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 -- i