Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE N O R THERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 4 -------------------------------- X 5 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS ) MDL No. 6 LIABILITY LITIGATION ) 7 ) 8 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ) 9 ALL ACTIONS ) 10 02741 -------------------------------- x 11 12 C O N F I D E N T I A L 13 PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 15 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL MURPHEY 16 (IN HIS 30(b)(6) CAPACITY FOR MONSANTO COMPANY 17 AND IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY) 18 WASHINGTON, D.C. 19 TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2019 20 8:56 A.M. 21 22 23 24 Pages: 1 - 409 25 Reported by: Leslie A. Todd Golkow Litigation Services Page 1 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order Deposition of SAMUEL MURPHEY, held at the offices of: 3 4 5 HOLLINGSWORTH, LLP 6 1350 I Street, N.W. 7 Washington, DC 20005 8 9 10 11 12 13 Pursuant to notice, before Leslie Anne Todd, 14 Court Reporter and N otary Public in and for the 15 District of Columbia, 16 administering the oath to the witness. who officiated in 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services 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 PEDRAM ESFANDIARY, 5 BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI GOLDMAN, 6 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 7 Los Angeles, 8 (310) ESQUIRE PC 17th Floor California 90024 820-6252 9 10 JERRY KRISTAL, 11 WEITZ & LUXENBERG, 12 220 Lake Drive East, 13 Cherry Hill, 14 (856) ESQUIRE P.C. Suite 210 New Jersey 08002 755-1115 15 16 ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS: 17 DANIEL S. PARISER, 18 JAYCE BORN, 19 ARNOLD & PORTER, 20 601 Massachusetts Avenue, 21 Washington, 22 (202) ESQUIRE ESQUIRE LLP NW DC 20001-3743 942-6216 23 24 25 ALSO PRESENT: DANIEL H O L M S T O C K Golkow Litigation Services (Videographer) Page 3 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 2 C O N T E N T S EXAMINATION OF SAMUEL MURPHEY 3 By Mr . Esfandiary 4 By Mr . Pariser PAGE 11, 397 376 5 6 7 E X H I B I T S 8 9 10 (Attached to transcript) MURPHEY DEPOSITION EXHIBITS No. 1 PAGE Plaintiff's Amended Notice to 11 Take the Videot a p e d Deposition of 12 Monsanto Company 13 16 13 No. 2 LinkedIn profile of Samuel Murphey 14 No. 3 E-mail string re Sam Murphey, 15 16 MONGLY09572248 to 09572253 No. 4 17 18 25 IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans No. 5 check, 20 12199706 No. 6 Bates MONGLY12199705 to 42 Article entitled "Glyphosate War 22 Stirs Chemical Storm," p u b l ished in 23 Farm Journal's AgPro 24 25 No. 7 38 E-mail string re EOD Media quote 19 21 Bates E-mail re IARC materials, MONGLY04773726 Golkow Litigation Services 55 Bates 73 Page 4 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order E X H I B I T S 2 C O N T I N U E D (Attached to transcript) 3 MURPHEY DEPOSITION EXHIBITS 4 No. 8 5 6 E-mail string re IARC Outreach, Bates MONGLY02063920 to 02063728 No. 9 IARC Follow Up, 7 of Glyphosate, 8 to 03316371 9 No. 10 messaging, 11 01021711 No. 11 134 Issues Plan, Farm Aid/Neil Young, 14 MONGLY00866643 12 Bates MONGLY03316369 Bates MONGLY01021708 to Draft No. Demonstrate Safety 124 13 15 - u p dated 9/16/15, Bates to 00866652 reach out to...to defend glyphosate 17 in the media, No. 13 19 20 14 22 08162388 15 158 E-mail string re FY17 EU IARC Budget/Exp, No. 156 E-mail re Draft OP Ed material, 21 23 Bates MONGLY01021378 Bates MONGLY00948216 to 00948223 No. 141 E-mail re Experts that PA/CE could 16 18 92 E-mail re Revised IARC reactive 10 12 PAGE Bates MONGLY08162384 to 179 E-mail string re Glyphosate 24 litigation messaging, 25 03315608 to 03315609 Golkow Litigation Services Bates MONGLY 195 Page 5 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order E X H I B I T S 2 C O N T I N U E D (Attached to transcript) 3 MURPHEY DEPOSITION EXHIBITS 4 No. 16 E-mail string re Minute L&G Outreach 5 Workshop, 6 06721023 7 No. 17 Bates MONGLY06721006 to 204 E-mail string re Glyphosate regional 8 issues support 9 03398169 to 03398171 10 No. 18 PAGE - 2016, Bates MONGLY 215 E-mail string re A c t i o n Required - 11 2016 End of Year Results due July 18, 12 Bates MONGLY03460238 to 03460239, 13 with attachment 14 No. 19 15 16 E-mail string re Germany outreach, Bates MONGLY03487960 to 03487967 No. 20 proposal 18 03491019 to 03491026 No. 21 231 E-mail string re Sharing FH 17 19 223 in Europe, Bates MONGLY 232 E-mail string re Political Outreach - 20 Phase II, Bates MONGLY05600811 to 21 05600813, with attachment 22 No. 22 (Exhibit not used/not attached.) 23 No. 23 E-mail string re Urgent need of 24 details on Glyphosate, 25 03550810 to 03550815 Golkow Litigation Services 241 243 Bates MONGLY 244 Page 6 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order E X H I B I T S 2 C O N T I N U E D (Attached to transcript) 3 MURPHEY DEPOSITION EXHIBITS 4 No. 24 5 6 No. 25 No. 26 E-mail string re EPA talking points, Document with Bates MONGLY12235354 No. 27 E-mail string re Draft talking points on SAP, No. 28 266 Bates MONGLY08174136 Report: 14 Organisation's critical challenge 15 healing itself, 16 to 03381570 No. 29 The World Health 19 Bates MONGLY07673376 to 07673377 30 21 22 23 31 289 E-mail string re NEIM article, Bates MONGLY12167637 to 12167340 No. 284 E-mail string re Heads up -- New England Journal of Medicine op-ed, No. - Bates MONGLY03381565 18 20 276 E-mail string re Reuters Special 13 17 256 to 12235399 11 12 255 Bates MONGLY03343539 to 03343541 9 10 Bates MONGLY03343529 to 03343531 7 8 E-mail re EPA talking points, PAGE 291 E-mail string re EPA statement? Bates MONGLY03402231 to 03402234 296 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 7 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order E X H I B I T S 2 C O N T I N U E D (Attached to transcript) 3 MURPHEY DEPOSITION EXHIBITS 4 No. 32 PAGE E-mail re Talking points for 5 conversation with Gina.docx, 6 Bates MONGLY03550799 to 03550801 7 No. 33 E-mail string re GA Update on US 8 Government Outreach - WHO IARC 9 Clarification on Glyphosate, 10 11 Bates MONGLY03500585 to 03500591 No. 34 311 E-mail string re Glyphosate and 12 Prop 65 - SAM COHEN - DRAFT LETTER, 13 Bates M O N G L Y 03057089-R to 14 03057094-R 15 No. 35 315 E-mail string re Urgent/Reuters 16 request for comment on a story 17 regarding IARC/glyphosate, 18 MONGLY07574531 to 07574532 19 No. 36 20 21 E-mail re Your voicemail, Bates 320 Bates MONGLY07575511 to 07575517 No. 37 300 Reuters article, 324 "Special Report: 22 Cancer agency left in the dark 23 over glyphosate evidence" 328 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 8 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order E X H I B I T S 2 C O N T I N U E D (Attached to transcript) 3 MURPHEY DEPOSITION EXHIBITS 4 No. 38 Monsanto, Prop 65, PAGE Proposal, 5 29 September 2017, 6 07587243 to 07587248 7 No. 39 8 9 Bates MONGLY11789921 to 11789922 No. 40 E-mail string re Draft letter, pages, 11 03342305 No. 41 E-mail string re Glyphosate DRAFT 14 06365745 to 06365755 42 one- 352 Campaign outline, No. 337 Bates MONGLY03342289 to 13 15 336 E-mail re Draft strategies, 10 12 Bates MONGLY Bates MONGLY 353 E-mail string re IARC Glyphosate 16 M o n o graph Publication, 17 Bates MONGLY00989762 to 00989764 Timeline.pptx, 368 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 9 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order P R O C E E D I N G S 2 -------------------- 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the 4 record. My name is Daniel Holmstock. 5 v i deographer for Golkow Litigation Services. 6 Today's date is January 22nd, 7 8:56 a.m. 8 the law offices of Hollingsworth, 9 I Street, 2019. I am the The time is This video deposition is being held at Northwest, LLP, in Washington, at 1350 D.C., in the 10 matter of In Re Roundup Products Liability 11 Litigation, 12 U nited States District Court for the Northern 13 District. 14 MDL Number 02741, The deponent today is Mr. 15 as a 30(b)(6) 16 Corporation. 17 18 pending before the Sam Murphey, witness representing Monsanto Counsel will be noted on the stenographic record for appearances. 19 The court reporter is Leslie A. Todd, 20 who will now administer the oath. 21 WHEREUPON, 22 SAMUEL MURPHEY, 23 having first been duly sworn, 24 examined and testified as follows: 25 MR. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services was Pedram Esfandiary for Page 10 Confidential 1 plaintiffs. 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Oh, okay. I had you noted on the stenographic record. 4 MR. ESFANDIARY: 5 MR. PARISER: Oh, you did. Before we start, 6 I'm still not getting the Livenote feed. 7 that start up automatically? 8 (Discussion off the record.) 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 10 12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: BY MR. ESFANDIARY: Q Good morning, Mr. Murphey. How are you A Good morning. Q So my name is Pedram Esfandiary . doing? 18 20 The time is 8:59 a.m. EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 16 19 issues.) A n d we're back on the record. 14 17 Will We're going off the record. (Resolving technical 15 Counsel, The time is 8:57 a.m. 11 13 Okay. I'm doing fine, thank you. 21 off the record, 22 plaintiffs in this litigation. 23 this litigation is about? 24 A I do. 25 Q Okay, briefly. great. Golkow Litigation Services We met I'm representing the Do you know what Have you given testimony Page 11 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order previo u s l y in deposition? 2 A I have not. 3 Q This is your first deposition? 4 A It is. 5 Q Okay. So I assume counsel 6 through the various, 7 mechanisms of a deposition. 8 walk you through them again. 9 you know, walked you procedural If you want, But just very briefly, I could this is a 10 question and answer format. 11 question, 12 before you give an answer. Counsel may object 13 throughout the deposition, but I'm entitled to 14 your best answer, 15 answer, 16 So please wait for a and wait until I finish my question unless he instructs you not to and we can have a fight about that. So before we get going here, 17 just like to lay out some prelim i n a r y - 18 prelim i n a r y issues. 19 I would You unders t a n d that you've been 20 p r o f fered here as a witness to testify on behalf 21 of the Monsanto Corporation, 22 A I do. 23 Q Okay. 24 25 And you are currently an employee of the Monsanto Corporation, A Yes, correct? Monsanto, Golkow Litigation Services right? and now Bayer. Page 12 Confidential 1 2 Q Pursuant to Protective Order Bayer. So you are technically an employee of Bayer now, right? 3 A I am. 4 Q I'm going to mark what 5 Exhibit No. 6 1 to your deposition. MR. ESFANDIARY: And 7 (Murphey Exhibit No. 8 for identification.) 9 10 BY MR. will be That's yours. a copy for counsel. 1 was marked ESFANDIARY: Q And this is Plaintiffs' Amended Notice 11 to take the videotaped oral deposition of Monsanto 12 Company. 13 Have you seen this notice before, 14 a Yes, 15 Q Okay. I have. If you would please turn to page 16 number 3, 17 topics for deposition that the Monsanto 18 representative will be testifying about. 19 you'd turn to page number 4, 20 subjects number 18 and 19 there, 21 "Monsanto's knowledge, 22 related to the Let Nothing Go campaign and/or 23 initiatives." 24 25 it's Exhibit A, it identifies various sir, positions, Do you see that, a sir? And if and you look at 18 says, and conduct sir? I do. Golkow Litigation Services Page 13 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order The one below it, No. Q 19, "Monsanto's 2 knowledge, 3 interactions with the media and press related to 4 IARC's classification of GBFs as a probable human 5 carcinogen positions, and conduct related to the " 6 Do you see that? 7 A I do. 8 Q Is it your understanding that you are 9 10 here, able and competent to testify about these two topics ? 11 A Yes, 12 Q On behalf of the Monsanto Corporation, 13 sir. correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Great. So the way we're going to do 16 this, 17 two topics . 18 p r o c e e d to 18, 19 questions 20 your work at the Monsanto Corporation. I'm going to start the deposition with these I'm going to start with topic No. and then I may ask you some in your individual capacity related to 21 A I understand. 22 Q All right. 23 19, MR. PARI S E R : Counsel, 24 are we going to mark the 30(b)(6) 25 deposition completed, Golkow Litigation Services Cool? just to clarify, segment of the and then p r o c e e d to the Page 14 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 separate individual deposition, 2 to handle that? 3 MR. ESFANDIARY: or how do you want I'd rather not do -- we 4 can talk about that maybe during a break, 5 rather not do that at this moment. 6 the deposition unfolds, 7 about that. 8 9 MR. but I'd We'll see how and we can maybe talk PARISER: Okay. about that at the next break. We'll -- we'll talk I just want it to 10 be as clear as possible when the witness is 11 speaking on behalf of the company, 12 his individual capacity. 13 MR. ESFANDIARY: I'll as opposed to -- I'll ask him - 14 if I'm -- I'll form the question to suggest I'm 15 asking him in his individual capacity. 16 BY MR. 17 18 ESFANDIARY: Q All right. How long have you been an employee of the Monsanto Corporation, 19 A Since January of 2013. 20 Q Since 2013. 21 for about, 22 right? 23 24 25 what, Okay. Mr. Murphey? So you've been there it's coming up to four years, A No, sir. Q Six years It would be just over six years Golkow Litigation Services Page 15 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order THE VIDEOGRAPHER: off the record again. MR. 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: ESFANDIARY: Yeah. The time is 9:03 a.m. We're going off the record. 6 (Pause in proceedings.) 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 8 a.m., 9 BY MR. 10 The time is 9:08 and we're back on the record. ESFANDIARY: Q All right, Mr. Murphey, 11 math all b u ngled up there, 12 Monsanto Corporation for six years? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Correct? 15 Exhibit No. Okay. I would like to mark 2 to your deposition. (Murphey Exhibit No. 17 for identification.) BY MR. before I got my so you've been at the 16 18 2 was marked ESFANDIARY: 19 Q 20 LinkedIn page, 21 A Yes, 22 Q Okay. And this is what appears to be your correct, sir? that's right. And if you turn to page 2 of 4, 23 you got your education at Truman State 24 University -- is that upper Missouri? 25 I need to go I'm sorry. 3 5 Counsel, A Yes, sir. Golkow Litigation Services Page 16 Confidential 1 2 Okay. Q arts, Pursuant to Protective Order BA, A n d y o u received a b a c helor of in communication journalism, right? 3 A That's correct. 4 Q In 2006? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q A n d then y o u proceeded to work as a 7 communications director in the office of Governor 8 Jay Nixon of Missouri, correct? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q A n d you did that for two years. 11 did that p o s ition entail? 12 director? 13 A Sure. What's a communication So the communications director in 14 the governor's office oversaw a team of 15 professionals who handled media relations, 16 planning, 17 speeches and remarks. 18 and media liaison for the office. 19 We were kind of the public We have a term for a public relations Q individual 21 works for government. 22 " s p i n doctor"? 23 MR. 24 THE WITNESS: term. event helped the governor with preparation of 20 25 What in the U.K., PARISER: specifically the one that Have you heard of the term Objection to form. I've -- I've heard that I don't think it reflects what I did in the Golkow Litigation Services Page 17 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 governor's office. 2 BY MR. 3 ESFANDIARY: Q So did part of your job entail, 4 governor's office, 5 potent i a l l y negative PR issues, 6 into positive ones for the governor? taking what could be 7 MR. 8 THE WITNESS: 9 at the PARISER: and turning them Objection to form. I -- I think my responsibilities in the governor's office focused 10 on helping develop messaging and communicate his 11 policies and his priorities to the public. 12 BY MR. ESFANDIARY: 13 Q In a positive way, 14 A Sure. ideally? We wanted -- wanted to emphasize 15 the benefits and the good work the governor was 16 doing for the state, 17 his positions. 18 Q while accurately reflecting And if a negative story was to be issued 19 with respect to what the governor is doing in 20 office, 21 turn it into a potent i a l l y positive one for the 22 governor, 23 A part of your job entailed to, essentially, correct? No. I think my -- our focus was more on 24 communicating his p olicy and priorities 25 policies and his priorities in an accurate way, Golkow Litigation Services -- his Page 18 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order that helped advance his agenda for the state. 2 Q 3 So you -MR. PARISER: And, Counsel, just to 4 interrupt for a second, 5 all of these background questions, 6 about his past history are outside the scope of 7 the 30(b)(6) 8 individual capacity. 9 10 and questions So these are all in his regard. MR. BY MR. ESFANDIARY: Q 14 profile there, 15 at Monsanto Company, That's fine. If you turn to page 1 of your LinkedIn and here it identifies your tenure correct? 16 A Yes, 17 Q A n d it says, lead, Sure. ESFANDIARY: 13 18 it does . global external affairs chemistry. 19 A Yes. 20 Q If I could stop right there. 21 22 23 but Can I have a running objection in that 11 12 notice. it should be obvious, Do you have any backgro u n d in the sciences? A No, sir. My degree is in communication and journalism. 24 Q 25 of chemistry, You don't have any independent knowledge correct? Golkow Litigation Services Page 19 Confidential 1 A No. Pursuant to Protective Order My knowledge of the science b ehind 2 our products would come from my conversations with 3 Monsanto scientists. 4 So you would defer to your Monsanto Q 5 colleagues 6 comes to scientific issues pertaining to the 7 product, -- by the Monsanto colleagues, when it correct? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q Would those -- would the individuals 10 that you would defer to include people like 11 Dr. Donna Farmer? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And people like Dr. 14 A Yes. 15 Q So if Dr. Bill Heydens? Farmer was to say, "We cannot 16 say that Roundup is not carcinogenic, 17 have not tested the formulated p r o d u c t , " would you 18 defer to her on that? 19 20 MR. PARISER: because we Objection to form. Misstates the record. 21 THE WITNESS: I -- I would -- I have a 22 lot of confidence, a tremendous amount of 23 confidence in the profes s i o n a l i s m and expertise of 24 Dr. 25 unders t a n d the specific context around that Farmer and her colleagues at our company. Golkow Litigation Services I Page 20 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 particular comment that Dr. 2 make. 3 precise in language. Farmer was trying to She was trying to be v e r y accurate and 4 But, yes, I would refer to Dr. 5 expertise on a v a riety of subjects. 6 BY MR. 7 ESFANDIARY: That wasn't quite my question there. Q 8 9 Farmer's So my question was, with respect to the statement, "We cannot say that Rou n d u p is not 10 carcinogenic, because we have not tested the 11 formulated produ c t , " would you defer to Dr. 12 on that statement? 13 14 MR. Objection to form. Misstates the record. 15 THE WITNESS: 16 Dr. 17 BY MR. 18 PARISER: Farmer Farmer meant in that Yes, and I unders t a n d what -- in that context. ESFANDIARY: Q And if Dr. Bill Heydens said that he 19 believes 20 related to exposure to the surfactant 21 formulated p r o du c t , " would you also defer to his 22 expertise in that regard? 23 MR. 24 25 "a tumor in a mouse study could be PARISER: in the Objection to form. Misstates the record. THE WITNESS: Golkow Litigation Services I w o u l d like to see the Page 21 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 specific context around -- around that statement. 2 So I can't respond to that particular statement in 3 specificity, 4 expertise. 5 BY MR. 6 but I would defer to Dr. Heydens' ESFANDIARY: Q All right. If you look back at your 7 LinkedIn profile there, 8 Monsanto Company, 9 relations and advocacy efforts in support of major it says, 10 litigation, 11 threats, 12 freedom to operate." 13 your tenure at the p olicy matters, "Direct global media and reputational focusing on the herbicide business and Do you see that? 14 a I do. 15 Q All right. And we'll get into 16 specifically what "freedom to operate" entails, 17 but part of your efforts at Monsanto were to 18 assist in the ongoing litigation -- responding to 19 ongoing litigation, 20 Roundup, particularly with respect to correct? 21 MR. PARISER: 22 THE WITNESS: Objection to form. Yes, the Roundup 23 litigation was one of the -- one of the pieces of 24 litigation that my team and I supported, 25 attracting a significant number of inquiries from Golkow Litigation Services as it was Page 22 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 reporters around the world. 2 BY MR. 3 ESFANDIARY: Q A n d it says, "direct global media 4 relations." 5 that you exercise in your position at the Monsanto 6 Company helped direct corporate p olicy in the 7 areas identified in your LinkedIn profile? 8 9 Is it fair to say that the judgment MR. PARISER: Objection to form, and objection to the extent you're asking the witness 10 for -- to make a legal conclusion. 11 THE WITNESS: Could you -- could you 12 clarify by what you mean by "directing corporate 13 policy" 14 BY MR. 15 in those areas? ESFANDIARY: Q Well, for example, when it says, "direct 16 global media relations and advocacy efforts," 17 your capacity at Monsanto, 18 directing the global media relations, 19 decisions that you make help shape Monsanto policy 20 in this regard? 21 MR. PARISER: where you were did the Same objection. Objection 22 to form, 23 witness to make a legal conclusion about his 24 ability to bind the company. 25 in and to the extent you're asking the THE WITNESS: Golkow Litigation Services My -- my responsibilities Page 23 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 would have included working with our team to 2 determine how best to receive inquiries coming in 3 from reporters, 4 develop those responses, 5 around reaching out to reporters. 6 would have had -- I would have p r o vided direction 7 over those activities. 8 BY MR. 9 to work with our scientists to our proactive strategies And, yes, I ESFANDIARY: Q A n d that would have eventually shaped 10 Monsanto corporate policy with respect to the 11 media outreach and the global media relations that 12 the Monsanto Company engaged in with respect to 13 the Roundup litigation, 14 MR. PARISER: 15 THE WITNESS: correct? Same objections. I'm -- I'm struggling to 16 unders t a n d exactly what you mean, 17 "shaping the corporate policy." 18 did -- I did direct and provide leadership for 19 those activities. 20 BY MR. 21 again, But, by yes, I ESFANDIARY: Q In the second p a r a graph there, it says, 22 "Place compelling stories that materially 23 contribute to commercial 24 relations strategies and initiatives." 25 that? Golkow Litigation Services litigation and government Do you see Page 24 I do. A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 2 Q Let's switch gears here to the 3 International A g e n c y for Research on Cancer, 4 You're familiar with IARC, correct, IARC. sir? 5 A Yes, 6 Q A n d do you know how long IARC has been 7 I am. around for? 8 A My understanding is 50 or so years. 9 Q I would like to mark as Exhibit No. 10 your deposition -- oh, it's 4, rather. 11 (Murphey Exhibit No. 12 for identification.) 13 BY MR. 4 was marked ESFANDIARY: 14 Q 15 IARC website. 16 is Agents Classified By the IARC Monographs, 17 Volumes 1 through 123. 18 November 9th, 19 before? 20 A 21 5 to All righty. This is an excerpt from the A n d the name of the specific page 2018. This page was last updated Have you seen this page I don't know that I've seen this particular page before. 22 Q 23 before? 24 A Yes. 25 Q But you don't recall coming across the Have you ever visited the IARC website Golkow Litigation Services Page 38 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 page dealing or addressing the specific chemicals 2 that IARC has classified over the years? 3 4 5 A I just -- I don't recall whether or not I've seen this specific page. Q And if you look to the right-hand there, 6 it identifies different numbers 7 IARC has classified over the years. 8 how many total 9 reviewed and classified over the years? the math myself. 11 you want. 13 A Do you know -- how many chemicals IARC has 10 12 -- the agents that Yeah, I can represent it to you, I mean, if it seems to be the sum Q It's 1,013 over the years. 15 a Fair enough, 16 Q So in 50 years at IARC, yeah. about over a thousand chemicals. they've reviewed Okay? 18 A That's my understanding, 19 Q A n d can you see that out of the 1,013 20 chemicals, 21 group 1, carcinogenic to humans? 22 23 24 25 of that column of numbers. 14 17 I've done A yes. only 120 agents have been classified as That's what -- that's what's written here on the page. Q Can you see that the m a j ority of the chemicals have been classified in group 3, not Golkow Litigation Services Page 39 Confidential 1 classifiable as to its carcinogen in humans? 2 3 A That -- group 3 does have the largest number next to it, yes. 4 5 Pursuant to Protective Order Now, Q IARC classified glyphosate in 2015, correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Do you know which category IARC 8 classified glyphosate in? 9 10 A category 2A. 11 12 The IARC opinion on glyphosate was That would be the second down from the Q top, p r o bably carcinogenic to humans, 13 A That's correct. 14 Q A n d within that group, correct? there's 82 15 chemicals out of the 1,013 that IARC has reviewed, 16 correct? 17 MR. PARISER: I'm just going to object 18 generally that your questioning so far about this 19 document 20 you can go ahead. 21 capacity. 22 23 24 25 is outside the scope of the 30(b)(6), He can answer in his personal THE WITNESS: BY MR. but Yes, it says 82. ESFANDIARY: Q So you agree that fewer chemicals have been classified by IARC as probably carcinogenic Golkow Litigation Services Page 40 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 than not classifiable as to carcinogenicity, 2 correct? 3 4 MR. scope. PARISER: Same objections as to Go ahead. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, 6 based on what's w r itten here. 7 BY MR. 8 9 that's accurate, ESFANDIARY: Q A n d in the group that IARC classified - classified glyphosate, group 2A, probably 10 carcinogenic to humans, are you aware that the 82 11 other chemicals in the category in which 12 glyphosate falls, 13 total number of chemicals reviewed by IARC? that represents 8 percent of the 14 MR. PARISER: Same objections. 15 THE WITNESS: That's roughly correct, 16 based on the math. 17 BY MR. 18 ESFANDIARY: Q So out of over a thousand chemicals, 19 IARC has classified 8 percent as being probably 20 carcinogenic to humans, correct? 21 MR. PARISER: Same objections. 22 THE WITNESS: Again, 23 24 25 based on the math, yeah, based on - that's right. But just to be -- to be clear, though, I don't think it -- IARC doesn't just classify Golkow Litigation Services Page 41 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 chemicals. 