Letter from William L. Allinder of Shook, Hardy, & Bacon to "Haines" Counsel. Compiles a review of the supplemental Philip Morris CTR Special Projects privileged documents, identifying which ones were "segregated" by Magistrate Pisano as relevant to the plaintiff's crime/fraud claims. Identifies candidates and notes they are establishing questions that might be used in future "crime-fraud" proceedings.
Page 1: 3793
October 22, 1992
~im F. Bixenstlne, Esq.
Jones, Day, Reavie & pogue
North Point, 901 Lakeside
Cleveland, OH 44114
Francis K. Decker, Jr., Esg.
Kudge ~gss Guthrle Alexander
.ETTORNE¥ WORK PRODUCT
New York, NY 10038
Thomas E. Silfen, Esq.
Arnold & Porter
12o0 New Hampshire, N.W. :
Washington, D~ 20036
Dear ~alnes Co~nsel~
We have co~leted our review of the supplemental Philip
Morris CTR Special Projects privileged documents to identify which
ones may have been "segregated" by Magistrate Fisano as possibly-
relevant to plaintiff's crime/fraud claims. We have identified
,~ight candidates; information relating to each is set forth below,
generally in order of most likely to least likely.
~: Confidentlal memorandum from J~B. (Brown) to
Butler, cooke, Decker, Hardy, ~oltzman end
J~oob regarding "Conference with ~z~H~ckett
and Mr. Hoyt, CTR-USA, January 14,
uo~: "Hockett would welcome suggestions from Ad Hoc as to
how members could best assist CTR with red,sot' to
each individual project."
"Ho~ett would welcome=Ad Hoc recommendations for
additional staff members."
Page 2: 3793
October 22~" 1992
• ~ags ~
"Hockett would welcome Ad Hoc recommendations for
additions to the Scientific Advisory Board."
"Hookett will supply me (JCB) wlt~_ copies of the
protocols for currently active research projects.
~adSe are highly con~fldentlal, for information only,
under no circunstances to he discussed, wi%h
ntee or anyone else."
2015015691/1,694 (Log pg. 46; Plsa~ rpt. pg. 37)
~XJ~h~: Bowling notes of I~l~stry Research Study
Ouotes= "Yeoman says after nicotine 'flap' the independence
of CTR is for~er tainted."
"shlnn - Sommsrs says it would be possible to turn
CTR into a trade research group. Known certain
areas CTR cannot fU~do _];as affecte~ ~ndepe_ndenoe-
However - would llke clarification to kn~w 1~he
ground rules." ~
.~_~_...~ ~ is gOT independent - because of wha.t
we have asked 1:hem not ~,o cl.o - ~?%. l:hle influence~
design of e~erlmen~s ... ~ t~17 Independent. ""
"qCB - Nohod7 believes ~ is independent -~any
believe some of
"JOB what work C~ ~o ~ ~s best of all worlds
Moral - doing reset:oh
- F~nd witnesses
- P~cosmetic - -
- ProVide buffer between complies and problem
- Give s~ientific perspective
- Buy time
- Quality of ~swers via Quality of Research"
Page 3: 3793
Qc~cober 22, 1992
2015015726/5731 (Log p~. 43, Pisano ~pt. pg.
~j~: Bowling notes of Industry Research meeting dated
Ouotes: "CTR dO~ not have go~ r~p~ation of doing go~d
"~R not ~ s~Iflc~ so~ce of
"Sro~ ... ~ ¢omes ~ to SAB as an independent
"B~ - you can't - ~cept wi~ the right scientific
"Jacobs - Probl~ is S~ t~es si~s from
that shoed f~ not whaler but how."
"Brown - cited PM interest in benaflts - Gardner
interpretation as Central Nervous System - industry' s
~:~u~ CTR's thinking they w.re; 'had.' Industry
itself in FDA in no time while ASH can '-%
in 20 years."
2015033263/3271 (Log ~. 1, Pisa~ rpt. pg. 3)
~: Holtzman memorandttm to Br..o.wn, Butler, cooke,
Decker, Hardy, Jacob and Shlnn regarding
"~¢onference with Dr. Hockett, Mr; Hoyt and Ms.
u'Shea, "C~I~R-USA, Fe~ual~ 10, 1966."
