 12 A. Yes, Objection, foundation. I think that's -- that definition of 13 product would mean the final product being sold on 14 the shelf • 15 Q. Now if you turn to page 11, article 4 is 16 entitled "Testing of Pesticides." 17 going to read the paragraph under that, 4.1.1 18 reads: And 4.1, and I'm 19 "Pesticide industry should ensure 20 that each pesticide and pesticide 21 product is adequately and 22 effectively tested by recognized 23 procedures and test methods so as 24 to fully evaluate its inherent 25 physical, Golkow Litigation Services chemical or biological Page 101 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 properties, efficacy, behavior, 2 fate, hazard and risk with regard 3 to the various anticipated uses and 4 conditions in regions or 5 of u s e ." 6 Do you see all that? 7 MR. PRESTES: Objection, 8 9 countries foundation. A. Yes, I see the words you've read there, yes. 10 Q. All right. So to untangle that a little 11 bit, the International Code of Conduct to which 12 Monsanto subscribes says that the pesticide 13 industry should test for hazard and risk the 14 pesticide 15 saying in the context that I'm 16 fair? 17 and pesticide product -- MR. PRESTES: that's now using Objection, what it's -- is that foundation. Now 18 you're asking him to interpret a document that he's 19 never seen before. 20 21 a . It does say the words "pesticide" and "pesticide product." 22 Q. And "testing"? 23 A. Each pesticide and pesticide product is 24 adequately and effectively tested by recognized 25 procedures... It's what you've read, but, Golkow Litigation Services yes, it Page 102 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 calls out both of those things in the intro clause 2 of that - - o f that section. 3 Q. And the 4 different things, 5 risks, right? 6 MR. 7 tests should be for a number of but it includes hazards and PRESTES: A. Yeah, again, Objection, foundation. it's not my area of 8 expertise at all, but it says "hazards and risks" 9 there, yes. 10 11 Q. Were there documents that you reviewed that you had never seen before? 12 13 14 15 MR. PRESTES: Objection, form. A. Yeah, there are some documents that I reviewed that I hadn't seen before. Q. Okay. Did you disregard any document 16 that you reviewed in your preparation for the 17 deposition because you had never seen it before? 18 19 20 MR. PRESTES: Objection, asked and answered. a . I didn't always understand the context or 21 what was intended by the documents that I reviewed, 22 but I didn't disregard them just because I hadn't 23 seen them before. Golkow Litigation Services Page 103 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 104 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 105 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 106 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 107 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 108 Confidential 9 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. KRISTAL: I'm going to mark as 10 Exhibit 10, this is a September 21st, 2009 email 11 from Donna Farmer to John, 12 Combest? 13 is it pronounced (Exhibit 10 marked for 14 identification: Email 15 correspondence from (topmost) D 16 Farmer to J Combest sent 9/21/2009 17 re Roundup article in Fremantle 18 Herald MONGLY01192115) 19 A. I don't know who that is. 20 I'll have to look at it. 21 MR. PRESTES: Hey, Jerry, just a quick 22 housekeeping question. I know you marked the 23 30(b)(6) notice as well as the other notice. 24 assume, 25 of this, but let me know how you want to -- I so far we're on the personal capacity piece Golkow Litigation Services Page 109 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 I don't want -- I don't want to make your 2 life impossible by on every question raising the 3 issue, do you mean on behalf of Monsanto or do you 4 mean in the witness's personal capacity. 5 understanding is that so far he's been testifying 6 in his personal capacity. 7 MR. KRISTAL: My Let me -- it doesn't matter 8 until such time as somebody seeks to use the 9 transcript, because then it matters as to whether 10 or not it comes in as stated binding Monsanto or 11 personal statement 12 a as a fact witness, right? So the questions are what they are. When we 13 designate it, if you want to object one way and the 14 judge will instruct this is not a binding 15 statement, that is a binding statement, that's 16 fine, but I'm not going to be parsing out exactly 17 which questions fall into which category. 18 MR. PRESTES: Okay. Then I - - 19 MR. KRISTAL: Because I think there's a 20 tremendous overlap and it would be impossible to do 21 that. 22 move forward. 23 But I understand what you're saying. We'll Q. The Bates number -­ 24 MR. PARISER: 25 standing objection based on scope? Golkow Litigation Services So to be clear, we have a Page 110 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. KRISTAL: Yeah. And you would have 2 that objection, 3 something, 4 would -- might not be considered a binding 5 statement. 6 witness statement. 7 it's said in the capacity as a corporate 8 representative, 9 I think, anyway when I designate if you're saying -- to the extent it In other words, everything is a fact Some of it binds Monsanto if right? Anyway... Q. The September 21st, 2009 Donna Farmer 10 email is MONGLY01192115, and the subject is Roundup 11 Article in Fremantle Herald, F-R-E-M-A-N-T-L-E. 12 And if we start at the beginning of this chain -­ 13 14 when you get these emails -- you've seen this one before, right? 15 A. This looks familiar to me, although I can 16 never quite tell if it's exactly this email or some 17 forwarded version of it or something else, but... 18 I've seen this sort of Q&A on these questions. 19 Q. Okay. 20 MR. PRESTES: 21 when he gets these emails,are you 22 on this email? 23 24 25 A. Yeah. And just for -- you said suggesting he's When I see these emails, yes. I've never received theemail that -­ Q. I understand that. Golkow Litigation Services Page 111 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A. -- but I reviewed the email, yes. 2 Q. When you review these emails, you start 3 at the end because that is generally the earlier 4 email, and then you come forward to see what is 5 being said in the conversation, 6 A. No, not always. 7 Q. Okay. so to speak? Sometimes, but... Your understanding of this email 8 is -- and I can read from it -- is that there had 9 been an article published in the Fremantle Herald, 10 which is a newspaper in Australia, 11 glyphosate, and there were questions about what 12 could or couldn't be said in response to the 13 article. 14 involving Is that a fair characterization? MR. PRESTES: Objection, form, 15 foundation, to the extent that the witness isn't on 16 the email and hasn't -- doesn't -- isn't involved. 17 a . Yeah, I -- I hadn't looked at it with 18 that answer or question in mind, so maybe just let 19 me go through it real quick and see what was 20 the ... 21 22 23 24 25 Q. If you start on the very last page, which is the first email -­ A. Yeah, that's what I was doing. Q. Right. "... the article in question has appeared in the Fremantle Herald as expected. Golkow Litigation Services We Page 112 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 need to think about our response, possible 2 suggestions," and then there's some suggestions, 3 right? 4 MR. PRESTES: 5 A. Okay. 6 again. 7 in there. 8 9 Objection, foundation. Go ahead and ask your request I'm sorry. I hadn't taken all the context Q. Not a problem. I want to get this in the right context. 10 Eventually this email chain lands on Donna 11 Farmer 's computer for her to weigh in on what would 12 be an appropriate response to an article that 13 appeared in a newspaper in Australia, 14 to say , involving Roundup? 15 MR. PRESTES: 16 Objection, is that fair foundation. A. So there's the start of the -- the start 17 of the email chain involves a bunch of people I 18 don 't know that I do see some Australian addresses 19 here. 20 Q. Monsanto -- 21 A. Monsanto Australia, so I'm going to 22 assume -- I just don't know any of these people, 23 and I haven't ever met them or talked to them. 24 25 And then it looks like they had an article down there that they felt had some inaccuracies, Golkow Litigation Services Page 113 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 and like many times it goes back to our science 2 team for some help in understanding how to provide 3 the proper context or facts so that we can 4 communicate that back to the reporter or the 5 newspaper that published the -- the erroneous 6 story. 7 understand. 8 9 So that's the context here, Q. Okay. I think, that And then on the first page that ends 115, the very first page, towards the bottom, 10 Mr. Combest, C-O-M-B-E-S-T, 11 email thread to a woman named Janice Person, Donna 12 Farmer, and a gentleman Thomas Helscher. 13 see that? forwards the Australian Do you 14 a 15 Q. Do you know who Ms. Person is? 16 a 17 Q. Do you know who Mr. Helscher is? 18 a . I do. . No. . I've heard the name,somebody 19 corporate engagement team, 20 never met him. 21 Q. And thenDonna our I believe, but I've Farmer's "did you find the link? in first response 22 is, 23 and I can tell you they have a number of things 24 that are not acceptable." 25 I MR. PRESTES: Golkow Litigation Services This is to their Q&A, Do you see that? Objection, foundation. Page 114 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A. Yeah, 2 Q. And then there's a link underneath that. 3 I see the words there, yes. She puts in a link, correct? 4 a . That's correct. I see a link that ... 5 Q. And then the top email, the one from 6 12:07 p.m. on 9-21-2009, Donna Farmer comments on 7 some of the statements that were made in the link 8 that she finds unacceptable, 9 MR. PRESTES: correct? Objection, foundation. 10 I'll have a continuing objection to the exhibit and 11 to questioning the witness on an exhibit that he's 12 not on and doesn't know about. 13 Q. Well, when you read this email before, or 14 some similar version of it, you had no problem 15 understanding what was being said, did you? 16 a . There's parts of this that I just don't 17 have context of, like she references the Australian 18 site. 19 or not. 20 21 I don't know if she's referencing that link Q. Well, that is an Australian site, the link she sent, right? 22 a . Yeah. She says the Australian site, and 23 I don't know if she's talking about 24 article or that link, but we canassume 25 gone to an Australian site. Golkow Litigation Services the news that she's Page 115 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Again, this is one, I think, where the 2 people who are on this are better to talk about 3 what they actually did or didn't do, but what's the 4 question you're asking? 5 Q. The question is, Donna Farmer says, 6 cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer. 7 have not done carcinogenicity studies with 8 Roundup." 9 "you We Do you see that? MR. PRESTES: 10 a 11 Q. Okay. And is Objection, foundation. . I see the words there. that your understanding or 12 you have no understanding one way or the other as 13 to whether or not Monsanto ever did carcinogenicity 14 studies with the formulated product Roundup? 15 A. Yeah, I actually don't know what studies 16 we did or didn't do in that context. 17 really the scientist. 18 19 I'm not Q. And would you rely on Dr. Farmer for that kind of information? 20 A. Among others, 21 Q. Okay. Golkow Litigation Services yes. Page 116 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 117 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 118 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 119 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 120 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 121 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 122 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 123 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 124 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 125 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 126 Confidential 18 - Pursuant to Protective Order MR. KRISTAL: Marking as Exhibit 12 an 19 email chain with Donna Farmer from November 24th, 20 2003 . 21 (Exhibit 12 marked for 22 identification: Email 23 correspondence from (topmost) D 24 Farmer to S Natarajan sent 25 11/24/2003 re Agitation against Golkow Litigation Services Page 127 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Roundup MONGLYO0922458) 2 Q. Bates number is MONGLY002922458, and the 3 subject is "agitation against Roundup." 4 that? 5 MR. PRESTES: Do you see Object to the exhibit and 6 to all the questioning on the exhibit. 7 another document that the witness didn't send, 8 didn't receive, and that is dated years before he 9 was even employed at Monsanto in this instance. 10 Q. Okay. It's Did you review documents in 11 preparation for today that predated your employment 12 at Monsanto? 13 A. There were some, yes. 14 Q. And you understood what they were saying 15 in context? 16 17 A. No, I don't always have the context, but i reviewed them. 18 19 Q. And you reviewed them to be able to, in part, testify here today in front of this jury? 20 MR. PRESTES: Don't answer. We're not 21 going to get into why he was reviewing some 22 documents and why he was reviewing others. 23 provided you a list of 24 preparation for his deposition as we were required 25 to do. Golkow Litigation Services thedocuments We hereviewed in Page 128 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 MR. KRISTAL: Right, about 36 hours ago. 2 MR. PRESTES: Forty-eight, which is what 3 we're required to do. 4 Q. Did you disregard any document that 5 predated your employment at Monsanto in your review 6 of documents in preparation for this deposition? 7 A . NO. 8 Q. Okay. 9 In this email, if you look at the one down at the bottom of the first page, Donna 10 Farmer is writing to a number of different people. 11 Do you see that? 12 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. 13 A. I see that. 14 Q. Do you know any of the people listed 15 here? 16 17 MR. PRESTES: first page, Jerry? 18 19 20 You're talking about on the MR. KRISTAL: First page, Saturday, November 22nd, 2003 at 4:46 a.m. A. I know Sekhar, the recipient of the email 21 from Donna. I think he was the head of our India 22 business at that time. 23 Q. And his name is Sekhar, S-E-K-H-A-R? 24 a 25 Q. Natarajan, N-A-T-A-R-A-J-A-N. . I think that's how you say it. Golkow Litigation Services Page 129 Confidential 1 A. Yeah, Pursuant to Protective Order I think that's right. 2 Alan Smith I've met before too. 3 employee. And then He's a former 4 Q. 5 A. I think he was actually involved in the 6 7 And what was his function? crop protection business on the commercial side. Q. Donna Farmer writes: 8 "Your Q&A was forwarded to Kathy 9 Carr and me for review (see 10 attached). 11 responsible for glyphosate and 12 glyphosate-based products 13 worldwide, and Kathy provides 14 ecotoxicology support for 15 glyphosate globally as well as 16 manages the information resources 17 for glyphosate." I am the toxicologist 18 Do you see that? 19 MR. PRESTES: Objection, 20 foundation. 21 let him know if he read it right. 22 If the question is just do you see it, A. That's how I've been answering the 23 questions there. 24 Q. 25 form, Yeah, I see what you've read. And Dr. Farmer is now weighing in, when it says Q&A, that your understanding is questions Golkow Litigation Services Page 130 Confidential 1 and answers? 2 MR. 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order PRESTES: Objection, A. Yeah, foundation. I wasn't on the email, but I would assume Q&A means questions and answers. 5 Q. And the last paragraph reads, from 6 November 2004, 7 glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used 8 interchangeably nor can you use Roundup for all 9 glyphosate-based herbicides anymore." 10 "the terms Do you see that? 11 12 in Donna Farmer's email, MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation, and you said it was from 2004 and it's not. 13 MR. KRISTAL: Right, 2003. 14 a . I see. 15 Q. Okay. I see the sentence, yes. And that was your understanding 16 when you were at Monsanto, 17 Roundup were two different things. 18 correct? Glyphosate and A. My understanding at Monsanto is 19 glyphosate is the active ingredient. 20 formulated product. 21 Q. Okay. Roundup is a And then Donna Farmer goes on to 22 say, "for example, you cannot say that Roundup is 23 not a carcinogen. 24 testing on the formulation to make that 25 Do you see that? We have not done the necessary Golkow Litigation Services statement." Page 131 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. 2 A. Yeah, I see the words there. 3 Q. And that was the subject of the newspaper 4 article that you had obtained in 2017 from the 5 Bloomberg News Network that had been forwarded to 6 you, correct? 7 8 9 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. A. That -- I'm trying to remember now. That article referenced some emails that were released 10 in the course of litigation, and I don't know if 11 it's specifically referencing this email or some 12 other email. 13 Q. Okay. So what you're saying is, if you 14 look at Exhibit 9, if you want to refresh, to your 15 left -­ 16 17 A. Sure. Q. -- it was aBloomberg News story "Monsanto that was 18 entitled, toxicologist couldn't say 19 Roundup doesn't cause cancer," and it talks about 20 the release of some 21 unsealed by the federal judge, right? of the documents that were 22 a . Yes. 23 Q. So if I understood your last answer, 24 you're saying thatstory was 25 these emails or some part Golkow Litigation Services either referencing of these three emails or Page 132 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order some other emails where that statement was made. a . The article says there's court documents 3 citing deposition of Farmer, 4 deposition. 5 document that it's referring to or if it was the 6 deposition itself, but ... 7 so something in her I just don't recall which exact Q. It says, "according to court documents, 8 unsealed Tuesday by a federal judge, Monsanto's 9 lead toxicologist Donna Farmer says the company 10 can't claim Roundup weedkiller doesn't cause 11 cancer." 12 a 13 Q. And we've seen, if not identically those Do you see that? . Yeah, I see those words. 14 words, two of the emails, the 2003 email and the 15 2009 email that we just looked at, where she says 16 -- makes that statement, correct? 17 MR. PRESTES: 18 Objection, foundation, mischaracterizes the evidence. 19 A. Yes, I think the only point I'm making is 20 I don't know what emails this reporter specifically 21 was referring to when they wrote that story. 22 Q. Right, that was my point. So it may be 23 the two emails that I just mentioned, 24 2009, which contain the statement, we cannot 25 Roundup does not cause cancer, or some other Golkow Litigation Services 2003 and say Page 133 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order emails, or some other document. 2 A. Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is I don't 3 know. 4 reporter or saw what they were reviewing. 5 I don't know because I never talked to that Q. Okay. But, in any event, you have now 6 seen documents which say what the newspaper article 7 in 2017, what the headline reads, that you were 8 sent, right? 9 10 11 12 13 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation, mischaracterizes the evidence. A. Some of the emails we reviewed talk about a similar topic to what's in that article, yes. Q. Okay. And what Donna Farmer said is that 14 Monsanto hadn't done the testing on the formulated 15 product, which iswhy 16 not cause cancer. 17 MR. 18 Q. Right? 19 A. Yeah, you cannot say Roundup does PRESTES: Objection, foundation. I actually don't know what is 20 necessary to make that claim or what she meant by 21 what's been tested or not tested. 22 23 24 25 q . But that's what she said, if you look at Exhibit 12 -­ MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. Q. -- on the bottom, Bates number 458 of Golkow Litigation Services Page 134 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Exhibit 12, the 2003 email, 2 cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen ... we 3 have not done the necessary testing on the 4 formulation to make that statement," right, end 5 quote, that's what she said? 6 MR. PRESTES: 7 "for example, you Objection, foundation. A. Yeah, again, you know, with the other 8 email you had there, it seems that the regulatory 9 authorities require -- they have certain 10 requirements, and so she's wanting to make sure our 11 statements comply with those requirements from what 12 i can tell. 13 Q. Like truthful? 14 15 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation, argumentative. 16 A. No. 17 Q. why does Donna Farmer say in the 2003 18 email Monsanto cannot sayRoundup 19 cancer? 20 21 MR. PRESTES: q .well, it's 23 A. Yeah, I -­ 25 Objection, foundation, and the witness is nota document genie. 22 24 doesn't cause the sentence she wrote, right? MR. PRESTES: Objection, same objection. Q. Does Donna Farmer say we have not done Golkow Litigation Services Page 135 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 the necessary testing on the formulated product in 2 terms of why you can't say Roundup does not cause 3 cancer? 4 5 MR. Q. Does she say that? 6 7 PRESTES: Objection. MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. A. I see the words here, but I don't have 8 the context of what she's talking about, and I 9 think you've highlighted how the context can be 10 important here, because in one of the emails she's 11 talking about complying with regulatory 12 requirements. 13 Q. She's not saying -­ 14 15 MR. PRESTES: Let him -- are you done? One second. Don't cut him off. 16 a . I wasn't quite done. 17 It's just, they don't want to say something 18 that would run afoul of the French regulatory 19 requirements and she is advising the team based on 20 her experience here. 21 Q. That was the 2007 email, correct? 22 a . Yeah, that was in the 2007 email, but 23 I -- I just wasn't sure if 24 differently here, that 25 I can say it any the contextmatters. Q. Why does Donna Farmer say in the 2003 Golkow Litigation Services Page 136 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 email that Monsanto cannot say Roundup does not 2 cause cancer? 3 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation, 4 form, to the extent you're asking him why someone 5 else said what they said before -- 6 7 MR. KRISTAL: because she wrote it, right? 8 9 Well, we know what she said MR. PRESTES: Please don't -- the witness was still in law school. 10 (Clarification by reporter.) 11 A. Well, we -- I feel a lot older than that, 12 but we know what she said in the email -- 13 Q. Right. 14 A. -- and the words. We just don't have the 15 context. I especially don't have the context, and, 16 you know, I know she was deposed on it. 17 one that could give you the answer as to what she 18 really meant or why she said what she said. She's the 19 Q. What did she say in the 2003 email? 20 follows the sentence, we cannot say that Roundup is 21 not a carcinogen? 22 MR. PRESTES: Objection, 23 you just asking him to read it? 24 MR. KRISTAL: 25 Q. Yeah, foundation. Are Yeah. it's pretty plain English, Golkow Litigation Services What isn 't Page 137 Confidential 1 it? 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation, form. 4 A. I'm sorry. I lost our place. For 5 example, you cannot say that Roundup is not a 6 carcinogen. 7 on the formulation to make that statement -­ We have not done the necessary testing 8 Q. Right. 9 A. -- is what she said. 10 Q. She's not talking about a regulation 11 there, is she? 12 Roundup has not 13 She's talking about the fact that been tested for carcinogenicity. MR. PRESTES: 14 a . Yeah, again, Objection, foundation. I just don't have the 15 context, and I think she could very well be talking 16 about complying with what the regulatory 17 authorities allow when it comes to making 18 statements about products. 19 any way to I just don't have rule that out. 20 Q. So what you're saying is the regulatory 21 authorities don't want you to make a statement if 22 you haven't tested whether the statement is 23 not? 24 25 a true or . There are a lot of regulations that govern what you say about your products, and I'm Golkow Litigation Services Page 138 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 just not the expert in those areas. 2 speculating that in this context she could have 3 been talking about a lot of different things. 4 5 Q. Okay. A. Yes, the words printed on the page say what they say, yes. 8 9 Q. Do her words in that email talk about the regulations at all? 10 MR. PRESTES: 11 12 Objection, foundation. A. I think there's a lot of context missing from her email, yes. 13 14 But the words say what they say, fair to say? 6 7 I'm just Q. Does the email itself talk about regulations? 15 MR. PRESTES: 16 a Same objection. . No, unlike the other one, there's just 17 not the context here to understand what she's 18 really talking about here. 19 Q. Is it your understanding that Monsanto 20 has tested Roundup, the actual product, 21 or not it can cause cancer? 22 23 a . I actually don't know what studies we've done specifically. 24 25 for whether q . Would you expect Monsanto to have done that? Golkow Litigation Services Page 139 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order A. I would expect we would have complied 2 with everything that is required to get a product 3 approved and marketed under the authorities in each 4 country. 5 Q. How about complying with the stewardship 6 requirements that we looked at? 7 back to Exhibit 8. 8 MR. PRESTES: 9 If you want to get Objection, foundation. A. Yeah, again -­ 10 Q. Go back to Exhibit 8. 11 A. Sure. 12 Q. Section 4.1.1 on Testing of Pesticides. 13 A. Sorry. 14 here. Getting them all out of order Is that the big one? There we go. 15 Q. It's page 11, Arabic numbers. 16 The International Code by which Monsanto 17 says it subscribes says that you need to test both 18 the active ingredient and the product itself for 19 hazards and risks, correct? 20 21 22 MR. PRESTES: Objection, form, foundation, assumes facts. a . We've read this clause before, so, yes, 23 the clause talks about products and -- pesticide 24 products and pesticides as two different things. 25 Q. Okay. So if -- and I'm not saying you Golkow Litigation Services Page 140 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 know or don't know -- but if Monsanto has never 2 tested the formulated product Roundup to see 3 whether or not it causes cancer, that would be in 4 violation of this stewardship statement, correct? 5 MR. PRESTES: Object to the form, lacks 6 foundation, assumes facts, and is an improper 7 hypothetical question of a witness who has already 8 told you he doesn't know what studies the company 9 did or didn't do and isn't the expert in the area. 10 11 a . Yeah. So, yeah, I'm not the scientist. I think that's a fair point. 12 Q. It's not a scientific question. 13 A. I don't know -­ 14 Q. I'm asking you to assume that Monsanto 15 has never tested Roundup, the formulated product 16 that people buy, to see if it causes cancer. 17 That's the assumption I'm asking you to make. 18 that assumption is incorrect, then my question is 19 ridiculous. 20 if that assumption is true, then Monsanto 21 has failed to test the pesticide product which 22 would be required under this 23 correct? 24 25 If MR. PRESTES: objections to international code, Same laundry list of the improper questioning. Golkow Litigation Services Page 141 Confidential 1 A. Yeah, Pursuant to Protective Order I don't know that what you're 2 asking would be the determining factor or what 3 studies would need to be done in that context. 4 Q. Roundup is the pesticide product, 5 according to this international code, 6 it to Roundup and glyphosate, 7 8 9 10 MR. PRESTES: A. Yeah, if we apply correct? Objection, foundation. I would think about Roundup and glyphosate separately in that context, yes. Q. And this international code under Testing 11 of Pesticides, the very first paragraph says, you 12 need to test -- you need to test both the active 13 ingredient and the pesticide product, correct? 14 MR. PRESTES: Objection, form, 15 foundation, characterization of the hundred-page 16 document. 