Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 27


     
     1   MS. STEEL:   Going on to No. 4 -- this is partly what the Judge
     2        touched on -- McDonald's are trying to say they are
     3        producing the brochures on their own initiative.  At any
     4        stage in your discussions with them where you were asking
     5        them to provide this information, did they say to you:
     6        "No problem.  We have the booklets already in other
     7        states and we will just produce them in Texas and
     8        California as well"?
     9        A.  Nothing of the kind.  As I said, they had steadfastly
    10        refused any form of confirmation, agreement, or whatever
    11        you or they or anyone else would want to call it, that
    12        they would produce the brochures, even as to just Texas
    13        certainly, on a nationwide basis.
    14
    15   Q.   I think you have covered paragraph 5.  I think you said,
    16        did you not, although you did not explicitly threaten
    17        legal action in the letter, that was obviously always
    18        something that would be in the background?
    19        A.  Yes.  On page 4 of the June 3rd letter we closed by
    20        saying that, "if we do not hear from you giving agreement
    21        to our proposed resolution within the time set forth in
    22        there, we will assume your firm is not interested in
    23        reaching an informal conclusion to our discussions and we
    24        will continue to weigh the other options open to our
    25        offices", which can be construed as nothing more or less
    26        than advising McDonald's we would consider litigation.
    27        That is the only other option available to our office
    28        other than going away.
    29
    30   Q.   In paragraph 6, they deny having entered into an agreement
    31        with your offices; then they go on to say much less with
    32        other unidentified states on whose behalf you were
    33        purportedly speaking.  I think when Mr. Horwitz was giving
    34        evidence -- you said you have read his testimony -- he
    35        mentioned the state of Louisiana.  Was that one of the
    36        states that you were referring to in your letter?
    37        A.  No, as a matter of fact, there were two of us that
    38        were involved in the matter at this point, California and
    39        Texas.  They knew where New York was at.  We apparently
    40        talked to approximately ten other states.  That left 35 or
    41        37 states that, as a matter of subtraction, we did not
    42        talk to.  Apparently, the one they did bother to talk to
    43        was Louisiana.  I do know that Louisiana was not at that
    44        time (or, for that matter, is not now) active on a
    45        nationwide basis in most of the consumer protection
    46        initiatives.  It certainly was not one of the states that
    47        we did contact.
    48
    49   Q.   Is there anything else you would want to say in relation
    50        to what they have said in this letter? 
    51        A.  Yes. 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Before you take up Ms. Steel's invitation,
    54        what about the last sentence of 6?
    55        A.  In what regard, your Lordship?
    56
    57   Q.   Do you recall an offer to make a current draft of a
    58        booklet available to your office?
    59        A.  I believe that in the July 7th telephone call to which
    60        that refers they did, indeed, make that offer.  They may

Prev Next Index