Tobacco Documents Online

i VIDEO MONITORING SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC Pege: 4 • doing it certainly before the ex~d of the month. Clearly, there are gonna be many many manly tobacco losses. There may be some tobacco wins, but o ~ce plaintiffs start to win in cases like this, whether it's asbestos, whether it's some other product, juries tend to start coming on plaintiffs' side. I Davis: Now, Oklahoma now becomels the fourteenth state. Do you foresee all fifty states and; the territories and commonwealths eventually fil3.ng~suit? Banzhaf: I'm not sure all of them will. Probably some of the tobacco-growing states that wrill stay out for that reason but suppose they're only 'sued by thirty states. That's still a major problem, ev~en for the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry. # # # • . • Z00'd 96£S 9£L ZIZ13,1 SM3N UN SWA WZi (18d)96,£Z-

VIDEO MONITORING SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC Page: 3 . • • addictive product and then lying to the public and the government about it? i Davis: I should mention that John is taking your phone calls so you can give us a ring,lat 1-800-304-fnet. One thing to keep in mind, John will not be talking about any tobacco stocks in particular or the stock market in particular. We're just talking about the issue of tobacco: is it an addictive drug? And any questions that you want to ask in that genre. I John, right now the tobacco industry is embattled. And you mentioned a moment ago that some of the evidence that is not coming out in this trial in Indiana is evidence that was obtained through the secret documents that were taken from the file drawers of the major tobacco companies. If in fact there is a convictioxi in this case, does that make it that much stronger a case against the tobacco companies and does the likelihood grow that future lawsuits will be successful? Banzhaf: Well, this is clearlyia do or die case from the tobacco industry's point of view. If they lose two in a row, it pretty conclusively shows not only that our side can win, but that we can win with small law firms, with not very big damage claims, and that the key is the secret documents. And these secret documents they are available for all of the major tobacco co4panies and literally you have memos where they're sayingl•yes, it's addictive. It's addictive just like cocaine. we're in the business of selling an addictive product.' t'Jhen juries hear that, they get angry. That's the--when they return not only damages but big damages. ~ Davis: Right, but in this case there are no secret documents that were admitted aslevidence, correct? Banzhaf: Most of the documentsiwere not admitted, on the other hand, this jury was not se~questered. I assume they know about the Florida verdict., Anybody who watches all the other networks knows about some of these documents, some of the insider testimony. 11 think we've seen with the Florida verdict a sea change inijury attitudes saying yes, smokers may bear some responsibility, but by golly the tobacco industry has to bear some for lying and covering up this fact. Davis: And if there are in faci two convictions in a row and the next case will include tihat documentation, the secret documents, the ball you ~rould think might continue rolling. Banzhafe The ball will continue rolling. The lawyer who won the case is in Florida, hasltwo hundred of them lined up. As you announced at the beginning, one more state has already joined in suing. They're several more who will be SOD'd 96£8 9£L ZIZI3J, SM3N 0AN SNIA Ob:Zt IINd)96,FZ-'9fl

VIDEO MONITORING SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC eage:2 ! I i Barrett: Tobacco companies have only lost two liability cases like this. And one of these was reversed on appeal. The dollar damages sought in the Rogers' case are relatively small; but if the i~dustry loses here, the damage to its legal record woul~ be enormous. Katherine Barrett, CNN Financial News, Indianapolis. Davis: Joining us now from Was~ington to discuss some of the broader implications of this trial on the entire tobacco industry is John Banzhaf, he is executive director of the Action on Smoking and Health Organization. Also known as ASH. I should also mention to you, John as a young lawyer, filed the lawsuit that was principally responsible for the elimination of cigarette advertising on television and radio. Welcome, John. i i I John Banzhaf (Executive Directos, Action On Smoking And Health Organization): Thank you. You might also mention it was our lawsuit which £ormed~the basis for the FDA's N jurisdiction over cigarettes which the President will be p announcing tomorrow afternoon. ~ ~ Davis: Exactly. Let's go the Indianapolis trial to begin ~ with. Do you have feelings good or bad about the outcome CID of that one at this point? I ~ • Banzhaf: Well, it's hard to say. They were not able to get in some of the secret documents that they wanted to get in which proved so devastating in the Florida trial. On the other hand, here we have sonlebody who literally started smoking at age five, and appare~'tly was addicted even before he became a teen. So, itJ's kind of hard for the tobacco industry to argue that lie knew the dangers, he understood the dangers at the age of five or nine; or that by continuing to smoke as an adult, he voluntarily did it when he was in fact in the clut~hes of the addiction. Davis: So, do you'believe thatlis key for the jury to understand and that he was addic~ted according to his attorneys at that young age as posed to the fact that he continued smoking after the wa ings came and after everybody knew it wasn't an addictive substance? Banzhaf: if he continued smokix~g as an adult after knowing the risk and being able to quit ieasily, then they're gonna argue that he was contributorily negligent or assumed the risk or in non-legalese, that hd was responsible for it. On the other hand, if nicotine iis addictive, which is what the President, the FDA, and theiplaintiff's lawyers say, then he didn't have a completely free choice, he may bear some responsibility, but the que~stion raised here as it was • in Florida, should the tobacco i~ndustry get off Scott free? Should they bear no responsibill ty for producing an I 600'd 9628 9£? ZZZ13J, SM3N 9AN S1VA 06:ZI (18d)96 V-`-

