Day 025 - 16 Sep 94 - Page 56


     
     1        court order for no more than acts and practices that
     2        directly affected Texas.
     3
     4        In other words, a court in a different case might have
     5        been, might well have been, able to adjoin McDonald's
     6        nationally in class action, a law suit brought in a state
     7        court in Texas.  I believe that a state court would have
     8        that authority.  I believe it would be more properly
     9        brought in a federal court for jurisdictional reasons, but
    10        I believe a court could do it which is why I said "no" to
    11        your first question.  And another instance, if we had a
    12        Texas based corporation, that is a different matter
    13        entirely.
    14
    15   Q.   I understand that.
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not think you are being asked.
    18
    19   MR. RAMPTON:  I am not asking you about that.
    20        A.  No, but as to that, could we have obtained a court
    21        judgment to do that, I think the answer is, no.
    22
    23   Q.   I am grateful; that is what I thought.  So the basis of
    24        your demand in May 1986 -- I am coming to the question
    25        whether it was a demand which had any effect or not in a
    26        moment -- that McDonald's publish brochures nationwide in
    27        its restaurants, the legal basis of it was somewhat
    28        shakey, was it not?
    29        A.  The basis of our, not demand, but, as I have said
    30        before, offer of settlement, was, as many offers of
    31        settlement, designed to give up some rights that we did
    32        not have and to gain some rights we might not gain in
    33        court.  By way of compromise parties often do that.  That
    34        is exactly what we sought.  We sought to not require on
    35        package labelling in exchange for distribution of these
    36        products for broader than our two states at the time along
    37        with these 10 or so other states in the background could
    38        have required McDonald's had we gone to court, absolutely.
    39
    40   Q.   Leaving aside for the moment, Mr. Gardner, the question
    41        whether state legislation which exceeded or went beyond
    42        federal legislation in relation to labelling would have
    43        been ultra vires, leaving that on one side, was there in
    44        Texas at this time detailed legislation in place?
    45        A.  Yes.
    46
    47   Q.   There was.  So this far we can go, can we, that it would
    48        have been within the power of the Texas Attorney General
    49        to bring court proceedings against McDonald's operators --
    50        let us put it neutrally like that -- within the state of 
    51        Texas to comply with those labelling regulations? 
    52        A.  Yes, with the co-operation of our Texas State 
    53        Department of Health which had the direct enforcement
    54        authority and with which we worked on a regular basis.
    55        The state of Texas would bring the law suit.  The Attorney
    56        General would not be the only decider; it would also have
    57        to have been decided by the Commissioner of Health.
    58
    59   Q.   The first notice that McDonald's that your office was
    60        interested in this question, was on or after 6th May 1986,

Prev Next Index