17 18 19 A. Yeah, I don't know exactly what it requires. Q. Well, we just read it. Pesticide -­ 20 "Pesticide industry should ensure 21 that each pesticide and pesticide 22 product is adequately and 23 effectively tested by recognized 24 procedures and test methods so as 25 to fully evaluate its inherent Golkow Litigation Services Page 142 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 physical, 2 properties, efficacy, behavior, 3 fate, hazard and risk with regard 4 to the various anticipated users 5 and conditions in regions or 6 countries of use." chemical or biological 7 Did I read that correctly? 8 A. Yes, 9 Q. And there's an "and," right, the I believe you read that correctly. 10 pesticide industry should test the pesticide and 11 the pesticide product, right? 12 13 14 15 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. A. I think in the hypothetical we've been building, that's correct, yes. Q. Okay. So if Monsanto never tested the 16 pesticide product Roundup for carcinogenicity, 17 it didn't do the testing that this section says it 18 should have done, right? 19 20 21 MR. PRESTES: Objection, then form, foundation to the improper hypothetical. A. Yeah, so, again, I just don't know if 22 that's actually required under this clause or not. 23 If we could adequately and effectively test and 24 there's all sorts of other data and a body of work 25 that's out there and many studies that relate to Golkow Litigation Services Page 143 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 carcinogenicity, 2 study we did or didn't do that needs to be done or 3 didn't get done or should be done. 4 I don't know that there's any one What I know is, when I talk with our 5 scientists, that they say we fully evaluated the 6 products and stand behind the safety of our 7 products. 8 Q. And move to strike that as nonresponsive. 9 Does this require testing on both the active 10 ingredient and the formulated product? 11 your understanding of it? 12 13 MR. PRESTES: Objection, Is that form, foundation. 14 a 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. I'm asking you what the words mean to 18 you. 19 20 . I just read the words. MR. PRESTES: a Same objections. . So the words say that each pesticide and 21 pesticide product in this -- the international 22 standard -- are adequately and effectively tested 23 by recognized procedures and test methods. 24 25 Q. And one of the things to test for, this says, for the pesticide andpesticide product Golkow Litigation Services is Page 144 Confidential 1 hazard and risk, correct? 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. A. Those are in a list of things that, I 4 guess, could be different parts of the evaluation. 5 I don't know if they're all required or if they're 6 just, again, they are parts of tests that you do. 7 I'm not sure how to interpret that. 8 9 10 Q. Well, The testing is to fully evaluate, and one of the things to fully evaluate is hazard and risk, right? 11 12 13 14 it says fully evaluate it, right? MR. PRESTES: a . Yeah, again, Same objection. I'm just not -- I don't know how to interpret all of this, so ... Q. Did you think sitting here that Monsanto 15 did test Roundup itself for whether or not it 16 causes cancer? 17 18 19 20 21 22 a . I actually don't know what tests were done on active ingredient or Roundup. Q. I'm not asking you what tests were done or not done. I'm asking you -­ MR. PRESTES: Don't cut the witness off. Q. -- as you're sitting here, before we 23 raised this, did you think that Monsanto had tested 24 Roundup to see if it causes cancer? 25 A. I just didn't know. Golkow Litigation Services Page 145 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Q. 2 A. Right. 3 Q. 4 A. I assumed that we have done all of the One way or the other. Did you assume Monsanto had done that? 5 evaluations required to support the safe use of our 6 products. 7 believe our company does. 8 9 10 Q. I mean, that's something that I fully I'm asking you if you assumed that Monsanto had actually tested Roundup to see whether it causes cancer, the formulated product. 11 A. I just don't know. 12 Q. 13 Do you think it would be nice to do that? MR. PRESTES: 14 Objection, form. A. I think that there's a full body of work 15 that's out there, and I assume cancer is -- I don't 16 know. 17 products. 18 really address that than me. 19 I just don't know what testing goes into the Q. There's other people more qualified to I'm not asking you about what testing 20 does or doesn't go in. 21 Monsanto employee, a former Monsanto employee, you 22 didn't have any understanding one way or the other 23 as to whether Monsanto had actually tested Roundup 24 to see if it causes cancer? 25 MR. PRESTES: Golkow Litigation Services I'm asking you as a Objection, asked and Page 146 Confidential l Pursuant to Protective Order answered -­ 2 A. Yeah, my -­ 3 MR. PRESTES: 4 -- three times, I think. A. My personal understanding is that we 5 stand behind the safety of the products, we've done 6 the evaluations that arerequired, and they're safe 7 to use. 8 9 MR. KRISTAL: I move to strike. Q. I'm not asking you about standing by a 10 product or whether it's safe to use. I'm just 11 asking about your own personal belief coming into 12 this deposition, but we'll move on. 13 When did you first hear of the International 14 Agency for Research on Cancer, what's referred to 15 as IARC, I-A-R-C? 16 A. Probably sometime in 2016. 17 Q. You had never heard of IARCbefore then? 18 A. No. I may have incidentally been exposed 19 to it somewhere, but itnever 20 the past. had come up for me in 21 Q. And yet were you -- strike that. 22 Did you consider yourself the point person, 23 with respect to media and legislation 24 for IARC, to be the point person at Monsanto to 25 attack IARC's finding thatglyphosate was Golkow Litigation Services and funding probably Page 147 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order cancer causing? 2 A. I'm not sure we had anyone whose primary 3 function was to attack IARC. 4 wasn't the point person for government affairs and 5 media relations and relating to our response to 6 IARC or glyphosate generally. 7 It wasn't me. No, I Q. You're sitting here in Washington, D.C. 8 at this office being videotaped telling the jury 9 who is watching this video thatMonsanto did not 10 attack IARC after it came out with its 11 determination that glyphosate could cause cancer? 12 is that what you're telling us? 13 14 MR. PRESTES: Objection, mischaracterizes the witness's 15 A. Yeah, form, and testimony. I think you misstated what I said. 16 i said we didn't have a lead for attacking IARC. 17 What we had was a team that did respond to IARC and 18 try to set the record straight and provide factual 19 information. 20 21 22 Q. You don't think that was an attack on IARC? A. No. Actually from our perspective I 23 think we 24 involved with weweren't trying 25 were trying to -- thegroups Iwas toattack IARC. Q. Well, do you under -- strike that. Golkow Litigation Services Page 148 Confidential 1 2 DO you believe IARC is an authoritative agency? 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order A. I don't really understand what you mean by "authoritative agency." 5 Q. Do you think IARC is a good agency to 6 have in terms of evaluating substances as to 7 whether they do or don't cause cancer? 8 good thing? 9 10 A. I don't think that's what IARC does, but ... 11 Q. You don't think that's what IARC does? 12 Is that what you just said? 13 I'm not challenging you. 14 15 16 Is that a A. Yeah, I didn't hear you. I'm not sure that's what IARC does, yeah. Q. Okay. What's your understanding, as you 17 sit here, having been involved in Monsanto's 18 challenge to IARC, as to what IARC does? 19 A. They seem to be reviewing lists of 20 chemicals and looking at other people's work on 21 those things to see what a, you know, what 22 potential hazards might exist in the environment. 23 Q. 24 A. No. 25 Okay. That's not a bad thing, is it? It just wasn't what you described that IARC does when you asked me the question. Golkow Litigation Services Page 149 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order Your question framed it differently. Q. Well, one of the things that IARC does is 3 determine whether substances that people are 4 exposed to cause cancer, correct? 5 A. They have -- they look at things that may 6 have a potential hazard, 7 lots of different substances. 8 say whether that's a risk to people to get cancer 9 or not, so they look at red meat and they find red 10 like they have done with It doesn't actually meat can be potentially a hazard. 11 Q. Have you ever read -- strike that. 12 You're aware that when IARC reviews the 13 science on a substance they're looking into, they 14 look at all of the published literature that they 15 can find on that subject, 16 literature? 17 scientific and medical A. I'm not really sure how they go about 18 their collection of 19 their charter they look at all of the public 20 literature that's out there, but I'm not sure that 21 it's always comprehensive. 22 q the documents. They say in I just don't know. . Have you ever looked at the red meat 23 monograph? You know they publish very lengthy 24 monographs stating exactly what the basis of their 25 determinations are?You're familiar with that, Golkow Litigation Services Page 150 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order right? 2 A. Yes, I'm familiar with the monographs. 3 Q. Haveyou ever read any monograph? 4 let's start with the red meat 5 that. 6 one. Well, You mentioned Have you looked at the scientific and 7 medical evidence reviewed by 8 red meat and whether or not it causes cancer? 9 IARC with respect to A. I've looked at it, but I really don't 10 have the qualifications to interpret or understand 11 it. 12 explain what it means and ... So we have other scientists that I rely on to 13 Q. You've looked at the red meat monograph? 14 a 15 Q. what other monographs have you looked at? 16 A. One on wine, one on coffee, the 112 . Yeah, I've looked at -­ 17 Monograph. There's been some 18 think there's -- was there one on sunscreen? 19 think there was just a lot of odd compounds, and I 20 kind of went through those to see what they were 21 doing and what the issues were. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. Just other chemicals. I I And when did you do that? over the course of, I guess it would 24 have been the second half of 25 that time frame. Golkow Litigation Services 2016 orearly 2017, in Page 151 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. In terms of your job responsibilities or on your own? Why would you be looking at that? 3 A. To understand -- because the scientists 4 were saying that they had classified all of these 5 other things as causing cancer, and I got a call 6 from somebody, 7 coffee industry called me and wanted to talk about 8 what IARC was doing on coffee, and so I was trying 9 to understand what issues they were facing. 10 11 like the guy that heads up the Q. And there are a number of different classifications that IARC has, correct? 12 A. Yes, that's right. 13 Q. And there were very few, a small percent, 14 that they actually said these are carcinogens, 15 correct, as opposed to probably or possibly, 16 a . Yeah, I don't know the percentages there. 17 we could go andprobably pull that 18 looked, but ... 19 right? out, if we Q. You don't know sitting here whether red 20 meat was considered apossible carcinogen, 21 as opposed to a probable or definite carcinogen? 22 23 a right, . I don't recall off the top of my head right now. 24 Q. Same thing with coffee, right? 25 A. Yeah, I think they actually changed their Golkow Litigation Services Page 152 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 minds on coffee, 2 wine, but one of them changed, yeah. 3 if I recall, or maybe that was Q. And you know that the other two 4 categories are definitely doesn't cause cancer or 5 we just don't know one way or the other based on 6 our evaluation. 7 A. That's right. 8 Q. is that fair to say? 9 A. I think there was a category of 10 insufficient evidence, and there were many 11 compounds they reviewed that were 12 in that Q. Most of the compounds that category. were reviewed, 13 about half of them anyway, were in the category of 14 there's just not enough scientific information to 15 make a conclusion, correct? 16 17 18 A. I don't remember the number, but if you say it's half, I mean, MR. KRISTAL: I'm sure you've looked. I'm marking as Exhibit 13 19 the "International Agency for Research onCancer 20 IARC Monographs on Evaluation ofCarcinogenic 21 to Humans." 22 Risks (Exhibit 13 marked for 23 identification: 24 Agency for Research on Cancer IARC 25 Monographs on Evaluation of Golkow Litigation Services "International Page 153 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Carcinogenic Risks to Humans") 2 Q. 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. 5 A. Let me look at the document and see if This is from 2006. Have you seen this before? 6 it ... people have summarized this document for me 7 before , the preamble of the IARC Monograph program, 8 yes. 9 Q. 10 11 Such as who? A. Bill Reeves in our regulatory affairs team. 12 Q. 13 A. I don't recall. 14 Q. 15 A. Oh, I would say 2016 or 2017. 16 Q. 17 And when did that happen? Was it five years ago? Last week? What was the context in your involvement with FTI and IARC at that time? 18 A. I was working with FTI at that time, yes. 19 Q. And if you look at the beginning of the 20 preamble, General Principles and Procedures under 21 the background section: 22 "Soon after IARC was established in 23 1965 it received frequent requests 24 for advice on the carcinogenic risk 25 of chemicals including requests for Golkow Litigation Services Page 154 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 list of known and suspected human 2 carcinogens." 3 4 That's how it starts off as background, correct? 5 6 MR. PRESTES: you read that correctly? 7 8 You're just asking him if MR. KRISTAL: No. I'm asking him if that's his understanding. 9 A. Yeah, the understanding I had from Bill 10 was back in the '60s, I think, people were wanting 11 to understand what hazards were out there in the 12 environment. 13 groups of people looking at those things, and so 14 IARC was initially formedin order to do something 15 along those lines to flag for people where there 16 were potential hazards in the environment. There wasn't a lot of analysis or 17 Q. And that's a good thing, 18 a . Yeah. is it not? I think at that time especially 19 there wasn't a lot of knowledge, and so they needed 20 to understand what was out there, and a lot of -­ 21 yeah. 22 q . well, that's still good today, is it not, 23 to have an international body of experts 24 substances to decide whether or not they can cause 25 cancer? Golkow Litigation Services reviewing Page 155 Confidential 1 A. Yeah, Pursuant to Protective Order I agree that it's good to have 2 people identifying hazards in the environment as 3 long as it's not confusing people about what those 4 hazards are doing or taking it out of context. 5 6 Q. minute. And, well, we'll explore that in a The third paragraph down says: 7 "Through the Monographs program, 8 IARC seeks to identify the causes 9 of human cancer. This is the first 10 step in cancer prevention, which is 11 needed as much today as when IARC 12 was established." 13 Do you agree that that's a good thing? 14 A. I'm sorry. I lost the train there. 15 Where did you pick up that sentence? 16 "it was clear" sentence? 17 18 Q. No. Was that the I dropped down to the third paragraph • 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. "Through the Monographs 21 program, 22 causes of human cancer. 23 the first step in cancer 24 prevention, which is needed as much 25 today as when IARC was Golkow Litigation Services IARC seeks to identify the This is Page 156 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 established." 2 That's a good thing, 3 4 MR. PRESTES: is it not? Objection, form. A. I think it's a good thing to identify 5 cancer risks personally. 6 IARC is doing a good job of it, but, yes, I agree 7 that that's a good principle. 8 9 Q. Okay. I don't know exactly that And when you say you don't know if IARC is doing a good job of it, you're not 10 qualified to weigh in on whether IARC is or isn't 11 doing a good job on it, correct? 12 a . That's what I'm saying, is I'm not really 13 scientifically trained toevaluate that piece 14 the equation. 15 Q. And IARC is a -- falls under the auspices 16 of the World Health Organization of the United 17 Nations, correct? 18 of A. I've never really fully understood their 19 relationship there. They say that, but then I've 20 also seen that they're not -- I don't know. 21 There's just someconfusion 22 they really are in the World Health Organization 23 and how all the pieces fit together. in my mind about what 24 q . well -­ 25 A. Because it used to be a separate Golkow Litigation Services Page 157 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 organization, and then at some point they 2 associated themselves with the World Health 3 Organization, 4 but ... Q. -- is it your understanding that, when 5 IARC reviews the monographs, 6 part of the World Health Organization of the United 7 Nations? 8 9 A. Yeah, it's not doing it as I may be mistaken, but my understanding is they're somehow associated with 10 the World Health Organization, but I don't know how 11 they're chartered within or not part of the World 12 Health Organization. 13 that. 14 q . Well, There's some confusion on if you look at the cover of the 15 preamble, what's the very -- the words on the very 16 first page of 17 18 19 20 21 a the cover? . Yeah, again, I know they use that banner. I just don't know -­ Q. what are the words? A. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. 22 Q. And is that the symbol for the United 23 Nations with the medical symbol in front of it? 24 25 a . Is it UN or is it World Health Organization? I don't know. Golkow Litigation Services Page 158 Confidential 1 - Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: Hey, Jerry, 2 noon. 3 you plan to spend on this document. 4 minutes - I guess it's 12 :01. - it's about I don't know how long If it's a few - 5 MR. KRISTAL: I t 's only a few minutes. 6 MR. PRESTES: Okay. 7 Then l e t 's take a break after that. 8 MR. KRISTAL: 9 Okay. Q., On page 3, I want to see if this is your 10 understanding of how agents are selected for the 11 International Agency for Research on Cancer to 12 review. 13 "Agents are selected for review on the basis 14 of two main criteria: (a), there is evidence of 15 human exposure and (b), there's some evidence or 16 suspicion of carcinogenicity." 17 18 19 is that generally your understanding as to how agents get selected for review by IARC? A. I don't know. That's what they're 20 aspiring to, but I don't know that that is in fact 21 how they do it or what they do. 22 Q. Well, you were involved with challenging 23 IARC's determination on behalf of Monsanto when it 24 found that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen, 25 were you not? Golkow Litigation Services Page 159 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order A. I don't think that we were challenging 2 IARC. 3 there trying to communicate how we felt about the 4 issues and what we believed. 5 6 Q. You weren't -- you weren't trashing or trying to discredit IARC -- Monsanto? 7 8 9 IARC said what they said, and we were out A. No, I don't think that I was. know -Q. I don't mean you personally. 10 11 12 13 14 MR. PRESTES: Let him -- let him finish his answers. a . Yeah, I don't -- I can't speak on behalf of Monsanto on thattopic, q so ... . Have you ever read statements by the 15 folks at IARC as to what Monsanto was 16 in their challenges to the glyphosate 17 carcinogenicity finding? 18 19 I don't a doing to them . I can't think of what those would be. What IARC participants said? 20 Q. Have you ever read the IARC statement 21 from 2018 as to what they went through from the 22 pesticide industry after they came out with their 23 determination on glyphosate? 24 that document? 25 Have you ever read A. I don't know that I have. Golkow Litigation Services I don't recall Page 160 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order it, but ... 2 Q. Have you ever read the published article, 3 the lead author is Pearce, 4 written by a hundred scientists who talk about the 5 IARC program and the fact that the attacks on IARC 6 by the pesticide industry particularly relating to 7 glyphosate were unproductive and unnecessary? 8 MR. PRESTES: 9 from 2015 Object to the form. Q. Have you ever read that article? 10 11 P-E-A-R-C-E, MR. PRESTES: Object to the form, and it assumes facts. 12 a . It sounds familiar to m e . I remember 13 something where there was a publication defending 14 IARC, but I don't recall what they were responding 15 to or what you're calling the attacks. 16 don't remember. 17 Q. We'll take a look at that. I just But you know 18 that IARC has a written process for their review of 19 substances when they're reviewing a substance to 20 determine whether or not it can cause cancer, 21 right? 22 There's an actual process that they have. a . Yeah, I think that's -- and I haven't 23 read this whole document here, but I think in their 24 charter they lay out a process that they intend to 25 follow. Golkow Litigation Services Page 161 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. KRISTAL: Okay. break 3 VIDEO SPECIALIST: 4 We're going off the record. 5 Why don't we take a The time is 12:04 p.m. (Proceedings recessed) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 162 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order AFTERNOON SESSION 2 VIDEO SPECIALIST: The time is 12:51 3 p.m., and we are back on the record. 4 BY MR. KRISTAL: 5 Q. 6 A. Y e s . 7 Q. Mr. Rands, hope you had a nice lunch. Thank y o u . I'm going to hand you what I printed out 8 from IARC 's website on February 6, 2019 what's 9 called their Mission Statement. 10 (Exhibit 14 marked for 11 identification: 12 Cancer research for cancer 13 prevention) 14 Q. 15 A. Thank y o u . 16 Q. IARC's Mission: I'll hand that to you and counsel. And the time that you were involved with 17 the program criticizing IARC, did you ever go to 18 their website? 19 A. Let me read the document here just a 20 second. 21 this specific document, but I've been to their 22 website, y e s . It looks familiar to m e . I don't remember 23 Q. 24 mission : 25 The International Agency for Research on Cancer Okay. And this document reads, "IARC's Cancer research for cancer prevention. Golkow Litigation Services Page 163 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 (IARC) is the specialized cancer agency of the 2 World Health Organization." 3 4 5 Does that answer the question as to whether it's part of the World Health Organization? A. No. Again, it'sa technical -- I just 6 don't know their entity structure, and from what I 7 had seen there was some confusion about,they call 8 it their parent organization, but I just never 9 understood how it came to be part of the World 10 Health Organization, 11 original charter. if it was part of their 12 Q. I'm not asking you that question. 13 A. I'm sorry. 14 15 I didn't understand the question, then. Q. At the time IARC was reviewing the 16 science regarding the carcinogenicity of 17 glyphosate, 18 Organization, were theynot? 19 specialized cancer agency 20 Organization. 21 they were part of the World Health They were the of theWorld Health A. That's what they say about themselves. I 22 just was making the point I don't know what their 23 actual structure is with respect to the World 24 Health Organization. 25 Q. So you think they're lying? Golkow Litigation Services Page 164 Confidential 1 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order A. No, I think that's what they say about themselves. Q. I understand that. And you're saying 4 it's not true, or you think it may not be true that 5 they're not the "specialized agency of the World 6 Health Organization"? 7 A. No, I'm saying I just don't know. 8 There's actually several organizations related to 9 cancer under the World Health Organization, and 10 I've never really looked hard at how they're all 11 organized under each other. 12 Q. Okay. 13 promote international 14 research." 15 objective? 16 a "The objective of the IARC is to collaboration in cancer Do you understand that to be IARC's . I've never really looked hard at their 17 broader objectives, because the IARC, 18 their website they had a long list of projects and 19 other science they were doing on various topics 20 that didn't 21 that is oneof their objectives, 22 scientific endeavor. 23 I recall, on relate to the Monograph program. to So have a Q. "The agency is interdisciplinary 24 bringing together skills in 25 epidemiology, Golkow Litigation Services laboratory sciences Page 165 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 and biostatistics to identify the 2 causes of cancer so that preventive 3 measures may be adopted and the 4 burden of disease and associated 5 suffering reduced." 6 Was that your understanding of what IARC was 7 when you were 8 IARC's decision regarding 9 carcinogen? 10 11 involved at Monsanto with challenging MR. PRESTES: A. Yeah, glyphosate as a probable Object to the form. I think the work we were doing 12 related to what IARC was doing in their Monograph 13 program, but I know that their broader organization 14 that, as they're saying here, has multiple purposes 15 and different ways they approach cancer 16 research. Q. Well, you know that the Monograph program 17 was a core element of what IARC does, right? 18 A. Actually I didn't know that. The amount 19 of money they put towards it was pretty minimal 20 compared to how much they were putting towards 21 other research efforts. 22 Q. Well, under the section of Exhibit 14, 23 the IARC Mission Statement under Causes and 24 Prevention of Cancer, 25 paragraph, in the middle of the "the IARC Monograph's program is a core Golkow Litigation Services Page 166 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 element of the agency's portfolio of activities, 2 with international expert working groups evaluating 3 the evidence of the carcinogenicity of specific 4 exposures." 5 themselves, 6 7 correct? A. Yes, that's what they say about themselves. 8 9 T h a t 's what IARC says about Q. Are you disagreeing with that, that that's not a true statement? 10 A. I don't know if it's true or not, to be 11 honest. 12 of carcinogenicity of specific exposures, 13 know what they mean by that, 14 saying they do hazard assessments and they're just 15 looking for things that potentially could cause 16 cancer, that's my understanding of what IARC does. 17 18 When it says they're evaluating evidence I don't if it's -- if they're Q. And they determined that exposure to glyphosate could cause cancer inhumans, right? 19 A. I just -- again, I don't know that they 20 have actually achieved that at all with respect to 21 glyphosate. 22 haven't considered. 23 able to say whether they followed their own 24 procedures and made a proper determination there or 25 not. There's a whole body of evidence they Golkow Litigation Services And I'm not a scientist to be Page 167 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. And I move to strike that. I didn't ask you whether it was proper or not. 3 IARC itself determined that exposure to 4 glyphosate probably could cause cancer, right? 5 That's what their determination was. 6 A. I'm not sure that that was a correct 7 determination or not. 8 Q. Okay. 9 10 I'm not asking you if it was a correct determination or not. You're not qualified to weigh in on that, right? 11 A. That's right. 12 Q. Okay. I'm asking you if that's what they 13 found, that glyphosate, after they reviewed the 14 evidence that they reviewed and they wrote a very 15 thick Monograph, number 112, their conclusion was 16 glyphosate probably causes cancer, right? 17 a 18 Q. Right. 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. Which is what, probably carcinogenic, 21 correct? 22 a 23 24 25 .They classified it as, . Yeah, was it 2A? I think that's the conclusion that they reached. Q. And the term "probably carcinogenic" means probably causes cancer, right? Golkow Litigation Services Page 168 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: A. Yeah, Object to the form. I would just go with what their 3 words said. 4 whatever for what a 2A is. They have that in their preamble or 5 Q. 6 finding. 