1 1 CAUSE NO. 26294 2 SHANNA SHIPMAN A/N/F OF ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 3 SHANNON MOORE, A MINOR, ) Plaintiffs, ) 4 ) VS. ) JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS 5 ) PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES,) 6 INC., PHILIP MORRIS ) INCORPORATED, PHILIP ) 7 MORRIS U.S.A., AND ) SHELLY MOORE, ) 8 Defendants ) 18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9 10 11 12 13 14 ORAL DEPOSITION 15 OF 16 BARBRO GOODMAN 17 18 19 20 21 TAKEN AUGUST 27, 1996 22 23 24 25 (800) 969-2752 2 1 I N D E X 2 PAGE 3 EXHIBIT INDEX - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 4 APPEARANCES - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 5 INFORMATIONAL PARAGRAPH - - - - - - - 5 6 ERRATA PAGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 7 8 THE WITNESS: BARBRO GOODMAN 9 Examination By Mr. Grisham - - 7 Examination By Mr. Markey - - - 185 10 Further Examination By Mr. Grisham 198 Examination By Mr. Crampton - - 202 11 12 13 DEPOSITION CONCLUDED - - - - - - - - 203 14 WITNESS SIGNATURE PAGE - - - - - - - 204 15 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE PAGE - - - - - 205 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 E X H I B I T I N D E X 2 PAGE 3 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION MARKED 4 1 Notice of Deposition 7 5 2 Presentation by Andrew 130 Kallianos 6 3 Status Report dated 143 7 October 1984 8 4 Annual Report 159 9 5 Memo by R.K. Greene 163 regarding expanded weight 10 series 11 6 Memorandum 165 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 For The Plaintiffs: 3 Waltman & Grisham 4 3833 S. Texas Avenue, Suite 150 Bryan, Texas 77802 5 By: LYNN GRISHAM 6 For The Defendant, Philip Morris Companies, 7 Inc., et al: 8 Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 9 Dallas, Texas 75201 10 By: MIKE BRADEN 11 For The Defendant, Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al: 12 Shook, Hardy & Bacon 13 1200 Main Street Kansas City, Missouri 64105 14 By: WILLIAM CRAMPTON 15 Also By: JOHN FRASER 16 For The Defendant, Shelly Moore: 17 St. Clair & Markey Summit Office Building 18 1200 Summit Avenue, Suite 620 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 19 By: EDWARD MARKEY 20 21 BARBRO GOODMAN, The Witness 22 23 TAMARA J. BRAUN, Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 ALSO PRESENT: Tim Bishop, Videographer 25 Steve Discher 5 1 ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF BARBRO GOODMAN, a 2 witness called by the Plaintiffs, taken before 3 Tamara J. Braun, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in 4 the State of Texas, on the 27th day of August, 5 1996, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:25 p.m.; 6 in the offices of Hunton & Williams, East Tower, 7 951 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia, pursuant 8 to the notice of counsel for the respective parties 9 as hereinafter set forth. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 1 CHANGES MADE TO DEPOSITION 2 Rule 205, "No erasures or obliterations of 3 any kind are to be made to the original testimony as transcribed by the deposition officer. Any 4 changes in form or substance which the witness desires to make shall be furnished to the 5 deposition officer by the witness, together with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for 6 making such changes." Please enter the page number, line number, 7 and the reason for such change or correction. 8 Page/Line Correction Reason for Correction 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BARBRO GOODMAN 7 1 (Goodman Exhibit No. 1 was 2 marked for identification.) 3 EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. GRISHAM: 5 Q. Would you state your full name for the record, 6 please? 7 A. Barbro Lindberg Goodman. 8 Q. Where do you reside, Ms. Goodman? 9 A. Colonial Heights, Virginia. 10 Q. How long have you lived in that city? 11 A. Probably about 15 years. 12 Q. Where are you employed? 13 A. Philip Morris. 14 Q. What is the exact name of the entity that 15 employs you at Philip Morris? 16 A. Philip Morris U.S.A., specifically the R&D. 17 Q. When were you first hired by Philip Morris 18 U.S.A.? 19 A. The 2nd of January 1974. 20 Q. Have you ever worked for any Philip Morris 21 entity other than Philip Morris U.S.A.? 22 A. No, I haven't. 23 Q. Have you ever worked for Philip Morris outside 24 the United States? 25 A. No. 8 1 Q. Have you ever traveled outside the United 2 States? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Where have you gone? 5 A. Europe. 6 Q. On vacations or for some sort of -- 7 A. Well, both. 8 Q. -- work or trade or something involving your 9 profession? 10 A. Part of the job has been business trips. 11 Q. Have you traveled as part of your job with 12 Philip Morris to Europe? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. What were the purposes of those trips? 15 A. Vendor reviews. 16 Q. Have you ever traveled in Europe through your 17 job with Philip Morris in research and development 18 areas? 19 A. No. 20 Q. What particular countries in Europe did you 21 travel to? 22 MR. CRAMPTON: Objection. What is the 23 relevance of her travel to Europe? 24 MR. GRISHAM: I don't have to explain 25 the relevance. If it could lead to the discovery 9 1 of information, I'm entitled to go into it. 2 MR. CRAMPTON: How is it that you 3 believe her travel to Europe could lead to 4 discovery of admissible evidence? 5 MR. GRISHAM: I don't have to tell you 6 that. 7 MR. CRAMPTON: Well, I'll let it go for 8 a while, but her personal travel to Europe is just 9 not relevant. 10 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) I think the last question -- 11 I'll try to rephrase it, perhaps I left out the 12 part about business. But I think the question is, 13 where did you travel in Europe in your efforts with 14 Philip Morris towards the vendor reviews and things 15 of that nature? 16 A. France and Austria. 17 Q. Where did you work before you were employed 18 with Philip Morris U.S.A.? 19 A. I was born and raised in Sweden, so most of my 20 work was there. I also worked in Germany for a 21 summer job that I needed for my degree. And I 22 worked for one year at F.M.C. in Baltimore before I 23 came to Philip Morris. 24 Q. What is F.M.C.? 25 A. Food Machinery Corporation. 10 1 Q. What is your date of birth? 2 A. May 31st, '44. 3 Q. You said you were born in Sweden? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. How long was -- 6 A. I was born and raised there. I was 21 when I 7 left. 8 Q. All right. Were you educated in Sweden? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Where did you attend secondary school? 11 A. In my hometown of Falkoping. Spell that one. 12 Q. Can you spell that for the court reporter? 13 A. F-a-l-k-o-p-i-n-g. 14 MR. BRADEN: Let's go off the record 15 for a second. 16 (Brief interruption.) 17 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Ms. Goodman, we were talking 18 about your educational background when we went off 19 the record. You mentioned that you attended school 20 in Sweden in your hometown. Was that a secondary 21 school of some sort? 22 A. That was all the way through what I would 23 consider equivalent to an Associate's degree in the 24 States. 25 Q. Very good. What was the name of the 11 1 institution that you attended? 2 A. (Witness responds with a Swedish name - 3 unintelligible). 4 Q. All right. I'll withdraw the question. 5 A. Public schools. 6 Q. It was public school? 7 A. All public schools in Sweden, yes. 8 Q. Did you focus your educational efforts at the 9 secondary level on a specific field or discipline? 10 A. I went the science line, which means math, 11 chemistry, physics, those types of things; but that 12 also includes foreign languages and normal social 13 sciences. 14 Q. Did you attain any sort of degree or 15 certification following your completion of that 16 educational endeavor? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What was the degree called, or is there an 19 equivalent in the United States that I might 20 identify with better? 21 A. Not really. Because it's -- it's not 22 equivalent to high school and it's not equivalent 23 to a college degree. It falls in between. 24 Q. Following your completion of that educational 25 endeavor, what did you do in terms of continuing 12 1 your education? 2 A. I went to a technical college, still in 3 Sweden, for a year-and-a-half and achieved a degree 4 in chemical engineering. 5 Q. What was the name of that institution? 6 A. Helsingborg Technical College. 7 Q. Following your completion of that degree, did 8 you continue with your education? 9 A. When I came to the United States, I realized 10 that people had so many questions of what I had 11 done before that I went to college here, and 12 eventually I received a Bachelor's degree in 13 chemistry. 14 Q. Where did you receive that degree? 15 A. Wayne State University. 16 Q. What was the year that you completed that 17 degree plan? 18 A. Year? 19 Q. Yes, ma'am. 20 A. 1970. 21 Q. Did you pursue any post-graduate educational 22 courses after that? 23 A. Yes. While I was employed at Philip Morris, I 24 went for an M.B.A. 25 Q. Did you get your M.B.A.? 13 1 A. Uh-huh. 2 Q. When did you complete that? 3 A. '82. 4 Q. Where did you obtain that degree? 5 A. Florida Institute of Technology. 6 Q. Have you received any other advanced 7 degrees -- 8 A. No. 9 Q. -- or taken courses towards other advanced 10 degrees? 11 A. Just a course here and there, but nothing 12 towards the degree. 13 Q. Were the other courses that you took mainly 14 things in areas that interested you but weren't 15 something that you necessarily needed for your 16 employment, such as, some people take language 17 courses? 18 A. It's more continuing-education-type courses 19 that I take for some specific reason at work. 20 Q. Can you give me an idea of what those courses 21 have been, to the best of your recollection? 22 A. A lot of it just what I would consider 23 management-development-type courses, computer 24 courses, statistics, those type of things. 25 Q. Before coming to work for Philip Morris U.S.A. 14 1 in 1974, did you work in any other aspect of the 2 tobacco industry or for any other manufacturer or 3 supplier of tobacco products? 4 A. No. At that time, I had never seen a tobacco 5 plant. 6 Q. Why did you decide that you wanted to go to 7 work for Philip Morris U.S.A.? 8 A. Well, I'm married to a former military 9 officer. So we traveled around, and this is where 10 we lived. So I looked to see what was in the area. 11 Q. Do you now or have you in the past belonged to 12 any societies or associations or other 13 organizations in the field of chemistry? 14 A. I belong to the American Chemical Society. I 15 never joined the others. I've gone to some 16 seminars and classes, but I haven't joined them. 17 Q. Have you ever held any offices in the American 18 Chemical Society? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Have you ever published any literature in the 21 field of chemistry -- 22 A. No. 23 Q. -- or something that might be related to 24 chemistry? 25 A. No. 15 1 Q. Have you ever worked on any government 2 grant-type projects in the field of chemistry or 3 tobacco research? 4 A. No. 5 Q. When you were first employed by Philip Morris 6 U.S.A. in 1974, what was your exact title? 7 A. I believe I was called an assistant scientist. 8 Q. Who was the person immediately above you, if 9 you will, that you reported to in that position? 10 A. At the time I was hired, that was Paul Gauvin. 11 Q. Can you spell that last name? 12 A. G-a-u-v-i-n. 13 Q. What was his title or position? 14 A. He was project leader. 15 Q. Was he project leader for a specific project, 16 or is that a generic term at Philip Morris? 17 A. A project really has several programs in it. 18 Q. Okay. Do the projects have numbers or titles? 19 A. Well, they have some kind of costs (phonetics) 20 in their numbers or administrative-type numbers. 21 What it was, I couldn't tell you. It has changed 22 so many times. 23 Q. Okay. What was the focus of the particular 24 project that Mr. Gauvin was in charge of that you 25 worked on? 16 1 A. This was in product development. 2 Q. When you started in 1974 in the area of 3 product development, what did you understand to be 4 your first task? 5 A. I was to move around in the different areas 6 right there to learn what was going on. 7 Q. If I'm understanding the hierarchy--and please 8 correct me if I don't--the product development was 9 an area that came under a specific project that 10 Mr. Gauvin headed up; is that correct? 11 A. I would say that R&D was split up into the 12 research area and the development area. 13 Development area would have several different 14 projects. In fact, they had several different 15 managers too. 16 Q. So Mr. Gauvin's project was under the R&D 17 umbrella, so to speak? 18 A. Yes. Oh, yeah. 19 Q. And it was part of development? 20 A. Uh-huh. 21 Q. You mentioned earlier that you were an 22 assistant scientist, correct? 23 A. That was the entry-level grade that I came in 24 at for a new college graduate. 25 Q. Okay. What was the position just above you? 17 1 Would that have been scientist? 2 A. Yeah. 3 Q. Back in 1974, what was the position above 4 scientist in the product development area? 5 A. It probably was research scientist. I'm not 6 too sure of that. 7 Q. And above research scientist? 8 A. I don't recall what they were called. That 9 has changed several times too. 10 Q. I understand. You mentioned earlier that 11 product development was part of -- under the 12 umbrella of research and development. Were 13 research and development back in 1974 kept 14 separate? 15 A. They were pretty much separate, yes. 16 Q. Were they housed in the same physical plant or 17 location? 18 A. Same location, but different buildings. 19 Q. Who was in charge of research and development 20 in 1974 at Philip Morris U.S.A.? 21 A. I would think it was Frank Reznick. 22 Q. Was Mr. Seligman employed at Philip Morris 23 U.S.A. at that time? 24 A. It could have been him, yeah. I'm not sure 25 which one. 18 1 Q. At some point in time, to your recollection, 2 was Mr. Seligman in charge of research and 3 development? 4 A. Yeah. They both were at different times. 5 Q. Mr. Seligman, do you know his status now? Is 6 he alive and well? 7 A. Last time I heard, yes. 8 Q. Okay. Is he still working in some capacity 9 for Philip Morris or any related entity? 10 A. I don't know if he does now. He did after he 11 had left that position, but I don't know what he 12 does now. 13 Q. Do you know where he resides? 14 A. No. 15 Q. When's the last time you saw him? 16 A. Probably a couple of years ago. 17 Q. In what context, at a seminar or at Philip 18 Morris? 19 A. It was kind of a training program, sign-up 20 session. 21 Q. So when you started in 1974, the first task 22 that you undertook was to move around within the 23 product development area and familiarize yourself 24 with the various differing operations, correct? 25 A. Right. 19 1 Q. How long did that status ensue before you 2 moved on to a more permanent job task? 3 A. I'd say about nine months, less than a year. 4 Q. During the nine-month period that you moved 5 around to the various tasks, did you have the 6 opportunity to work on any projects involving 7 reduced ignition propensity cigarettes? 8 A. Not that year. 9 Q. In 1974 do you recall Randall Greene being 10 involved in any of the work that you were exposed 11 to? 12 A. I don't think he had been hired at that time. 13 Q. Do you know Mr. Greene? 14 A. Oh, yes. He worked -- 15 Q. Did he work -- I'm sorry. 16 A. Go ahead. 17 Q. You're anticipating my question correctly. 18 Did you work with him? Was he -- did he work for 19 you? What was the circumstance surrounding the -- 20 A. Yes. In later years he was in my group. 21 Q. Was product development at that time described 22 as a group? I'm trying to get my terminology 23 down. 24 A. Product development had a director. 25 Q. So was it a program, then? 20 1 A. You could call it that. 2 Q. And within the particular entities that had 3 directors, like product development, there were 4 different groups? 5 A. There were different managers, yes. 6 Q. There were different managers. And was each 7 manager ahead -- over or did he or she head up a 8 certain group or -- 9 A. Several project leaders in each one. 10 Q. So it goes from manager to project leader in 11 terms of the hierarchy? 12 A. Uh-huh. 13 Q. Is that a "yes"? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. That's all right. I've got a habit of doing 16 that, too, but we have to say "yes" or "no" or the 17 appropriate response for the court reporter. 18 And what was the next position in the 19 hierarchy? 20 A. Going down? 21 Q. Yes. 22 A. Just the ordinary workers. 23 Q. All right. 24 A. No. We're talking about professionals, and 25 then we have technicians. 21 1 Q. All right. And going up from manager -- 2 A. -- to director. 3 Q. -- project manager? To director. And above 4 that? 5 A. The head of R&D, who I don't believe was the 6 vice-president at the time. 7 Q. When did you first become acquainted with or 8 introduced to any research regarding reduced 9 ignition propensity cigarettes? 10 A. I cannot tell you a date. But we had 11 rearrangements in the different projects and who 12 worked in which project. And at one of those 13 reshuffles is when I first became introduced to 14 it. 15 We had a group called paper development, I 16 believe, that I became the group leader for. 17 Q. You were the group leader for that? 18 A. Well, I better say project leader then, 19 because you've been taking such pain to write down 20 the titles. 21 Q. Okay, thank you. I'm a stickler for details. 22 I try not to be that way. So it's project leader 23 for -- 24 A. Yeah. 25 Q. -- paper development? 22 1 A. Uh-huh. 2 Q. Who -- well, would you call that a team that 3 worked on that or a group? 4 A. We called it groups back then, but there is 5 really no difference. 6 Q. Okay. Who worked along with you on the paper 7 development group? 8 A. When we first formed that group, Randy Greene 9 was in it. We had a Matt Kelly, Rose Arthur, 10 Richard Krummel. And later on we had some other 11 people, but I believe those were the only original 12 ones. 13 Q. While we're on the topic of membership, can 14 you tell me, as the project developed, what the 15 changes in the group membership were--some of the 16 other names? 17 A. We had somebody named Kitty Gunst. We had a 18 Sherry Graybill. We had a Donna Moody, I think her 19 name was, Joyce Wilds, Dennis Driscoll. I think 20 that was pretty much it. 21 Q. Would your becoming project leader over at the 22 paper development project been within your first 23 five years of employment, to your belief, or can 24 you estimate it for me? 25 A. It was while I was going to school for the 23 1 M.B.A., so I'd say it was probably about '80, '79, 2 '80, somewhere in that time frame. 3 Q. And you received your M.B.A. in '81; is that 4 right? 5 A. I said '82. 6 Q. Do you know if there had been any research or 7 development efforts prior to the paper development 8 project at Philip Morris U.S.A. directed towards 9 the reduced ignition propensity cigarette? 10 A. I don't believe there had been a project, as 11 such, working on it. Individual -- individuals 12 could have done some amount of it, but nothing 13 organized that I know of. 14 Q. When you first were given this project to work 15 upon, did you go to some of the other individuals 16 who you suspected may have done some research or 17 had some ideas to try to glean from them what they 18 had done and what -- to try to get you a basis to 19 launch your project? 20 A. No. We typically do background research to 21 know what's been going on before--try to either 22 build on that or discredit it, whatever the case 23 may be. Don't want to repeat what somebody had 24 already documented. 25 Q. Absolutely. Do you recall doing that with 24 1 respect to the paper development project? 2 A. I think so. 3 Q. Do you recall who some of the individuals were 4 who had done research that you were able to look 5 back at to see if it could either be discounted or 6 built upon? 7 A. Not really. I mean, I knew who everybody was 8 at R&D, so I'm not likely to remember that. 9 Q. As sitting here today, can you recall who, 10 back in the '70 -- 1978, '79, '80 time period, had 11 done research or development towards the reduced 12 ignition propensity cigarette? 13 A. I'm not personally familiar with what they 14 did. I've seen some documents from some people. 15 Q. Can you tell me the names of those people? 16 A. Well, I've seen Seligman's name. I've seen 17 Henry Merritt. I can't remember the other peoples' 18 names. 19 Q. Do you remember a Mr. Gannon? 20 A. Oh, Tom Gannon? 21 Q. Yes. 22 A. No, that's not -- Walt Gannon is his name. 23 Q. Walt Gannon? 24 A. Yes. But I -- yeah. 25 Q. Have you ever heard of Project Hamlet? 25 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you ever work on Project Hamlet? 3 A. That is the project we're essentially talking 4 about. It later turned into that. 5 Q. That's what I thought. 6 A. It did not start out as such. 7 Q. It started out as paper development. It later 8 became Project Hamlet? 9 A. Yes. 10 MR. CRAMPTON: I -- actually I don't 11 think that's the way the testimony came out. 12 MR. GRISHAM: Okay. I misunderstood. 13 MR. CRAMPTON: If I could -- 14 MR. GRISHAM: Please. 15 MR. CRAMPTON: It sounded to me like 16 someone from paper development gave Barbro the 17 assignment to begin to work on ignition propensity 18 as a formalized project. It wasn't called the 19 paper development project. It would have been 20 something, I guess, sub of paper development. 21 MR. GRISHAM: Okay. Thank you. 22 A. That was one of the programs we had in the 23 project, yes. 24 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Yeah. Let me go back and 25 develop that a little bit so I'll make sure we're 26 1 all clear. 2 One of the projects subsumed within paper 3 development was the project dealing with the 4 reduced ignition propensity cigarette, correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. And there were other projects going on within 7 paper development at the same time? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. Do you know why you were picked to work 10 on this particular aspect of paper development? 11 A. On the ignition propensity aspect? 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. Because of what we had already done in terms 14 of knowledge of cigarette papers. That was the 15 logical extension to continue working on that 16 project. 17 Q. So for a few years you had worked in the area 18 of paper development or research on papers? 19 A. And cigarette design and development in 20 general. 21 Q. Before being assigned to the reduced ignition 22 propensity project -- is there a shorter way to say 23 that? This may be a long day. Is there some other 24 term that I can use that you'll understand? 25 A. I do not remember at what point it was dubbed 27 1 Project Hamlet, but most of what we did was under 2 that name. 3 Q. Before Project Hamlet or the reduced ignition 4 propensity cigarette project, had you gone to any 5 length to educate yourself or to become more 6 knowledgeable in cigarette design and manufacture 7 other than what you learned on the job? 8 A. It's very difficult to find any kind of 9 training other than on the job that deals with that 10 particular field. 11 Q. Right. 12 A. I mean, we have extensive in-house training 13 classes too. 14 Q. And that's something you -- 15 A. Farm tours, manufacturing visits, all of those 16 that's on the job. 17 Q. Okay. So there wasn't any particular school 18 that you could go to and emerge four weeks later 19 with -- 20 A. There still isn't. 21 Q. There still isn't. -- with a wealth of 22 knowledge on reduced ignition propensity cigarette 23 or paper design or anything like that? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Was the project something that you applied for 28 1 or showed interest in, or were you just -- did it 2 just happen to you that you got picked to do this? 3 A. I was told five minutes before a group meeting 4 that I was going to be the project leader, and the 5 rest of them were told in the meeting. It was all 6 decided ahead of time. I don't know the details. 7 Q. Nothing like planning, huh? 8 A. That was not unusual. 9 Q. What was the first thing that you did to 10 implement the project or to kick it off, so to 11 speak? 12 A. I really can't recall the details of that, 13 because it really was an extension of the work we 14 were already doing with papers. 15 Q. Okay. Do you know what the purpose was for 16 organizing the research into a specific project? 17 A. To investigate what effect all the different 18 components can have on ignition propensity. 19 Q. The different components of cigarette design? 20 A. Uh-huh. 21 Q. Is that a "yes"? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Had that research, to some extent, already 24 been ongoing? 25 A. A smaller amount of it. We had looked at what 29 1 we could do towards other aspects of cigarette 2 design, not towards the ignition propensity 3 aspect. So some of it we could draw conclusions 4 from what we had done before. 5 Q. Before the specific organized project on 6 ignition propensity, then, there had really not 7 been any research directed at that issue, to your 8 knowledge? 9 A. Not that I was aware of. 10 Q. And that was in the late '70s or perhaps 1980? 11 A. Right. 12 Q. Who did you report to while attending to the 13 duties at the reduced ignition propensity project? 14 A. I was still reporting to Paul Gauvin. 15 Q. And he was reporting directly to the R&D 16 chief? 17 A. Leo Meyer was director at the time. 18 Q. Director of research and development? 19 A. Development. Just development. 