2 activities as well. 3 BY MR. 4 It can be other substances. It can be ESFANDIARY: Q 5 Sure. MR. All right. ESFANDIARY: 6 document 7 to p r oceed to Exhibit No. I'm going to move this into evidence as well. A n d we're going 5. I I Golkow Litigation Services Page 42 A A A A A A A A A A A A Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order I I I I 5 (Murphey Exhibit No. 6 for identification.) 7 BY MR. 8 9 6 was marked ESFANDIARY: Q I'm going to mark as Exhibit No. 6 to your deposition. 10 A Thank you. II Q This is -- an article by Mr. Chris 12 Bennett titled Glyphosate War Stirs Chemical 13 Storm. 14 Do you recall reading the final article that 15 Mr. 16 17 A n d it was p u b l ished October 23rd, Bennett published, A 20 Let me just take a minute to -- I (Peruses think I do recall seeing this art when it came out. Q Okay. 21 top there, 22 rendered opinions" 23 sir? document.) 18 19 2018. If you turn to page 5, and at the it says, It says, "Vice president of Bayer has -- sorry, let me go back. "Vice president of Bayer: 24 has rendered opinions on 1,200 substances, 25 all but one, IARC and in found cancer risks." Golkow Litigation Services Page 55 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Is it your understanding that this is 2 substantively the same quote that Mr. 3 to you and your colleagues at Monsanto to check 4 for accuracy, 5 A Yes, that looks to be substantively similar to what Mr. 7 Ms. Bennett sent in his e-mail to Lord. 8 Q Now, Mr. Partridge's e-mail doesn't say that 499 chemicals have been classified in 10 group 3, not classifiable as to its 11 carcinogenicity to humans, correct? 12 MR. PARISER: Objection to form. 13 THE WITNESS: No. Again, the context 14 his statement here is that of the 1 , 2 0 0 or so 15 substances that IARC has classified, 16 classified in category 4. 17 BY MR. 18 sent sir? 6 9 Bennett of only one is ESFANDIARY: Q He says, all but one. He says, everything has been classified 19 only one. 20 as carcinogenic but one, He doesn't correct? 21 MR. PARISER: Objection to form. 22 THE WITNESS: In all but one, they found 23 some -- some level 24 there's only -- there's only one category. 25 that's category 4 that says, Golkow Litigation Services say -- some level of risk. Again, And p r o bably not Page 56 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 carcinogenic to humans. 2 BY MR. 3 ESFANDIARY: Q Is it your testimony to the jury that 4 not classifiable as to carcinogenicity indicates 5 that IARC found some kind of a risk? 6 7 MR. Objection to form and scope. 8 9 PARISER: THE WITNESS: I'm not familiar with the exact criteria of category 3. You know, it -- but 10 it seems to suggest that they don't have 11 convincing evidence either way. 12 category that is probably not carcinogenic to 13 humans is category 4. 14 BY MR. ESFANDIARY: 15 Q Right. 16 classifiable, 17 reviewed and classified by IARC, But the sole But the category, not it includes chemicals that have been correct? 18 MR. PARISER: Same objections. 19 the WITNESS: Yes, 20 in category 4. 21 BY MR. ESFANDIARY: 22 q Right. But when Mr. in category 3. Partridge says that 23 IARC has found cancer risks in all, 24 in category 3 in his statement there, 25 sir? Golkow Litigation Services Not he is lumping isn't he, Page 57 Confidential 1 2 MR. Pursuant to Protective Order PARISER: Same objections. and answered. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, because of the 1,200 4 or so substances and activities, 5 that IARC has classified, 6 is in category 4. 7 BY MR. 8 9 and other things there is only one that ESFANDIARY: Q But I'm not asking about the one in category 4. I'm asking about, 10 all, 11 as to carcinogenicity, when he says, in he is including category 3, not classifiable in that statement, 12 MR. PARISER: Same objections. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 Asked BY MR. 15 correct? ESFANDIARY: Q So Monsanto represented to the world 16 that even in instances when IARC has classified a 17 chemical as not classifiable as to 18 carcinogenicity, that indicates a risk, 19 MR. PARISER: Same objections. 20 THE WITNESS: No. Mr. correct? Partridge made 21 the point here that there's only one substance, 22 all that IARC has looked at, 23 category 4. 24 his statement. 25 BY MR. of that is in That is -- that is how I read his - ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 58 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order And just so the record is clear, I 2 unders t a n d that he said that he's referring to the 3 category 4, but he's also referring to all the 4 other categories, 5 6 MR. correct? PARISER: Same objections. and answered. 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, 8 that is not in category 4. 9 BY MR. every -- everything ESFANDIARY: 10 q Which includes not classifiable. 11 A Correct, 12 Asked because those are not in category 4, p r obably not carcinogenic to humans. 13 Q So when Mr. Partridge says that IARC has 14 found a cancer risk in all, 15 sir, 16 classifiable to carcinogenicity implies that there 17 is a risk of cancer, is Monsanto's representing that not 18 19 my question to you, MR. correct? PARISER: Same objections. Asked and answered. 20 THE WITNESS: There -- there could be; 21 there could not be. It's a substance, or an 22 activity, or item that is not in category 4, which 23 is the only category that is definitively probably 24 not carcinogenic to humans. 25 BY MR. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 59 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order A n d Mr. Partridge did not make that 2 distinction in issuing this quote to the world, 3 correct? 4 5 MR. PARISER: Same objections. Asked and answered several times. 6 THE WITNESS: No. Mr. Partridge made 7 the point that of all of the substances that IARC 8 looked at, 9 BY MR. 10 there's only one that is in category 4. ESFANDIARY: A n d getting really technical, q because 11 IARC -- you agree IARC is a research organization, 12 correct? 13 MR. PARISER: Objection to scope. 14 THE WITNESS: My understanding is 15 16 IARC conducts a number of activities. you know, they do some research. 17 case of the monographs program, 18 research that others have done. 19 BY MR. 20 They do - And then in the they review ESFANDIARY: Q A n d they have clearly distinguished 21 criteria by which they classify chemicals, 22 activities, and foods, and so forth, and correct? 23 MR. PARISER: Same objections. 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, 25 that that's generally my -- my understanding. Golkow Litigation Services Page 60 Confidential 1 BY MR. 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: Q A n d these clearly defined criteria are clearly defined for a -- for a reason, correct? 4 MR. PARISER: Objection to form. 5 THE WITNESS: I -- I can't speak to how 6 clearly defined or not they are. 7 I'm not familiar with the specific criteria. 8 I unders t a n d that there are criteria by which they 9 choose to place a substance, 10 food, as you said, 11 BY MR. 12 That's not or an activity, But or a into a different category. ESFANDIARY: Q G i v en the numbers that we looked at, 13 with respect to how many chemicals have been 14 classified in specific groups by IARC, 15 them being 16 is itaccurate 17 one, and 499 of not classifiable as to carcinogenicity, to say, that in every instance but IARC has found a cancer risk? 18 MR. 19 form and scope. 20 times. 21 - PARISER: Objection to scope and Asked and answered numerous THE WITNESS: Yes, in -- through the 22 IARC classification system, 23 substance where they have said it is -- it is in 24 category 4, which is their only category that is 25 p r o bably not carcinogenic to humans. Golkow Litigation Services there is only one Page 61 Confidential 1 BY MR. 2 Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: Q Is it accurate to say that the majority 3 of the chemicals reviewed by IARC have been 4 classified as carcinogens? 5 MR. PARISER: Same objections. 6 THE WITNESS: They have been put --they 7 have been put into a category that, 8 suggests that there is some reason that they would 9 not be classified in category 4. 10 BY MR. 11 you know, ESFANDIARY: Q So not classifiable, that includes 12 chemicals that have been found to have a cancer 13 risk. Is that your testimony, 14 15 MR. PARISER: sir? Objection to form. Misstates testimony. 16 THE WITNESS: No. Something that is 17 category 3 is not in category 4. 18 is the only category that refers to not 19 carcinogenic. 20 BY MR. 21 22 in And category 4 ESFANDIARY: Q That wasn't my question, My question was, sir. is it your testimony 23 that something classified in category 3 indicates 24 a cancer risk? 25 MR. PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services Objection, argumentative. Page 62 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order A s k e d and answered. 2 THE WITNESS: I don't think -- I don't 3 have the familiarity to unders t a n d exactly what 4 the criteria are for category 3. 5 the classification system here on the page, 6 is -- there is only one substance that is in 7 group 4, which is the only category that is 8 p r o bably not carcinogenic. 9 BY MR. 10 But looking at there ESFANDIARY: Q So Monsanto is okay making 11 representations about IARC's classification system 12 without being fully familiar as to what each of 13 those categories entail? 14 MR. 15 THE WITNESS: PARISER: Same objections. No, that's not -- that's 16 not what I was implying. 17 colleagues, 18 more familiarity with the classifications and how 19 substances are classified there. 20 saying that I, 21 familiarity with those -- with those criteria. 22 BY MR. 23 I have -- I have scientific colleagues who do have much in my role, I was simply don't have total ESFANDIARY: Q 24 knew Mr. 25 correct? Well, you testified earlier that you Partridge's statement to be true, Golkow Litigation Services Page 63 Confidential 1 A Yes, Pursuant to Protective Order that I was aware that only one 2 substance had been -- had been classified in 3 group 4. 4 Q A n d you represented that you thought the 5 statement to be true, 6 professing that you're not exactly clear on what 7 each of the categories of classification used by 8 IARC actually entails, 9 MR. 10 Argumentative. 11 whilst at the same time PARISER: THE WITNESS: correct? Objection, No, scope. I'm saying that my 12 understanding is the statement was true, in that 13 Mr. 14 of the substances and activities that IARC has 15 classified, 16 is consistent with my understanding. 17 however, 18 criteria b ehind classification in each of the 19 categories. 20 BY MR. Partridge was making the statement that of all only one of them is in group 4. That I am not, intimately familiar with the specific ESFANDIARY: 21 Q So you're not intimately familiar 22 enough, 23 statement that, 24 found a cancer risk associated with a chemical, 25 correct? in order to respond accurately to a in all other instances, Golkow Litigation Services IARC has Page 64 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 MR. 2 THE WITNESS: PARISER: Objection to form. No. I am comfortable in 3 saying that of all of the substances that IARC has 4 classified, 5 one that has been classified in group 4, which is 6 p r o bably not carcinogenic to humans. 7 BY MR. 8 9 there is only ESFANDIARY: Regardless of your understanding of what Q group 3 actually means, 10 11 which is about 1,200, MR. PARISER: correct? Objection to form. Objection to scope. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, because, again, 13 very clear that there is only one substance in 14 group 4. 15 BY MR. 16 ESFANDIARY: Q Now, the e-mail between Mr. Bennett and 17 Monsanto was sent back in September of 2018, 18 correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Are you familiar with the case of 21 it's Johnson versus Monsanto? 22 A Yes, 23 Q Are you aware that the jury in Johnson sir. 24 versus Monsanto awarded the plaintiff 280 million 25 in damages -- Golkow Litigation Services Page 65 Confidential 1 2 MR. BY MR. 3 4 PARISER: Objection. ESFANDIARY: Q -- as a result of exposure -- injuries arising from exposure to Roundup? 5 6 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PARISER: Objection. This is outside the scope. 7 THE WITNESS: I -- it is my 8 u n d erstanding that the jury awarded that level of 9 damages, and subsequently, 10 the judge. 11 BY MR. it was reduced by -- by ESFANDIARY: 12 Q Do you know how much it was reduced to? 13 A I believe it was about 14 Q It was 78. 15 A Okay. 16 Q A n d do you know when the jury verdict 17 90 million. was handed down? 18 A I believe it was back in August. 19 Q Now, please turn your attention back to 20 Monsanto's statement in Bennett's article. 21 this article was p u b l ished after the Johnson 22 verdict, 23 24 25 A Now, correct? Yes. It appears this article was p u b l ished on October 23rd. Q In the paragraph where Mr. Golkow Litigation Services Partridge -- Page 66 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 let's see -- I'm sorry, turn your attention to the 2 e-mail that Mr. sent. 3 A Okay. 4 Q Oh, Bennett actually, sorry. No, in the article 5 just above the paragraph, it's on page 4, where 6 Mr. 7 classified by IARC. 8 years of safe glyphosate use, 9 lawsuits like this until the IARC report, Partridge talks about a number of chemicals He says, "'Look back at 40 and there are no 10 was based on no testing, 11 that glyphosate is probably a carcinogen. 12 manipu l a t i o n and cherry-picking of data,' 13 Scott Partridge." 14 a I do. 16 Q Sir, Thus says has the E P A ever conducted a lab test on glyphosate? 18 19 just opinion Do you see that? 15 17 no lab work, which MR. PARISER: Objection to scope and foundation. 20 THE WITNESS: No, those -- the 21 laboratory tests are conducted by registrants or 22 by contract 23 companies like Monsanto, 24 A n d then those are submitted to the EPA. 25 BY MR. labs on behalf of registrants, that produce glyphosate. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 67 Confidential 1 2 Q Pursuant to Protective Order Has the BfR ever done a lab test on glyphosate? 3 MR. 4 THE WITNESS: PARISER: Same objections. No. My understanding 5 there is the same, 6 done and submitted to the agencies for review. 7 do think in the case of IARC, 8 that many of those tests were not considered 9 because they are not published in openly available 10 literature. 11 BY MR. 12 that, you know, those tests are my understanding is ESFANDIARY: Q Are you aware that the summary of those 13 tests is published in an article titled Grime, 14 et al., 2015? 15 MR. 16 THE WITNESS: 17 BY MR. 18 I PARISER: Objection. Yes, I am. ESFANDIARY: Q Are you aware that IARC reviewed that 19 article and the underlying data that was presented 20 in that article? 21 22 23 MR. form. PARISER: Objection to scope and A n d misstates facts. THE WITNESS: My understanding is that 24 that information was made available to the working 25 group quite late, and that much of that data was Golkow Litigation Services Page 68 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 not thoroughly examined by the IARC working group. 2 BY MR. 3 4 5 ESFANDIARY: Q Do you have any basis to know how thoroughly BfR has examined the underlying data? A My -- my understanding is that agencies 6 like the BfR and the EPA review the data quite 7 rigorously. 8 Q 9 A A n d who told you that, That would be through my conversations 10 with Monsanto scientists, 11 the regulatory process. 12 13 14 sir? Q who are familiar with You would defer to those scientists when it comes to the regulatory process, A Yes, in many cases correct? -- if I had -- if I 15 had a technical question about how that process 16 worked, 17 ask them to help me understand it. 18 I would go to one of our scientists and Q But you agree that none of these 19 regulatory agencies actually, 20 lab tests on glyphosate, 21 22 23 MR. PARISER: themselves, conduct correct? Objection, scope and foundation. THE WITNESS: No. My understanding is 24 those tests are conducted by registrants or labs 25 working on behalf of the registrants, Golkow Litigation Services according to Page 69 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 regulatory guidelines that have been submitted. 2 BY MR. 3 ESFANDIARY: Q So when Mr. Partridge says that IARC's 4 decision was based on no testing, 5 that equally applies to the regulatory agencies, 6 correct? 7 A No. Because, again, no lab work, here they -- the 8 IARC was looking at a subset of the data available 9 to the regulatory bodies. A n d their -- their 10 assessment was not as rigorous or 11 assessment by EPA, or BfR, 12 Q 13 That or complete as the other agencies. was not my question, My question was, the Mr. sir. Partridge's 14 statement that IARC's decision was based on no lab 15 work, 16 agencies, 17 that a applies equally to the regulatory correct? Yes, a regulatory agency would rely 18 lab work that is done by a registrant, 19 to regulatory standards and submitted to them. 20 Q So my question to you, according is, 21 Mr. 22 glyphosate is probably a carcinogen, 23 based on lab work, 24 regulatory agencies, 25 on Partridge's statement that IARC's opinion that MR. that equally applies to correct? PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services that wasn't Objection to form. Page 70 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order THE WITNESS: Again, I -- my 2 understanding is that, 3 agency, 4 by a registrant. 5 BfR looks at substantially more data than IARC 6 would have considered. 7 BY MR. 8 9 in the case of a regulatory they do rely on lab work that is submitted And they looked at -- and EPA or ESFANDIARY: Q Again, the BfR or EPA, conduct a lab test, though, correct? 10 a That is my understanding. 11 Q So Mr. Partridge's statement, the IARC's 12 classification was based on no testing, 13 work, 14 such as the EPA, 15 16 17 18 does not no lab that applies to the regulatory agencies, a Yes, correct? the EPA would not conduct its own laboratory testing. Q Thank you. Is it fair to say that you coordinated 19 much of Monsanto's response to the IARC 20 classification of glyphosate? 21 MR. PARISER: 22 THE WITNESS: Objection to form. It would be -- excuse me, 23 it would be fair to say, 24 media or public affairs response. 25 certainly other people involved in other aspects Golkow Litigation Services I coordinated much of our There were Page 71 Confidential 1 of that work. 2 BY MR. Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: 3 Q 4 of that work, But you were heavily involved in aspects correct? 5 MR. 6 THE WITNESS: 7 8 9 BY MR. PARISER: Objection to form, Again, vague. as -- ESFANDIARY: Q Counsel is right. That was a poor question. 10 Your -- a large part of your 11 responsibilities at Monsanto involved media 12 response to the 2015 IARC classification of 13 glyphosate, correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Okay. I'd like to -- and you 're aware 16 that IARC announced its classification of 17 glyphosate in March of 2015, correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q A n d the Lancet article that was 20 p u b l ished carrying the initial IARC announcement 21 of the classification of glyphosate was about 22 March 20th, 2015? 23 A Yes. 24 Q I'd like to go back to early 2015, 25 before IARC had classified glyphosate. Golkow Litigation Services Page 72 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order I'm going to -- well, before I get 2 there, did Monsanto have a plan in place for 3 responding to the IARC classification before the 4 agency announced its classification in March? 5 6 MR. PARISER: Objection to form, vague, outside the scope. 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I had colleagues 8 w ithin our corporate engagement group, 9 developing a communications plan to respond once 10 the IARC opinion became public. 11 BY MR. 12 13 who were ESFANDIARY: Q Before Monsanto knows what the classification is, correct? 14 MR. PARISER: Same objection. 15 THE WITNESS: Correct. We were -- we 16 were aware that the working group meeting had been 17 scheduled, 18 several and so we're developing plans for -- several -- several scenarios. 19 MR. ESFANDIARY: 20 exhibit number -- No. 7. I'd like to mark as 21 (Murphey Exhibit No. 22 for identification.) 23 BY MR. 24 25 ESFANDIARY: q No. 7 was marked There you are, sir. That's Exhibit 7 to your deposition. Golkow Litigation Services Page 73 Confidential 1 MR. 2 There you are. 3 BY MR. 4 Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: And a copy for counsel. ESFANDIARY: Q And this is an e-mail with an 5 accompanying attachment 6 JD Dobson, 7 sent by Kimberly Link to on February 27, That's about, 2015. oh, less than a month or 8 so before the IARC announced its classification, 9 correct? 10 11 A minute Yes. If you would give me just a -- since I'm not on this e-mail - 12 Q Sure. 13 A -- I'd just like to read it all. 14 15 (Peruses document.) Q A n d whilst you're doing that, I'm just 16 going to read in the Bates number of the document 17 is MONGLY04773726. 18 A Okay. 19 Q Do you recall seeing these e-mails and 20 21 the attachment? A No. Again, I'm not on this e-mail. So 22 I did not receive -- receive this, 23 e-mail. 24 that contained many of these parts. 25 that I ever saw this specific v e rsion of the plan. or review this I'm aware that there was a plan developed Golkow Litigation Services I don't know Page 74 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order But you are able to competently testify 2 about Monsanto's media response to the IARC 3 decision, 4 A correct? Yes. 5 6 MR. to give me a little 7 8 9 PARISER: bit of time to object. THE WITNESS: BY MR. Objection to -- you need I do. Sorry. ESFANDIARY: Q Does this document appear to have 10 created in the ordinary course of Monsanto's 11 business? 12 MR. PARISER: Object to form and 13 foundation. 14 activities prior to the IARC classification are 15 w ithin the scope of the 30(b)(6) 16 witness can answer, 17 personal capacity. 18 And, been MR. Counsel, I don't believe notice, but to the extent he knows, ESFANDIARY: the in his He is going to testify 19 about Monsanto's positions on the IARC's response 20 related to the classification of glyphosate, 21 whether that's before or after the classification. 22 MR. 23 objection, 24 able to. 25 PARISER: I'm going to maintain my but he can answer, MR. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services to the extent he's We'll see what the Page 75 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 judge has to say. 2 BY MR. 3 ESFANDIARY: Q All right. Mr. Murphey, does this 4 appear to have been created in the ordinary course 5 of Monsanto's business? 6 MR. 7 THE WITNESS: 8 MR. 9 10 document BY MR. 11 12 Same objection. Yes. ESFANDIARY: I'm going to move this into evidence as well. ESFANDIARY: Q Monsanto, 13 PARISER: A Now, what does Ms. Kimberly Link do at sir? Ms. Link is -- is no longer an employee 14 of the company. 15 the team w i t h i n the corporate engagement group 16 that was preparing for the IARC working group 17 announcement. 18 Q 19 A Yes. 21 yeah, 22 engagement team. 23 she was a member of So she was part of your corporate engagement team, 20 At the time, correct? She didn't report to me. But, she was a part of the same corporate Q A n d she sends an e-mail to JD Dobson at 24 JDDobson@Fleishman.com. 25 FleishmanHillard, Is that referring to sir? Golkow Litigation Services Page 76 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A Yes. 2 Q A n d we'll get to FleishmanHillard in 3 just a little bit, 4 explanation as to what FleishmanHillard does? 5 A but could you just give a brief FleishmanHillard is a public affairs 6 consultancy. A n d they work with a number of 7 clients, 8 activities involving media relations, digital or 9 social media, and things 10 of that sort. 11 Q such as -- such as Monsanto, stakeholder engagement, A n d on the first page 12 Ms. Link says, 13 our final draft plan." on of this document, "I just spoke with Kelly. 14 a I do. 15 q And attached Here is Do you see that? is the final draft plan. 16 If you turn to the first page of the attachment, 17 it is titled Monsanto Response Plan to IARC 18 Decision, correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And if 21 titled, 22 "Monsanto should be prepared with reactive 23 statements responding to a 3 finding, 24 classifiable as to carcinogenicity to humans, 25 far the most common IARC ruling at 506 out of 978 Media, you look down to the subsection in the second paragraph, Golkow Litigation Services it says, not by Page 77 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order agents categorized." 2 Do you see that, sir? 3 A I do see that written there. 4 Q So I'm just going to stop there. 5 Monsanto was internally aware that the majority of 6 IARC's classifications are in group 3 of 7 non-classifiable, 8 9 MR. foundation, 10 correct? PARISER: Objection to form, and and scope. THE WITNESS: Yes, we were aware that 11 there were a significant number of items that had 12 been included in category 3. 13 BY MR. 14 ESFANDIARY: Q A n d Mr. Partridge didn't report to the 15 media in his statement that the most common IARC 16 classifications fell in group 3, correct? 17 MR. PARISER: Objection. Counsel , we've 18 been over this line of questioning again and again 19 and again. 20 A s ke d and answered. THE WITNESS: No. Mr. Partridge made 21 the point that of the 1,200 or so items that IARC 22 has classified, 23 BY MR. 24 25 only one is in category 4. ESFANDIARY: Q A n d all the others indicate a cancer risk? Golkow Litigation Services Page 78 Confidential 1 2 MR. BY MR. Pursuant to Protective Order PARISER: Same objections. ESFANDIARY: 3 Q Correct? 4 A That all the others are in a category 5 other than category 4. 6 Q He didn't say that, though, 7 MR. PARISER: Objection, 8 answered numerous times. 9 through this again and 10 BY MR. 11 14 Q Mr. MR. Partridge says that PARISER: all but one. This is getting to be - this is getting to be harassment. BY MR. ESFANDIARY: Q Correct? 16 A He said all but 18 we've been again. 15 17 asked and ESFANDIARY: 12 13 Counsel, did he? one are not in category 4. Q And if you turn to the next page of the 19 attachment there, 20 three paragraphs down, 21 leading m a nufacturer of glyphosate, 22 with reputation challenges, 23 limited credibility when speaking on the topic of 24 glyphosate safety." 25 under subsection social/digital, it says, Do you see that, Golkow Litigation Services "Monsanto, as a as a company will have a very sir? Page 79 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A I do see that w r itten there. 2 Q Does Monsanto perceive itself to have 3 limited credibility when responding to the IARC 4 classification? 5 6 MR. PARISER: Objection to form, and scope. 7 THE WITNESS: No. 8 the context here is important. 9 what Ms. I think -- I think And, you know, Link was saying in this document was 10 that, you know, 11 be a highly polarizing, 12 that it can evoke strong emotions in public 13 conversations. 14 mind. 15 Monsanto was aware that it could you know, company. And And we just needed to keep that in I certainly think when it comes to our 16 scientists and their understanding of the safety 17 and the research that supports the safe use of 18 glyphosate, 19 of credibility. 20 we need to keep kind of the overarching context of 21 Monsanto's reputation in mind as this plan was 22 developed. 23 BY MR. 24 25 we have -- we have a tremendous amount I just think Ms. Link was saying, ESFANDIARY: q Ms. Link says that Monsanto "will have very limited credibility when speaking on the Golkow Litigation Services Page 80 Confidential 1 topic of glyphosate safety," 2 3 A That is what she or someone appears to Q What are some of the reputation challenges facing Monsanto? 6 7 correct? have w r itten there. 