7 say "probably carcinogenic," they mean probably 8 causes cancer? 9 10 You were working to challenge IARC's Did you not understand that, when they MR. PRESTES: Object to the form. A. I'm not sure how to answer that. If 11 those are the same thing or different things, 12 not sure. 13 Q. 14 A. Oh, yeah, seems like a good -- 15 Q. I'm That's what I'm asking you. Do you believe or not know -- are you 16 saying that, 17 carcinogenic, am I saying the same thing that it 18 probably causes cancer, or am I saying something 19 different , or you don't know one way or the other? 20 21 if I said something is probably A. Yeah, I don't know if those are the same thing or not technically. 22 Q. 23 A. Scientifically, What do you mean by "technically"? something that's 24 carcinogenic, and then cancer is the clinical 25 manifestation of the disease. Golkow Litigation Services I just don't know if Page 169 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 there's something that's different between those 2 two things. 3 Q. Okay. What is your understanding, as you 4 sit here today, what is your understanding of the 5 word "carcinogenic"? 6 A. Carcinogenic is something that could 7 cause changes in the cells. I don't know. 8 it's -- something that could lead to 9 suppose, I mean, a cancer, I if that's the -- I just don't know if 10 carcinogenic in this context means it actually 11 causes cancer or it is the cancer or it's something 12 that could lead to cancer. 13 Q. Okay. Did you read whether it was in the 14 Monograph 112 itself put out by IARC or somewhere 15 else a statement that IARC found that glyphosate 16 was probably carcinogenic? 17 somewhere? 18 19 20 21 a Have you read that . Yeah, the 2A classification and how they described it, that sounds -­ Q. You didn't bother to look it up to see what they were talking about? 22 A. In what context do you mean? 23 Q. Well, you seem to not be able to have an 24 understanding of what carcinogenic means, and you 25 were dealing with the word carcinogenic for a while Golkow Litigation Services Page 170 Confidential 1 2 3 4 5 Pursuant to Protective Order while you were challenging IARC, right? A. Yeah, carcinogen, Q. I don't believe glyphosate is a that's right. I'm not asking you that question. I move to strike i t . 6 Did you bother to look up the word 7 "carcinogenic" so you'd have an understanding of 8 what everybody was talking about? 9 10 A. I didn't look up the word carcinogenic. Q. Do you know who Thomas Sorahan is with 11 your work with respect to IARC when you were at 12 Monsanto? 13 A. No, I don't know who he is. 14 Q. You never heard that Thomas Sorahan was 15 the pesticide industry's representative at the 16 working group meetings of IARC when they were 17 considering whether or not glyphosate was 18 carcinogenic? 19 20 21 22 MR. PRESTES: answered. Objection, asked and He said he doesn't know who he is. A. Yeah, I didn't know who he was, yeah. (Exhibit 15 marked for 23 identification: Email 24 correspondence from (topmost) T 25 Sorahan sent 3/14/2015 re EPA Golkow Litigation Services Page 171 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 openly discussed IARC findings at a 2 CLA meeting on Thursday 3 MONGLY 00977035) 4 Q. Okay. I've handed you and marked as 5 Exhibit 15 an email from Thomas Sorahan to Donna 6 Farmer, Christian Strupp with two Ps, Jensen Mette, 7 M-E-T-T-E, and William Heydens, and the Bates 8 number is MONGLY00977035. 9 Have you seen this email before? 10 MR. PRESTES: Object to thefoundation. 11 Object to the document and object to all the 12 questioning on the document on the grounds that it 13 lacks foundation. 14 witness's name isn't on, that from what I can tell 15 he never sent or received. This is a document that the Go ahead. 16 Q. Have you ever seen this document before? 17 A. I've seen something -- it looks familiar 18 to something I've seenmaybe 19 reading one of the other deposition 20 maybe it was Bill Heydens or 21 don't know if it was exactly 22 forwarded version or something of it. 23 looks familiar to 24 25 Q. Okay. in the context of transcripts, Donna Farmer, but I this one or a But, yes, it me. And here Dr. Sorahan is -- strike that. Golkow Litigation Services Page 172 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order If you look at the beginning, the email starts with a statement by Dr. Farmer: 3 "One of our colleagues was on a CLA 4 call with other companies, EPA and 5 PRMA for the Residue Experts Work 6 Group at the Dow office yesterday. 7 The EPA person opened the meeting 8 by telling the group that an EPA 9 observer (Jess Roland) was in the 10 meeting, reported back to EPA staff 11 that IARC classified three 12 pesticides as 2A and he named 13 diazinon, malathion and 14 glyphosate." 15 Do you see that? 16 A. Yes, 17 Q. 18 MR. PRESTES: 20 22 And that's how the email chain starts, right? 19 21 I do. Objection, foundation. A. That's the first half of the first email, yes . Q. Okay. And then there is concern 23 expressed , and you can read it, about whether or 24 not, because this was before the actual release of 25 the classification by IARC, whether or not the Golkow Litigation Services Page 173 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 information about IARC's finding was public or not 2 or could be released. 3 the ema i1? 4 5 MR. PRESTES: 8 9 Objection, foundation, and to the characterization of the email. 6 7 Do you see that by reading A. Yeah, it. I'll just take a minute and read See if I can answer your question. Q. Well, let me move it along. I withdraw the question. 10 A. O k a y . 11 Q. Mr. Sorahan writes to Donna Farmer. 12 "I understand your concerns about 13 early release of information. 14 can discuss the issues you raise in 15 more detail on Monday, but here are 16 some immediate responses. 17 I do know of instances where 18 observers at IARC felt they had 19 been treated rudely or brusquely at 20 monograph meetings. 21 the case for me in volume 112. 22 found the chair, sub-chairs, and 23 invited experts to be very friendly 24 and prepared to respond to all 25 comments I made. Golkow Litigation Services We That was not Indeed, I I think Page 174 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 questions the epi sub-panel asked 2 me about my recent multiple myeloma 3 paper 4 instrumental in not having multiple 5 myeloma included on the charge 6 sheet." (Sorahan, 2015) were 7 Do you see that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. So is this the first time you're 10 hearing that Dr. Sorahan was an observer at the 11 IARC Monograph 112 meeting? 12 13 A. I knew there was observers there. I just didn't know Dr. -- is it Dr. Sorahan? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. O k a y . 16 Q. And he's weighing in now telling the 17 folks that everybody was fine, right? 18 prepared to respond to all comments is what he 19 says, right? 20 21 22 MR. PRESTES: Objection, Friendly, form, foundation. A. Yeah, I can read the words here, but I 23 don't have any context at all for what he was 24 meaning by what he was saying, but -­ 25 Q. He says, Golkow Litigation Services I found the chair, sub-chairs Page 175 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 and invited experts to be very friendly and 2 prepared to respond to all comments I made,you 3 don't have any idea what that means? 4 5 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation and mischaracterizes the witness's testimony. 6 A. Yeah, I don't know how the observers 7 participated or what sections of the meeting he was 8 in or wasn't allowed in. 9 understand the process there. 10 I just -- I don't Q. The next paragraph, Dr. Sorahan writes, 11 "in my opinion the meeting followed the IARC 12 guidelines." Do you see that? 13 A. Yes, I see. 14 Q. Do you have any evidence that that is not 15 a correct statement? 16 MR. PRESTES: 17 18 19 Objection, foundation. A. I don't have any evidence one way or the other. Q. Okay. The email goes on, "Dr. Kurt 20 Straif, the director of the Monograph's program, 21 has an intimate knowledge of the IARC rules and 22 insists these are followed." 23 that's not so? 24 25 MR. PRESTES: Any evidence to say Same objection. A. I don't have any context for what went on Golkow Litigation Services Page 176 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order at the meeting and if they followed the rules. Q. Okay. So you have nothing to say that 3 the person who was the industry observer was not 4 correct in what he said, correct? 5 6 A. I don't know if he was right or wrong, if that was his opinion. 7 Q. Right. 8 A. It's what he wrote. 9 Q. And if he was there on behalf of the 10 industry, he was representing the industry at that 11 meeting, right? 12 13 MR. PRESTES: A. Yeah, Objection, foundation. I don't know that actually. I 14 don't know how they select an observer and what he 15 actually represents. 16 Q. Okay. But you have nothing, as you sit 17 here today, to challenge either the fact that IARC 18 followed its guidelines and that all rules were 19 followed. 20 21 22 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation, and assumes facts not in evidence. a . Yeah, again, I don't have any context for 23 what they did, if they were doing things in public, 24 if they were doing things in private meetings, 25 where did they allow participants, and if -- if Golkow Litigation Services Page 177 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 there was anyone there that could actually say they 2 followed all the rules or not. 3 from this email. 4 It's just not clear Q. Did you challenge IARC's determination 5 that glyphosate was carcinogenic in part that 6 somehow they violated any of their own guidelines 7 or rules? 8 Monsanto? 9 10 MR. PRESTES: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. 11 12 Is that part of the challenge mounted by MR. KRISTAL: that. I'm asking him if he did I'm not assuming anything. 13 MR. PRESTES: You're assuming that IARC 14 made a determination that glyphosate was 15 carcinogenic and 16 IARC's determination. 17 18 19 that's an incorrect statement of MR. KRISTAL: Okay. Q. Did you challenge IARC'sdetermination that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic -­ 20 a 21 Q. .Did I challenge that? -- in that somehow theyviolated during 22 that process of making that determination their own 23 rules or guidelines? 24 25 a . We disagreed with that conclusion, and some of our scientific teams, who may be some of Golkow Litigation Services Page 178 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 the people on this email, 2 indicated there were instances where there may have 3 been potential conflicts of interest or reviewing 4 of their own work, that they didn't consider fully 5 some of the evidence they thought should have been 6 considered. 7 I just don't recall, And, of course, although it wasn't published 8 at the time, you know, the ag health study was 9 known at leastto one 10 of themembers of the IARC committee. 11 So I think, to answer your question, there 12 were some instances where Monsanto or people that I 13 knew at Monsanto took issue with the IARC process, 14 yes. 15 16 17 Q. Well, you know that the IARC preamble -­ and we can goback -- says that they review only published studies, correct? 18 A. Yes, that's right. 19 Q. So if you're saying that one of 20 Monsanto's complaints was they didn't consider an 21 unpublished study, the ag study, 22 that, that would actually be a violation of their 23 rules, right? 24 25 a . Yeah, the issue, if they had done I think, Monsanto or the people that I talked to in the regulatory team at Golkow Litigation Services Page 179 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Monsanto were worried about was that that study was 2 available and it was there, but it hadn't been 3 published yet. 4 consider it because it hadn't been published. 5 Q. Right. So to your point, So that's not a knock on IARC's 6 process. 7 process to a T, right? 8 9 a IARC couldn't It was, in fact, IARC following its . Except that one of the members knew that it was available and knew what the results already 10 said and didn't reveal that to his colleagues 11 during the process. 12 gist of our concern, 13 That was the -- that was the Q. The rules that IARC is bound by is you 14 only look at published 15 what they say. 16 17 18 I think. studies, correct? A. By their preamble, That's that's what they say, yes. Q. And one of the criticisms that was lodged 19 by Monsanto was 20 not considering a unpublished study, right? 21 they violated their own rules by A. No, I don't think we were criticizing 22 IARC for that. I think that we were calling out a 23 flaw in the process. 24 broader context of -- that's data that needs to be 25 available so that it can be considered in that type Golkow Litigation Services We're looking at it in the Page 180 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order of process. Q. You understand the -- do you understand 3 how a scientific or medical article goes through 4 the peer-review process to get published? 5 A. Generally, yes. 6 Q. Okay. So the requirement that something 7 be published means they want to look at something 8 that's passed peer review, review by experts in the 9 field, correct? 10 a . Yeah, generally, published literature 11 would go through a peer-review process. 12 what IARC is looking at. Golkow Litigation Services That's Page 181 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 182 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 183 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 184 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 185 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 186 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 187 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 188 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 189 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 190 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 191 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 192 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 193 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 194 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 195 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 196 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 197 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 198 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 199 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 200 Confidential 15 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. Have you ever heard that Exponent is in 16 the business of manufacturing doubt on behalf of 17 product manufacturers with respect to hazards of 18 their products? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Never heard that? 21 A. I don't know who they are at all. 22 Q. You do know that Monsanto at times would 23 hire groups to publish articles so they could use 24 them in defense of lawsuits, correct? 25 MR. PRESTES: Golkow Litigation Services Objection, misstates the Page 201 Confidential 1 facts. 2 3 A. Hired groups to do -- I'm sorry. Say that one more time, the question. 4 5 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. To publish articles so that Monsanto could use them to defend lawsuits. 6 A. I don't know that we've done that. If 7 it's specifically related to defending a lawsuit, 8 we usually do that in court, 9 if you're -­ Q. Well, the lawyers who were defending 10 Monsanto in court need something to say in defense, 11 right? 12 purpose of providing a defense, you're unaware that 13 Monsanto has done that before? So if there's an article published for the 14 15 16 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation, and misstates the record. a . Yeah, I don'tknow of examples where 17 we've hired people to write articles that we use to 18 defend ourselves in court. 19 question. 20 21 I think that was your Q. Do you know who David Saltmiras is, Dr. Saltmiras? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Never heard of the name? 24 A. I may have come across 25 itin some documents we were reviewing, but I've never met him Golkow Litigation Services Page 202 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 or know what he does. 2 Q . Okay. 3 4 MR. KRISTAL: Let me go off the record for a minute so I can pull a document out. 5 VIDEO SPECIALIST: 6 We're going off the record. 7 (Proceedings recessed) 8 VIDEO SPECIALIST: 9 The time is 1:34 p.m. The time is 1:39 p.m., and we're back on the record. 10 (Exhibit 17 marked for 11 identification: PowerPoint 12 Administrative Committee Toxicology 13 TWG Update 14 15 JGTF David Saltmiras) BY MR. KRISTAL: Q. I've marked as Exhibit 17 a PowerPoint 16 dated October 4th, 2011. 17 Saltmiras, 18 Administrative Committee, Toxicology TWG Update," 19 and the Bates number is not on the document, but 20 the Bates number is MONGLY01536271. 21 22 23 24 25 It has the name David Ph.D., DABT, and it's entitled "JGTF Have you seen this PowerPoint before from Dr. Saltmiras? A. I don't recall this PowerPoint, having seen it before. Q. Are you familiar or have you seen the Golkow Litigation Services Page 203 Confidential 1 2 3 4 5 Pursuant to Protective Order term "joint glyphosate task force," the JGTF? A. If it's the same thing as the glyphosate task force, I've seen that terminology before. Q. Okay. And TWG, do you know that to be the Toxicology Working Group? 6 A. No, I didn't know that. 7 Q. WG generally means working group at 8 9 10 11 Monsanto abbreviation-land? A. It's not a term I use very often or see very often. Q. Okay. And this PowerPoint, if you turn 12 to page 6 -- and before I read this, 13 represent to you that EDSP stands for Endocrine 14 Disrupter Screening Program and WoE means weight of 15 evidence. 16 you there yet? 17 All right? A. Yeah, So this page, page 6 -- are I just scrolled through, quickly 18 through the other pages. 19 before, but go ahead. 20 21 22 23 I will Q. It says, I just haven't seen this "Tox TWG Recommendations EDSP" on top, correct? a . Okay. MR. PRESTES: Before you answer, I object 24 to the exhibit and to the questions on it on the 25 grounds that the questions lack foundation. Golkow Litigation Services The Page 204 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 witness has testified he hasn't seen the document 2 before. 3 witness ever -- years before the witness ever 4 worked on glyphosate issues. The document is dated from before the 5 MR. KRISTAL: Go ahead. I don't think the last 6 statement is correct, but whatever. 7 Q. The second bullet point, I'm going to 8 paraphrase it first and then read it, weight of 9 evidence review of Endocrine Disrupter Screening 10 Program Studies, and it reads, 11 studies." "WoE review of EDSP Do you see that bullet point? 12 a 13 Q. And under that it has three bullet 14 . I see that bullet point. points, correct? 15 A. Two bullets and then a sub-bullet, 16 Q. Okay. 17 yes. The first bullet point is, "Exponent proposal." Do you see that? 18 a 19 Q. And we were talking about Exponent before 20 . Yes. we took the short break, correct? 21 A. And I said I don't know what it is. 22 Q. Okay. But you know it's a consulting 23 company, 24 even though you don't know details? 25 is it not, that Monsanto has used before, A. I think in reading all of the transcripts Golkow Litigation Services Page 205 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 of other people's depositions I generally 2 understand it was some kind of company we hired to 3 do work, yes. 4 Q. Okay. The next bullet point says, 5 "easily converted to a manuscript for peer-reviewed 6 publication." Do you see that? 7 A. I do. 8 Q. And under that it says, 9 for product defense." "highly valuable Do you see that? 10 a . I do. 11 Q. Is that the first time that you're seeing 12 that Monsanto was valuing published literature 13 submitted for publication by consulting groups that 14 it hires as highly valuable for product defense? 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. PRESTES: 24 25 form, foundation, misstates facts. a . Yeah, I have no idea if that's what that's talking about. I really don't know. Q. Well, what does product -- what else could it mean? a 22 23 Objection, . Well -­ MR. PRESTES: Objection, same set of objections, principally foundation. a . You're using product defense in the courtroom setting. Golkow Litigation Services I'm not sure that that's what Page 206 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order this is talking about at all. 2 Q. Okay. So it's talking about -- it either 3 means that, or it means 4 defending the product from some sort of attack, 5 correct? 6 MR. PRESTES: 7 highly valuable in Objection, A. No, given the context, foundation. just, and, again, 8 I've only skimmed this, if they're dealing with 9 regulatory submissions, I would probably just, 10 again, 11 defense here meant something with, you know, 12 responding to something with regulatory agencies. 13 just spitballing, assume that product Q. So they are having an outside group 14 publish something so they can use it as a highly 15 valuable way of defending theproduct 16 regulatory context. 17 MR. PRESTES: 18 calls for speculation. 19 at this point that he's just spitballing with you. 20 A. Yeah, Objection, in the foundation, The witness has even said I just don't know. I don't know 21 what Exponent's role is. 22 talking about as a peer-reviewed publication. 23 just not going to be very helpful there in that 24 regard. 25 Q. Okay. I don't know what they're I'm The words say what they say, Golkow Litigation Services Page 207 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. All right. If you look -- go back to 4 Exhibit 16. I told you 5 digression. On the page "What Has Been Done So 6 Far" of the PowerPoint that we were looking at -­ 7 it would be a brief are you there? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. The next-to-the-last sort of 10 category before the bottom, "conducted expert 11 review of recent key epidemiology paper claiming 12 glyphosate causes cancer," and the sub-bullet is, 13 "use that meaning, 14 defense." then publish for future Do you see that? 15 A. I do. 16 Q. Okay. Were you awarethat Monsanto had 17 hired Exponent to do a review ofrecently published 18 epidemiology studies that 19 glyphosate caused cancer? 20 21 22 MR. PRESTES: had determined that Objection, foundation, assumes facts. a . Yeah, it's -- no, it's not an area that 23 I'm familiar with. 24 with Exponent and what their project was there. 25 Q. Okay. I don't know what we were doing I want to try to get us on the Golkow Litigation Services Page 208 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 same page with the definition of some common words 2 before I go into those words. 3 MR. KRISTAL: So I'm marking as Exhibit 4 8, this is something I've printed from the English 5 Oxford Dictionary online of two words, and I want 6 to see if we can agree on what these words mean. 7 (Clarification by reporter.) 8 9 MR. KRISTAL: meant 18. If I said 8, I certainly Thank you for correcting me. 10 (Exhibit 18 marked for 11 identification: Oxford Dictionary 12 Orchestrate) 13 Q. So Exhibit 18 is dated February 6th, 14 2019. 15 Dictionary online.The first word is the word 16 "orchestrate." 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. Have you heard of the word orchestrate 19 It's what I printed out from the Oxford Do before? 20 a 21 Q. I'm not 22 .Yes. here, right? A. Yeah, 24 Q. Okay. says, talking -- it has two definitions It has a 1 and 2. 23 25 you see that? I see "arrange or it. I'm not talking about 1, which score Golkow Litigation Services (music) for orchestral Page 209 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 performance." 2 talking about the second definition. 3 I'm not talking about that. I'm Do you agree the word orchestrate in the 4 context of the second definition means, 5 coordinate the elements of 6 a desired effect especially surreptitiously"? 7 8 9 A. Yeah, (a situation) "plan or to produce I see that that's -- that's the definition of the word orchestrate, yes. Q. Okay. And that's a definition that 10 without word for word your understanding of how the 11 word orchestrate is used? 12 A. I think actually, if we looked deeper, 13 we'll see lots of different meanings for the word 14 orchestrate depending on where you go for the 15 meaning, but I'll agree with you that that is a 16 definition of the word orchestrate. 17 Q. Right. 18 A. And it will be context dependent, but I 19 20 21 22 get -- I see that definition. Q. Are there any other definitions of orchestrate? A. I would have to go pull out another 23 dictionary, and I'm sure if we go look we'll find 24 other meanings and other variations of meaning, 25 I'm not going to -- Golkow Litigation Services so Page 210 Confidential 1 2 Q. Pursuant to Protective Order Well, tell me what your understanding of the word orchestrate is. 3 A. It depends on the context. 4 Q. 5 6 Okay. Not in the context of musical arrangement. A. Again, it depends on the context, and 7 we'll - - let's look at it in context and then we 8 can get to i t . 9 Q. 10 see that? Okay. 11 A. Y e s . 12 Q. The next word is "outcry." And outcry has a 1 and a 1.1 definition. 13 The first definition, 14 and the second definition, 15 public disapproval or anger." 16 A. I d o . 17 Q. 18 19 20 21 Do you "an exclamation or shout, M "a strong expression of Do you see that? So if somebody was orchestrating an outcry, what does that mean to you? A. I guess it can depend on the context of what they 're doing. Q. Okay. And you know that Monsanto was 22 planning on orchestrating an outcry after IARC made 23 its decision, correct? 24 A. I wasn't aware of that, no. 25 Q. Never saw that before? Golkow Litigation Services Page 211 Confidential 1 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order A. Only in preparing for my deposition I saw the phrase used. Q. Okay. What's your understanding of what 4 you were reading, orchestrate outcry, what's your 5 understanding of that? 6 A. I have no idea what they meant. 7 Q. You have no idea what that means. 8 A. I know that they wanted to respond to 9 IARC and they wanted to find ways of communicating, 10 you know, what they thought was the right result, 11 but I don't know what they meant by orchestrating 12 an outcry in that context. 13 14 Q. Do you believe that Monsanto knows how to express itself intelligently? 15 16 17 MR. PRESTES: Object to the form. You mean employees at the company? Q. Yeah, employees who were responsible for 18 policy, do you think that they were able to express 19 themselves in the English language? 20 a . Yes. 21 Q. Okay. And if they -- folks who were 22 involved in how to respond to IARC wanted to simply 23 say, we're going to respond to IARC, they know how 24 to write those words, respond to IARC, right? 25 A. And they have many times in many Golkow Litigation Services Page 212 Confidential 1 documents , yes. 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. They could say criticize the process, or anything they want, correct? 4 A. T h a t 's right. 5 Q. 6 But you've seen them use the word "orchestrate outcry," correct? 7 A. Yes, 8 Q. 9 10 Okay. I saw that in one document. Well, I've got a couple I'll show you. A. Okay. 11 MR. KRISTAL: I'm going to mark as 12 Exhibit 19, this is the January 2018 IARC response 13 to the criticism of the Monographs and glyphosate 14 evaluation. 15 (Exhibit 19 marked for 16 identification: January 2018 IARC 17 response to the criticism of the 18 Monographs and glyphosate 19 evaluation) 20 21 Q. I think you said earlier you may have seen this ; you weren't sure. 22 A. Yeah, 23 Q. 24 25 Okay. I wasn't sure. Well, take a look at it and then tell me if you've seen this before. A. I'm just going to take a minute -- Golkow Litigation Services Page 213 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. Yeah, take your -­ 2 A. -- I'll try to be quick -- and read it. 3 Q. No, I understand. 4 A. Okay. 5 6 of it here. I think I've gotten through most Let's go ahead with your questions. Q. Was the work you were doing with respect 7 to IARC when you were at Monsanto, was that your 8 major work, or was that a small part of 9 were doing? 10 11 what you What percent of your time would you say was devoted to that? A. Maybe at some points in 2016 and 2017 12 about half my time. Prior to that very little, and 13 after that increasingly less. 14 q . And have you read this before? 