237 



Mr. Sandefur. And I said that my company, meaning Brown & 

 Williamson, had not done any animal research. And that's the case. 



Mr. Waxman. Well 



Mr. Sandefur. That was what I was asked. 



Mr. Waxman. You are being very, very technical. 



Mr. Sandefur. No, sir; no, sir. I don't agree. I don't think it's 

 technical at all. I was trying to be forthcoming. You asked me 



Mr. Waxman. Wait a second, now. You know, forthcoming when 

 you were asked to submit animal studies, you could have said, I 

 didn't do any animal and you would have been technically right if 

 your scientists did them and you didn't personally, but I don't 

 think that was forthcoming. That wasn't the caliber of the kind of 

 statement. 



But there is another point that bothers me about this treatment 

 of Project Janus, that's the efforts of your lawyers to suppress the 

 Janus study. These efforts are described in detail in a front-page 

 story of The New York Times, June 18, 1994, and I have a chart. 



According to The New York Times, your lawyers took extraor- 

 dinary systems to keep the Janus studies out of the hands of the 

 public and plaintiffs suing your company. Specifically on January 

 17, 1985, a senior lawyer for Brown & Williamson, J. Kendrick 

 Wells, declared that the Janus reports were deadwood and ordered 

 the reports removed from the Brown & Williamson files. 



Wells wrote, and I quote from The New York Times, I have 

 marked with an X documents which I suggested were deadwood in 

 the behavioral and biological studies area. I said that the B series 

 are Janus series studies and should also be considered deadwood. 



And then he says, I suggested — the Research-Development-Engi- 

 neering Department should undertake to remove the deadwood 

 from its files and I suggested that Earl tell his people that neither 

 he nor anyone else in the Department should make any notes, 

 memos, or lists. 



Mr. Sandefur, the Janus studies are a significant body of sci- 

 entific work. You tested many different variations of tobacco for 

 cancer-causing effects. Some of the results showed a striking reduc- 

 tion in the incidence of tumors. Shouldn't you have disclosed that 

 these important studies to the public instead of try to go purge the 

 files of deadwood so-called? 



Mr. Sandefur. Mr. Chairman I would like for Judge Bell to an- 

 swer that question. 



Mr. Waxman. Well, I'll be glad to let you consult with him, but 

 what I want to know, don't you think the public should have this 

 information and why should — I mean, wouldn't you consider it an 

 effort to suppress this if your lawyer and — not Mr. Bell, but your 

 lawyer who works for the company is suggesting that this all be 

 disposed of as deadwood so nobody can see it. 



Isn't that covering it up? 



Mr. Sandefur. Mr. Chairman, I'm advised by Judge Bell I 

 shouldn't answer that question because it's attorney-client privi- 

 lege. 



Mr. Waxman. Will you provide the subcommittee with copies of 

 all pending discovery requests in product liability cases in January 

 1985? 



