Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 18


     
     1        but it is quite detailed in exactly the kind of
     2        information and how it should be distributed and when; is
     3        that not the case?
     4        A.  Yes.  We wanted to give the companies a clear road map
     5        of what would be required in order to resolve our
     6        conclusions that they were, as we spoke and as we wrote,
     7        in violation of the law.
     8
     9   Q.   It says it gives a deadline of response to these very
    10        detailed -- you would not really describe them as
    11        instructions, would you?  Would you describe them as
    12        instructions?  They seem to be pretty clear.  Would you
    13        say that they could be called instructions?  Also at the
    14        end it says:  "Please give us a response within two
    15        weeks".
    16        A.  I would not call it "instructions" because at that
    17        time we could -- our only authority, we could not force
    18        any company to do anything; we could just sue them and ask
    19        a court to force them to do whatever the court wanted to
    20        do.  We went into a law suit as any other civil litigant.
    21        We frankly had a significantly higher degree of
    22        credibility perhaps than the average civil litigant.  The
    23        courts knew that if we were making allegations we had a
    24        basis for them and that we had studied and thought about
    25        what we were going to do before we filed a law suit.
    26
    27        But what these detailed things are were, in fact, our
    28        finding as to what at a minimum would satisfy us for the
    29        existing violations of the law.  We were proposing this.
    30        This was our proposal to them to resolve the conflict.
    31
    32   Q.   What was McDonald's response to this letter of June 3rd?
    33        A.  As I have said, I could not tell you for anything
    34        resembling a certainty that their recalcitrance to
    35        ingredient brochures began before or after this letter.
    36        But, in essence, they were, as I said, the most resistant
    37        of the five companies I named.
    38
    39   Q.   You do not have to repeat those.
    40        A.  It would be a kind of memory trip more than anything
    41        anyway.  They were the most recalcitrant of those five
    42        companies to implement.
    43
    44   Q.   How do you know that?
    45        A.  They were the ones who said:  "No, no, no".  When we
    46        were saying:  "Will you do this?" their response was:  "We
    47        cannot confirm, we do not know, we have great problems",
    48        or words to that effect, and they -----
    49
    50   Q.   When you say "do this", you mean do national distribution; 
    51        is that correct? 
    52        A.  Give out the brochures on a national basis. 
    53
    54   Q.   They were, in fact, doing it in some areas; they were not
    55        against it on principle?
    56        A.  I do not know why they were negating. I know that they
    57        were telling us they would not agree at that time to do
    58        so.  I believe by the end of June and the early part of
    59        July we had obtained the agreement informally on the
    60        phone, but agreement of the other companies.  We

Prev Next Index