15 A. I've seen this before online. I had not 16 read every single word of it before, but, yeah, 17 most of it was familiar to me. 18 Q. Okay. And this is entitled, "IARC 19 response to criticism of the Monographs and the 20 glyphosate evaluation prepared by the IARC director 21 January 2018." That's what the title is, correct? 22 a .Yes. 23 Q. All right. And this is a point by point, 24 ten-page document going over various critiques and 25 IARC responding to them through their director, Golkow Litigation Services Page 214 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order correct? 2 A. That's how I would take it, yeah. 3 Q. Okay. And your understanding having read 4 this -- and tell me if you recall -- IARC certainly 5 felt that they were being attacked by industry 6 regarding their glyphosate evaluation, 7 MR. PRESTES: Objection, correct? form, 8 foundation, to the extent it's asking him what IARC 9 felt 10 11 12 A. Yeah, I never talked to IARC. I don' t know if they felt attacked or not. Q. Let's read it. Under Background it says: 13 "Since the evaluation of glyphosate 14 by the IARC Monographs Program in 15 March 2015, the Agency has been 16 subject to unprecedented, 17 coordinated efforts to undermine 18 the evaluation, 19 organization. 20 deliberately and repeatedly 21 misrepresented the Agency's work. 22 The attacks have largely originated 23 from the agrochemical industry and 24 associated media outlets. 25 have taken place in the context of Golkow Litigation Services the program and the These efforts have They Page 215 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 major financial interests relating 2 to; 3 glyphosate by the European 4 Commission; 5 litigation cases in the USA brought 6 by cancer patients against 7 Monsanto, 8 malignancies were caused by 9 glyphosate use; (a), the relicensing of (b), hundreds of claiming that their (c), and the 10 decision by the California 11 Environmental Protection Agency to 12 label glyphosate as a carcinogen." 13 Did I read that correctly? 14 A. Yes, 15 Q. 16 attack, correct? 17 18 19 I believe you read that correctly. So certainly IARC felt it was under MR. PRESTES: Objection, form, foundation. A. Yeah, I would just take it from its words 20 that they felt like they needed to respond to 21 criticisms that were appearing in the media. 22 Q. 23 A. I'm sorry. 24 Q. 25 It doesn't say criticisms. Well, What was the word they used? it says, number 1, they were subjected to unprecedented coordinated efforts to Golkow Litigation Services Page 216 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 undermine the evaluation, 2 organization. 3 Monsanto's efforts, correct? 4 the program and the That's how they saw, in part, MR. PRESTES: Object to the form and to 5 the extent it mischaracterizes the document. 6 A. If I read all that together, it sounds 7 like they're accusing the agrochemical industry, 8 and I would assume Monsanto, of doing these things. 9 Q. Okay. They say, these efforts have 10 deliberately and repeatedly misrepresented the 11 agency's work. That's what IARC says, correct? 12 a 13 Q. And they also say that the attacks have 14 largely originated from the agricultural industry 15 and associated media outlets, correct? 16 17 18 19 . That's what IARC says. A. I don't know -- yeah, that's what it says. Q. Right. "attack." 20 a 21 Q. Okay. 22 23 24 25 They actually use the word . Yes. selling Roundup, IARC had no financial stake in did it? MR. PRESTES: Object to the form. A. No, I don't believe so. scientists doing work ondifferent Golkow Litigation Services They were chemical Page 217 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 compounds, 2 and things for their research, 3 financial interest, but I don't know that they ever 4 make any money from actually selling glyphosate. 5 don't think that's true. 6 so they got -- I guess they got grants so they have that I Q. And they had no stake one way or the 7 other as to whether or not there was a cancer 8 warning that would be required on a Roundup product 9 that had glyphosate, 10 11 correct? Wouldn't affect them financially one way or the other. A. No, maybe just -- I don't know what their 12 financial interests are. 13 holdings they have, what research they're doing, 14 where they're getting grant money, and having an 15 IARC determination come out and start a whole new 16 path of controversy on something could quite -­ 17 could be quite beneficial, 18 the right research path. 19 researchers might have been in that situation for 20 glyphosate, but -­ 21 So who knows what if they're engaged in I don't know which Q. Well, you have no evidence of any of the 22 experts from IARC who reviewed glyphosate for 23 carcinogenicity had any financial interest one way 24 or the other, right? 25 A. I think what I'm saying is I don't know. Golkow Litigation Services Page 218 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. Okay. And certainly you're not saying 2 that a scientist who might have owned shares in a 3 glyphosate-producing company would be adversely 4 affected by a finding. 5 in other words, if there was a financial 6 interest in that regard, 7 interest to find that glyphosate was 8 carcinogenic, 9 10 11 12 13 it would be against their probably correct? A. I just don't know what their financial interests are. Q. But if -­ a .That's whatI'm saying. Q. -- if they had stock -- I think you were 14 alluding to the fact that they may have had stock 15 in companies that sold glyphosate or herbicides. 16 A. Or a competing company that would stand 17 to benefit from it. 18 what their financial interests were. 19 20 21 22 23 Again, I'm saying I don't know Q. Well, we certainly know none of them were in the business of selling Roundup, right? A. I think that's an okay assumption. I -­ i can't imagine they were. Q. If there were folks who were involved in 24 selling Roundup on that panel 25 glyphosate was probably carcinogenic, Golkow Litigation Services thatdetermined don't you Page 219 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 think somebody would have said something while you 2 were involved with it? 3 A. Yeah, 4 5 I don't think IARC would have invited them in the first place. Q. Okay. In the second paragraph: 6 "In response to the 7 misrepresentations the agency has 8 sought to provide a clear account 9 of actions including keeping its 10 governing bodies informed of 11 developments. 12 documents have been posted in the 13 public domain on the IARC 14 governance website and on dedicated 15 glyphosate webpages. 16 scientists have responded to 17 industry funded critiques appearing 18 in scientific journals by published 19 letters to journal editors. 20 its limited capacity, 21 tried to develop an extensive media 22 campaign to present its position or 23 to counter all industry sponsored 24 attacks in the media. 25 selected and important cases, Golkow Litigation Services Many of the relevant IARC Given IARC has not However, in IARC Page 220 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 has addressed the false claims in 2 the media." 3 That's what they, 4 5 6 7 IARC, says in this response to the criticisms, correct? A. That's what IARC is saying about what was going on at the time. Q. And Monsanto was certainly involved in 8 industry-sponsored attacks in the media involving 9 IARC's findings with respect to glyphosate being 10 11 probably carcinogenic, right? A. I don't think I've ever thought of them 12 as attacks. 13 facts about a decision we disagreed with and IARC 14 felt attacked. 15 taking issue with their conclusion with an attack 16 on their institution. 17 I think we were communicating the I think they sometimes mistake our Q. So you don't feel if Monsanto was 18 involved in orchestrating an outcry, that that 19 would be viewed as an attack? 20 21 22 23 A. I don't know what that means in that context that we talked that. Q. We'll look, and you tell me if you have no idea what those two words mean. 24 Do you know that that was part of the plan, 25 Monsanto's plan, to respond to IARC before it even Golkow Litigation Services Page 221 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 knew what the classification was, that, 2 negative, they were going to orchestrate outcry? 3 Did you know that? 4 5 MR. PRESTES: if it was Objection, assumes facts. A. I saw a presentation that used that term, 6 but I wasn't part of any team or any discussion of 7 those things and don't know what our plans were. 8 9 Q. Okay. The plan that you saw, though, was a plan for Monsanto to orchestrate an outcry 10 against the finding before it knew what the finding 11 was, right? 12 a 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. I assume we can look at the document at 15 16 17 18 . I don't remember the timing. some point. Q. We are going to look at a couple documents. if you turn to page 9, at the bottom, 19 there's a section, 20 latest scientific data and methodologies. 21 IARC Monographs pioneered and continue 22 leader worldwide in objective, 23 hazard evaluations." 24 25 a IARC evaluations make use of the . I'm sorry. "The to be a systematic cancer I'm not tracking where you started there. Golkow Litigation Services Page 222 Confidential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. At the very bottom -- that's okay. do it again. At the very bottom of the page. A. Oh, I see it now. repeat it. I'll You don't have to I see what you said. Q. Okay. That's what IARC said about its own Monograph Program, correct? A. Yes, in this document, I agree, that's what they said about their program. Q. And Monsanto disagrees? Do you know what Monsanto's position is one way or the other? A. I can't speak for Monsanto on that. We'd have to talk to our scientists. Q. As you sit here today, you have nothing 14 one way or the other to challenge the statement 15 that the IARC Monographs pioneered and continue to 16 be a leader worldwide in objective, 17 cancer hazard evaluations? 18 systematic A. I can speak in my personal context here 19 of I think they do hazard evaluations, yes, I think 20 that's right. 21 22 23 Q. Okay. You don't think they're a leader worldwide? A. I don't know who else does hazard 24 evaluations and how they fit into other 25 organizations that do those things. Golkow Litigation Services Page 223 Confidential 1 2 3 4 5 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. Do you feel their evaluations are objective and systematic? A. I don't know. I wouldn't be qualified to speak to that. Q. The next bullet point: 6 "Authoritative reviews including by 7 the National Research Council of 8 the U.S. have heralded IARC's 9 review and evaluation methodology 10 citing it as exemplary and 11 recommending it as one potential 12 model for adoption by U.S. National 13 Risk Assessment Programs." 14 Did you know that? 15 A. No, I'm confused by that actually. 16 17 I'm not sure what that means. Q. Well, have you heard of the National 18 Research Council in the U.S.? 19 that agency is? Do you know what 20 A. No. 21 Q. Never heard of them? 22 A. 23 Q. Have you ever read either one of the 24 three references that are provided by the IARC 25 director here in terms of the National Research (Shaking head from side to side.) Golkow Litigation Services Page 224 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Council review of IARC's methodology and 2 evaluation? 3 A. No, I haven't read those. What I was 4 confused by is they're talking about adoption by 5 U.S. national risk assessment programs. 6 Q. Right. 7 A. But thenon this page it says they're 8 explicit about the difference between hazard 9 risk assessments. So I thought, again, and IARC does a 10 hazard assessment, and then it even says here 11 somewhere when Iwas skimming this 12 recommending it then for further risk assessments 13 in order to set levels of exposure that you're 14 willing to accept. 15 16 again, about And so I'm confused just -­ I don't have the context of what they meant, but ... 17 Q. I want to see if I understand what you're 18 saying about hazard versus risk. 19 considered a cancer hazard, meaning it probably 20 could cause cancer, as a hazard it means it could 21 do so under certain circumstances; 22 say? 23 24 25 If something is is that fair to A. I was just using, not my words, but IARC's, but it says potential and -­ Q. Right. Golkow Litigation Services Page 225 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A. -- it has the potential to cause cancer. 2 Q. Under certain circumstances. 3 A. Under -- yeah, 4 I don't know if they said it that way, but, anyway, that's 5 ... Q. I'm not asking what they said. I'm 6 asking your understanding. 7 the difference between hazard and risk, and I want 8 to understand your understanding of it. 9 You keep talking about A. Yeah, that's what I was saying, I was 10 confused, 11 because I was looking at IARC's -­ Q. So what's your -­ 12 THE REPORTER: 13 MR. PRESTES: 14 Wait. Let the witness finish. A. I was looking at IARC's words where they 15 said they were very clear about the difference 16 between hazard and risk assessments and that they 17 do hazard identification, not risk assessments. 18 Q. And hazard identification means you 19 identify whether or not a substance can cause 20 cancer under certain circumstances; 21 say? 22 23 24 25 a is that fair to . Whether or not it has the potential to cause a cancer, yes. q . well, that's an important first step and then evaluating exactly what the risk is based on Golkow Litigation Services Page 226 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order different exposure levels, correct? 2 A. Yeah, again, according to what they' re 3 saying, once you've identified a hazard, then you 4 need to go back and do a risk assessment, yes. 5 Q. And a risk assessment, in part, turns on 6 the amount of exposure someone has to the 7 substance, right? 8 A. Yes, 9 Q. I believe that's correct. In other words, if I never came in 10 contact with Roundup, never got it on my skin, 11 never breathed any droplets, never spilled it on 12 myself, never had it on my hands and put it in my 13 mouth, 14 there's a hazard or not, whether it could cause 15 cancer is irrelevant because to me it's not a risk, 16 right? 17 18 if I had zero exposure to Roundup, whether A. Zero exposure would not be a risk to anything. 19 Q. 20 A. That's -- that's fair. 21 Q. 22 I 'm sorry, Okay. The last bullet point in Exhibit 19 - 18 : 23 "In consideration of this valuable 24 peer review input and also taking 25 into account positive peer review Golkow Litigation Services Page 227 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 by the U.S. NCI, the program 2 remains committed to conducting 3 reviews that are scientifically 4 rigorous, respected, and free of 5 conflict of interest." 6 7 That's how this response to the criticism by IARC ends, correct? 8 A. Yes, that's the end of their statement. 9 Q. And when it says U.S. NCI, they're 10 talking about the National Cancer Institute in the 11 United States? 12 13 14 15 16 A. I'm going to assume that's the case. That seems right. Q. I think I misspoke. This was document number 19. The other thing I mentioned earlier in terms 17 of any sort of response to the attacks by Monsanto 18 was the article written by Pearce and 99 other 19 scientists. 20 21 22 23 Do you remember that briefly? A. Yeah, I remember you mentioned something. MR. KRISTAL: Marking as Exhibit 20, this is a Monsanto document. (Exhibit 20 marked for 24 identification: Email 25 correspondence from (topmost) Golkow Litigation Services C Page 228 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Thorp sent 3/17/2015 re IARC Review 2 Pearce, Blair MONGLY03827415) 3 Q. It is an email from Clare Thorp of CLA, 4 CropLife America, to Dr. Goldstein and a number of 5 other individuals. Do you see that? 6 A. I see that. 7 Q. It's dated March 17th, 2015, and the 8 Bates number is MONGLY03827415. 9 this it says, Pearce 2015 EHP preprint IARC 10 monographs. says 11 "attachments" under the email heading? Do you see that, where it 12 a 13 Q. And this attachment 14 And attached to . Yes, I see that. it starts on 417. is Batesnumbered. Do you see that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And the EHP that's referenced in the 17 email is the Environmental Health Perspectives, 18 which is the journal that published the article 19 entitled "IARC Monographs 40 years of evaluating 20 carcinogenic hazards to humans." 21 MR. PRESTES: Do you see that? Object to the exhibit and 22 to the questioning on the exhibit on the ground 23 that it lacks foundation. 24 the witness has ever seen, sent or received the 25 document. Golkow Litigation Services You haven't established Page 229 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. I think you said you saw the Pearce 2 article itself, did you not? This is the preprint, 3 the manuscript before it appeared in the journal. 4 A. O k a y . 5 Q. And you've seen the Pearce article 6 itself? 7 A. I don't remember seeing the preprint. 8 Q. I'm not asking you about -­ 9 A. Yeah, I recall the -­ 10 Q. The article? 11 A. -- the article with the scientists that 12 13 signed that. Q. Okay. And this is in fact a hundred 14 scientists. And we don't have to count, 15 thankfully, because they put a footnote after each 16 one of their names in the preprint, and it goes up 17 to 100, correct? 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. Yes? Do you see that? If you turn the 20 page, each name has a footnote, and then on the 21 next page -­ 22 a .Yeah, if you've actually figured that 23 out, I'm not going to argue with you on that if 24 i t 's 100. 25 Q. Well, that's what it says. Golkow Litigation Services Page 230 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A. But, yes, okay. 2 Q. All right. And I'm just going to go 3 through some of the institutions that the authors 4 are affiliated with, which are listed on pages 2 5 through 7 , correct? 6 MR. PRESTES: 7 Objection, foundation. Well, you understand, when authors write Q. 8 an article, they list their affiliations, 9 correct - - 10 A. Y e s . 11 Q. 12 13 14 15 16 -- which institutions they're affiliated with? A. Yes. I just wasn't sure. Were you asking me a question or - - you just said -Q. No, I'm telling you what I'm about to do so I'm giving you a heads-up. 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. Great. On page 2, the Bates number that ends in 19 419, I'm just going to run through some of these. 20 One of the authors is affiliated with the Division 21 of Cancer , Epidemiology and Genetics, National 22 Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland USA. 23 number 2, right? 24 A. I see that, yes. 25 Q. That's Number 11, I'm sorry, number 8, one of Golkow Litigation Services Page 231 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 the authors that wrote this article is affiliated 2 with the Departments of Environmental Health and 3 Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, 4 Boston, Massachusetts USA, correct? 5 A. O k a y . 6 Q. Number 11, one of the authors is 7 affiliated with the National Cancer Institute, 8 National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle 9 Park, North Carolina USA. Do you see that? 10 a . I do. 11 Q. One of the authors is affiliated with the 12 Division of Public Health Sciences in Alvin J. 13 Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School 14 of Medicine, 15 that? St. Louis, Missouri USA. Do you see 16 a . I do. 17 Q. And you're familiar with the Washington 18 University School of Medicine having lived in 19 St. Louis,correct? 20 a . I've heard of it, yes. 21 Q. All of the institutions so far are 22 well-recognized institutions 23 A. I believe so, yes. 24 Q. Okay. 25 Number affiliated with the Golkow Litigation Services on cancer research? 13, one of the authors is Division of theNational Page 232 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Toxicology Program, National Institute of 2 Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle 3 Park, North Carolina USA. 4 On the next page, number 21, one of the 5 authors is affiliated with the Division of 6 Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Duke 7 University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina 8 USA. 9 10 Do you see that? A. I see that. Q. And then 25, another reference, the 11 Department of Environmental and Occupational Health 12 Sciences, University of Washington, 13 Public Health, Seattle, Washington USA, correct? School of 14 a . Yes. 15 Q. The next page, number 41, one of the 16 authors is affiliated with the Department of Public 17 Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, 18 California USA, right? 19 A. Yes, I see that. 20 Q. The next two, number 42, Department of 21 Biological Sciences, North Carolina State 22 University, Raleigh, North Carolina USA, and number 23 43, National Institute of Environmental Sciences, 24 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina USA? 25 A. Okay. Golkow Litigation Services Page 233 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. Number 51, the Department of the 2 Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, 3 College of Medicine, 4 52, Department of Epidemiology, 5 Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 6 Correct, those are some of the other authors' 7 affiliations? Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; number College of Public Iowa USA. 8 A. Yes, I see that. 9 Q. Number 61, I don't know if you know the 10 acronym, but CUNY is the City University of 11 New York. 12 New York, School of Public 13 New York USA. 14 So number 61 is Number 63, the City University of Health, New York, the Department of Environmental 15 Health Sciences and Columbia Center for Children's 16 Environmental Health, the Mailman School of Public 17 Health, Columbia University, New York, New York 18 USA. 19 Number 64, the Department of Environmental 20 and Occupational Health, George Washington 21 University, Milken Institute, School of Public 22 Health, Washington, D.C. USA. Do you see that? 23 A. I see that. 24 Q. And this goes on and on for another two 25 and a half pages with affiliations and references. Golkow Litigation Services Page 234 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 I don't need to read all of them, but this is an 2 impressive group of scientists that wrote this 3 article, 4 is it not? A. I don't have any firsthand knowledge of 5 these scientists or even the places where 6 they're -- the schools. 7 schools, but I can't characterize the individual 8 qualifications of any of these people. 9 Q. Okay. I know of them, the Has anybody at Monsanto said that 10 the people who are authors of this Pearce article 11 in 2015 are not qualified scientists? 12 MR. PRESTES: 13 Object to the form. A. Nobody has told me anything about the 14 authors on this paper. 15 Q. Okay. Has anybody -- would that mean 16 that nobody has criticized the authors' 17 qualifications, as far as you know? 18 A. I don't know of any conversation I've had 19 aboutthis paper andthe authors 20 here. 21 on this paper Q. So my point is, nobody has said that 22 these are not qualified scientists, 23 Nobody at Monsanto. 24 25 a correct? . I don't -- I don't recall a conversation someone has had with me at Monsanto in that regard. Golkow Litigation Services Page 235 Confidential 1 2 Q. Pursuant to Protective Order On page 11, the actual article begins, and under Introduction it reads: 3 "Important advances in human health 4 have come from the recognition of 5 health hazards and the development 6 of policy actions to address them. 7 Government and nongovernmental 8 organizations use expert panels to 9 review the scientific literature 10 and to assess its relevance to 11 public health policies. 12 experts are charged with reviewing 13 the quality and quantity of the 14 scientific evidence and providing 15 scientific interpretations of the 16 evidence that underpin a range of 17 health policy decisions. 18 Monographs on the evaluation of 19 carcinogenic risks to humans of the 20 International Agency for Research 21 on Cancer (IARC) are a prominent 22 example of such an expert review 23 process." 24 Did I read that correctly? 25 A. Y e s . Golkow Litigation Services Scientific The IARC Page 236 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. Has anyone at Monsanto to your knowledge 2 said that IARC is not a prominent example of such 3 an expert review process? 4 A. People at Monsanto take an issue with 5 what IARC does. 6 of the concerns they have about IARC. 7 told me that they aren't or they are a prominent 8 example of an expert review process. 9 I think I've characterized a few Q. We'll cut to the chase by going to the 10 end of the article, on page 28. 11 A. The last page? 12 Q. The next-to-last-page, 13 No one has andthen carrying over to the very last page, down at the bottom. 14 a . Okay. 15 Q. The middle of the last paragraph on the 16 bottom of the page, do you see the word 17 "substances" on the left, on page 28? 18 A. Oh, I'm on 36. I'm sorry. 19 Q. Oh, you 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. "Substances now universally recognized as were in the appendix. 22 human carcinogens (e.g., tobacco and asbestos) 23 one time went through a quite lengthy period of 24 contentious debate 25 see that? Golkow Litigation Services (Michaels 2006, 2008)." at Do you Page 237 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A. Yes, I see that. 2 Q. And Michaels 2006, 2008 you understand to 3 be a reference to an author and two different 4 published items, correct? 5 6 7 A. That's how I would read that parenthetical, yes. Q. Okay. And if you turn to page 32, down 8 at the bottom, it says, Michaels D. 2006, so that's 9 one of the references being cited here, 10 A. Mm-hmm, 11 Q. And it's entitled, is it not? I see that. "Manufactured 12 uncertainty, protecting public health in the age of 13 contested science and product defense." 14 of the articles they cite, correct? That's one 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And the second one, Michaels D. 2008, 17 that's the second reference on page 28, correct? 18 a . Yes. 19 Q. And the referenced title is a book 20 entitled "Doubt is Their Product. 21 Assaults on Science Threatens Your Health." 22 the reference there. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Do you know who David Michaels is, the 25 How Industry's That's Do you see that? author of those two things? Golkow Litigation Services Page 238 Confidential 1 A. No. 2 Q. Pursuant to Protective Order Did you know that David Michaels was an 3 epidemiologist and worked at the George Washington 4 University School of Public Health right here in 5 Washington, D.C.? 6 A. No. 7 Q. 8 You never heard of David Michaels when you were at Monsanto who was the head of OSHA? 9 10 I said I don't know who he is. MR. PRESTES: Objection, asked and answered. 11 A. Yeah, 12 Q. Okay. I don't know who he is. You've never heard of David 13 Michaels as the head of the Occupational Safety and 14 Health Administration under the Obama 15 administration? 16 17 18 19 MR. PRESTES: Same objection. A. No, I haven't ever been involved in something that would interact with OSHA. Q. Have you ever seen the book "Doubt is 20 Their Product, How Industry's Assault on Science 21 Threatens Your Health"? Have you ever seen that? 22 A. No, I haven't seen that book. 23 Q. Have you ever read either through the 24 book itself or elsewhere Dr. Michaels' 25 Exponent as being a manufacturer of doubt science? Golkow Litigation Services criticism of Page 239 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: 2 A. No, I haven't. 3 Q. 4 Objection, assumes facts. I have the book, if you want to take a look at it. 5 A. Maybe I'll take it home with me tonight. 6 Q. 7 the book. All right. I'll get it. 8 A. Mark it as an exhibit. 9 Q. 10 11 Sure. Let me hand you Only if you promise to read it. MR. PRESTES: Don't make any promises about doing homework. 12 (Exhibit 21 marked for 13 identification: 14 Product: 15 Science Threatens Your Health") 16 Q. How Industry's Assault on I'm only saying that in jest because you 17 offered to read it. 18 21. 19 A. Thank y o u . 