About the database   Quick Search   Advanced Search   Search Results   Other Collections   Research   FAQ's   Acrobat Reader	What's New plus Hot Docs Subject Guide Help 1. Title: The United States' written direct examination of John St. Vincent Welch Resource: United States District Court for the District of Columbia United States of America plaintiff, v. Philip Morris USA Inc f/k/a Philip Morris Inc, et al. defendants Civil Action No. 99-CV-02496 (GK) Date: 31 January 2005 Rating: Page Count: 30 Type: Depositions, transcripts, testimony URL: http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/tobacco2/Welch_%20Amended%20written%20direct%20020105.pdf Summary: John St Vincent Welch was the Chief Executive Officer of the Tobacco Institute of Australia (TIA) from 21 January 1991 to the end of April 1992. The testimony addresses the document retention policy and document destruction practices at the TIA. There are two versions of the testimony provided: 20050131a and 20050131b. The original and then an amended version respectively. The file name in the URL for the amended version indicated a date of 5 January 2002. Extracts: Q. You previously mentioned the TIA's Document Retention Policy. Did the TIA have a document retention policy at the start of your tenure at the TIA? A. Yes. Q. Was it a written policy? A. Yes. Q. What was the policy? A. The Document Retention Policy was two-fold. First, when we were in receipt of documents that were potentially damaging to the industry and/or the member companies, once they'd been read they were to be destroyed. Second, where there were documents that were favourable to the industry's position, and not potentially damaging, once having been read, to retain them. Q. Did the Document Retention Policy list any type of schedule of what documents had to be retained? A. No, it was a general description. If a document were potentially damaging it would be treated in one fashion, if not, in another. Q. Do you know where the Document Retention Policy came from? A. It was my understanding that it was formulated by the government and public affairs officers at their various meetings and was supplemented by various legal advice. ... Q. Do you know what the purpose of the TIA's Document Retention Policy was? A. Yes. Q. What was it? A. At the time that I was the TIA's CEO, there was a great deal of pressure on the industry from anti-smoking organizations and concerns about lawsuits. The primary purpose of the Document Retention Policy was to keep documents that were potentially damaging to the member companies or the TIA out of litigation and out of the hands of those that could use the information to attack the industry. The view was, why leave a loaded gun on the table that could be used against you? The Document Retention Policy was primarily a document destruction policy designed to make sure that potential "guns" were destroyed. The name "Document Retention Policy" was a misnomer. It's purpose was to minimise the TIA library. ... Q. How did you or other members of the TIA determine what documents should or should not be destroyed? A. Certain decisions were easy to make and routine. Some documents from the member companies would explicitly say "read and destroy," so those would simply be shredded after reading. All drafts of correspondence and documents were destroyed. Other decisions, such as determining which documents were potentially harmful to the industry,were more difficult. In those instances, one would consult with the government and public affairs officers of the member companies or others such as Clayton Utz and Steven Klotz. There also would be occasions where I would get instructions from a member company to determine whether the TIA possessed a certain document, and if so, to destroy it. Q. What was the primary factor in determining whether or not a specific document should be destroyed? A. Whether the document would be damaging in litigation positions, legislative positions, or public affairs positions. Q. How did the government and public affairs officers to whom you would refer questions regarding which documents should be destroyed determine whether a document would be damaging to a legal position and therefore should be destroyed? A. They would communicate with their in-house counsel, if necessary, to make a legal sensitivity determination. Q. Were there any classes of documents that were destroyed more often than others under the Document Retention Policy? A. All drafts of documents were destroyed under the Policy. Any document specifically marked "read and destroy" would be destroyed under the Policy. Otherwise, the largest class of documents destroyed under the Policy were scientific documents considered potentially harmful to the member companies. Q. Did some of the scientific reports and studies that were destroyed address whether or not smoking causes disease? A. Yes. Q. Did some of the scientific reports and studies that were destroyed address whether or not passive smoking causes disease? A. Yes. ... Q. Did some of the scientific reports and studies that were destroyed address whether or not nicotine is addictive? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall whether the scientific reports or studies that were destroyed were internal company documents or external documents? A. Both. Q. Were the scientific documents that were destroyed public documents, available outside of the member companies, or private documents, that wouldn't have otherwise been available to those outside the member companies? A. Both. Q. Why would there be concern that a public document could be potentially dangerous if others outside the member companies already had it? A. Some of the public documents had sensitive notations or handwritten notes on them that were considered potentially dangerous, and therefore required their destruction. In addition it was considered imprudent to be in possession of potentially dangerous documents. ... Q. Approximately how many times a week would you use the shredders? A. Documents were destroyed on a daily basis. ... Q. How often did the member companies correspond to coordinate on passive smoking? A. Frequently. This was considered a critical issue at the time, and a great deal of effort was spent by the parties to make sure that everyone was on the same track. ... Q. Did the importance of the Document Retention Policy shift during your tenure at the TIA? A. Yes. Later in my tenure, the Document Retention Policy was made a major priority. Whereas the Document Retention Policy may have been around twentieth on the list of the TIA's priorities previously, it became extremely important, the second, third, or fourth priority at the TIA. Q. Why? A. Clayton Utz became concerned that the Document Retention Policy at the TIA was not as "airtight" as the TIA's member companies, and wanted to revamp the TIA's Document Retention Policy to make sure that it was as secure as the member companies' policies. Q. What do you mean by revamp? A. Both make changes in the actually Document Retention Policy itself to make it more secure, and also make changes to the implementation of the Document Retention Policy to make sure that it was functioning as it should, and that no documents that should have been destroyed had been retained. Q. Was the Document Retention Policy a frequent subject of discussion? A. It was a constant subject of discussion with Clayton Utz. There was great concern that the TIA was a "weak link" and that discovery at the TIA could become a problem for the member companies. ... Q. Do you know why scientific studies were discussed at TIA meetings that were not attended by the scientists? A. Yes. The basis for commissioning the scientific studies discussed at TIA meetings was not science, it was litigation, legislation, or public affairs concerns. Whenever any scientific report was published that was negative for the industry, it was standard practice that the member companies would immediately seek to hire a scientist who would do research or a study that would produce a result that was favorable to the industry. If the anti-industry research said "white" the member companies would contract for a report that said "black." Q. What do you mean by "seek to hire a scientist who would do research or a study that would produce a result that was favorable to the industry"? A. Discussions would be held as to the desired outcomes, what research result would be beneficial to the industry. Then the companies would talk about whether they knew a scientist or scientists who could be counted upon to produce the result desired by the industry. Why would a company fund research that confirmed a bad result? ... Q. Previously, you stated that your tenure at the TIA was marked by a great deal of pressure on the industry from potential litigation and by anti-smoking organizations. Other than destroying documents to prevent anyone from using those documents against the industry, did the TIA take any other actions to address these threats? A. Yes. The flip side of destroying our own documents was to try to acquire documents held by the anti-smoking organizations. Q. How did you do that? A. As the anti-smoking organizations were not as careful as the industry about getting rid of documents, the TIA paid individuals to go through the dumpsters and rubbish of antismoking organizations in order to find any potentially relevant documents relating to their plans or their funding. Q. Did TIA employees go through the anti-smoking trash? A. No. The TIA contracted with a private inquiry agent, Winston Gregory & Associates. Winston Gregory employed a number of individuals who would go through the antismoking organizations' garbage. Mr. Michael Rigo was one such person - Mr. Rigo was nicknamed "the garbageman". Also mentions antismoking lobbyist Renee Bittoun. Files: LAW20050131a.pdf, LAW20050131b.pdf