20 Q. Do you know where Leo Meyer is today? Is he 21 living? 22 A. No, he's not. 23 Q. When did he pass away? 24 A. That's quite a few years ago. I guess maybe 25 six, seven, something like that. 30 1 Q. So Leo Meyer was head of research and 2 development when -- 3 A. Just development. 4 Q. Just development, okay. Who was head of 5 research? 6 A. Well, at one point it was Frank Reznick. I 7 really don't remember. 8 Q. So it was Meyer, Gauvin and then? 9 A. Several project leaders, and I was one of 10 them. 11 Q. Have you ever given a deposition before? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. On how many occasions? 14 A. Two. 15 Q. Can you tell me what cases they involved? 16 A. One was a fire-related case, and one is a 17 patent case. 18 Q. With respect to the fire-related case, about 19 when was that? 20 A. Four, five years ago. I don't really know. 21 Q. Did you give it here in Richmond? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Where did you give that deposition? 24 A. Philadelphia. 25 Q. Can you tell me what case that was given in 31 1 connection with? 2 A. I really don't remember the name of it. 3 Q. Do you remember the name of the attorney who 4 took your deposition? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Was the patent case that you gave testimony in 7 a case dealing with reduced ignition propensity 8 design? 9 A. No, it wasn't. 10 Q. Do you know who dubbed the project that you 11 were working on Project Hamlet--you indicated how 12 it evolved--to have that name? 13 A. That was Dr. Hausermann. 14 Q. Dr.? 15 A. Hausermann. 16 Q. Who was Dr. Hausermann? 17 A. He was probably head of R&D. I'm not sure if 18 he was at that time or if he became the head later. 19 Q. Would he have been the person over Leo Meyer? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you know when the project was dubbed 22 Hamlet, approximately? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Was that something that was an official name 25 designation, or did the name just start appearing 32 1 in correspondence? 2 A. We typically had names like that for projects 3 that were leading towards a particular purpose, 4 other than the normal projects that we were working 5 on. Any time there was a specific sub-group, we 6 gave it a name. 7 Q. And you don't -- can you give me an estimate 8 of about when that name appeared? 9 A. I'm not very good at years. 10 Q. So you wouldn't be able to estimate that for 11 me? 12 A. No. I'd rather not tell you the wrong year. 13 You might have documents to show totally different 14 years. 15 Q. You never can tell. Actually, I don't 16 remember myself. 17 Do you know why the project was named 18 Hamlet? Was there some particular reason for that? 19 A. Yes. I've been to Denmark. There is a 20 castle, and there is a Hamlet; and his famous words 21 were "to be or not to be." Dr. Hausermann thought 22 that could be to burn or not to burn. That's how 23 that came about. 24 Q. Just so that -- I think we both know exactly 25 what we're talking about; but so that I'm perfectly 33 1 clear on what the focus and purpose of the project 2 was, can you tell me what you understood, back at 3 the time you undertook research on the reduced 4 ignition propensity cigarette, what the purpose of 5 the project was and the goals that were hoped to 6 achieve? 7 A. I mentioned earlier that the purpose was to 8 investigate what effect all the different cigarette 9 components had upon ignition propensity, as well as 10 finding out how to test for ignition propensity. 11 Because there was no such thing as what -- what 12 constitutes ignition propensity. That is something 13 we had to look into and work with others on 14 defining. 15 Q. And that was the stated purpose of the 16 project? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What particular components of cigarette design 19 were to be investigated with respect to learning 20 about ignition propensity? 21 A. I'd say just about anything except the filter 22 tip because that doesn't have much effect on it. 23 Q. Give me an idea, if you can, the list of 24 things that do and can have an effect upon ignition 25 propensity. 34 1 A. The paper type, whatever characteristics are 2 on the paper; the tobacco blend; the physical size 3 construction of a cigarette; the appearance, if you 4 have it. And that's the primary ones. 5 Q. And I thought a moment ago you mentioned a 6 second part to the project, and that was, if I 7 heard you correctly, to be able to test ignition 8 propensity? 9 A. Right. We looked at methodology, several 10 different things there. 11 Q. What particularly at that stage of the project 12 was the focus in terms of what was being ignited? 13 A. You mean -- I'm not sure I understand the 14 question. 15 Q. Okay. I'll try to rephrase it, do a better 16 job. If I understand the purpose of the project, 17 it was to investigate the ignition propensity of 18 cigarettes. Was that to investigate cigarette 19 interaction with other objects and igniting other 20 objects? 21 A. One of the first things we had to do was to 22 find out what it did to different substrates--paper, 23 fabrics, some kind of standardized laboratory 24 material, whatever there might be. 25 Q. So there was a wide array of substances that 35 1 were looked at -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. -- or considered in terms of what cigarettes 4 ignite? 5 A. Yes. We went to a furniture company and 6 purchased quite a bit there. 7 Q. Who was, in the 1979 or '80 time period, 8 responsible for outlining the parameters of test 9 methodology that was being undertaken or developed? 10 A. I don't know that there was anything like 11 that. Around that time period the N.B.S. was 12 working on related testing as well. Famous Krasny 13 has published a number of things. 14 We were, of course, reading everything that 15 we could from what they did, trying some of it out 16 ourselves, trying other things and comparing to see 17 what we had. 18 Q. When the research first began under your 19 project leadership, where was the physical location 20 of the research? 21 A. We were at the current R&D. 22 Q. Here in Richmond? 23 A. In Richmond, yes. 24 Q. At the time you began leadership of the 25 project, was there a specific lab or area within a 36 1 laboratory that was designated for this research? 2 A. The same lab as the paper development had been 3 in. 4 Q. Initially, was there any area that was 5 specifically attributed to this research, or was it 6 all mixed in with the other paper research? 7 A. This research needed a hood, a big hood, so we 8 had a specific hood. Other than that, no. There 9 were other people in the laboratory. 10 Q. By "hood," can you go ahead and explain what 11 you're talking about? Is it a piece of research 12 equipment? 13 A. What I mean is a standard laboratory hood that 14 has good exhaust controlled ventilation. You can 15 close it down. You can see through it so that you 16 can have your hands in there and do whatever you 17 want and still not have it go into the rest of the 18 environment. 19 Q. Do you smoke? 20 A. No, I don't. 21 Q. Have you ever smoked? 22 A. I've never been a smoker. I've tried 23 cigarettes. 24 Q. During the initial phases of the project, did 25 you have assistant project leaders? 37 1 A. No, we've never had that. We do have 2 technical people, senior technical people, that are 3 a kind of assistants for specific projects. 4 Q. Now, when you started on the project, of 5 course, you were a chemist. What other disciplines 6 were involved or interacted with in researching and 7 developing this project? 8 A. In development it was mostly chemists and 9 engineers. Research, of course, depends on what 10 research area they were involved in. 11 Q. Was flavor testing part of the research aspect 12 or research arm of this area? 13 A. We had a flavor development group at that 14 time. We still do. 15 Q. Was it with -- 16 A. That was -- 17 Q. I'm sorry. 18 A. -- also in development, but a separate manager 19 for them. 20 Q. In the early phases of the project, who was in 21 charge of flavor development, to your recollection? 22 A. Frank Daylor. 23 Q. Was Mr. Taylor (sic) somebody you worked with? 24 A. Daylor. 25 Q. I'm sorry? 38 1 A. Daylor, starts with a "D." 2 Q. Thank you. Was Mr. Daylor someone that you 3 worked with on a daily basis in the lab, or was he 4 somebody that was more of an administrator type? 5 A. He was more the functional administrator for 6 his people. 7 Q. Do you recall who may have -- you may have 8 worked with in flavor development with respect to 9 this project on a day-to-day basis? 10 A. That was Andy Kallianos. 11 Q. Is Mr. Kallianos still employed by Philip 12 Morris, to your knowledge? 13 A. No, he's retired. 14 Q. Do you know about when he retired? 15 A. It's probably close to three years ago now. 16 Q. Do you know where he resides? 17 A. No. He moved out of town. 18 Q. When he retired, was he still a part of flavor 19 development? 20 A. Yes. He retired from flavor development. 21 Q. How long did Project Hamlet continue to be an 22 active project? 23 A. I cannot answer that one. It was several 24 years, quite a few years. 25 Q. Did you continue on in your effort of project 39 1 leader for Project Hamlet? 2 A. Did I continue on? 3 Q. Yes. Did you -- did you continue or did you 4 move on to some other project? 5 A. We added other projects to it later, but we 6 still continued with Project Hamlet. 7 Q. Was Project Hamlet ever completed and closed 8 down, or does it continue today? 9 A. The name was discontinued at one point in 10 time. 11 Q. About when was the name discontinued? 12 A. I hate all these years. I'm really not good 13 at that. This is '96. I would say late '80s 14 sometime, '88 maybe. 15 Q. Do you know why it was discontinued? 16 A. Well, we had pretty much investigated all the 17 parameters that we could. We felt that we knew 18 what they could do on a specific test. There was a 19 lot of government effort going on in terms of 20 developing tests. We didn't know what a test 21 should be or might be if it was regulated, so we 22 really couldn't pursue any more cigarette 23 development. So we focused more on test 24 methodology. 25 Q. And that was in the late '80s, you think? 40 1 A. Yeah. 2 Q. Going back then to the late '70s, early '80s, 3 when the project, Project Hamlet, was ensuing, 4 you've given me some of the componentry of the 5 cigarette as being investigated in order to 6 determine ignition propensity characteristics. 7 Can you tell me if these were all looked at 8 in conjunction with one another, or did you 9 separate them out and look at them one by one? 10 A. We tried the best we could to change just one 11 variable at a time. That's not always possible 12 because they have interactions. 13 Q. Okay, I understand. I wrote down three 14 areas. The first of which I wrote down was paper 15 type? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Can you give me an idea of what research was 18 done towards altering or changing paper type in 19 hopes of reducing the ignition propensity of 20 cigarettes? 21 A. We looked at the base composition of paper, 22 the raw materials that go into making paper. 23 Q. At that time was Philip Morris using 24 Kimberly-Clark paper exclusively? 25 A. No. We had more than one vendor. 41 1 Q. What other vendors were being -- 2 A. Ecusta was the big one. 3 Q. Okay. Did you look at different types or 4 different brands of paper in your investigation? 5 A. We had hand-sheet facilities, we call it. We 6 could make small scale samples ourselves, if we 7 needed to; or we might work with the vendors on 8 something slightly different that we needed to test 9 larger scale. 10 Q. If you needed to conduct larger scale tests, 11 could you tell the vendor this is what we want and 12 they could make you up some paper and ship it to 13 you for manufacturing? 14 A. Back then, it was more -- since these were 15 competing companies, it was more likely that they 16 offered us something that they wanted us to test or 17 asked if we were interested in testing. 18 It's only been in more recent years when 19 we've gone into partnerships that we could initiate 20 what we wanted and ask somebody to make it. 21 Q. As we sit here today in 1996, are you still 22 involved in investigation or study of reduced 23 ignition propensity cigarettes? 24 A. Yes, I am. 25 Q. So one of the first things you looked at on 42 1 the paper, back in 1979, '80, '81, was the base 2 composition of the paper? 3 A. That was one of the factors. The formation of 4 the sheet, the openness, whiteness, whatever other 5 things you have there; looking at the additives 6 that we might add to the paper, either the normal 7 ones or modified ones or totally different ones. 8 Q. As part of your investigation, did you 9 research and consider the effect of citrate on the 10 paper? 11 A. Oh, yes. 12 Q. In terms of educating the jury and myself just 13 a bit, what effect does citrate have on cigarette 14 paper? 15 A. That's something that's present in most of the 16 cigarettes on the market. And it -- it acts as a 17 moderator in that if you take a paper that doesn't 18 have it, you have a very unappealing, flaky ash 19 that will fall down. Little crumbles everywhere. 20 Just putting a very, very small amount of 21 citrate on the paper will make it nice and 22 coherent. It does not fall off. It just forms a 23 little shield right there. 24 Q. Does it affect the burn rate of the 25 cigarette--the tobacco or the paper? 43 1 A. It does speed up the burn rate, depending on 2 the level. 3 Q. Other than the ash appearance, does citrate 4 offer any other advantage to the cigarette design? 5 A. It helps the paper burn at the same rate as 6 the tobacco inside. If you burn it back too fast, 7 you will have coal dropping off, which is hot. If 8 it burns too slow, then it's not going to taste 9 good. 10 And consumers -- since that is on most 11 cigarettes, that's what they're used to. If we 12 take it off, they can tell a difference. 13 Q. You mentioned earlier commercial brands, I 14 thought, that -- are there commercial brands on the 15 market that do not have citrate? 16 A. I only know of two or three. 17 Q. What are those? 18 A. I don't recall the names right now, because 19 they're not necessarily still in the market. At 20 the time, we had a list of what additives were on 21 all the commercial brands, but I -- 22 Q. Do you recall -- 23 A. -- don't remember exactly what the brands are 24 right now. 25 Q. Do you recall that they were American 44 1 cigarettes? 2 A. Oh, we only looked at American cigarettes 3 primarily. 4 Q. To your knowledge, has any reduced ignition 5 propensity research been conducted in Europe on 6 behalf of Philip Morris? 7 A. I don't believe so. 8 Q. Or any other international countries, any 9 other countries? 10 A. I think it was focused in the U.S. European 11 countries did not have this as an overwhelming 12 concern among the public. 13 Q. The issue of reduced ignition propensity, you 14 mean? 15 A. Europeans just don't have as many fires. 16 Q. Besides the citrate additive, what other 17 additives were investigated in terms of paper type? 18 A. Anything that's on the approved list of what 19 we call grass components that is allowed in the 20 cigarette industry. 21 Q. Did any of the manipulation of the paper 22 additives, through your research, develop a 23 cigarette that was less prone to ignite substrate? 24 A. It really depends on what we call less prone 25 on a substrate. It depends on the substrate. It's 45 1 a very small difference. It still ignites. 2 I don't think that there was anything that 3 was a solution. 4 Q. Was it your goal to develop a single change to 5 componentry to assist in the problem of ignitions, 6 or did you hope to alter many components to achieve 7 the goal that you sought? 8 A. We wanted to see the contribution of each of 9 them. 10 Q. And did you conduct the research in that 11 manner; in other words, to try to isolate each 12 component, research that component as an individual 13 component? 14 A. Yes. That's how we did all the original work. 15 Q. Later on was research done that combined the 16 component alterations? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And if I hear what you're saying, then, really 19 the paper additive research didn't -- wasn't 20 fruitful in providing a product that -- or a 21 prototype that, in your opinion, was less prone to 22 ignite substrate? 23 MR. CRAMPTON: Object to the form. You 24 can answer. 25 A. My problem is the substrate. Because 46 1 different fabrics are much more variable than 2 different cigarettes. So I have a basic concern 3 with that. 4 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Okay. Was there a 5 particular type substrate that you focused your 6 research on? 7 A. Yes. We used a standard, single color 8 velvet-like material, like the N.B.S. was doing at 9 the time. 10 Q. Did you use mock-ups that resembled what the 11 N.B.S. was using? 12 A. We tried all of them. We tried the flat ones, 13 the crevices, the sort of mock-up chair setup, all 14 those things. 15 Q. Using that -- and you used foam substrate? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Two different types? 18 A. Mostly the high density. 19 Q. In terms of the foam substrate that you used 20 in your research, did any of the paper additives 21 that were looked at have a -- a lesser tendency to 22 ignite that substrate? 23 A. We had some models that took longer. 24 Q. To ignite? 25 A. To ignite, yes. 47 1 Q. Was that a positive benefit in terms of your 2 research? 3 A. If we're strictly looking at time, we identify 4 some that take longer than others. If they still 5 ignite, that's not really a benefit. Because if 6 somebody carelessly disposes of a cigarette, it's 7 going to be wherever it is; and whether it's there 8 for two minutes or five minutes, it'll still be the 9 same end result. 10 Q. Is it true that once the ignition starts, the 11 burning of the cigarette is irrelevant then? 12 A. That's correct, because the substrate is going 13 to propagate itself. 14 Q. Did you investigate any paper additives that 15 you recall that netted a self-extinguishing 16 cigarette? 17 A. If we pushed the levels of some additives, we 18 could reach that point, yes. 19 Q. What was -- what were the disadvantages to 20 those prototypes that -- 21 A. The subjective taste was the big criteria. 22 The panel we had refused to smoke them after the 23 first few times. 24 Q. All right. So there were in the 19 -- early 25 1980's additives that you could apply to cigarette 48 1 paper that would make them self-extinguish, but the 2 flavoring was such that the panel that did the 3 flavor testing wouldn't smoke the product? 4 A. Essentially, yes. 5 Q. Do you recall what the problems that they had 6 with flavoring were? 7 A. The typical comments is that they have 8 aftertaste, dirty taste, cigar-like character. 9 That's not something cigarette smokers like. Cigar 10 smokers may, but that's not who we're selling our 11 products to. 12 Q. What additives do you recall that you could 13 push up to levels sufficient enough to make the 14 cigarette self-extinguish? 15 A. Anything that slows down the burn rate of the 16 cigarette will pretty much work that way, if the 17 level is high enough. 18 Q. Was a prototype developed that -- through 19 paper additives that would self-extinguish that, 20 nevertheless, had an acceptable puff count? 21 A. Acceptable puff count, no. That's the 22 problem. 23 Q. Is puff count something that's different to 24 flavoring, or is it all tied together? 25 A. It ties together, because smokers are used to 49 1 a particular puff count. If we add a couple more 2 puffs, they're going to have this slow burning, 3 dirty taste coming through. 4 Q. So through additive alone, even though you 5 could make the cigarette self-extinguish, the puff 6 count increased and you never, to your 7 recollection, developed a prototype through 8 additives that didn't have this puff count flavor 9 problem? 10 A. We could not design one that achieved parity 11 with conventional cigarettes, that's right. 12 Q. By achieving parity with conventional 13 cigarettes, you mean that tasted the same? 14 A. That tastes as good. 15 Q. In conducting the flavor research associated 16 with the development of the reduced ignition 17 propensity product, do you recall the protocol that 18 was used in selecting individuals? 19 A. For the panels? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. We have several different levels of panels. 22 We have a standard small group that will -- that is 23 working on the project. They will do the first 24 screening. If they're good enough to go on, then 25 we had a flavor panel. If that looked good, we had 50 1 an internal panel--volunteers that come in everyday 2 or every time there is a test to a specific room 3 smoking their cigarette, then giving a ballot to 4 what they think. 5 Q. Was the initial level of screening in-house, 6 in other words, employees? 7 A. This is all in-house, yes. 8 Q. It wasn't until you got -- were the volunteers 9 also in-house persons? 10 A. Yeah, yes. This is all in-house that I have 11 described. 12 Q. Was any flavor testing done on the reduced 13 ignition propensity prototype, to your 14 recollection, that involved non-Philip Morris 15 employees? 16 A. Yes. I believe we sent out one prototype on a 17 mail-out consumer test. 18 Q. On one occasion? 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. About when was that? 21 A. Well, that would have been towards the end of 22 the project. 23 Q. Late '80s? 24 A. Late '80s. 25 Q. Was there -- what was the designation of that 51 1 prototype? Was there a number or a name given to 2 the prototype that was consumer tested? 3 A. The cigarette, when we made it, would have 4 been given a particular numerical number so that we 5 would know which one it was. I have no way of 6 remembering that. 7 Q. Do you recall a 0046 prototype? 8 A. No. 9 Q. That's not something that stands out in your 10 mind? 11 A. No. That doesn't ring a bell at all. 12 Q. Do you know why the prototype that was mailed 13 out for consumer testing was indeed mailed out for 14 consumer testing when the others, I assume, had 15 been done in-house? 16 A. Well, we had gone through all the in-house 17 panels with a very similar model, so we felt the 18 next step is a larger consumer panel. 19 Q. Did the bottle that -- or had the bottle that 20 was sent out for public testing passed muster, so 21 to speak, with the internal testing, or was it a 22 comparable tasting cigarette internally? 23 A. They did not say that it was comparable, but 24 they felt it was the best of what we had produced 25 in this project. 52 1 Q. In the late '80s when the consumer prototype 2 was sent out for balloting, do you know how the 3 persons were selected for use in the model? 4 A. We have a large number of panelists that get 5 sent cigarettes from time to time, and they're in a 6 database. It's just a matter of which ones happen 7 to get pulled out for each test. They're not 8 individually selected. 9 Q. Is there a way to -- 10 A. The ones that didn't have cigarettes from the 11 previous mail-out would be the lists coming for 12 this one. 13 Q. Is there a way to use the database to select 14 geographically or otherwise, racially or on a 15 gender basis, the type people you want in your 16 particular model for testing? 17 A. Geographically it's possible. Gender type, 18 yes. I don't know how many other characteristics 19 they have in there. 20 Q. Do you know if when the prototype -- the 21 subject prototype we were speaking of was sent out 22 for flavor testing, if there was any predetermined 23 plan for the type of group that would be targeted 24 for this testing? 25 MR. CRAMPTON: Object to the form. 53 1 THE WITNESS: But still answer? 2 MR. CRAMPTON: Yeah, go ahead. 3 A. The typical thing to do is go by what their 4 standard brands are. Because what they're used to 5 smoking has a big influence of what they think on 6 experimental cigarettes. So I'm sure that was the 7 criteria for this one as well. 8 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) So, in other words, you 9 might pick out Marlboro 100 users? You might pick 10 out -- 11 A. If the cigarettes was similar to that, yes. 12 If it was similar to some other brand, we'd pick 13 those first. But if there aren't enough, then 14 we'll add other smoker groups. 15 Q. Philip Morris U.S.A. manufactures -- has 16 designed and manufactured the Marlboro 100, 17 correct? 18 A. We have one on the market. 19 Q. Okay. How long has that been on the market? 20 A. Probably since the '70s. 21 Q. And it's still on the market today? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Does the 100 designation on the product relate 24 to its length? 25 A. Yes. 54 1 Q. Other than the one occasion that you've 2 described when consumer testing outside the company 3 was conducted on the flavor aspect of the reduced 4 ignition propensity prototypes, do you recall any 5 other instances when extra company or outside 6 company flavor testing was done on that aspect of 7 the project? 8 A. I don't believe so. 9 Q. Let's talk a moment about tobacco blends with 10 respect to the reduced ignition propensity 11 research. It's my understanding that in blending 12 tobacco, one can create a cigarette that burns more 13 slowly; is that correct? 14 A. Each different tobacco type. We're talking 15 Burley, Bright, Oriental, standard grades that are 16 used in the industry. They all burn at different 17 rates if you make 100 percent of one particular 18 type. 19 Q. So by blending those types -- 20 A. By blending, you can affect the burn rate, 21 yes. 22 Q. Does the burn rate of a cigarette affect its 23 ignition propensity to substrate? 