Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 55


     
     1        that they are checking out all the documents that
     2        Mr. Gonzalez said he saw.  So, if they could check also to
     3        see if, in fact, Costa Rica McDonald's does have any
     4        specifications or not on sources of supplies for the
     5        relevant years or, indeed, for now.
     6
     7        The supply sources, USA:  There was some question raised
     8        about whether, if we were supplied with a list of
     9        suppliers, whether a document or an interrogatory, we would
    10        be able or willing to check them up.  I did contact
    11        Mr. Shane to ask him if he had lists of any or all of
    12        McDonald's suppliers for the particularly relevant years.
    13        The years 1977 to 1986 that he put in his request, he said
    14        he did not have a list and would I send him one.  I said
    15        that in any case I was going to bring it up in court, that
    16        1977 to 1986 were the years he had mentioned in his
    17        statements as his particular field of research and
    18        expertise and enquiry that he had conducted himself.
    19
    20        He is prepared to check up so that if the Plaintiffs have
    21        such a document, that is fine, but otherwise if it can be
    22        indicated that we should draft an interrogatory, or can it
    23        be considered to be an interrogatory also, so that the
    24        Plaintiffs can answer the interrogatory, obviously,
    25        particularly for the years 1979, 1983 and 1984.
    26
    27        The list that they basically compiled for 1989, it is that
    28        list that we are looking for really, the one that has
    29        already been served, for the relevant years that have been
    30        pleaded.
    31
    32        As far as soya is concerned, as it really comes under that
    33        heading, I do not know why Mr. Rampton thinks it is an
    34        insignificant part of the case; it is in the Fact Sheet, it
    35        is in the pleadings and they are calling a witness on the
    36        subject.  Mr. Cesca does not deal with it even though he is
    37        under affidavit to deal with it from an application from
    38        I cannot remember how long ago now, early last year.  I do
    39        not blame him for that because he is clearly under the
    40        impression that it is dealt with by the instructing
    41        solicitors.
    42
    43        The fact that Mr. Schum is coming does not mean that the
    44        company or someone they have power over does not have
    45        relevant documents.  That should be disclosed so that we
    46        can test the evidence of Dr. Schum who is not an
    47        independent expert, as we have heard.  He is someone who is
    48        involved in the supply chain somewhere.  Or related to
    49        someone involved in the supply chain.
    50 
    51        So, I would like to say that in all these applications, if 
    52        I do not specify a particular document, it may be because 
    53        there is such an overwhelming, sort of, list of
    54        cross-referencing needed here that I cannot remember the
    55        specific documents he referred to in his statement.  But it
    56        would be the documents that we applied for for Mr. Cesca
    57        should be the ones that should be sought out and disclosed
    58        as we had asked when we made our original application.
    59
    60        To go through some of the other matters, I think we have

Prev Next Index