i • VICJ60 MONITOp/NG iHNVlCFS GFAMEHMC!{. LP. 73eIaI4Z7JSCaR MYabMarrntTnMB ~ R1X736d39i ImMyrin Cft,4. .hbd.,16E' 5M,nwzW, AvhWr R73186}Ollr : ¢f9Bt47r31 ¢79 p/95R3361 p/p74920 Lsmn nins M' N..r/on Mhnl prnzQQ,T/zT RIa6u8E9C Renaii7 o pAD7d4rGfY Re96763dAr OmHr L/rduN s~¢iwr Re.U85J.7re1 RO,YSfMdO p/96K1 Transcript • • DATE August 22, 1996 TIME 6:00-7:00 PM (ET) NETPTORK CLVNFN PROGRAM It's Only Money Jodi Davis, anchor: The President is expected to announce a crackdown on how the tobacco industry market~ and sells cigarettes. This amid a myriad of tobacco 1'awsuits plaguing the industry. Katherine Barrett is in Indianapolis covering one of those lawsuits. Here is the latest on the day's events. Katherine Barrett reporting; Six jurors and one alterna e began deliberating Thursday afternoon on the case of Ivan Rogers vs. RJ afford to lose this case. Tobacco lawyers also maint ined the link between smoking and lung cancer has not been scientifically proven. The most emotional moment came hen Ivan Roger's lawyers reminded jurors that her family had lost a husband, and a father. That brought Rogers an her two sons to tears. Emotions are high on both sides Tobacco industry cannot quite any time. Reynolds, Philip Morris, AmericTobacco, and the Liggett Group. The lawyers did all their talking in court. Morris Klapper (Klapper, Isaac, & Parish): No. We're not going to be able to comment unt 1 the jury comes back. That's all I really have to sayl Barrett: In final statements R gers' lawyers argued that the tobacco companies were negl gent and liable for selling unreasonably dangerous product. And that his addiction to cigarettes caused Richard Roger ' lung cancer and death at age fifty-two. Lawyers defendi~g the £our tobacco companies argued Rogers knew th~ risks of smoking, though he started at age six, and that he could have chosen to fdra rideaeasseneflVJoraudio csssefte(rediv/ ol thlsnewssegmdfrt cantact yvarnearesr VMS offica. Mat.ie0juy/itlCYYAmMentbiySmi.r u/.boaia 6eursraON o1/rabrrpy~, anolrre wrerM AuYMufLtnbwaFJrl orqbirip6rra'psAFc rrlddn. ND¢CEfraGaY65sBRnwk, kc 1995 IYe®drsA.rA% nfp,rWIy P.dwNkkm~sewrdt.aU xe d:d, mhvanirmm0AYrafiemtvserdbsnrayfk+n would be shattered. Henry Miller (Clark, Gagliard, & Miller): if the plaintiffs win this case in Ind anapolis, 2 believe there will be an enormous change in t e environment. Of course it means the aura of invincibil4lty of the tobacco industry 200 'd 9628 9£1 ZIZI3,L SM3N NN SKA WZi (IXd196,£Z-'U