4 5 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. form, PARISER: Objection to scope and vague. 8 THE WITNESS: 9 current social climate, I think, you know, people have a fair number 10 of questions about where their food comes, 11 it's produced. 12 g enetically m o dified organisms, 13 m o d ified g enetically seeds, 14 company, 15 emotional responses from people. 16 in the And in that context, and how things like or you know, in the case of our have evoked a lot of questions and A n d for quite a while, I think Monsanto 17 did not do enough to engage in those conversation, 18 and to help people understand the importance and 19 the benefits and the safety of those -- of those 20 technologies. 21 created a reputational challenge that Monsanto was 22 working to address. 23 BY MR. 24 25 A n d I think that, over time, ESFANDIARY: Q Would some of the reputational challenges involve Monsanto's manufacture of PCBs? Golkow Litigation Services Page 81 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 MR. PARISER: Objection to scope. 2 THE WITNESS: That was a -- PCBs were 3 product of the former Monsanto Company. 4 on occasion, 5 receive questions or see coverage in the media 6 about the connection b e tween the former Monsanto 7 Company and PCBs. 8 BY MR. 9 But, yes, we would continue to receive - ESFANDIARY: Q Would Monsanto's reputational challenges 10 involve the manufacture of Agent Orange used in 11 the V i etnam War? 12 MR. PARISER: Objection to form. 13 THE WITNESS: Again, that was a product 14 of the former Monsanto Company, 15 occasionally receive questions about the former 16 Monsanto's involvement 17 Orange, 18 information about that. 19 BY MR. 20 but we would in the production of Agent and we would work to provide accurate ESFANDIARY: Q You agree that Monsanto has been 21 Monsanto since the early 2 0 t h Century, 22 sir? 23 a a The name correct, "Monsanto" has -- has been the 24 same. The -- the structure and the ownership of 25 the company has changed over time, Golkow Litigation Services as well as the Page 82 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 company's business. 2 the last 20 years of its existence was an 3 agricultural company that did not produce the same 4 type of chemical products that the former company 5 did. 6 Q was hugely successful 8 correct? 9 MR. form, the Monsanto for Part of that reason being that Roundup 7 10 You know, financially for Monsanto, PARISER: Objection to scope, and foundation. 11 THE WITNESS: I mean, Roundup was 12 transformative for the company and for -- 13 agriculture, 14 benefits for our -- for our customers. 15 certainly for the -- for the Monsanto agricultural 16 company, 17 product. 18 BY MR. 19 because of its and for -- because of its many And so Roundup was a very -- a very important ESFANDIARY: Q Take a look at the first page of the 20 attachment there, under the 21 says, 22 employee communications, 23 that seeks to include Monsanto's voice in the 24 conversation about IARC and glyphosate, 25 much as possible, "On mainst r e a m media, main heading. It social media, and we recommend an approach but as defer to other positive voices Golkow Litigation Services Page 83 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order from industry, 2 academia, and elsewhere." Do you see that, sir? 3 A I do see that. 4 Q Does Monsanto prefer to defer to 5 third-party voices when responding to the IARC 6 classification, 7 reputational problems? 8 9 A context. No, because of the company's I think it largely depends on Monsanto certainly expressed its views 10 about the IARC opinion in a -- in a number of 11 forums. 12 opinion was incorrect, 13 conclusions of the EPA, 14 bodies around the world. 15 We felt very strongly that the IARC and was an outlier from the and EFSA, and regulatory A n d so we were very forthright -- about our opinions, in our 16 statement about 17 the science. 18 to others who care about glyphosate, 19 that's in academia, 20 inform them about the classification. 21 p l eased to see that many of them shared our 22 concerns, 23 we -- we certainly did not defer to them 24 exclusively. 25 views. You know, and about we certainly did reach out whether or within agriculture, to We were and raised their voices as well. But We were very forthright with our Golkow Litigation Services Page 84 Confidential 1 Q Ms. Pursuant to Protective Order Link says that Monsanto should be 2 deferring to these third parties as much as 3 possible, correct? 4 5 MR. PARISER: Objection, THE WITNESS: That's Foundation, scope. 6 -- that's what's 7 w r itten in - in this particular document. 8 BY MR. 9 ESFANDIARY: Q So Monsanto's -- part of Monsanto's 10 plan, in responding to IARC, was to get its 11 messages 12 IARC classification out there, 13 arm's-length from Monsanto, -- get Monsanto's messages regarding the but ideally, at an correct? 14 MR. PARISER: Objection to form. 15 THE WITNESS: That's what's written 16 in -- you know, 17 much as possible. 18 reflection of the view -- views of one plan at one 19 point in time. 20 in this document, This -- this document is a As we moved forward, again, as much as -- as after the IARC 21 classification, we were very forthright in 22 engaging with agriculture groups, 23 reporters, engaging with engaging on social media, to share - 24 to share the company's views. 25 kept our -- we kept agriculture groups and others Golkow Litigation Services We -- you know, we Page 85 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 informed. 2 continued to speak out as well about what they saw 3 as an inaccurate classification. 4 always very, 5 in sharing our views about the classification. 6 BY MR. 7 We were p l eased that many of them again, I'll just But Monsanto was -- very forthright ESFANDIARY: Q Let me just break that down a little 8 bit. In the first part of your answer, you 9 mentioned that this is just an initial plan, and 10 this was generated before the IARC classification. 11 I'd just like to turn your attention to 12 Ms. Link's second sentence there. 13 case scenario is that these other voices take on 14 the bulk of the communication about IARC and 15 glyphosate." 16 She says, So Monsanto's ultimate goal was to 17 ensure that the majority of its messaging 18 regarding IARC was issued through the third 19 parties, 20 21 correct? MR. PARISER: Objection to scope, form, and foundation. 22 THE WITNESS: Again, that's what's 23 written in one plan at one point in time. 24 BY MR. 25 "Best ESFANDIARY: Q Do you have any reason to believe that Golkow Litigation Services Page 86 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Monsanto did not try to achieve this goal? 2 A I think, over the -- over the course of 3 time, we took a very proactive stance in our -- in 4 our communications about the -- about the IARC 5 opinion. 6 w e ighed in as well. 7 deliberately very proactive in defending the 8 safety and the benefits of our product. 9 very proud of Roundup, Again, other organizations certainly But we -- we were and its history of safe 10 use. 11 and sharing information about that. 12 We're A n d we were very proactive in communicating Q Right. In an effort to live up to 13 Monsanto's pride of Roundup, would it be important 14 for the company to defend the product, 15 through third parties, 16 some of these reputational challenges identified 17 by Ms. ideally, so as such not to raise Link in this plan, correct? 18 MR. PARISER: Objection to form. 19 the WITNESS: No, I -- I don't agree 20 with that characterization. 21 engagement was an element in the plan. 22 Monsanto did take, 23 front-footed p osition in helping engage with 24 reporters, 25 explain our views about the safety of the product. But and continues to take, stakeholders, Golkow Litigation Services Third-party a very and society at large, to Page 87 Confidential 1 BY MR. Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: 2 Q 3 response plan, 4 monograph on glyphosate, 5 6 7 Now, A at the time of generating this Monsanto had not yet read the IARC correct? That's correct. A n d that's why you'll see multiple scenarios in the -- in the document. If you turn to page 5 of the attachment, Q 8 there is an anticipated timeline subsection there. 9 A n d below the anticipated -- anticipated timeline, 10 it says, 11 before the IARC monograph, "February 27th," and that's, 12 A Correct. 13 Q It says, again, correct? "Henry Miller Forbes piece is 14 published. Monsanto amplifies via third-party 15 channels." Do you see that, sir? 16 A I do. 17 Q Do you know who Henry Miller is? 18 A I do. 19 Q Have you w orked with him? 20 A I've never person a l l y directly met 21 Dr. Miller , no. 22 Q You've e-mailed him, 23 A No. 24 Q Have you sent e-mails to your colleagues 25 though, correct? at Monsanto that you then expected or understood Golkow Litigation Services Page 88 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order to be forwarded to Mr. Miller? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Did Monsanto coordinate with Mr. 4 in publishing an article on IARC before the 5 decision? 6 7 MR. Objection to scope, foundation. 8 9 PARISER: Miller THE WITNESS: anticipated timeline. That is listed here in the I don't recall whether 10 there was a piece specifically prior to the 11 classification announcement or not. 12 BY MR. 13 ESFANDIARY: Q Are you aware that Mr. Miller's 14 articles, though published on Forbes' 15 have been retracted by the - - by the journal? 16 MR. PARISER: 17 THE WITNESS: website, Objection to form. I - - I understand that the 18 pieces have been taken down. 19 be clear about what the Forbes website is. 20 wouldn't 21 scholarly journal. 22 Dr. Miller was an opinion contributor. 23 BY MR. 24 25 I think we need to I say - - it's not an academic journal, or a It's -- it's a website where ESFANDIARY: Q Do you -- are you aware that Forbes' reason for pulling down Dr. Miller's articles was Golkow Litigation Services Page 89 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 undisc l o s e d conflict of interest with Monsanto 2 Company? 3 4 MR. PARISER: this questioning, 5 Object to the scope of all and foundation. THE WITNESS: I can't speak to the 6 specific -- the specific reasons given by Forbes, 7 but again, 8 taken down. 9 BY MR. 10 I'm aware that the opinion pieces were ESFANDIARY: Q All right. If you turn back to -- turn 11 back a page to page 4. I'm sorry, 12 pages aren't numbered. It's a bit tricky. 13 A It's okay. 14 q In the paragraph -- I know the the second paragraph 15 down from the top, "GMO answers and 16 Discover.Monsanto.com," 17 responses should be developed in advance for 18 responding to questions specifically about IARC's 19 ruling." it says, Do you see that, 20 a I do. 21 Q So in advance "Canned text sir? of IARC's ruling, 22 was 23 statements ready about the classification, 24 correct? 25 Monsanto -- had preprepared -- or it had canned MR. PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services Objection to scope. Page 90 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order THE WITNESS: 2 think, 3 that a template or 4 you know, W ithin this context, I that the plan is simply saying draft responses should be - should be p r e pared in advance. So whether it was 5 on the Discover Monsanto website, 6 Answers website, 7 those statements could be p r e pared and ready to go 8 as quickly as possible. 9 BY MR. 10 or the GMO which is an industry website, ESFANDIARY: Q A canned response, though, is a type of 11 response that you would give to questions, 12 regardless of what the question is seeking to - 13 seeking an answer to, 14 same response? 15 A 16 in this 17 correct? You're giving the That's not my understanding of the word -- in this context. Again, here, this is a preparedness 18 plan, talking about different 19 channels that would be used at the time the 20 opinion came out. 21 " c a n n e d " would mean more like a draft or 22 preprepared. 23 Q 24 It says 25 A -- different A n d so I think, in this case, It doesn't say "dra f t , " though, does it? "canned." A n d I'm just Golkow Litigation Services -- I'm explaining to you my Page 91 Confidential 1 understanding, 2 document, 3 Pursuant to Protective Order based on the context in this of what that word would mean. Q You agree that the word "draft" could 4 have been used to explain the concept that you 5 just did in this document, 6 7 MR. foundation, 8 9 PARISER: correct? Objection, scope, argumentative. THE WITNESS: Yes, of how the word is used here, in my understanding "draft" would have 10 been an alternative word that could have been 11 used. 12 BY MR. 13 14 Q 17 Was it Monsanto's intention to orchestrate an outcry with the IARC decision? 15 16 ESFANDIARY: MR. PARISER: Objection to form and scope. THE WITNESS: No, that's not how I would 18 characterize what our approach was at the time. 19 would say our approach would have been to inform 20 stakeholders, 21 invite them, 22 to share information with them, I to and encourage them even to speak out. I'm aware that that characterization has 23 been used in certain documents, 24 would characterize our approach. Golkow Litigation Services but it's not how I Page 92 A A A A A A A 4 A A A A A 4 4 A A A 4 A 4 A A A 4 A 4 A 4-1 A A A 4 A A 4 A 4 A A 4 A 4 A Confidential 6 BY MR. 7 Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: Q So let's take a look at a document of 8 what Monsanto had to say before the lawsuit was 9 filed. 10 (Murphey Exhibit No. 11 for identification.) 12 13 14 BY MR. 9 was marked ESFANDIARY: Q I want to mark as Exhibit No. deposition, 15 9 to your sir Now, this is a document produced by 16 Monsanto in this litigation. 17 MONGLY03316369. 18 And if you turn to the metadata at the end of the 19 document, it identifies its date of creation as 20 July 6th, 2015. 21 22 It's called "IARC Follow U p . ” Have you seen this document before, A sir? Let me just orient myself real quick. 23 (Peruses document.) 24 Yes, 25 The Bates number is I've -- I've seen this document before. Golkow Litigation Services Page 124 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order Okay. Q Does it appear to have been 2 created in the ordinary course of Monsanto's 3 business? 4 5 MR. PARISER: Objection, foundation and form. 6 THE WITNESS: 7 MR. 8 evidence. 9 BY MR. 10 Yes, ESFANDIARY: I believe it was. I'll move this into ESFANDIARY: Here it says, Q "goals." A n d number 11 says, "Invalidate relevance of IARC." 12 that, sir? 13 A MR. BY MR. 16 Do you see I -- I do see it written there. 14 15 (d) PARISER: Objection, foundation. ESFANDIARY: Q So in July of 2015, a couple of months 17 after IARC had announced its classification, 18 Monsanto's goal was to invalidate the relevance of 19 IARC, correct? 20 21 MR. PARISER: objection to form, 22 Again, objection to scope, objection to foundation. I'd also note, the document 23 it's attorney work product, 24 privilege. 25 document. states that attorney-client I don't know the full context of this Golkow Litigation Services Page 125 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. ESFANDIARY: 3 MR. PARISER: 4 clarification. 5 case? 2 court. Okay. MR. ESFANDIARY: 7 MR. PARISER: 8 THE WITNESS: there. Thank you for that This was an exhibit in the Johnson 6 9 It was shown in open Yeah. Thank you. So I see the point written I think the context around it is 10 important, 11 retraction -- you know, 12 clarification, 13 future bad decisions on other -- on other 14 products. 15 that helps clarify what 16 author of the document was suggesting. 17 BY MR. 18 where it's talking about the the need for retraction, minimization, you know, I think in that overarching context, -- you know, Q But at the time of when this document was created, 20 IARC decision, 21 or invalidate the relevance of IARC, 22 after Monsanto finds out about the MR. evidence, 24 25 what the ESFANDIARY: 19 23 preventing the company's plan was to eliminate PARISER: misstates form. THE WITNESS: did ask, Objection, correct? No. I mean, we did -- we and have asked for the opinion to be -- Golkow Litigation Services Page 126 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 to be clarified. We've asked for it to be, you 2 know, retracted. We have raised questions, you 3 know, about how IARC arrived at a conclusion that 4 is very inconsistent 5 around -- around the world. 6 what's reflected by the overarching goal number 1 7 here. 8 BY MR. 9 from regulatory bodies ESFANDIARY: Q I unders t a n d that's the answer that 10 you're giving now. 11 2015, 12 company's goal, 13 IARC, But internally, Monsanto identifies as a goal, 15 THE WITNESS: 17 BY MR. 18 19 as the correct? MR. here, in July of to invalidate the relevance of 14 16 And I think that's PARISER: Same objections. That is -- that is written among several other points. ESFANDIARY: Q decision, Including the one to retract the IARC correct? 20 a Yes. 21 Q Number 3 there at the bottom says, 22 "Litigation prevention/defense." 23 sir? 24 a I do. 25 Q Who is McClain? Golkow Litigation Services Do you see that, Page 127 Confidential 1 2 A Pursuant to Protective Order Mr. McClain was part of the Monsanto law department at this time. 3 Q would -- did Monsanto believe that Now, 4 invalidating the relevance of the IARC decision 5 would help with its litigation defense? 6 MR. PARISER: Objection to scope, 7 objection to form, 8 asking you about opinions with lawyers, 9 discussions with lawyers and -- to the extent he's -- 10 MR. ESFANDIARY: 11 MR. PARISER: 12 answer. 13 doing so, you may. 14 or rather, I'm not. -- I'd instruct you not to If you can answer the question without THE WITNESS: I do think that, you know, 15 Monsanto was aware at the time that litigation 16 was 17 was listed as a goal -- as a goal there. 18 know, you know, 19 retraction and clarification would be important to 20 the litigation, 21 answer that. 22 BY MR. 23 24 25 -- was likely. as to whether, And so I think that's why that You the work around I don't think I'm competent to ESFANDIARY: Q Number 2 says , "Protect regulatory freedom to operate." A Do you see that? I do. Golkow Litigation Services Page 128 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order A n d undern e a t h that, 2 "Re-registration. 3 Are you familiar with Prop 65? it says, No ban/restrictions. Prop 65." 4 A I am. 5 Q Do you understand Prop 65 to entail 6 State of California's initiative to identify 7 glyphosate as a chemical known to the state to 8 cause cancer? 9 10 MR. PARISER: Objection to form, the and this is outside the scope. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. My -- my 12 understanding is that, on the basis of the IARC 13 opinion of glyphosate, the State of California 14 p r o c eeded to add glyphosate to its Proposition 65 15 list. 16 BY MR. 17 ESFANDIARY: Q So invalidating the relevance of IARC 18 would assist Monsanto's efforts in preventing a 19 Prop 65 listing from occurring, 20 MR. PARISER: 21 THE WITNESS: correct? Same objections. My -- okay. My 22 understanding is the sole -- the sole basis of the 23 Proposition 65 listing is the IARC opinion. 24 that is even counter to the State of California's 25 own prior assessments that glyphosate is -- is not Golkow Litigation Services And Page 129 Confidential 1 carcinogenic. 2 BY MR. 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: Q Sir, that wasn't my question. That was not responsive to my question at all. 5 My question to you was, was invalidating 6 the relevance of IARC a part of Monsanto's efforts 7 in ensuring that there would be no Prop 65 listing 8 of glyphosate in California? 9 MR. PARISER: Same objections. 10 THE WITNESS: We certainly disagree 11 the Proposition 65 listing, 12 action to try to prevent that listing, 13 don't see -- we don't believe the IARC opinion to 14 be correct, 15 the basis for the listing. 16 BY MR. 17 yes. with We took legal because we and we don't believe that it should be ESFANDIARY: Q A n d invalidating the relevance of IARC 18 would assist Monsanto in ensuring that glyphosate 19 would not be listed pursuant to Prop 65, 20 21 22 MR. PARISER: foundation, Same objections, correct? and asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I -- I mean, 23 of whether or not, 24 glyphosate on the Proposition 65 list is outside 25 of Monsanto's control. Golkow Litigation Services ultimately, the decision to -- to keep That's a decision in the Page 130 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order hands of the state and the courts. 2 What we felt was important to -- was to 3 provide context around that listing, 4 around the IARC -- the IARC opinion as the basis 5 for that listing, 6 disagree with the IARC opinion. 7 the listing. 8 BY MR. 9 10 because, again, and context we -- we We disagree with ESFANDIARY: Q Providing context, would that include invalidating the relevance of IARC? 11 MR. PARISER: 12 THE WITNESS: Same objections. That would include raising 13 questions about the relevance of IARC. 14 include raising questions about the IARC process. 15 It would include clarification, 16 preventing future bad decisions, 17 listed there. 18 BY MR. 19 you know, and all of which are ESFANDIARY: Q Do you know if, at this point in time, 20 this document was created in J u l y 2015, 21 IARC had p u b l ished it's m o n o graph yet? 22 It would A whether I would have to look at the specific 23 dates. I believe it was sometime that summer when 24 the m o n o graph was published. 25 exact date, I don't remember the though. Golkow Litigation Services Page 131 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order You unders t a n d the m o n o graph 2 comprehensive document, 3 so, to be a spanning about 90 pages or correct? 4 MR. PARISER: Objection to form. 5 THE WITNESS: I don't recall the 6 specific length, 7 if about 8 BY MR. but if -- it wouldn't 90 pages is correct. ESFANDIARY: 9 Q Have you read it? 10 a I have read pieces of it. 11 surprise me I have not read the entire thing. 12 Q Okay. And do you agree that, in order 13 to be able to criticize the IARC decision with a 14 grounding in fact, 15 read the IARC monograph? 16 MR. PARISER: Objection to scope. 17 the WITNESS: No, you would, in fact, need to I disagree with that. 18 I think there are pieces of the monograph 19 fairly accessible to a lay reader 20 There are other pieces, 21 helpful to sit with our Monsanto scientists, 22 have, 23 scientific fields, 24 in the m o n o graph directly with them. 25 you know, like that are -- like me. where it was far more who doctoral degrees in various and talk through the opinions I w anted to make sure I had a good Golkow Litigation Services Page 132 1 2 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order understanding. A n d so I think having those - having those conversations, and asking questions 3 of our scientists was much more helpful to me than 4 trying to figure it all out on my own. 5 BY MR. 6 7 ESFANDIARY: Q So if -- did you have a conversation with Bill Heydens about the IARC classification? 8 A Among others, 9 Q A n d -- scratch that. 10 yes. Did you form an opinion, 11 pieces of the IARC monograph, 12 irrelevant? 13 14 MR. that IARC was indeed PARISER: Objection to form and THE WITNESS: I formed my opinion - scope. 15 16 when you read yes, in part, through some of the reading on my 17 own. 18 Monsanto scientists, 19 various fields, 20 to me in u n d erstanding the context of the IARC 21 opinion. 22 complete outlier from regulatory agencies. 23 BY MR. 24 25 But I think the conversations with our who are experts in their I think that was much more helpful And that it was a -- was and is a ESFANDIARY: Q created, And at the time this document was Monsanto p e r c eived IARC to have relevance Golkow Litigation Services Page 133 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 in the scientific community, 2 to invalidate that relevance, 3 4 MR. foundation, 5 PARISER: such that it needed correct? Objection, form, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don't think I 6 can provide further context to what's w r itten here 7 on -- on the paper, 8 was 9 were calls for clarification. that, you know, that there -- there was a call for retraction. You know, There but I 10 wouldn't want to speculate on any additional 11 context. 12 MR. ESFANDIARY: Mark as Exhibit No. 13 (Murphey Exhibit No. 14 for identification.) 15 16 BY MR. 10. 10 was marked ESFANDIARY: Q Sir, this is an e-mail from Ms. Link 17 dated February 12th, 18 before the IARC classification. The subject is, 19 Revised IARC Reactive Messaging, and the Bates 20 number is MONGLY01021708. 21 2015. It's about a month Have you seen this document before? 22 a Yes. 23 q Okay. And Ms. Link says, "Attached 24 please find revised messaging for IARC." 25 see that? Golkow Litigation Services Do you Page 134 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A I do. 2 Q And if you turn to the attachment draft, 70 - 3 ending in Bates number 709, February 12th, 4 2015, 5 IARC's decision. 6 orchestrated outcry that could occur following the 7 March 3 to 10th IARC m o n o graph expert meeting." 8 Do you see that, "Glyphosate key talking points following 9 MR. This component represents the sir? PARISER: A n d please give the 10 witness ample time to review the document before 11 he answers questions about it. 12 THE WITNESS: 13 Yes, 14 referring to. 15 BY MR. 16 (Peruses document.) I -- I see the sentence you're ESFANDIARY: So now we have two plans created leading q 17 up to the IARC classification, 18 identifies its efforts in responding to the IARC 19 classification as entailing an orchestrated 20 outcry, correct? 21 22 where Monsanto MR. PARISER: Objection to scope, foundation. 23 THE WITNESS: No, I think this -- this 24 document is really just a set of key talking 25 points that would be shared with various groups as Golkow Litigation Services Page 135 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 part of prepar at i o n for the IARC opinion to be 2 published. 3 used any of these points, 4 communications, 5 would be their decision to make. 6 BY MR. 7 Then whether those groups actually or issued any or responded to any inquiries ESFANDIARY: Q I wasn't asking about those groups. 8 was asking about Monsanto's plan, 9 identified, where it's this component represents the 10 orchestrated outcry that could follow -- that 11 "could occur following the March 3 to 10th IARC 12 m o n o graph expert meeting." 13 I And my question to you, sir, was, we've 14 now looked at two documents, 15 characterizes its efforts in responding to IARC as 16 creating an orchestrated outcry, 17 MR. PARISER: where Monsanto correct? Objection to scope, 18 objection, 19 this language in numerous previous questions. 20 asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Yes, and He's addressed this is the second 21 document that uses those -- uses those particular 22 words. 23 talking points, 24 talking points that would be p r o vided to different 25 groups for their review, But again, I -- I think this is a set of or actually, Golkow Litigation Services several sets of and to use, whether they Page 136 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 chose to do so or not. 2 BY MR. 3 ESFANDIARY: Q So we have employees in the Monsanto 4 Corporation using the term "orchestrated outcry" 5 to refer to the efforts across two documents, 6 here today now, 7 actually what happened. 8 9 MR. foundation, 10 you're saying that that's not PARISER: Objection to scope, form, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: No, what I'm -- what I 11 have explained in several responses now, 12 the -- the efforts that Monsanto undertook, 13 the IARC opinion was published, 14 engagement with third parties to provide 15 information, 16 resources. 