Abstract
This report, found among the Brown & Williamson Bliley set of documents, is marked "Confidential Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privileged," but is among those documents that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled were not protected by attorney-client privilege because of the crime-fraud exemption. Written by the industry law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue, it is a remarkable and scathing analysis of the tobacco industry's precarious legal position and how it got into that position. The report anticipates likely plaintiff's arguments to be used against the industry, lists the documents and industry actions that support those arguments, and presents possible arguments against those accusations.
The report provides a road map of the lies and deceptions perpetrated by the tobacco industry through the years (and substantiates them by citing internal documents and a litany of industry activities that supported those lies). Despite all that, however, the Jones, Day report states up front that "The key defense strategy in smoking and health litigation is (and must be) to try the plaintiff." (Bates Page. 681879272)
Page 681879281 of the report focuses on the industry's failure to warn people of the harm their products cause:
"Although information dating to the 1930s was sufficient to put the tobacco companies on notice (and trigger
both a duty to investigate and a duty to warn), evidence
linking cigarette smoking and cancer clearly existed and was
universally known in scientific circles during the period
1950-54. By the same time, credible evidence linking smoking with cardiovascular and nonmalignant pulmonary diseases emerged."
The document indicts the industry's research endeavors as well:
"Far from being independent, the activities of the CTR [Council for Tobacco Research] and SAB [Scientific Advisory Board] activites were monitored and controlled by industry representatives, including tobacco company lawyers and public relations consultants. Indeed, the lawyers stopped central nervous system reserach proposals, screen out 'dangerous project proposals', and funded 'special projects' designed for litigation purposes."
It continues,
"Although the industry funded a number of other 'outside' research projects, it did so only when it received clear advance assurances of a 'favorable' outcome. For example, Dr. Gary Huber, then of Harvard, solicited industry funds with his view that 'the number of people at potential risk from tobacco consumption is extremely small relative to the very large number of people who now smoke.' " (Page 20 of the report, or Bates Page 681879286)
The memo addresses the industry's failure to investigate, failure to design and/or market safer cigarettes, the overpromotion of cigarettes, addiction/ability to quit, "The Maintenance of the Deadly Delusion of The Open Controversy," appeals to youth, industry intimidation of the press, the issue of conspiracy, and much more.
This document could be an insurmountable obstacle for those who still maintain that the tobacco industry was in the dark for decades about the dangers of smoking.
Fields
- Notes
WARNING: This paper is over 460 pages long. We suggest you view it in increments of a maximum of 50 pages at a time to prevent your browser from crashing.
Produced by: B&W
Issues: F-ATT, F-LIE, F-P-GOV, P-ENM, P-YTH, I-ANI, C-NIC
Affected Defendants: RJR, CTR
- Quotes
Too numerous and important to list...please see document.
- Company
- Brown & Williamson
- Author
- Crist, Paul G. (RJR Attorney, Jones Day Reavis & Pogue)
Defense
- Marple, William E.
- Kaczynski, Stephen J.
- Abrams, Thomas L.
- Recipient
- Presumed recipient Brown & Williamson
- Region
- United States
- United States
- Type
- report
- Operation/Project
- Corporate Activity Project (Defensive project undertaken by industry attorneys)
An anlysis by the industry law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue of the industry's precarious legal position, legal strategies plaintiff's attorneys were liable to use against the industry in court, information supporting those accusations and possible arguments the industry could employ to defend itself.
- Subject
- legal activity
- legal concept
- Corporate strategy
- youth
- industry activity
- industry influence
- industry sponsored research
- industry strategy
- legal concept
Document Images
Page 1: 00037575
_ "[ _
"T
........................... senss! XD~aTdsuo3 "V
................................ uoI3ezIueS:0 3
................................ M:oM ~eq~n~ "Q
Page 2: 00037575
2. Design Defect: Cigarette Manufacturers
Have Failed to Design and/oc Market
• Safer Cigarettes ........................ 23
Specific Examples of "Safe:"
Cigarettes .........................
(1) Charcoal Filters .............
25
(2) Low Gas Cigarette - Fact ..... 27
(3) Palladium Cigarettes ......... 27
(4) Lower Tar and Nicotine
Cigarettes ................... 31
~rior tO 1966 and Then
Gave An Inadequate Warning .............
Marke£ing Defect: Overpromotion .......
.... :. ;.~.~:~. :-,. :.:~ ...... ~
'~'~ .... :=~!.'~"~.~'~~ a. The Magnitude o~ Cigarette ....
~ ~.~-:"~'.'k':~'~~;:7' : "~':"'~,:" ".;;'~':'"
"
b.
..
Z. punitive Damages Issues ..................... 3T
: . ..-
~a~les of Punitive Damages .....
Issues .................................
- ii
6~51579255 ~
Page 3: 00037575
A, Grant Clarke ...................
. The Kent
Deceptive Cooperation with the . ,
Surgeon General ................... 39
True Magazine ..................... 40
Criticism of Adverse Reports ...... 40
Influencing the Media ............. 41
Influencing the Insurance
Industry .......................... 41
CONSPIRACY ISSUES ................................
mo
d.
e.
f.
43
_ :The Maintenace of the Deadly Delusion of The
Open Controve[$y ............................. 43
.....