24 A. It depends on what the substrate is, how you 25 look at it. If you take one particular substrate, 55 1 yes, you can say different tobaccos burn at 2 different rates. But if you change the subject -- 3 substrate, you might not get the same result. 4 Q. Particularly with foam substrate, can the 5 blend of the tobacco be manipulated such that it 6 will not ignite foam substrate? 7 A. I'm not aware of any of the ignition testing 8 being done with just the foam. I don't believe 9 that we did. 10 Q. What substrates were used in ignition testing? 11 A. We were using a fabric on top of the foam. 12 Q. The velvet fabric? 13 A. The velvet fabric. We tried others initially. 14 Q. And was there a particular blend of tobaccos 15 that could be used in a prototype that would have a 16 reduced propensity to ignite the velvet with foam 17 substrate? 18 A. If you blend more of certain grades, you could 19 come to that point, but you tremendously affect the 20 taste when you do it too. 21 Q. Can the blend of tobaccos be changed ever so 22 slightly so that over a course of a number of 23 years, say, seven to ten years, the smoker of a 24 particular brand won't even realize that the 25 cigarette's been changed? 56 1 A. That's a difficult one to answer. Knowing all 2 the products I buy that say new and improved taste, 3 sometimes I can tell a difference, sometimes I 4 can't. 5 Q. That's something you just don't have an 6 opinion on today? 7 A. I don't see how you could really test. I 8 mean, tobacco is a natural product. Every crop 9 year is going to be slightly different from the 10 previous year. So there is some little change like 11 that. 12 Q. Could the blend in the tobacco, in your 13 opinion, be changed ever so slightly over a 14 ten-year period that smokers would become used to 15 the new blend and, thus, would, to your belief, not 16 even know there had been a change? 17 MR. CRAMPTON: Object to the form. 18 A. I really can't say. 19 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Do you know if Philip Morris 20 has undertaken any research to determine if that is 21 a feasible thing to do? 22 A. I'm not familiar with any. 23 MR. GRISHAM: Can we take a coffee 24 break right quick? Is that okay? 25 MR. CRAMPTON: Sure. 57 1 (Brief recess.) 2 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Ms. Goodman, when we broke 3 we were talking about tobacco blends, I believe. 4 Is the Bright blend one that burns more quickly? 5 A. I don't recall the rates of the different 6 ones. 7 Q. Was there or has there been research 8 conducted, to your recollection, dealing with 9 chemical or compound additives to the tobacco 10 itself to investigate the effect on ignition 11 propensity to substrate? 12 A. Yes, there has. 13 Q. What sort of additives have been investigated? 14 A. Looking at the standard ones that are 15 typically there, what effect they have. 16 Q. You have to tell me what they are, if you can 17 recall. 18 A. No, that I cannot tell you. 19 Q. There are standard additives to tobacco 20 that -- 21 A. -- to make it not break and get brittle, to 22 make it more pliable, stay moist, those kind of 23 additives. 24 Q. The less moist a cigarette, the slower it 25 burns, correct? Did I have too many double 58 1 negatives in that one? 2 A. I think you had too many double -- I think 3 that's not correct. 4 Q. Does the moisture content of a cigarette 5 affect its burn rate? 6 A. Yes, it does. 7 Q. If it's more moist, does it burn more slowly? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. I think I got it that time. Is there a 10 process whereby tobacco is flue-dried that makes it 11 less moist? 12 A. In the initial stage of curing tobacco? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. I'm not familiar enough with how they do that. 15 Q. With respect to the research that was done 16 with regard to moisture content and its effect on 17 ignition propensity, what were the findings? 18 A. There is a very narrow range of practical -- 19 of practical working range, and there were no 20 tremendous differences in that working range. 21 Q. What do you mean by "practical working 22 range"? What were the parameters? 23 A. With a very dry tobacco, the consumer would 24 not like it. Very wet tobacco, you could have 25 bacterial growth because it's a natural product. 59 1 So the range between those two extremes is not 2 large enough to show a significant difference. 3 Q. Are there additives available to control 4 bacterial growth in tobacco? 5 A. I'm not an entomologist (sic). 6 Q. So you don't know? 7 A. There has to be something, but I really don't 8 know. 9 Q. In order to attempt to manipulate a prototype 10 to make it less likely to ignite substrate, one 11 would want to make it wetter in terms of moisture 12 content; is that correct? 13 A. I would think so. 14 Q. In terms of other additives, do you recall 15 what manipulation of the blend or tobacco additive 16 had the most profound effect in the research in 17 altering the ignition propensity to substrate? 18 MR. CRAMPTON: Object to the form. 19 A. I really don't remember the details of every 20 study we did, because there were so many different 21 ones. We determined that there were basic 22 differences amongst the individual tobaccos. 23 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Okay. Were determinations 24 made that there were differences in the ignition 25 propensity due to the other additives that could be 60 1 altered? 2 A. I don't recall any real significant 3 differences there. 4 Q. Let's talk for a moment about physical size, 5 which is a component of cigarette design you've 6 discussed earlier, correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. By physical size, are you referring to the 9 circumference and length of the cigarette? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Are there any other components to physical 12 size besides those? 13 A. No, I can't think of any. 14 Q. Did Philip Morris conduct research, as part of 15 Project Hamlet, to determine the efficacy of 16 altering physical size to reduce ignition 17 propensity to substrate? 18 A. We made cigarettes with different 19 circumferences, we call it, yes. 20 Q. Were any of those made in such quantities that 21 they were sent out to be made, or were they all 22 made in-house? 23 A. We have a, what we call, semi-works that has 24 the same kind of equipment as outside, as you 25 called it, where we can make prototypes. So 61 1 there's usually no reason to go anywhere else. 2 Q. What were the results of physical size 3 alterations in the research that you're familiar 4 with that Philip Morris conducted with respect to 5 ignition propensity to substrate? 6 A. We found pretty much the same things that the 7 Washington committee had published in terms of the 8 circumference differences. 9 Q. And what was that? 10 A. That a smaller circumference tends to reduce 11 the ignition propensity. 12 Q. In the research that Philip Morris conducted, 13 did the smaller circumference alter the delivery of 14 tar and nicotine or CO-2? 15 A. If we were to sell a cigarette with a smaller 16 circumference, we would have to design it so that 17 it still delivers the same. 18 Q. Is that something that Philip Morris can do? 19 A. Probably. 20 Q. Was there an alteration in the flavoring with 21 reduction of the circumference? 22 A. Yes, there is. 23 Q. What research or testing was undertaken, to 24 your recollection, to investigate the flavor 25 alteration of the reduced circumference cigarette? 62 1 A. I don't know how to answer this one. Because 2 we were looking at the components to see their 3 affect. We were not really looking at launching a 4 particular cigarette. So I don't know that we 5 would have had reason to do that with a slim 6 circumference. We have slim circumference 7 cigarettes on the market. 8 Q. Okay. Philip Morris manufactures cigarettes 9 with a slimmer circumference than, say, Marlboro, 10 correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What are some of the brand names of those? Is 13 More one of them? 14 A. No. That's not ours. 15 Q. Not yours? 16 A. We have Virginia Slims family, several 17 different packings within that family. 18 Q. And those are commercial cigarettes that you 19 can buy off the shelf in convenience stores and 20 grocery stores? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. Does the Virginia Slim have a reduced ignition 23 propensity to substrate? 24 A. We did not test the commercial brands. When 25 we did the research, we were testing experimental 63 1 models with various characteristics. 2 Q. So you don't know whether or not the Virginia 3 Slim has a reduced ignition propensity? 4 A. We did not test that exact cigarette. 5 Q. Do you know from other sources, regardless of 6 the testing that you did, whether or not the 7 Virginia Slim has a reduced ignition propensity? 8 A. Concluding from the research we did, it should 9 have. 10 Q. In the course of your research and the Project 11 Hamlet research, were any Philip Morris commercial 12 brands tested? 13 A. We tested competitors commercial brands. 14 Q. Okay. How about -- how about Philip Morris 15 commercial brands? 16 A. No. No, we did not. 17 Q. Why? 18 A. Sometimes documents can get into the wrong 19 hands and can be quoted out of context. I don't 20 think we wanted to see a particular number 21 associated with one of our brands, because we only 22 had one particular test that we used that may not 23 be the test that would be used in the future. 24 Q. What sort of numbers are you referring to, the 25 ignition propensity index? 64 1 A. The ignition propensity index that we used. 2 Q. And who developed that index, by the way? 3 A. Randy Greene. 4 Q. And so a concern at Philip Morris was that if 5 commercial Philip Morris products, cigarettes, were 6 tested, they might produce numbers that you 7 wouldn't want competitors to see, correct? 8 A. No, I don't know that competitors were the 9 concern. 10 Q. What was the concern? 11 A. The adversaries in a carelessly disposed 12 cigarette case maybe. 13 Q. Like me? 14 MR. CRAMPTON: If you're talking about 15 anything that you ever had from conversation with 16 counsel or anything that counsel said to someone 17 else that was related to you, I don't want you to 18 answer with respect to that. Do you understand? 19 THE WITNESS: Not quite. 20 MR. CRAMPTON: He's not allowed to get 21 into anything that is advice of counsel to the 22 company, whether it went directly to you or whether 23 it went to someone else and was related to you. Do 24 you understand? 25 THE WITNESS: Okay. 65 1 MR. CRAMPTON: So to the extent any of 2 these questions call for advice of counsel, I don't 3 want you to answer that. Okay? 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Who told you or gave you 6 information about not wanting to test the 7 commercial Philip Morris brands because of fear 8 they would fall into the wrong hands? 9 A. My management told me that we did not want to 10 test commercial brands, without giving a reason. 11 Q. Was it your personal conclusion that the 12 reason for that is that you didn't want it to fall 13 into the hands of the other side in a fire-related 14 case? 15 THE WITNESS: Is that something I can 16 answer? 17 MR. CRAMPTON: I think he's asking 18 about your own personal conclusion about why, in 19 spite of the fact that you weren't told why you 20 were not testing Philip Morris brands. 21 A. I was speculating that that's why -- that 22 that's why. 23 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Was there any basis to your 24 speculation? 25 A. There is really very little difference in 66 1 ignition propensity among the commercial brands, 2 very small difference, and rank ordering them would 3 not be fair. 4 Q. Did you believe if Philip Morris commercial 5 brands were tested they would be put in a bad 6 light? 7 A. They would be scattered throughout the list, 8 just like any other company's brands would be 9 scattered throughout the list. 10 Q. Were -- or has there ever been testing of 11 commercial Philip Morris brands for ignition 12 propensity to substrate outside Project Hamlet that 13 you're aware of? 14 A. Can you repeat that question, please? 15 Q. Sure. Just making sure I've covered all my 16 bases. I thought that a moment ago we were talking 17 about Project Hamlet and the fact that commercial 18 brands weren't tested, and we talked about that. 19 Just so that I've covered all my bases and 20 I'm sure that we're on the same wavelength, I'd 21 like to know if there has ever been testing by 22 Philip Morris or through anyone else, at its 23 direction, of Philip Morris commercial brand for 24 ignition propensity to substrate? 25 A. Internal testing on -- 67 1 Q. Internal or external, excluding the 2 government. I don't know if the government's done 3 testing or not. 4 A. We did not do it under Project Hamlet. 5 Q. And you don't know if it's been done in any 6 other context by Philip Morris or on its behalf or 7 at its direction? 8 A. I would not know. 9 Q. If, in fact, such testing had occurred, who 10 would be the most likely person at Philip Morris to 11 know about that? 12 A. Bill Dwyer. 13 Q. Who is Bill Dwyer, again? 14 A. He is a -- I don't know his exact title. I 15 would call him a team leader for our product 16 research group. 17 MR. MARKEY: What was his last name? 18 THE WITNESS: Dwyer, D-w-y-e-r. 19 MR. MARKEY: Thank you. 20 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) He is still with the 21 company, then? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Does he live here in Richmond? 24 A. The general, greater area, yes. 25 Q. Right. Back to the issue of the physical size 68 1 and its -- and the research that you and others at 2 Philip Morris conducted with respect to ignition 3 propensity. Besides Virginia Slims, does Philip 4 Morris, to your knowledge, commercially market any 5 cigarette with a reduced circumference? 6 A. Well, Virginia Slims has more than one 7 circumference in the family. 8 Q. Okay. Are there any other families other than 9 the Virginia Slim family that has a reduced 10 circumference? 11 A. We have a brand named Saratoga, it's reduced. 12 Q. Any others? 13 A. We have one in Canada. 14 Q. What's it called? 15 A. Plus, P-l-u-s. 16 MR. CRAMPTON: Excuse me, when you say 17 "we," are you talking about Philip Morris U.S.A.? 18 THE WITNESS: Not U.S.A. That wouldn't 19 be, no. 20 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Philip Morris Canada? 21 A. It's a brand that we developed. 22 Q. Okay. Is it marketed through Philip Morris 23 Canada or some other entity? 24 A. I'm not sure of that at this point. I just 25 know that it was developed here at R&D. 69 1 Q. With respect to the Plus cigarette that's 2 marketed in Canada -- and the Saratoga, I assume, 3 is marketed here? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And some of the Virginia Slim family that are 6 reduced circumference, do you know whether or not 7 any testing has been conducted on the ignition 8 propensity of those cigarettes? 9 A. We did not test commercial brands. 10 Q. Do you know of any testing for ignition 11 propensity of those cigarettes that was done by 12 others? 13 A. We were the group that did the testing. 14 Q. So there are no others -- 15 A. There wasn't any other group at the same time. 16 Q. Do you know of any other persons or entities 17 that may have conducted testing that were not 18 Philip Morris U.S.A., on those brands? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. That sort of goes back to what we were talking 21 about a moment ago to the commercial brand testing, 22 correct? You were including these cigarettes in 23 that group of -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- when you answered? So in terms of your 70 1 research at Philip Morris U.S.A., you determined 2 that physical size could be altered and, thus, 3 ignition propensity of substrate could be altered, 4 correct? 5 A. To a small degree. 6 Q. And, in fact, cigarettes with reduced 7 circumference have been commercially marketed 8 through grocery stores and supermarkets and 9 otherwise -- 10 A. Any other place as regular cigarettes, yes. 11 Q. -- throughout the United States? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Were there any disadvantages that arose from 14 the testing that was conducted by Philip Morris 15 U.S.A. to reduced circumference cigarettes? 16 A. It's a nonconventional-looking cigarette. It 17 has limited appeal amongst consumers--smaller 18 groups that are interested in them. 19 Q. Was there an adverse flavor reaction? 20 A. There's a different effect in how they 21 perceive the smoke. It's harder to draw on a 22 smaller circumference cigarette. They don't seem 23 to get as much from it. There's a frustration 24 factor. 25 Q. The resistance to draw is one of the 71 1 characteristics of a cigarette that typically has a 2 lower ignition propensity index number, correct? 3 Or would -- 4 A. I don't think there's a relation there. 5 Q. I may have stated that incorrect. The higher 6 the reduced ignition propensity index, the less 7 likely the cigarette is to ignite substrate; is 8 that correct? 9 A. The higher the index, yes. 10 Q. And 10.5 is like the top of the index, 11 correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I don't intend to beat this subject to death, 14 but just to make sure. I know you've said there's 15 been no commercial testing of the Plus and the 16 Saratoga, et cetera. Do you know if there's been 17 any method at Philip Morris to assign an ignition 18 propensity index number to any of those 19 cigarettes--the Virginia Slim family, the 20 Saratogas, or the Plus in Canada? 21 A. I don't think so. 22 Q. If there has been no testing on the Plus or 23 the Saratoga or the Virginia Slim family of 24 cigarettes, how do you know that there is a reduced 25 ignition propensity to substrate with those 72 1 products? 2 A. We were talking about the reduced 3 circumference having a certain effect. I have to 4 assume that those products have the same effect. 5 Q. So you were drawing from your research and 6 study? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Were there any other disadvantages to the 9 reduced circumference cigarettes? You mentioned 10 resistance to draw was a little high, higher than 11 would be liked. There was some aspect of delivery 12 that was not as advantageous? 13 MR. CRAMPTON: Object to the form. It 14 misstates the testimony. 15 MR. GRISHAM: Did I? I didn't mean to. 16 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Can you tell me again all 17 the disadvantages to the reduced circumference 18 cigarette? 19 A. Okay, we were talking about the higher draw. 20 We were talking about changes in the taste 21 perception. We were talking about the appearance. 22 A slimmer cigarette tends to be more feminine. 23 There are -- many people would not want to be seen 24 with them. And to just -- to reduce the cigarette, 25 we'd have to redesign it completely. 73 1 Q. So is that a tooling disadvantage? 2 A. It's a manufacturing disadvantage. It would 3 require new equipment. 4 Q. Were there any disadvantages in terms of 5 toxicological effect? 6 A. I don't see any reason there would be. 7 Q. Were there any disadvantages in terms of 8 discoloration? 9 A. Yes. There probably would be additional 10 staining. 11 Q. Okay. Staining of the paper? 12 A. Of the paper. 13 Q. Were there any disadvantages in terms of the 14 ash appearance? 15 A. I don't believe so. 16 Q. Were there any disadvantages related to coal 17 droppings? 18 A. If the packing density of tobacco is proper, 19 it shouldn't be. 20 Q. No. We're not really not talking about 21 density. We're talking still about reduced 22 circumference -- 23 A. Right. 24 Q. -- so the coal properties should be adequate? 25 A. Yes. 74 1 Q. All of the things being equal, other than 2 diameter? 3 A. I would think so. 4 Q. Does length have an effect on ignition 5 propensity to substrate? 6 A. Not in my opinion. 7 Q. Is that something that was investigated? 8 A. Yes, we did look at it. But I did not see 9 that it had an effect. 10 Q. Were there investigations of banding of 11 cigarettes to assist in ignition propensity 12 reduction? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. In your opinion, were there any -- did any of 15 that research yield a prototype that did not have 16 the disadvantages we've already talked about with a 17 reduced circumference cigarette? 18 A. We tested what the vendors were submitting to 19 us at that time, and we did not find one that was 20 acceptable subjectively. 21 Q. Do you recall that there were ever any 22 problems that arose in the research that made a 23 cigarette unacceptable, other than the subjective 24 problems? 25 A. Yes. Because a band is only a certain part of 75 1 the cigarette. If it falls after the band has been 2 consumed, it's as hazardous as any other cigarette. 3 Q. Does the length of the rod alter the potential 4 length of time that a substrate can be exposed to 5 heat? 6 A. In my experience, the substrate will ignite 7 before it gets to the point where a shorter 8 cigarette has been consumed. There's plenty of rod 9 on a short cigarette. Being longer, it would 10 happen before that point. 11 Q. In the testing that you were involved in of 12 the prototypes, did you draw a conclusion about the 13 differences in ignition time with respect to a 14 cigarette on a flat prototypical surface versus a 15 crevice? 16 A. A crevice is very difficult to control. We 17 could get any number of test results, depending on 18 very small variations and how we did it. 19 Q. Was the -- as a whole, was the crevice testing 20 -- did it yield quicker -- or quicker ignition or 21 more incidents of ignition than the flat surface? 22 A. We did not do sufficient crevice testing to 23 really quote numbers. But you could go for a long 24 period of time before it happens. 25 Q. Longer than -- all other things being 76 1 equal--draft being equal, type of cigarette being 2 equal, all those other factors being controlled and 3 equal--is it more likely that a cigarette on a flat 4 surface will ignite faster? 5 A. Depends on how far into the crevice you push 6 the cigarette. 7 Q. The further into the crevice, the less likely 8 of fast ignition? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. Do you know of any testing conducted through 11 Philip Morris, or anyone at Philip Morris' request, 12 concerning ignition propensity of cigarettes in 13 automobiles? 14 A. Testing in automobiles? 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. I don't believe so. 17 Q. How about research considerations? 18 A. I don't understand that question. 19 Q. Fair enough. At Philip Morris U.S.A., has 20 there been any investigation or discussion or 21 consideration given toward the ignition propensity 22 of cigarettes within automobiles? 23 A. Well, again, are we talking about upholstery 24 or furniture material, carpeting, those kind of 25 things? They're not specific to automobiles. 77 1 Q. Oh, I see what you're saying. But generally 2 the research you did in Hamlet, for instance, with 3 foam substrate could have some correlative value in 4 investigating automobile fires? 5 A. If materials are similar, yes. 6 Q. Was any testing done of ignition propensity, 7 to your recollection, on carpets? 8 A. I don't believe we did. Because most of the 9 effort was focused on upholstered furniture and 10 bedding material, paper, those types of materials. 11 Q. Do you have, through your research in any 12 respect or your education or training or 13 experience, an opinion as to the ignition 14 propensity of cigarettes in relation to carpet 15 versus foam, for instance? 16 A. I don't believe I have any data that would 17 tell me. It depends on the material of the 18 carpet. It could be -- 19 Q. Fair enough. And it depends on chemical 20 additives and treatments and things of that nature? 21 A. Very much so, and dirt. 22 Q. Are there cigarettes that are manufactured and 23 sold in Europe that have low propensity to ignition 24 on the index that was developed by Philip Morris? 25 MR. CRAMPTON: Are you talking about 78 1 the Hamlet index? 2 A. The index being developed by Philip Morris, 3 not the cigarettes? 4 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Yes, the index. 5 A. We did get some experimental cigarettes from 6 France at one point in time, because somebody 7 remembered having seen some when they were over 8 there. And they did have a higher index number. 9 Q. All right. Which meant they were less -- I 10 hate to keep -- 11 A. Less prone. 12 Q. Less prone to ignition? 13 A. Yes, yes. 14 Q. Were any Nat Sherman's ever tested? 15 A. Yes, we did test Nat Sherman's. 16 Q. Did they have a higher index number than a 17 typical American commercial cigarette? 18 A. We have to specify which Nat Sherman's. He 19 has many different types. Some of them were, some 20 of them were not. 21 Q. Okay. Were the ones that were tested from 22 France and the Nat Sherman's that were tested that 23 had a high index number, cigarettes that were 24 actually sold in Europe over the counter? 25 A. The cigarettes we got from Europe were very 79 1 small brands. One of them had a very different 2 appearance than what we see in the United States. 3 I think they were all non-filtered. I don't recall 4 exactly, but I know two of them were. 5 Q. Does filter have any correlation at all to 6 ignition propensity? 7 A. We really didn't focus on that because we 8 would not want to come out with new brands without 9 filters. 10 Q. No. I meant filter-type composition filler? 11 A. No. I haven't seen that it does. 12 Q. Besides the French brand -- what was the 13 French brand, by the way? 14 A. One was called Gitane. 15 Q. Can you spell that? 16 A. G-i-t-a-n-e. The other two I don't remember 17 what they were called. 18 Q. Was this early in the Project Hamlet time 19 period, the early '80s, or was it later in the 20 project that these were tested? 