20 Q. 21 22 "Doubt is Their All right. Marked as Exhibit Can you verify that that is the citation that these hundred scientists are referencing here? A. That is -- see if I can remember how to 23 do this -- 2008, that is their product -- that 24 appears to be the book that you're referencing in 25 the appendix, yes. Golkow Litigation Services Page 240 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. KRISTAL: Let me mark as Exhibit 22 some excerpts from the book. 3 (Exhibit 22 marked for 4 identification: Excerpts from 5 "Doubt is Their Product") 6 7 8 9 A. Do you want to look at anything in the exhibit or just -Q. Yeah, I'm going to point out some . . . Were you aware that the members of the Committee on 10 Science, Space and Technology, 11 House of Representatives, 12 published what they called a Minority Staff Report 13 about glyphosate and the attacks on IARC? 14 aware of that? 15 18 in February 2018 Are you A. Is that -- 16 17 the U.S. and -- U.S. MR. PRESTES: Objection, assumes facts. Go ahead and answer. A. Yeah, is that the report -- there was a 19 hearing and there was a minority report in the 20 hearing? 21 22 23 Yes, Q. Okay. I was aware of that report. So let me mark as Exhibit 23 this document. (Exhibit 23 marked for 24 identification: Email 25 correspondence from (topmost) Golkow Litigation Services S Page 241 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Kuschmider sent 2/6/2018 re Draft 2 Revised Final Minority Staff Report 3 on Glyphosate MONGLY07894889) 4 Q. I'm just doing the marking now. 5 going to actually look at these. 6 7 A. You seem to be having fun over there. Q. That's a sad commentary on my life, is it not? 10 A. I would never judge you, counselor. 11 Q. All right. So let's start with Exhibit 12 23 . 13 attachment. 14 The Bates number is MONGLY07894889, and the 15 attachment is listed as Revised Final Minority 16 Staff Report on Glyphosate 2-6-2018. 17 I just wondered. 8 9 We are Exhibit 23 is a Monsanto email with an The email is dated February 6, 2018. And if you turn two pages in, Bates number 18 that ends 891, is the beginning of the Minority 19 Staff Report prepared by the Minority Staff on U.S. 20 House of Representatives Committee on Science, 21 Space and Technology. Do you see that? 22 A. I'm sorry. 23 Give me the exhibit number. I'm getting mixed up here. 24 Q. Looking at the email, Exhibit 23. 25 A. Exhibit 23. Golkow Litigation Services Okay. Page 242 Confidential 1 2 Q. That's an email that was circulated within Monsanto, 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order is it not? A. It's an email to Jeremy Stump from Scott Kuschmider. 5 Q. Okay. Who is Scott Kuschmider? 6 A. He's in our government affairs team, but 7 I don't know what his exact role is, but he often 8 would keep track of events and report -- report on 9 happenings in the U.S. Congress or with the 10 administration. 11 Q. And Jeremy Stump? 12 a 13 . He was the head of our government affairs team. 14 Q. At Monsanto? 15 A. At Monsanto at that 16 Q. Okay. time, yes. So Mr. Kuschmider is sending to 17 Mr. Stump the Minority Staff Report dated February 18 2018 from the United States House of 19 Representatives, 20 Technology, 21 Committee on Science, Space and correct? MR. PRESTES: Objection, form, 22 foundation, and object to the exhibit, yet another 23 document the witness neither sent nor received. 24 25 q . Did you see this document before, the Minority Report? Golkow Litigation Services Page 243 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order A. I was aware of the document. I don't 2 remember if I ever received it personally or not, 3 but I know that there was one submitted into the 4 record in the context of the hearing. 5 6 Q. And you knew that from your work on Monsanto? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. 9 I don't want to sound -- you never sought to read it? 10 A. I don't remember if I read it or not. 11 Q. Okay. And the title of the minority or 12 the Staff Report is "Spinning Science and Silencing 13 Scientists: 14 Industry Attempts to Influence Science." 15 see that? A Case Study in how the Chemical Do you 16 a . I do. 17 Q. And on the second page, the Table of 18 Contents, it has the seal of the United States 19 House of Representatives, above the Table of 20 Contents, correct? 21 A. I see the sealthere, yes. 22 Q. You were certainly aware that the 23 chairman of this committee, Lamar 24 this hearing with respectto glyphosate, 25 A. I don't remember if the Golkow Litigation Services Smith, convening correct? hearing was about Page 244 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 glyphosate. 2 science generally, and he had taken issue and his 3 staff had taken issue in the past with IARC. 4 had taken issue with EPA. 5 Chairman Smith was interested in They So he called the hearing, yes, but I think 6 the topic might have been broader than glyphosate, 7 if I remember correctly. 8 9 Q. Okay. Well, let me read from the first page • 10 "Introduction. 11 the Committee on Science, Space and 12 Technology is scheduled to hold a 13 hearing entitled 'In Defense of 14 Scientific Integrity,' examining 15 the IARC Monographs Program and 16 glyphosate review. 17 glyphosate is a herbicide most 18 commonly found in Monsanto's 19 commercial weedkiller Roundup. 20 Committee chairman Lamar Smith 21 scheduled this hearing after months 22 of letter writing criticizing the 23 IARC review of glyphosate and 24 examining the EPA's actions on 25 glyphosate. Golkow Litigation Services On February 6, 2018 The chemical Many of the criticisms Page 245 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 contained in the committee's 2 letters regarding IARC mimic 3 criticisms that the chemical 4 industry has leveled on the IARC 5 process." 6 DO you see that? 7 A. I see the words there, yes. 8 Q. 9 And when it says that the committee letters mimicked criticisms the chemical industry 10 had, you were aware that FTI was involved in 11 getting these hearings set up and in providing 12 Chairman Smith in this case with Monsanto's talking 13 points on glyphosate and criticism of IARC, 14 correct? 15 A. FTI and myself were involved in sharing 16 information about glyphosate and IARC to a lot of 17 different members of Congress, 18 Smith and the staff of the science committee, yes. 19 Q. including Chairman This Minority Committee Report on the 20 second paragraph of the first page under 21 Background, 22 Monsanto launched a disinformation campaign to 23 undermine IARC's classification of glyphosate as a 24 probable carcinogen." 25 "there is significant evidence that A. I'm sorry. Golkow Litigation Services Do you see that? I didn't pick up where you Page 246 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 started, but if you can point me to it I can catch 2 up. 3 Q. Sure. Yes, I'm sorry. My apologies. 4 And what I'll do from now on, because I do want you 5 to follow obviously, 6 wait for you to find it. 7 in that regard -- 8 A. Thank y o u . 9 Q. 10 11 if I give you a location, I'll I'm moving more quickly -- because I've highlighted it and I know where to go. So on the first page of the Minority Report, 12 under the section Background, 13 paragraphs. 14 A. Okay. 15 Q. 16 A. There, 17 Q. there are two The beginning of the second paragraph. Okay. I see it. "There is significant evidence 18 that Monsanto launched a disinformation campaign to 19 undermine IARC's classification of glyphosate as a 20 probable carcinogen." 21 with that • I take it you would disagree 22 A. The first sentence there? 23 Q. 24 A. Yes, 25 Q. Yes. I absolutely would disagree with it. Meaning that there was less than Golkow Litigation Services Page 247 Confidential 1 2 significant evidence of that? A. No. 3 4 5 6 Pursuant to Protective Order Yeah. MR. PRESTES: No, I'm joking. I think that -- yeah. There's no question. Q. There's no question pending. I was trying to make a bad joke late in the day. if you could turn to page -- and we could go 7 through this. 8 there's anything that triggers a recollection as to 9 whether you read itor not? 10 11 12 Have you thumbed through to see if A. I would have had this document summarized for me -­ Q. Okay. 13 A. -- most likely, or 14 to me, but I don't think I read it. 15 Q. If you 16 conclusion, 17 sections. 18 19 just orally described -- before we get to the I just want to go through some of the On page 4, there's a list of key players. Do you see that? 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. And it mentions Donna Farmer's name, who 22 we've seen on several of the emails, correct? 23 Further down, David Saltmiras, whose PowerPoint we 24 just looked at a few minutes ago? 25 A. Yes, I see. Golkow Litigation Services Page 248 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. And there are other folks. Henry Miller, 2 you're familiar with the name Henry Miller with 3 regard to glyphosate? 4 5 6 A. Not until I started preparing for my deposition. I had never heard of him before. Q. Okay. You knew that he was heavily 7 criticized for publishing an article in Forbes 8 Magazine shortly after the IARC evaluation of 9 glyphosate as probably carcinogenic came out 10 because he did not disclose that Monsanto had 11 actually written the article? 12 13 14 MR. PRESTES: Objection, form, misstates the facts. . My knowledge of it is what I read. a I 15 think it was in Eric Sachs' deposition about that 16 interaction and what happened. 17 Q. Right. 18 a 19 Q. And what I said iscorrect? 20 A. I don't know. 21 . But that's all I know about it. I don't recall all the details there, but -­ 22 Q. Very shortly -­ 23 A. I remember -­ 24 (Clarification by reporter.) 25 A. I remember that he published a Forbes Golkow Litigation Services Page 249 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 article and it was withdrawn. 2 that characterization, 3 what you're asking. 4 I would agree with if that's the -- if that's Q. Have you ever read the draft sent to him 5 by Monsanto and compared it to the actual article 6 he wrote? Have you ever done that? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Are you aware of anybody at Monsanto 9 doing that, doing a side-by-side comparison? 10 11 A. I wasn't aware of any of the interactions with Dr. Miller. 12 13 Q. Okay. And this also mentions D r . Heydens, right, William Heydens on page 4. 14 A. Yeah, 15 Q. Okay. I see his name. And if you turn, for example, to 16 page 6, there's a section on ghostwriting. 17 see that? Do you We mentioned that briefly. 18 A. Did you say -- page 6, I see that, yes. 19 Q. On page 11 there's a section entitled 20 "Orchestrate Outcry." 21 22 23 24 25 Do you see that? A. I see that section, the Minority Report, yes . Q. Right. And it also mentions Henry Miller and his article in Forbes, right? A. I see a mention of Henry Miller there in Golkow Litigation Services Page 250 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order a Forbes. com piece. Q. Okay. If you turn to page 17, the 3 Conclusion, 4 the House of Representatives wrote: the Minority Staff of this committee of 5 "The incidents and tactics outlined 6 in this report are, unfortunately, 7 not surprising when it comes to the 8 chemical industry. 9 tactics were employed by the These same 10 chemical industry with regards to 11 lead and a host of other chemicals. 12 They also mimic the tobacco 13 industry's efforts to muddy the 14 science surrounding the health 15 effects of smoking. 16 have been thoroughly documented, 17 perhaps most notably in David 18 Michaels' book, 19 Product: 20 Science Threatens Your Health,' and 21 in 'Merchants of Doubt' by Naomi 22 Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. 23 industry efforts often only -- 24 strike that. 25 These industry efforts oftentimes Golkow Litigation Services These efforts 'Doubt is Their How Industry's Assault on These Page 251 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 only come to light through 2 disclosure of internal industry 3 documents through the discovery 4 process during litigation." 5 Do you see that? 6 A. I do. 7 Q. Okay. 8 9 So let's take a look briefly at Dr. Michaels' book. MR. PRESTES: Jerry, we've been going for 10 over an hour. 11 can get right back to it. Let's just take five minutes and we 12 MR. KRISTAL: 13 VIDEO SPECIALIST: 14 Sure. The time is 2:38 p .m. , and we 're going off the record. 15 (Proceedings recessed) 16 VIDEO SPECIALIST: The time is 2:55 p .m. , 17 and we are back on the record. 18 BY MR. KRISTAL: if you would go to Exhibit 20 which is selected pages from the book "Doubt is 21 Their Product," and for the record we've agreed 22 we 've substituted a PDF, a full PDF, of the book 23 itself for the book. 24 A. O k a y . 25 Q. All right? Golkow Litigation Services CM Q. Mr. Rands, CM 19 So that will be part of the Page 252 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 record. 2 you the book. 3 those arrangements. 4 because it's too difficult to copy the book. If you want to read it tonight, I can loan Just let me know and we can make But I took the book back 5 All right. 6 is Their Product: 7 Science Threatens Your Health" by David Michaels. 8 And if you turn to the next page, this is from 9 w h a t 's called the book jacket, the flap of the 10 Exhibit 22, the cover is "Doubt How Industry's Assault on book. 11 A. O k a y . 12 Q. And on the right it says who David 13 Michaels is. 14 "David Michaels is an 15 epidemiologist and the director of 16 the Project on Scientific Knowledge 17 and Public Policy at the George 18 Washington University School of 19 Public Health and Health Services. 20 During the Clinton administration, 21 he served as Assistant Secretary of 22 Energy for Environment Safety and 23 Health, responsible for protecting 24 the health and safety of workers, 25 neighboring communities and the Golkow Litigation Services Page 253 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 environment surrounding the 2 nation's nuclear weapons facility." 3 4 It goes on to talk about some of his other accomplishments, correct? 5 A. I see the words there, yes. 6 Q. 7 8 9 And this was 2008, prior to him becoming head of OSHA. A. I think that was the date the book was published • 10 Q. 11 A. Y e s . 12 Q. 2008 . Yes. Okay. Reading from the dust 13 jacket, and then we'll read just a paragraph or two 14 from the book. 15 "Doubt is our product, a cigarette 16 executive once observed since it is 17 the best means of competing with 18 the body of fact that exists in the 19 minds of the general public. 20 also means -- it is also the means 21 of establishing a controversy. 22 this eye-opening exposé David 23 Michaels reveals just how prevalent 24 and how effective such strategies 25 have become. Golkow Litigation Services It In Mercenary scientists, Page 254 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 he argues, have increasingly shaped 2 and skewed the technical 3 literature, manufactured and 4 magnified scientific uncertainty, 5 and influenced government policy to 6 the advantage of polluters and the 7 manufacturers of dangerous 8 products. 9 To keep the public confused about 10 the hazards posed by global 11 warming, 12 asbestos, 13 other toxic materials, 14 executives have hired unscrupulous 15 scientists and lobbyists to dispute 16 the scientific evidence that would 17 alert the public to these dangers. 18 Their goal is the manufacture of 19 doubt." 20 secondhand smoke, lead, plastics and many DO you see that? industry Is that the first time 21 you're hearing about what the contents of this book 22 is about? 23 24 25 MR. PRESTES: Object to the form, to the compound question. A. It's the first time I've heard of David Golkow Litigation Services Page 255 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Michaels or his book, yes. 2 Q. Okay. You don't remember seeing the 3 concluding paragraph in the Minority Report which 4 cited to the book -­ 5 A .N o . 6 Q. -- talked about the book? 7 A. I don't recall seeing -­ 8 9 Q. But it was in there whether you recall seeing it or not. 10 a 11 Q. Sure. 12 a 13 14 . We'd have -- did you point it out to me? Look in the Minority Report. . I don't recall now, but we were looking at -­ Q. I think it's the last page of text. 15 17, under Conclusion. 16 what I just read, and 17 Michaels' book, correct? 18 Page That whole section is about it cites directly to David MR. PRESTES: Object to the form and 19 lacks foundation. 20 questioning on documents the witness hasn't seen 21 and doesn't know about. 22 23 24 25 a We're deep in the realm of . I see the quote of the title referenced here, yes. q . You don't see the general thrust being the same as what I read from the dust jacket just Golkow Litigation Services Page 256 Confidential 1 now of the book? 2 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: Same objection. I'm sorry. Same objection. A. I see the Minority Report's 5 characterization there and the sentence -- did you 6 read that? Is that what you were reading from? 7 Q. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. Let me read it. "The incidences and tactics 10 outlined in this report are, 11 unfortunately, not surprising when 12 it comes to the chemical industry. 13 These tactics were employed by the 14 chemical industry with regards to 15 lead and a host of other chemicals. 16 They also mimic the tobacco 17 industry's efforts to muddy the 18 science surrounding the health 19 effects of smoking." 20 DO you see that? 21 A. Yes, 22 Q. 23 24 25 I see that that's what they say. And that's similar to what the dust jacket of the book was saying, correct? MR. PRESTES: Object to the form, lacks foundation. Golkow Litigation Services Page 257 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A. Generally the gist is, yeah. 2 Q. And what I just read from is Exhibit 23, 3 the February 2018 Minority Report. 4 after where I stopped the quote is the reference in 5 the Minority Report to David Michaels' book, 6 correct? 7 8 And just right A. Yes, the Minority Report quotes from David Michaels -- references David Michaels' book. 9 Q. Okay. If you turn to Exhibit 23 -- I'm 10 sorry -- Exhibit 22, there you go, right in front 11 of you, on page 46 of the book -­ 12 a .There's some 13 Q. Yeah. highlighting there? Yes. Let me tell you what I did. If 14 you turn to the fourth -- I'm sorry -- the page 15 after the Introduction, 16 everywhere where Exponent is cited. 17 that? 18 A. Okay. 19 the Exponent sections? 20 Q. Yeah. I copied from the index Do you see So these are your highlights for I was trying to not have to 21 verbally describe exactly where we are because it's 22 a lot of text. 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. So I thought it might help. 25 On page 46, the second full paragraph. Golkow Litigation Services All right. Are Page 258 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order you there? 2 A. Yes, 3 Q. It begins: I am. 4 "As the product defense work has 5 gotten more and more specialized, 6 the makeup of the business has 7 changed. 8 operations like Hill and Knowlton 9 have been eclipsed by product Generic public relations 10 defense firms specialty boutiques 11 run by scientists. 12 their teeth manufacturing 13 uncertainty for Big Tobacco, 14 scientists at ChemRisk, The 15 Weinberg Group, Exponent, 16 other consulting firms now battle 17 the regulatory agencies on behalf 18 of the manufacturers of benzene, 19 beryllium, 20 tertiary-butyl ether) perchlorates, 21 phthalates, and virtually every 22 other toxic chemical in the news 23 today. 24 straightforward. 25 helping corporations minimize Having cut chromium, MTBE Inc. and (methyl Their business model is Golkow Litigation Services They profit by Page 259 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 public health and environmental 2 protection and fight claims of 3 injury and illness. 4 field year after year this same 5 handful of individuals and 6 companies come up again and again." 7 Do you know how many - - for how many years 8 Monsanto has hired Exponent, 9 it? 10 11 In field after MR. PRESTES: lacks foundation. Inc. to do work for Object to the form and You just read a paragraph. 12 Q. 13 A. You read the paragraph correctly. 14 Q. 15 A. Yes, Exponent Inc. is mentioned. 16 Q. Did I read the paragraph correctly? And does it mention Exponent Inc.? Do you know for how many years Monsanto 17 has hired Exponent Inc. to write articles on its 18 behalf regarding its products? 19 A. I don't know what Exponent Inc. does or 20 how long we've hired them or if we've hired them or 21 in what circumstances we have. 22 Q. If Monsanto has hired them, do you think 23 they would want to know this information about 24 Exponent, or do you think they already know about 25 it? Golkow Litigation Services Page 260 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: Objection, 2 foundation, 3 already told you, in essence, he doesn't even know 4 who or what Exponent is. 5 6 improper hypothetical. form, MR. KRISTAL: All right. The witness has Strike that question. 7 Q. Monsanto, I'm assuming, tell me if I'm 8 correct, before it hires a scientific consulting 9 firm to do its work would vet that firm, right? 10 A. I think that Monsanto would typically 11 want to know who they were working with and what 12 type of work they had done, yes, that's 13 correct. Q. And if there was publicly available 14 information about the firm that they were going to 15 hire to do work for them, that would be a source of 16 information about the company that they're hiring, 17 correct? 18 MR. PRESTES: Objection, to the extent 19 that this is an effort to get into corporate 20 representative testimony, it's beyond the scope 21 anything Mr. Rands is designated to speak to. 22 23 24 25 of But if you have an individual view, go for it. A. Yeah, it's been my experience, when you hire someone, you find out more about them before Golkow Litigation Services Page 261 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order you hire them. 2 Q. Right. And that's just standard 3 practice, 4 Yellow Pages and point your finger and pick that 5 company. 6 right? 7 right? You're not going to just flip the You want to know what you're getting, A. Yeah. As I said, if you hire someone, 8 you usually find out something about them or their 9 firm, yes. 10 Q. And on page 47, and this is the last 11 section I'll read and then we'll go on to another 12 document. 13 three little asterisks there: In the middle of the page under the 14 "Should the public lose all 15 interest in its health, these 16 product defense firms would be out 17 of luck. 18 premier firms in the product 19 defense business, acknowledges as 20 much in this filing with the 21 Securities and Exchange 22 Commission:" Exponent Inc., one of the 23 And now they're quoting from the Securities 24 and Exchange Commission, are they not, that's your 25 understanding of how this is laid out? Golkow Litigation Services Page 262 Confidential 1 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order A. Yeah, that does seem to be a quote. think that's correct. Q. Okay. "Public concern over health safety 4 and preservation of the environment." 5 A. I'm sorry, counselor, just one second. 6 was going to check the footnote. 7 assumption, but if you can represent -- 8 9 I Q. I I was making an I don't know -- if I reference a footnote, but I will represent, because I've read 10 it, that is part of the Security and Exchange 11 Commission publicly available document. 12 have it even in my bag. 13 A. Thank y o u . 14 Q. All right. I think I And it reads: 15 "Public concern over health, 16 and preservation of the environment 17 has resulted in the enactment of a 18 broad range of environmental and/or 19 other laws and regulations by 20 local, state and federal lawmakers 21 and agencies. 22 implementing regulations affect 23 nearly every industry as well as 24 the agencies of federal, 25 local governments charged with Golkow Litigation Services safety These laws and the state and Page 263 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 their enforcement. 2 changes in such laws, regulations 3 and enforcement or other factors 4 significantly reduce the exposures 5 of manufacturers, owners, 6 providers, and others to liability, 7 the demand for our services may be 8 significantly reduced." 9 To the extent service Do you see that? 10 A. I see that. 11 Q. So assuming what I'm saying is true and 12 what Dr. Michaels is saying that this statement was 13 publicly available in a Securities and Exchange 14 Commission filing by Exponent, certainly that would 15 have been available for Monsanto to read. 16 17 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation, assumes facts. 18 A. I would agree that a public document that 19 is available on a public website would be available 20 for Monsanto to read, yes. Golkow Litigation Services Page 264 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 265 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 266 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 267 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 268 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 269 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 270 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 271 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 272 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 273 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 274 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 275 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 276 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 277 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 278 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 279 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 280 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 281 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 282 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 283 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 284 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 285 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 286 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 287 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 288 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 289 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 290 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 291 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 292 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 293 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 294 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 295 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 296 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 297 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 298 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 299 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 300 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 301 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 302 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 303 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 304 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 305 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 306 Confidential 24 q . okay. 25 Group is doing. Pursuant to Protective Order So let's look at what the Potomac Golkow Litigation Services Page 307 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: over an hour. Jerry, we've been going for Why don't we just take a quick five. 3 MR. KRISTAL: 4 VIDEO SPECIALIST: 5 We're going off the record. Okay. The time is 3:57 p .m. 6 (Proceedings recessed) 7 VIDEO SPECIALIST: 8 The time is 4:10 p.m. , and we're back on the record. 9 (Exhibit 26 marked for 10 identification: Email 11 correspondence from (topmost) 12 Lord sent 2/27/2015 re Draft email 13 for experts to help with IARC 14 MONGLY 01021648) 15 16 C BY MR. KRISTAL: Q. I've marked as Exhibit 26, this is an 17 email chain from February 27th, 2015, and 18 February -- number of dates in February. 19 MONGLY number is 01021648. 20 do a few of these. 21 22 The And we'll try to only But if you look at the next -- find the page -- it's the Bates number that ends 1656. 23 A. Is it the start of the email chain or ... 24 Q. Well, the start of the email chain, 25 relating, yes, relating to Potomac, and then we'll Golkow Litigation Services Page 308 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 move forward. 2 from Kimberly Link to Daniel Goldstein and Charla, 3 C-H-A -R-L-A, Lord. The beginning of the email chain is Who is Ms. Lord? 4 A. Charla Lord is a communications employee. 5 Q. Okay. And the email is dated December 6 17th, 2014, the first email, and the subject is 7 "Identifying third-party voices for glyphosate." 