- 2 - 
FERDINAND J. MACK 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
SUITE J Ofl 
OLI» TOWN CENTER 
17 WEST JEFFERSON ST. 
ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND 
80850 
statement concerning those experiments, for its consideration. If the 
intervenor's attorney provides plaintiff's attorney with this information 
promptly, 30 days should be more than adequate to obtain the information, 
furnish it to the Court and the Court to consider it. 
2 . Defendants alleged at the hearing before this Court that a 
weakened K-12 E. coli is to be used, and for that reason, the affidavits 
filed in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction are defective. 
They adverted to the fact that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 
May 23, 1977, spelled out that this weakened strain would be used, 
and indicated a copy of that Memorandum of Understanding had been 
furnished to counsel for plaintiff. The file of counsel for plaintiff does 
not reflect the Memorandum, but if it was furnished to counsel for 
plaintiff, it would have been delivered to the persons who signed 
affidavits, which have been filed by plaintiff. Counsel for plaintiff 
is circulating to his affiants, Exhibit #2, the Memorandum of Understanding 
of May 23, 1977, to ascertain whether that Memorandum in any way alters 
the opinions set forth in the affidavits filed herein. Those affiants may 
already have considered use of the weakened strain, spelled out in the 
Memorandum, and in that event, the defendants' argument would have no 
weight. The same would be true if, upon consideration of the Memorandum, 
affiants reiterate their previously held opinions. On the other hand, if 
the affiants change their opinions based upon the Memorandum of Under- 
standing, that fact should, and will, be made known to the Court. For 
these reasons, the Court should defer its decision in this matter for 
30 days, to permit the Memorandum of Understanding of May 23, 1977, to 
be circulated among plaintiff's affiants. 
301 V79-2E30 
[Appendix C — 170] 
