Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 55
1 that they are checking out all the documents that
2 Mr. Gonzalez said he saw. So, if they could check also to
3 see if, in fact, Costa Rica McDonald's does have any
4 specifications or not on sources of supplies for the
5 relevant years or, indeed, for now.
6
7 The supply sources, USA: There was some question raised
8 about whether, if we were supplied with a list of
9 suppliers, whether a document or an interrogatory, we would
10 be able or willing to check them up. I did contact
11 Mr. Shane to ask him if he had lists of any or all of
12 McDonald's suppliers for the particularly relevant years.
13 The years 1977 to 1986 that he put in his request, he said
14 he did not have a list and would I send him one. I said
15 that in any case I was going to bring it up in court, that
16 1977 to 1986 were the years he had mentioned in his
17 statements as his particular field of research and
18 expertise and enquiry that he had conducted himself.
19
20 He is prepared to check up so that if the Plaintiffs have
21 such a document, that is fine, but otherwise if it can be
22 indicated that we should draft an interrogatory, or can it
23 be considered to be an interrogatory also, so that the
24 Plaintiffs can answer the interrogatory, obviously,
25 particularly for the years 1979, 1983 and 1984.
26
27 The list that they basically compiled for 1989, it is that
28 list that we are looking for really, the one that has
29 already been served, for the relevant years that have been
30 pleaded.
31
32 As far as soya is concerned, as it really comes under that
33 heading, I do not know why Mr. Rampton thinks it is an
34 insignificant part of the case; it is in the Fact Sheet, it
35 is in the pleadings and they are calling a witness on the
36 subject. Mr. Cesca does not deal with it even though he is
37 under affidavit to deal with it from an application from
38 I cannot remember how long ago now, early last year. I do
39 not blame him for that because he is clearly under the
40 impression that it is dealt with by the instructing
41 solicitors.
42
43 The fact that Mr. Schum is coming does not mean that the
44 company or someone they have power over does not have
45 relevant documents. That should be disclosed so that we
46 can test the evidence of Dr. Schum who is not an
47 independent expert, as we have heard. He is someone who is
48 involved in the supply chain somewhere. Or related to
49 someone involved in the supply chain.
50
51 So, I would like to say that in all these applications, if
52 I do not specify a particular document, it may be because
53 there is such an overwhelming, sort of, list of
54 cross-referencing needed here that I cannot remember the
55 specific documents he referred to in his statement. But it
56 would be the documents that we applied for for Mr. Cesca
57 should be the ones that should be sought out and disclosed
58 as we had asked when we made our original application.
59
60 To go through some of the other matters, I think we have