21 A. It was in the early days, because 22 Dr. Hausermann remembered some brands in France 23 that he thought were different. 24 Q. Okay. Were the French cigarettes commercially 25 sold cigarettes in France? 80 1 A. Yes, but they were small brands. 2 Q. Small in terms of the size of the company 3 or -- 4 A. The volume. I do not know what companies made 5 them. 6 Q. What characteristics did the French cigarettes 7 have that made them less likely to ignite 8 substrate? 9 A. The Gitane was actually a larger circumference 10 than our commercial brands, but it also had a very, 11 very slow burning feature. Whether that was due to 12 -- probably a combination of paper and tobacco. 13 Q. Was any investigation furthered with respect 14 to those cigarettes to determine what it was that 15 made it less likely to ignite substrate? 16 A. Not really, because it was totally 17 unacceptable in taste. 18 Q. Was that sent out to a consumer group, or was 19 it all in-house? 20 A. No, no. We did not want to lose our consumer 21 smokers. 22 Q. It was that bad, huh? 23 A. Yes, for American taste. European taste is 24 very different from American. 25 Q. Was it stronger? 81 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. More bitter? 3 A. All of those. 4 Q. More aftertaste? 5 A. All of the negatives, yes. 6 Q. Adverse mouth coating? 7 A. Uh-huh. 8 Q. Was any investigation undertaken through 9 Hamlet or otherwise at Philip Morris U.S.A. to 10 determine the effect of tobacco density on ignition 11 propensity? 12 A. Yes, we did. 13 Q. Tell me what conclusions were reached through 14 that research. 15 A. It depends on how you achieve the change in 16 density. So it's not a one answer. 17 Q. What changes in density did Philip Morris 18 U.S.A. determine would create a higher reduced 19 propensity index, therefore, a less fire prone 20 cigarette? 21 A. You can make a higher density by packing more 22 tobacco tighter in there. 23 Q. Okay. Which slows the burn rate? 24 A. It slows the burn rate. 25 Q. Did that create a higher puff count? 82 1 A. Yes, it does. 2 Q. How much higher, 35 percent? 3 A. Depends on how much we pack it. 4 Q. Fair answer. Was there a more densely tested 5 pack rate that did not create the puff count to 6 increase to such a degree that it was acceptable to 7 the panelists? 8 A. We did not panel test all the things we did. 9 Q. Okay. Why were some panel tested and some 10 not? 11 A. We had to deliberately put flavors and other 12 modifications to a prototype before we would test 13 it subjectively. Some of the prototypes we did not 14 have flavors on. 15 Q. Okay. With respect to the density testing, 16 you determined generally that the tighter the 17 density, the less fire prone to substrate the 18 prototype type was, correct? 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. Were there any that were tested that were more 21 densely packed and, thus, less prone to ignition 22 that didn't have the disadvantages that we've 23 talked about? 24 A. I don't think so. 25 Q. So they all had an increased puff count, to 83 1 your recollection? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. There wasn't really any flavor testing done to 4 determine subjectively if the more densely packed 5 tobacco was subjectively acceptable, correct? 6 A. I don't recall a specific model being made 7 like that. 8 Q. Were there -- besides increased puff count 9 and, thus, I would assume resistance to draw, 10 correct? 11 A. Yes. That's one of the drawbacks. 12 Q. Besides that, were there other drawbacks? 13 A. Besides the subjectives and the increased 14 draw? With the increased puff count, you have a 15 higher tar delivery to the smoker. 16 Q. Could that be altered through other 17 methodology? 18 A. Possibly. But not the puff count. 19 Q. Any other disadvantages? 20 A. Those are pretty big in themselves. 21 Q. Okay. I mean, I'm not -- 22 A. That would be all -- that would be enough for 23 us not to want to continue testing it from a 24 subjective standpoint. 25 Q. We talked earlier about paper type and 84 1 additives. I'm not sure if we covered the porosity 2 of the paper. Did we cover that -- is that what 3 you were referring to when we were talking about 4 paper types earlier? 5 A. That's part of it. 6 Q. Through your investigation or research at 7 Philip Morris, did you or your group determine that 8 the porosity of the paper that the cigarette is 9 wrapped with could have an effect on the propensity 10 of the cigarette to ignite substrate? 11 A. We've had the same general findings as the 12 Washington committee on those types of variables, 13 yes. 14 Q. And what were those findings? 15 A. That a less porous paper would be slightly 16 less ignition prone because of the slower burn. 17 MR. CRAMPTON: On the Hamlet mock-up. 18 A. On the particular mock-up we used. 19 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Did you use the same mock-up 20 that the government used? 21 A. When we first started, we had the same 22 California fabric that they did. I think they 23 changed somewhere down the line. And we had a big 24 bolt of fabric. We continued with the original 25 one. 85 1 Q. In other words, the California group changed? 2 A. The California standard is what we called it, 3 yeah. 4 Q. What were the disadvantages of prototypes with 5 a less porous paper? 6 A. Again, it causes the cigarette to burn slower, 7 then you get the dirty taste, cigar-like 8 characteristics and the higher tar delivery and the 9 higher puff count to the smoker. 10 Q. Was the -- again, tar delivery something that 11 could be altered through other mechanisms? 12 A. Tar, yes. Puff count, again, no. 13 Q. The tar, the nicotine and the CO-2 are 14 toxicological by-products that could be affected 15 through other mechanisms, correct? 16 MR. CRAMPTON: Object to the form. 17 A. We could change the ratio to some extent, yes. 18 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) But the puff count, you 19 couldn't alter that? 20 A. No. Whatever we do to reduce the other 21 components, the puff count would increase. 22 Q. There were other things that -- strike that. 23 Were there flavor additives that could be 24 added to alter the dirty taste created by the slow 25 burn? 86 1 A. That was one of the challenges for the flavor 2 development group, and they -- 3 Q. Mr. Kallianos? 4 A. -- had great difficulty with that, yes. 5 Q. Were there flavor additives that you recall 6 that were developed through the testing that 7 enhanced the flavor regardless of the ill effects 8 of the slow burn? 9 A. We did not have anything that would make it 10 taste like a conventional cigarette. 11 Q. Were there flavor additives that were 12 developed that made it taste better? 13 A. To a consumer, the same is the best. There's 14 no criteria saying it's better. 15 Q. I think where I was heading and maybe -- maybe 16 you understood this, maybe you didn't. I don't 17 know. But were there flavor additives that were 18 developed that, when added to the prototypes that 19 had the slow burn rate, improved on the original 20 prototype in flavor? 21 A. From one prototype to another, yes, we could 22 make improvements. 23 Q. And what you're saying is, you did not feel 24 that the research was fruitful in providing a 25 prototype that had the low ignition propensity but 87 1 also matched the commercial cigarette in flavor? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. In any of the panel testing that was done, did 4 any of the participants on the panel, that you're 5 aware of, ever like the prototype better? 6 A. Any one individual would not come out in the 7 test results because it's a statistical average. 8 Q. Were there any classifications of 9 smokers--whether it be by age, prior smoking habit 10 or brand--that on any of the prototypes tested 11 actually liked the prototype better than what was 12 on the market? 13 A. Well -- 14 MR. CRAMPTON: Objection. You're 15 talking about what was on the market now as though 16 the control was something that was on the market, 17 and I don't think that's been established. 18 MR. GRISHAM: Yeah. I didn't intend 19 for the question to be that way. 20 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) What I intended the question 21 to be -- and I'll try to rephrase it in a more 22 proper form that's understandable -- is this: Were 23 there flavor additives that were added to any 24 prototypes that had reduced ignition propensity 25 that scored higher in the flavor testing for any 88 1 particular group than what was tested against it as 2 a control? 3 MR. CRAMPTON: I object again. And 4 that is, when you're talking about ignition 5 propensity, you have to make sure what you're 6 talking about in there if you're talking about time 7 to ignition on the Hamlet test. And that's fine. 8 You can use ignition propensity in that way as long 9 as it's clear in the question. 10 MR. GRISHAM: Okay. That's what I was 11 talking about. 12 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Any of the prototypes that 13 were developed through Hamlet that were tested on a 14 panel for flavor against a control--and the control 15 being a commercial cigarette on the market--did any 16 of those flavor testings net a finding that, at 17 least, one group of panelists liked it better, 18 liked the prototype better? 19 A. Now you're asking me to remember something 20 from many years ago in terms of numbers. It's 21 possible there was some smoker group that felt that 22 way. It wouldn't have been our primary target 23 smoker group. 24 Q. While you were conducting research on Hamlet, 25 did you make annual reports? 89 1 A. Yes, we did. 2 Q. Quarterly reports? 3 A. I think so. 4 Q. Monthly reports? 5 A. Sometimes we did monthlies. At that period, 6 we probably did. 7 Q. On occasion, special reports? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Were these annual, quarterly, monthly and 10 special reports made throughout the duration of the 11 Hamlet project from late '70s up to late '80s? 12 A. I would think so. We did discontinue annual 13 at some point in time at the research center. But 14 I think that was after we had finished our project. 15 Q. The annual reports discontinued after the 16 project was completed? 17 A. Some point in time, we did for a few years, 18 yes. 19 Q. Would they have been discontinued in the late 20 '80s? 21 A. Probably mid-'80s. 22 Q. Do you recall how many years of annual reports 23 were made? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Once the annual reports were discontinued, 90 1 were special reports still from time to time 2 generated? 3 A. Yes, if the project was completed. 4 Q. Were there any quarterly or monthly reports 5 following that? 6 A. That varied by the department. 7 Q. When you say "the project was completed," are 8 you telling me that Hamlet was completed by '85? 9 A. I did not take your question to mean just the 10 Hamlet project. 11 Q. Okay. It wasn't. That's what I wanted to 12 make sure. You're talking about the specific 13 project you were working on, like, for instance, 14 rod diameter, correct? 15 A. No. That wouldn't have been a big enough 16 project to make a special report. 17 Q. Were -- so that we're clear, were annual 18 reports submitted for the entire duration of 19 Hamlet? 20 A. I think so. 21 Q. And we've determined that was about a ten-year 22 period that Hamlet was ongoing, correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. So there ought to be about ten annual reports 25 somewhere? 91 1 A. I don't think I recall that many. 2 Q. So I guess there weren't reports every year on 3 an annual basis? 4 A. That's possible. That's possible. 5 Q. Would there have been any years that went by 6 during the duration of Hamlet when, at least, one 7 report was not given--whether it be quarterly, 8 annually, monthly or special reports? 9 A. That's possible. 10 Q. Why is that? 11 A. I would have to speculate. There could be 12 several reasons. 13 Q. I don't want to ask you to speculate. But if 14 you have some idea of why there wouldn't be reports 15 generated for a particular length of time, I'd like 16 to know. Again, avoiding speculation or guessing. 17 A. It could have been as simple as somebody being 18 on vacation at the time it was due and, therefore, 19 it wasn't written. 20 Q. Okay. Would any of the reports I've talked 21 about--quarterly, annual, monthly, annually, or 22 special--be directed toward the position that Leo 23 Meyer held over research and development? 24 A. I do not recall exactly who specified which 25 reports, because that has changed several times 92 1 over the years too. 2 Accomplishments, typically, are written to 3 the manager or director, yes. Annual reports would 4 be signed by the manager, not necessarily written 5 by the manager. 6 Q. Were there prototypical cigarettes tested for 7 ignition propensity that incorporated a combination 8 of the factors that you and I have gone over today? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Through the testing that Philip Morris has 11 done and the prototypes that have been developed, 12 has there been a cigarette developed, in the 13 prototypical sense, that had the -- had a 14 propensity -- less propensity to ignite substrate? 15 In other words, a low index number that did not 16 have any of the disadvantages that we've talked 17 about in terms of flavor, resistance to draw or 18 puff count or taste? 19 A. Not in my opinion. 20 MR. CRAMPTON: Object to form. 21 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Pardon? 22 A. Not in my opinion. 23 Q. Following Project Hamlet's completion, were 24 there any other off-shoots or continuations of the 25 reduced ignition propensity investigations? 93 1 A. Yes, there were. 2 Q. What were those? 3 A. The focus became testing methodology. We 4 wanted a more scientific test, if possible, than 5 the mock-up that we had been using. Something to 6 do with temperature, heat sinks, thermocouples, 7 burn rate, something a little more suited for the 8 physical research people that we had. 9 Q. Did any of these projects dealing with reduced 10 ignition propensity have names like Hamlet had a 11 name or a number? 12 A. They called one of them Project Tomorrow. 13 Q. How did it get the name Tomorrow? 14 A. I do not know. 15 Q. When were Virginia Slims -- the reduced 16 circumference Virginia Slims first introduced 17 commercially? 18 A. I would say '82, but I could be wrong on that. 19 Q. Who was the person or group of persons at 20 Philip Morris who were in charge of and actually 21 designed the reduced circumference Virginia Slim? 22 A. I was one of them. 23 Q. Can you give me the reasons for that 24 particular cigarette being designed, the goals that 25 were achieved--hoped to be achieved--through the 94 1 design of that cigarette? 2 A. One of the projects we had been working on for 3 quite some time as part of paper development was a 4 low sidestream cigarette. That's what that was 5 launched as. 6 Q. And by low sidestream, do you mean that was to 7 -- affecting environmental factors surrounding the 8 cigarette, in other words? 9 A. Having less visible smoke when somebody smokes 10 in the room like this, yes. 11 Q. And there were aspects of the design of the 12 slimmer cigarette that created that effect? 13 A. That contributed to the target 70 percent 14 reduction that we had. 15 MR. CRAMPTON: I just want to interject 16 here. You're talking about Virginia Slims, the 17 original Virginia Slims that was introduced in 18 '82. I'm actually not sure that's right, but -- 19 THE WITNESS: Super Slims. If you're 20 talking about original Virginia Slims, that was 21 much, much earlier. 22 MR. CRAMPTON: Okay. That's where I 23 wanted to make a clarification between Virginia 24 Slims, Virginia Slims Super Slims and any other 25 versions of Virginia Slims that might be out there. 95 1 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) When was the first Virginia 2 Slim reduced circumference cigarette introduced? 3 A. I believe it was on the market when I came to 4 Philip Morris. 5 Q. '74? 6 A. I'm not 100 percent sure of that. 7 Q. It's the Super Slim that you helped develop to 8 address the sidestream smoke issue? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. In the development of the Super Slim that you 11 worked on, was there any discussion in the group or 12 between members of the group or employees of Philip 13 Morris that an added advantage was reduced ignition 14 propensity to the slimmer cigarette? 15 A. No. We did not look at that. That was not 16 part of the sidestream program. 17 Q. Who headed up Project Tomorrow? 18 A. Bill Dwyer. 19 Q. Did -- what position did you hold in terms of 20 Project Tomorrow? Were you a project leader? 21 A. No. This was entirely within the -- what was 22 physical research department at the time. I was 23 not part of that group. 24 Q. That was Dwyer and the individuals in 25 research? 96 1 A. Right. 2 Q. And what was the stated purpose? 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. Did you work on Tomorrow? 5 A. They had totally different management. 6 Q. So when Hamlet ended, the issue of reduced 7 ignition propensity studies went over to the 8 research side of R&D, correct? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. And it took on the name Tomorrow? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And at that point did you -- did you end your 13 organized study of reduced ignition propensity 14 cigarettes? 15 A. Did you say did that end? 16 Q. Did you end your personal -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- study of that issue? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. You moved on to other things? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What is your position with Philip Morris 23 today? 24 A. I am still in product development. We have a 25 filter and paper technology group that I'm part of. 97 1 Q. Who is your immediate supervisor there? 2 A. We have a brand new one. His name is Nevine 3 Gautam, G-a-u-t-a-m. 4 MR. GRISHAM: Can we take a break? The 5 tape's about out, I've been told. 6 (Brief recess.) 7 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Do you have any knowledge of 8 the research that's been done or the advances made 9 or conclusions reached through Project Tomorrow? 10 A. In terms of testing methodology that we've 11 described? 12 Q. In terms of anything to do with the reduced 13 ignition propensity cigarette? 14 A. I have some knowledge. 15 Q. Why have you acquired that knowledge? Is it 16 through your current work that you need to know 17 that sort of thing? Is it just by happenstance? 18 Are you on a committee dealing with the issue? 19 What? 20 A. It's because of the current work I'm doing. 21 Q. How are they related? 22 A. Project Tomorrow, the name has continued, and 23 it now involves product development people again. 24 Q. Why is that? 25 A. Because we're continuing to work on products 98 1 along those lines. 2 Q. Is Philip Morris continuing to work towards 3 the development of a reduced ignition propensity 4 cigarette? 5 A. Yes, we are. 6 Q. And that's the Tomorrow label? 7 A. Right. 8 Q. But today your involvement with Project 9 Tomorrow is on other topics other than ignition 10 propensity? 11 MR. CRAMPTON: You mean other than 12 testing cigarettes? 13 MR. GRISHAM: Yeah. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) But you still are involved 16 in testing for ignition propensity? 17 A. No, I'm not involved in testing for ignition 18 propensity. 19 Q. But it's your involvement with other 20 aspects -- 21 A. I'm involved in developing products. 22 Q. Has Philip Morris U.S.A. developed a cigarette 23 through Tomorrow or any other project that is 24 commercially acceptable that has a lower propensity 25 to ignite substrate than the Marlboro 100, for 99 1 instance? 2 A. Not yet. 3 Q. Are you familiar with Project Beta? 4 A. I know the name. 5 Q. Do you know what it is? 6 A. Some parts of it. 7 Q. What does it deal with? 8 A. It's an alternate-type of smoking article. 9 Q. Does it have any characteristic, or does it -- 10 is there research ongoing with regard to Beta that 11 deals with ignition propensity of the product? 12 A. I'm not familiar with the results of the 13 project. 14 Q. Okay. Is ignition propensity an issue with 15 respect to Beta? 16 A. Probably. 17 Q. What sort of product is it? 18 A. I cannot tell you. 19 Q. Why can't you? 20 A. First of all, I do not know all the parts and 21 details. Second of all, it is an ultra trade 22 secret. 23 Q. How long has it been under research? 24 A. Project Beta or Project Tomorrow? 25 Q. Beta. 100 1 A. Several years. 2 Q. Do you have a contract with Philip Morris? 3 A. I have signed some kind of clause, yes. 4 Q. Is it contained within your employment 5 contract, or do you have an employment contract? 6 A. No, I do not have an employment contract. 7 Q. You're employed at will, in other words -- 8 A. Right. 9 Q. -- as long as they want you around and you 10 want to be there? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. But you have signed documents that deal with 13 your disclosure of information concerning projects 14 you're working on? 15 A. It's been many years since I signed it. I do 16 not remember the wording. 17 Q. But you recall signing such a document? 18 A. I recall the emphasis being on not going to a 19 competitor, but there were probably other things 20 included in there. 21 Q. Okay. Who heads up Beta? 22 A. I do not know exactly who the person in charge 23 is. 24 Q. Can you give me an idea of what department 25 it's in, overseen by? 101 1 A. It's a person in New York who I do not recall 2 the name of. 3 Q. Can you give me an idea of what department 4 that is? Is it under R&D, for instance? 5 A. No, it's not. 6 Q. It's not under research and development? 7 A. No. 8 Q. What umbrella is it under? 9 MR. CRAMPTON: Objection; she's already 10 said she doesn't know. 11 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) You don't know what umbrella 12 it's under, what -- 13 A. No, I don't. 14 Q. If I wanted to go to Philip Morris U.S.A. and 15 talk to the person with the most knowledge about 16 that project, who would I talk to? 17 A. Our legal department. 18 Q. They have more knowledge about your product 19 development than someone in product development? 20 A. In terms of our ultra trade secret projects, 21 yes, they do. 22 MR. CRAMPTON: She's concerned about 23 the trade secret nature of it, not about the 24 science of it at this point. 25 MR. GRISHAM: I understand. 102 1 MR. CRAMPTON: You will get the 2 deposition of someone who does know about that 3 project, so I don't think you need to keep asking 4 her about it. 5 MR. GRISHAM: Who will I get that I 6 can -- 7 MR. CRAMPTON: Dr. Whidby will know 8 more about it. 9 MR. GRISHAM: Okay, good. 10 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Are you familiar with 11 Project Sigma? 12 A. I know the name. 13 Q. Do you know what Sigma is? 14 A. It's, again, an alternate smoking product. 15 Q. Does it have any aspect to it that deals with 16 ignition propensity? 17 A. I'm really not that familiar with that one 18 either. 19 MR. GRISHAM: Is that something Whidby 20 might know about? 21 MR. CRAMPTON: Yes. 22 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Project Delta, are you 23 familiar with that? 24 A. Same thing. I know of it. I know some minor 25 parts, but I'm not part of the project. 103 1 Q. Is it an alternate product -- is it a 2 super-duper sensitive type? 3 A. Yes, yes. 4 MR. BRADEN: Kind of technical. 5 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) I don't mean to be 6 technical, but super sensitive. In other words, 7 you don't feel comfortable disclosing to me your -- 8 or anyone outside the company the details of 9 Project Delta? 10 A. The people working on the project do not feel 11 comfortable disclosing to other employees that are 12 not involved in the project. 13 Q. Are either -- any of these projects I've 14 mentioned--Beta, Sigma or Delta--is the primary 15 focus -- does the primary focus deal with producing 16 a reduced ignition propensity cigarette? 17 MR. CRAMPTON: Objection. 18 A. Not being part of the project, I don't know 19 their objective. 20 MR. GRISHAM: Do you have an objection 21 you want to make too? 22 MR. CRAMPTON: No. I was just 23 objecting because she's already stated she doesn't 24 know, so really it's not -- it's not going to get 25 us any progress here. 104 1 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Are you familiar with 2 Project Slow? 3 A. That is an old project name from more than ten 4 years ago. If that's the one, yes. 5 MR. CRAMPTON: Objection; relevance. 6 You're now getting into projects that don't have 7 any conceivable relationship to ignition 8 propensity. I think you can establish whether 9 they're related to it or not; but if they're not 10 related, then they're not relevant. 11 MR. GRISHAM: Yeah. But I don't know, 12 so I have to ask. That's why -- why I'm asking. I 13 have no idea what it is. 14 MR. MARKEY: What was the name of it? 15 I didn't catch it. 16 MR. GRISHAM: Slow. You know, like me, 17 S-l-o-w. 18 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Ms. Goodman, do you know 19 whether or not Project Slow has any aspect or deals 20 with any aspect of producing, testing or marketing 21 a cigarette with a low ignition propensity? 22 A. That was not the focus of that project. 23 Q. Were there any studies done with respect to 24 Project Slow that dealt with that issue? 25 A. I don't believe so. 105 1 Q. Are you familiar with Project 4009? 2 A. That was our project number, I believe the 3 same thing as paper development. 4 Q. Was that ultimately Hamlet's number? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Why are the projects given a particular 7 number? 8 A. Just for administrative purposes. 