1 NO. 90-CI-6033 JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION ONE (1) 2 3 JOYCE FENTRESS, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS 4 5 VS. DEPOSITION FOR PLAINTIFFS 6 7 SHEA COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS 8 * * * * * * * * * * 9 10 DEPONENT: VAUGHN BRYSON 11 DATE: MAY 26, 1994 12 13 * * * * * * * * * * 14 15 16 REPORTER: KATHY NOLD 17 18 KENTUCKIANA REPORTERS SUITE 260 19 730 WEST MAIN STREET LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40202 20 (502) 589-2273 Page 1 1 * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 4 INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 5 IN RE ELI LILLY AND COMPANY ) Prozac Products Liability ) MDL Docket No. 907 6 Litigation ) 7 * * * * * * * * * * 8 NO. 91-02496-A 9 JACKIE LYNN BIFFLE, ET AL ) IN THE DISTRICT ) COURT OF 10 V. ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ) 11 ELI LILLY & COMPANY AND ) 14TH JUDICIAL DISTA PRODUCTS COMPANY ) DISTRICT 12 * * * * * * * * * * 13 NO. 92-14775-E 14 RICHARD HAROLD CROSSETT, JR., ) IN THE 15 CHAD H. CROSSETT, AMY MICHELLE ) DISTRICT CROSSETT AND KRISTEN ANN CROSSETT, ) COURT OF 16 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVORS OF ) AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ) 17 JOCQUETTA ANN CROSSETT, DECEASED ) ) 18 V. ) DALLAS COUNTY, ) TEXAS 19 ELI LILLY & COMPANY, DISTA ) PRODUCTS COMPANY, TEXAS ) 20 PSYCHIATRIC COMPANY, INC. ) D/B/A/ HCA WILLOW PARK ) 101ST JUDICIAL 21 HOSPITAL, JAMES K. WITSCHY, M.D., ) DISTRICT AND DOUG BELLAMY, ED.D. ) Page 2 1 * * * * * * * * * * 2 NO. A-921,405-C 3 MARIA GUADALUPE REVES ) IN THE 4 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT ) DISTRICT COURT FRIEND OF GRANT JULIAN REVES ) OF 5 A MINOR CHILD, AND ON BEHALF ) OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTIAN ) 6 MARIE REVES, DECEASED ) ) ORANGE COUNTY, 7 V. ) TEXAS ) 8 ELI LILLY & COMPANY, DISTA ) PRODUCTS COMPANY, RAVIKUMAR ) 9 KANNEGANTI, M.D., HOSPITAL ) CORPORATION OF AMERICA, A ) 10 TENNESSEE CORPORATION, HEALTH ) SERVICES ACQUISITION CORP., ) 11 A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ) HCA PSYCHIATRIC COMPANY, A ) 12 DELAWARE CORPORATION, TEXAS ) PSYCHIATRIC CO., INC.. A/K/A ) 13 AND/OR D/B/A HCA BEAUMONT ) NEUROLOGICAL HOSPITAL, AND HCA ) 14 HEALTH SERVICES OF TEXAS, INC. ) 128TH JUDICIAL A/K/A AND/OR BEAUMONT ) DISTRICT 15 NEUROLOGICAL HOSPITAL ) Page 3 1 * * * * * * * * * * 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 3 COUNTY DEPARTMENT - LAW DIVISION 4 RENATO DI SILVESTRO, Individually ) and as Special Administrator of ) 5 the Estate of JOHN DI SILVESTRO, ) Deceased, ) 6 ) Plaintiff, ) 7 ) v. ) No. 91 L 7881 8 ) ROBERT L. NELSON, et al., ) 9 ) Defendants, ) 10 ) GEORGE MELNICK, M.D. and PETER ) 11 FINK, M.D. ) ) 12 Respondents in Discovery.) 13 * * * * * * * * * * Page 4 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS 2 LINDA GARDNER, Individually and ) 3 as Special Administrator of ) the Estate of SHANE GARDNER, ) 4 deceased, ) ) 5 Plaintiff, ) ) 6 v. ) No. 91 L 1066 ) 7 ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, a foreign ) corporation, ) 8 ) Defendant. ) 9 10 * * * * * * * * * * Page 5 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 DR. MARIUS SAINES, etc., et al., ) Case No: 4 ) SC 008331 Plaintiffs, ) 5 ) vs. ) 6 ) ELI LILLY & COMPANY, a corporation; ) 7 DISTA PRODUCTS COMPANY, a division ) of Eli Lilly & Company; and DOBS 1- ) 8 100, inclusive, ) ) 9 Defendants. ) ____________________________________) 10 11 * * * * * * * * * * 12 NO. 93-8792-D 13 DAVID KUNG, DALE KUNG COHEN ) IN THE DISTRICT ROBERT KUNG, AND TIMOTHY KUNG, ) COURT OF 14 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVORS ) AND STATUTORY BENEFICIARIES ) 15 OF MAY YUN KUNG, DECEASED ) ) 16 VS. ) DALLAS COUNTY ) T E X A S 17 ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, DISTA ) PRODUCTS COMPANY, AND MONIQUE ) 18 KUNKLE, PH.D. ) Page 6 1 * * * * * * * * * * 2 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS 3 CIVIL COURT DEPARTMENT 4 EUGENE HUSLIG, AS ADMINISTRATOR ) 5 AND EXECUTOR AND ON BEHALF OF ) THE ESTATE OF DEBORAH G. WEATHERS ) 6 HUSLIG, DESCEASED, AND AS SURVIVING ) HUSBAND AND HEIR AT LAW OF DEBORAH ) 7 G. WEATHERS HUSLIG, DECEASED, ) AND IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS ) 8 HUSBAND OF DEBORAH G. WEATHERS ) HUSLIG, DECEASED, AND RONALD C. ) 9 WEATHERS, SON OF DEBORAH G. ) WEATHERS HUSLIG, DECEASED, ) CASE NO.: 10 ) 94 C 192 PLAINTIFFS, ) 11 ) VS. ) 12 ) COURT NO. 7 MARY L. BILLINGSLEY, EXECUTOR OF ) CHAPTER 60 13 THE ESTATE OF THAD BILLINGSLEY, ) M.D., DECEASED D/B/A THE BENESSERE ) 14 CENTER, SUSAN C. JOHNSON, PH.D., ) BILLINGSLEY ENTERPRISES, INC., ) 15 F/K/A THAD H. BILLINGSLEY, M.D. ) CHARTERED, D/B/A THE BENESSERE ) 16 CENTER, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, ) AND DISTA PRODUCTS COMPANY, ) 17 ) DEFENDANTS. ) Page 7 1 * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 CAUSE NO. 93-04911-A 4 LINDA JILL WELCH, CARLINDA 5 WELCH REX, CONNAN ROSS WELCH AND CHAD MICHAEL WELCH, 6 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVORS AND STATUTORY BENEFICIARIES 7 OF CARL EUGENE WELCH, DECEASED PLAINTIFFS 8 V. 9 ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, DISTA PRODUCTS COMPANY, NOE NEAVES, 10 M.D., AND MINITH-MEIER CLINIC, P.A. DEFENDANTS Page 8 1 THE DEPOSITION OF VAUGHN BRYSON, TAKEN AT 2 THE OFFICE OF BAKER & DANIELS, 300 NORTH MERIDIAN 3 STREET, SUITE 2700, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204, 4 ON MAY 26, 1992; SAID DEPOSITION TAKEN PURSUANT 5 TO NOTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CIVIL 6 PROCEDURE. 