Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 42


     
     1        specific time when a member of the management team has
     2        written a statement and he has specified particular
     3        practices that were sometimes, regularly or generally --
     4        the words he uses -- used by management in certain ways.
     5        He is going to say that in court and, of course, McDonald's
     6        will bring a witness to say that is all untrue.  The
     7        documents will be a great aid to the court in helping the
     8        witnesses and also helping the court to see what they are
     9        talking about and whether it is true or not, what they are
    10        talking about.  I do not see any problem with the
    11        Plaintiffs disclosing those.
    12
    13        As far as the incident report forms for the food poisoning
    14        complaints about under-cooking of food products, McDonald's
    15        are only bothered about the ones that are substantiated.
    16        I do not see that is a very responsible way to go about
    17        things.  For a start, they are not an independent
    18        investigation.  They have every interest in avoiding proper
    19        investigation and in substantiating anything.  The amount
    20        of complaints does matter.  The substance of the complaints
    21        does matter.  The fact that some are substantiated is
    22        important.  That may be an indication that, in fact, 20
    23        times as many are food poisoning incidents.  I certainly
    24        would not base the truth on just the ones admitted by the
    25        Plaintiffs.
    26
    27        So I do not see how our witness could be expected to name
    28        the names and the days of all the food poisoning complaints
    29        or under-cooked burger complaints that he remembers in the
    30        year 1994.  He is saying it happened regularly about once a
    31        week.  So I think we are entitled to those documents which
    32        will help the court on the issue as a whole.
    33
    34        The French witnesses.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let us just pause there for a moment before
    37        you go to the French witnesses, because I propose to give
    38        my ruling on all these matters in one judgment with my
    39        reasons.  But, as Mr. Rampton has said at the moment it is
    40        proposed to call Mr. Richards at the beginning of next
    41        week, I will merely indicate now that I propose not to make
    42        any order for discovery in respect of the matters set out
    43        in A, B and C of paragraph 4 of your 11th September
    44        letter.
    45
    46        I would be prepared to consider the matter if there is a
    47        supplemental statement from Mr. Logan specifying the
    48        identity of employees' concerned and giving more
    49        particularity as to dates.  So I will leave the door open
    50        if you do that. 
    51 
    52        I will when I give my ruling say that there should be 
    53        disclosure of any incident report forms in 1994 in relation
    54        to under-cooked food specifically.  So that is an
    55        indication of what the ruling will be in advance of the
    56        formal ruling so that both sides can consider their
    57        position.
    58
    59        Yes.  You were going to say something more about French
    60        witnesses?

Prev Next Index