8 And Ms. Link wrote: 9 "Charla will be the point person 10 moving forward to help coordinate 11 the list of credible third-party 12 voices for glyphosate. 13 with Potomac Communications today, 14 we decided to target The Washington 15 Post and USA Today." 16 Do you see that? 17 MR. PRESTES: In our call Object to the exhibit and 18 to all the questions on it, lacks foundation. 19 is an email that the witness didn't send, didn't 20 receive, and wasn't copied on. 21 established whether he has ever seen it in his 22 life. This You haven't 23 Q . Okay. 24 A. What was the question, please? 25 Q. There were many documents you had never Golkow Litigation Services Page 309 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 seen before in your life that you reviewed in 2 preparation for this deposition? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. That's what Ms. Link wrote, that 5 Charla was going to take the point, and that in the 6 call with Potomac Communications a decision had 7 been made to target The Washington Post and USA 8 Today. That's how it starts. 9 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. 10 Q. Do you see that? 11 A. I see the words there, yes. 12 Q. Okay. 13 14 And on page 1655 Ms. Lord is writing to Daniel Goldstein. a . I'm sorry. 15 the email real quick. 16 Q. Okay. Sure. I'm just reading the rest of If I can summarize in a 17 sentence, Ms. Link is suggesting a number of third 18 parties they may want to contact. 19 A. American Academy of Pediatrics -­ 20 21 Q. Right. a There's a number of them. . I just -- because I hadn't been involved 22 in this, jumping around is a little difficult to 23 keep the flow, but go ahead, where do you want to 24 go to next? 25 Q. 1655, Ms. Lord's email dated February Golkow Litigation Services Page 310 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 20th, 2015, the same subject, 2 third -party voices for glyphosate" to Dan 3 Goldstein . 4 page? "Identifying Do you see that in the middle of the 5 A. I d o . 6 Q. "We're seeing more opportunities 7 to move forward with Op-Eds to 8 counter the negative press in 9 national media and need to have our 10 agencies start making some calls as 11 soon as possible. 12 forward the list of toxicologists 13 outside the D.C. area that you 14 suggest we contact. 15 Potomac start reaching out right 16 away." 17 18 21 22 I'll have So Ms. Lord is now communicating directly and solely to Mr. 19 20 Would you please -- Dr. Goldstein, MR. PRESTES: A. Yeah, Objection, correct? foundation. it's an email from Charla Lord to Dan, D r . Goldstein. Q. Okay. And then he responds to her and 23 included a number of people on February 23rd, and 24 he begins his email by saying: 25 "I will need to get some Golkow Litigation Services Page 311 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 toxicologists up to speed quickly 2 and perhaps can just pay several to 3 review the existing literature and 4 be ready at least on the general 5 tox issues. 6 up to speed at this time." There's nobody fully 7 And then he goes on from there, correct? 8 A. Yeah, that's what's written there. 9 Q. Okay. And then there are additional 10 suggestions of people who might act as these third 11 parties. 12 Sorahan, whose name we saw before, do you see that? 13 14 15 16 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. If the question is just do you see Sorahan, go ahead. Q. Right. They're discussing people who might be involved in this project with Potomac. 17 18 Do you see on page 1652, Sorahan, Tom MR. PRESTES: A. Yeah, Objection, foundation. I see the list of names. The 19 project with Potomac, 20 context is here, but they seem to be making lists 21 of professionals that they want to reach out to and 22 contact. 23 Q. Okay. I don't know exactly what the And on page 1650 Ms. Lord writes 24 to Dr. Goldstein, Donna Farmer and others, Dear 25 Donna -- strike that. Golkow Litigation Services Page 312 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 "Dear Dan and Donna. 2 draft emails to send to the experts 3 below in regard to sharing their 4 names with Potomac for help with 5 IARC. 6 the second being vague in case 7 there is a concern about FOIA." Here are two I'm sending two versions, 8 Did I read that correctly? 9 A. Yes, 10 Q. I see that you read that correctly. And there's a list of names under that to 11 whom this should be sent to share their names with 12 Potomac? 13 14 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. A. Yes, there's a list of names here which I 15 guess would be, if she does what she says she's 16 thinking of doing, 17 people. 18 Q. 19 Potomac, right? 20 21 some draft emails to those Well, the draft emails would be to MR. PRESTES: Q. You're right. 22 the experts. 23 that, right? Objection, I'm sorry. foundation. My fault. To And there are two draft emails under 24 A. Yes, that's right. 25 Q. Okay. And the first draft email says: Golkow Litigation Services Page 313 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 "Dear Name, as you may be aware, 2 IARC will be discussing glyphosate 3 during its upcoming meeting in 4 March. 5 experts in the subject of safety 6 and immediately thought of you. 7 May I forward your name to my 8 colleagues at Potomac currently 9 working on communication pieces in I've been asked about 10 regard to this? 11 hesitate to contact me. 12 Strike that. 13 Please don't hesitate to call me 14 directly if you have questions. 15 the IARC meetings are happening 16 soon, I'd love to connect with you 17 these associates as soon as 18 possible." 19 Do you see that? 20 21 22 Please don't That's the first draft to go to these third-party contacts, right? MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. A. There's two drafts, and I guess this is 23 something -- again, 24 looks like Charla wrote; is that right? 25 As I wasn't on this -- but it Q. Yeah, and she's asking for input from the Golkow Litigation Services Page 314 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 people she sent it to about her drafts. 2 second draft says: 3 "Dear Name, 4 with you the sharing of your 5 expertise in regards to 6 glyphosate's safety in a 7 time-sensitive manner. 8 you this afternoon with more 9 information." 10 Do you see that? 11 12 And the I would like to discuss MR. PRESTES: Objection, May I phone foundation, and to the characterization of the document. 13 A. Yeah, 14 Q. And the second draft is indeed more 15 vague, as Ms. Lord said it would be, right? 16 17 I see what you read there, yes. MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. A. The second draft is inviting a phone call 18 seeking a contact to just set up a phone call. 19 it's a shorter email draft, yes. 20 21 Q. Well, and not as specific in terms of what exactly is being asked, correct? 22 23 So MR. PRESTES: Same objection. Q. It just basically says I'd like to 24 discuss with you, give me a call, right, or may I 25 call you? Golkow Litigation Services Page 315 Confidential 1 2 MR. Pursuant to Protective Order PRESTES: A. Yes. It says, Same objection. "I would like to discuss 3 with you the sharing of expertise in regards to 4 glyphosate's safety in a time-sensitive manner. 5 May I phone you this afternoon with more 6 information." 7 Q. And that is more vague, as Ms. Lord said 8 it would be, than the first draft, which gives more 9 detail as to exactly what is involved, correct? 10 a . Oh, I see -­ 11 12 13 MR. PRESTES: a Objection, foundation. . I didn't realize that you were referencing her characterization of those two. 14 q . Yes. Yes. 15 A. So I can agree that she's characterized 16 her two emails, the second being vague, but 17 have more context than that. 18 19 20 21 22 Q. Okay. I don't You certainly know what FOIA is, right, FOIA is the Freedom of Information Act? a . Yes, it's a program where you can access public documents. Q. And she was concerned that someone might 23 make a FOIA request, and the concern was she wanted 24 to be more vague so you wouldn't know what the 25 request was, so, therefore, Golkow Litigation Services she had the second Page 316 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order draft which was more vague, correct? 2 MR. PRESTES: 3 to the invitation to read minds. 4 Objection, foundation and A. It does -- it does say the second being 5 vague in case there's a concern about FOIA. 6 c a n 't comment on what she meant or intended more 7 than what she just -- the words there, but ... 8 9 10 11 I Q. Well, FOIA means somebody might -­ A. She is someone you can talk to, I'm sure, and ask her directly on that. Q. FOIA, if there was a FOIA request that 12 was honored, entities would have to turn over 13 certain documents under that request. 14 15 MR. PRESTES: Objection, hypothetical. A. I don't know that that's true. I don't 16 know what the rules are with respect 17 these different entities. 18 government documents. 19 these people would be subject to FOIA or not. 20 to all of FOIA applies to I don't know to what extent Q. But what she did was, there were two 21 drafts to be sent to these third parties, one was 22 more vague than the other, 23 about that contact being disclosed. 24 25 MR. PRESTES: if there were concerns Objection, foundation, requires speculation. Golkow Litigation Services Page 317 Confidential 1 2 3 A. Yeah, Pursuant to Protective Order I can read you the words she wrote, but ... Q. And that's what she said. If there's a 4 concern for the Freedom of Information Act, 5 made the second draft more vague. 6 MR. PRESTES: 7 8 9 10 11 12 Same objection. A. Yeah, you just keep paraphrasing her words - Q. Right. A. -- in different ways. I'll just go back to her words and leave it there. Q. 13 14 I've But it means the same thing, right? MR. PRESTES: Objection. A. The second being -- the second being 15 vague in case there's a concern about FOIA is what 16 she said. 17 Q. Okay. And then on the first page of the 18 document, 1648, Donna Farmer asks the question that 19 you asked a few minutes ago, right? 20 email to Dr. Goldstein, 21 February 26th, 22 were selected and who is Potomac." 23 She sends an Charla Lord, and others, on "help me understand why these folks MR. PRESTES: Objection, Right? foundation, and 24 obj ection to the characterization of Dr. Farmer's 25 statement • Golkow Litigation Services Page 318 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. Well, that's what she wrote. 2 MR. PRESTES: 3 Same objection. A. Yeah, she says, help me understand why 4 these folks were selected and who is Potomac, 5 that's correct. 6 know what she meant, but she apparently didn't 7 understand what was going on. 8 9 Q. Okay. She apparently didn't -- I don't And under that she writes, "Tom Sorahan is going to be our observer at IARC and 10 John Acquavella and Elizabeth Delzel are consulting 11 with us and working on projects for IARC. 12 rather do an ask over the phone." 13 A. I see that. 14 q I would Do you see that? . And those three people who I just named 15 were listed as some of the third parties to whom 16 thiscontact would be made to see if they would be 17 willing to work with the Potomac Group. 18 MR. PRESTES: 19 20 A. And, there. 21 Objection, I'm sorry, foundation. I lost your question If we could just read it back real quick? Q. Well, if you compare the list of people 22 to whom the draft contact would be sent, the three 23 that 24 25 Donna Farmer identifies are on this list. a . That's correct. MR. PRESTES: Golkow Litigation Services Same objection. Page 319 Confidential 1 2 3 4 5 A . Those three names are on the list of names from Charla's email of February 26th. Q . Were you aware that Elizabeth Delzel was an Exponent employee at this time? A . No. 6 7 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation, assumes facts. 8 A . I don't know who Elizabeth Delzel is. 9 Q 10 . Okay. And Charla Lord now answers Donna's guestion, and she writes: 11 "Donna, thanks, and I'm sorry, 12 didn't realize until now that you 13 were not on the original email 14 string 15 is a media house that is writing 16 Op-Eds and Letters to Editors in 17 response to negative pressure 18 surrounding glyphosate. 19 would be 20 list then placed by Potomac in 21 media where needed. 22 writers would do the heavy lift 23 with the expert authors as final 24 editor. 25 media need to be from those outside (included below). I Potomac These 'authored' by those on the Potomac We know these items in the Golkow Litigation Services Page 320 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order the industry." 2 Do you see that? 3 A. Yes, 4 Q. So what Charla Lord is explaining to I see that, you read that correctly. 5 Donna Farmer is they're going to have some group, 6 the Potomac Group, write opinions to the editor and 7 letters and then give them to these third parties 8 to edit, and then have the letters and the Op-Eds 9 go out under the third party's name, correct? 10 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation, it 11 solicits speculation on a document that speaks for 12 itself. 13 A. Yeah, I think you basically went through 14 and highlighted elements of each of her sentences 15 there. 16 Q. And that's what she's saying. 17 18 MR. PRESTES: a . Yeah, Same objections. I think the words actually -- I 19 don't disagree with what you characterized there 20 generally. 21 Potomac was doing and how they were interacting 22 with the experts 23 said there. 24 25 q The words make it pretty clear what in that textbased onwhat she . And nowhere does it say that we'll disclose thatwe're Golkow Litigation Services actually writing these letters, Page 321 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order right? 2 A. I don't know what else was discussed in 3 this context, but there'snothing 4 references what you said. 5 in the email that Q. Do you think that's proper to have a 6 media outlet write an opinion 7 then send it to an expert andhave the expert who 8 didn't author it edit it and then send it in under 9 the expert's name? 10 MR. PRESTES: 11 Q. Is that proper? 12 MR. PRESTES: 13 letter or letter and Objection. Objection, foundation, hypothetical question, misrepresents 14 a the facts. . I think there's a lot of instances where 15 people write material and another person edits and 16 has their name on the finalproduct, 17 yes. Q. Well, but not in the context of a company 18 selling a product that has just been classified as 19 a carcinogen and then hiding their involvement, 20 correct? 21 MR. PRESTES: 22 a Same objections. . You're kind of complicating the 23 hypothetical here, so let me make sure I understand 24 it. 25 Q. Sure. In this instance Monsanto, as Golkow Litigation Services Page 322 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Charla Lord said, 2 need to be from those outside the industry," is 3 having an outside group write letters that someone 4 else would adopt as their letter so that, when it 5 appears in the public, 6 the industry. 7 a 8 9 a foundation, improper hypothetical. . Yeah, so it -- what you described doesn't appear to be consistent with what's written here -­ Q. Well, how is that not consistent? 13 15 Objection, mischaracterizes the facts, 12 14 it appears to be outside of . That doesn't -­ MR. PRESTES: 10 11 "we know these items in the media MR. PRESTES: Let the witness finish his answer. A. -- where it specifically mentions the 16 expert authors will be the editor. 17 the ones ultimately deciding 18 and what they publish, and I-- I'm not sure 19 exactly how this was working, because I wasn't 20 involved in this, but, as a general matter, 21 think that's an issue. 22 So they will be what they agree with I don't Q. when Ms. Lord writes "these," meaning the 23 Op-Eds and Letters to the Editors, would be, in 24 quotes, authored by those on the list, when she 25 puts the word "authored" in Golkow Litigation Services quotes you understand Page 323 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 that to mean not authored, right? 2 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation, 3 solicits speculation about what somebody else 4 wrote. 5 6 A. I don't know what she meant by putting quotes around the word "authored." 7 Q. Well, 8 A. But I know you could talk to her about it 9 it's plain English. and get a direct answer on that. 10 Q. This is plain English, though, right? 11 These would be "authored" by those on the list. 12 Potomac writers would do the heavy lift. 13 MR. PRESTES: 14 Same objection. Q. What does that mean to you? Who would be 15 writing most of these Op-Eds and Letters to the 16 Editor? 17 MR. PRESTES: 18 19 Same objection. A. The plain English is the word authored is there. 20 Q. In quotes. 21 A. What you're trying -- what you're trying 22 to imply by the quotes, 23 know what she meant by putting quotes around the 24 word authored. 25 I can't tell you. I don t Q. You've never seen that done in English Golkow Litigation Services Page 324 Confidential 1 communication? 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order A. I've seen that done in many different contexts. 4 I don't know what she meant by it here. MR. KRISTAL: All right. I'm marking as 5 Exhibit 28 -- I'm sorry, 27 -- this is an email 6 with an attachment dated February 27th, 2015 from 7 Kimberly Link. 8 The subject is "IARC materials." (Exhibit 27 marked for 9 identification: Email 10 correspondence from (topmost) 11 Link sent 2/27/2015 re IARC 12 materials MONGLY04773726) 13 A. Thank y o u . 14 Q. You're welcome. K Bates number is 15 MONGLY04773726, and Ms. Link is writing to a number 16 of people , including to a J.D. Dobson at 17 Fleishman .com. 18 A. Yes, 19 20 21 22 Do you see that? I see that as the recipient to the ema i1. Q. And that's Fleishman and Hillard, the PR company? MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. 23 Object to the exhibit and object to the questioning 24 on it on the grounds that it lacks foundation. 25 This is -- we've now -- consistent with how Golkow Litigation Services Page 325 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 we've spent almost the entirety of our day, this is 2 another document that the witness never -- didn't 3 send, didn't receive, and wasn't copied on. 4 A. What was your question? 5 Q. 6 A. Something about Fleishman -- 7 Q. 8 A. I believe -- 9 MR. PRESTES: 10 11 The question was -- Is that Fleishman and Hillard? Same objection. A. I believe Fleishman.com refers to FleishmanHillard, yes. 12 Q. 13 04773727, 14 Response to IARC decision. 15 16 19 is the next page. MR. PRESTES: It says, Monsanto Do you see that? I think you left a word out of the quote. 17 18 And the attachment, which is Bates number MR. KRISTAL: Q. Thank you. "Monsanto Response Plan to IARC decision.M 20 A. Yes, 21 Q. I see that. And the last sentence of the first 22 paragraph says, 23 Monsanto should refer to third-party voices and 24 resources rather than expect people to take 25 Monsanto's word on the safety of its own product." "and even then, wherever possible, Golkow Litigation Services Page 326 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Do you see that? 2 A. Yes, I see that. 3 Q. And that's a statement of what Monsanto 4 understood to be challenges to their reputation, 5 particularly with respectto safety, 6 MR. PRESTES: Objection, right? requires 7 speculation, and to the extent you're asking him to 8 testify on behalf of Monsanto or what Monsanto 9 understood is beyond the scope of any topic on 10 which Mr. Rands has been designated to testify on 11 behalf of Monsanto. 12 a . I don't know the context here. Again, 13 it's an email and an attachment I've never seen and 14 wasn't involved in. 15 did acknowledge Monsanto had a rough reputation. 16 it was out there defending and speaking on behalf 17 of itself on a regular basis on glyphosate and 18 Roundup and the issues with that, and then, to the 19 extent possible, we, I think, would -- my 20 experience is we would also like to see others 21 speak so that, 22 reputation and that became a block to listening to 23 a topic or an issue that we were trying to speak 24 on, that there were other sources of information 25 which they might also be willing to listen to. I think, as I said earlier, I if people had issues with our Golkow Litigation Services Page 327 Confidential 1 Q. Pursuant to Protective Order Because the company knew that Monsanto 2 had very little credibility when it came to the 3 safety of glyphosate, 4 right? A. I don't think it was an issue of 5 credibility at all. 6 was a stumbling block when you engage and talk with 7 people that have a bad view of Monsanto's 8 reputation that you couldn't get passed that 9 sometimes • 10 Q. Okay. My personal experience is it Well, let's look at the second 11 page of this attachment. 12 do you see that category in the middle of the page? 13 A. Yes, 14 Q. Under "social/digital," I see that. The third paragraph: 15 "Monsanto, as a leading 16 manufacturer of glyphosate and as a 17 company with reputation challenges, 18 will have very limited credibility 19 when speaking on the topic of 20 glyphosate's safety. 21 possible, blogs, tweets, Facebook 22 posts, and responses to questions 23 on GMO answers and 24 Discover.Monsanto.com should link 25 to third-party resources rather Golkow Litigation Services Wherever Page 328 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order than Monsanto-owned resources." 2 Do you see that? 3 A. Yes, 4 Q. So there was an understanding that, with I see that. 5 the public, Monsanto would have very little 6 credibility when speaking on the topic of 7 glyphosate's safety. 8 9 MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation, and to the extent you're requesting the witness to 10 describe what the understanding was with respect to 11 a document he has never seen. 12 a . Yeah, that's my -- my concern here is I 13 just don't know, you know, what they're really 14 proposing or what the context of this is, but I can 15 see that whoever wrote this and was talking seems 16 to be saying that they were concerned about how 17 people would view Monsanto's voice in that 18 conversation. 19 20 Q. As having very little credibility on the safety of glyphosate. 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PRESTES: a Same objection. . Yeah, the words were -- I'm sorry. I lost track of where we were here. q . "Monsanto is a leading manufacturer of glyphosate and as a company with reputation Golkow Litigation Services Page 329 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 challenges will have very limited credibility when 2 speaking on the topic of glyphosate safety." 3 A. Yes, that's what it says. 4 Q. Okay. And then if you turn two more 5 pages, there's a fourth bullet point on the page, 6 "Paid Search." 7 A. Yes, 8 Q. 9 Internet? 10 I see that. Do you know what a paid search is on the A. I don't know what it means in this 11 context. 12 sponsored content that you see when you do a Google 13 Search. 14 "Sponsored Content." 15 When I hear that term, I think of It shows up above the line where it says Q. Or you can, if somebody was on the 16 Internet searching for glyphosate, you could have a 17 payment plan and that would direct them to certain 18 websites. 19 search? That's the goal, correct, of a paid 20 A. I guess I didn't understand it that way. 21 I thought it was just content -- if you search for 22 the word Roundup, a listing of results comes up, 23 and paid search means that you've placed sponsored 24 content at the top of any search using that 25 keyword. Is that what you're describing? Golkow Litigation Services That's Page 330 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order how I understood i t . Q. Well, let's read what it says. 3 "Paid Search." 4 "Assuming Monsanto would not be 5 competing with allies and bidding 6 up the price of relevant keywords, 7 conduct a paid search campaign. 8 Ideally this campaign would direct 9 users to the aforementioned 10 'third-party validation' page, but 11 a secondary option would be the 12 Beyond the Rows BlogPost." 13 Do you see that? 14 A. I d o . 15 Q. So Monsanto was going to pay money to 16 have somebody conduct its certain searches, they 17 would be directed to pages that appeared to be from 18 third parties. 19 20 MR. PRESTES: Q. 21 22 23 Objection -- Right? MR. PRESTES: A. So, again, -- foundation. I don't know exactly what they mean here , because I don't -- 24 Q. 25 A. I've never looked at this document. Well, that's what it says. Golkow Litigation Services But Page 331 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 I actually don't think that's how paid search works 2 at all. 3 anything. I think what they're -- just kind of 4 generally, it seems that they're saying, we'll -­ 5 I don't think it redirects you to potentially we'll be putting a link up in that 6 sponsored content section of the search result, and 7 then, if somebody clicks on it, it could take them 8 to another p a g e . 9 10 Q. Right. a . But that's, to me, how -- it doesn't 11 redirect you. 12 something, then it obviously takes you somewhere 13 else, but the lawyer ad - - 14 It's there, and if you click on Q. You pay money so that certain keywords 15 would have a link that somebody who is looking up 16 that keyword would be directed to. 17 A. No, that's what I'm not saying. 18 Q. That's what this says, though. It says, 19 "ideally this campaign would direct users to the 20 aforementioned third-party validation page but a 21 secondary option would be the Beyond the Rows 22 BlogPost." 23 Do you see that? A. I see that. What I'm saying is I don't 24 think that's how paid search works at all. 25 that's actually wrong. Golkow Litigation Services I think Page 332 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. This is what the campaign -- you're saying so this is wrong? 3 A. Well, 4 I don't -­ MR. PRESTES: Objection, foundation. 5 He's saying he has never seen this document in his 6 life. 7 MR. KRISTAL: I understand that. 8 MR. PRESTES: And it's not consistent 9 with his understanding. 10 Q. I'm trying -­ 11 A. Yeah, 12 I think the way you're characterizing it -­ 13 Q. I'm not characterizing it. 14 the quote. 15 said, quote, 16 users, right? I'm reading I didn't characterize anything. I ideally thiscampaign would direct 17 A. So, as I said, 18 about what they're doing here. 19 describing is how I understand paid search works, 20 where you put a link with sponsored content in a 21 search result, and that's it. 22 search. 23 I don't know anything What I was That's the paid And sponsored content shows above a line 24 that says "sponsored content," 25 a -- there can be a link there, people click on. Golkow Litigation Services andthen if there's Page 333 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 If they click on it, it takes them somewhere else. 2 But I've never heard of paid search where it just 3 automatically redirects you when you search for 4 something. 5 6 Q. Nor am I saying that. It directs them to click on a link to get the information. 7 A. It provides a link. 8 Q. It provides -- 9 A. Yes. 10 okay. Q. So it provides -- so Monsanto was saying, 11 if it's not going to be competing and driving the 12 price up, we're going to have paid searches so when 13 people put in a word like 14 page would come up which would have a link to a 15 third-party page that the user who's doing the 16 searching could then connect with. 17 A. No, maybe -­ 18 MR. PRESTES: IARC and glyphosate, a Objection, foundation, and 19 to the extent the question callsfor what Monsanto 20 is saying. 21 A. My understanding of paid search, and just 22 to use an example like you did, if you search for 23 IARC and Roundup, 24 will bring up a list of search results, and the 25 first, is I think the ones you used, it I don't know, five to ten search results Golkow Litigation Services Page 334 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 will be lawyer ads with links to lawyer websites, 2 and I think other people can also come in and buy 3 and place links to other sites in that same area 4 and around all the lawyer ads. 5 search works. 