7 * * * * * * * * * * 8 A P P E A R A N C E S 9 10 PAUL SMITH COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 11 745 CAMPBELL CENTER 2 8115 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY 12 DALLAS, TEXAS 75206 13 JOE FREEMAN LAWRENCE J. MYERS 14 COUNSEL FOR ELI LILLY AND COMPANY FREEMAN & HAWKINS 15 4000 ONE PEACHTREE CENTER 303 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E. 16 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30308-3243 17 JAMES BURNS ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 18 LILLY CORPORATE CENTER INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46285 Page 9 1 KATHERINE L. LAWS 2 COUNSEL FOR DRS. WITSCHY AND KANNEGANTI BAILEY AND WILLIAMS 3 3500 NCNB PLAZA 901 MAIN STREET 4 DALLAS, TEXAS 75202-3714 BEATRICE M. SMITH 5 COUNSEL FOR BEAUMONT NEUROLOGICAL HOSPITAL BARTLETT & FRIEND, LLP 6 1301 MCKINNEY, SUITE 2900 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77010 7 BARTON BROWN 8 COUNSEL FOR DR. BILLINGSLEY WALLACE, SAUNDERS, AUSTIN, BROWN & ENOCHS 9 10111 W. 87TH ST. P.O. BOX 12290 10 OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 66282 11 ROBERT L. HARRIS COUNSEL FOR NOE NEAVES, M.D. 12 SIFFOLD & ANDERSON, LLP 6300 NATIONS BANK PLAZA 13 901 MAIN STREET DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 14 ALSO PRESENT: MONICA PUTNAM Page 10 1 I N D E X 2 3 DEPOSITION OF VAUGHN BRYSON 4 5 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH 13 7 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 117 9 10 ERRATA 118 11 12 EXHIBITS 13 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 1 56 14 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 2 68 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 3 83 15 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 4 88 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 5 91 Page 11 1 COMES VAUGHN D. BRYSON, CALLED BY THE 2 PLAINTIFFS, AND AFTER FIRST BEING DULY SWORN, WAS 3 DEPOSED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 4 * * * * * * * * * * 5 MR. MYERS: Paul, before we start, do 6 we have the same agreement with respect to the 7 applicability of the MDL protective order to your 8 various state court cases and Nancy Zettler's 9 state court cases, in which notices, I believe, 10 have been issued? I know in your cases, that 11 would be Biffle, Welch, Kung, Crossett, Reves, 12 Huslig, Raymeyer, and Boling, that I'm aware of. 13 I don't know whether Ms. Zettler has issued 14 notices in Di Silvestro and Gardner, though she's 15 indicated in the past that she might like to use 16 these depositions in this case. 17 MR. SMITH: Yes. 18 MR. FREEMAN: We'll use the same 19 stipulation that we used in Mister Wood's 20 deposition. 21 "Let me just say at this time a brief 22 stipulation. This is the deposition of Vaughn 23 Bryson taken on behalf of the plaintiffs for 24 purposes of discovery and for use in the trial of Page 12 1 any of the cases heretofore recited. The 2 deposition of Mister Wood is taken by agreement 3 of counsel and by notice in offices of Baker and 4 Daniel in Indianapolis. Objection will be made 5 at this time as to any leading questions that 6 Mister Wood's own counsel may put to him or any 7 objection that any lawyer may have to the 8 witness's responses to the questions propounded. 9 All other objections will be reserved until time 10 of court hearing." 11 * * * * * * * * * * 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. SMITH: 14 Q. Would you state your name, 15 please, sir. 16 A. Vaughn D. Bryson. 17 Q. How old a man are you, Mister 18 Bryson? 19 A. Fifty-six. 20 Q. Where do you live? 21 A. I live in Indianapolis, 22 Indiana. 23 Q. How long have you lived here, 24 sir? Page 13 1 A. Since 1982. 2 Q. And does anyone live with you 3 there in Indianapolis? 4 A. Yes, my wife. 5 Q. Does your wife work outside 6 the home? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has she ever been employed by 9 Eli Lilly and Company in any capacity? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you have children, Mister 12 Bryson? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. How many? 15 A. Two. 16 Q. Are they grown and gone? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Are you currently employed, 19 sir? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Where? 22 A. In Deerfield, Illinois. 23 Q. For whom? 24 A. Vector Securities Page 14 1 International. 2 Q. And what is your position with 3 Vector Securities International? 4 A. I'm the vice-chairman. 5 Q. What is Vector Securities 6 International? 7 A. It's a privately held 8 investment banking firm that specializes in the 9 life sciences industry. 10 Q. Would those life sciences 11 include pharmaceuticals of any nature? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And how long have you had that 14 position, sir? 15 A. Since April 1st. 16 Q. 1994? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Was April 1, 1994 the date you 19 became vice-chairman of that corporation or was 20 that the date you began your employment, or both? 21 A. Both. 22 Q. Prior to April 1, 1994, where 23 were you employed, sir? 24 A. I was employed by Eli Lilly Page 15 1 and Company from the 16th of April, 1961 to the 2 31st of August, 1993. 3 Q. So you were not formally 4 employed in any capacity from August 31st, 1993 5 until April 1st, 1994, is that correct? 6 A. Right. 7 Q. We had originally scheduled 8 your deposition in Chicago. 9 A. Uh-huh. 10 Q. Do you maintain a residence in 11 the Chicago area as well as in Indianapolis? 12 A. Not yet, but I'm looking for a 13 place to rent in Chicago. 14 Q. Is Deerfield a suburb of 15 Chicago? 16 A. Uh-huh. 17 Q. Is that a yes? 18 A. Yes, it's northwest. 