17 ensure balance and accuracy, 18 and perspective on the science in -- in their 19 coverage of -- of our product. 20 BY MR. 21 involved, share talking points, is that after yes, and other But then outreach to the media, to and the right context ESFANDIARY: Q Sir, you use words like so forth. "balance," 22 "accuracy," 23 one of the words that you identified in any 24 Monsanto plan that we have looked at today. 25 but MR. PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services I have not seen a single Objection to form. Is Page 137 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 that a question? 2 BY MR. ESFANDIARY: 3 Q Correct? 4 A In the -- in the ten or so documents 5 6 today, I don't recall seeing those specific - those specific words, but I can tell you, when I 7 have conversations with my colleagues, we 8 are discussing our goal to strive 9 balance in -- in reporting about our company and 10 11 often -- to strive for about our products. Q You're telling me that -- to me now, 12 your colleagues, 13 about orchestrating an outcry with the IARC 14 decision, 15 16 in plan after plan, but are talking correct? MR. PARISER: Objection to form, scope, and foundation. 17 THE WITNESS: 18 documents where 19 has -- has been used. 20 A n d again, Yes, we've looked at two -- where that particular wording in the context of this 21 particular document, what -- what I'm explaining 22 is that these were talking points that were 23 developed and shared. 24 groups were free to adopt them, 25 you know, And then the individual to discard them, whatever they chose to do. Golkow Litigation Services Page 138 Confidential 1 BY MR. 2 Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: Q If you look at the key industry points 3 here, and it's talking about a 2B decision. 4 that it's -- a 2B decision would be a possible 5 carcinogen, correct? 6 A Yes, 7 Q 2A is probable human carcinogen, that's what 2B would 8 is what glyphosate was 9 categorized in, 10 And have meant. which -- glyphosate was and 2B is a possible carcinogen, correct? 11 A That's my understanding. 12 Q A n d it says here that the 13 classification -- the 2B calculation does not 14 establish a link between glyphosate and an 15 increase in cancer. 16 impossible. 17 18 MR. what does PARISER: "probable" mean? Objection to form and to scope. 19 THE WITNESS: 20 document 21 means. 22 BY MR. 23 Sir, Possible simply means not I would need to see a from IARC that explains exactly what that ESFANDIARY: Q Well, what would Monsanto's 24 interpretation of "probable" be, 25 Monsanto is giving its interpretation of Golkow Litigation Services given that Page 139 Confidential 1 "possible" 2 3 in this document? MR. scope, Pursuant to Protective Order PARISER: Objection, outside the foundation. 4 THE WITNESS: I -- I don't know exactly 5 what the author of this document based that 6 definition on, 7 would just be speculating if I -- if I gave you 8 something without the - - without 9 IARC document as a reference point. 10 BY MR. 11 and so I really would feel like I looking at an ESFANDIARY: Q You agree that this definition given by 12 Monsanto in this document as to "possible" 13 the IARC definition of 14 MR. 15 THE WITNESS: 16 know that, 17 BY MR. 18 19 Q 24 25 Same objections. I don't know. I don't one way or the other. On a basic level of denotation, you agree with me that probable means likely? MR. PARISER: Objection to form and scope. 22 23 correct? ESFANDIARY: 20 21 PARISER: "possible," is not THE WITNESS: BY MR. I -- I think -- yeah -- ESFANDIARY: Q It's a silly question. MR. PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services Never mind. Are you going to withdraw Page 140 Confidential 1 the question? 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. ESFANDIARY: I'm going to withdraw the question. 4 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 5 MR. I thought that was the 6 best question all day. 7 8 KRISTAL: MR. faith in me, 9 ESFANDIARY: Thank you for your Jerry. MR. PARISER: I'm trying not to comment. 10 (Murphey Exhibit No. 11 for identification.) 12 BY MR. 13 11 was marked ESFANDIARY: Q All right. 14 look at this one. 15 says, 16 Updated September 16, "Issues Plan, 17 Mr. Murphey, let 's take a It's MONGLY00866643. And it Farm Aid/Neil Young , Draft 2015." Do you see that, sir? 18 A I do see that. 19 Q Have you seen this document before? 20 A I believe I have, but I'd like to take a 21 minute 22 please. 23 Q Sure. 24 A (Peruses document.) 25 Q Does it appear to have been created in to familiarize myself again with it, Golkow Litigation Services Okay. Page 141 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order the ordinary course of Monsanto business? 2 MR. PARISER: 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 MR. PARISER: Foundation. 5 MR. ESFANDIARY: 6 evidence as well. 7 BY MR. Objection to form. I'll move this into ESFANDIARY: 8 Q If you would please turn to page ending 9 in 648. And it says, 10 it says, "IARC," 11 July 14th, 12 time someone claims to have found a safety issue 13 with one of our products, 14 seriously and review their evidence closely. 15 will do the same with the IARC monograph." 16 2015, in the middle of the page, is the heading, Issue Alert. A 18 Q And it says, "Any we take it very Do you see that, 17 messages from We sir? Yes. A n d we saw earlier that even before 19 Monsanto had read the monograph, 20 planning rebuttal messages in response to the 21 classification, 22 23 24 25 MR. Monsanto was correct? PARISER: Objection to form, scope, foundation. THE WITNESS: Yes. Monsanto employees were preparing for multiple scenarios in advance, Golkow Litigation Services Page 142 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 knowing that there could -- that IARC could 2 classify the product 3 different categories. 4 were p l anned then. 5 in one of -- any of its A n d so different scenarios A n d then several months before this 6 document, in March, when the opinion came out, 7 Lancet piece, 8 explain the opinion. 9 were, you know, you know, at a high level, the began to A n d so Monsanto scientists throughout that process, gaining a 10 deeper u n d erstanding of -- of the IARC -- the IARC 11 conclusion. 12 BY MR. 13 ESFANDIARY: Q My question -- my question is about, 14 the plans that Monsanto prepared prior to even 15 seeing the monograph, 16 rebutting -- neutralizing the IARC decision. 17 My question to you is, Monsanto is talking about can Monsanto talk 18 about IARC or criticize IARC in an informed way, 19 without having read the monograph yet? 20 MR. 21 THE WITNESS: 22 23 in PARISER: Objection to form, Yes. scope. Monsanto scientists have a deep familiarity with the data behind b ehind glyphosate, the extensive data that shows 24 that glyphosate can be used safely, 25 not a carcinogen. Golkow Litigation Services and that it's Page 143 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order And so at a fundamental level, you know, 2 our scientists already knew that a classification, 3 you know, 4 carcinogenic would be inconsistent with that 5 overwhelming scientific evidence, 6 with the conclusions of the EPA and regulators 7 around the world. in anything other than p r o bably not 8 9 and inconsistent So I think we were very confident, based on -- based on that knowledge that our scientists 10 have, 11 certainly as our scientists reviewed the 12 monograph, 13 deficiencies with its opinion. 14 BY MR. 15 in developing those scenarios. And then we got a deeper understanding of those ESFANDIARY: Q So I'm just going to break down what you 16 said. You said that Monsanto has already made up 17 its mind about the scientific data before having 18 even seen it. 19 MR. PARISER: Objection, 20 mischaracterizes testimony, 21 characterization of testimony. 22 THE WITNESS: 23 context, you know, 24 agency that was 25 subset of the data, Yes, in -- in this where you're talking about an -- in IARC, Golkow Litigation Services and incomplete that was looking at a after glyphosate and Page 144 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 g l y p h o sate-based products had been on the market 2 for 40 years, 3 you know, 4 the safety of this product. 5 6 7 our scientists were very familiar, they're experts in the safety of -- in A n d certainly as new -- as new scientific claims come to the front, they look at them, they do - they analyze them. 8 certainly did that here with, 9 IARC monograph. They you know, with the But they -- they were confident 10 in their knowledge that a classification of 11 glyphosate in category 2A or 2B, 12 but p r o bably not carcinogenic, 13 accurate. 14 Q anything would not be You would agree with me that science 15 an ever-evolving process? 16 MR. 17 again, PARISER: Objection, THE WITNESS: I -- I do. vague, outside the scope. 18 again, My 19 understanding, 20 conversations with scientists is, yes, 21 is ever-evolving. 22 BY MR. based on, you know, it is -- it ESFANDIARY: 23 Q So - 24 a But in the context of the IARC 25 is monograph, IARC hadn't looked at anything new. Golkow Litigation Services Page 145 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 The data -- the data that IARC examined had 2 already been looked at by the EPA and regulatory 3 bodies around the world on multiple occasions. 4 Q So your testimony is that despite 5 science being an ever-evolving process, 6 appropriate for Monsanto to make its mind up about 7 a piece of scientific data without having first 8 seen it? 9 MR. PARISER: 10 misstates testimony. 11 BY MR. it's Objection to scope, ESFANDIARY: 12 Q Correct? 13 A Yes. In the context of this -- the which didn't look at new data, IARC 14 monograph, which 15 only looked at a subset of what EPA and other 16 regulators around the world had already examined 17 in the course of their conclusions that glyphosate 18 is not carcinogenic, 19 were -- were very confident 20 that the IARC opinion was flawed. 21 that assessment evolved over time, I think our scientists information. in quickly assessing A n d their as we got 22 additional 23 knew before the IARC announcement that a 24 classification of glyphosate in any category but 25 p r o bably not carcinogenic would not be accurate. Golkow Litigation Services But we knew -- yes, we Page 146 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order Well, you say here that Monsanto takes 2 new scientific claims very seriously and will 3 closely look at the IARC monograph. 4 A Yes. 5 Q Right? And at the same time, you say, 6 Monsanto made up its mind before seeing the 7 m o n o graph as to what IARC's 8 would entail. 9 10 MR. BY MR. 11 Objection to - ESFANDIARY: Q Correct? 12 MR. 13 argumentative. 14 PARISER: -- IARC's conclusion PARISER: THE WITNESS: Objection to scope, I'd say we had an -- had 15 an initial assessment of the deficiencies with the 16 IARC opinion that was 17 time. 18 were -- with whom I was having these conversations 19 have studied glyphosate for many, 20 know, 21 u n d erstanding and context of the product 22 product already. 23 Again, -- that was refined over our science -- our scientists who many years. You they had a tremendous amount of You know, -- the they were already of the 24 conclusion that glyphosate was not carcinogenic. 25 So when the IARC opinion came out, Golkow Litigation Services and was such an Page 147 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 outlier, you know, 2 conclusions of the U S E P A and EFSA, 3 around the world, 4 able to say, 5 so divergent from the and regulators our scientists were very quickly that is not consistent. A n d then as the monograph later became 6 available, 7 assessment of it, 8 more detail how IARC came to this complete outlier 9 conclusion. 10 BY MR. 11 12 certainly they did a very thorough to try to unders t a n d in even ESFANDIARY: Q All these scientists that you spoke to at Monsanto are employed by Monsanto, correct? 13 A Correct. 14 Q T h e y all have a vested interest in the 15 product, 16 17 Roundup, MR. correct? PARISER: Objection to form and scope. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, they are employees of 19 the company. I think they're also incredibly 20 well-educated, 21 who care very deeply about what they do. 22 know, 23 have absolutely no reason to question the 24 information they've shared with me. 25 BY MR. incredibly passionate scientists, they care very deeply about safety. You And I ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 148 Confidential 1 2 Q Pursuant to Protective Order You know of absolutely no reason to question the information they shared with you? 3 A Right, I am confident -- I'm confident 4 in their scientific assessment, 5 comfortable, 6 thoroughly and clearly explain things to me. 7 Q you know, and very that they have been able to Are you aware that when the IARC 8 m o n o graph was published, 9 p u b l ished an article setting forth their agreement 10 over a hundred scientists with the IARC methods and classification? 11 MR. PARISER: Objection to scope. 12 THE WITNESS: I -- I am aware that, 13 yeah, 14 came out, 15 exactly how many scientists signed on to the - 16 17 sometime after the -- after the IARC opinion there was such a letter. I forget signed on to the document. BY MR. 18 ESFANDIARY: Q You say in here, "glyphosate is not 19 carcinogen." 20 difference b e tween glyphosate and Roundup? a Do you agree with me there's a 21 MR. PARISER: Objection 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, to scope. glyphosate is 23 the active ingredient. A Roundup-branded product 24 would be an example of a formulated product. 25 BY MR. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 149 Confidential 1 2 Q Can Monsanto say that Roundup is not MR. PARISER: Objection to form. Objection to scope. 5 THE WITNESS: There's a -- there's a 6 tremendous amount of evidence that makes us very 7 confident that Roundup -- Roundup-branded 8 products, 9 not carcinogenic. 10 a carcinogen? 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order BY MR. 11 or other glyphosate formulations, are ESFANDIARY: Q So Monsanto is comfortable stating to 12 the world that glyphosate-based formulations are 13 not carcinogenic? 14 MR. PARISER: Same objections. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. And I think that 16 that assessment would hinge on multiple types of 17 data, 18 Agricultural H ealth Study, 19 ever -- has ever looked at any connection between 20 glyphosate, 21 BY MR. 22 23 including, for instance, the U.S. the largest study that g l y p h o sate-based products, and cancer. ESFANDIARY: q I would just quickly like to go back the previous exhibit there, 24 a Okay. 25 q Just one last Golkow Litigation Services to sir. -Page 150 Confidential 1 A No. 2 Q Yes, Pursuant to Protective Order 10? please. At the top of the page, 3 the first page of the attachment there, 4 "The p r o posed approach suggests industry 5 associations and credible third parties lead, 6 Monsanto plays a secondary role to defend its 7 Roundup brand." Do you see that, on it says, and sir? 8 A I do see that w r itten there. 9 Q So Monsanto w anted the primary 10 information -- the primary source of the 11 information regarding Roundup safety to come from 12 third parties, 13 MR. not itself, PARISER: correct? Objection to foundation, 14 and form, 15 line of questioning is asked and answered. 16 and asked and answered -- this whole THE WITNESS: Yes, I -- I see that 17 that's what's written in the plan here. 18 this is a plan that reflects thinking at one point 19 in time. 20 mid-Fe b r u a r y of 2015. 21 Again, I think this document is from You know, what I can tell you is that at 22 the -- as we got to the time of the announcement, 23 and in the years since, 24 p r imary role in defending the safety of product 25 of the product, and, Golkow Litigation Services Monsanto has taken a yes, - in defending the Roundup Page 151 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 brand. 2 multiple press interviews, 3 engaged online, 4 very p l eased that a wide variety of third parties, 5 our customer groups, 6 others, 7 glyphosate as well. We issued press release, 8 9 we've done we've engaged -- we 've to help share information. farmer associations, We 're and continue to support the safe use of A n d I think we've been very proactive, very front-footed in our -- in our engagement 10 around the product. 11 BY MR. 12 ESFANDIARY: Q Across two plans now, we've seen 13 Monsanto emphasize the need to defer to third 14 parties in protecting glyphosate's reputation. 15 And your testimony here today is that that's not 16 actually what occurred, 17 18 MR. scope, 19 PARISER: correct? Objection to foundation, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: What I'm -- what I'm 20 explaining is the plans that we've looked at 21 reflect thinking at one point 22 time. 23 evolve. 24 last few years certainly has put Monsanto in a 25 p r imary role of speaking out about the safety and in -- at one point Plans and approaches can and do -- and do A n d the approach that we've taken in the Golkow Litigation Services Page 152 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 the benefits of our product. But we're very glad 2 that our customer groups and others have -- have 3 defended the product as well. 4 BY MR. ESFANDIARY: 5 Q At Monsanto's request? 6 A In some cases, we've shared with them 7 opportunities where they could engage or speak 8 out. 9 You know, it's -- where there's a shared - there's a shared interest in a product that's as 10 important as glyphosate. 11 on it, because of the benefits that it provides to 12 them on a farm. 13 are times where we will go to our customers, 14 you know, share -- share some information with 15 them, 16 they do communicate. 17 And so, Our customers truly yes, rely there are -- there and and make a -- make a request that they do - Q A n d that plan identifies, as a primary 18 spokesperson for the safety of glyphosate, 19 other third parties, not Monsanto, 20 MR. PARISER: 21 THE WITNESS: these correct? Objection to the scope. This -- this document does 22 lay out a v a riety of -- a variety of different 23 groups that could have an interest in 24 communicating about 25 think I would say that they have p layed the Golkow Litigation Services -- about glyphosate. I don't Page 153 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 p r imary role. 2 very -- has been very direct with press releases 3 and interviews and other communications on the 4 topic. 5 spoken out as well. 6 BY MR. 7 I think Monsanto, But these groups have all again, has been -- have all ESFANDIARY: Q You agree with me that if the 8 information is coming from these third parties, 9 the average consumer has no way of knowing that is 10 actually Monsanto that is communicating the 11 specific message, 12 13 MR. and foundation, 14 the correct? PARISER: Objection to scope, form, vague. WITNESS: No, I -- I disagree 15 with -- with the premise there. These groups all 16 have points of view and opinions that are theirs, 17 and theirs alone. 18 information to them, 19 does not mean that any one of these groups, 20 individuals affiliated with the groups, 21 to actually communicate or not. 22 confident that any of these groups would speak 23 with their own voice, 24 the product 25 BY MR. That Monsanto provides some or shares some information or is going A n d I'm quite because they believe that is -- is important. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 154 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order A n d the shared interest Monsanto and all 2 these groups have is a shared financial interest 3 in the success of Roundup, 4 5 MR. PARISER: correct? Objection to scope, and foundation. 6 THE WITNESS: 7 that's 8 glyphosate 9 for Monsanto. No, I think -- I think -- I think that's too narrow. Glyphosate is important for our farmer -- for our farmer customers, 11 livelihoods. 12 Yes, -- glyphosate is an important product 10 and for their But the benefit of glyphosate extends 13 b eyond simply the contribution to a farmer's 14 livelihood. 15 sustainable farming practices. 16 useless diesel fuel in their operations. 17 promotes soil health. 18 shared value or the shared benefit, 19 in that broader context. 20 BY MR. 21 form, It enables farmers to use more It enables them to It When I talk about the it is -- it is ESFANDIARY: Q It's your testimony to the jury that 22 these third parties would as aggressively promote 23 the safety of Roundup, 24 financial interest in it? 25 MR. PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services if they did not have a Same objections. Page 155 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order THE WITNESS: I -- I -- no, I think 2 these -- I think part of why these groups, 3 individuals involved in the groups, 4 product certainly is that it does 5 provide value for them. 6 value, 7 simple as that. 8 in -- in Roundup, 9 else. defend the -- it does If it didn't provide they wouldn't buy the product. 10 and It's as If a farmer didn't see value they would buy and use something But because they understand both the 11 financial value, as well as the value for the 12 sustainability of their operations, 13 farmers choose to use Roundup year after year 14 after year. I think 15 ( M u rphey Exhibit No. 1 2 was marked 16 for identification.) 17 MR. ESFANDIARY: 18 Exhibit No. 19 have two copies of that. MR. PARISER: 21 MR. ESFANDIARY: 23 BY MR. going to mark 12 to your deposition. 20 22 I'm I think I only It's fine. All right. ESFANDIARY: q Okay. This is an exhibit, 24 MONGLY01021378. It contains e-mails between 25 Monsanto employees. Golkow Litigation Services Have you seen this document Page 156 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 before? 2 A Yes, 3 Q And the initial e-mail is from Donna I believe I have. 4 Farmer to Bill Heydens, 5 March 4, 6 decision , correct? 7 8 2015. A Yes, including David Saltmiras, And this is before the IARC that would be before the IARC opinion was published. 9 And Dr. Q Farmer says, I was asked to -- 10 "I was asked for a list of experts that they could 11 contact to defend glyphosate in the media," 12 then she identifies a list, and correct? 13 A Yes, 14 Q So this is an example of Monsanto using that's correct. 15 third parties to defend glyphosate in the media, 16 correct? 17 18 MR. PARISER: Objection to scope, foundation. 19 THE WITNESS: No, this -- this appears 20 to be a list of experts, 21 various 22 refer a reporter, 23 answer a question about the safety of glyphosate. 24 BY MR. 25 fields, scientific experts from to whom Monsanto could possibly or ask one of these experts to ESFANDIARY: Q To defend glyphosate in the media, Golkow Litigation Services Page 157 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order correct? 2 MR. 3 THE WITNESS: 4 misinformation, 5 media, yes, PARISER: 7 THE WITNESS: ESFANDIARY: MR. the record, 11 While you're doing that, ESFANDIARY: Sure. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: p.m. The time is 12:12 We're going off the record. (Brief recess.) 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: p.m. The time (Murphey Exhibit No. 13 17 for identification.) 19 20 is 12:13 We're back on the record. 16 18 We can go off actually. 13 15 I move this document. would it be okay if I grab a bottle of water? 9 12 if there was to defend glyphosate in that context. MR. 10 Yes, or inaccurate reporting in the 6 8 Same objections. BY MR. was marked ESFANDIARY: Q Mr. Murphey, here is Exhibit 13 to your deposition. 21 A Thank you. 22 q This is an e-mail, 23 Dan Goldstein dated March 3rd, 24 draft Op Ed materials. 25 Goldstein? Golkow Litigation Services MONGLY00948216, from 2015, regarding Do you work with Dan Page 158 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A I did work with Dr. Goldstein, 2 Q Have you seen this document before, 3 A Yes, 4 Q A n d it appears to have been created 5 I believe I have. MR. PARISER: Objection to form and foundation. 8 THE WITNESS: 9 MR. evidence as well. 11 BY MR. 12 Yes, ESFANDIARY: 10 it is. I move this into ESFANDIARY: Q And this was sent about 20 days after 13 Dr. 14 that can be used to defend glyphosate in the 15 media, Farmer's e-mail identifying the third parties correct? 16 MR. 17 THE WITNESS: 18 twenty days. 19 BY MR. 20 sir? during the ordinary course of Monsanto business? 6 7 yes. PARISER: Objection to scope. Yes, it appears -- roughly ESFANDIARY: Q And Dr. Goldstein says, "I have written 21 five potential draft Op Eds for the medical 22 toxicologists to work from. 23 general purpose couple of paragraphs on criticism 24 of IARC generally that can be grafted in to the 25 other versions." This also includes a Do you see that? Golkow Litigation Services Page 159 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A I -- I do see that. 2 Q Okay. And if you look at the 3 attachment, it says, 4 Idiosyncrasies at IARC." 5 "Glyphosate and Cancer - Do you see that, sir? 6 A Yes, I see that. 7 Q So is this an example of the talking 8 points that Monsanto would have p r o vided to third 9 parties to defend glyphosate in the media? 10 A Yes, I mean, this appears to be some 11 information that Dr. Goldstein had assembled with 12 some message points. 13 with -- you know, 14 addresses, 15 scientists. 16 in the e-mail, 17 starting point. 18 versions as -- as needed. 19 below that, 20 just grist for the mill, 21 you want to say." 22 Q And that he was sharing it what appears, by their e-mail to be some other medical doctors and A nd he explains in his -- you know, you know, this will give a good And we can coordinate Op Ed You know, not "not intended to tell you what to say, to help you create what W o u ld the person reading the Op Ed know 23 that the information initially came from 24 Dr. Goldstein of Monsanto Company? 25 -- even MR. PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services Objection to form, and Page 160 Confidential 1 foundation, 2 Pursuant to Protective Order and scope. THE WITNESS: I -- I think that depends 3 on what the -- what the scientist ultimately 4 published. 5 know, 6 Dr. Goldstein was just pulling together, 7 references 8 regulatory conclusions, 9 but I think whatever the scientist ultimately You know, document, I think in some of this, it looks like, -- you know, you know, you know, there are references to or there are other pieces, 10 p u b l ished would be their -- their opinion, 11 their opinion alone. 12 BY MR. 13 you and ESFANDIARY: Q Do you think it's important for a 14 consumer to know that a source of information is 15 coming from the company that has a vested interest 16 in the p r o duct? 17 MR. PARISER: 18 THE WITNESS: Same objections. I think there's some 19 context there that's 20 know, 21 stage -- at the senior level, 22 their careers that Dr. Goldstein was communicating 23 with, 24 accurately and fully reflect their opinion. 25 -- that's important. no -- no scientist, you know, You at this at the stage in would p u blish something that did not What Dr. Goldstein was providing here Golkow Litigation Services Page 161 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 was a starting point. 2 grist for the mill, 3 want to say. 4 this as early context or a starting point for 5 their ideas, 6 BY MR. 7 You know, as he puts it, to help you create what you You know, if -- if they use some of I think that's perfectly appropriate. ESFANDIARY: Q No, I appreciate that, and I wasn't 8 insinuating that Dr. Goldstein ghost-wrote any of 9 these for these scientists. 10 All I'm asking you, though, is, would it 11 be important for a consumer to know that some of 12 -- the source of some of the information it's 13 receiving about the IARC classification came from 14 the company that has a vested interest in the 15 p r o duct? 16 17 MR. PARISER: Same objections, and asked and answered. 