Day 069 - 19 Dec 94 - Page 03

     
     1        relevant.
     2
     3   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I would respectfully agree with those
     4        comments of your Lordship's:  it is not satisfactory.  To
     5        be fair to the people in Chicago, they were asked to see
     6        what they had in their own offices.  They were not
     7        originally asked to seek out documents from suppliers.
     8
     9        As your Lordship will have seen from the trial bundles, we
    10        have been able to do that to an extent in this country.  It
    11        was (and I am not really making excuses; I am reviewing the
    12        history) only, I think, when Dr. Gomez Gonzalez was giving
    13        evidence that he said he thought there were animal welfare
    14        specifications or an animal welfare policy.  It was in
    15        consequence of that that a further enquiry was made while
    16        he has been here, and the suppliers have come up with these
    17        documents.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Clearly, whether or not they take place
    20        tomorrow and, perhaps, Wednesday, or they just crop up in
         the future, there are going to be recurring discussions
    22        (I will call them) about whether documents are available.
    23        I do think it would be helpful if, for instance, you find
    24        yourself in a position where documents, if they exist at
    25        all, are in the possession of someone other than the First
    26        or Second Plaintiff, it is found out whether they exist and
    27        exist in a place where McDonald's had only got to ask and
    28        they will be provided by whoever actually has them.
    29
    30        I am mindful of the fact (and I think this has happened on
    31        both sides) that one cannot have total foresight, and it is
    32        going to happen from time to time, and continue to happen,
    33        that it is when a witness is in the box that the penny
    34        drops, if may put it that way, and it is realised that
    35        there may be a document which can be got hold of.  I think
    36        it is worth making that general comment in this case where
    37        there may be a lot of relevant documents which are in the
    38        possession, for instance, of suppliers with whom McDonald's
    39        may not even have a formal contractual relationship, let
    40        alone the legal power to say:  "Surrender that document to
         us so we can disclose it."  But, as I have already said,
    42        the reality is that if they ask it will come.
    43
    44   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I should say also -- again, in a sense,
    45        it is against me -- I am looking now at the date of the
    46        first of these documents which, though it comes from Pabst,
    47        does appear to have been sent to McDonald's at Oak Brook in
    48        November 1992.  Since the document is favourable (if it is
    49        favourable to anybody) to McDonald's, no suggestion can be
    50        made that it has been sat on, but, clearly, when whoever it 
    51        was made a search for relevant documents in Oak Brook, this 
    52        one was not turned out -- perhaps because they did not look 
    53        in the right department, I do not know.  But, plainly, it
    54        should have been found at the time before the discovery in
    55        this case was complete, and it was not.  All I can say is
    56        that that is regrettable, but there it is.  It appears to
    57        be what it says it is.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let us just see where we go.  These documents
    60        relate to the question of whether the First Plaintiff has