9 Q. In database retrieval of documentation 10 concerning ongoing projects, is the project number 11 something that is tied to that? 12 A. The annual reports, quarterlies, monthlies, 13 they would probably have that number on them. 14 Q. First of all, through the work that you've 15 done on the reduced ignition propensity projects, 16 was -- were any of the documentation contained or 17 generated from that project assembled on database 18 form electronically? 19 A. We were not as computerized as we are now. 20 And I think most of the Hamlet work was probably 21 typewritten. 22 Q. Do you know if any of that was placed in any 23 electronically searchable form at any time? 24 A. Other than our number crunching, I don't 25 believe so. 106 1 Q. What do you mean by the "number crunching"? 2 A. Anytime we're looking at numbers of our 3 ignition testing, we had a computerized file of the 4 results. How we calculated the index, we typed 5 that in on the computer. Those files is what I'm 6 referring to. 7 Q. What is -- what format were those test results 8 kept in? 9 A. We used RS-1 for most everything. 10 Q. Are they still maintained in that format? 11 A. We have changed host computer systems. I do 12 not know whether they would be retrievable. 13 Q. You don't know whether they were stored 14 somewhere else in some other format? 15 A. I don't know if one computer can speak to the 16 other. 17 Q. What system are you using now when you changed 18 from the RS-1? 19 A. This is not a continuous system because I was 20 off the project for years. We now have the 21 standard Windows P.C. compatible system. 22 Q. Do you know whether any of the flavor or 23 ignition propensity study results were conducted in 24 Switzerland? 25 A. It's my belief that we did all that work. 107 1 Q. Do you know if any of the documentation 2 resulting from those studies -- from your studies 3 of the flavor studies have been sent to Europe for 4 storage or use? 5 A. Somebody could have requested a specific 6 document, and they would have had it sent to them. 7 Q. Who would that be? 8 A. Somebody in product development, but I don't 9 remember a specific incident. 10 Q. Does Philip Morris or any of its related 11 entities have any Swiss or other European companies 12 that conduct research on its behalf? 13 A. Not to my knowledge. 14 Q. Does -- in terms of the document electronic 15 storage we talked about a moment ago and the RS-1 16 and then you've mentioned the Windows-type system 17 now, back when you were working on the latter 18 stages of Hamlet, was there a mainframe computer 19 that these documents or the test results concerning 20 your ignition propensity studies were kept? 21 A. That's what we had at the time, yes. 22 Q. Was the mainframe located in New York? 23 A. No. That was at R&D. 24 Q. In Richmond? 25 A. Yes. 108 1 Q. Is it still sitting there? 2 A. No. We do not have that system anymore. 3 Q. Do you know where the system is? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Do you know where the tapes are or other 6 storage vehicles within the system? 7 A. The computer people would have to answer 8 that. There is an off-site storage for tapes. I 9 do not know where it is. 10 Q. Who's the person -- 11 A. My understanding it's in Richmond, though. 12 Q. If you know, who is the person that would have 13 the most knowledge about the computer storage? 14 A. I do not know. 15 Q. You mentioned a moment ago the computer 16 people. Is there a name that you can ascribe to 17 the computer people at Philip Morris, or is that 18 something you wouldn't know? 19 A. We have a computer division, and it's a fair 20 number of people. 21 Q. What have you reviewed in preparation for your 22 deposition today? 23 MR. CRAMPTON: Objection; that's -- to 24 the extent there are any specific documents that 25 counsel showed the witness and asked questions 109 1 about, that's work product. And I'll instruct you 2 not to answer it. If you reviewed anything outside 3 of your meetings with counsel, you can answer. 4 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Let me go ahead and -- just 5 for the record, have you reviewed documents with 6 counsel? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I'm not going to ask you what they are because 9 that will step on his toes and he's made an 10 objection. But without asking you what you 11 reviewed specifically, you're telling me that you 12 reviewed -- in the presence of Philip Morris 13 counsel in preparation for this deposition reviewed 14 documentation? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did you review photographs? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Did you review any items other than 19 documentation? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Can you give me--without, again, telling me 22 what it is you reviewed--an idea of the volume of 23 documents that you looked at? 24 A. Maybe a couple dozen. 25 MR. GRISHAM: Just for the record, 110 1 Counsel, you're instructing her not to answer any 2 questions -- 3 MR. CRAMPTON: I'm instructing her not 4 to answer specifics because of the pending work 5 product related to that. 6 MR. GRISHAM: So I can't ask her about 7 the contents of those documents? 8 MR. CRAMPTON: Right. 9 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Were you involved in any 10 respect in developing or working with computer 11 modeling dealing with ignition propensity studies? 12 A. As Randy's project leader, I was involved 13 because he's the one that did most of that. 14 Q. Was Mr. Greene the person who brought the 15 computer modeling concept up to speed with respect 16 to ignition propensity studies? I want to make 17 sure I've got the right mental picture of what -- 18 A. The concept I cannot speak for. But he's the 19 one that did the actual work of getting it 20 computerized and setting up the methods and 21 everything, yes. 22 Q. Have you ever served in any capacity of the 23 Tobacco Institute? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Have you ever attended seminars put on by the 111 1 Tobacco Institute? 2 A. No. 3 Q. In terms of developing cigarettes with lower 4 ignition propensities, can the puff count be 5 altered by altering the weight of the tobacco? 6 A. The puff count can be altered by lowering the 7 weight of tobacco, yes. 8 Q. Are there other methods that one can use to 9 alter the puff count? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. What are some of those, or as many as you can 12 remember? 13 A. Well, we're not relating this in any way to an 14 ignition propensity index. We're just talking 15 about changing the puff count now. 16 Q. So that we're not going too far afield, let's 17 relate it to the ignition propensity index. In 18 other words, assume with me for a moment that in 19 your studies and research you've -- looking at 20 these parameters we've talked about, you've got a 21 cigarette that has a reduced ignition propensity on 22 the index. In other words, it's on the higher end 23 of the scale, somewhere close to 10-1/2 or on the 24 high end of the sale, but it's got a higher puff 25 count than what is acceptable. What steps can one 112 1 take to lower that puff count? 2 A. We could change the blend, but then that would 3 change the ignition propensity index as well. So 4 that -- there is not a direct cause and effect here 5 that we could use. 6 Q. Lowering the tobacco weight would have some 7 other adverse effect? 8 A. It would probably make the ignition propensity 9 index lower. 10 Q. Okay. Has Philip Morris done any research or 11 studies, to your knowledge, to determine the 12 efficacy of colite as a treatment for reducing 13 ignition propensity? 14 A. I do not know what colite is. 15 Q. Just so that I understand, we talked 16 generically a moment ago about computer modeling. 17 And a little bit more specifically, has there been 18 software developed to evaluate a smoldering 19 cigarette? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. This has to be very simple because I don't 22 understand a lot about computers, but is there 23 software that's available to set individual and 24 multiple parameters for a test that allows you to 25 evaluate the cigarette without actually burning up 113 1 a mock-up? 2 A. I think you're referring to a computer model? 3 Q. Correct. 4 MR. CRAMPTON: You're asking about a 5 computer model that predicts performance on some 6 ignition propensity test? 7 MR. GRISHAM: Yes. 8 MR. CRAMPTON: Okay. And at this point 9 you're not asking about -- you're not trying to 10 identify a specific test, whether there's any model 11 for any test? 12 MR. GRISHAM: Exactly. 13 MR. CRAMPTON: Okay, sorry. 14 A. There has been quite a bit of work effort put 15 into producing a model. 16 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Has a model been produced 17 that was a workable usable computer model? 18 A. Not yet. 19 Q. What are some of the drawbacks or some of the 20 efforts that were fruitless in that area? 21 A. One of the problems is the variability in the 22 test results. 23 Q. Please explain what you mean by that. 24 A. If we see a very small difference between two 25 prototypes and we try to build a model of that, it 114 1 could give misleading results. And it could change 2 the shape of the curve that has to be put into the 3 model. So if you find something else where you go 4 more to the extreme, it will not predict the right 5 outcome. 6 Q. So to that extent, the computer modeling 7 hasn't replicated what you hope to replicate in 8 other laboratory conditions? 9 A. It hasn't proven to be capable of sub -- 10 replacing actual testing yet. 11 Q. We've gone through several project names, and 12 some we've talked about, others we haven't. But 13 with respect to Tomorrow, which is ongoing now, are 14 there any other project names that you're aware of 15 that deal specifically with ignition propensity? 16 A. I don't think there has been any other name. 17 Q. Is Mr. Whidby, to your knowledge, overseeing 18 Tomorrow? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Are you aware of any computerized electronic 21 index, if you will, that allows one to word search 22 the particular documents for a topic and then 23 retrieve the documentation from the files as a 24 result of the query or search? 25 A. We have a central files where most of the 115 1 records are recorded. And I have never tried to do 2 a search, but they do have the capability. 3 Q. Is that the program that you were describing 4 as being Windows compatible? 5 A. I do not know what system they're on. 6 Q. Where would one, if a search needed to be run 7 like that, where would you go--to R&D at Richmond 8 or -- 9 A. Yes. I would go to central files at R&D. 10 Q. Who is the person who's in charge of the 11 central files? 12 A. I do not know that at this time either. That 13 has changed several times. 14 Q. I want to talk a little bit about science of 15 ignition and hope to learn from you some things 16 about that. We've been talking today about the 17 ignition propensities of cigarettes to substrate, 18 and particularly you and I have talked mostly about 19 foam substrate? 20 MR. CRAMPTON: I object to that just 21 because it's mischaracterization. She's talking 22 about all this testing that was done with a fabric 23 over foam, and I'm not sure when you say 24 "substrate" if you're talking about something 25 under the fabric or something under the cigarette 116 1 which would include both fabric and foam. 2 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) All right. I'm going to try 3 to be as fair as I can and not mislead you at all. 4 But as I understood our discussion throughout the 5 day, we've talked about ignition propensities of 6 cigarettes to substrate. And specifically you told 7 me about velvet overlaying foam substrate that you 8 were knowledgeable about in your work, correct? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. Can you give me a professional definition of 11 smolder as it relates to cigarette design and the 12 science surrounding cigarette design? 13 A. Smolder would be some substrate that has 14 started charring, started getting black, continues 15 to have a higher temperature, but you do not see 16 flames. 17 Q. What is, in your training, the definition of 18 ignition? 19 A. Ignition is when you actually have material 20 start going up into flames, where it starts 21 propagating and spreading. 22 Q. Does ignition from a cigarette on a substrate 23 -- and let's particularly talk about the mock-ups 24 you've used with the velvet overlaying the foam. 25 Does the ignition, in your opinion, result from 117 1 conduction of heat to the substrate? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Are there any other components to the ultimate 4 ignition, other than the conduction of heat from 5 the burning tobacco? 6 A. I don't believe so. 7 Q. If I've got my terminology down correctly, 8 conduction is the heat going down into the 9 substrate and convection is going up into the air, 10 correct? 11 A. I was not that specific when I said 12 conduction. I was thinking conduction means 13 leading, that it can go back and forth. 14 Q. Okay. Can you tell me what the term 15 "radiation" means in terms of heat transfer and 16 heat exchange as it relates to cigarette science? 17 A. No. I am not a physicist. 18 Q. In your experience in conducting tests at the 19 research and development department at Philip 20 Morris, did you come to know the length of expected 21 time that a cigarette would smolder before it 22 ignited the foam substrate covered by the velvet 23 that you were working with? 24 A. I don't think I can answer that one. 25 Q. Let me try to get it in an answerable form. 118 1 In conducting your research with the substrates 2 that you worked with, did you come to expect a 3 particular range of ignition time from the 4 different cigarettes or prototypes that you tested? 5 A. The index is somewhat of a reflection of 6 time. So we're talking about anywhere from one to 7 ten minutes. 8 MR. CRAMPTON: Lynn, I want to go back 9 to that problem I had before. When you talk about 10 "ignition of the foam," I mean, I don't think 11 you've established that any of this testing ever 12 led to ignition of the foam. This is why I keep 13 pointing up about ignition of the fabric, not the 14 foam. 15 MR. GRISHAM: Thank you. I'll try to 16 clear it up. 17 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Throughout our discussions 18 today we've talked about the substrate and the 19 velvet covering. Counsel has pointed out to me 20 that that was part of the testing, was part of the 21 ultimate source of ignition. 22 What your -- as I understand your research, 23 it dealt with the heat transfer to substrate, which 24 was the foam, and in some cases ultimate ignition 25 of the material covering the foam, correct? 119 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Is it within your area of expertise to explain 3 to me the process whereby a cigarette once placed 4 on to a foam substrate covered by a velvet material 5 ultimately results in ignition to that material? 6 A. Well, first of all, right when a cigarette is 7 puffed, the coal has a temperature around 8 900-plus degrees. It goes down, but it stabilizes 9 around 600 degrees. 10 So we're talking about plenty of fuel 11 available in any cigarette. It doesn't matter 12 which one it is. 13 Q. Okay. How does that ultimately lead to 14 ignition of the material covering the substrate 15 that you've described in your mock-up testing? 16 A. It depends on how flammable or ignitable the 17 substrate is. 18 Q. And you dealt with, in your testing, two types 19 of foam, correct? 20 A. I think we focused on just one. 21 Q. Oh, did you? What type of foam was that? 22 A. I don't recall if we had the medium or the 23 high-density polypropylene. 24 Q. How, physically, did the heat from the 25 cigarette result in the mock-up burning or any part 120 1 of the mock-up igniting? 2 A. First thing, if it does ignite, is that it 3 creates a hole so that the foam also has this 4 higher temperature, and there is a heat sink that 5 just continues to spread. 6 Q. Okay. It's my understanding from either what 7 you said or perhaps Counsel said earlier, in your 8 testing at the laboratory at Philip Morris, you did 9 not have incidents of the foam igniting, correct? 10 A. The foam does not ignite, no. 11 Q. Is the foam a conductor of heat that plays a 12 part in the ignition process? 13 A. The foam chars and melts away. 14 Q. Okay. Is it part of the heat conduction 15 process -- 16 A. I believe so. 17 Q. -- that ultimately leads to ignition of the 18 material covering the foam? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do different substrates conduct heat 21 differently? 22 A. Yes, very much so. 23 Q. And I would assume that in your testings you 24 had known values for the ignition time or the 25 ignition propensity of the velvet that you were 121 1 using for your tests? 2 A. I don't understand that question. 3 Q. I'll try to rephrase. In conducting your 4 mock-up tests with regard to Hamlet, did you have 5 known characteristics of the velvet covering, 6 ignition characteristics that you were dealing 7 with? 8 A. We knew the weight of the fabric. We knew 9 what salts were -- it had been treated with. Those 10 types of characteristics, yes. 11 Q. Generally the higher the salt content, you 12 knew the higher the propensity to ignite the 13 material, correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Were you working with a textiles person in any 16 respect in dealing with the ignition 17 characteristics or qualities of the material used 18 in the testing? 19 A. No specific expert in this case. 20 Q. Were there people working with you on the 21 project that had textile expertise? 22 A. We were doing a fair amount of reading 23 published literature on textiles. 24 Q. And the velvet was chosen because of the 25 California testing? 122 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. That's what they were using there? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. So if I understand it, in my simplistic mind, 5 the way a cigarette in the mock-up tests that you 6 were doing would ultimately ignite the fabric 7 covering is heat would be conducted through the 8 substrate and the conduction would extend out in 9 different directions. And when the heat would 10 reach a specified level, it would cause ignition of 11 the material; am I right, or do I have a 12 misperception? 13 A. I think you're right on that. 14 Q. In the testing that was being conducted by 15 you, through you, under your direction on the 16 mock-up that we've been talking about, do you 17 recall what the temperature level of the material 18 covering the substrate was when it would ignite? 19 A. No, I do not recall that -- 20 Q. Is that something -- 21 A. -- because I did not directly work on it. 22 Q. Who directly did that work? 23 A. Randy Greene would be more likely to have that 24 kind of information. 25 Q. In the course of conducting the testing that 123 1 we've talked about, I thought I heard from your 2 testimony indication on temperatures of 3 cigarettes. And one thing I thought I heard was 4 that after a cigarette has been puffed, it can 5 reach temperatures of 900 degrees, and then once it 6 has died back down, it has a constant of about 600 7 degrees; am I correct in that premise? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And on the furniture mock-ups that you worked 10 on in the laboratory, when a cigarette was placed 11 onto the mock-up -- and I'm not talking about one 12 specific test, but any test whereby a cigarette 13 would be placed onto the mock-up, it was burning at 14 600 degrees? 15 A. Approximately. 16 Q. Approximately. Knowing that and knowing the 17 qualities of the material and the substrate that 18 you were working with, did you have an idea of 19 about when ignition of the covering, velvet 20 covering, would ensue? 21 A. Again, we were testing extreme parameters on 22 our prototypes, so that could be a varying length. 23 Q. Can you give me the outside parameters? 24 A. Again, I'd say two to ten minutes. 25 Q. Okay. And to avoid ignition, a cigarette had 124 1 to extinguish? 2 A. Close to extinguish, yes. 3 Q. Can you explain that, "close to"? 4 A. We did see some instances where the cigarette 5 was still barely lit without having ignited. 6 Q. Did you or anyone that you worked with ascribe 7 some design parameter to the prototype that you 8 thought resulted in that condition of still being 9 lit but not igniting the mock-up? 10 A. We were looking for those kinds of things, 11 yes. 12 Q. Did you identify any that you can recall 13 today? 14 A. I don't have any specifics in my head right 15 now. 16 Q. But in the course of your research, you recall 17 that there were characteristics of the prototype 18 that caused it to continue to burn, but at a lower 19 temperature? 20 A. We did not measure the temperature as part of 21 the testing. 22 Q. Did you, though, determine that there were 23 characteristics of the design of the prototype that 24 caused it to continue to burn but not to ignite the 25 velvet covering? 125 1 A. That's what we were looking for, yes. 2 Q. And that was, in fact -- that, in fact, 3 occurred in some testing? 4 A. There were some variables that would give us 5 that. 6 Q. Have you been involved in any prototype 7 testing with the furniture mock-up where the 8 cigarette would smolder for an hour or better 9 before ignition ensued? 10 A. I don't believe. We haven't got up that far. 11 I think the highest was probably about 45 minutes. 12 Q. And was that circumstance involving a crevice? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Are you familiar with the Reduced Density Rod 15 Program? 16 A. Somewhat. 17 Q. What part of R&D, if it was, in fact, part of 18 R&D, was that involved in? 19 A. Process development. 20 Q. Who headed up process development? 21 A. At that time, I do not know. 22 Q. Do you know if the Rod Density -- the Density 23 Rod Program -- Reduced Density Rod Program is still 24 ongoing? 25 A. I don't think so. 126 1 Q. And you don't recall -- do you recall any of 2 the people who worked on that project? 3 A. I don't know who was in charge of it. 4 Q. Do you remember anybody that worked on it? 5 A. Well, one of my co-workers at one time was 6 part of it. I don't know what function he had. 7 Q. What was his name? 8 A. Walt Nichols. 9 Q. Walt? 10 A. Walt Nichols. 11 Q. And was process development on the research 12 side of R&D or on the development side of R&D? 13 A. Development. 14 Q. Do you know what the goals for the program 15 were? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Do you know why it ceased to continue? 18 A. Not specifically. 19 Q. Do you have a general idea or belief, or have 20 you been told by your co-worker why it 21 discontinued? 22 A. There were difficulties achieving a product, 23 but I don't know the details of what it was. 24 Q. Do you know how long that program was ongoing? 25 A. Not really. 127 1 Q. Do you know if it was as long as Hamlet? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Was it ever a part of Hamlet? 4 A. No, it was not. 5 Q. Was any research ever shared between Hamlet 6 and that program? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. How was that achieved, the exchange of 9 materials? 10 A. We tested some of the prototypes that they 11 produced. 12 Q. Was that program ongoing during the early 13 years of Hamlet or the latter years of Hamlet? 14 A. I'd say it was in the middle. 15 Q. Do you know why that program was not a part of 16 Hamlet? 17 A. They were working towards a different kind of 18 product by itself. We just wanted to see how it 19 fit in with other types of products that we tested. 20 Q. Is the Reduced Density Rod Program something 21 that's confidential like some of these others we've 22 talked about? 23 A. I could not tell you what the ingredients in 24 it was. 25 Q. I don't even want to know that. Do you know 128 1 generally what they were hoping to do? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Do you know how their project related to 4 Hamlet? 5 A. It didn't really relate to Hamlet. We just 6 tested some of their products. 7 Q. Did you conduct any research or do any 8 development towards a Coors insulator? 9 A. A what insulator? 10 Q. Coors. 11 A. I'm not familiar with that. 12 Q. Produced by one of the Adolph Coors family of 13 companies. 14 A. I'm not familiar with that. 15 Q. Did Project Hamlet -- in the course of 16 investigating the ignition propensity issue in 17 Hamlet, did you look at or test for the effects of 18 insulators? 19 A. We did some of that, yes. 20 Q. What type of insulators did you look at? 21 A. We would call them heat sinks, anything to 22 pull the heat away from the cigarette. 23 Q. Did that work through fillers or through some 24 other mechanism? 25 A. We were focusing on the paper outside of the 129 1 cigarette. 2 Q. Was there -- was it an alteration in the paper 3 type to create the insulation effect that was 4 researched? 5 A. Can you say that again, please? 6 Q. Yeah. In researching and experimenting with 7 the paper to create an insulation effect, did you 8 change the type of paper? 9 A. Oh, we had to, yes. 10 Q. And there were certain -- can you tell me or 11 do you recall what sort of modifications to the 12 paper were tested or investigated in terms of 13 yielding an insulating effect? 14 A. We had to look at some kind of metal to do 15 that. 16 Q. Was aluminum looked at? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What was the result of that investigation? 19 A. It was not practical and feasible to 20 incorporate into a cigarette. 21 MR. GRISHAM: Would you mark this as 22 Exhibit 1, please. 23 COURT REPORTER: It's Exhibit 2. 24 MR. GRISHAM: 2, I'm sorry. 25 130 1 (Goodman Exhibit No. 2 was 2 marked for identification.) 3 (Discussion off the record.) 