18 THE WITNESS: No, I think -- I think in 19 this context, Dr. Goldstein was sharing some 20 information. You know, 21 chose to weigh in, 22 for publication, 23 should be reflected as such. 24 BY MR. 25 if one of these scientists and draft and submit an Op Ed that would be their opinion, and ESFANDIARY: Q So the answer to my q u e s t i o n is, no, Golkow Litigation Services Page 162 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Monsanto does not believe that it's important for 2 a consumer to know that some of the source of the 3 information about IARC is coming from the company? 4 5 MR. PARISER: Same objections, and asked and answered. 6 THE WITNESS: No, in -- in the context 7 of what -- of what I'm describing here, 8 Dr. Goldstein is sharing -- sharing information. 9 He is, you know, in some cases, could have been, 10 you know, 11 thinking and working on many different matters, 12 that the IARC opinion had just been published, 13 sharing some context around that. 14 ultimately, 15 time thinking about glyphosate and authoring on 16 Op Ed, 17 their name. 18 BY MR. 19 flagging for these scientists who are and I think, if those -- if those scientists spent it's accurate for it to be published in ESFANDIARY: Q Mr. Murphey, 20 MR. PARISER: 21 THE WITNESS: what was my question? Objection, It was argumentative. -- your question, 22 believe, 23 should Monsanto be noted as providing the 24 information. 25 BY MR. I was something to do with the fact of, And, no -- my answer to that is no. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 163 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order Okay. Okay. Let's take a look at this 2 here. So it's true that Monsanto's allocated 3 millions of dollars in responding to the IARC 4 classification, 5 6 MR. form, correct? PARISER: Objection to scope and foundation. 7 THE WITNESS: We -- we have -- we had to 8 spend a significant amount of resources, 9 several years now, correcting misinformation, 10 addressing questions in the public about 11 glyphosate. 12 BY MR. 13 14 Q dollars to responding to the IARC classification? Same 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 -- about Has Monsanto allocated millions of MR. PARISER: 18 and ESFANDIARY: 15 17 over BY MR. objections. ESFANDIARY: Q Do you know roughly how much Monsanto allocated to it in 2016? 20 MR. PARISER: Same 21 THE WITNESS: objections. I can -- I can only speak 22 w ithin the context of, you know, 23 activities, 24 been directly involved in. 25 I believe for some of the projects I was involved you know, Golkow Litigation Services public affairs things that I would have But in 2016, you know, Page 164 Confidential 1 in, 2 BY MR. Pursuant to Protective Order it was around 16 or 17 million. 3 ESFANDIARY: Q 16 or 17 m i llion 4 A Mm-hmm. 5 Q -- was allocated 6 - to responding to to the IARC clarification? 7 MR. PARISER: Same objections. 8 THE WITNESS: No, 9 solely focused on IARC. not specifically focused on engagement and media relations and 11 other activities on glyphosate, 12 BY MR. 13 So 16 to 17 million A 17 languages, 18 Q correct? where you have to deal with multiple digital media, and other activities. How much does it cost to perform a long-term cancer bioassay on a formulated product? 20 MR. PARISER: Objection, scope, foundation. 22 THE WITNESS: 23 frame reference for that. 24 BY MR. 25 on general Media relations in multiple countries, you know, 21 in 2016 media relations pertaining to glyphosate, 16 19 more generally. ESFANDIARY: Q 15 and It's -- it would have 10 14 the - I don't -- I don't have a ESFANDIARY: q Do you know who Dr. Golkow Litigation Services Koch is? Page 165 Confidential 1 Dr. Michael Koch? 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order A Yes, I'm aware that he's in our regulatory group. 4 Q He's a scientist, 5 A Yes. 6 Q Would you defer to his scientific right? 7 expertise when it comes to Roundup, 8 profile of Roundup? 9 10 A what Dr. 11 the scientific I'm -- I'm not person a l l y familiar with Koch's scientific backgr o u n d is. Q If a Monsanto scientist, such as 12 Dr. 13 carcinogenicity bioassay was to cost 1.5 million 14 US dollars, 15 to doubt her judgment on that? Farmer, 16 17 was to tell you that to conduct a full would you -- would you have any reason MR. PARISER: Objection to scope and foundation. 18 THE WITNESS: I -- I don't have any 19 frame of reference for what that costs, 20 would -- I would defer to Dr. so, no, Farmer. 21 Q You would? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And 1.5 million is significantly less 24 25 than 16 million, MR. I correct? PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services Objection to scope, form. Page 166 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order THE WITNESS: It is. However, 2 the type of assay that you're suggesting, 3 my u n d erstanding from conversations with 4 Dr. 5 regulatory study. 6 BY MR. Farmer and others, 7 is not I think based on -- is not a required ESFANDIARY: Q So Monsanto would only do a study to 8 find out the carcinogenicity of its product 9 it's required? 10 MR. 11 PARISER: Objection, if outside of the scope. 12 THE WITNESS: We have no -- again, based 13 on my u n d erstanding from conversations with our 14 scientists, 15 for -- our formulated products are carcinogenic. 16 A n d that includes significant epidemiology data 17 that looks at the real world use of those 18 products. 19 BY MR. 20 we have no evidence suggesting that ESFANDIARY: q Mr. Murphey, Monsanto has never, itself, 21 conducted a two-year carcinogenicity assay on the 22 formulated Roundup product, 23 24 25 MR. answered, PARISER: correct? Objection, asked and outside the scope. THE WITNESS: Golkow Litigation Services Yes, that's my Page 167 Confidential 1 understanding. 2 BY MR. 3 4 ESFANDIARY: Q So Monsanto, itself, does not know what the results of that study would show, 5 6 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. form. PARISER: Objection, 7 Objection. correct? Objection to outside the scope. THE WITNESS: Again, my u n d erstanding is 8 that that type of study has never been done. 9 BY MR. 10 11 ESFANDIARY: Q And if it was to be done, 1.5 million, 12 13 hypothetically? MR. BY MR. it would cost PARISER: Same objections. ESFANDIARY: 14 Q A n d -- 15 A I -- I don't have any frame of reference 16 for what that type of study would cost. 17 not my area of expertise. 18 Q 19 apologize, 20 correct? 21 A 22 23 14. Getting ahead of myself. 19 -- I Is that My last one was 13. MR. ESFANDIARY: I apologize. Can we go off the record quickly? 24 25 I want to mark as Exhibit No. That's THE VIDEOGRAPHER: p.m. The time is 12:23 We're going off the record. Golkow Litigation Services Page 168 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 (Lunch recess.) 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 3 1:15 p.m., 4 BY MR. 5 6 7 8 9 The time is and we're back on the record. ESFANDIARY: Q Good afternoon, Mr. Murphey, how was your lunch? A It was very nice, thank you. Good afternoon. Q 10 Good. All right. So before we went on a break, you 11 testified about the benefits that Roundup has for 12 farmers and agricultural workers. 13 that testimony? 14 A I do. 15 Q Great. Do you remember A n d you unders t a n d -- and I 'm 16 asking you this in your individual capacity, 17 understand that Roundup is also marketed at 18 regular consumers, you non-occupational users? 19 A Correct. 20 Q A n d do you think that Roundup could be 21 continued to be used in agricultural 22 also by consumers with the same benefits that it's 23 currently having if a cancer warning was given on 24 the label? 25 MR. PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services setting, and Objection to foundation, Page 169 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order form. 2 THE WITNESS: My -- my u n d erstanding is 3 that a cancer warning would be -- would be 4 inaccurate, 5 it to be false and misleading. 6 think a cancer warning would be appropriate, 7 likely would lead to decreased use. 8 BY MR. 9 and a federal judge has actually ruled So, no, I don't and ESFANDIARY: Q Let me pose this in a hypothetical. 10 Supposing that cancer -- that Monsanto took the 11 position that Roundup is actually associated with 12 an elevated risk in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 13 think that Roundup could continue to be used with 14 the same benefits we discussed earlier with a 15 cancer warning label? 16 17 MR. PARISER: Objection, assumption, 18 improper and lack of foundation. THE WITNESS: 19 the connection 20 the two. 21 do you I really don't understand that you're trying to draw between The benefits of Roundup are 22 well-established, and -- and known. 23 known that glyphosate isn't carcinogenic. 24 if you are talking about 25 you're talking about a different product almost. Golkow Litigation Services But it's also An d so -- it's really like Page 170 Confidential 1 BY MR. 2 Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: Q No, I'm asking you -- I'm asking you 3 hypothetically, that if Monsanto was to warn about 4 the cancer risk, 5 with the same benefits to farmers and consumers 6 that you discussed earlier? could Roundup continue to be used 7 MR. 8 THE WITNESS: 9 PARISER: Same objections. So I think the only way I can answer your question is the -- we firmly 10 believe that a cancer warning on a package of 11 Roundup would be inaccurate, 12 and misleading. 13 warning label would not change the beneficial 14 properties of the substance. 15 BY MR. 16 and it would be false But that false and misleading ESFANDIARY: Q So in other words, 17 marketed, 18 that you discussed earlier, 19 cancer label, 20 hypothetically, MR. Roundup could be with the same benefits but also carrying a correct? PARISER: Same objections, 21 continues to be outside the scope. 22 THE WITNESS: And again, I just and this -- I 23 don't think there's anything I can add to my 24 answer, 25 the warning label would not accurately other than, Golkow Litigation Services you know, again, to repeat, Page 171 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 characterize the product. 2 said that such a partnering label on glyphosate 3 products would be false and misleading to 4 consumers. 5 But, yes, A federal judge has to your point, putting that 6 false and misleading warning on a package of 7 Roundup, 8 would not change the beneficial properties of the 9 product. 10 BY MR. 11 which I believe to be inappropriate, ESFANDIARY: Q Do you think Monsanto would stop selling 12 Roundup if the company believed it was 13 carcinogenic? 14 15 MR. PARISER: Objection, scope, foundation. 16 THE WITNESS: I - - I can't speak to 17 that, 18 think that would be a matter for scientific 19 experts w ithin the company and -- and regulatory 20 bodies to decide. 21 BY MR. 22 one way -- one way or another. You know, ESFANDIARY: Q A n d you've already said you respect and 23 you defer to scientific opinions of your 24 colleagues, 25 I a such as Dr. Yes, Dr. Golkow Litigation Services Farmer, Farmer, right? among others. Page 172 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order A n d again, in your individual capacity, 2 here is another hypothetical. 3 to say, 4 research, 5 be associated with a risk of non-Hodgkin's 6 lymphoma, 7 selling Roundup in that eventuality? 8 9 Sam, you know, If Dr. Farmer was we have done some more and it turns out that this product may do you think that Monsanto should stop MR. PARISER: Objection to form, improper hypothetical. 10 THE WITNESS: I'll start by saying, we 11 have absolutely no reason to believe that we would 12 come across evidence like that. 13 nothing in my conversations with Monsanto 14 scientists about any type of evidence of that 15 nature. 16 I've heard But if -- if we were to come across 17 evidence that made that suggestion, 18 would be -- that would be a decision left up to 19 our experts in product 20 bodies around the world, 21 and evaluate the overall risk. 22 BY MR. 23 24 25 safety, I think it and regulatory that would have to weigh ESFANDIARY: Q But do you think that product be on the product MR. should not if it can cause cancer? PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services Objection, asked and Page 173 Confidential 1 answered, Pursuant to Protective Order improper hypothetical, 2 THE WITNESS: scope. I think that's 3 decision that would need to be made by 4 scientific 5 evaluate the overall risk, 6 the product would be -- would be used. 7 again, 8 our scientists about any suggestion of a 9 connection b e tween glyphosate and cancer. 10 who can in the context But, ESFANDIARY: Q No, I understand that. to you is, 13 think that if a product can cause cancer, 14 should not be on the market? 15 answered, 17 in exercising your own But my question 12 16 of how I've heard absolutely nothing from any of BY MR. 11 -- by scientific experts, -- that's a MR. PARISER: form, scope. THE WITNESS: judgment, Objection, No, do you it asked and as a -- as a 18 layperson, I'm very comfortable in the work that 19 our regulatory agencies do, 20 that they do that would look at an individual 21 piece of data from one study, 22 context of the overall 23 product, 24 real world risk. 25 BY MR. and the real and the assessments and assess it in the safety profile of the -- the real world -- the ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 174 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order If the EPA came out tomorrow and said 2 they believe Roundup to be associated with 3 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 4 should be off the market? 5 MR. 6 THE WITNESS: PARISER: do you think that Roundup Same objections. I think that would be a 7 decision -- that would be a decision for the EPA 8 to make, 9 what they saw in their overall based on -- again, 10 risk assessment. 11 BY MR. 12 based on what they -- their overall ESFANDIARY: Q Mr. Murphey, 13 q u e s t i o n again, 14 responsive answer yet. 15 I'm going to ask my and you haven't provided a My question to you was, if the EPA was 16 to come out and say that Roundup can cause cancer, 17 do you, 18 market? sir, 19 think that it should be off the MR. PARISER: I'm going to object again 20 to the form of the question, 21 A n d also, 22 whether he's asked or answered the question. 23 fact, 24 to object on that basis as well. 25 anything else you can add, Counsel, as well as scope. don't lecture the witness about he has answered the question. Golkow Litigation Services In And I'm going If you have you may do so. Page 175 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order THE WITNESS: My answer would be, no, 2 that would be a decision for experts at EPA to 3 make. 4 BY MR. 5 6 ESFANDIARY: Q So your answer is, no, you do not think that Roundup should be off the market? 7 MR. 8 answered. 9 BY MR. 10 11 PARISER: Objection, asked and ESFANDIARY: Q If the EPA makes a determination that it can cause cancer? 12 MR. PARISER: 13 answered numerous times, 14 hypothetical, 15 Objection, asked and and improper scope. THE WITNESS: No, the EPA would look at 16 that data in the context of an overall risk 17 assessment, 18 confident 19 regulate products. 20 BY MR. 21 and make its decision. I'm -- I'm in the EPA's ability to assess risk and ESFANDIARY: Q So if your -- you would exercise that 22 confidence in the event 23 Roundup to be associated with cancer, 24 MR. 25 THE WITNESS: PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services that the EPA determines correct? Same objections. Correct. A n d I just -- I Page 176 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 really don't think there is anything else I can 2 add here. 3 BY MR. 4 ESFANDIARY: Q So in that exercising your confidence in 5 the belief, or in the accuracy of the EPA's 6 assessment, if they decided that Roundup is a 7 carcinogen, do you think that it should come off 8 the market? 9 MR. PARISER: 10 hypothetical, 11 answered numerous times. 12 Same objections, outside the scope, THE WITNESS: No, asked and I think the -- the EPA 13 would make that decision, 14 at it in the context of exposure. 15 at it in the context of overall 16 risk. 17 determination, 18 that they reviewed. 19 BY MR. 20 because they would look They would look -- of overall A n d they would -- they would make the based on -- based on the science ESFANDIARY: Q What do you think, 21 it should come off the market, 22 have a cancer risk, 23 carcinogen? 24 25 improper MR. though? Do you think if it's deemed to that EPA has deemed it to be a PARISER: Same objections, asked and answered. Golkow Litigation Services Page 177 Confidential 1 BY MR. ESFANDIARY: 2 Q 3 can say that. 4 5 Pursuant to Protective Order If you don't know, MR. PARISER: you don't know. You And I object to counsel's instructing the witness. 6 THE WITNESS: No. Sir, my answer would 7 be, 8 market, 9 product causes no unreasonable risk of harm to if the EPA allows a product to stay on the the EPA believes that that product 10 human health or to the environment. 11 continues to make that determination, 12 should be on the market. 13 going to look at that in a holistic way. 14 BY MR. If the EPA But again, the product the EPA is ESFANDIARY: 15 Q 16 determination? 17 MR. 18 -- that What hypothetical, 19 -- what PARISER: if it doesn't make that Objection, vague, improper scope. THE WITNESS: 20 to -- to any product. 21 BY MR. Again, this would relate ESFANDIARY: 22 Q So you -- 23 A If the EPA -- if the EPA determines that 24 a product poses unreasonable risk, 25 on -- it won't be on the market. Golkow Litigation Services it won't be A n d I think that Page 178 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 is -- that is the context under the laws, 2 unders t a n d it, as I for every product the EPA assesses. Golkow Litigation Services Page 179 A 4 A 4 A 4 A A 4 A A 4 A 4 A 4 A 4 A A A A 4 A A Confidential 18 19 BY MR. Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: Q I'm going to mark as Exhibit No. 20 following e-mail between y o u and others at 21 Monsanto. 22 ( M u r p h e y Exhibit No. 23 for identification.) 24 MR. 25 counsel there. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services 15, the 15 was marked Here's copies for Page 195 Confidential 1 BY MR. 2 Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: Q A n d you sent 3 document before, 4 e-mails, I assume, correct, 5 A Yes. 6 Q Okay. -- you've seen this because you sent both sir? And this is MONGLY03315608 , and 7 it contains e-mail correspondence between Samuel 8 Murphey and others at Monsanto, 9 Mr. 10 David -- Dr. David Heering. is dated October 5th, 11 including The first e -mail 2015. A n d does this appear to have been 12 created during the ordinary course of Monsanto 13 business, Mr. Murphey? 14 MR. 15 THE WITNESS: 16 MR. PARISER: Yes. ESFANDIARY: 17 evidence as well. 18 BY MR. 19 Objection to form. I move this into ESFANDIARY: Q And you say at the bottom there, 20 as discussed on the weekly glyphosate call, 21 first two post-IARC glyphosate personal 22 lawsuits in the U.S. were filed in late 23 September." 24 25 Do you see that, A "Team, the injury sir? Correct. Golkow Litigation Services Page 196 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order "One case was filed 2 another in California. 3 litigation for some time." 4 A Yes. 5 Q So Monsanto in New York, We had anticipated had, by October 5th, anticipated litigation related to the 7 carcinogenicity of glyphosate, 9 MR. scope. PARISER: A n d you know, sir? 2015, correct? Objection, again, such Do you see that, 6 8 and outside the I'd instruct you not 10 to reveal the contents of any attorney/client 11 communications. 12 answer, 13 capacity. But otherwise, you can -- you can to the extent you know in your personal 14 THE WITNESS: in my personal 15 capacity, 16 5th was, 17 right at six months from when the IARC opinion had 18 been published. 19 aware of some advertising that was 20 to be done, 21 yes, 22 yes, Sure, this is -- so October -- October you know, more than six months -- And you know, regarding potential certainly by October 5th, in this note, I believe we were -- was starting litigation. So, we had -- we had - we had indicated we had seen the 23 first two cases filed. 24 BY MR. 25 or ESFANDIARY: Q If you turn over the page, Golkow Litigation Services to Bates Page 197 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 ending 609, and just for the record, 2 line of questioning will direct 3 directly to your representative role on behalf of 4 Monsanto. 5 employees or stakeholders, 6 is, while sympathetic to individuals experiencing 7 health problems, 8 plaintiffs in these cases, 9 glyphosate is safe for human health when used as You say, this next -- will be related "If you receive questions from an appropriate response including those alleged by we believe that 10 labeled, and that these suits are without merit. 11 Decades of experience within agriculture and 12 regulatory reviews, 13 worldwide human health databases ever compiled on 14 an agricultural product contradict the claims in 15 the suits, 16 you see that? 17 A I do. 18 Q A n d you're aware that using the most extensive which we have vigorously defended." plaintiffs Do in this 19 litigation were exposed to the formulated Roundup 20 product, not just glyphosate, 21 A Correct. 22 Q Do you recall why correct, sir? you made adecision 23 respond with the boilerplate language pertaining 24 only to glyphosate, 25 MR. and not Roundup? PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services to Objection to form, scope. Page 198 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order THE WITNESS: I -- I don't recall, 2 the specific context of this statement, 3 we certainly have data, 4 H ealth Study, 5 g l y p h o sate-based formulations and cancer either. 6 BY MR. 7 no. in But such as the Agricultural that clearly shows no link between ESFANDIARY: Q Did you ever discuss -- have any 8 discussions with your Monsanto colleagues, 9 it was expected that in media statements, where Monsanto 10 steer clear from referring to "glyphosate-based 11 formulations," 12 MR. PARISER: Objection to 13 THE WITNESS: No. 14 15 BY MR. and use "glyphosate" instead? scope. ESFANDIARY: Q When discussing -- let me rephrase. 16 When discussing your response -- when discussing 17 Monsanto's response to the IARC classification, 18 was there a consensus within Monsanto to use 19 glyphosate when speaking of the classification, 20 opposed to GBFs? 21 MR. PARISER: Objection, 22 THE WITNESS: I -- I think as vague. in the 23 context of IARC, our understanding was that the 24 IARC opinion dealt with the active ingredient. 25 A n d so some of our statements may have -- may have Golkow Litigation Services Page 199 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 focused on the active ingredient 2 You know, 3 statements that deal with g lyphosate-based 4 formulations as well. 5 BY MR. 6 in that context. but we certainly have made many ESFANDIARY: Q You're aware that IARC looked at 7 hundreds of genotoxicity studies that looked at 8 the formulated products, 9 10 MR. PARISER: correct? Objection to scope and form. 11 THE WITNESS: I'm not exactly clear on 12 what exactly IARC looked at, but my -- my 13 u n d erstanding was that their opinion dealt with 14 the -- with the active substance. 15 BY MR. 16 ESFANDIARY: Q You're not exactly clear what IARC 17 looked at, but you are comfortable speaking to the 18 media about the flaws of the classification, 19 correct? 20 MR. PARISER: Objection, argumentative. 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, 22 understanding, 23 scientists. 24 BY MR. 25 based -- based on my and my conversations with our ESFANDIARY: q Mr. Murphey, Golkow Litigation Services Monsanto's ultimate goal is Page 200 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 to defend freedom to operate for glyphosate 2 globally, 3 protec t i o n business, 4 5 while enabling growth of Monsanto's crop MR. correct? PARISER: Objection, outside the scope. 6 THE WITNESS: I -- I can't say that that 7 is Monsanto's overarching goal. 8 that as a goal that I -- I once identified in my 9 plan as a p r i ority that would be for my team. 10 11 BY MR. I -- I do recall ESFANDIARY: Q All right. I would like to switch gears 12 to -- I believe it's category number 1 8 on the PMK 13 deposition notice. 14 Monsanto's knowledge, 15 related to Let Nothing Go. 16 Now, The Let Nothing Go campaign, positions, and conduct part of your corporate engagement 17 responsibilities at Monsanto involved coordinating 18 the Let Nothing Go campaign, 19 20 21 22 23 A Yes, correct, sir? I would say I was one of the people on point for that effort. Q Can you please define the Let Nothing Go campaign for the jury? a Sure. The Let Nothing Go effort focused 24 on the European Union. 25 that involved carefully monitoring media coverage Golkow Litigation Services A n d it was an initiative Page 201 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 about the company in multiple languages. 2 number of markets we were -- we were prioritizing. 3 So media monitoring in those different 4 H i ghlighting or flagging stories that contained 5 inaccurate information or misinformation about the 6 company or products, 7 include the company's perspective or point of 8 view. 9 We had a languages. or stories that didn't A n d then following up with those 10 reporters, proactively calling reporters in those 11 instances, to share a statement, 12 additional context, 13 reporters to contact us in the future. 14 Q to provide some and to encourage those Let's just break down the answer a 15 little bit. So part of the Let Nothing Go 16 initiative, 17 for positive stories about its glyphosate-based 18 formulations in the media? would that involve Monsanto pushing 19 MR. PARISER: 20 THE WITNESS: Objection to form. In -- in some contexts, 21 there -- there might have been proactive - 22 proactive outreach, 23 a reporter to think about an idea for a story in 24 the future. 25 focus was or asking -- you know, But I would say, principally, asking the -- that monitoring and that reaction Golkow Litigation Services Page 202 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 that I described. 2 BY MR. 3 ESFANDIARY: Q A n d did the Let Nothing Go campaign 4 invest in communication tactics targeted - 5 targeted to consumers of Roundup? 6 A It more -- so it focused on kind of both 7 mainst r e a m and agricultural trade publications. 8 So, yes, 9 we're talking about the European Union. to the extent that a consumer -- again, To the 10 extent that a consumer might see an article about 11 glyphosate or Roundup in a -- in a mainstream 12 publication, 13 that type of consumer audience. 14 15 Q it would involve -- it would involve Did the Let Nothing Go campaign involve making Monsanto's opponents uncomfortable? 16 MR. PARISER: 17 THE WITNESS: Objection to form. No, I don't think that's 18 an accurate characterization. I think it was 19 the -- the effort was much more about realizing, 20 in the European context, 21 amount of coverage on glyphosate, 22 earlier. 23 Glyphosate was receiving a tremendous amount of 24 coverage in -- in the media. 25 more focused on reaching out and trying to achieve there was a significant as we discussed This renewal process was occurring. Golkow Litigation Services A n d this effort was Page 203 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 accuracy and balance in that reporting. 2 BY MR. 3 ESFANDIARY: Before we move on, Q have you been -- have 4 you ever received media training at Monsanto 5 Company? 