19 Q. Let me give you some 20 instructions, Mister Bryson. My name is Paul 21 Smith, we've been introduced. I'm here to take 22 your deposition in a number of cases that I filed 23 on behalf of my clients against Eli Lilly and 24 Company involving the antidepressant Prozac, do Page 16 1 you understand that? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Your deposition will be used 4 as evidence at the trial of the case, so it's 5 very important that you and I communicate so that 6 that testimony can be clearly presented to a jury 7 in the trial. Therefore, if I ask you any 8 questions that you don't understand, would you 9 please let me know and I will be glad to rephrase 10 them or ask them in a different manner for your 11 benefit? Will you do that, sir? 12 A. I will. 13 Q. Additionally, uh-huhs and nods 14 of the head are difficult for our court reporter 15 to take down, so you need to give an audible yes 16 or no answer if that's the appropriate answer. 17 Will you do that for me? 18 A. Yes, I will. 19 Q. In connection with your giving 20 your deposition here today, Mister Bryson, have 21 you reviewed any documents? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Have you had conversations 24 with attorneys for Eli Lilly prior to your giving Page 17 1 your deposition in connection with these Prozac 2 claims? 3 A. I've had conversations with 4 outside counsel. 5 Q. All right. And I'm not 6 interested in anything that you or counsel might 7 have discussed, but when were those meetings that 8 you had? 9 A. Two days ago. 10 Q. Here or in Chicago? 11 A. Here. 12 Q. But you've seen nor reviewed 13 no documents in connection with your deposition? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. When you were employed by Eli 16 Lilly and Company after Prozac became a formula 17 that was in the research and development phase up 18 through your leaving Lilly, did you maintain a 19 file in connection with Prozac, fluoxetine 20 hydrochloride? 21 A. During -- yes. 22 Q. And how would that file be 23 maintained, would you receive correspondence that 24 you would give to your assistant or secretary to Page 18 1 file? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Would it have been filed in a, 4 quote, Prozac file? 5 A. Yes, as far as I know. I'm 6 not totally familiar with our filing system, but 7 I assume it's filed under Prozac. It could have 8 been filed under fluoxetine. 9 Q. Did you ever -- 10 A. Let me say one other thing. 11 There probably were documents in that file that I 12 would never see as well, so your comment about 13 did everything come through me and go into the 14 file, I don't know that that's the case. 15 Q. What would be -- and we'll 16 probably get into this in a little more detail a 17 moment later, but what would be a situation in 18 which you would see a document versus a situation 19 where that document would be put in the file by 20 your secretary or assistant without your having 21 seen it? 22 A. I think maybe a determination 23 on her part that it was something that I was 24 already familiar with or it wasn't necessary for Page 19 1 me to see. 2 Q. Did you give her any 3 instructions in connection with her bringing to 4 your attention specific documents involving 5 Prozac or fluoxetine hydrochloride? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Before we go into the 8 specifics of your various job duties with Lilly, 9 give me a brief rundown of your educational 10 background, starting with when and where you 11 graduated from high school. 12 A. Okay. I graduated from high 13 school from Gastonia High School in Gastonia, 14 North Carolina in 1956. I enrolled in the 15 University of North Carolina in the Fall of '56 16 and graduated in 1960 with a Bachelor's degree in 17 Pharmacy. The only other formal educational 18 training that I had was I spent one year in 19 Stanford University Graduate School Of Business 20 from the Fall of 1966 to June of 1967 in a 21 program called the Stanford Slone Program. 22 Q. What was the Stanford Slone 23 Program? 24 A. Well, it was in a way a Page 20 1 condensed one-year MBA program that was funded by 2 the Alfred P. Slone Foundation. 3 Q. Did you receive an MBA degree -- 4 A. No. 5 Q. -- as a result of your 6 participation in that? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Why? 9 A. It was a nondegree program. 10 Q. All right. Was this something 11 that employers would send their executives or 12 prospective executives to to increase or enhance 13 their skills? 14 A. Right. There were twenty-five 15 people in the program, nineteen of them -- 16 fourteen from industry, five from government, and 17 those individuals were all sponsored by either a 18 company or the U.S. government. There were six 19 people in the program that were in the first year 20 of the Ph.D business school program. So in that 21 case, there were no sponsors, they were on 22 scholarship. 23 Q. I assume that Eli Lilly and 24 Company was your sponsor at that institution? Page 21 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Are you a Pharm D, Mister 3 Bryson? 4 A. No. 5 Q. You got your Bachelor's degree 6 in Pharmacy, did you have an emphasis in 7 chemistry or things of that nature while you were 8 at the University of North Carolina. 9 A. Just the standard pharmacy 10 school curriculum. There were no special -- 11 there were no submajors in the Bachelor's degree 12 pharmacy program. There was also no Pharm D 13 program in the 1960s. 14 Q. That was the degree, though, 15 that individuals at that time obtained in order 16 to become pharmacists? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Tell me about your employment 19 after you graduated from the University of North 20 Carolina in 1960. 