"Hot,eft would like to retain Mancuso in a Goneulting
capacity on a stipend from CTR. We..recG~mended
that CTR hold off until~thm Ad Hoc Committee has an
opportunity to speak to Mancuso ... it would seem
advisable to investigate the possibility that his
primary usefulness would be as a witness in
"There is a grant application pending before the
Scientific Advisory Board ... We. suggested that CTR
consider using both the httman-and experimental.
approach to the polonlum problem. We shall ~wait
the BAB action on the human l~tng ~_ro~ect and ~hall
eA!oect uo receive fttr~her details f~om Hockett ....
Page 4: 3793
October 22, 1992
"Hockett rspo~l:ed that Dr, Engelbe~'g...has a good'.
proposal before the S~...Oaco~
~: ~tter from Paul Smi~ ~o
date~ May. 23, 1966.
"Perso;~ally, I bel~eve that
s~uld 5e s~st~tlally ~n~eased ~n ~ relatively
~ear.fut~e eJ~ce he is the perso~ on whom~e are
relying principally to ~arry out cur programs. ,Z
realize that Dr. Ll~tle stands in the way to some
extent and it may well be that he wili~ have to be
pushed upstairs to make room Zor Hockstt. I fear
that Tom Hoyt ~i11 re~ain a problem, albeit a
2015033230-3248 (Log pg. i, Pisano rpt.
.~: Hockett summary regarding
Ou~tes: "There should he a clear a~reement in ~dvance as to
the ownership and pu~llcation of the results obtained
either (a) by the investigator under an SA~ grant,
or (b) 5y T~e Council or by the Investlgatcr as
desired unbar a special proJ~t, or (~) by The :
Council under a contract."
"Whether,Or not The Council s~uld attempt to assume
leadership in an ef f_~t to organize
cooperative effort in this direction Ssa matter of"
bas~= policy to he conf~dentlally dls~ussed within
Page 5: 3793
O~tober 22# 193:2
~. 20~5015~%/5739A (~g pg. 42, Pisano .~t.
~: Bowling notes of Indust~ Resear~ Co~ittee'
meeting da~ed 11/15/78. (Notes
rea~ hut ~i~ Is s~e meeting that Sell,an
attenaea ana S~o~n ~oted
~: S~ar~ous t~es of research spent
-- Tobacco neural ~ research
-- Defe~Ive nat,s ~ research
-- "~ special projects
--- ~dust~ special projects
-- p~llc relatlons reseatS"
"Scientists in a~eement ~a~ ~ reputation
seconda~ - not ~o~ - ~ot believed £ndependent."
8. 2015015756/5759 - (~g pg. 1, P~sano ~t. pg. 3}
~: Bowling notes of Indust~ Resear~ m3et~ng dated
~: "~"G~als Indust~ Resaa~ - PR "ca~llng ~rd"
"JCB said no moral comm~tment-
"Spoke of Defensive [and] Offensive research-
research to obtain witnesses - Review of CTR,
Harvard~ UCLA, Wash U."
Some time ago we identified privileged documents from
t~ first Lorillard and Philip Morris productions that may have -
been segregated by then-Speclal Master Pisano a~revie~ed ~ ~amera
by Magistrate Hedges and Judge Sarokin. We have been reviewing
these materiels again to identify c~usstions that might be raised
in fut~e crlme-fraud proceedings. We should plan on meeting,
perhaps soon after the Novembel 4 status conference, to" discuss
which d(~uments and ~uestions we might need to address and how we
might respond, i.eo, whether attorlley comment uslnE available
documents will he adequate or wh~ther affidavits or testimony may
be necessary. It would be helpfu~ to circulate in adv~ulce of this
meeting information about which Liggett and Reynolds documents may
have been segregated, as well as.copies of any Reynolds| affidavits
8ubmltted ~n camera in prior proceedings. Also, we should circulate
Page 6: 3793
October 22~ 1992
any adaltional defe~slve do~iments We have
cc= David K. Hardy, Esq.