Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 54
1 If the Defendants really are serious about finding out
2 whether any McDonald's suppliers imported meat from
3 tropical rainforest countries, areas of tropical rainforest
4 countries, for the purpose making hamburgers, then there is
5 the list. Let them or their agents in the United States
6 make the appropriate enquiry. Really, that somebody should
7 have to trawl through the records for 1979 and 1984,
8 assuming that 1983 and 1989 are already covered, does, with
9 respect, seem to us wholly unreasonable. If this were an
10 interrogatory I would be applying to have it withdrawn on
11 the grounds that it is not necessary on the fair disposal.
12
13 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is not. First of all, it is not put as an
14 application for discovery. It might be an interrogatory,
15 but it is not in the proper form so I cannot consider
16 that. All I can say is that if we come to July and there
17 are not these lists, I can certainly see no basis upon
18 which Mr. Cesca could refuse to divulge any he knew of in
19 July.
20
21 MR. RAMPTON: That may be so. Whether it follows from that that
22 we should have an order for discovery made at this time on
23 the basis that it was necessary for the fair disposal of
24 the case or that it would save costs, is quite another
25 question, with respect. Mr. Cesca may well say, if asked
26 the question, "I do not know". He may well if asked, "Who
27 were your suppliers in 1979", say, "I have absolutely no
28 idea who they were. I can tell you who they were in 1989
29 when this pamphlet was published by these Defendants. You
30 have a list of who they were in 1983." The question then
31 is: "Well, was any of those suppliers importing beef from
32 rainforest areas of the world at and between those dates?"
33 Answer, "No". "How can you be sure?" Then he gives his
34 explanation.
35
36 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is there any reason why your line of enquiry
37 has not been pursued with regard to those identified in tab
38 52 because, quite frankly, it does not give one much
39 confidence that there really is a need to enquire if it is
40 just cropping up for the first time now seven months into
41 the trial?
42
43 MR. MORRIS: It has cropped up a number of times. It is part of
44 our application for discovery which we finally had
45 affidavits on. Ray Cesca said he was advised he did not
46 have to respond to that particular question which is in, as
47 I said, his second affidavit. It was the subject of an
48 interrogatory. I may be corrected. I have not got them in
49 front of me, but I am pretty convinced it was the subject
50 of an interrogatory. It is a continuing theme of ours
51 since the case began that we want to know the suppliers.
52 McDonald's finally came up with a list from 1989 and Civil
53 Evidence Act notices, so they are relying on that
54 information. We have made attempts since then through
55 applications for interrogatories and discovery to get
56 information for the relevant pleaded times as well.
57
58 This list here in tab 52 is just, if you like, the
59 co-ordinating suppliers. It is not equivalent to the list
60 which was the documents that were disclosed for 1989 which