6 Q. Right. in That's how paid And the hope in that campaign was 7 that the user would go to a third-party page, not 8 directly to a Monsanto 9 MR. PRESTES: 10 you're asking what 11 unknown to him is. 12 a . Yeah, page. Objection, foundation, if the hope of this campaign that's I don't know exactly what they 13 intended here other than to provide a link in a 14 paid search program that they were considering. Golkow Litigation Services Page 335 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 336 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 337 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 338 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 339 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 340 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 341 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 342 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 343 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 344 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 345 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 346 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 347 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order I I 3 Q. Now let me show you the article itself. 4 MR. KRISTAL: I'm marking as Exhibit 32, 5 this is the article dated March 20th, 2015. 6 printed this out January 29th, 2019. 7 the article is "March Madness from the United 8 Nations." 9 I The title of (Exhibit 32 marked for 10 identification: March Madness from 11 the United Nations) 12 Q. what I'd like to do is, if you could go 13 to Exhibit, 14 draft. I believe it's 30, the one that had the 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. if you turn to the draft itself, which is 17 on the Bates number that ends 572 18 it? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. -- do you have So the draft says, for the title, 21 "March Madness from the United Nations," Henry I. 22 Miller. Do you see that? 23 A. Yes, 24 q 25 I do. . And the title of the actual article was, "March Madness from the United Nations, Henry Golkow Litigation Services I. Page 348 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Miller," right? 2 MR. PRESTES: I'm going to object to 3 Exhibit 32, the article, as something that the 4 witness had nothing 5 didn't send, didn't receive. 6 to do with, didn't write, A. And hasn't read. I'm sorry. I haven't 7 read or seen the article before, but we're -- we'll 8 go through it with you. 9 That's fine. Q. But you knew about this issue when 10 Monsanto wrote an article and it went out over 11 somebody else's name and the article had to be 12 retracted, right? 13 14 15 16 A. I had never heard about this until I started preparing for my deposition. Q. Okay. And did you ask to see the draft versus the article? 17 MR. PRESTES: Objection. Don't answer. 18 Privilege. 19 did and didn't ask the lawyer -- communicate with 20 the lawyers. 21 22 a We're not going to talk about what he . I became familiar with it reading the -­ i think it was EricSachs' transcript. 23 Q. How long ago was that? 24 a 25 Q. Okay. . Sometime in the last two weeks. Did you ever request or go see Golkow Litigation Services Page 349 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 what the actual article said and compared it to the 2 draft? 3 A . No. Golkow Litigation Services Page 350 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 351 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 352 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 353 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 354 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 355 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 356 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 357 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 358 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 359 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 360 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 361 Confidential 16 17 Jerry, MR. KRISTAL: I can probably finish in an MR. PRESTES: Let's take a five-minute break so we can discuss. 22 MR. KRISTAL: 23 VIDEO SPECIALIST: 24 25 it's now ten past hour. 20 21 MR. PRESTES: five. 18 19 Pursuant to Protective Order We're going off the Okay. The time is 5:12 p.m. record. (Proceedings recessed) Golkow Litigation Services Page 362 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 363 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 364 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 365 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 366 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 367 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 368 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 369 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 370 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 371 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 372 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 373 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 374 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 375 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 376 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 377 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 378 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 379 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 380 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 381 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 382 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 383 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 384 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 385 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 386 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 387 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 388 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 389 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 390 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 391 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 392 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 393 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 394 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 395 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 396 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 397 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 398 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 399 Confidential 12 Pursuant to Protective Order Q. Okay. If you turn to Exhibit 38, and 13 this is an email from you dated May 2nd, 2016 to a 14 number of people. 15 Aderholt LTC Reuters Glyphosate Final." 16 that? . Yeah, The subject is "the Draft I do Do you see 17 a see that. 18 Q. And the Bates number is MONGLY07577414. 19 And you wrote in the email, 20 the draft ..." 21 A. Yes, 22 q 23 "Here's my retool of Do you see that? I see that. . And what's attached is a letter, a draft of a letter, to the Director of the NIH, correct? 24 a . Yes. 25 Q. And in the first paragraph this letter, Golkow Litigation Services Page 400 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 as it says in the first paragraph: 2 "And as the chair of the 3 Appropriations Subcommittee on 4 Agriculture, Rural Development, 5 Food and Drug Administration, and 6 related agencies, and a member of 7 the House Appropriations Committee, 8 I take great interest in how the 9 current administration puts our 10 U.S. tax dollars to work and 11 supports meaningful scientific 12 advancements." 13 Correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. So this letter that you helped 16 draft was going to be sent on behalf of 17 Representative Aderholt to the NIH complaining to 18 them about IARC and trying to get some 19 understanding of defunding IARC, correct? 20 A. No, that's not how I understand the words 21 you added there about defunding IARC. 22 there was interest in understanding how the money 23 was being spent and what standards were being put 24 in place that applied to IARC to make sure that it 25 wasn 't creating problems in our regulatory system. Golkow Litigation Services I think Page 401 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order So it was asking questions. Q. Well, the draft that you helped write 3 goes on for pages talking about how bad IARC is, 4 correct? 5 It's critical of IARC. A. I didn't write the draft. I don't recall 6 if I made a few edits here, but there's a lot of 7 footnoted material that provides context about 8 IARC, and that was the purpose of the document. 9 10 Q. Well, the email said that you retooled the draft, correct? 11 A. Yeah, just a term I used, yes. 12 Q. Right. 13 14 And when you use that term, you mean you edited it to some extent, right? a . Yeah. I believe I must have made some 15 technical corrections or maybe a few edits here and 16 there, but I don't recall doing any substantial 17 editing. 18 Q. And who is Monsanto or FTI to be drafting 19 letters to the National Institutes of Health on 20 behalf of a U.S. representative? 21 a . Yeah, we actually visited with 22 Representative Aderholt and his 23 very interested in the 24 him a letter to lay out what wewere asking for him 25 to do and lays out all the details of, you know, Golkow Litigation Services staff, and he was issue and asked us to send Page 402 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 what the issue is. 2 concrete understanding of what we're talking to 3 them about. 4 Q. Okay. 5 say, oh, by the 6 by Monsanto? 7 8 9 10 Because it gives them more of a Does there anywhere in the letter way, this letter isbeing MR. PRESTES: drafted Objection, argumentative. A. We were in the meeting -- I was in the meeting. Q. I'm asking you if the draft letter 11 anywhere says that the letter is being drafted or 12 was drafted by Monsanto. 13 14 15 A. This letter doesn't say anything about who drafted it. Q. Right. So Dr. Collins, the head of the 16 National Institutes of Health, to which this letter 17 was addressed,would 18 drafted the letter, right? 19 20 21 A. Oh. have noidea thatMonsanto We never expected Dr. Collins to get this letter. Q. You were just drafting a letter that 22 says, date up top, Dr. Francis S. Collins, Director 23 of the National Institutes of Health, 24 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 25 Dr. Collins," and it ends "Sincerely" with the Golkow Litigation Services 9000 "Dear Page 403 Confidential 1 name. 2 a letter? Pursuant to Protective Order Other than that, you didn't expect it to be 3 MR. PRESTES: 4 a Objection, argumentative. . It was in the format of a letter because 5 that's what the office requested us to do, but this 6 was pretty common practice in Washington where 7 people would come in and talk about issues with 8 their elected representatives, and if we were 9 asking them to take action or do something, they 10 would say, well, send me a letter that lays out 11 what you're asking me to do. 12 And in my experience then they would go talk 13 to other constituents on the issues or other groups 14 that have different perspectives, and then write a 15 letter that they thought captured their views or 16 what they thought was right on the issue or they 17 would take no action at all. 18 Q. Well, when you said they would ask you to 19 send them a letter, they would want to know your 20 views in a letter from you to them, not in a draft 21 from them to somebody else that you authored, 22 right? 23 24 25 A. Well, that's just the format they asked for. Q. Well, it makes no sense. Golkow Litigation Services Why wouldn't Page 404 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 you just send the letter, here's Monsanto's 2 position, or a memo, or some kind of report? 3 wouldn't draft a letter, do you? 4 this happens all the time in Washington? 5 6 MR. PRESTES: You're saying Objection, Explain it to him again, 8 A. Yeah. 9 Q. Why wasn't this just put 11 12 13 compound question, argumentative. 7 10 if you want. in a memo or a report? A. Because they asked for it in the form of a letter, the office did. Q. Okay. And you thought that was okay 14 Monsanto to draft a letter from Congressman 15 Aderholt to the head of the NIH. 16 You a . Yes. for I knew they were going to take it 17 and digest it and think about it and talk to others 18 and ultimately decide if they wanted to do anything 19 or write anything else or take any action 20 And a lot of times we got turned away 21 weren't interested, but 22 point for them to thinkabout what we 23 about in their office. 24 25 at all. and people this was just a starting were talking Q. And you're saying this was Monsanto's position that's contained inthis letter, correct? Golkow Litigation Services Page 405 Confidential 1 A. Yes, Pursuant to Protective Order I think that's correct, that we -­ 2 we wanted to take all the facts and explain why we 3 thought there was an issue, and we put it together 4 in this format with all of the footnotes so that 5 they could go look up all the source materials and 6 other things and understand what we had talked to 7 them about in their office for 30 minutes. 8 9 Q. And you don't think this has anything to do with cutting off funding to IARC? 10 11 MR. PRESTES: Objection, asked and answered. 12 A. Yeah, I think that it's raising questions 13 about what the money is being spent on, but I can 14 tell you what the objective was is to see some 15 changes. 16 17 Q. Let's read what it says on the last page of the letter. 18 19 MR. PRESTES: Let the witness finish his answer. 20 A. That's okay. 21 Q. The last page of the letter, are you 22 I was done. there? 23 A. Yeah. 24 Q. "As an initial step to 25 understand the damage being Golkow Litigation Services Page 406 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 potentially done by IARC, I'd ask 2 you to brief the committee so that 3 we can better understand the view 4 of NIH with respect the flaws in 5 the IARC process, and the level of 6 support U.S. taxpayers are 7 providing to IARC (either directly 8 or to affiliated activist 9 scientists). My staff will be in 10 contact to provide a list of the 11 affiliated activists so you can 12 prepare a briefing on any NIH funds 13 that are being directed to such 14 efforts. 15 In advance of this briefing, 16 would also request that you please 17 provide an itemized list of all 18 funding earmarked for IARC and the 19 IARC monographs and the affiliated 20 activists over the last five years. 21 Your response should include a 22 detailed explanation for how NIH 23 oversees this funding, the purposes 24 for which it is used, and what 25 mechanisms exist for dealing with Golkow Litigation Services I Page 407 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 irresponsible and unacceptable 2 behavior 3 IARC in this instance or production 4 of other scientifically discredited 5 work). 6 I trust that the NIH and you 7 personally are committed to only 8 funding organizations that produce 9 information and conclusions based (like that exhibited by 10 on sound science, robust processes, 11 and credible methodology, and 12 which, above all else, act with 13 integrity when it comes to 14 protecting human health. 15 not want to see the flawed IARC 16 process, which appears to be 17 co-opted by activists, damage the 18 credibility of our proud U.S. 19 institutions and industries." I would 20 You wrote that, right? 21 A. I did not write that. 22 Q. You were involved in drafting those 23 24 25 words, correct? A. I made some edits somewhere to this document that I don't recall, but I believe the Golkow Litigation Services Page 408 Confidential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Pursuant to Protective Order document was written by someone at F T I . Q. You certainly didn't say to FTI, no, this is too over the top, don't send this, right? A. No. I thought this laid out the general concerns we had pretty well. Q. And what affiliated activist scientists are you talking about in this letter? A. I don't recall all of them at this point now, but I remember at the time we were thinking 10 about Chris Portier and his role working for a law 11 firm while he was sitting on the panel on a 12 different substance but having -- and then getting 13 hired a few days after he walked out, and there was 14 just some concerns, because he was lobbying pretty 15 hard in the European Union to go at glyphosate. 16 Q. Let's take a step back. Dr. Portier was 17 not on the Glyphosate Working Group that came out 18 with the monograph, 19 correct? A. No, if I remember right, he was in a 20 group that decided to make glyphosate part of this 21 latest crop of monographs. 22 exact details. 23 I don't recall the Q. Here's my question. He was not on the 24 group that decided that glyphosate was probably 25 carcinogenic, correct? Golkow Litigation Services Page 409 Confidential 1 2 MR. PRESTES: Objection, asked and answered. 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order A. Yeah, he was not one of the, what do they call them , the Working Group members. 5 Q. 6 A. Y e s . 7 Q. T h a t 's right. Okay. And he was certainly not hired by 8 any law firm before IARC came out with its 9 evaluation that glyphosate was probably 10 carcinogenic, correct? 11 A. He was working for, as an expert witness, 12 on some other, as I said, some other compound for a 13 previous IARC monograph. 14 Q. 15 A. I don't recall which one it was. 16 Q. 17 A. I don't recall. 18 Q. 19 A. It was while he was serving as a What compound? What law firm? We could go back. What year was that? 20 specialist or whatever he was in the IARC monograph 21 he had been employed -- my understanding is he had 22 been employed as an expert witness. 23 24 25 Q. You have no firsthand knowledge of that, do you? A. I gotta go back -- Golkow Litigation Services Page 410 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: 2 Q. Objection. Who told you -- 3 THE REPORTER: 4 MR. PRESTES: Wait. Wait. Objection. We spent the 5 better part of the day asking the witness questions 6 for which he has no firsthand knowledge. 7 what we've done the last ten hours. 8 9 A. Yeah, Q. You don't know if it's true or A. I believe it's true, but I just don't remember where I got i t . 14 15 Okay. not. 12 13 I can't remember where I got that information. 10 11 That's Q. Okay. But you don't know if it's true or not. 16 A. I don't know where I got the information. 17 I can't answer your question. 18 untrue. 19 Q. I don't believe it's On what basis do you believe it's true or 20 untrue? 21 that, have you? You've never investigated the facts of 22 A. Not outside of privileged conversation. 23 Q. 24 25 Did you check to see whatever information you got was accurate? A. I don't recall what the information was Golkow Litigation Services Page 411 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order or where I got it. Golkow Litigation Services Page 412 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 413 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 414 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 415 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 416 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 417 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 418 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 419 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 420 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 421 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 422 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 423 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 424 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 425 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 426 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 427 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order I I I 4 (Exhibit 42 marked for 5 identification: Department of the 6 Interior re S. 3068) 7 Q. I have the full bill here, if you want to 8 take a look at the full bill, but I've marked as 9 Exhibit 2 -- I'm sorry -- Exhibit 42, 114th 10 Congress, Second Session, Report 114-281, II Department of the Interior, Environment and Related 12 Agencies Appropriations Bill, and it is dated, 13 total obligations for the fiscal year 2017, and the 14 page -- there's a Table of Contents, and the page 15 that is attached to the email is the third page of 16 this document, which is page 68 of the larger bill. 17 If you want to see the larger bill, 18 to give that to you. 19 I'll be happy A. No, just confirm for me that page 68 is 20 in a final bill, or is this just committee 21 language? 22 I just wasn't sure. Q. Well, what does this bill say here? 23 Right? 24 Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. 25 Department of Interior, Environment and It reads: "The Committee on Appropriations Golkow Litigation Services Page 428 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 reports the bill S. 3068 making 2 appropriations for the Department 3 of the Interior, Environment and 4 Related Agencies for the fiscal 5 year ending September 30th, 2017 6 and for other purpose reports 7 favorably thereon and recommends 8 that the bill do pass." 9 A. Okay. So this is a committee report. 10 Q. 11 A. Well, they're not -- they're coming out Right, passing on legislation. 12 of a committee. 13 with this, but I just wanted to confirm in your 14 bigger version this page 68 from the email is page 15 68 from the bigger version. 16 wanted to check. 17 Q. 18 They're not passing legislation That's all. I just Thanks. I've turned it to page 68, but you can look -- 19 A. Yeah, that looks like the same. 20 Q. Okay. Thanks. So what's attached to the ema i1, 21 Exhibit 4C , that you were sent was the page from 22 Exhibit 42 . 23 A. It appears to be the page from a 24 committee markup of a appropriations bill. 25 Q. And the paragraph is entitled, Golkow Litigation Services Page 429 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 "Glyphosate Reregistration." 2 aware that the agency is currently in the process 3 of reviewing the registration for glyphosate, which 4 is a very important crop product tool for America's 5 farmers." "The committee is 6 A. Protection tool, yes. 7 Q. Very important -- thank you -- crop 8 9 protection tool for America's Farmers. "Furthermore, glyphosate has been 10 used for decades, and, when 11 properly applied, has been found to 12 present a low risk to humans and 13 wildlife by regulatory bodies 14 around the world, 15 Australia, 16 Union, Japan, and by the joint 17 FAO/WHO meeting on pesticide 18 residues. 19 agency to complete its re- 20 registration of glyphosate 21 expeditiously." including Canada, the European The committee urges the 22 Do you see that? 23 A. I do. 24 Q. And that's totally gratuitous language 25 that is articulating Monsanto's position, Golkow Litigation Services is it Page 430 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order not? 2 A. My understanding of these types of 3 markups is it's a way that committees communicate 4 with different agencies where they're not giving 5 them direction or legislation, but they're 6 expressing some of their concerns, and they have 7 got long lists of these types of things that the 8 agencies will look at when those bills ultimately 9 go through the Congress, if they ever do. 10 Q. And this is Monsanto's position, right? 11 A. I don't know whose position this 12 13 14 15 mean, is. I it represents -­ Q. Well, according -­ MR. PRESTES: Let the witness finish. A. It certainly represents something 16 Monsanto in my experience would agree with, that 17 glyphosate, 18 important crop protection tool, but I, as I said, I 19 don't know where this language came from or who 20 proposed it. 21 for instance, glyphosate is a very I tried to - - I talked to our government 22 affairs people, because I wanted to be ready for 23 the deposition, and I wanted to understand if 24 anyone from Monsanto was involved in this, and I 25 could not identify anyone that was the source of Golkow Litigation Services Page 431 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order this language. 2 Q. Doesn't mean it wasn't Mike Holland or 3 someone else from Monsanto. 4 you hired, reported that in realtime, right? 5 6 Kristina Moore, who A. She became aware of it and reported it to me, but she's not the source of it either. 7 Q. who is the source? 8 A. That's what I'm saying. 9 identify where it came from. I couldn't I did try and I 10 talked to a fair number of people, and I couldn't 11 locate anyone that had any involvement in this. 12 13 q . Have you heard of something called the laugh test? 14 MR. PRESTES: 15 Jerry, we have now been going -­ 16 MR. KRISTAL: 17 18 MR. PRESTES: Objection, argumentative. I 'm on the last document. -- long over an hour. Okay. 19 A. Is that number -- which number? 20 Q. 41. 21 MR. PRESTES: Is it going to be quick or 22 should we take 23 for like another hour 20. 24 25 a break? MR. KRISTAL: Because we've been going I think it will be fairly quick. Golkow Litigation Services Page 432 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 433 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 434 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 435 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 436 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 437 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order Golkow Litigation Services Page 438 Confidential 19 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. KRISTAL: Those are all I have, 20 subject to counsel's questions. 21 Mr. Rands. 22 been a long day for both of us. 23 24 25 Thank you, I didn't mean to get testy. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. PRESTES: Let's take five. It's just No, no offense taken. Golkow Litigation Services Page 439 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 VIDEO SPECIALIST: 2 We're going off the record. 3 (Proceedings recessed) 4 VIDEO SPECIALIST: 5 8 9 The time is 7:05 p.m., and we're back on the record. 6 7 The time is 6:54 p.m. EXAMINATION BY MR. PRESTES: Q. Good evening, Mr. Rands. Brian Prestes. We've met before. My name is After a long day 10 of questioning by Mr. Kristal, who represents the 11 plaintiffs, 12 for you. I have just a few follow-up questions Okay? 13 A. Sure. 14 q 15 . I'd like to start with just a few questions about your personal background. 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. Where 18 A. We moved around a lot. Okay? are you originally from? I've lived in 19 New Jersey and Texas and California, but really 20 grew up in the northern Virginia area outside of 21 Washington, D.C. 22 q . where did you go toschool? 23 A. High school, went to high school in 24 northern Virginia called Oakton High School, 25 suburbs of Washington, D.C., and for college I went Golkow Litigation Services in the Page 440 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 out to Brigham Young University for my undergrad, 2 and then got married, 3 during my undergrad days. 4 school and went down to University of Texas at 5 Houston to the MD Anderson Cancer Center down there 6 and worked for several years as a graduate student. 7 started having some kids And then we went to grad And then at some point I had an opportunity 8 to go in-house at a patent law firm and start using 9 the science that I was learning to work on IP and 10 patents and decided to leave my graduate program 11 and become more of a full-time patent agent at that 12 time. 13 Q. And how did you decide to go to law 14 school, or is that what you're describing when you 15 refer to becoming a patent agent? 16 a . Well, the patent agent was the transition 17 from science to something that supported lawyers. 18 That's what patent agents do. 19 scientific expertise. 20 general science, biotechnology, 21 from one project to another with different clients 22 that were in technology areas. 23 They use their And I really enjoyed just and enjoyed jumping And what I decided to do is I was working 24 there at the law firm in that capacity, they 25 offered to send me to law school and become a full Golkow Litigation Services Page 441 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 patent attorney. 2 that at night while I worked full-time during the 3 day. So I took the opportunity to do 4 Q. 5 A. Yes, married. 6 Q. 7 10 You mentioned kids. A. We actually have eight kids, two stepchildren from my wife's prior marriage, and six of - - six kids from my own. 11 Q. 12 A. Yeah, 13 We have, between us, You couldn't go for the full baseball team? A. It was close, yeah. I have to fill in from time to time. 18 Q. 19 Monsanto? 20 21 it's a mix. MR. KRISTAL: 16 17 Boys, girls, mix? four girls total and four boys total. 14 15 How many kids do you have? 8 9 Are you married? And remind the jury. When did you join When did you first join? A. 2004. I believe that was September of 2004 . 