4 MR. CRAMPTON: This is a document that 5 was produced by Philip Morris -- 6 MR. GRISHAM: Yes. 7 MR. CRAMPTON: -- to you, then it was 8 put on your disk and then printed out after that? 9 MR. GRISHAM: Yes. 10 MR. CRAMPTON: Okay. You represent to 11 me that no changes have been made to it? 12 MR. GRISHAM: That's correct, with the 13 exception of the court reporter's marking. It's 14 not highlighted, anything like that. 15 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) I want to hand you, 16 Ms. Goodman, what's been marked as Exhibit No. 2 to 17 your deposition and ask you, first of all, if you 18 can identify that document for me? 19 A. What do you mean by "identify" it? 20 Q. Do you know what it is? 21 A. It looks like a presentation. 22 Q. Is it a presentation that you recall ever 23 having seen before? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Under what circumstances do you recall having 131 1 seen that presentation? 2 A. I cannot recall the circumstances, but this 3 would have been slides that would have been shown 4 in a verbal presentation to some audience. 5 Q. Do you recall whose presentation that was? 6 A. I would assume this is the cover letter 7 written by the person here, but I do not recall. 8 Q. Does the cover letter give you an indication 9 of who may have prepared the presentation? 10 A. I would think the individual on the cover 11 would have prepared it, yes. 12 Q. That's Mr. Kallianos? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. Do you recall attending or participating in 15 that presentation or the development of that 16 document in any fashion? 17 A. I probably did. 18 Q. Do you have an independent recollection of 19 that? 20 A. I have seen the pages. What's in here could 21 have been given in several different types of 22 presentations with very much similar wording. I 23 think some of it was used in a later annual report 24 as well. 25 Q. After you've familiarized yourself with the 132 1 document, I'd like to see it and hand it back and 2 forth. I didn't think to make two copies like I 3 should've. 4 I want to direct your attention to page 5 of 5 Exhibit No. 2. Actually, it's not designated page 6 5, it's the fifth page of the exhibit. 7 MR. CRAMPTON: It might be easier if 8 you use those Bates numbers which were put on by 9 counsel in production. 10 MR. GRISHAM: Sure. For the record, 11 it's Bates number -- the last three digits are 854. 12 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) On the fifth page of the 13 particular Bates numbered document that I've just 14 handed you, I suppose that's one of the slides that 15 was created for the presentation? 16 A. I would assume so. 17 Q. And it talks about an ideal solution. Was 18 that ideal solution, to your recollection, dealing 19 with the reduced ignition propensity cigarette? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And did it set forth on that page the goals 22 that were imposed for Hamlet? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And the first one of those -- the first aspect 25 of the ideal solution was to create a cigarette 133 1 that would free burn at normal rates when suspended 2 in air, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. What do you mean by that? Does that mean 5 continue to burn if someone's holding it in their 6 hand and talking, for instance, is that -- 7 A. Yes. We do not want a cigarette that goes out 8 in the smoker's hand. 9 Q. A second aspect of the ideal solution was to 10 proceed toward extinguishment by cool-down when 11 placed on fabric, self-extinguishment to take place 12 within two to three minutes, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. If I'm understanding that correctly, what the 15 hope was was to design a cigarette that the 16 temperature would go to the lower end of the 17 spectrum towards extinguishment such that the 18 substrate wouldn't be heated and the material 19 covering the substrate would not then ignite; is 20 that my -- is my understanding correct? 21 A. It would have to go down in temperature for it 22 to self-extinguish, yes. 23 Q. And the goal was -- or Point 2 to the ideal 24 solution, at least as presented in that meeting, 25 was self-extinguishment? 134 1 A. On fabric. 2 Q. On fabric, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And another aspect of that goal was for the 5 self-extinguishment to take place within two to 6 three minutes, correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Was the two- to three-minute parameter 9 something that was imposed in the proposed solution 10 because that would prevent the ultimate ignition by 11 not allowing the heat to remain on the velvet in 12 the substrate for a sufficient length of time? 13 A. I think this was part of our objective in the 14 beginning when there was not enough known about the 15 period of time. 16 Q. Well, ultimately your research bore out that 17 the prototypes would tend to ignite the fabric over 18 the substrate while laying flat within two to ten 19 minutes of most tests, correct? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. And you've identified some aberrations that 22 might be much longer if there was a crevice 23 involved, for instance? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And I think--we may not have--but I thought we 135 1 talked about instances when the cigarettes just 2 went out in your testing, correct? 3 A. That could happen, yes. 4 Q. But obviating those two parameters--the 5 crevice or the cigarette just self-extinguishing--if 6 it went on to conflagration, it would occur usually 7 within two to ten minutes, correct? 8 A. Right. 9 MR. CRAMPTON: Wait a minute. When you 10 say "conflagration," you're talking about a flaming 11 fire -- 12 MR. GRISHAM: Yes. 13 MR. CRAMPTON: -- as opposed to a 14 smoldering ignition? 15 MR. GRISHAM: We can talk about both. 16 To be clear, we probably ought to. 17 MR. CRAMPTON: They never let them go 18 to a flaming fire in this testing of this -- 19 MR. GRISHAM: Burn down the whole 20 Research Center, that would be a bad deal. 21 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Within the testing that you 22 conducted, ignition would occur within two to ten 23 minutes obviating the crevice testing or the 24 instances when the cigarette just went out, 25 correct? 136 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Ignition of the material covering the 3 substrate? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. Was this portion of the solution, this 6 objective of extinguishment within two to three 7 minutes, created in anticipation of those exact 8 test results? 9 A. These look like objectives that were given to 10 us when we started the project. 11 Q. Was the -- do you know whether or not the 12 objective of extinguishment within two to three 13 minutes was as -- based upon knowledge that 14 ignition occurred within two to ten minutes 15 ultimately in tests that you conducted? 16 A. I do not remember the circumstances about the 17 two to three minutes here. 18 Q. And the third portion of the solution or the 19 goal, the objective, was for the cigarette to be 20 acceptable on deliveries, taste and aesthetics? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. What was meant by "deliveries"? 23 A. That means the mainstream smoke to the 24 smoker. Typically the tar and nicotine we're 25 talking about. 137 1 Q. The tar and nicotine and CO-2 had to be 2 maintained in acceptable levels, correct? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. And there's more than a dozen other chemicals 5 and compounds that are part of the delivery, aren't 6 there? 7 A. Right. 8 Q. And I suppose that was part of the objective 9 to keep them within parameters, correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. The taste was something that you and I have 12 talked about today that was part of the project 13 too. You wanted the people who ultimately bought 14 the product to like it? 15 A. Right. 16 Q. And your goal, as I understood it, was -- to 17 achieve that was for it to taste like the product 18 that you already had on the market? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And as to the aesthetics portion of the 21 objective of the solution, what components were 22 there to the aesthetics goal? 23 A. It should look like a normal cigarette. 24 Q. Not have off-colored paper, correct? 25 A. Right. 138 1 Q. Not be stained? 2 A. Not be a Nat Sherman. 3 Q. Not be a Nat Sherman, not stained? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. Not be unduly thin or slim or unduly fat? 6 A. Right. 7 Q. Or unduly long or unduly short? 8 A. Or have some obstacle on it. 9 Q. Have some band around it, for instance? 10 A. Yeah. 11 Q. All those were things that went into 12 aesthetics that you dealt with, correct? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. Were there any other aspects of aesthetics 15 that I have not touched upon that, at least in your 16 mind, were a portion of this objective? 17 A. Not that I can think of right now. 18 Q. Who created or authored these objectives? 19 A. I do not know that. 20 Q. Do you recall who gave the presentation in 21 which these objectives were outlined? 22 A. This does not say what the presentation was. 23 It doesn't have anything on the cover page other 24 than a heading, so it could have been a number of 25 cases. 139 1 Q. Who created the ignition propensity index? 2 A. I would say that Randy Greene pretty much 3 developed that, discussing it with the rest of us. 4 Q. In conducting tests with the ignition 5 propensity index of competitors brands of 6 cigarettes, do you recall any commercial brand on 7 the market that performed better in terms of 8 ignition propensity than the rest of the packs, so 9 to speak? 10 A. If I look at the cheat sheet here. 11 Q. That's okay. 12 A. The one with the highest index is the More, 13 which means it took a little longer for that one to 14 ignite our particular mock-up. 15 Q. Is one of the components of the index -- 16 A. It has the number of cigarettes that were 17 placed on the mock-up and the length of time to 18 ignition for each one of the cigarettes in 19 half-minute increments. 20 Q. What role did sucrose play in ignition 21 propensity? 22 A. I don't remember without looking at the table 23 here. I know we looked at it, but it's been many 24 years. 25 Q. I understand. 140 1 A. It looks like it would slow down the burn rate 2 to have a certain level of sucrose in there. 3 Q. Was that something that you investigated as 4 part of your studies in Hamlet? 5 A. Yes, we did. 6 Q. Were there any disadvantages to that 7 particular additive? 8 A. I do not remember. 9 Q. Do you know if sucrose has been an additive 10 that's been included in commercial brand cigarettes 11 marketed by Philip Morris? 12 A. I believe it has. 13 Q. What brands? 14 A. That I couldn't tell you. 15 Q. What other objective besides ignition 16 propensity alteration would the addition of sucrose 17 provide? 18 A. It would have an effect of the moisture of the 19 overall tobacco blend. 20 Q. Did you have the Greiner machine there in your 21 laboratory? 22 A. At this time I don't think so. I think we 23 sent it to our testing laboratory for them to do. 24 Q. Was that located -- 25 A. But at some point in time we did do it 141 1 ourself, so I can't answer that. 2 Q. Part of the time you had the Greiner machine, 3 part of the time you didn't? 4 A. Yeah. 5 Q. And the date on this, or at least the date on 6 the original on the front page, is January 13th of 7 '81. By January 13th of 1981, you were already 8 working on Hamlet, correct? 9 A. I must have been. 10 Q. In terms of a cigarette igniting a substrate 11 or a material covering a substrate, is the concept 12 of draft a major component? 13 A. It's very important to control the draft, yes. 14 Q. How does it relate to ultimate ignition? Does 15 it increase the ignition propensity or lessen it? 16 A. I don't think I can answer that because it 17 affects the variability of the tests. It affects 18 the rate that the cigarette burns at. 19 Q. So the greater the draft, you at least would 20 expect--all other variables being equal--a 21 cigarette to burn faster? 22 A. Yes, it would. 23 Q. But there are many other factors you want to 24 have to look at such as crevicing and all the 25 conditions of the design of the cigarette also, 142 1 correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 MR. CRAMPTON: Object to the form. 4 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) He just objected. Was your 5 answer -- 6 A. A crevice has essentially no draft. That's 7 why it takes so long. 8 Q. Okay. Assuming that -- well, first of all, 9 maybe you did or maybe you didn't. Did you folks 10 do tests to determine the different effects upon 11 ignition by creating a different draft condition? 12 A. Was that a question? 13 Q. Yes. Did you conduct testing on the ignition 14 propensity with different draft conditions? 15 A. We established what preferred draft conditions 16 we wanted to standardize the tests. How we arrived 17 at the exact conditions of that draft, I do not 18 recall. 19 Q. And the standard or the control was used 20 throughout the testing? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. So that when you altered the design to test 23 that particular aspect of the cigarette design and 24 its propensity, you knew you had one certain 25 constant draft that you were testing against? 143 1 A. Yes. Because we were conducting the testing 2 in hoods, so we were restricted by what we could do 3 and still vent everything. 4 (Goodman Exhibit No. 3 was 5 marked for identification.) 6 MR. CRAMPTON: Lynn, it's 20 minutes 7 until 1:00. How much more time do you have -- do 8 you need now? 9 MR. GRISHAM: Probably better break for 10 lunch. 11 MR. CRAMPTON: Okay. 12 (Lunch recess.) 13 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Ms. Goodman, I'd like to 14 hand you and your attorney what have been marked as 15 Exhibit 3 to your deposition, and I'll ask you some 16 questions about that in a moment after you've had 17 an opportunity to review it. 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. Having reviewed Exhibit No. 3, first of all, 20 do you recognize it? 21 A. I did not remember it. 22 Q. After you had a chance to look over it, did 23 that spark your memory or refresh your 24 recollection? 25 A. Yes. 144 1 Q. Do you recall authoring the memorandum that's 2 marked as Exhibit 3? 3 A. I have no reason to believe I didn't. 4 Q. Do you recall what the circumstances of your 5 job were that prompted you to create Exhibit No. 3? 6 A. I didn't read the title of the memo. This is 7 a status report. I was probably asked to give a 8 status of where we were in the work. 9 Q. Who did you give it to? 10 A. Paul Gauvin who was my project leader. 11 Q. And that was in October of 1984, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Does Exhibit 3 represent a status update that 14 you created with regard to your work on the Hamlet 15 project? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. As a part of your memorandum--and if you need 18 to review it, I'll certainly hand it to you--you 19 discuss an alternative, extruded rod or dry-formed 20 rod. What were those particular areas of research 21 in relation to ignition propensity? 22 A. This is what we mentioned this morning about a 23 processing development program on extruded rods. 24 We tested some of their prototype models. 25 Q. Okay. These were the prototypes that you 145 1 mentioned earlier that you had -- weren't involved 2 directly in developing, but you tested for another 3 project? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. Okay. The objective that you stated was to 6 develop a cigarette that burns freely in air 7 without igniting a substrate if left unattended? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. Was that objective what you brought with you 10 from the objective stated by Mr. Kallianos? 11 A. That was pretty much the same wording, yes. 12 Q. The first candidate that you mention in your 13 investigation was a cigarette with a non-porous 14 wrapper with a low level of M.A.P. as burn 15 moderator? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What does M.A.P. refer to? 18 A. That's monoammonium phosphate. 19 Q. Was that a chemical used to treat paper? 20 A. It has been used in the past. 21 Q. And you wrote that such a model gives only 22 occasional ignitions of substrate, depending on 23 tobacco blend and environmental factors? 24 A. Right. 25 Q. Did you arrive at that conclusion based upon 146 1 tests that you had done on the mock-ups? 2 A. Yes, we did. 3 Q. Were flavor testing and subjective testing 4 done on that particular model or prototype? 5 A. I believe we did on something similar. 6 Q. Okay. What was the designation or name or 7 number of the similar prototype? 8 A. That I wouldn't remember. 9 Q. When the panel was testing this treated 10 cigarette, according to your comments, some of the 11 panelists noticed that the cigarette 12 self-extinguished? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Was that a self-extinguishment in air while 15 they were trying to smoke it? 16 A. That's what we assumed. 17 Q. Okay. Was that something that you would note 18 as a disadvantage as a designer of cigarettes? 19 A. A very definite disadvantage. 20 Q. You did note that other comments concerning 21 appearance or ash falloff didn't amount to anything 22 significant with that particular cigarette? 23 A. I believe that. 24 Q. And some members of the panel, the Marlboro 85 25 smokers, rated all the cigarettes tested--the two 147 1 experimental and the model cigarettes--about equal; 2 do you remember that? 3 A. That's what it says. 4 Q. Do you have an independent recollection of 5 that? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Can you give us some idea of what you were 8 referring to when you said that Marlboro 85 smokers 9 rated all the cigarettes about equal? 10 A. I scanned the memo, and it said that it was a 11 similar -- the test cigarette was in the Marlboro 12 Lights delivery category, or something like that. 13 It said that was most similar in tar per puff, 14 which is different from the Marlboro that Marlboro 15 85 smokers smoke. 16 So they were given something that is not the 17 same as what they normally smoke and, therefore, 18 they have more difficulty determining the 19 differences between cigarettes. 20 Q. Okay. And was it your understanding, in 21 undertaking this project, that you were hopeful of 22 creating a cigarette that would self-extinguish 23 when left unattended, but would satisfy the 24 different smokers of the different brands with the 25 flavor expectations that they had grown accustomed 148 1 to? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And that was for every single different brand? 4 A. Well, it depends on what we compare it with. 5 Q. Okay. Was the goal to create a 6 self-extinguishing cigarette that would meet all 7 the flavor criteria for all the different Marlboro 8 -- or Philip Morris brand smokers? 9 A. I don't know. 10 Q. That was not something you had an 11 understanding about one way or the other? 12 A. We didn't get to that point. 13 Q. Why not? 14 A. We didn't think we had a cigarette good 15 enough. 16 Q. Good enough in terms of? 17 A. Subjectives. 18 Q. Were the other aspects of the criteria met? 19 A. We had a particular mock-up test. We did not 20 feel that that was representative of what's out in 21 the marketplace, so we could not say that we had 22 something that met criteria. It met internal 23 criteria for that test, but not for the 24 marketplace. 25 Q. The prototypes that you had developed met the 149 1 objectives of Project Hamlet with the internal 2 tests, but you did not know or did not believe they 3 would meet the environmental challenges of the real 4 world situations; is that a fair -- 5 A. Right. 6 MR. CRAMPTON: Object to the form. 7 A. Well, the correlation -- 8 MR. CRAMPTON: I just didn't understand 9 it is all. 10 A. The correlation between that, we did not know. 11 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Since there was an 12 objection, I'm going to try to make the questions a 13 little bit more choppy. 14 In the laboratory at Philip Morris U.S.A., 15 you and others were able to create a prototypical 16 cigarette that would meet the objectives, at least 17 in the laboratory on the mock-up, of Project 18 Hamlet? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. A fear that you have is--and I assume still 21 harbor--is that these objectives would not be met 22 in environmental factors out in the -- across the 23 country? 24 A. My fear is that if there was a length of time 25 that the cigarette would ignite, it would ignite at 150 1 some length -- after some length of time out in the 2 marketplace quite possibly. 3 Q. I don't understand. If you created a 4 cigarette that met the objectives of Hamlet within 5 the lab, how would that be detrimental to 6 environmental factors out in the real world? 7 A. Because we tested under very controlled 8 conditions--temperature, humidity, air flow, and 9 everything. Out in the real world you have no idea 10 what the conditions are and they could very well 11 ignite something. It's a possibility. 12 Q. The Hamlet cigarette that met the laboratory 13 requirements of the objective was basically a 14 slower burning cigarette, correct? 15 A. Somewhat slower. 16 Q. And it had a tendency when not being puffed to 17 self-extinguish? 18 A. I believe my referral to self-extinguishment 19 there is on our mock-up, not in air. 20 MR. MARKEY: I'm sorry, I didn't 21 understand that. 22 THE WITNESS: We distinguished between 23 self-extinguishment and extinguishment. 24 Self-extinguishment is when somebody's sitting here 25 holding it. Extinguishment is on the mock-up, 151 1 because it's not really doing it by itself. 2 MR. CRAMPTON: Yeah. I'm not sure 3 exactly -- maybe you should take another look at 4 that because I think you did talk about 5 self-extinguishment in air earlier. 6 A. Did I? Okay. The panelists said that some 7 cigarettes self-extinguished. My guess on that 8 is--and that's based on the testing we did--you put 9 a cigarette down in an ashtray and it touches the 10 ashtray, it has a tendency to go out. If it's free 11 burning in air, I don't believe they 12 self-extinguish. But people typically rest them in 13 an ashtray; therefore, they would self-extinguish 14 in ashtrays. 15 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) One of the things I'd like 16 to flesh out in terms of mine and your 17 understanding is, what I've gleaned from what 18 you're saying is that in laboratory conditions on a 19 mock-up you were able to design, along with others, 20 a cigarette that when left unattended would 21 self-extinguish, correct? 22 A. Could. Some of them did, not all of them. 23 Q. All right. And a concern that you have is 24 that that benefit of self -- of extinguishment 25 while being left unattended could not necessarily 152 1 be translated out into the environment, my home, 2 your home, automobiles? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. Can you give me a circumstance or an example 5 of how a cigarette that would meet the objectives 6 of Hamlet on the mock-up would be more dangerous 7 out in the environment, such as in an automobile or 8 in my home or in your home in terms of a fire 9 hazard? 10 A. In terms of ignition, I don't believe that it 11 would be more dangerous. 12 Q. Are there any other aspects of the real world 13 situation in which such a cigarette might be more 14 dangerous? You said ignition probably would be 15 more dangerous? 16 A. If I'm referring to smoke delivery, that would 17 be changed by the construction of the cigarette. 18 And it could be perceived to some going in the 19 wrong direction versus what we normally try to do 20 with designing lower tar cigarettes, for instance. 21 Q. There are other methodology available to alter 22 tar and nicotine and CO-2 delivery, correct? 23 A. Yes. But there are limitations to the use of 24 those methods. 25 Q. One of the objectives that you mention in your 153 1 status report is a redesign of the Saratoga to 2 equal the More in ignition propensity, or to 3 develop a Virginia Slims 120 to match the More in 4 burn characteristics. Was that objective ever 5 achieved? 6 A. I remember that we worked on it. I do not 7 remember a particular outcome. 8 Q. Do you recall why that proposal or that 9 project was not completed? 10 A. I really don't remember. 11 Q. Do you recall why the Saratoga was picked as a 12 potential redesign to meet low emission propensity 13 goals? 14 A. The Saratoga is the -- was the slimmest 15 circumference cigarette we had on the market at 16 that time. 17 Q. Is it no longer on the market? 18 A. It's on the market, but it's no longer the 19 slimmest one. 20 Q. Okay. What is the slimmest one now, one of 21 the Virginia Slims? 22 A. The Super Slims. 23 MR. MARKEY: Is that the Virginia Super 24 Slims? 25 THE WITNESS: Virginia Slims Super 154 1 Slims. 2 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) And as you sit here today, 3 you don't remember the outcome of the modified 4 Saratoga or Virginia Slim 120's that were being 5 evaluated? 6 A. I don't remember how far we took that program. 7 Q. Or why it was not taken further? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. The last objective in Exhibit 3 that you 10 mention is a repositioned Marlboro and Merit. What 11 were you referring to by "repositioned"? 12 A. I do not remember. 13 Q. Read over that again. 14 A. Last one? 15 Q. Yes, ma'am, last paragraph. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 A. Okay. I read that. 18 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) I've got it up here on 19 screen. You're welcome to keep it to refer to. 20 Probably be easier. 