21 A. I had two employers. I was -- 22 one employer was a pharmacy in Gastonia, North 23 Carolina called Kennedy's Drug Store. And I 24 worked there from June of 1960 until April of 19 -- Page 22 1 beginning of April of 1961. I was actually -- I 2 was never -- I was only a practicing pharmacist 3 for two weeks because pharmacy school required an 4 apprenticeship program. So while I was -- my 5 time except for the last two weeks at Kennedy 6 Drug Store was really completing the 7 apprenticeship requirements. You had to complete 8 that before you took the state board exam, kind 9 of like the law boards, and the day that I 10 received notice that I had passed the state board 11 exam, I gave them a two-week notice and resigned. 12 Q. What did you do after that, 13 sir? 14 A. I went to work for Eli Lilly 15 and Company. 16 Q. That's April of '61. Why did 17 you seek employment with Eli Lilly and Company? 18 A. Well, I just decided that I 19 wanted to work in the pharmaceutical industry, so 20 I interveiwed a number of companies and several 21 of them offered me jobs, and I took the job 22 working for Lilly. 23 Q. Was it your intention during 24 your achieving your Bachelor's degree in pharmacy Page 23 1 at the University of North Carolina that you 2 would go into the pharmaceutical industry as 3 opposed to be being a pharmacist in a drug store? 4 A. No, not really. But working 5 the pharmacy, completing my apprenticeship 6 requirements, I just found it much, much too 7 confining and thought that working in the 8 industry would be a lot more interesting. 9 Q. So what was your first job 10 with Lilly? 11 A. I started as a Lilly salesman 12 in High Point, North Carolina. 13 Q. Would that be what we would 14 refer to as a detail man? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. My Dad was a country medical 17 doctor, and he spoke of detail men. So you would 18 have been a detail man at that time? 19 A. Right. 20 Q. And what did your job duties 21 entail in that connection? 22 A. Calling on physicians, calling 23 on pharmacists, and calling on hospitals. 24 Q. What was your next job with Page 24 1 Lilly? 2 A. Well, two weeks later, I was 3 moved to Winston-Salem, North Carolina. So in 4 essence, yes, that was really my first job as a 5 Lilly salesman in central North Carolina. I 6 worked in Winston-Salem for a little over a year, 7 and then was transferred to Jacksonville, Florida 8 where I became a hospital sales representative. 9 Q. How long were you at 10 Jacksonville? 11 A. I was in Jacksonville two 12 years, from 1962 to 1964. 13 Q. Then what? 14 A. And then in 1964, I was 15 transferred to Atlanta, and I was a hospital 16 sales representative in Atlanta. 17 Q. How long were you in Atlanta? 18 A. One year. 19 Q. The next? 20 A. I came to Indianapolis in 1965 21 and worked initially in market research in the 22 pharmaceutical operation. 23 Q. And how long did you work in 24 that capacity? Page 25 1 A. Three months. 2 Q. Then what did you do? 3 A. I became a personnel 4 representative. 5 Q. And how long were you a 6 personnel representative? 7 A. I was a personnel 8 representative from the Fall of '65 until I went 9 off to Stanford in September of '66. 10 Q. What were your duties as a 11 personnel representative, Mister Bryson? 12 A. I was primarily involved with 13 college recruiting. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. Recruiting for financial 16 information systems, legal. 17 Q. After you came back from 18 Stanford, what was your next job duty with Lilly? 19 A. I was a manager in personnel. 20 Q. How long did you have that 21 position? 22 A. I think about three or four 23 months. 24 Q. Then what did you do? Page 26 1 A. I went to market research. 2 Q. Market research? 3 A. There's a real pattern -- 4 right, as a manager of marketing studies. 5 Q. And how long did you do that? 6 A. Let's see, I did that for 7 almost a year or approximately a year. 8 Q. When you say you were the 9 manager in personnel for three or four months, 10 were you individually exclusively responsible for 11 managing the personnel department at Lilly or did 12 you have a certain segment that you were 13 responsible for? 14 A. Yes, a segment. 15 Q. What segment was it? 16 A. It was finance systems -- it 17 was actually the same department I worked in 18 prior to going to Stanford, except I came back in 19 at manager level. So it was financial systems, 20 legal, and then involvement with the U.S. 21 pharmaceutical operation as well. 22 Q. Would that be once you got 23 back from Stanford the first time that you had a 24 management responsibility with Eli Lilly and Page 27 1 Company? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Then when you were the manager 4 of marketing studies -- 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. -- were you responsible for 7 all the marketing studies at Eli Lilly and 8 Company or a particular segment? 9 A. It was a segment of -- 10 following a group of products, again, in the U.S. 11 pharmaceutical market. 12 Q. But not all Lilly products? 13 A. No. 14 Q. What was your next job? 15 A. Let's see, from there I went 16 to Sacramento, California in the Fall of '68 as a 17 district sales manager. 18 Q. And how long were you in 19 Sacramento? 20 A. Until early 1970. 21 Q. So you physically moved to 22 Sacramento? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And would your territory have Page 28 1 included the entire state of California? 2 A. No, just northern California 3 excluding the bay area. So I had from Fresno 4 north to the Oregon border, and actually had half 5 of Nevada, which was essentially Reno, but none 6 of the bay area. So I didn't have Santa Rosa, 7 Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, and all points 8 in between. 