6 A I have not. 7 Q You have not? Have you ever received 8 any kind of training pertaining to sticking to the 9 answer, regardless of the question? 10 MR. 11 THE WITNESS: 12 BY MR. PARISER: Objection, vague. No. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 204 A A A A A A A A 4 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Confidential 7 8 Q No. Pursuant to Protective Order All right. Let's move on to Exhibit 19. 9 (Murphey Exhibit No. 10 for identification.) 11 BY MR. 12 19 was marked ESFANDIARY: Q All right. This is MONGLY0348790. It 13 contains e-mails and attachment - - e-mails sent by 14 Samuel Murphey. 15 2016. 16 outreach. And it's -- the subject is Germany 17 18 19 The first one is dated May 21st, Do you recall sending these e-mails, Mr. Murphey? A I -- I don't necessarily recall sending 20 the individual e-mails, 21 conversation and the substance of what's being 22 discussed. 23 Q Okay. but I recall the And does this appear to have been 24 created during the ordinary course of Monsanto 25 business? Golkow Litigation Services Page 231 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 MR. 2 THE WITNESS: 3 MR. 4 evidence. 5 BY MR. PARISER: Objection, form. Yes. ESFANDIARY: Okay. I move this into ESFANDIARY: 6 Q And you say here, at the first e-mail, 7 at the bottom, 8 Germany has w orked with FleishmanHillard to 9 develop an expanded plan for targeted "The corporate engagement lead in outreach in 10 Germany to help move 11 back to support for glyphosate renewal. 12 is FleishmanHillard, "sent this to me for review 13 today. work outlined in the plan 14 moves b eyond our previous focus on the media 15 components of the 16 specifically focuses on direct outreach to 17 political The scope of 18 19 the government's position 'Let Nothing Go' FH," that campaign and stakeholders." Do you see that? a I do. Golkow Litigation Services Page 232 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 2 Q Okay. 3 You can put that aside. All right. Mr. Murphey, just for the 4 record, 5 corporate representative deposition. 6 move into questions about your individual 7 capacity, 8 resume to asking questions on your representative 9 behalf later on if I feel the need to, 10 I am concluding the p o rtion of the although I'm reserving the right to MR. PARISER: okay? Do we have a copy of the 11 notice to mark, 12 Counsel, 13 page, 14 examination, 15 questioning pertains to, you know, 16 role, just to be clear. A n d also, just to make sure we're both on the same we'll do one direct at the end of the and I'll just make clear when my his individual role, 17 MR. ESFANDIARY: 18 MR. KRISTAL: 19 I'm going to his 30(b)(6) or both. Jerry? That's fine with me, as long as it's clear. 20 MR. PARISER: 21 MR. ESFANDIARY: 22 MR. KRISTAL: Thank you. All right. I mean, it's all going to 23 come in, 24 A n d it's only a question of what import can be 25 attributed to an answer, one way or the other, Golkow Litigation Services or not, obviously. that's all. Page 242 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 MR. 2 So do you want to just mark, 3 record, 4 capacity, PARISER: Right. so we're clear. MR. 6 be Exhibit No. ESFANDIARY: Sure. (Murphey Exhibit No. 8 for identification.) 10 Yeah. This will 22. 7 BY MR. for the the deposition notice of his individual 5 9 Thank you. 22 was marked ESFANDIARY: Q 11 Just put it over here for now. Okay. Where are we? Okay. 12 Mr. Murphey, Monsanto is -- has been concerned 13 with the costs associated with marketing a safer 14 Roundup formulation, correct? 15 MR. 16 Can we go off the record for a second? 17 Hold on one second. My Livenote has stopped. 18 19 PARISER: THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 2:50 p.m., (Pause.) 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 23 24 25 p.m., is and we are going off the record. 20 22 The time The time is 2:51 and we're back on the record. MR. PARISER: Can we just have the question reread? (Whereupon, Golkow Litigation Services the requested record Page 243 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 was read.) 2 MR. 3 4 PARISER: Objection to form, foundation. THE WITNESS: 5 with that directly. 6 like to show me, That -- I'm not familiar If there is a document you'd I'd be happy to look at it. I I I Golkow Litigation Services Page 244 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order I I 24 (Murphey Exhibit No. 25 for identification.) Golkow Litigation Services 28 was marked Page 284 Confidential 1 BY MR. 2 Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: Q I'm handing you Exhibit 28. It contains 3 a series of e-mails to and from yourself, 4 MONGLY03381565, 5 6 February 9th, 2016. And you see that there is an e-mail from you on the front face of this document? 7 A I do. 8 Q Do you know if these were sent during 9 the ordinary course of Monsanto business? 10 MR. 11 THE WITNESS: 12 MR. 13 evidence. 14 BY MR. PARISER: Objection to form. Yes. ESFANDIARY: Okay. Move this into ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 285 Confidential 3 Q - Pursuant to Protective Order And you respond, on page 566, Samuel 4 Murphey to David Heering, 5 make sure our stakeholders are aware, 6 company, 7 I will be interested in Brian's guidance, 8 negotiations ongoing at the WHO level, 9 that getting too close to this could undermine 10 "My recommendation is to but as a I advise against pushing this directly. those discussions." 11 A 12 on that again, 13 Q but with I worry Do you see that? Could you point me to the Bates number please? It is on page 566. from you, It's in the top 14 p a r a graph there, Samuel Murphey, 15 February 9th. 16 A Okay, 17 Q A n d then on the front page of this I've got it. you say, Yes, I see that. 18 document, "I'm fully supportive of 19 getting out to our stakeholders 20 others) 21 just think we want the public push at arm's-length 22 from Monsanto." and asking them to share and discuss. Do you see that, 23 a I do. 24 Q So do you disagree 25 (Prop 65 and I sir? with our own characterization of Monsanto's activity? Golkow Litigation Services Page 286 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 MR. PARISER: 2 THE WITNESS: Objection to form. No, I think this -- this 3 was a recommendation that I was making in the 4 context of this one particular story and isn't 5 reflective of the broader approach that we 6 generally take to media. 7 BY MR. 8 9 ESFANDIARY: Q Mr. Murphey, earlier today, you testified that you disagree with the 10 characterization that Monsanto was trying to 11 influence public opinion at an arm's-length. 12 here you are, 13 your Monsanto colleagues that you think that you 14 should be pushing the story -- "want the public 15 push at arm's-length from Monsanto." 16 that, 17 18 2016, saying to Do you see sir? MR. the question, 19 on February 9th, And PARISER: Objection to the form of argumentative, THE WITNESS: No, asked and answered. I do see here that I'm 20 recommending that we -- we share this with various 21 stakeholders, 22 know, 23 Monsanto social media channels, 24 share the story broadly. 25 was not to do that in this instance, and ask them to discuss it. You the proposal on the table was whether to use Golkow Litigation Services for instance, to A n d my recommendation but to share Page 287 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 the -- to share the information in the story with 2 a v a riety of stakeholders. 3 BY MR. 4 ESFANDIARY: Q Mr. Murphey, your recommendation was to 5 get the public push at arm's-length from Monsanto, 6 correct? Isn't that what you say there, sir - 7 A Yes. 8 Q -- on the face of this document? 9 So you do not disagree that part of Monsanto's 10 initiatives in influencing the public opinion on 11 glyphosate safety involved doing so at 12 arm's-length from Monsanto, 13 MR. PARISER: 14 THE WITNESS: correct? Objection to form. No, as I've -- as I've 15 explained, 16 multiple approaches. 17 this one particular story, 18 to provide it to stakeholders, 19 it directly, 20 media channels. 21 BY MR. 22 our public affairs strategies had In the context of sharing for instance, my recommendation was and not to promote from Monsanto's social ESFANDIARY: Q So Monsanto -- part of Monsanto's 23 initiative in protecting the public image of 24 glyphosate did involve doing so at arm's-length 25 from Monsanto, correct? Golkow Litigation Services Page 288 Confidential 1 A Pursuant to Protective Order In the instance of this particular 2 story, 3 stakeholders, 4 Monsanto's corporate social media channels. 5 (Murphey Exhibit No. 6 for identification.) 7 BY MR. 8 9 my recommendation was to share this with and not to promote it directly from 29 was marked ESFANDIARY: Mr. Murphey, Q deposition . this is Exhibit 29 to your It's a series of e-mails. 10 The initial Bates is MONGLY07673376. 11 you -- have you -- it's dated August 12 subject: 13 Medicine Op-Ed." And if 19th, 2015, "Heads Up - New England Journal of 14 Does this appear to have been created 15 during the ordinary course of Monsanto business, 16 sir? 17 MR. 18 THE WITNESS: 19 MR. 20 evidence. 21 BY MR. 22 PARISER: Objection to form. Yes. ESFANDIARY: I'll move this into ESFANDIARY: Q And if you turn to the last page of the 23 document, 24 Wednesday, 25 Monsanto employees, there's an e-mail from you, August 19th, Golkow Litigation Services 2015, sent to a whole slew of with a subject, Heads Up - New Page 289 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 England Journal of Medicine Op-Ed. 2 And you say, "Corporate engagement ops: 3 I w anted to make you aware of our strategy for 4 responding to an Op Ed that we'll publish later 5 today in the Perspective section of the New 6 England Journal of Medicine. 7 Landrigan and Charles Benbrook, frequent 8 anti-GM/pesticide commentators, is critical of 9 Glyphosate 2,4-D and Dow's endless products." 10 At the bottom, The Op Ed, by Philip you say, "The Op Ed 11 attached to this e-mail is under embargo until 12 5 p.m. 13 not share the Op Ed with others at this time." 14 you see that, 15 A Yes. 16 Q Mr. Murphey, Eastern, 4 p.m. Central today. Please do Do sir? how on Earth did Monsanto 17 get its hands on an Op Ed that had not been 18 p u b l ished yet? 19 MR. 20 THE WITNESS: PARISER: Objection to form. The use of embargoes in 21 the journalism and public affairs industry is 22 fairly common. 23 instance of this Op Ed, but there are occasions, 24 for instance, 25 been p r o vided a copy of the Op Ed or article by I don't recall in this specific where a journalist who will have Golkow Litigation Services Page 290 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 the journal in advance, 2 seek our comment. 3 would share -- would share the piece with us. 4 again, 5 of -- of this Op Ed. 6 BY MR. 7 8 9 reaches out to seek -- to A n d in that case, would share But I don't understand in the specific context ESFANDIARY: Q Are you aware that Chuck Benbrook is an expert for plaintiffs in this litigation? A I am. Golkow Litigation Services Page 291 A A A A A A Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order I I I I 5 6 MR. Exhibit No. ESFANDIARY: 31, I'm going to mark as a series of e-mails. 7 (Mur p h e y Exhibit No. 8 for identification.) 9 BY MR. 10 31 was marked ESFANDIARY: Q It's an e-mail from yourself to II Mr. Jenkins, 12 you. 13 2016. and Mr. Jenkins returning back to A n d it's MONGLY03402231, 14 Mr. Murphey, dated April 21st, does this appear to have 15 been created under the ordinary course of Monsanto 16 b u s i ness? 17 MR. 18 THE WITNESS: 19 20 BY MR. PARISER: Yes. ESFANDIARY: Q Now, 21 Anne Overstreet 22 Bates 233, Mr. Jenkins sends a statement to from the EPA, on page ending in correct? 23 A He does. 24 Q Okay. 25 Objection to form. And this statement appears to be coming from the EPA, Golkow Litigation Services the way in which it's -- in Page 296 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 which it's addressed, correct? It says, 2 always strives to base its decisions on the best 3 sound science." 4 "Currently, 5 science issues on glyphosate, 6 of the chemical 7 human incidents and epidemiology evaluation, 8 International Ag e n c y on Research for Cancer, 9 IARC's cancer reevaluation released in August A n d the second p a r a graph says, we are working through some important including residues in human breast milk, 10 2015, 11 toxicity to milk weed." an in-depth the and a preliminary analysis of glyphosate 12 MR. 13 THE WITNESS: PARISER: Do you see that, sir? Objection to form. Yes. And then it 14 concludes, 15 resource for the Monarch butterfly. 16 issue the draft cancer risk assessment 17 comment later in 2016." 18 BY MR. 19 "The EPA "The toxicity to milk weed, a critical We hope to for public ESFANDIARY: Q Right. And this e-mail from Dan Jenkins 20 to Ms. Overstreet 21 Monsanto employees, 22 say, 23 Overstreet says in her e-mail that she provided 24 the shorter statement to Bloomberg on March 8th. 25 The longer statement that I shared was p r o vided by in is forwarded through various including yourself. A n d you an e-mail from April 21st, "Anne Golkow Litigation Services Page 297 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 EPA's Robert Daguillard to a public a t i o n called 2 Farm World on April 3 statement refers to a draft risk assessment to 4 released in late 2016 for public comment. 5 Robert's longer statement refers to a draft cancer 6 risk assessment to be released in late 2016 for 7 public comment. 8 risk assessment or something different? 9 Anne talking about the PRA and Robert about the 10 19th. Anne's shorter be Are they referring to the same Or is CARC?" 11 Do you see that? 12 A I do. 13 Q A n d then Mr.Jenkins' response to you, 14 "Anne and I quite -- talked quite a bit today. 15 What she was doing below is showing me what she 16 had w r itten for their press office use." 17 see that, Do you sir? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Now, would the EPA and -- would the EPA 20 regularly share press statements with Monsanto 21 prior to issuing them to the rest of the world? 22 A No, but that doesn't seem to be 23 what's -- what's happening here. 24 through the entire chain, 25 the statement that Mr. Golkow Litigation Services In -- in looking it looks like perhaps Jenkins originally sent to Page 298 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Ms. Overstreet was something that I had seen in 2 the Farm World publication. 3 That's -- and it looks like, then, 4 Mr. Jenkins perhaps sent it to Ms. Overstreet to 5 ask her to confirm if it was an accurate -- an 6 accurate EPA statement, 7 back in that e-mail you were just reading from, 8 the top, 9 the two versions, you know, because then she comes she is demonstrating between that the statement had been 10 changed by someone down the line, 11 reference in the original 12 public comment on the draft cancer risk assessment 13 was inaccurate. 14 Q D i d you and that the longer statement to a prepare talking 15 meeting -- private meeting between 16 Gina McCarthy, 17 EPA? points in a Monsanto and the former administrator of the 18 MR. PARISER: 19 THE WITNESS: Objection to form. I was -- I was involved in 20 the prepar a t i o n of talking points for a -- for a 21 meeting with the administrator. 22 BY MR. 23 24 25 ESFANDIARY: Q A n d the meeting with the administrator was not open to public scrutiny, A was it, sir? I -- Golkow Litigation Services Page 299 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 MR. 2 THE WITNESS: PARISER: Objection to form. I don't unders t a n d what 3 you mean by "public scrutiny." 4 BY MR. 5 ESFANDIARY: Q Were others from the public invited to 6 observe the meeting b e tween Monsanto and Gina 7 McCarthy, 8 9 A the administrator of the EPA? No, my -- my understanding was that was not a -- not a public meeting, 10 with many different 11 topics. 12 MR. stakeholders on many different ESFANDIARY: Exhibit No. 13 (Murphey Exhibit No. 14 for identification.) 15 BY MR. 16 but the EPA meets 32. 32 was marked ESFANDIARY: Q A n d it's an e-mail, MONGLY03550799, 17 David Heering to Samuel Murphy, 18 titled "Talking Points for Conversation with 19 Gina." 20 administrator of the EPA, 8-9-2016, Gina referring to Ms. McCarthy, 21 A Yes, 22 Q Okay. from and it's the former correct? Administrator McCarthy. So one of the talking points 23 the attachment there is -- well, 24 this created during the ordinary course of 25 Monsanto business? Golkow Litigation Services first of all, in was Page 300 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 MR. 2 THE WITNESS: 3 MR. 4 evidence. 5 BY MR. 6 PARISER: Objection to form. Yes. ESFANDIARY: Okay, move this into ESFANDIARY: Q The -- if you turn the page to the 7 attachment, 8 the conversation." 9 enough for EPA to act without the Scientific 10 it says, "Suggested areas of focus for And you say, "There is already A d v i s o r y Panel." 11 Do you see that, 12 A Yes, 13 Q And then, sir? I see that bullet point. at the bottom, it says, "Other 14 countries are watching what both the EU and U.S. 15 EPA are doing. 16 assessments by these two agencies for years to 17 guide them in their own risk assessments." 18 see that, They have relied upon product Do you sir? 19 a I do. 20 Q So Monsanto was of the opinion that with 21 respect 22 makes with respect to glyphosate, 23 were bound to rely upon that, 24 25 A -- you know, Yes, whatever the decision EPA other countries correct? my u n d erstanding from conversations with our scientific and regulatory experts, Golkow Litigation Services is Page 301 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 that the -- the U S E P A and the European authorities 2 are looked to by a number of other countries as - 3 as models. 4 Q So if the EPA's glyphosate issue paper 5 is, for the sake of a hypothetical, 6 some undisc l o s ed conflict of interest, 7 countries then also be relying upon that 8 glyphosate issue paper for their assessments of 9 glyphosate? 10 11 MR. PARISER: Objection to form, THE WITNESS: It's -- I -- I don't 13 unders t a n d what you are asking, 14 potential tainting. 15 BY MR. 16 18 would other improper hypothetical. 12 17 tainted by with regard to the ESFANDIARY: Q Well, my question -- let me put it this way. W o u ld an undisclosed conflict of 19 interest in the EPA's 2016 glyphosate issue paper 20 have repercussions around the world, 21 what other regulatory decisions 22 agencies do with respect to glyphosate? 23 MR. 24 THE WITNESS: 25 PARISER: in terms of -- regulatory Same objections. I'm -- I'm not aware of any conflict of interest w ithin the issue paper, Golkow Litigation Services Page 302 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 so I can only reiterate that I do know that EPA 2 assessments are looked at by many other countries 3 around the world. 4 BY MR. 5 6 7 8 9 10 ESFANDIARY: Now, Q you testified earlier that you're aware of who Mr. A Yes, Jess Roland was, correct? I'm aware that Mr. Rowland was an official at the EPA. He was in the Office of Pesticide Q Programs, correct? 11 A That was my understanding. 12 Q A n d he helped coauthor, 13 14 chair on the CARC report, A Again, or was the lead correct? I know he was -- he was involved 15 in the -- in the Cancer Assessment Review 16 Committee . 17 specific role. 18 Q I'm -- I'm not familiar with his Did Monsanto have a -- are you aware of 19 whether Monsanto had a strong working relationship 20 with Mr. 21 A Rowland during his tenure at the OPP? I was -- was aware that Monsanto 22 employees occasionally interacted with Mr. Rowland 23 in the course of business. 24 MR. 25 THE WITNESS: ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Was that Exhibit 32? Yes, 32, sir. Page 303 Confidential 1 2 MR. BY MR. 3 Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: So this is - ESFANDIARY: Q Are you aware that right after IARC's 4 initial announcement of its classification, 5 Agency for Toxic Diseases 6 Substances and Disease Registry was also looking 7 to review glyphosate? 8 9 A I was Q 11 review, -- was aware that there had been A n d Monsanto was concerned about this correct? 12 MR. PARISER: Objection to form and foundation. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, we were -- we were 15 concerned, 16 review by another agency, 17 conducting its work. 18 agency charged with evaluating product 19 like glyphosate. 20 BY MR. 21 Toxic conversations about a -- a possible review there. 10 13 -- what is it, the in that it would be a duplicative while the EPA was And the EPA is the federal -- products ESFANDIARY: Q Sir, you'd agree with me that an issue 22 as serious as a product causing cancer warrants 23 the most rigorous analysis and scrutiny as 24 possible, 25 A correct? Yes, I do, by the -- by the agencies Golkow Litigation Services Page 304 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 charged with making those types of assessments. 2 A n d with regard to glyphosate and pesticide 3 products in the U.S., 4 Q that agency is the USEPA. Do you have any reason to doubt the 5 ability of the ATSDR to perform a comprehensive 6 analysis of glyphosate safety? 7 8 MR. PARISER: Objection to form and foundation. 9 THE WITNESS: I am not personally 10 familiar with the ATSDR's capabilities, 11 that the EPA is specifically designed to make 12 those types of assessments, 13 pesticide products. 14 BY MR. 15 but I know with regard to ESFANDIARY: Q So why would it be duplicative of the 16 ATSDR to also assess the carcinogenicity of 17 glyphosate? 18 A It would be duplicative, at that very point in time, because the EPA 19 was, 20 its risk assessment work on glyphosate. 21 was work that had been underway, 22 discussed, 23 through all of that literature, 24 duplicative process beginning, 25 was still underway. since 2009. Golkow Litigation Services in the midst of again, A n d that as we've The EPA had worked its way so this would be a while EPA's work Page 305 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order But why -- what would Monsanto lose by 2 having the ATSDR also look at the potential 3 carcinogenicity of glyphosate? 4 MR. PARISER: 5 THE WITNESS: Objection to form. It's not what Monsanto 6 would have to lose. 7 use of government resources to have two reviews 8 running in parallel, 9 conducting its work. 10 BY MR. 11 It would be an inefficient while the EPA was still ESFANDIARY: Q So your testimony to this jury is that 12 the reason Monsanto was apprehensive about ATSDR 13 performing a cancer review on glyphosate was 14 because Monsanto was concerned with saving 15 government resources? 16 MR. 17 argumentative. 18 PARISER: THE WITNESS: Objection to form, No, we have -- we have a 19 process in place in the United States, 20 EPA, 21 products. 22 review by the ATSDR in the midst of EPA's work 23 would be duplicative. 24 BY MR. 25 through the to conduct regulatory oversight of pesticide The EPA was doing just that. A second ESFANDIARY: Q What's wrong with that? Golkow Litigation Services Page 306 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 MR. PARISER: Objection, argumentative. 2 THE WITNESS: In my -- in my view, 3 want government to operate as efficiently as 4 possible. 5 the competence and the expertise to conduct a 6 review, 7 BY MR. 8 9 A n d when you have an agency that has you should let it do its work. ESFANDIARY: Q If you have multiple agencies that have the competence to conduct the review, 10 want them to do it, 11 not carcinogenic? 12 13 we to ensure the product truly is MR. PARISER: foundation, 14 wouldn't you Objection, lack of argumentative. THE WITNESS: No, I -- I think when you 15 have an agency with specialization in regulating a 16 type of product, 17 should take the lead and do its work within the 18 scope of its remit. 19 BY MR. 20 such as pesticides, that agency ESFANDIARY: q Mr. Murphey, is Monsanto against the 21 notion of too many regulatory agencies reviewing 22 glyphosate potential carcinogenicity? 23 24 25 MR. PARISER: Objection to form and THE WITNESS: No, foundation. Golkow Litigation Services glyphosate has been Page 307 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 reviewed by regulatory agencies in numerous 2 markets around the world. 3 We -- and we believe that the product 4 should be reviewed by the competent regulatory 5 authority for pesticides in those -- in 6 markets. 7 agency is the EPA. 8 BY MR. 9 In the case of the U.S. those government, that ESFANDIARY: Q Right. But you agree with me that the 10 ATSDR is more than competent and able to review 11 glyphosate, correct? 12 13 MR. PARISER: Objection -- objection, foundation. 14 THE WITNESS: Again, I'm not fully 15 familiar with all of the capabilities within the 16 ATSDR. 17 understand, 18 the industry, 19 qualified and equipped to regulate pesticides. 20 BY MR. 21 I -- I don't have that insight. based on my discussions and my work in is that the EPA is uniquely ESFANDIARY: Q A n d -- okay, 22 document. 23 ATSDR review? 24 25 What I Well, MR. well, we'll go to the did Monsanto try to stop the PARISER: Objection, form and foundation. Golkow Litigation Services Page 308 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order THE WITNESS: My u n d erstanding was that 2 once we became aware of the possib i l i t y of ATSDR 3 review, 4 EPA. 5 BY MR. 6 7 we brought that to the attention of the ESFANDIARY: Q My question was, stop the ATSDR review? 8 9 did Monsanto try to MR. PARISER: Same objections, asked and answered. 10 THE WITNESS: No, I think -- I think my 11 understanding was, 12 something that they might want to look into, 13 again, 14 and now there was the possibility of a second 15 agency coming in, we thought that might be 16 something the EPA would want to look into. 17 BY MR. 18 we flagged it for the EPA as because their review process was underway, ESFANDIARY: Q Did you flag it to the EPA in the hope 19 that the EPA would ask the ATSDR to not go ahead 20 with its review? 21 MR. PARISER: 22 THE WITNESS: Same objections. Again, I think -- my 23 u n d erstanding was we wanted the EPA to look into 24 what was happening. 25 EPA's decision to do whatever it saw fit. Golkow Litigation Services A n d then it would be the But we Page 309 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 did not see the need for a duplicative review, 2 separate from the work that EPA was doing. 3 BY MR. 4 5 ESFANDIARY: Q So Monsanto's wish was for the ATSDR review to not proceed, 6 7 MR. foundation, 8 9 PARISER: correct? Objection to form, and asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Our wish -- no, was for the EPA to conduct its work, and to 10 p u blish its preliminary risk assessment. 11 again, 12 would be duplicative to that process. 13 BY MR. 14 our wish we saw a secondary review by another agency ESFANDIARY: Q So as you just said, if Monsanto thought 15 the process would be duplicative, 16 want the ATSDR to p r oceed with its review, 17 correct? 18 A MR. PARISER: Objection, asked and answered. 21 THE WITNESS: 22 its work. 23 pesticides in the U.S. 24 BY MR. 25 Monsanto did not Correct. 19 20 And We w anted the EPA to do The EPA is the regulatory authority on ESFANDIARY: Q So just so the record is clear, Golkow Litigation Services Monsanto Page 310 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 did not want the ATSDR to p r oceed with its review 2 of glyphosate carcinogenicity, 3 4 5 MR. PARISER: correct? Objection, A s k e d and answered. THE WITNESS: Golkow Litigation Services Correct. Page 311 A A A A A A A A A A A A A ?n A A A Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order I I 3 Q And, 4 A No. 5 Q Is Mr. Rands an attorney? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And is -- Melissa Duncan, 8 Mr. Murphey, attorney either, 9 A No, Ms. 10 Q Okay. 11 Ms. are you an attorney? correct? -- Ms. Duncan is a lawyer. Did you have any knowledge about Kelland's request? 12 A No. 13 Q Prior to this e-mail, 14 she's not an communication with Ms. 15 a had you been in Kelland? Maybe once or twice, just in -- in 16 response to an inquiry, 17 any interaction with her prior to this. 18 Q but I -- I don't recall Did you ever send Ms. Kelland materials 19 to be w orked into published articles that were not 20 solicited by her? 21 MR. 22 THE WITNESS: 23 24 25 PARISER: Objection to form. Yes, where I reached out to Ms. there were occasions Kelland to discuss - to discuss some information and concepts with her. BY MR. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 322 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order Do you -- does Monsanto perceive 2 Ms. 3 communicating about Roundup safety? Kelland to be a favorable ally in 4 MR. 5 THE WITNESS: PARISER: Objection to form. No, I consider Ms. Kelland 6 to be a highly professional journalist, 7 extensive backgr ound in covering scientific and 8 medical topics. 9 BY MR. 10 with an ESFANDIARY: Q You previously sent Ms. Kelland 11 information about the Working Group 112, 12 specifically a member of Working Group 112, 13 Dr. Aaron Blair, correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q A n d that information was then turned 16 into a Reuters p u b l ished piece, 17 MR. 18 THE WITNESS: PARISER: correct? Objection to form. Yes, I reached out to 19 Ms. 20 information and some documents to her, 21 review and analyze. 22 editors made the decision to run a story. 23 BY MR. Kelland, 24 25 And, ultimately, for her to she and her ESFANDIARY: Q to Ms. and provided some background A n d why did you specifically reach out Kelland? Golkow Litigation Services Page 323 Confidential 1 A Pursuant to Protective Order I -- again, this request, having been aware of, you 2 know, and the fact that, you know, 3 she had w r itten about glyphosate, 4 might be information that would be of interest to 5 her. 6 more context on IARC as an organization than, 7 know, 8 science and medical I thought it A n d I thought that she might have, 9 you know, you a reporter who covered something other than Q issues. When you sent that information to 10 Ms. Kelland to be turned into a story in Reuters, 11 did the final story disclose the fact that the 12 information had come from Monsanto Company? 13 MR. PARISER: 14 THE WITNESS: Objection to form. I -- no, the story doesn't 15 specifically state that documents were provided by 16 Monsanto, 17 that they were documents relevant to this 18 litigation, although it certainly did make clear and Monsanto was quoted in the story. 19 (Murphey Exhibit No. 20 for identification.) 21 22 BY MR. 36 was marked ESFANDIARY: Q I'm marking as Exhibit 36, 23 from yourself to Ms. 24 to -- well, 25 2017 is to Ms. Kelland. an e-mail And it's not just the initial e-mail dated April 27, Kelland from yourself, Golkow Litigation Services regarding Page 324 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 your voicemail. 2 then you forward that e-mail to Mr. Rands. 3 A n d it's MONGLY07575511. A n d in the e-mail to Ms. And Kelland, you 4 say, "I am passing along a background summary 5 deck; 6 A a r o n Blair, and a number of additional documents 7 will follow. We are sending these exclusively to 8 you for your review." the deposition testimony of the IARC Chair, 9 A Yes. 10 Q You didn't send this information 11 12 13 14 to anyone else? A No. At this point in time, sharing it with -- with Ms. Q You say, I was Kelland. "Please treat the summary deck 15 as backgr o u n d information, but the quotes from our 16 VP of strategy, 17 record." 18 the materials you had sent her about Dr. 19 IARC as backgr ound information? Scott Partridge, Why did you want Ms. 20 MR. PARISER: 21 THE WITNESS: is on the Kelland to treat Blair and Objection to form. I was sending Ms. Kelland 22 a number of documents, 23 which was several hundred pages long. 24 had p ulled together the backgr o u n d information and 25 the summary deck to help point her to some Golkow Litigation Services including the deposition, And so I Page 325 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 specific citations w ithin those underlying 2 documents. 3 BY MR. 4 ESFANDIARY: Q Well, 5 Mr. Murphey, 6 Dr. is, you send these -- you send Blair's deposition to Ms. 7 A Yes. 8 Q Right? 9 what I'm struggling to understand, Kelland, correct? And you also say in your e -mail, "The deposition and other documents clearly show 10 that Dr. 11 working group that showed no link between 12 glyphosate and cancer," Blair concealed information from the IARC correct? 13 A That's correct. 14 Q A n d then I went to Ms. Kelland's 15 article, 16 direct quote from the deposition testimony of 17 Dr. 18 and I couldn't Blair. A find a single quote, Do you know why? I don't recall whether there are 19 specific quotes from the deposition testimony or 20 not. 21 Q But see, why I'm confused is, you' re 22 saying that the -- if the deposition clearly shows 23 that Dr. 24 working group, 25 that in the article? Blair concealed information from the IARC why would Ms. Golkow Litigation Services Kelland not quote Page 326 Confidential 1 2 MR. Pursuant to Protective Order PARISER: Objection, lack of foundation. 3 THE WITNESS: I think Ms. Kelland's 4 article makes clear that at the point in time that 5 Dr. 6 had in his posses s i o n u p dated Agricultural Health 7 Study data, 8 IARC working group. 9 BY MR. Blair was Chair of the IARC working group, 10 and that data was not shared with the ESFANDIARY: Q Mr. Murphey, nowhere in Ms. 11 article does she quote Dr. 12 Dr. 13 hid information from IARC. 14 on that, 17 18 19 20 Kelland's Blair - - any portion of Blair's testimony purporting to show that he 15 16 he sir? MR. BY MR. Do you agree with me PARISER: Objection. ESFANDIARY: Q I can show you the article, if you'd like -- if you'd like. A I would -- I would need to read the article again to familiarize myself with that. 21 Q Absolutely. 22 A But I will say, the article makes very 23 clear that the draft manuscripts existed, 24 they had not been published, 25 with the working group, Golkow Litigation Services and that nor were they shared prior to the meeting. Page 327 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 (Murphey Exhibit No. 2 for identification.) 3 BY MR. 4 37 was marked ESFANDIARY: I'm marking as Exhibit No. Q 37 to your 5 deposition there, 6 rather the article by Ms. 7 Reuters on June 17th, 8 around three or four months after you sent the 9 background materials to Ms. 10 11 A there's -- the report, or Kelland p u b l ished in 2017, sir. And that is just Kelland, correct? That would be just over -- just under two months. 12 13 sir, Two months, Q you've read it before, yes. A n d this article -- correct, sir? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Okay. 16 where in here, 17 he says that he w i t hheld information from the IARC 18 working group? 19 A Can you show the jury exactly Ms. Kelland quotes Dr. Blair, where So I see multiple references here in the 20 article to the fact that the data weren't 21 published, 22 given, 23 that the data were not available to the committee 24 itself. 25 Q multiple justifications were -- were and that the -- there's acknowledgement In Ms. Kelland's words, Golkow Litigation Services correct, sir? Page 328 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 A Correct. 2 Q So nowhere in that article is there a 3 quote from the deposition of Dr. 4 that Dr. Blair 5 sir? Blair, misled anyone on IARC, indicating correct, 6 MR. PARISER: Objection to form. 7 THE WITNESS: No, the -- the article 8 reflects the fact that the data existed, that 9 the -- that the data had been reviewed. There is 10 discussion from individuals involved in the 11 Agricultural H ealth Study that it would be 12 irresponsible if they didn't seek publication of 13 the manuscript prior to IARC's decision, 14 don't see a direct quote from the deposition. 15 BY MR. 16 but I ESFANDIARY: Q Right. And when you say the 17 deposition -- when you write to Ms. Kelland 18 saying, 19 clearly show that Dr. 20 information," and -- at the same time, 21 asking her to "please treat the summary deck 22 backgr o u n d information," can you please explain 23 why you decided to ask Ms. 24 background deck as -- the summary deck as 25 backgr o u n d information and not quote from it? "The deposition and other documents Golkow Litigation Services Blair concealed you're as Kelland to treat the Page 329 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 MR. PARISER: 2 THE WITNESS: Objection to form. Again, the -- the 3 backgr o u n d -- the summary deck itself was designed 4 to help Ms. Kelland work her way through the 5 documents. As a journalist, 6 to take her time and read and review everything on 7 her own, 8 facts and key quotes from the documents. 9 To give an example, I knew she was going but I w anted to flag for her key -- key you know, I cite a 10 quote from page 178 of the deposition, 11 where Dr. 12 of your fellow working group members, 13 members of the subgroup on epidemiology at IARC 14 about the fact that this much larger AHS cohort 15 study, 16 follow-up and higher levels of exposure had been 17 conducted? Blair was asked, you know, "And did you alert any or any other with a larger follow -- a larger time of 18 "Answer: No." 19 So I was pointing her to those types of 20 references throughout the documents, 21 could review them, 22 individual quotes that she wanted to include. 23 BY MR. 24 25 so that she and decide whether those were ESFANDIARY: q where Dr. An d you didn't point her to the parts Blair explains the reasons for why the Golkow Litigation Services Page 330 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 AHS results had not been p u b l ished by the time of 2 the monograph, 3 A 4 in the story. 5 p u blish some other pieces of data, but felt that 6 the section on glyphosate wouldn't fit. 7 don't 8 that type of explanation is included in her story. 9 correct, Ms. sir? Kelland talks about multiple reasons That they made the decision to I -- I don't unders t a n d those decisions, Q Okay. But ultimately, but you don't 10 unders t a n d the decisions for why the preliminary 11 results were not published, 12 A No, is given in here, 14 were space constraints, 15 data for one publication, 16 sense to me. 18 Q 19 20 A Q together, 23 24 25 -- you know, such as that there or that it was too much I -- that doesn't make what's the name of the the preliminary AHS publication? I would have to go back and review the -- the title of the draft. 21 22 that Mr. Murphey, publication, sir? I -- I think an explanation, 13 17 correct, A Dr. Okay. When was the initial draft put sir? My recollection was that the draft that Blair had in his posses s i o n was from 2013. Q Are you aware that it was incomplete? Golkow Litigation Services Page 331 Confidential 1 A No. Pursuant to Protective Order My -- it was -- it was a 2 public a t i o n that was well 3 of development. 4 meeting that occurred two years after that data 5 was collected in manuscript 6 Q -- well in the process We're now talking about an IARC form. So you don't know -- and you testified 7 earlier that you don't know anything about the 8 process leading up to the publication, 9 same time, 10 Dr. 11 data? but at the you're comfortable testifying that Blair misled the IARC working group on the 12 MR. PARISER: 13 THE WITNESS: Objection to form. I think there's 14 significant questions that needed to be answered 15 here. 16 p u b l ished in advance of 17 If Dr. 18 existed, 19 let that important data be considered? You know, why -- why weren't the data the working group meeting? Blair was aware of the larger data set that 20 why wasn't the There IARC meeting delayed to -- there were multiple lines of 21 inquiry that we thought were appropriate to bring 22 to a reporter to analyze for herself. 23 BY MR. 24 25 ESFANDIARY: Q These are questions that you have, does it show that Dr. Golkow Litigation Services but Blair clearly misled the Page 332 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order IARC working group? 2 A I think the fact that the data existed, 3 that the data were in Dr. 4 the working group was allowed to rely on an older 5 and smaller version of the data, 6 concealment. 7 Q 8 completed yet, correct? 9 MR. PARISER: 10 Blair's possession, I think that is Even though the data has not been Objection, asked and answered. 11 THE WITNESS: Well, 12 was 13 National Cancer Institute. 14 BY MR. it has been now. ESFANDIARY: Q What year? 16 A It was late 2017. 17 Q How many years after the IARC monograph is that? 19 A Well, 20 Q So the data was finally complete two 21 MR. PARISER: correct, Objection. sir? Objection to form. 24 25 more than two. years after the IARC monograph, 22 23 It -- it was pu b l ished in the Journal of the 15 18 that THE WITNESS: there was I -- I can't explain why -- why there was such a delay. Golkow Litigation Services We Page 333 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 thought it was critically important that that 2 draft manuscript come to light, 3 ultima t e l y could be published. 4 BY MR. 5 so that it ESFANDIARY: Q Well, at the time when the IARC 6 m o n o graph was reviewing glyphosate, 7 prelim i n a r y AHS data was incomplete . 8 unders t a n d that, 9 MR. 10 the Do you sir? PARISER: THE WITNESS: Objection to form. I -- I can 't speak to its 11 completeness, 12 is that there was a -- a relative - - a detailed 13 manuscript that had been prepared. 14 discussion among members of the AHS about whether 15 it should be published. 16 e-mail correspondence saying it would be 17 irresponsible not to get this p u b l ished prior to 18 the IARC meeting. 19 legitimate questions about why that didn't occur. 20 BY MR. 21 one way or another. Again, But what I know Ms. There was Kelland cites I think there are very ESFANDIARY: Q Legitimate questions, though, are not 22 equivalent to clearly mi sleading the working 23 group, 24 25 correct, MR. sir? PARISER: Objection, argumentative, asked and answered. Golkow Litigation Services Page 334 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order THE WITNESS: No. As I have -- as I 2 have said, 3 information to the working group was concealing 4 and was misleading. 5 BY MR. 6 I believe that not divulging that ESFANDIARY: Q You do realize that IARC only considers 7 complete, fully published, 8 independent data. transparent, Are you aware of that, sir? 9 MR. PARISER: Objection to form. 10 the WITNESS: I'm aware that that is 11 outlined as a -- as a guideline for IARC. 12 again, 13 Dr. Alavania is so relevant. 14 p u b l ished before the IARC meeting. 15 BY MR. 16 I think that's why the question raised by Get the data ESFANDIARY: Q Right. But you -- in terms of IARC's 17 protocol, 18 you aware of that? 19 And A it cannot consider incomplete data. My understanding is, yes, that Are -- that 20 IARC relies on -- relies on published, publicly 21 available data. 22 questions about why a taxpayer-funded study that 23 contained the largest data set looking at 24 glyphosate and cancer had not been published, 25 why an IARC working group meeting went forward, I think there are significant Golkow Litigation Services and Page 335 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 when the chair of that working group knew that 2 there was a data set regarding glyphosate, 3 could have flagged that and said, 4 should delay our working group meeting to allow 5 that data to be published. 6 Q Look, maybe we Is it your testimony to this jury that 7 Dr. 8 circumstances the AHS would be published? 9 Blair is responsible for when and under what A No, I -- I can't testify to that either 10 way. 11 I'm not aware of his particular role. 12 I know Dr. Q Blair was involved in the study. Mr. Murphey, what is -- and I'm 13 struggling to pronounce this 14 H-A-K-L-U-Y-T. 15 A 16 17 and I'm not -- Hakluyt? It's -- could you allow me to in context? Q I believe it's an organization. 18 familiar with an organization that is called 19 Hakluyt? 20 21 see it a Offhand, Are you I'm -- I'm not sure what organization that is. Golkow Litigation Services Page 336 Confidential 11 12 Q Okay. That's fine. MR. ESFANDIARY: five-minute break, MR. PARISER: 16 MR. Sure. ESFANDIARY: I think I'm almost done. 18 MR. PARISER: 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 20 We're going off the record. Okay. 21 (Recess.) 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 23 Why don't we take a so I can review my notes. 15 17 You can put that aside. 13 14 Pursuant to Protective Order p.m., The time is 5:03 p.m. The time is 5:12 and we're back on the record. Golkow Litigation Services Page 337 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Confidential 14 15 BY MR. Pursuant to Protective Order ESFANDIARY: Q Are you aware of the recent corrigenda 16 that had been published in the journal which 17 p u b l ished the expert reports? 18 a I -- I am aware that the -- the authors 19 worked with the editors at the -- at the journal 20 to update the -- the disclosures. 21 Q A n d they needed to update the 22 disclosures because the prior disclosures did not 23 adequately disclose Monsanto's involvement 24 drafting of the publications, 25 MR. PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services in the correct? Objection to form and Page 372 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order foundation. 2 THE WITNESS: No, my -- my understanding 3 is that while Monsanto's sponsorship of the panel 4 was disclosed from the start, 5 expressed -- the conclusions and the views 6 expressed in the papers are those of the panel 7 members alone, 8 some review of drafts by Monsanto personnel. 9 that was appropriate to -- it was appropriate to and while the views and that has not changed, 10 update the disclosures to reflect that. 11 BY MR. 12 13 Q How many years after the papers were p u b l ished did that corrigenda occur? MR. PARISER: Objection, lack of the WITNESS: I can't recall when - foundation. 16 17 when the papers were first published. 18 BY MR. 19 ESFANDIARY: q Well, I'll represent to you that the 20 papers were first p u b l ished in 2016, 21 corrigenda came out in 2018. and the 22 a That sounds right to me. 23 Q Do you know what prompted the 24 25 And ESFANDIARY: 14 15 there was corrigenda? A I believe it was some of the documents Golkow Litigation Services Page 373 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 that were disclosed in this 2 A n d after those documents were -- were disclosed, 3 there were conversations b e tween the authors and 4 the editors, 5 the disclosures. 6 Q -- this litigation. and the decision was made to update So it had to take the public release of 7 internal Monsanto documents for Monsanto to get 8 together with the authors and put together a 9 corrigenda to acknowledge that Monsanto did have a 10 larger role than initially represented in the 11 disclosure of interest, 12 13 MR. PARISER: correct, sir? Objection to form and foundation. 14 THE WITNESS: No, I -- my understanding 15 was that the contributions made by Monsanto 16 individuals were non-substantive in their scope. 17 It was appropriate to update the disclosures. And 18 so once those documents were available, the 19 authors w orked with the editors to update 20 update the disclosures. 21 BY MR. 22 again, -- to ESFANDIARY: q why didn't Monsanto initially ensure 23 that the disclosures were accurate? 24 wait two years to do so? 25 MR. PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services Why did it Objection to form, and Page 374 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order lack of foundation. 2 THE WITNESS: I -- I can't speak to 3 that. 4 with my technical colleagues, 5 the authors themselves about the disclosures. 6 BY MR. 7 I was not involved in discussions with - ESFANDIARY: Q So you agree that the original 8 disclosures were inadequate, 9 corrigenda, correct, 10 11 or certainly with MR. in light of the sir? PARISER: Objection to form and foundation. 12 THE WITNESS: Again, I -- I was not 13 party to those discussions. 14 the -- the updates was made by the editors of the 15 journal and the authors of the manuscripts. 16 BY MR. 17 18 The decision on ESFANDIARY: Q Did you talk to Bill Heydens about the publications when he was editing -- editing them? 19 A I know I had a few conversations with 20 Dr. Heydens throughout the process, 21 recall at what specific point in the process that 22 was. 23 Q 24 25 Did you MR. BY MR. but I don't PARISER: Belated objection to form. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 375 Confidential 1 2 Q Did you see any drafts of the expert panel manuscript, 3 A MR. briefly, PARISER: Pass the -- pass the MR. ESFANDIARY: MR. PARISER: I'm passing the Let's go off the record The time is 6:10 p .m. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the record. 14 (Recess.) 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 16 Yes, please. 12 13 MR. witness. 10 11 I don't have any Okay. witness? 8 9 ESFANDIARY: more questions for you. 6 7 sir? I don't believe so. 4 5 Pursuant to Protective Order p.m., The time is 6:11 and we're back on the record. 17 MR. PARISER: So, Counsel, just so it 's 18 clear, 19 questions in his personal capacity, 20 questions. 21 questions in his capacity as a 30(b)(6) 22 will specifically so indicate. I'm going to be asking the witness these 23 24 25 all of the To the extent I am also asking him witness, I EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS BY MR. PARISER: Q Now, Mr. Murphey, Golkow Litigation Services can you please tell us Page 376 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order where you grew up? 2 A Yes, sir, Missouri. I grew up in the town of 3 Rolla, It's in the south central part 4 of the state. 5 Q Is it a small town? 6 A It is. It's a relatively small town. 7 15- or 20,000 people. 8 located there. 9 Q 10 There's a university A n d can you tell us a little bit about your educational background, 11 A Yes. Missouri, I attended please? the public schools in 12 Rolla, 13 I then attended Truman State University, 14 Kirksville, 15 communication and journalism. 16 briefly, some graduate work at the University of 17 Missouri in Columbia, 18 did not finish that degree. Missouri, 19 Q 20 was your work? 21 A graduated from high school there. Okay. in where I studied And then I did, also in journalism, And after After I -- after but I you left school, I left school, what I went 22 to work in Democratic politics, 23 w orked for the Missouri Democratic Party. 24 involved in some political races there. 25 ultima t e l y went to work for then A t t o r n e y General Golkow Litigation Services in Missouri. I I was And I Page 377 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Jay Nixon, a Democrat who was running for governor 2 of Missouri at the time. A n d I ended up working 3 for the attorney general, then governor, 4 for a number of years. 5 Q A n d when did 6 A January of 2013. 7 Q A n d when did 8 you join Monsanto? you first start working on glyphosate? 9 10 for - A It was sometime later. been late spring, 11 Q It would have early summer of 2015. Can you just describe, generally, 12 your public affairs work on glyphosate was? 13 did it consist of? 14 a Yes, my team what What and I largely focused on 15 public communications around -- around glyphosate, 16 and other products in our herbicide portfolio. 17 were involved in crafting communication pieces, 18 engaging with reporters, 19 stakeholders, 20 safety and the benefits of our products. 21 22 Q We engaging with and helping them understand the A n d why, Mr. Murphey, did you decide to work at Monsanto? 23 A I came to work at Monsanto because I 24 wanted to stay in the -- in the Midwest at the 25 time. My family continues to be in the -- in Golkow Litigation Services Page 378 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Rolla. 2 of my work in state government. 3 company that w orked on topics that I thought were 4 interesting and important. 5 highly regarded as a -- as an active member of the 6 civic community, 7 very rewarding place to work. 8 9 A n d I knew -- I knew of Monsanto because Q Now, They were a I also knew they were and I thought it would be a -- a am I correct, Mr. Murphey, that you're not a scientist? 10 a That's correct. 11 Q But in connection with your -- your work 12 on glyphosate, 13 scientists? have you interacted with 14 a Yes, I have frequently. 15 Q A n d do you rely on those scientists to 16 provide information to you about the safety and 17 benefits of the products, 18 about it? so you can communicate 19 A Yes, 20 Q A n d have you formed your own view of the 21 I do. safety of Roundup, based on those discussions? 22 a I have. 23 Q What is that view? 24 A Based on the conversations that I've had 25 with a number of Monsanto scientists about the Golkow Litigation Services Page 379 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 data, 2 g l y p h o sate-based products, 3 also confident that they are not carcinogenic. 4 But I also believe very much that these are 5 products that are extremely valuable for our 6 farmer customers and other users around the 7 world. 8 9 10 I am very confident that glyphosate, Q and are safe for use. I'm Why do you believe that Roundup is so valuable? A To give you just one example, I'd point 11 back to some of the conversation we were having 12 earlier -- earlier today, 13 conservation tillage farming, 14 farmers are able to plant a crop, 15 apply glyphosate over the field, 16 once they have harvested, 17 around "no till," or a practice when harvest it, once they have - to clean that field. They can do the same in the spring to 18 remove a cover crop. 19 without turning the soil, without driving a 20 tractor or plow over that field multiple times. 21 That reduces diesel emissions. 22 improve their soil health. 23 sequester carbon in the soil. 24 it's very beneficial 25 Q And they are able to do that That helps farmers It helps them And it's just - for sustainable agriculture. A n d do you think it's important for Golkow Litigation Services Page 380 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Monsanto to share with the media and the public 2 its view of the safety and benefits of Roundup? 3 A Yes, I do. 4 Q Why is that? 5 A I think, unfortunately, Monsanto, for 6 some people, was a name that was laden with a lot 7 of emotion. A nd 8 company and our products, 9 led to inaccurate information being contained in in media stories about our that that emotion often 10 the stories, 11 correct. 12 important responsibilities was to reach out to 13 reporters to try to build relationships, 14 we could provide accurate information in those 15 stories going forward. 16 Q misinformation that we needed to A n d so I think one of my team's The next questions that I'm so that going to ask 17 you are both in your personal capacity and in your 18 capacity as a 30(b)(6) 19 MR. witness, ESFANDIARY: for the record. I'm just going to 20 object. 21 of your line of testimony is going to be in his 22 individual capacity, 23 representative of Monsanto, 24 of knowing. 25 So you're going to indicate which portion MR. and in his capacity as a PARISER: Golkow Litigation Services because I have no way That's what I've just Page 381 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order said. 2 MR. ESFANDIARY: 3 MR. PARISER: So you're going to - Everything that just 4 p r e ceded this was in his individual capacity. 5 following questions are going to be in both 6 capacities. 7 shifting back to his individual capacity. 