Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 55


     
     1        now McDonald's are saying is the complete list of all their
     2        actual suppliers; not just the cover company that may have
     3        15 suppliers.  It will be the Plaintiffs' case that they in
     4        1983 did the enquiries so that they could put their hand on
     5        their heart and say: "We have had no rainforest beef.  We
     6        have had no imported beef".  They cannot have done that
     7        unless they contacted all the suppliers; not just the six
     8        on this list but the 170 that are referred to in the book
     9        Behind the Arches.
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is a point you can make without the
    12        list, is it not?
    13
    14   MR. MORRIS:  It is, but our approach to the case is that we want
    15        the truth rather than just to say, "Ya booh, sucks to
    16        McDonald's, they failed to come up with some information,
    17        therefore it cannot be true."  We would actually prefer,
    18        and I do not see why they have any problem about it, that
    19        they provide a list of their supplies at that time.  They
    20        say they keep relevant records of any dispute.  This was a
    21        major dispute with the World Wildlife Fund and Duke of
    22        Edinburgh, and they must have a list of suppliers from that
    23        time, to base the book upon as well that they authorised,
    24        Behind the Arches, which is only a recent book.
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If you were right about that, you see, there
    27        would not be any particular difficulty in them providing
    28        the list.  If what you are basically asking for is
    29        discovery of any list which the First Plaintiffs it will be
    30        have in their possession of their suppliers, that is one
    31        thing.  It should not be that difficult to find; it is one
    32        document or if there are one or two related documents it is
    33        a handful of document.  What is being suggested is that if
    34        there is not any such document, what it involves is an
    35        awful lot of trawling through such documents as may exist
    36        saying, "Oh well, there is a document in relation to this
    37        meat supply company, so they must have been a supplier",
    38        and then going through making a list for the first time.
    39
    40        Is that really what you are asking the First Plaintiff to
    41        do, or are you merely saying if they have a list of
    42        suppliers or lists of suppliers for 1979, 1983 and 1984
    43        they should disclose such lists?
    44
    45   MR. MORRIS:  I think we are asking for guidance here because we
    46        basically want a list, whether it is an interrogatory or
    47        discovery.  If the Plaintiffs, as they have said, are going
    48        to rely on something from 1989, then they should have to
    49        disclose in whatever form it is a list of suppliers from
    50        1983, 1984 and 1979.  Obviously, 1983 and 1984 is nearer to 
    51        now. 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I understand the application you are making.
    54
    55   MR. MORRIS:  Could we quickly go through the food poisoning
    56        documents?
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    59
    60   MR. MORRIS:  The first one is in our latest supplementary list.

Prev Next Index