9 Q. How many representatives did 10 you have under you when you were the district 11 sales manager at Sacramento? 12 A. Sixteen. 13 Q. Would those individuals that 14 you had under you would be like the type of 15 individual you were when you were a detail man 16 back in High Point, North Carolina? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Then what happened in early 19 1970? 20 A. I came back to Indianapolis as 21 a director of distribution and materials 22 planning. 23 Q. What did you do in that 24 capacity? Page 29 1 A. Analyzing our distribution 2 systems in the U.S. pharmaceutical and U.S. 3 agricultural markets as well as monitoring our 4 corporate inventories. 5 Q. Did that have anything to do 6 with manufacturing or was that exclusively the 7 transport of products once they were manufactured 8 to the various sales points? 9 A. It had nothing to do with 10 manufacturing, it was strictly distribution and 11 materials planning. 12 Q. How long did you hold that 13 job? 14 A. Until the Fall of 1970. 15 Q. So what, eight or nine months? 16 A. Uh-huh. 17 Q. Then what was your next job? 18 A. Yes, sorry. In the Fall of 19 '70, I moved to Detroit as a regional sales 20 director for the Great Lakes region. 21 Q. How many district sales 22 managers would you have had under you at that 23 time? 24 A. I believe it was six. It may Page 30 1 have been seven, there were some movement of 2 district regional boundaries. But six, I think, 3 initially. 4 Q. But you physically lived in 5 Detroit, Michigan? 6 A. Yes, Troy. 7 Q. Troy. How long did you hold a 8 position as regional sales director of the Great 9 Lakes region? 10 A. Until the Fall of '72. 11 Q. Back to Indy? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. In what capacity? 14 A. I came back to Indianapolis as 15 director of market research. 16 Q. I would assume at that time 17 you became director of the entire market research 18 department at Lilly, you didn't have just a 19 segment? 20 A. Well, I only had 21 pharmaceuticals in the U.S., so it was 22 pharmaceuticals only, United States only. 23 Q. All right. How long did you 24 hold that position? Page 31 1 A. I was in that job 2 approximately two years. 3 Q. What was your next job? 4 A. In 1974, I became responsible 5 for corporate pharmaceutical and new product 6 planning, and international pharmaceutical 7 marketing and market research. 8 Q. All right. Let me see if I've 9 got that straight because this may be an area 10 where I may need to get some detail from you. In 11 the Fall of 1974, you became the corporate 12 planning, new product manager, is that right? 13 A. I became the -- I believe I 14 was an executive director of corporate 15 pharmaceutical, new product planning, and I had 16 the international -- Indianapolis based 17 international marketing planning and market 18 research function reporting to me as well. 19 Q. All right. How long did you 20 hold that position? 21 A. About a year. 22 Q. What was your next job? 23 A. In 1975, in the summer of '75 24 I became responsible for Japan, Lilly operations Page 32 1 in Japan and southeast Asia, based in 2 Indianapolis. 3 Q. All right. Did you have 4 international affiliates in the Far East? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Or southeast Asia? 7 A. Right, we did. Certain 8 countries, other countries, were just 9 distribution arrangements. 10 Q. And those affiliates would 11 have reported to you? 12 A. Well, Japan reported directly 13 to me, southeast Asia reported directly to 14 someone else who reported to me. There was a 15 layer of management in between. 16 Q. How long did you hold that 17 title? 18 A. Four years. 19 Q. Until 1979? 20 A. Until 1979. 21 Q. And then what was your next 22 job? 23 A. In 1979, the summer of '79, I 24 moved to London, and was responsible for Lilly Page 33 1 operations in most of western Europe, the Middle 2 East, northern Africa, eastern Europe. 3 Q. How long did you hold that 4 position? 5 A. I was there until January 1, 6 1982. 7 Q. Again, I assume you physically 8 moved and lived in London during that period of 9 time? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. Then in '82, they bring you 12 back to Indianapolis? 13 A. Right, correct. 14 Q. And what was your job title? 15 A. I came back to Indianapolis in 16 January 1, 1982 as the president of ELANCO. 17 Q. ELANCO is the agricultural arm 18 of Lilly, is that right? 19 A. Correct. In 1982 it was both 20 agricultural, chemicals, and animal health 21 products. 22 Q. So you had some veterinarians 23 working for you then? 24 A. Yes, plant scientists. Page 34 1 Q. And how long were you the 2 president of ELANCO? 3 A. I think until about 1985 or 4 so, but it's not real clear. 5 Q. I'm not going to hold you to 6 specific dates. 7 A. Okay. 8 Q. What was your next job? 9 A. Well, in 1984, they added the 10 medical device division to my responsibilities. 11 So I retained the title of president of ELANCO, 12 and assumed the responsibility for the medical 13 device division. 14 Q. Did the medical device 15 division at that time have a separate name, like 16 ELANCO? 17 A. Well, no, it was actually 18 called the Medical Device Division. We had a 19 number of individual companies under their own 20 names that were part of that division, and the 21 presidents of those companies reported to a head 22 of Medical Device Division, and he reported to 23 me. 24 Q. Name for me, if you can, those Page 35 1 various medical device companies. Was there two 2 or three or was there -- 3 A. In 1984, there was a company 4 called Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, a company 5 called Cardiac Pacemakers, Incorporated, a 6 company called Physiocontrol, Incorporated, a 7 company called Eye Vac, Incorporated. Those were 8 the major components of the division at that 9 time. 10 Q. And you continued to be the 11 president of ELANCO during that time? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. So in 1984 you added on the 14 medical device division, and then you said 15 something occurred in 1985. 16 A. In 1985 -- I believe in 1985, 17 it may have been 1986, we put someone else in as 18 the president of ELANCO, who then reported to me. 19 So I continued with the responsibility for 20 ELANCO, and also the responsibility for the 21 medical device division. 22 Q. What was your title then in 23 1985? 24 A. I think I was the president of Page 36 1 ELANCO, and maybe a group vice-president of 2 Lilly. 3 Q. That's where I was going to 4 get. When did you become a corporate officer 5 with Eli Lilly and Company? 6 A. I don't know the answer to 7 that. I'm sure that's available. In 1986, I was 8 made an executive vice-president, and at that 9 time, in addition to ELANCO -- by the way, maybe 10 one other thing, I was appointed to the Board in 11 1984. 12 Q. All right. 13 A. So I may have been made a 14 group vice-president in '84. Titles didn't mean 15 that much to me at that point. In 1986 I was 16 made an executive vice-president, and they added 17 information systems and corporate affairs and 18 Elizabeth Arden to my responsibilities at that 19 time. 20 Q. Was -- 21 A. I was asking Jim does that 22 sound right, he was part of Arden's, so he 23 probably remembers that date better than I. 24 Q. Elizabeth Arden is the Page 37 1 cosmetics firm? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. I have never seen Mister Burns 4 wearing cosmetics, that's a surprise to me. 5 MR. BURNS: It's quite a 6 sight. 7 A. He's actually sixty-five years 8 old, he just looks thirty-five. 9 Q. Let me see if I can get a list 10 in 1986 when you became an executive 11 vice-president of the various divisions or areas 12 of responsibility over which you were 13 responsible. I've got Elizabeth Arden. Were you 14 still responsible for ELANCO? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Were you still responsible for 17 the medical device division? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And then you said corporate 20 affairs? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What would corporate affairs 23 include? 24 A. That would be government and Page 38 1 community relations, media relations. 2 Q. Public relations? 3 A. Uh-huh. 4 Q. And when you say government 5 affairs -- government relations, would that be -- 6 would that have meant that you were ultimately 7 responsible to see that the various divisions of 8 Lilly complied with United States and/or foreign 9 regulatory requirements? 10 A. No. That was more the 11 political side of the Washington office and state 12 political issues, not regulatory. 13 Q. Lobbying, is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You mentioned, I believe, one 16 other area. I've got Elizabeth Arden, ELANCO, 17 medical device division, and corporate affairs. 18 MR. FREEMAN: I think it was systems. 19 A. Information systems. 20 Q. Computers? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Is that all? 23 A. To the best of my 24 recollection. I should have gone back and Page 39 1 studied my bio here. 2 Q. How long then did you 3 continue, sir, as an executive vice-president 4 responsible for these various functions? 5 A. Until November 1, 1991. 6 Q. At that time you became 7 president of Eli Lilly and Company? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Chief executive officer? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Chairman of the executive 12 committee? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. But not chairman of the board 15 of directors of the corporation? 16 A. Yes, that's correct. 17 Q. Yes, correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. Mister Wood retained the title 20 of chairman of the board of directors? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Did you serve in that capacity 23 until August of 1993? 24 A. No, I served in that that Page 40 1 capacity until June 25, 1993. 2 Q. All right. And what occurred 3 on that date? 4 A. I resigned as the president 5 and CEO. 6 Q. But you continued as an 7 employee until August? 8 A. Yes, yes. 9 Q. Is that just when you were 10 negotiating your severance and things of that 11 nature? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Is it correct, sir, that you 14 were asked to resign? 15 A. I was voted out by the Board. 16 Q. Well, I'll let you put it that 17 way. That's all right, I have been voted out by 18 a number of juries over the years. And the 19 juries just had twelve people on them, I think 20 your board probably had sixteen. 21 A. No, we had fourteen. 22 Q. Fourteen. Of your dozens of 23 different jobs with Lilly over the years, did you 24 have any particular job that you were most fond Page 41 1 of looking back on it? 2 A. I enjoyed them all, but I 3 especially enjoyed living in London and 4 experiencing -- and actually the seven years I 5 spent in International I thoroughly enjoyed. 6 Q. When you were made chief 7 executive officer and president of Eli Lilly and 8 Company, did you intend or did you foresee that 9 your service would continue longer than June 25, 10 1993? 11 A. I would -- I was surprised by 12 the events of June 25, 1993. 13 Q. All right. You didn't know 14 that there was an anticipate -- you had no 15 anticipation that you would be voted out by the 16 board of directors? