United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.: Amended Final Opinion · 2006

Notes not linked in the text

Notes not linked in the text

These notes appear in the source but the pipeline could not place their reference in the body. They are listed here so nothing is lost.

  1. 20 Despite the apparent conflict of interest, a few law firms, particularly Covington & Burling and Shook, Hardy & Bacon, represented the shared interests of all the Defendants and coordinated a significant part of the Enterprise's activities.
  2. 21 The terms "charcoal" or "activated carbon" were often used interchangeably during the trial to describe these filters. See, e.g., Townsend TT, 3/8/05, 14675:25-14676:16. For the sake of simplicity, the Court uses the term "charcoal" to refer to filters containing activated carbon material. -670-
  3. 22 Once discovered by RJR, Philip Morris contributed $35 million to tobacco growers to convert their tobacco curing facilities. Philip Morris now requires flue-cured tobacco from all its (continued...) -680-
  4. 23 While Defendants told the Court that they intended to produce Dr. DiMarco to explain these events, and he was on the defense witness list (see Juchatz TT, 11/18/04, 6618:21- 6619:8), Defendants did not call him. -700-
  5. 34 Defendants try to read into this brief footnote more than is warranted. In light of the complexity and confusion in the law on this issue, it is hard to believe that this somewhat Delphic footnote will bear the weight which Defendants place on it. -1579-
  6. 43 (V.S. Ct. - Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2002) (Austl.) ("Cowell II"), and concluded, at p. 9, that "any portions of those documents quoted in the McCabe opinion may be used by strangers to the litigation in any way they see fit. Defendants cite no case law to the contrary, nor has this Court found any." The Court also concluded, at p. 10, that "neither BATCo nor BATAS made the requisite zealous effort to guard the confidentiality of the contents" of the McCabe opinion and had, consequently, waived their privilege. In particular, the Government was "not precluded from eliciting testimony from Mr. Gulson about publicly available portions of the McCabe opinion. . . . Mr. Gulson may offer testimony as to his personal knowledge about events or documents quoted in the McCabe opinion, including events relating to the creation of the Foyle Memorandum. He may testify whether he thinks or believes that the McCabe quotes from the Foyle Memorandum are accurate or are consistent with his memory. However, he cannot reveal anything that was in the Foyle Memorandum that is not directly quoted in the McCabe opinion." Op. and Order #896 at p. 14. All of Mr. Gulson's testimony which is relied upon in these Findings of Fact falls within the parameters set forth in Op. and Order #896. -1443-