21 Do you recall what you were referring to 22 when you wrote "repositioned Marlboro and Merits," 23 et cetera? 24 A. I would take that as meaning modified 25 Marlboro, Merit, et cetera. 155 1 Q. So one consideration you made in your research 2 was modifying what was already out on the market? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. And the objective under that consideration was 5 to develop cigarettes that had reduced ignition 6 propensity relative to the current brands -- 7 commercial brand, right? 8 A. Yeah. 9 Q. Did you, in fact, conduct tests on 10 repositioning the Marlboro's and the Merit's and 11 the other commercial brands? 12 A. We made certain modifications to our 13 conventional brands by way of the wrapper, which is 14 the paper around the tobacco. 15 Q. You modified commercial brands by placing more 16 porous papers on them, correct? 17 A. Less porous papers. 18 Q. Yes. That makes a lot more sense, less porous 19 papers. And you continued with the phosphate ash 20 conditioner on the cigarette paper, correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Was that to maintain the coloration, burn 23 rate, things of that nature? 24 A. The ash cohesiveness, yes. 25 Q. And the hope that you had was that you could 156 1 achieve a reduced ignition propensity without going 2 all the way to the extreme of self-extinguishment 3 and without changing the subjective characteristics 4 of those commercial cigarettes, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And you didn't expect that those modified 7 commercial brands would self-extinguish in the air 8 or on cloth, but would take longer to ignite cloth 9 than current then current commercial brands? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. How were tests conducted on those modified 12 commercial brands? 13 A. We did the same ignition testing on those as 14 all the other experimental cigarettes that we had 15 produced. 16 Q. What did you use as a control cigarette in 17 those tests? 18 A. We just compared the experimental cigarettes 19 that we had made, see which ones were better than 20 others. 21 Q. Now when you conducted the tests on these 22 modified commercial brands, you noted improved 23 ignition times? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. That means it took longer to ignite the 157 1 material? 2 A. Right. 3 Q. How is that an improvement in terms of 4 ignition science? 5 A. Well, if we were striving for something that 6 took longer to -- let me see what it says. It was 7 just saying that we want significant improvement in 8 ignition propensity, which means it would have to 9 take longer to ignite our mock-up. So that's a 10 numerical number that we would look at. 11 Q. Why is it good that it takes longer to ignite 12 the mock-up? 13 A. That was part of our objective, to increase 14 the time to ignition. 15 Q. Practically, why is that a positive effect? 16 A. The industry was looking at ways to reduce 17 ignition propensity. And our way of measuring it 18 was to have a time factor included there. That 19 doesn't mean that that's an ideal solution. That 20 was a goal to strive for. 21 Q. Is it the hope that if the time to ignition is 22 increased, that there's a likelihood an intervening 23 event will prevent the ignition? 24 A. It depends on circumstances where the 25 conditions are not controlled. If it takes longer, 158 1 maybe there would be a chance. But I would be 2 speculating what would happen. 3 My belief is still that the cigarette has a 4 high temperature. 5 Q. Was the goal to extend the time to ignition in 6 hopes that the cigarette would burn itself out 7 before ignition? 8 A. With these particular cigarettes, I don't 9 think that was the goal. 10 Q. Whatever happened to this particular 11 investigation of this objective? 12 A. What I recall was that these changes did not 13 increase the time to ignition sufficiently to be 14 worth doing -- to pursue. 15 Q. That's one thing I was alluding to a moment 16 ago. What is the purpose of the goal -- if the 17 purpose is to extend the time until ignition of a 18 cigarette, if it extends the time from three 19 minutes to ten minutes, a fire is going to ensue 20 regardless if there's fuel present, correct? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. So what is the benefit of ignition 10 or 15 23 minutes after a discarded cigarette is placed on 24 something that's flammable versus three minutes? 25 I'm not being sarcastic. I really am sincere in 159 1 asking that. 2 A. Me, personally, that's the reason why there 3 isn't a product yet on the market because there 4 would still be danger with that product. 5 Q. Is that one reason that another goal in your 6 status report was a cigarette that would extinguish 7 when discarded? 8 A. That's another alternative, yes. 9 Q. When you were conducting your research, the 10 extend burn time alternative was not the optimum. 11 As a matter of fact as -- the Hamlet goal was to 12 achieve self-extinguishment within two to three 13 minutes, correct? 14 A. We changed the objectives a little bit along 15 the way. We looked at all the alternatives. At 16 some point in time we focused on increasing time, 17 other times we focused on self-extinguishment. It 18 varied. 19 Q. In modifying the prototypical cigarettes with 20 the more -- with the less porous paper, how did you 21 achieve the modification? Did you do it in-house? 22 A. Most likely those were papers that we received 23 from one of our vendors. 24 (Goodman Exhibit No. 4 was 25 marked for identification.) 160 1 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) So the vendor would send you 2 paper that you had ordered with a porosity level 3 that was known, and there in the lab you folks 4 would wrap regular Marlboro or Merit cigarettes 5 with the experimental paper? 6 A. We try to keep a standard blend for a lot of 7 our modifications so that we would have reference 8 points. We were more likely to have made up the 9 blends special for these tests. 10 Q. And the blend would have replicated the 11 commercial blend in this instance? 12 A. It would have been a fairly common commercial 13 blend not with all the commercial components. 14 Q. I want to hand you what's been marked as 15 Exhibit 4 and ask you to review that document. 16 A. I've read the summary. 17 Q. All right, thank you. Do you recognize 18 Exhibit No. 4? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What is it? 21 A. It's an annual report that I wrote. 22 Q. Do you write the report? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. What was the purpose of writing the annual 25 report? Was that part -- 161 1 A. That was the standard procedure at the time. 2 Q. Okay. Do you note redactions in the original 3 document? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Have you seen this document in the redacted 6 form you see it in today? 7 A. I don't think so. 8 Q. Do you know when or under what circumstances 9 redactions were made? 10 A. No, I don't. 11 Q. Did the contents of Exhibit 4 deal with 12 matters other than the reduced ignition propensity 13 studies that you were undertaking back in 1984 and 14 '85? 15 A. '85. Yes, it says on another page that this 16 program was 30 percent of the effort at that time. 17 Q. What were the other areas that were part of 18 the distribution effort, computer application and 19 cigarette burn studies? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. That and Project Hamlet were 50 percent of it, 22 correct? 23 A. Uh-huh. 24 Q. What were the other 50 percent? 25 A. We looked at sidestream development. I do not 162 1 recall what the others might have been. 2 Q. Without stating what they are, the subject of 3 the redactions, I assume, have to do with 4 sidestream smoke issues? 5 A. Probably. 6 Q. As you sit here today, do you have in your 7 mind what topics have been deleted? 8 A. No. I don't recall what exactly we were 9 working on at that time. 10 Q. Was there any sort of meeting where the 11 contents of this report were discussed? 12 A. I don't remember. At one point in time we 13 made oral presentations based on the annual report 14 after it was written. I don't know whether that 15 was done with this one. 16 Q. Starting on page 41 of your report, which is 17 Bates No. 790, you refer to Project Hamlet. And 18 I'd like for you to look at that page and the 19 assumed pages through Bates No. 794, and tell me if 20 you see any redactions, places where redactions 21 were made. 22 A. There's one paragraph with poor print, but 23 that doesn't look like a redaction. 24 Q. I'm sorry, I couldn't understand you. 25 A. There was one paragraph with poor print, but I 163 1 don't believe that's a redaction. I think that's 2 just a copying problem. So the answer is, no, I 3 don't see any redactions here. 4 Q. If you're done. Did you have any assistance 5 in the preparation of this document? 6 A. I don't remember. 7 (Goodman Exhibit No. 5 was 8 marked for identification.) 9 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) I'll hand you what's been 10 marked as Exhibit 5 -- actually, I'll hand it to 11 your attorney first, and let you review that. 12 Do you recall ever having seen this document 13 marked as Exhibit No. 5? 14 A. Not really. 15 Q. It's addressed to you. 16 A. Yes, I probably did. 17 Q. And it's -- 18 A. But it is ten years ago. 19 Q. I understand. It purports to be from a 20 Mr. R.K. Greene. Is that Randall Greene? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And it dealt with expanded weight series. 23 What is that referring to? 24 A. There is a process in the industry where you 25 take normal tobacco and puff it up, if we may say 164 1 that. That's what he means with that. 2 Q. Were tests done pursuant to Hamlet to 3 determine the efficacy of fluffing up the tobacco 4 in terms of reaching the objectives of Hamlet? 5 A. That was one of the components we looked at. 6 Q. What were the results of those tests? 7 A. I do not recall without looking at the 8 documents. 9 Q. But you'd have to look at other documents 10 other than Exhibit 5 to express an opinion? 11 A. I'd have to look at Exhibit 5 to recall what 12 the results in this memo was to. 13 Now, this particular document said -- shows 14 that it slows the burn rate when we add this 15 expanded tobacco. 16 Q. Okay. Do you know of any additional research 17 towards that endeavor? 18 A. I don't recall any. I think this was a phase 19 to see what would happen if we added DIET without 20 taking away something else. 21 Q. Do you know of any disadvantages that resulted 22 from the fluffed up tobacco use? 23 A. I would think that the density and firmness of 24 the cigarette and the draw, resistance to draw, 25 would have been quite a bit higher. 165 1 Q. So those would have been subjective components 2 to -- 3 A. Negative. 4 Q. They would have been negative subjectives? 5 A. Negative subjectives. 6 Q. Okay. Do you recall from an ignition 7 propensity reduction standpoint whether or not that 8 was successful? 9 A. This document does not have ignition 10 propensity, as far as I could see. It only talks 11 about burn rate and puff count. 12 Q. And you don't recall independently if fluffing 13 up the tobacco had an effect? 14 A. Not adding it this way, I don't remember. 15 (Goodman Exhibit No. 6 was 16 marked for identification.) 17 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) I'm going to hand you what's 18 been marked as Exhibit No. 6 to your deposition -- 19 first, to your lawyer. 20 Have you ever seen the document marked as 21 Exhibit 6 to your deposition? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. Under what circumstances have you seen 24 this document? 25 MR. CRAMPTON: Other than meeting with 166 1 counsel. 2 A. Oh, no, I have not seen it other than that. 3 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) You mentioned earlier Henry 4 Merritt as being a person you were familiar with? 5 A. I don't think I did. 6 Q. Did you not? I thought we mentioned him 7 earlier. 8 A. Well, I do know him. 9 Q. How do you know Dr. Merritt? 10 A. He was working in the same building that I did 11 for several years. He was a senior scientist 12 having input in several projects. 13 Q. And Dr. Gannon's position was? 14 A. At that time he was probably a director. 15 Q. Do you remember what particular area he would 16 have been a director over? 17 A. He was director of research. 18 Q. When you undertook Project Hamlet, did you do 19 a search of memoranda such as this to determine 20 what other research had been done or 21 recommendations made? 22 A. I personally did not. 23 Q. Did anyone, that you're aware of, involved 24 with Hamlet make such a search to -- 25 A. Dr. Kallianos had done a lot of that. 167 1 Q. And before this week, you had not seen 2 Exhibit 6, this memo? 3 A. Right, right. 4 Q. Are you familiar with Project CORESTA? 5 A. CORESTA is a term, but I don't know of a 6 Project CORESTA. 7 Q. What does that term deal with? 8 A. That is an organization of sorts or a group 9 committee within the tobacco industry that meet to 10 standardize test equipment, test materials, those 11 kind of things. 12 Q. Does -- is CORESTA some sort of acronym? 13 A. I don't think so. 14 Q. Do you know how it has such an interesting 15 name? 16 A. One of the standardized tests for paper 17 permeability is measured in CORESTA terms. I do 18 not know if it's an offshoot from that. 19 Q. What -- who makes up the membership of the 20 CORESTA group? 21 A. Any tobacco industry related companies could 22 be members, vendors, suppliers of various kinds. 23 Q. Are any Philip Morris employees members of 24 CORESTA? 25 A. Probably, but I do not know which ones are. 168 1 Q. Is it an ongoing research concern? 2 A. Yes, it is. 3 Q. Has ignition propensity been a subject of any 4 of CORESTA's studies? 5 A. I have never been to a meeting or been part of 6 the committee. 7 Q. So you have no knowledge? 8 A. So I cannot say, no. 9 Q. Do you have an understanding one way or the 10 other of whether or not ignition studies have been 11 a part of CORESTA? 12 A. I really don't know. 13 Q. Fair enough. Was Project Hamlet a success or 14 a failure? 15 A. It achieved the purpose of investigating all 16 the components that we could modify in a cigarette. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. It developed a test method that we could use 19 for internal use. It set the stage for further 20 development in the future. Those were the primary 21 objectives at the time. 22 Q. Were you able to with Hamlet create a 23 cigarette that self-extinguished within two to 24 three minutes if left unattended? 25 A. Again, I'd have to go back and look at the 169 1 documents to see if the time criteria would be met. 2 Q. Going back to Exhibit No. 2, page 5, Bates 3 No. 854, under the ideal solution we went over 4 earlier -- I'll hand this to you if you need to see 5 it. 6 A. I remember that one. 7 Q. Okay. Part of the ideal solution was to have 8 a cigarette to burn -- to free burn at normal rates 9 when suspended in air which proceeded towards 10 extinguishment by cool-down when placed on fabric. 11 Self-extinguishment to take place within two to 12 three minutes. Were those portions of the ideal 13 solution met by Hamlet? 14 A. That's what I'd have to go back to the records 15 to see if we achieved any reasonable cigarette that 16 extinguished in two to three minutes. 17 Q. What record would you need to look back to or 18 records would you need to look back to determine 19 that? 20 A. I really don't know. 21 Q. Did you achieve the third leg of the ideal 22 solution, that is, a cigarette to be acceptable in 23 deliveries, tastes, and aesthetics? 24 A. No, we didn't. 25 Q. So Hamlet, to the extent it was completed, did 170 1 not meet the ideal solution? 2 A. Right. 3 Q. But it met the objectives of investigation and 4 test methodology developed? 5 A. Yeah. 6 Q. Is there anything else that was accomplished 7 with Hamlet? 8 A. We were -- we had a company representative on 9 the Washington Study Committee that dealt with 10 ignition propensity. At that point, we needed to 11 see what results would come from all of that work. 12 Q. Did the results that the task force came up 13 with in Washington dictate the degree of effort 14 that Philip Morris, through you, directed towards 15 the self-extinguishing or reduced ignition 16 cigarette project? 17 A. I don't think they dictated the amount of 18 effort, but we were certainly looking for a 19 direction in test methodology. 20 Q. Was -- why was Hamlet undertaken, to start 21 with? 22 A. I don't think that was ever explained to me. 23 Q. You were told -- you were told that you were 24 assigned to that project, and for the next ten 25 years you worked on it? 171 1 A. We did not have a duration when we started. 2 Q. Correct. But that's what happened? You were 3 told five minutes before a meeting that you would 4 be in charge of this project. You took over the 5 project and worked on it for about ten years? 6 A. I was told five minutes before a meeting that 7 I was in charge of the paper development project, 8 which later involved -- evolved into Project Hamlet 9 work. 10 Q. What -- what changes from the initial paper 11 development project were there in this evolution to 12 Hamlet? 13 A. We were looking at ways to possibly change to 14 carbon monoxide, other smoke components. 15 Q. Alterations in the delivery? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And that evolved into ignition propensity 18 studies? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Since Hamlet evolved into other programs, 21 specifically Tomorrow, do you know if Philip Morris 22 has conducted any consumer testing on the 23 commercial feasibility of cigarettes with 24 alterations of the type you worked on at Hamlet? 25 A. Of non-Philip Morris smokers, I don't believe 172 1 we have. 2 Q. In other words, outside the company? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. In terms of inside feasibility tests, do you 5 know of any that have been undertaken since Hamlet 6 has shut down? 7 A. I wouldn't call them feasibility tests. I 8 would call them subjective evaluations. 9 Q. Do you have knowledge of the results of that 10 testing or those tests or evaluations? 11 A. It has been very limited, and I don't recall 12 right offhand the results. 13 Q. I want to hand you what's been marked as 14 Exhibit No. 1, which is a copy of a notice for your 15 deposition -- actually an amended notice of 16 deposition with a duces tecum. And ask you on page 17 2 to look at Categories 1, 2, and 3 of documents 18 and ask you if you brought any of those documents 19 with you today? 20 MR. CRAMPTON: Lynn, we have an 21 agreement that documents that were collected by 22 counsel and -- Philip Morris documents that were 23 collected by counsel and produced did not have to 24 be reproduced today. 25 MR. GRISHAM: Absolutely. 173 1 MR. CRAMPTON: So she did not reproduce 2 anything that's already been produced to you. 3 MR. GRISHAM: I understand that 4 completely. 5 A. I did not bring any documents today, other 6 than the location of this place. 7 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Do you have a copy of the 8 transcript of the deposition that you gave in the 9 other case that we talked about a few hours ago? 10 A. I believe that I mailed it back. I looked at 11 it. I do not think I still have it. 12 MR. CRAMPTON: We have a copy of it, if 13 you'd like to ask for it from us. 14 MR. GRISHAM: All right. 15 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) I suppose you don't know 16 what's been turned over to me by the attorneys? 17 A. No, I don't. 18 Q. Do you keep any personal documentation on 19 Project Hamlet? 20 A. No. 21 Q. When you gave a deposition in the patent case 22 earlier, did it have anything to do with the cone 23 patent (phonetics), fire-safe cigarette patent? 24 A. No, it didn't. 25 MR. GRISHAM: You need to change tapes? 174 1 I don't have much longer, but I can't do it in two 2 minutes. 3 (Brief recess.) 4 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Ms. Goodman, are you 5 familiar with an H.R. Wakem (phonetics)? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Who is Dr. Wakem? 8 A. He was the head of our R&D at one time. 9 Q. Was he ever the head of R&D when you worked on 10 Project Hamlet? 11 A. Possibly. 12 Q. Is he deceased now? 13 A. I'm not sure. 14 Q. Are you familiar with a Tom VanAgen 15 (phonetics)? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Who is Mr. VanAgen? 18 A. He was in the chemical research department 19 most of the time. 20 Q. Did he work with you in any aspect of Hamlet? 21 A. I don't think so. 22 Q. Are you familiar with Carl Tiller? 23 A. Cal Tiller. 24 Q. Cal Tiller? 25 A. Yes. 175 1 Q. How so? 2 A. He helped us with some thermocouple studies. 3 Q. Is Dr. Seligman still alive? 4 A. I don't know. 5 Q. Is he retired from the company? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Are you familiar with a Mr. Rosenberg? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Who is Mr. Rosenberg? 10 A. He was manager for the department that 11 included the library and the central files. 12 Q. Is he still with the company? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Retired? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Deceased? 17 A. No. 18 Q. What's his circumstance? 19 A. He left the company. 20 Q. Do you know where he's working today? 21 A. No, I don't. 22 Q. Are you familiar with Reggie Newsom? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Who is Reggie Newsom? 25 A. He was in our group in the late '80s and the 176 1 early '90s. Prior to that, he was in one of the 2 factories. 3 Q. What was his function with the group? 4 A. He was an idea man. 5 Q. What's an idea man? 6 A. Designing ashtrays, cigarette packaging, 7 anything new and different. 8 Q. What did he provide to Project Hamlet, if 9 anything? 10 A. I don't think he worked with Project Hamlet at 11 all. 12 Q. If someone wanted some new ideas for the 13 project, could they call in Mr. Newsom and ask him 14 to hold a brain session with them to develop new 15 ideas? 16 A. Today maybe. But at the time we had Project 17 Hamlet, I did not know who he was. 18 Q. Okay. Today he's in a position where his 19 resources could be tapped; in other words, his -- 20 A. No. He's not with the company. 21 Q. Where is he today? 22 A. He retired. 23 Q. Do you know where he's living? 24 A. Somewhere in this area. 25 Q. The Richmond area? 177 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you know Jim Miracle? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. How do you know Mr. Miracle? 5 A. Up until last year he was my director, product 6 development. 7 Q. Has he left the company? 8 A. No. He's still with the company. 9 Q. What is he doing today? 10 A. He is director of the Q.A. department. 11 Q. Are you familiar with a Bruce Lawsey or Lowsey 12 (phonetics)? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. How are you familiar with him? 15 A. He was in the physical research group when 16 they took over the methodology testing. 17 Q. Is that a part of Project Hamlet, the 18 methodology testing you're talking about? 19 A. The name did not go with the project when they 20 started doing the work in that group. 21 Q. Who is A.C. Lilly? 22 A. That's Cliff Lilly. 23 Q. How are you familiar with him? 24 A. He's our senior technical person at R&D, has 25 been for several years. 178 1 Q. Does he work on Hamlet? 2 A. Not directly, no. 3 Q. Do you know Dr. Tyber Laszlo? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. How do you know Dr. Laszlo? 6 A. He was another very senior scientist at the 7 time. 8 Q. Is he still living in the Washington, D.C. 9 area? 10 A. I have no idea. 11 Q. When is the last time you saw him? 12 A. Probably when he retired from the company. 13 Q. About when was that? 14 A. That's many years ago now. 15 Q. Are you familiar with a Bernie LaRoy? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. How do you know Mr. LaRoy? 18 A. He's another physical research scientist. 19 Q. Is he still with the company? 20 A. I do not know. Many of these you're asking 21 are levels several above me that I did not have 22 personal contact with. 23 Q. I understand. Are you familiar with 24 Dr. Lanzillotti? 25 A. Yes. 179 1 Q. How so? 2 A. He was the activity leader for Project 3 Tomorrow at one point in time. 4 Q. Is he still with the company? 5 A. No, he retired. 6 Q. Do you know where he resides? 7 A. No, I don't. 8 Q. Do you know Dr. Alan Kassman? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What was his -- what's the basis of the 11 relationship that you have with Dr. Kassman? 12 A. Most of the time we were working on Project 13 Hamlet, he was manager of the physical research 14 group. He actually came over to join us for a 15 brief period while we were working on Project 16 Hamlet, towards the end of it. 17 Q. Do you know where he is today? 18 A. He went to Switzerland after that. As far as 19 I know, that's where he is. No, he came back -- he 20 came back to the United States in between, but he's 21 back in Switzerland now. 22 Q. Do you know what he's doing in Switzerland? 23 A. He's -- he has one of the higher posts at 24 Philip Morris there. I don't know his exact title. 25 Q. Is there a Philip Morris Switzerland or some 180 1 related company? 2 A. Philip Morris Europe. 3 Q. Is it based in Switzerland? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Is it an equivalent to Philip Morris U.S.A., 6 only in Europe? 7 MR. CRAMPTON: Objection. I don't know 8 what you mean by equivalent. 9 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) Well, what is Philip Morris 10 U.S.A.? 11 A. We deal with any products that are made in the 12 United States whether they are consumed in United 13 States or exported to other countries. Philip 14 Morris Europe would deal with other continents -- 15 Q. Would they serve -- 16 A. -- not United States. 