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. It came as a surprise to you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What was your understanding 21 with respect to the reasons that you were voted 22 out by the board of directors? 23 A. Actually my understanding is 24 fairly limited in that it's very much -- I think Page 42 1 adequately described in the press release, it 2 said there were philosophical differences between 3 the Lilly board and me. 4 Q. What do you feel the 5 philosophical difference was? 6 MR. FREEMAN: It's a philosophical -- 7 I object to the form of the question. If the 8 philosophical reasons have anything to do with 9 Prozac or fluoxetine or anything associated in 10 any way with the litigation, I want you to answer 11 the question in full. If it did not, I think we 12 need to cut that off right here. 13 A. The philosophical difference 14 had absolutely nothing to do with Prozac or 15 fluoxetine, it was much more related to the 16 general direction of the company. 17 Q. Did any members of the Board 18 express any concern to you in connection with 19 this philosophical difference with respect to 20 drug safety? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Was there any concern at that 23 time by the board of directors of Eli Lilly and 24 Company in connection with drug safety of their Page 43 1 products? 2 MR. FREEMAN: Read the question back. 3 (THE COURT REPORTER READ BACK THE 4 REQUESTED TESTIMONY.) 5 A. There were no -- 6 MR. FREEMAN: When you use the word 7 concern, how were you using that, because it's 8 not clear to me what you mean by it. I mean if 9 you're talking about any issues about drug safety 10 at that time that brought about his resignation, 11 that's one thing. But there's another thing as 12 to whether or not the board cared, if you mean 13 cared about drug safety, and that's a different 14 question. 15 Q. I'm assuming that your answer 16 would be affirmative, that the board of directors 17 of Eli Lilly and Company cared about the safety 18 of their products, did they not? 19 A. I would assume they certainly 20 would. 21 Q. Was there any concern 22 expressed to you by members of the board of 23 directors with respect to future management of 24 the corporation that drug safety had not been Page 44 1 handled in a proper manner? 2 A. No. 3 Q. No one has ever tied your 4 being voted out of the corporation in any way 5 with respect to drug safety? 6 A. No. 7 Q. When were you first aware of 8 Lilly's product Prozac, fluoxetine hydrochloride, 9 Mister Bryson? 10 A. I don't remember the exact 11 date, but it would probably be sometime in maybe 12 the late '70s, early '80s. But as you can 13 obviously tell from my bio, I had no direct 14 involvement with the pharmaceutical division from 15 1982 on until November 1, 1993. 16 MR. FREEMAN: Did you say November 1, 17 1993? 18 A. I'm sorry, 1991, I'm sorry, 19 1991. I can't keep track of all these jobs. 20 Q. In the Fall of 1974, you 21 became executive director of corporate 22 pharmaceutical, new product planning? 23 A. Uh-huh. 24 Q. Is that a yes? Page 45 1 A. Yes, I'm sorry. 2 Q. Was fluoxetine hydrochloride, 3 later to become Prozac, a product under 4 investigation at that time? 5 A. I don't remember that. 6 Q. Do you remember whether or not 7 there was any work in the antidepressant or CNS 8 field at that time at Lilly? 9 A. There certainly was in the 10 basic research area. I just don't remember 11 exactly when that product would have been far 12 enough along that a corporate new product 13 planning group would have been made aware of it. 14 Q. As I understand it, initially 15 there would have been a number of compounds that 16 would have compound numbers, like LY one one oh 17 four seven, or something like that. The compound 18 might be given a name, scientific name, like 19 fluoxetine hydrochloride, then it might be given 20 a brand name like Prozac, is that right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you have any recollection 23 of the Lilly compound back in the '70s, that 24 later became Prozac, being under investigation? Page 46 1 A. No. 2 Q. And you say you think it was 3 the late '70s or early '80s before you first 4 became aware of the product fluoxetine 5 hydrochloride or Prozac? 6 A. Yes, and at that time it would 7 have been fluoxetine. That would have most 8 likely been way before any trade name was 9 attached to it. 10 Q. What is your first 11 recollection of hearing about fluoxetine and its 12 properties and things of that nature? 13 A. I don't remember anything 14 specific other than this was an antidepressant 15 that was under clinical investigation. 16 Q. Do you remember what your job 17 was with Lilly at that time? 18 A. No, but late '70s, I would 19 obviously have been working in Lilly 20 International, and Lilly International was 21 responsible for both pharmaceuticals and 22 agricultural products. So I would have heard 23 periodically of the products that were in the 24 drug development process. So my recollection Page 47 1 would strictly be an antidepressant under 2 clinical evaluation. 3 Q. Did you ever have any direct 4 or indirect supervision of Lilly Research Labs 5 until you actually became president of Eli Lilly 6 and Company? 7 A. No. 8 Q. That was always under the 9 direction of Doctor Herr or Doctor Perelman? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. In the appropriate times, I 12 assume? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you ever have any 15 discussions separately with Doctor Herr or Doctor 16 Perelman in connection with activities in Lilly 17 research lab on Prozac? 