~ ~ Evidence and ~c~n~at~an~:;.,;::~::45
TIRCI~R and TI as Agents of Tobacco I
,:~::.:~ : Companies "" r:'45
"Open Controversy" Ads and ~ublic ...............
:.._,~..::~,~
Statements ~y TIRCI~ and TI 47
Industry "A~issions" Concerning the
.-.~
"Open Controversy" Position ....... 51
Reynolds Statements ............... 58
.
. ...~:,: . .
The PuDlic Issues Campaign of .....
Reynolds .......................... 60
"Moderation" as an A~ission ...... 60
Possible Industry Response ............. 60
- iii -
Page 4: 00037575
i04
Lorillard .........................
108
~d1~e r 1 C a,~ ..........................
Page 5: 00037575
' ~"~'~ .
, - _.: ~ '.:~.i~~.,
.... ': ' " ' :,:2. "':~C~'s Failure to ~nve~iq~te .... ..~'.~ "'~0":~~~~~~:~
-,:, ,. ::~:~ ~
. .......
.............. . ' ' " : . Suppo tln~ Evidence and Oocumen~a~tah .-~::': ......
112 ~"
1 TINC's Public and Private Aqendas ,.. 112
2. TIRC/CTN's Public Relations
~unction
............................ i17
3. TIRC/CTR°s Research Function ........
132
4. LS, Inc .............................
140
5. Lawyer Involvement ..................
141
a, Special Pcojects ...............
142
b, CNS Research ...................
144
Othec CTR Funded
P~ojects ..................
(4) LS, lnc ................... 173
Page 6: 00037575
Plaintiffs' Contentions .................. 173
Supporting Testimony and Documentation .-. 174
Poss£ble Industry Response to AMAIERF
Studzes ..................................
Othe~ Industry-Funded Research ...........
Plaintiffs' Contentions ..................
Supporting Testimony and Documentation ...
Possible Industry Response to Other
Research Projects ........................
182
183 ....
183
183
187
- vi
6~I~jD'gZ59
Page 7: 00037575
Challenges to the Efficacy of
Charcoal Pilfers
204
(c) Admissions that Charcoal Filters
were not Salter ................
210
Possible Industry Response - Charcoal Filters.. 214
(ii) Low Gas Cigarette - Pact ............ 214
(iii)
Palladium Cigarettes: The Development
of the "XA" Cigarette ............... 216
Possible Industry Response -.Palladium
' ~ , Cigarettes ....................................
242
.: .... : ..... ~oss~ble Industry Response - N~co~et~e Gu~ ....
~52 :"
~ : ~:,~ C:';: Warning Defect: Cigarette Manufacturers
" " ; '
, ':'~. Faile~ to Warn ~rior to Ig66 and Then Gave
' ' '
............ , .~:_~An Inadequate Warning .........................
253
.~ . Plaintiffs" Contentions .......................
253
Supporting Testimony and Documentation ........
254
Possible Industry Response ....................
261 '
-
Page 8: 00037575
-q
GL~ .......................... le~oua9 ul "e
........ uo~ua~nDo~ pue Xuo~sal Bu~q~oddns "
....................... suo~u~uoD ,s~u~e~a .-~, :
Page 9: 00037575
a. In General .......................... 291
~:.~:-~ :: ~
.......... " .... ~" ........... bT:'~ Heal~h Claims for Filte s ............
292 "
1964 to P~esent: The Modern Era ......... 293
Plainti~fs" Contentions ....................... 293
Supporting Evidence and Documentation ......... 294
Adoption of the Cigarette Advertising
Code ................................
294
Possible Industry Response .................... 300
Cigarette Advertising Code Issues ... 302
.~... ........ .._~.~Possible Industry Response ....................
309
b. Special Modern Era Advertising
Issues .............................. 305
(ii) Special Events ................... 307
(iii) Stadia Bill Boards ............. 307
(iv) Samplinq ....................... 308
,. ~...~ ~., ..
(i) Stadia Billboatd~ ...: .......... 209
(ii) Sampling .......................
Low Tat/Chart,s! Filte:s/Low Gas .....
Cigarettes ............................... 310
Plaintiffs" Contentions ....................... 310
Page 10: 00037575
._~O a. Charcoal Filter Cigarettes
.......... 31~
( i i ) Tempo ..........................
b. Low Gas Cigarettes ..................
(i) Fact ...........................
Possible Industry Response ....................
5. Cognitive DiSsonance .....................
Plaintiffs' Contentions .......................
315
320
Supporting Evidence and Documentation .........
321
~ a. Smokers as Conflicted ...............
• ~ ~ b Ads Resdering Warnin~ ~nadequate by
~"~ ~ ~ ~ ............ ~- sitionin ~be wa~nin Label
" '~': "~Z&.~~~ ....
i%~- ~"~ ~ d Label as Worn Out
327
..;~ ~, ~ ..... - . ................ :-,:
:E~:~/~:'6 " " A eals to Youth
, 327 ; ~%~i~ " ..... :.c .....
• ~.:,;.. - ...... Plazntx~£s Con~entxon .......................
~:~:;~.7~;:~ ~ Suo~o~tin~ Evidence and Documentation .........
:.';.~~: " Possible Industry Response ....................
- X -
