Day 149 - 06 Jul 95 - Page 46


     
     1        mid-1980s.  So that cannot be.
     2
     3        I think that you ruled that the application was,
     4        effectively, an informal interrogatory, or could be treated
     5        as one, in that if they did not have an existing list, if
     6        they were able to make one without being put to an
     7        unnecessary massive paper chase through general files and
     8        picking out individual letters, but if the Company
     9        Corporate, whatever, had that information -- which
    10        I believe it must do, and certainly it would be within the
    11        knowledge of the Company to provide some kind of list --
    12        then I think, as it is such an important part of the case,
    13        that I do not believe they have fulfilled the ruling that
    14        you have already made by giving us the list from 1995.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Have you made any approach yet to your
    17        American witness about the information you have got?
    18
    19   MR. MORRIS:  We are waiting for a list of suppliers from earlier
    20        than 1989.  There is not much point.  They only had a small
    21        number of burger producing suppliers.  Effectively, it is
    22        something like five or six companies, some of them with new
    23        names, from about 1989 onwards, as far we know from what
    24        has been disclosed and said; and that cannot possibly
    25        compare to the 175 (or whatever it was) in the early to
    26        mid-1980s and before.
    27
    28        I do not see how a witness can really do all that checking
    29        up.  They would have actually no idea, without having more
    30        information.  I think it is a very, very important part of
    31        the case; and, certainly on this one, even if it involves a
    32        little bit of work for the Corporation, that is something
    33        they should have to do as they decided to bring the case.
    34
    35        Also, I think that this is a very important one to swear an
    36        affidavit on.  If they are saying that the World Wildlife
    37        Fund's list of suppliers was a complete surprise, then that
    38        would conflict diametrically with the evidence of
    39        Robert Beavers.  So I think they should swear an affidavit
    40        on this matter, if not all the matters.
    41
    42        Mr. Rampton did misrepresent our case.  He said that our
    43        case was McDonald's had imported beef.  Our case is that
    44        McDonald's have used beef which has been imported into the
    45        United States.
    46
    47   MS. STEEL:   Going on to the observation checklists,
    48        Mr. Rampton's objection seemed to be that he does not like
    49        producing documents which are looked at once and then
    50        discarded.  If that is the problem, then if I could make a 
    51        suggestion which is that these are standard printed forms 
    52        in the McOpco stores, probably in franchised stores as 
    53        well; they are ready printed, and they are used for each
    54        employee at each store.  So there must be several copies of
    55        them -- hundreds and thousands of copies of them, in fact.
    56
    57        If they would just get one set of OCLs sent over, then we
    58        can look through them, and if there are any that we want to
    59        raise in evidence, then we can get copies made of those and
    60        return the originals.  I think they are relevant to the

Prev Next Index