22 Q. 23 Monsanto? And how did you end up working at 24 A. Actually I ended up working for Monsanto 25 as - - they were a client of the first firm where I Golkow Litigation Services Page 442 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 worked with their biotechnology crops at the time 2 that were part of the docket there. 3 some lawsuits involving corn crops and things that 4 the firm was handling with some of their 5 competitors. 6 And there were So we got to know Monsanto and I got to know 7 some of the IP attorneys back then. And then a 8 position came open, and they called me and asked if 9 I'd be interested in applying for it. 10 Q. And you applied and you got the job. 11 A. Yes. 12 q Yeah, that's right. . Now Mr. Kristal for the plaintiffs asked 13 you some questions about Monsanto's outreach to 14 members of Congress. that? Do you recall 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Does Monsanto sometimes reach out to 17 elected representatives in government likemembers 18 of Congress? 19 A. Yeah, we have staff here in D.C. that 20 spend, 21 Hill and meeting with members of Congress, talking 22 to them aboutvarious 23 24 25 I think, most days working in the Capitol issues. Q. Why would Monsanto reach out to members of Congress? A. There's a couple of different reasons I Golkow Litigation Services Page 443 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 guess we might do that. We often have issues 2 affecting our business. Because we're in a highly 3 regulated industry, there's often new policy 4 initiatives that we see from different sources that 5 will affect our business, and we want to talk to 6 our elected officials about those policies and how 7 we feel about them. 8 9 Many times they have questions for us and we have to go in and address them. When we were 10 merging with Bayer or actually when Bayer was 11 acquiring Monsanto, we would go in and talk to a 12 lot of members of Congress about the status of that 13 acquisition, 14 certain districts. 15 what itmeans, how it might impact So they -- they wanted information, and they 16 expected the company to come in and talk to them 17 about that, or they were getting questions from 18 their constituents or other groups and they needed 19 more information. 20 do that. 21 22 23 24 25 Those are some of the reasons we Q. what sorts of information does Monsanto provide when it'sengaging with MR. KRISTAL: Congress? Objection -­ Q. Members of Congress. MR. KRISTAL: Golkow Litigation Services -- vague. Page 444 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order A. The information that we provide usually 2 relates to, you know, a current legislative 3 initiative and how it may impact our company or our 4 industry or others, 5 our customers are going to be impacted. 6 come in with statistics or other historical context 7 or, you know, just different information to help 8 the policymakers understand the impact of what 9 they're doing on the rest of America, 10 like farmers, that we feel like So we'll so to speak. And then a lot of times they wanted 11 information about what we were doing in their 12 districts. 13 about our company, 14 employees we had, what 15 if we had initiatives to expand R&D, they would be 16 interested in that kind of information as well. 17 So we would come in with information its operations, how many our growth plans might be. Q. In your experience is it unusual for 18 companies to reach out 19 and other public officials in the 20 described? 21 22 MR. KRISTAL: a to elected representatives Objection, way you just foundation. . In my experience, when we're working in 23 Capitol Hill and reaching out and meeting with 24 members of Congress, we're usually running into 25 other companies, we're running into busloads of Golkow Litigation Services Page 445 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 people coming in from around the country to come 2 see different members of Congress, and they 3 represent all sides of every political issue that 4 you could ever imagine. 5 are constantly full of people who are coming in to 6 meet with members of Congress. 7 Q. Now Mr. Kristal for the plaintiffs asked 8 you some questions about 9 that? 10 11 12 So it seems that the halls a . Yeah, IARC. Do you remember I remember he was asking me about IARC, yes. Q. Has Monsanto made its public -- made 13 public its position on IARC's classification of 14 glyphosate? 15 16 17 A. Yes, I think Monsanto has been pretty clear about its position on that. Q. And I think by this time in the trial the 18 jury will have heard that Monsanto disagrees with 19 IARC's classification ofglyphosate as 20 or possible human carcinogen. 21 22 23 24 25 Let me ask you this. its position with respect MR. KRISTAL: a probable Why did Monsanto make to IARC public? Objection to the form of the question. A. Monsanto truly believed the decision was Golkow Litigation Services Page 446 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 wrong and it was impacting how people were viewing 2 our company. 3 stories and misinformation, mischaracterizing our 4 company, our products, and we felt like we needed 5 to help people understand the facts around what 6 IARC did and what we believed about the situation 7 so that people would have full context. 8 9 We were seeing a lot of negative And it wouldn't just be the pronouncements of IARC and nothing else that, you know, along with 10 the lawyer advertisements and, you know, some of 11 the other PR that was going on, on the other side 12 of the issue that seemed to be dominating the 13 media, we felt very much like we needed to be out 14 there as well telling our story. 15 Q. In your experience was the information 16 that Monsanto communicated to the public about 17 IARC's classification of glyphosate accurate? 18 MR. KRISTAL: 19 Objection, foundation. A. Yes, I believe we were communicating 20 accurate information, and the teams worked pretty 21 hard to make sure that that was what we were 22 working with when we provided information to 23 people. 24 25 Q. Mr. Kristal asked you some questions about a letter or a draft of a letter to Golkow Litigation Services Page 447 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Representative Aderholt. 2 questions? Do you recall those 3 A. Yeah, generally I recall them. 4 Q. You edited a draft of a letter formatted 5 as a letter to Francis Collins at NIH that 6 Mr. Kristal 7 deposition.Do you recall that? marked as Exhibit 38 toyour 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. why are you, Todd Rands, at Monsanto 10 providing a draftletter to 11 Aderholt? 12 a 13 Q. Did you Representative . He asked for it. have any reason to think that 14 Roundup and the data regarding Roundup and its 15 safety would be of legitimate interest to 16 Representative Aderholt? 17 18 MR. KRISTAL: Objection, form. A. In the meeting we had with Representative 19 Aderholt he expressed concerns because he 20 represents a largely agricultural district. 21 think it's mostly cotton growers that live in his 22 district. 23 of glyphosate and its status in this process. 24 Q. Is it common for a representative's 25 office to ask for a draft letter in the format that I And they were very tuned into the impact Golkow Litigation Services Page 448 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order we saw in Exhibit 38? 2 MR. KRISTAL: 3 A. Yeah, 4 Objection, foundation. I -- as I think I mentioned -­ Q. In your experience. 5 A. -- as I mentioned in the course of our 6 earlier questions, it was something that was common 7 in the work that I had done, and, as I talked to 8 others, 9 as well to provide information in the form of a I learned it was common in other instances 10 letter when you are asking senators to look into an 11 issue and they needed information and they wanted 12 to understand exactly what you were asking of their 13 office. 14 q . And are members of the public free to 15 reach out to their representatives 16 draft letters? and provide them 17 A. Yes, anyone can do that. 18 Q. And including the plaintiffs and their 19 20 lawyers? A. Yeah. We ran into the plaintiff lawyers. 21 As I said, folks on the other side of the political 22 spectrum,the environmental lobby 23 that were very much in opposition to glyphosate 24 were in many of the 25 focus more on theDemocrat Golkow Litigation Services groups and others same offices. side They tended to of the aisle, but Page 449 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order they were doing many of the same things, yes. 2 Q. Did the draft letter to Representative 3 Aderholt say anything that you believed to be 4 untrue? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did representative -- let me ask you 7 this, because I'm not sure it ever came out 8 clearly. 9 Mr. Collins at the NIH the letter that FTI drafted 10 11 and that you reviewed and revised? A. No. 12 13 14 Did Representative Aderholt send to MR. KRISTAL: Objection, foundation. A. No, Representative Aderholt wrote his own letter. 15 Q. 16 A. The final letter that came out was very 17 18 And how do you know that? different than anything we had sent him. Q. You were shown a number of documents over 19 the course of today's long deposition by 20 Mr. Kristal, 21 seen a number of documents today? 22 number roughly 40. including -- you recall that you've 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. 25 I think they You saw some documents that you didn't send and that you didn't receive -- Golkow Litigation Services Page 450 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. 3 A. Y e s . 4 Q. 5 -- correct? You saw some documents that, on which you d o n 't appear anywhere, didn't y o u . 6 MR. KRISTAL: Objection, 7 A. Yes, that's correct. 8 Q. 9 10 form. Did you see any documents that you had never seen before in your life until today at this deposition? 11 A. Y e s . 12 Q. Did you see some documents today at your 13 deposition that were dated before you even worked 14 at Monsanto? 15 A. Yeah, 16 were that o l d . 17 Q. I believe there were a few that Mr. Kristal also asked you some questions 18 about documents you saw in your preparation for 19 this deposition and asked you whether you saw 20 depositions in your -- excuse me -- you saw 21 documents in your deposition preparation that you 22 had never seen before. 23 questions ■? 24 A. Yes, 25 Q. Do you remember those I do. Mr. Rands, Golkow Litigation Services just because you saw a Page 451 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 document in your deposition prep for the first 2 time, does that mean you know the context 3 surrounding that document? 4 MR. KRISTAL: 5 Objection, form. A. No, I think I made it clear that I didn't 6 disregard those documents, but I certainly didn't 7 know the context for things that I didn't create or 8 receive or hadn't been involved in. 9 Q. And did you -- do you or did you feel 10 competent to testify about a document just because 11 you saw it in your deposition preparation? 12 a . No, not -- not having any personal 13 knowledge of some of those things, 14 what I can really say about it. 15 it restricts Q. Mr. Kristal also asked you some questions 16 about the safety of Roundup and whether it can 17 cause cancer. 18 19 MR. KRISTAL: 22 Objection. I don't think I asked those at all. 20 21 Do you recallthat? a . I don't recall the safety questions, q . Let me rephrase it. but ... Mr. Kristal asked 23 you some questions about IARC's determination with 24 respect to the relationship between Roundup and -­ 25 or, excuse me -- glyphosate and cancer. Golkow Litigation Services Do you Page 452 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order recall that? 2 A. Yes, we had some questions about that. 3 Q. Now while you were at Monsanto, was it 4 your role to conduct scientific research on Roundup 5 or glyphosate? 6 A. No, I never had any scientific roles at 7 Monsanto at a l l . 8 Q. 9 Were you employed as a -- you weren't employed as a scientist at Monsanto. 10 A. No. 11 Q. No, I wasn't. Are there others at Monsanto who are 12 scientists who are responsible for examining the 13 safety of Roundup and glyphosate? 14 A. I believe so, yes. 15 Q. 16 in the United States? 17 18 A. My understanding i t 's been out for over 40 years, maybe in the '70s that it launched. 19 20 Q. A. We use it pretty frequently on the sidewalks and driveways to control weeds, yes. 23 24 25 Have you personally, at your own house, like in your lawn or garden, ever used Roundup? 21 22 How long has Roundup been on the market Q. kids. And I know you mentioned you have eight Do any of your kids ever use it? A. Some of my older boys have used it when Golkow Litigation Services Page 453 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 they're doing yard work, but the girls haven't done 2 as much yard work so they don't use it as much. 3 Q. Do you or your kids wear what I'm going 4 to refer to as personal protective equipment like 5 hoods or gloves or masks when you use Roundup 6 around the house? 7 8 A. No, we don't do that in our house or yard. 9 MR. KRISTAL: You're not talking about 10 using Roundup in your house, are you? 11 your question, was 12 13 a it? . Around our house I should have said. Apologies. 14 15 That wasn't MR. KRISTAL: I thought the question was in the house too. 16 Q. Let me 17 a 18 Q. Do you rephrase. . Yeah. or your kids use personal 19 protective equipment like hoods or gloves or masks 20 when you use Roundup around your house? 21 A. No, we 22 don't. MR. PRESTES: Just a final housekeeping 23 matter. As I said at the outset, this is -- we're 24 designating the transcript as confidential, pending 25 our -- under the protective order, pending our Golkow Litigation Services Page 454 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 further review. 2 deposition of in-house former -- now former 3 in-house lawyer at Monsanto, we're not waiving any 4 privilege or work-product protection. 5 to review the transcript to make sure there aren't 6 any privilege or confidentiality issues. 7 back to you, 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 We're going We'll get if there's an issue. MR. KRISTAL: I would think nothing less than that would happen. 10 11 And, again, because this is a EXAMINATION (resumed) BY MR. KRISTAL: Q. I have a couple of questions in follow-up. When was the last time any of your boys used Roundup around the house? a . They're all at college now, so it's 17 probably been -- see, the last one -- maybe about 18 two years ago. 19 Q. And how old was he at the time? 20 a 21 Q. And when you say around the house, was he 22 using it right out of the bottle, the spray bottles 23 that you get from lawn and garden? 24 concentrate with 25 . 17. Was he mixing a backpack sprayer? A. We usually buy the gallon jugs that have Golkow Litigation Services Page 455 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 the little twirly cable with the trigger on the end 2 of i t . Those are the ones we use around the house. 3 Q. Pump-N-Go? 4 A. It's not a Pump-N-Go. It has a battery 5 that -- or maybe it's a trigger that -- no, it's a 6 battery with a wand on it, yeah. Sorry. 7 Q. And where is the Roundup applied? 8 did your 17-year-old son apply the Roundup? 9 A. On the sidewalks and the driveway. Where We 10 have these cracks where several times during the 11 season these weeds come up. 12 Q. Okay. So if I'm understanding you, you 13 don't have a big yard with a lot of vegetation or 14 flower gardens? 15 sidewalk and cracks in the driveway? You're talking about cracks in the 16 A. Yeah, 17 Q. Okay.And that's whatyou're talking 18 that's right. about, the personal use of Roundup? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Did your son wear shorts and a tee shirt 21 22 when he was doing this? a . Yeah, in the summer he would typically be 23 in shorts and a tee shirt. 24 specific instances what he was wearing, though. 25 I don't remember the Q. what would you tell him to do if he had Golkow Litigation Services Page 456 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Roundup spill on his shirt while he was doing this? 2 Just keep doing it, not change his shirt 3 immediately, not wash? 4 5 A. I would just tell him to change his shirt once he was done. 6 Q. when it's all done? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And you would take his mixed, 9 soaked shirt and just throw it in with the other laundry? 10 a 11 Q. And what other child used -- has that 12 .Yes. ever happened? 13 A. Not that I know 14 q 15 . Okay. of. What other child has used the Roundup on the cracks in the sidewalk? 16 A. My other two sons. They're older, so 17 it's been a little longer, but we've used Roundup 18 around our house every year. 19 20 Q. Okay. about five, ten minutes to do all this work? 21 A. Yeah, 22 to 15 minutes, 23 around. 24 25 And sounds like it would take I would say something like that, 10 if they were going all the way Q. Do you know what percent glyphosate was in the mix? Is that the Golkow Litigation Services 2 percent? Page 457 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A. No, I don't know. 2 Q. 3 You were certainly not mixing the concentrate with water. 4 A. Yeah. 5 Q. Okay. You bought it ready-mixed? I've never mixed concentrate. And how often would this be 6 applied on the cracks in the driveway and the 7 sidewalk? 8 A. Every couple of weeks. 9 Q. And have you ever told your children that 10 this international body of experts has determined 11 that glyphosate could cause cancer? 12 A. I've talked to them generally about some 13 of the work I do, and it's come up in that context, 14 but it's not something that they're very interested 15 in. We haven't talked about it extensively. 16 Q. Okay. And you don't think you need to do 17 anything whatsoever to make sure they don't get 18 soaked in Roundup? 19 20 A. No. I'm not worried about our household exposures • 21 Q. 22 A. I don't think it's dangerous. 23 Q. 24 25 Why is that? And you haven't studied the science, right? A. I trust that the regulators have looked Golkow Litigation Services Page 458 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 at it extensively and it's safe for our use around 2 the house the way we're doing it. 3 4 Q. Does the label say anything about not getting it on your skin or your clothes? 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q. You haven't read the label? 7 A. I haven't read the label. 8 Q. You've never read the Roundup label? 9 A. No. 10 I haven't -­ Q. If the Roundup label said an 11 international agency has determined this could 12 cause cancer, would you still use it? 13 A. If the regulator said it was safe to use. 14 Q. Okay. If it said wear gloves, don't get 15 it on your skin, wash immediately, would you do 16 that if it said that on the label? 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. With some harsher chemicals I've done that, like some cleaning-type chemicals. Q. I'm asking if you would do it with Roundup if it said that on the label? A. Oh, I don't -­ MR. PRESTES: Objection to the hypothetical. 24 A. Yeah, 25 Q. So are you telling us that your children I don't know what the label says. Golkow Litigation Services Page 459 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 are using Roundup without having read the label, 2 either you or they? 3 A. Yes, that's correct. 4 Q. When you said you believed the 5 information that Monsanto was providing about the 6 safety of glyphosate was accurate, you said that a 7 few minutes ago; is that your understanding? 8 A. Y e s . 9 Q. You don't know, but you also admitted you 10 don't know the science, you've never studied the 11 science, you've never looked into the issue, 12 correct? 13 A. Right, 14 Q. 15 A. I trusted the people that -- who have 16 17 18 I trusted others who -- Right, you're taking it on faith. that job at Monsanto. Q. Okay. But you're not basing it on your own review of the scientific literature. 19 A. T h a t 's correct. 20 Q. Okay. You mentioned that Monsanto was 21 interested in interfacing with members of Congress 22 on the impact of what they were doing, the members 23 of Congress, on the rest of America. 24 you said? 25 A. Yeah, Is that what I used that term to refer to other Golkow Litigation Services Page 460 Confidential 1 groups, 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order farmers, people in their home districts. Q. But your primary interest was the impact of what they were doing on Monsanto, 4 right? A. No, actually we were there to answer 5 their questions because they were worried. 6 got questions about the issues from others. 7 think that's what I was talking about when I said 8 that. 9 Q. Are you saying -- I'm sorry. They I Are you 10 saying that you never spoke with members of 11 Congress about issues that were of interest to 12 Monsanto? 13 A. Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Yeah, 14 I -- I thought you were referring to my quote about 15 the rest of America -­ 16 Q. Right. 17 18 A. -- which is different than what we were doing when we were in their offices at times. 19 So, yes, we would go in and we would be 20 talking to them about issues that impacted our 21 company that we cared about. 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. That's true. You said you ran into plaintiffs lawyers on Capitol Hill? a . They have been up there a few times doing different activities. Golkow Litigation Services Page 461 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Q. Lawyers involving Roundup? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. When? 4 A. I remember they did a tour or some type 5 of press briefing, 6 from Oregon, and they had a few -- they basically 7 called all the media in and treated it sort of like 8 a hearing and then presented all the facts. 9 think Kerry Gillam might have been there as well. 10 I believe it was with a senator I And then there was another instance right 11 before the hearing in the science committee that we 12 learned that they had been going around to all of 13 the Democratic members at that time in the minority 14 and briefing members of Congress on the issues. 15 16 Q. When you said you learned that, somebody told you that? 17 a 18 Q. who told you that? 19 A. From the committee staff to one of our 20 21 22 23 24 25 . Yes, somebody told me that from the -­ consultants, I believe. Q. So have you ever seen somebody that you could identify as a plaintiffs' lawyer? A. No, I wouldn't be able to pick them out, that's true. Q. Okay. So you have no personal knowledge Golkow Litigation Services Page 462 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 as to whether or not plaintiffs' 2 Capitol Hill or not. 3 4 5 MR. PRESTES: lawyers were on Objection, mischaracterizes the testimony. A. No, I think, as I said, it's the things 6 that I learned from people who saw them or heard of 7 their activities there. 8 9 10 11 Q. Okay. You mentioned that Monsanto was concerned when the IARC evaluation came out about lawyers' ads. Did you saythat? A. Yeah, I don't remember what context I was 12 talking about lawyers' ads, but there were 13 certainly a lot of lawyer ads that were impacting 14 people's attitudes about our 15 that the just sheer volume of lawyer advertisements 16 was causing some harm to our reputation. 17 company. We found Q. But we saw a number of different plans 18 that talked about Monsanto orchestrating outcry 19 before IARC's decision was even rendered, correct? 20 MR. PRESTES: Object to the foundation. 21 Q. Well, we saw that, didn't we? 22 a 23 24 25 . You showed me some documents that I wasn't involved in that used that term, yes. q . Right. And that was before the IARC evaluation had been publicly announced, correct? Golkow Litigation Services Page 463 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PRESTES: Same objection. A. The timing of that sounded like it was 3 sort of in the weeks leading up to the formal 4 announcement. 5 Q. 6 A. They were anticipating that something was 7 8 9 10 11 going to come out, yes. Q. 14 15 Right. There certainly were no lawyers' ads that the orchestration of outcry was addressing, correct? A. Oh, I see your -- 12 13 Meaning it was before. MR. PRESTES: A. Yeah, Objection, I see your point. foundation. The lawyers' ads came later, that's true. Q. The cotton growers in Representative 16 Aderholt's district, do you think, 17 does cause cancer, they would want to know that? 18 19 20 MR. PRESTES: if glyphosate Objection, you're asking him to speculate, an improper hypothetical. A. I think farmers generally are concerned 21 about the safety of their products and they want to 22 know the information they need to know in order to 23 run their farms, yes. 24 25 Q. Okay. And certainly to protect themselves and their families or at least make the Golkow Litigation Services Page 464 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 choice about what dangers they may want to 2 encounter, 3 correct? MR. PRESTES: Same objection. 4 A. Again, that's -- yeah, that's the 5 function of the regulatory agencies that make sure 6 that the information that's necessary is provided 7 for the safe use of the products, yes. 8 9 Q. Last question. On the eight-person baseball team, which position is left out? 10 A. Thank you. No, I don't know. 11 every night. 12 the night and hope they're all there. 13 14 You just count them up at the end of Q. Make sure you get an even number and it's between seven and nine. 15 16 It changes A. We've lost a lot of sleep over the years, let's just say that. 17 MR. KRISTAL: Thank you for your time. I 18 have no further questions subject to any further 19 questions. 20 MR. PRESTES: Nothing further. 21 MR. KRISTAL: Thank you. 22 VIDEO SPECIALIST: The time is 7:33 p.m. 23 February 12, 2019, going off the record, 24 the videotaped deposition. 25 // Golkow Litigation Services concluding Page 465 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 2 3 // 4 'The deposition of TODD RANDS adjourned 5 at 7:33 p.m. 6 // 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 466 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEPONENT 2 3 I, TODD RANDS, do hereby acknowledge that 4 I have read and examined the foregoing testimony 5 and that the same is a true, correct and complete 6 transcription of the testimony given by me, with 7 the exception of the noted corrections, 8 appearing on the attached errata page(s). 9 10 if any, __________ ______________________________ DATE TODD RANDS 11 12 13 Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of 14 ______________________ , 20_____ 15 _____________________________________ 16 My Commission expires: ________________________ . (Notary Public) 17 18 19 20 [SEAL] 21 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 467 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, LINDA S. KINKADE, Registered Diplomate 4 Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, Registered 5 Merit Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter, and 6 Notary Public, do hereby certify that prior to the 7 commencement of examination the deponent herein was 8 duly sworn by me to testify truthfully under 9 penalty of perjury. 10 i FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is a 11 true and accurate transcript of the proceedings as 12 reported by me stenographically 13 ability. 14 to the best of my i FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel 15 for nor related to nor employed by any of the 16 parties to this case and have no interest, 17 financial or otherwise, 18 in in its outcome. WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 19 hand and affixed my notarial seal this 17th day of 20 February 2019. 21 My commission expires July 31, 2022. 22 23 _________________________________ 24 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR 25 THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Golkow Litigation Services Page 468 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 WITNESS ERRATA SHEET 2 R E F . NO . 207606 3 NAME OF CASE: In re : Roundup Products Liability 4 Litigation 5 DATE OF DEPOSITION: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 6 PLEASE INSERT REASON FOR CHANGE: 7 8 9 Page 10 From 11 Page 12 From 13 Page 14 From 15 Page 16 From 17 Page 18 From 19 Page 20 From Page 1 of 1. To clarify the record. 2. To conform to the facts. 3. To correct a transcription error. Reason No. Line to Reason No. Line to Reason No. Line to Reason No. Line to Reason No. Line to Reason No. Line to 21 22 23 SIGNED: 24 (Signature of TODD RANDS) DATE : 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 469