8 9 The A nd then I will indicate when he's MR. ESFANDIARY: But if the following questions are going to be in both capacities, how 10 am I supposed to know which question is relating 11 to what capacity? 12 13 MR. PARISER: They're both -- both capacities. 14 MR. ESFANDIARY: Okay. So each question 15 is relating to both his individual knowledge 16 and - 17 MR. PARISER: 18 MR. ESFANDIARY: 19 20 BY MR. Correct. Okay, gotcha. PARISER: q Mr. Murphey, in public statements that 21 you were involved in making, 22 p o s ition that IARC's decision was wrong? 23 a Yes. 24 q A n d what reasons, 25 was it the company's among others, have the company given to support its p o s ition about why Golkow Litigation Services Page 382 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order IARC's decision was wrong? 2 A Again, my understanding, based on 3 conversations with our scientists, 4 were multiple deficiencies in the -- in the IARC 5 opinion, 6 opinion excluded important data, 7 animal studies and other information. 8 again, 9 also, you know, is that there such as the fact that the IARC some of the That it, looked at incomplete information. as we discussed earlier, And the largest and 10 most robust epidemiology data set from the U.S. 11 Agricultural H ealth Study was not available to the 12 panel members. 13 MR. ESFANDIARY: I'm just going to 14 insert a b e lated objection, 15 questioning being both in his individual and 16 representative capacity. 17 stipulate on the record that whatever answers he 18 is giving here in response to your questions also 19 binds the company? 20 MR. PARISER: with respect to this Are you willing to This is -- these questions 21 are asking him for opinions that are in his 22 capacity as a 30(b)(6) 23 w ithin the scope of the questions, 24 true. 25 MR. witness. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services So if he answers that would be So -- but at the same Page 383 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 time, you're able to ask him questions that you 2 could argue are not binding on the company, 3 because you have designated this p o rtion as both 4 individual capacity and 30(b)(6) 5 MR. PARISER: No, all 6 is, 7 example, 8 deposition after all. 9 questions don't count anymore. 10 capacity? -- all I'm saying I don't want you to be able to say, for I'm not going to play the 30(b)(6) A n d then suddenly these That's all I'm getting at. 11 MR. ESFANDIARY: All right. Well, I'm 12 just going to have a running objection to it, but 13 go ahead. 14 15 16 MR. BY MR. PARISER: Okay. PARISER: Q Were additional reasons the company has 17 given to support its position to the media about 18 why IARC decision's was mistaken was that it 19 conflicted with the decision of regulatory bodies 20 around the world, 21 A Yes, including the EPA? that's a point we -- we made 22 frequently, was that the IARC -- the IARC opinion 23 is an outlier from the opinions of the USEPA, 24 regulators in Europe and Canada, 25 around the world. Golkow Litigation Services and elsewhere Page 384 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order A n d were the statements you just 2 discussed that were made to the media about IARC 3 consistent with the views expressed to you by 4 scientists in the company? 5 A Yes. 6 Q A n d in your view, was there anything 7 wrong or inappropriate in the company publicizing 8 its view about IARC? 9 A No, I think we had important - 10 important questions to ask, 11 concerns about the IARC opinion, 12 it was from agencies around the world. 13 think it was both important and appropriate that 14 we raised those concerns publicly. 15 Q Now, called Let Nothing Go. 17 questioning? 18 a I do. 19 Q Just briefly, 21 what an outlier And I you were asked about something 16 20 and legitimate Do you remember that what was the Let Nothing Go campaign or initiative? A So the Let Nothing Go p r ogram or effort 22 was an initiative in the European Union, 23 certain markets there, 24 public affairs team in place. 25 Go effort was in where we had a limited A n d the Let Nothing -- was designed to do media Golkow Litigation Services Page 385 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 monitoring in certain markets in the European 2 Union, 3 contained inaccurate or misleading information 4 about the company, to identify stories that were incomplete or 5 or its products. A n d then to review those articles, 6 then to have someone, 7 our public affairs agency, 8 reporters, 9 or other resources, 10 11 and either from Monsanto or from reach out to those provide a statement or a clarification, and to invite those reporters to reach out to the company in the future. Q A n d was the Let Nothing Go campaign or 12 initiative intended to smear or attack people or 13 groups who had different groups than the company? 14 A No. As I described, the purpose of the 15 Let Nothing Go effort was to engage with 16 reporters, 17 hope was that, 18 balance of coverage in Europe in a better 19 direction. 20 more accurate. to provide context. over time, And -- and our it would move the It would help -- help that coverage be Golkow Litigation Services Page 386 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 21 Q 22 record, 23 individual capacity only. 24 Now, 25 Okay. The following questions, for the are going to be in the witness's Mr. Murphey, you were asked some questions during the deposition about some media Golkow Litigation Services Page 387 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 efforts in Europe. 2 questions? Do you remember those 3 A Yes. 4 Q I believe you explained that in Europe, 5 there was a -- sort of a two-step process with 6 regard to renewal of glyphosate. 7 that, 8 9 Can you explain please? A Yes, the process in the European Union for the renewal of any pesticide product, 10 glyphosate is just one example, 11 multiple phases. 12 scientific work that has to be done by a 13 Rapporteur member state. 14 glyphosate, 15 Germany Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. 16 And then that is reviewed by the European Food 17 Safety Authority. 18 scientific phase of the evaluation of the product. 19 There's -- first, the -- the So in the case of that was Germany, So that has -- has and the BfR, the -- that is the Once that is complete, there's a second 20 phase, 21 of the European Union come together in a standing 22 committee, 23 the active ingredient. 24 25 where representatives of the member states Q regulators, and they vote to actually reauthorize A n d to your knowledge, what have the scientific bodies in Europe, Golkow Litigation Services the said Page 388 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order about the safety of glyphosate? 2 A My understanding is that the -- whether 3 it's the Germany BfR, 4 Authority, 5 Agency, 6 found that glyphosate is -- is safe for use, 7 not carcinogenic. 8 9 Q or subsequently, the European Chemicals which also conducted a review, And is it fair to say that, have all and in your view, that was a decision or decisions that were 10 based on the science, 11 work? 12 or the European Food Safety A as opposed to public affairs That's correct. My -- my understanding 13 is that those agencies are -- they're scientific 14 bodies with -- with experts who are capable of - 15 and charged with reviewing the robust regulatory 16 studies that are submitted to them. 17 Q All right. And then there was a 18 political process you testified, which followed 19 that scientific review; is that right? 20 a That's correct. 21 Q And is there anything wrong, in your 22 view, with Monsanto participating in that public 23 political process? 24 25 A No. And, in fact, I think it was important that we -- that we did so. Golkow Litigation Services There -Page 389 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 there was a significant amount of media attention 2 to the glyphosate renewal 3 There -- there -- again, 4 were, 5 the media, 6 the product. A n d so it was important, 7 to reach out, to engage with reporters, 8 to ensure that coverage about glyphosate was 9 balanced. 10 you know, Q -- renewal process. there were groups that purposefully trying to influence and influence negative stories about Now, we thought, and to try there was some questioning during 11 the course of the deposition involving documents 12 that used a term "FTO," or freedom to operate. 13 Do you remember that word coming up? 14 a I do. 15 Q Are you aware of Monsanto having a 16 single definition of the term or word "FTO," or 17 freedom to operate? 18 A No, I think freedom to operate is a - 19 is a term that probably has varied meanings from 20 individual to individual, 21 of a particular discussion. 22 23 24 25 q What does FTO, and based on the context or freedom to operate, mean to you? A In my understanding, for our company, freedom to operate and we are a company in a -- in a Golkow Litigation Services Page 390 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 regulated industry, 2 means that we can invent and conduct regulatory 3 studies, 4 products, 5 assess the safety of those products, 6 them to be p laced onto the market, 7 to sell those products to our customers, 8 ensure that those products are used correctly 9 throughout their life cycle. 10 Q freedom to operate, seek regulatory approval to me, for our ensure that regulators are able to Now, and allow and then for us and to you were asked some questions about 11 why Monsanto did not perform a two-year cancer 12 study in rats of its formulated product. 13 Do you remember those questions? 14 A I do. 15 Q A n d would you defer to Monsanto's 16 scientists and others to answer that sort of 17 question? 18 A I would have to, yes. 19 Q Are you aware, 20 study called the AHS, 21 Study? generally, however, or Agricultural Health 22 A I am. 23 Q What, 24 A So my understanding of the U.S. 25 of a in general, is that study? Agricultural Health Study is that it is a very Golkow Litigation Services Page 391 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 large-scale epidemiology study that looked into 2 the real world use of pesticide products by 3 pesticide applicators in the U.S., 4 connections b e tween pesticide use and specific 5 health conditions. 6 Q A n d so to your knowledge, and looked for was that a 7 study of exposure to the formulated product and 8 people in the real world? 9 A Yes, that would be a study that looked 10 at the real world use of -- of formulated 11 products. 12 Q Now, do you recall some testimony 13 earlier about Monsanto engaging with third parties 14 as part of its media efforts? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Can you -- can you just explain what 17 that means in the public affairs world, 18 with third parties? 19 20 21 engaging So a third party or a stakeholder, a general, is someone who, you know, is relevant to the company. it could be, in has a -- is - So that could be a 22 customer group, in our case, 23 group, 24 people who have -- have an interest in the company 25 and its products, or a commodity organization. a grower You know, and the value that those Golkow Litigation Services Page 392 Confidential 1 Pursuant to Protective Order products provide to those -- to those individuals. 2 A n d so it's fairly common practice for 3 us to engage with those groups, 4 information to them, 5 to partner with them and work together, 6 are matters of shared interest. 7 8 Q to provide and in certain circumstances, when there A n d do you feel that there's anything wrong or inappropriate about doing that? 9 A No, 10 Q Now, I don't. you were asked some questions about 11 a Reuters article written by a reporter named Kate 12 Kelland. Do you recall those questions? 13 A I do. 14 Q A n d the article in question involved the 15 A H S study we were just talking about; is that 16 right? 17 A It did. 18 Q Okay. 19 20 And describe what Ms. a Yes. can you just, in general, Kelland's story was about? So the story by -- by Ms. Kelland 21 looked into the fact that the Chair of the IARC 22 working group, 23 with the U.S. Agricultural Health Study, 24 into the fact that he had in his possession, 25 several years prior to the IARC meeting on Dr. Blair, Golkow Litigation Services who was also involved it looked Page 393 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 glyphosate, 2 Agricultural H ealth Study that looked into 3 glyphosate, 4 glyphosate and cancer. 5 u p dated manuscripts of the and found no connection between Ms. Kelland had those draft manuscripts 6 reviewed by other scientists to get their 7 assessment of the -- of the conclusions. 8 reviewed a number of other documents as well. 9 reached out to Dr. 10 Blair, and others, She She to get their input. 11 And, ultimately, her story explained 12 that those manuscripts were in Dr. 13 possession, 14 IARC working group. And that based on -- based on 15 the testimony of Dr. Blair, 16 outcome or the conclusion of those manuscripts 17 would have affected the outcome of the IARC 18 working group opinion. 19 Q that they were not shared with the that the -- the A n d why did the -- why did Monsanto, 20 your knowledge, 21 in connection with this story? 22 A Blair's provide information to Ms. We thought this was important to Kelland - 23 important information that needed to be published. 24 The Agricultural Health Study is a taxpayer - 25 U.S. taxpayer-funded study. Golkow Litigation Services It's the largest Page 394 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 epidemiology study looking at glyphosate and 2 cancer, 3 cancer. and g l y p h o sate-based formulations and 4 A n d we -- we had serious concerns about 5 the fact that these manuscripts had been in 6 prepar a t i o n for years, 7 published. 8 through an article that was v etted and p r e pared by 9 a reporter such as Ms. 10 11 but had not yet been A n d we were hopeful that by -- that Kelland, questions could be asked publicly. Q And is providing information to 12 reporters, 13 practice in j o urnalism? 14 those types of A like you did with Ms. It is. Reporters, Kelland, you know, common are 15 routinely in touch with sources and companies, 16 universities, 17 questions, 18 in -- in potential 19 matter that is of -- of importance and within 20 their area of interest, 21 for someone who works in public affairs to share 22 some information with a reporter. 23 and other organizations, but they are also, stories. Of course, you know, both to ask interested When there is a it would be very routine it would ultimately be the 24 decision of that reporter, 25 whether or not to pursue the story. Golkow Litigation Services and and his or her editors, Page 395 Confidential 1 Q Pursuant to Protective Order And was Ms. Kelland, 2 so, 3 get their view of the story? 4 able to speak to others, A Of course. besides Monsanto, And again, 5 mentioned, 6 other -- other scientists, 7 others for the story as well. 8 9 10 Q to as I've I know she -- she talked to several And No. and reached out to did the company have any ability to control what Ms. a if she wanted to do Kelland wrote in her story? Once -- once I provided the initial 11 information to -- to Ms. 12 do with that information what she saw fit. 13 the decision to investigate a story and ultimately 14 -- ultimately publish it was her decision, 15 decision of her editors at Reuters. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q And Kelland, the A H S study was, she was free to in fact, And and the later published; is that correct? a It was. It was later published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Q Did the company have any control over the content of that publication? A No. MR. PARISER: I have no further questions at this time. MR. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Very quickly. Page 396 Confidential 1 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Just stay on the record? 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. ESFANDIARY: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: You can switch sides, 6 but I'm going to let the cameras roll, 7 saying. 8 MR. 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 10 11 12 okay. Since it takes so FURTHER EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS BY MR. ESFANDIARY: Q Mr. Murphey, I appreciate your indulgence at this late hour. 15 16 Oh, long to start them and stop them. 13 14 ESFANDIARY: is what I'm Just a couple of follow-up questions on what Monsanto's counsel just asked you. 17 W h e n you were in the office of Governor 18 Nixon, you developed relationships with obviously 19 Governor Nixon himself, 20 a I did. 21 Q Okay. correct? A n d you developed relationships 22 with other political decision-makers in the State 23 of Missouri, correct? 24 a I did. 25 Q And Monsanto is a resident of the State Golkow Litigation Services Page 397 Confidential 1 of Missouri, 2 3 A Pursuant to Protective Order correct, Yes, sir ? Monsanto' s headquarters was in Missouri. 4 Have you found yourself drawing upon the Q 5 political 6 time with Governor Nixon in your tenure at 7 Monsanto? 8 9 influence that you built during your MR. PARISER: Objection to -- objection to form. 10 THE WITNESS: No. As I've explained, 11 my -- my work at Monsanto has been focused on 12 communications and media relations. 13 with government officials 14 part of my responsibility 15 BY MR. 16 Interactions is not part of my -- not ESFANDIARY: Q A n d counsel asked you earlier in your 17 representative capacity about the perception of 18 Monsanto by the public. 19 there's a great deal of emotion, 20 emotion about Monsanto as an entity. 21 remember that? And you responded that historical Do you 22 A Yes. 23 Q What do you -- what is Monsanto's 24 percep t i o n of where this supposed emotion of the 25 public comes from? Golkow Litigation Services Page 398 Confidential 1 2 MR. Pursuant to Protective Order PARISER: Objection to form and scope. 3 THE WITNESS: 4 you know, 5 from a real m i sunderstanding among many people 6 in -- in the public or in society today about 7 agriculture. 8 not familiar with some of the tools that farmers 9 need to use to produce 10 is that that My -- my understanding, -- that perception comes A n d people, you know, are not -- to produce food, -- are and to do so in a sustainable way. 11 People have questions about their food. 12 It's an emotional 13 to know that the food that we're consuming or 14 providing to our family and friends is -- is safe. 15 But folks have not had, 16 information about 17 works. 18 subject for all of us. again, We want direct access to -- about agriculture, A n d so over -- over time, and how it I think 19 Monsanto could have done more and could have done 20 it earlier, 21 and to allay some of those -- those concerns and 22 that emotion. 23 company had done so, 24 have been very different. 25 BY MR. to engage in that public conversation, And I think if they -- if the its reputation would probably ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Page 399 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Q 2 understanding, 3 the AHS and its conclusions, Now, you testified about your general in your individual capacity, correct, about sir? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Do you know what DeRoos 2003 6 A I believe that was an earlier version of 7 the Ag H ealth Study. 8 9 Okay. Q MR. THE WITNESS: BY MR. Objection, lack of Q 15 Eriksson 2008? 16 Offhand, I don't recall. ESFANDIARY: 14 17 PARISER: foundation. 12 13 A n d what did DeRoos 2003 conclude? 10 11 is? A study. Well, did - - are you familiar with I believe that is another epidemiology I 'm not familiar with its conclusions. 18 Q Are you aware of McDuffie 2002? 19 A Again, 20 I believe - - believe it's another epidemiology study. 21 Q Are you aware of Bolognesi 22 A No. 23 Q S i r , I'll represent to you that all of 1997? 24 those studies I read out to you have all found an 25 association b e tween NHL and exposure to Roundup. Golkow Litigation Services Page 400 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 Is it fair to say that the only studies that seem 2 to have any notion about such a conclusion is the 3 one that Monsanto likes to use for the p roposition 4 that glyphosate does not cancer, 5 6 MR. PARISER: the AHS? Objection to form, misstates evidence. 7 THE WITNESS: No, my -- my understanding 8 is that the Agricultural Health -- the 2017 9 public a t i o n of the Agricultural H ealth Study is 10 the largest and most significant epidemiology 11 study that's been published on the subject of 12 glyphosate. 13 you've referenced, 14 familiarity into their conclusions. 15 BY MR. 16 But on the -- the other studies that I just -- I don't have ESFANDIARY: Q Please explain to the jury your 17 u n d erstanding of what the size of an 18 epidemiological 19 q u a l i t y of the epidemiological study, 20 MR. PARISER: 21 THE WITNESS: how that impacts the study? Objection to form. In a very general sense, 22 my understanding is that an epidemiology study 23 with a larger sample size is more statistically 24 powerful, 25 epidemiologist. but I'm certainly -- I'm not an Golkow Litigation Services Page 401 Confidential 1 BY MR. 2 3 ESFANDIARY: Q 2003, Pursuant to Protective Order You don't know the size of the DeRoos correct, sir? 4 A Offhand, 5 Q Okay. 6 I don't recall. Are you aware that IARC reviewed the AHS results from DeRoos 2005? 7 A Yes, I believe I did know that. 8 Q Are you aware that the results 9 Alavania 2013, of the unpubl i s h e d draft that later 10 became the 2017 NCI publication, 11 substantively identical to DeRoos 2005 that was 12 reviewed by IARC? 13 14 MR. PARISER: the results are Objection to form and foundation. 15 THE WITNESS: 16 either way. 17 BY MR. 18 I - - I can't speak to that ESFANDIARY: Q So when you said that IARC was not in 19 posses s i o n of the updated AHS results, 20 know, 21 identical results from the earlier 22 publication, in fact, whether IARC was already privy to correct, MR. 24 THE WITNESS: understanding, AHS sir? 23 25 you don't PARISER: Objection to form. No. Well, my and this is - - this is based off of Golkow Litigation Services Page 402 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 my reading of Dr. 2 testimony was, 3 available, 4 the epidemiology working group. 5 BY MR. 6 Blair's deposition, was that his if the updated data had been it would have changed the assessment by ESFANDIARY: Q You testified earlier to -- an earlier 7 line of questioning by myself, 8 have p o s t poned the review of glyphosate until the 9 NCI 2017 was published. 10 Do you remember that, sir? 11 12 that IARC should A I -- that was a question that we raised, is why -- why it wasn't delayed. 13 Q Do you think that the EPA should have 14 also w aited until the publication of the NCI 15 before issuing its glyphosate issue paper? 16 17 MR. Object. This is outside the scope of the direct examination. 18 19 PARISER: the WITNESS: I believe that when EPA - I'd have to go back and check the timing of 20 whether the u p dated EPA issue paper included that 21 or not. 22 BY MR. 23 ESFANDIARY: q 24 about 25 today. Mr. Murphey, well, you testified -- you testified about this to some extent You and I both can agree that the Golkow Litigation Services Page 403 Confidential 1 glyphosate 2 Pursuant to Protective Order -- let's actually take a step back. The CARC report, the 2015 Cancer 3 Assessment Review Committee, 4 that should have been postponed until the updated 5 results of the AHS had been published? 6 MR. PARISER: 7 THE WITNESS: do you think that Objection to form. At the time that the CARC 8 report met -- or the CARC committee met in 2015, 9 the data about the u p dated glyphosate manuscripts 10 was not available. 11 BY MR. 12 ESFANDIARY: Q Exactly. And IARC also met around the 13 same time frame as the CARC committee, 14 sir? 15 A Yes, correct, but the key difference being that 16 someone who had personal knowledge of the updated 17 Ag H ealth Study manuscripts was a participant 18 was indeed the Chair of the IARC working group. 19 Q Mr. Murphey, - you're aware that the 20 government, 21 responsibility for the funding of the 2017 NCI 22 study, 23 24 25 of which the EPA is a part, has full right? A I am aware that it is funded by the federal government. MR. ESFANDIARY: Golkow Litigation Services Okay. Thank you. No Page 404 Confidential 1 more questions. 2 3 Pursuant to Protective Order MR. PARISER: No further questions. We're concluded. 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: January 22nd, 5 p.m., 6 completing the videot a p e d deposition. 7 MR. 2019. The time is 6:45 PARISER: Going off the record, A n d just for the record, 8 the witness will read and sign. Make sure that 9 the transcript, is designated 10 confidential, 11 this case. in its entirety, pursuant to the protective orders in 12 MR. ESFANDIARY: 13 MR. PARISER: So stipulated. Thank you. 14 (Whereupon, the deposition of 15 SAMUEL MURPHEY was concluded at 16 6:46 p.m.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 405 Confidential 1 2 3 4 Pursuant to Protective Order CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER The undersi g n e d Certified Shorthand Reporter does hereby certify: That the foregoing proceeding was taken before 5 me at the time and place therein set forth, at 6 which time the witness was duly sworn; 7 testimony of the witness and all objections made 8 at the time of the examination were recorded 9 stenographically by me and were thereafter That the 10 transcribed, 11 correct copy of my shorthand notes thereof; 12 the dismantling of the original transcript will 13 void the reporter's certificate. 14 15 said transcript being a true and In witness thereof, this date: January 28, That I have subscribed my name 2019. 16 17 18 LESLIE A. TODD, CSR, 19 Certificate No. 5129 RPR 20 21 (The foregoing certification of 22 this transcript does not apply to any 23 reproduction of the same by any means, 24 unless under the direct control and/or 25 supervision of the certifying reporter.) Golkow Litigation Services Page 406 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order INSTRUCTIONS TO WITNESS Please read your deposition over carefully and 3 make any necessary corrections. 4 the reason in the appropriate space on the errata 5 sheet for any corrections that are made. 6 After doing so, please sign the errata sheet 7 and date it. 8 9 You should state You are signing same subject to the changes you have noted on the errata sheet, which will be 10 attached to your deposition. It is imperative 11 that you return the original errata sheet to the 12 deposing attorney within thirty 13 receipt of the deposition transcript by you. 14 you fail to do so, 15 be deemed to be accurate and may be used in court. (30) days of If the deposition transcript may 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 407 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order 1 2 E R R A T A 3 4 PAGE LINE CHANGE 5 6 REASON: 7 8 REASON: 9 10 REASON: 11 12 REASON: 13 14 REASON: 15 16 REASON: 17 18 REASON: 19 20 REASON: 21 22 REASON: 23 24 REASON: 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 408 Confidential 1 2 Pursuant to Protective Order A C K NOWLEDGMENT OF DEPONENT , do hereby I, 3 certify that I have read the foregoing pages, 4 that the same is a correct transcription of the 5 answers given by me to the questions therein 6 propounded, 7 in form or substance, 8 attached Errata Sheet. and except for the corrections or changes if any, noted in the 9 10 11 SAMUEL MURPHEY DATE 12 13 14 Subscribed and sworn to 15 before me this 16 17 day of ,20 . My commission expires: 18 19 N otary Public 20 21 22 23 24 25 Golkow Litigation Services Page 409