Archive for the 'Internal Industry Documents' Category

NOTICE OF UCSF AGREEING TO BE SUBJECT TO CONSENT ORDER CONCERNING TOBACCO-DOCUMENT ACCESSABILITY (Dec. 21, 2011)

Thursday, December 22nd, 2011

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
We submit this Notice to certify that:
1. UCSF is aware of and consents to the terms that refer to the university in the (proposed) consent order;
2. UCSF voluntarily submits itself to the personal jurisdiction of the Court concerning any disputes about UCSF’s obligations under the (proposed) consent order;
3. UCSF agrees to […]

Philip Morris Notice of $200,000 payment for Documents (PDF) (Dec. 20, 2011)

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
NOTICE
Defendants Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA Inc. hereby give notice that they have deposited their payment of $200,000 due by December 31, 2011 pursuant to Order #27- Remand into the Registry of the Court.
END EXCERPT:

NOTICE OF UCSF AGREEING TO BE SUBJECT TO CONSENT ORDER CONCERNING TOBACCO-DOCUMENT ACCESSIBILITY

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

The PDF is here
EXCERPT:
In Orders #14-Remand and #15-Remand, the Court referred particular issues concerning defendants’ document websites to mediation. Because of the University of California—San Francisco’s (UCSF) expertise in the subject area, the United States and Public Health Intervenors consulted with UCSF staff during the course of the mediation sessions. We understand that […]

PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER CONCERNING DOCUMENT DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS UNDER ORDER #1015

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

The PDF is HERE
EXCERPT:
II. Monetary Terms
A. Philip Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc. (collectively, hereafter “PM”) and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (hereafter “RJR”1) will each deposit, on or before the dates indicated below, the amounts indicated below with the Registry of the Court:
Friday, December 30, 2011 $200,000
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 $750,000
Friday, February 15, […]

JOINT MOTION FOR CONSENT ORDER on Secret Document Maintenance

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

The PDF is

Kessler Takes Control of MN Depository

Thursday, August 25th, 2011

The PDF of Order #26 is HERE
EXCERPT:
WHEREFORE, it is this 18th day of August, 2011, hereby
ORDERED, that, with the concurrence of Judge John Guthmann, of the Second Judicial District Court, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, this Court will exercise jurisdiction and supervision of the Minnesota Depository as of September 15, 2011; and it […]

UNITED STATES’ OPENING BRIEF ON DEFENDANTS’ RULE 60(b) MOTION TO CLOSE THE MINNESOTA DEPOSITORY - March 24, 2011

Thursday, March 24th, 2011

The PDF is HERE
EXCERPT:
As one of its transparency remedies, the Court ordered Defendants to maintain the Minnesota Depository until 2021. Defendants did not challenge the Court’s Minnesota Depository remedy in their post-judgment motion for clarification or for relief from the judgment; did not object to keeping the Minnesota Depository and their document websites open the […]

Tobacco Files Motion to Close MN Depository

Thursday, March 24th, 2011

EXCERPTS:
As set forth below, while the Minnesota Depository costs approximately $1,000,000 annually to maintain, it is rarely used. Moreover, in light of technological advancements, the Depository no longer serves the original purposes for which it was created and is now a mere redundancy. Accordingly, because there is no credible reason for continuing to maintain the […]

TOBACCO FILES REQUEST FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT

Friday, September 8th, 2006

On September 1, Defendants filed their motion requesting a stay of Judge Kessler’s Final Judgement and Remedial Order until an appeal can make its way through the courts.
The Defendants request that the “status quo” be maintained for the time being due to the “irreparable injury” that would result from implementation of many of Judge Kessler’s […]

SCHWAB Plaintiffs Seek to Disqualify Company Scientists’ Testimonies as “Junk Science” under Daubert

Tuesday, June 20th, 2006

As previously scheduled, June 9 saw a flurry of filings in the Schwab case–31, to be exact, mostly the usual motions to exclude various witnesses’ testimonies.
But even Brooklyn Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein (E.D.N.Y.) must have been just a little taken aback to see the Hausfeld team asking him to exclude ALL of the […]