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