17 Q. Would they serve the same function as Philip 18 Morris U.S.A. only with respect to Europe? 19 A. Supplying cigarettes to consumers, yes. 20 Q. To your knowledge, however, no research on 21 ignition propensity was conducted at Philip Morris 22 Europe? 23 A. They have not done that. 24 Q. How are you familiar with Dr. Andrew 25 Kallianos? 181 1 A. We worked very closely with him on Project 2 Hamlet. 3 Q. Do you know where he is today? 4 A. Somewhere out of town. I don't remember. 5 Q. He's still with the company, though? 6 A. No. He retired also. 7 Q. R.M. Ikeda, are you familiar with that person? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. How so? 10 A. He was a high-level flavor chemist. 11 Q. Do you know where -- 12 A. And he retired many years ago. 13 Q. Do you know his whereabouts today? 14 A. He may be in this area. I don't know for 15 sure. 16 Q. Do you know Susan Hutcheson? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. How do you know Susan? 19 A. She was manager of the administration division 20 at some point in time. Prior to that she was our 21 patent coordinator, I believe. 22 Q. Is she still with the company? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Do you know her whereabouts? 25 A. I don't recall what happened. 182 1 Q. Do you know Dr. Dedrick Hoffman? 2 A. I have heard the name. I do not know him. 3 Q. Thelma Heatwell (phonetics)? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. How do you know Ms. Heatwell? 6 A. I believe she was in the patent or legal 7 department when I first came. 8 Q. Do you know J.R. Hearn? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. How do you know J.R. Hearn? 11 A. We signed a contract with Philip Morris at the 12 same time at the same table. 13 Q. What was his position with Philip Morris? 14 A. He was a technician at the time. 15 Q. Is he still with the company? 16 A. Yes. He has the office next to mine. 17 Q. All right. What is his -- what does he do? 18 A. He's doing various forms of product 19 development. 20 Q. Was he involved in Hamlet? 21 A. He was in my project, but I don't believe he 22 was involved when we were working on Project 23 Hamlet. 24 Q. You mentioned earlier in the deposition, I 25 believe, Dr. Max Hausermann? 183 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And is Dr. Hausermann still living? 3 A. I think so, but not in the U.S. 4 Q. Is he living in Switzerland? 5 A. Yeah. 6 Q. Did he work on Hamlet or oversee any aspect of 7 Hamlet? 8 A. He was our vice-president at one point. 9 Q. Dr. Willard Geiszler? 10 A. Geiszler. 11 Q. Geiszler. Are you familiar with Dr. Geiszler? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. How so? 14 A. He had the paper development project before I 15 got it. 16 Q. Is he still with the company? 17 A. No, he retired. 18 Q. Earlier in the deposition I asked you about 19 the correlation between cigarette wrappers treated 20 with citrate and reduced ignition propensity. And 21 I believe -- and perhaps you didn't understand my 22 question or I didn't phrase it right. Are you 23 familiar with sodium potassium citrate as a 24 treatment of cigarette wrappers? 25 A. Yes. 184 1 Q. I may have misstated it earlier. Is there a 2 correlation between the treatment with that 3 compound and ignition propensity? 4 MR. CRAMPTON: You mean, propensity on 5 some tests? 6 MR. GRISHAM: Yeah. 7 MR. CRAMPTON: I mean, do you have it 8 -- I mean, define ignition propensity or relate it 9 to a test. 10 MR. GRISHAM: What I was intending was 11 if -- to find out whether or not it has any 12 relationship to ignition propensity as a broad 13 concept. 14 MR. CRAMPTON: On any tests? 15 MR. GRISHAM: Yes. 16 A. It's a standard component of most cigarettes 17 on the market. 18 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) And it makes the cigarette 19 burn more evenly and faster--the cigarette paper? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did you prepare any sort of closing memo for 22 Hamlet or closing report? 23 A. I don't think so. 24 MR. GRISHAM: Pass the witness. 25 185 1 EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. MARKEY: 3 Q. Ms. Goodman, my name is Ed Markey. Are you 4 familiar with the underlying facts of this case? 5 A. Just very, very briefly. 6 Q. Well, very briefly, I represent the mother of 7 the child who was burned, okay. I'll be very brief 8 because there's a lot of this I don't understand. 9 Who told you -- if you remember, who told 10 you you would be in charge of project -- or what 11 happened -- what eventually became Project Hamlet? 12 MR. CRAMPTON: Objection; asked and 13 answered. You can answer. 14 A. I was already the project leader for the 15 group. This additional project of looking at 16 ignition propensity was, at the time it started, 17 another project that was logically within our group 18 because so much of it related to paper and 19 cigarette design that it was not a particular 20 surprise to me. 21 Q. (By Mr. Markey) Right. And I don't mean to 22 be redundant -- 23 MR. CRAMPTON: The question was who -- 24 A. Who? I -- 25 MR. CRAMPTON: -- gave you the 186 1 assignment? 2 MR. MARKEY: I just didn't hear her say 3 who it was. 4 A. I don't know if it was my manager or Andy 5 Kallianos' manager or our director. I really don't 6 recall. 7 Q. (By Mr. Markey) Did you supervise people? 8 A. Yes, I did. 9 Q. How many people -- during -- I'm going to 10 confine my questions just to Project Hamlet, okay. 11 During Project Hamlet, how many period -- how many 12 people did you supervise? 13 A. Most of the time about three that were working 14 on that project. There were other people working 15 on other projects. 16 Q. What did these three people do for you 17 generally? 18 A. We had one professional who was doing 19 hands-on, a lot of the cigarette construction 20 investigations. And we had two technicians that 21 either helped prepare the papers or whatever other 22 components there were and doing the actual ignition 23 testing. 24 Q. Okay. That's kind of what I want to get to. 25 You've talked a lot about the whats and the whens, 187 1 but I'd like to talk -- have you describe this -- 2 the how to, what the testing consisted of, how you 3 were doing these things. 4 You said you weren't a smoker. I know -- I 5 don't think you were all sitting around smoking 6 cigarettes. How was this testing done on these 7 experimental cigarettes? 8 A. Ignition testing is what was done in my 9 group. The subjective testing was done by flavor 10 development people. 11 Q. Do you know anything about that? 12 A. Part of their daily working activity is to 13 meet as a group to do taste testing. They do that 14 every single day on some kind of cigarettes. 15 Q. Do you know how taste testing is done? 16 A. Typically they get two cigarettes to compare. 17 They do not know what they are or what the 18 differences are supposed to be, if there are any. 19 Sometimes they get two cigarettes that are the 20 same, just to calibrate the panel. 21 And they rate them on attributes such as 22 impact, strength, throat harshness, smoothness, 23 off-taste, mouth coating, fruity, woody. There are 24 probably 100 different attributes that they use in 25 their terminology. 188 1 Q. And they are people from -- you mentioned 2 these testing panels. Are these tests given first 3 to people who work inside the company who are 4 volunteers, or are they -- because I know then you 5 mentioned that there were people on lists who would 6 be mailed cigarettes? 7 A. That was the rare occasion on this project. 8 Virtually everything we've talked about was 9 in-house Philip Morris people. 10 Q. Full-time employees -- 11 A. Full-time employees. 12 Q. -- who tested cigarettes? 13 A. Yes. They may be full-time flavor panel 14 experts or they might be tobacco workers in the 15 factory that would go into a panel room for a few 16 minutes and smoke a cigarette. 17 Q. Okay. So maybe they were production workers 18 who were just test -- smokers who tested 19 cigarettes? 20 A. Some of them were. 21 Q. And did they fill out surveys? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Which were compiled by the flavor control 24 people, whoever they were? 25 A. No. We had a subjective evaluation facility 189 1 that handled the tallying of all the results from 2 smoking, except for the flavor panel. 3 Q. Was that part of the factory or the plant here 4 in Richmond? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. So everything was self-contained, I guess? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. Then who decided -- well, I believe you 9 stated that a statistical average was compiled? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Is that correct? And then basically the 12 cigarette or cigarettes that were being developed 13 through Project Hamlet didn't meet the market 14 tests, you said? 15 A. Right. 16 Q. Does that mean that they didn't meet the 17 statistical average based on these test results 18 you've just described? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Who made that decision that they didn't pass 21 the test? 22 A. It depends on the number of panelists involved 23 in the smoking and how much the standard deviation 24 of the mean, around the mean, is on the test 25 results. 190 1 There are restrictions and statistics of 2 what comprises a significant difference, and it's 3 based on the number of panelists. So if the 4 statistically significant difference is not there, 5 it's not a subjective decision. It's a numerical 6 decision. They look at the numbers and say whether 7 it met the criteria or not. 8 Q. But -- okay. Bear with me. They were 9 comparing experimental cigarettes to each other, 10 correct? Or were they comparing it to a Marlboro 11 100? 12 A. Typically they are given two different 13 cigarettes -- 14 Q. And they're not labeled? 15 A. -- to evaluate. And we would probably have 16 made -- sometimes we made two different test 17 models, other times we made a more standard model 18 and the test model. 19 Q. So am I correct in assuming that these were or 20 were not or may have been compared to just an 21 actual plain old or off assembly line Marlboro 22 cigarette? 23 A. No. We made them in our semi-works, because 24 we had to make both the test and control look 25 identical. Otherwise, they would know what's a 191 1 test and what's a control. 2 Q. And was your group responsible for 3 manufacturing them or making them up, the 4 prototypes? 5 A. They were machine-made. We would request to 6 have specific parameters built into a cigarette. 7 Q. You were telling what would go into one and 8 what would go into another and that kind of thing? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. I think I've figured this out, but this may be 11 for the jury and to clarify for me. What are we 12 talking about when you talk about the substrate? 13 A. To measure ignition propensity, we had to come 14 up with some test methodology. And what seemed to 15 be the most useful to the industry at the time was 16 a polyurethane pad--you see some of it in 17 upholstered furniture of various kinds, part of the 18 reason we picked that--with a smooth fabric placed 19 on top of it eliminating any air pockets or 20 anything, smoothing it out to have a flat surface. 21 And this was a test pad that would be 22 sufficiently large that the cigarette would be 23 contained on it. And we placed that in a hood in a 24 vented condition. 25 MR. CRAMPTON: The question -- just to 192 1 interrupt, I'm sorry, the question is what's the 2 substrate? 3 THE WITNESS: What is it? 4 MR. MARKEY: She's getting to what I 5 want to know. 6 A. The flat material on the top was a sofa 7 upholstery-type material, because that seemed to be 8 what we were focusing on in home fires where you 9 have upholstered materials. 10 We had read about previous upholstered chair 11 testing, so we tried to simulate something similar 12 to that. 13 Q. (By Mr. Markey) And your mock-ups, then, I 14 guess that's what you were -- 15 A. That is the mock-up. 16 Q. Oh, okay. Just a little bitty piece, or would 17 it be a full-blown chair that you would be 18 constructing? 19 A. The Bureau of Standards had done some 20 full-blown chair testing. We read all their 21 reports, studied them very carefully and did not 22 think that was a very practical way to do it in a 23 laboratory, because a chair is going to have round 24 surfaces, corners, crevices. We needed to 25 standardize the test so we could compare cigarettes 193 1 and compare fabrics. 2 Q. I understand. And that was what you did for 3 ten years basically, right? You studied ignition 4 propensity? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. The Bureau of Standards, which Bureau of 7 Standards was this? 8 A. The National Bureau of Standards in 9 Washington. 10 Q. Did they reach any conclusions with regard to 11 ignition propensity? 12 A. No, they did not. 13 Q. You mentioned also a Washington Commission. 14 What was that? 15 A. I was never part of the dealings with these 16 committees. There have been several different 17 committees at various times and several authorities 18 that have investigated ignition propensity. 19 And I think right now the current one is the 20 T.S.G. Committee that is looking at this same 21 thing. 22 Q. What does that study, or what does that stand 23 for? 24 A. I do not know. But there -- there's ongoing 25 research from these committees that we're -- we as 194 1 a company are keeping up with what's going on. 2 Q. And you are still keeping up with that or not? 3 A. No. I'm not the one because I'm not in that 4 group. 5 Q. So you're not doing any more ignition 6 propensity research, correct? 7 A. The company, but I am not. 8 Q. Yeah. You personally, I'm sorry? 9 A. Yes. No, I'm not. 10 Q. Okay. Well, while you were doing it, did you 11 have a counterpart at, let's say, R.J. Reynolds or 12 another competitor with whom you shared research? 13 A. No. 14 Q. No. Or made phone calls to and talked and 15 shared information in any way? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Do you know if other companies, other tobacco 18 companies, had people doing the same thing you're 19 doing? 20 A. I'm sure they did. 21 Q. But do you know? 22 A. Some of them have given presentations later, 23 but not at that time they did not. 24 Q. Okay. Well, so the only way you would be 25 sharing information would be through governmental 195 1 studies, I guess, if then? 2 A. And a little bit talking to vendors. 3 Q. When you mention vendors, what do you mean? 4 What kind of vendors do tobacco companies have? 5 A. In my specific case, I meant paper companies. 6 They produce the paper that goes around the 7 tobacco, around the filter and the tipping papers. 8 Q. If you can -- who would be some of those 9 companies? 10 A. The company we deal with right now is called 11 Schweitzer-Mauduit International. They used to be 12 Kimberly-Clark. The one that we were dealing with 13 a lot at the time of Project Hamlet was Ecusta. 14 They've been known as Ecusta, Gladfelter 15 (phonetics), Ohlands (phonetics). They've been 16 owned by several different people. 17 Q. Where does the tobacco come from? I mean, 18 what companies? I know where it comes 19 from--Virginia, right? 20 A. Well, we buy most of our tobacco from 21 Universal Leaf. 22 Q. Who makes the filters? 23 A. We do in-house. 24 Q. In-house? 25 A. Most of them. 196 1 Q. I believe you mentioned and it sounds like all 2 of your research has been directed toward below the 3 filter; is that right? 4 MR. CRAMPTON: Objection; that's vague. 5 Q. (By Mr. Markey) Well, okay. I haven't -- my 6 question to you is, then, has any group other than 7 yours ever looked at concentrating its efforts on 8 the filter and its possibility of affecting 9 ignition propensity? 10 A. If the cigarette is resting, it tends to go 11 out when the coal gets all the way to the filter. 12 So the filter is not really prominent in this 13 case. It's already -- 14 Q. It's just the cigarette's going to burn 15 whether or not it's being drawn through the filter? 16 A. The filter does not contribute to it. 17 Q. But with regard to the taste that the market 18 test found was objectionable because of the slower 19 burning cigarette, did anyone ever look into that 20 as a way to improve the taste? 21 A. Yes. We did modify the filters as well when 22 we made prototypes for subjective smoking. 23 Q. But your testimony is that didn't make an 24 appreciable amount of difference? 25 A. Right. 197 1 Q. What kind of modifications did you make to the 2 filters? 3 A. We had to change the draw resistance. We had 4 to change the efficiency. Of course, if you change 5 the circumference, we have to change the packing 6 density there too. 7 Q. Did you try putting any flavoring in the 8 filter? 9 A. Yes. We tried a lot of different things like 10 that. 11 Q. Okay. You also mentioned--and this is just 12 an aside, I guess, really--European countries don't 13 have as many fires. Obviously, you're from 14 Europe. Can you shed some light on that or explain 15 that? 16 A. I hate to do it, but there is a term called 17 "sloppy Americans." Europeans have different 18 habits. They don't litter as much as Americans do, 19 in general. You don't see them throw cigarettes 20 out the car window and things like that. So they 21 just don't have as much generated by burning 22 cigarettes. 23 We've asked the companies several times if 24 they have materials that we could use to test, and 25 they say, no, there's no demand for it in Europe. 198 1 Q. And I may have misheard this with regard to 2 the testing. I know you made it clear that you 3 didn't test your own brands, the Marlboro brands. 4 Did you test any competitors commercial brands? 5 A. Yes, we did. 6 Q. All of your competitors, all the Americans? 7 A. We tested the larger selling brands and the 8 brands that we could identify as being different in 9 one way or another. In other words, trying to look 10 for some different types of cigarettes. 11 Q. Did you find anything? 12 A. We found that the large majority of the 13 cigarettes on the market were very similar in our 14 ignition propensity index. There were a few that 15 were a little slower or a little faster on the 16 index, but very few. 17 MR. MARKEY: That's all I have. Pass 18 the witness. Thank you. 19 MR. GRISHAM: I've got a couple more, 20 and this should be real short. 21 FURTHER EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. GRISHAM: 23 Q. If a commercially marketed Philip Morris 24 cigarette is laid on a flat surface and allowed to 25 burn, about how long does it take that cigarette to 199 1 burn to the filter and thus extinguish? 2 A. We measured in the ignition propensity index, 3 and that's now many years ago. I do not have those 4 numbers in my head. 5 Q. Are we talking about less than ten minutes? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. The ignition propensity index set the mean 8 high end at 10-1/2, right? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. Since Philip Morris U.S.A. did not test any of 11 the prototypes that it developed in this program 12 against its commercially marketed brands, how do we 13 know that some of them may have been -- not have 14 been an improvement over what's being sold in the 15 marketplace? 16 A. We have a pretty good idea of how competitors 17 brands are made and which ones are similar to our 18 brands. And we deducted the conclusions based on 19 that. 20 Q. So you tested your prototypical cigarettes 21 against, for instance, Winstons, and get the 22 results and you conclude that the Philip Morris 23 commercially similar cigarette may perform 24 similarly? 25 A. We had a standard blend in construction that 200 1 was similar to the Winston blend, and that's what 2 we tested against--not against the competitor's 3 cigarette. 4 Q. So in the Hamlet testing scenarios, there were 5 never actually tests performed on a commercial 6 cigarette, one off the shelf? 7 A. There was a table in one of your exhibits that 8 listed -- there was a page of various commercial 9 brands, competitors brands. 10 Q. And those were actually -- 11 A. Those were actually off the market, yes. 12 Q. Okay. But other than that test, as far as you 13 know, there were blends that were made up -- 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. -- to replicate what you were trying to test 16 against? 17 A. Yes. Whatever parameters we were looking at. 18 Q. Do you think testing the prototypes in Hamlet 19 against other than Philip Morris' own commercially 20 marketed brands is the most scientific method that 21 could be used to determine whether or not that was 22 a reduced fire risk involved with the prototypes? 23 A. I think it was a good system, yes. Because 24 our standard blends probably varied less than what 25 the commercial brands did -- 201 1 Q. Could the -- 2 A. -- over time. 3 Q. Could the scientific methodology have been 4 made better? 5 A. Well, we were looking for a better test 6 method. 7 Q. A better method than the furniture mock-up? 8 A. Yes. Something that was more scientific than 9 accrued mock-up tests. 10 Q. Did you achieve that? 11 A. We did not. This is why I went to a different 12 group. 13 Q. Did your successors achieve that? 14 A. Not really. 15 Q. So really the best test out there is the old 16 furniture mock-up and the ignition propensity index 17 that you used in the '80s? 18 A. There have been modifications to the mock-up. 19 Q. What modifications? 20 A. There is a NIST test right now, and they have 21 refined the methodology somewhat. It's basically 22 the same principals. 23 Q. MIST test? 24 A. NIST. National Institute of -- 25 Q. Oh, NIST. 202 1 A. -- Science and Technology. 2 MR. CRAMPTON: Standards and 3 Technology. 4 A. Standards and Technology. 5 Q. (By Mr. Grisham) The same substrates are 6 being used in the testing? 7 A. No, it's not the same substrate. 8 Q. Okay. But as we speak today, Philip Morris 9 research in the ignition propensity area is 10 following the NIST -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- protocol? 13 A. Yes. 14 MR. GRISHAM: Pass the witness. 15 MR. CRAMPTON: I'd like to bump heads 16 with these guys to see if we have any questions. 17 MR. GRISHAM: Okay. 18 (Brief recess.) 19 EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. CRAMPTON: 21 Q. Ms. Goodman, I think I have -- I really think 22 I just have one question. Mr. Grisham asked you 23 some questions about times to ignition in the 24 Hamlet testing. And you talked in terms of two 25 minutes to ten minutes to ignition in that Hamlet 203 1 testing for various cigarettes. What did you mean 2 by ignition in those terms? 3 A. I mean smoldering ignition of the mock-up. 4 Q. Okay. Did you ever take a test then beyond 5 that to flaming combustion? 6 A. No, we didn't. 7 MR. CRAMPTON: That's all I have. 8 MR. GRISHAM: No further questions. 9 MR. MARKEY: None. 10 11 12 (Whereupon deposition concluded 13 3:25 p.m., August 27, 1996.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 204 1 STATE OF VIRGINIA ) 2 COUNTY OF ) 3 4 5 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the answers to 6 the questions propounded to me at this deposition 7 are true, and that the foregoing typewritten pages 8 represent a full, true and accurate record of my 9 testimony given in this deposition. 10 11 12 BARBRO GOODMAN 13 14 15 16 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me by 17 the said witness, BARBRO GOODMAN, on this the 18 day of , 1996. 19 20 21 22 NOTARY PUBLIC 23 24 25 205 1 CAUSE NO. 26294 2 SHANNA SHIPMAN A/N/F OF * IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 3 SHANNON MOORE, A MINOR, * Plaintiffs * 4 * VS. * JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS 5 * PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES,* 6 INC., PHILIP MORRIS * INCORPORATED, PHILIP * 7 MORRIS U.S.A., AND * SHELLY MOORE, * 8 Defendants * 18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE OF FILING 10 ORAL DEPOSITION OF BARBRO GOODMAN TAKEN ON AUGUST 27, 1996 11 I, TAMARA J. BRAUN, Certified Shorthand 12 Reporter in and for the State of Texas, hereby certify to the following: 13 That the witness, BARBRO GOODMAN, was duly sworn by me; 14 That this transcript is a true record of the testimony given by the witness; 15 That the amount of charges for the preparation of this transcript and any copies of 16 exhibits is $ (paid by Plaintiffs); That the deposition transcript was submitted 17 on the 5th day of September, 1996, to the witness (X) or to the attorney of record ( ) for a party 18 who was a witness, for examination and signature with instructions for the return of the transcript 19 by the 5th day of October, 1996; submitted to Mr. William Crampton, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, 1200 20 Main Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64105; That changes, if any made by the witness, in 21 the transcript and otherwise are attached hereto to incorporate herein; 22 That the witness did ( ) or did not ( ) return the transcript; 23 That the original deposition transcript, or a copy thereof in the event the original was not 24 returned to the officer, together with copies of all exhibits, was delivered or duly mailed to 25 Mr. Lynn Grisham, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Waltman & Associates, 3833 S. Texas Avenue, Suite 150, 206 1 Bryan, Texas 77802; that person being the attorney or party who asked the first question appearing in 2 the transcript for safekeeping and use at trial; That a copy of this certificate was served 3 on all parties and the clerk of the court. 4 5 GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the 5th day of September, 1996. 6 7 8 9 TAMARA J. BRAUN, CSR #3396 10 CSR Expiration: 12/31/97 11 805 W. 10th Street, Suite 201 Austin, Texas 78701 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25