18 A. Well, that's such a general 19 question, I mean it's entirely possible after 20 they reported directly to me, we would have had 21 some general discussions about Prozac. 22 Q. I'm talking about -- I 23 probably didn't make my question clear. I'm 24 talking about before you became president of Eli Page 48 1 Lilly and Company. 2 A. I don't remember any specific 3 discussions. 4 Q. It appears from looking at 5 various corporate organizational charts that for 6 several years you were an executive 7 vice-president, and Doctor Herr and Doctor 8 Perelman were executive vice-presidents, in 9 addition to maybe one or two other individuals, 10 is that right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. By looking at that corporate 13 organizational chart, it would appear that 14 executive vice-presidents were only semi-equal 15 levels at least? 16 A. Yes, although during that 17 period, Doctor Perelman reported to Doctor Herr, 18 even though he was an executive vice-president. 19 Q. At any time before you became 20 president of Eli Lilly, did either one of those 21 individuals report to you in any way? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Your work and their work was 24 separate and autonomous? Page 49 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Now I would assume that by 3 virtue of the fact that you all were all members 4 of the board of directors, that you received 5 reports in connection with activities at Lilly 6 Research Labs in your capacities as directors of 7 the corporation? 8 A. Well, periodic, but not 9 detailed information. 10 Q. I understand that. But I 11 guess my question to you is before you ever came -- 12 before you became president of Lilly, did either 13 Doctor Perelman or Doctor Herr come to you with 14 any specific information or with any information 15 concerning activities of Lilly Research Labs in 16 connection with Prozac? 17 A. I don't remember any, I mean 18 it's very unlikely since I had no direct 19 involvement or responsibility for the 20 pharmaceutical business. 21 Q. All right. 22 A. My focus was strictly medical 23 device and diagnostics and the agricultural 24 division and Elizabeth Arden during part of that Page 50 1 period. 2 Q. Were there occasions while you 3 were in charge of corporate affairs that you 4 would have duties that would directly affect 5 Prozac? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Tell me about that. 8 A. Well, the corporate affairs 9 function as we have said reported to me and so 10 any of the media-related issues, specifically 11 after the CCHR onslaught, I would have had some 12 general awareness of. Corporate affairs reported 13 to somebody else but that individual reported to 14 me. 15 Q. We had a lot of documents 16 produced in connection with this litigation that 17 mentions a gentleman by the name of Ed West, 18 corporate spokesman for Lilly. Would he have 19 been under your indirect control? 20 A. Indirectly, yes. 21 Q. By virtue of the fact that you 22 were executive vice-president of Lilly 23 responsible for corporate affairs? 24 A. Yes. Page 51 1 Q. When was it that you first 2 heard anything in connection with any concern 3 raised by any entity or individual that there 4 might be a link between Prozac and suicidal 5 behavior or violent aggressive behavior? 6 MR. FREEMAN: Now that's two 7 questions, so let's answer it first with respect 8 to the suicide aspect. 9 A. Well, I don't remember the 10 specific time, but my recollection is the first 11 lawsuit or one of the early lawsuits was the 12 woman in New York, Hala, and that's when I 13 probably heard about the alleged linkage between 14 suicidal ideation and the ingestion of Prozac. 15 Q. That was brought to you -- it 16 was brought up in connection with a lawsuit filed 17 in New York by an individual by the name Hala? 18 A. I believe it's H-A-L-A. 19 Q. And when was this that you 20 heard of this? 21 A. I don't remember the exact 22 date, but it's somewhere in the 1990-1991 time 23 frame, probably 1990. 24 Q. Well, when did you first Page 52 1 become aware of the article published in the 2 American Journal of Psychiatry by Doctor Teicher 3 suggesting a possible link between Prozac and 4 suicide? 5 A. I would have heard of that 6 article within weeks of publication. 7 Q. All right. My question is, 8 did this Hala lawsuit arise before or after the 9 publication of that article? 10 A. I don't know the answer. You 11 can obviously determine that by -- it can be 12 determined by looking at the publication date and 13 lawsuit date, but I don't have that recollection. 14 Q. I'm not involved with that 15 lawsuit, and I've never heard of that lawsuit 16 before. But certainly I've heard of the 17 publication by Doctor Teicher, and that was in 18 February of 1990, early 1990. And discovery at 19 this point indicates that individuals at Lilly 20 knew about the impending publication of this 21 article in January, potentially, of 1990. What 22 I'm trying to get from you is what your first 23 information was or when you first learned that 24 anybody was raising the possibility that there Page 53 1 could be a link between Prozac and de novo 2 suicidal ideation or increased suicides? 3 A. My recollection is at the time 4 of the Teicher article would have been the first 5 time that I would have heard of this linkage. 6 Q. And then you later learned 7 that the first lawsuit you were aware of was this 8 Hala lawsuit, is that right? 9 A. The first lawsuit I remember 10 was the Hala lawsuit. 11 Q. How did you learn about that, 12 how did that come to your attention? 13 A. Just corporate communications. 14 When a lawsuit is filed, that information is 15 usually a wire story, and that wire story would 16 be circulated. 17 Q. Now, same questions in 18 connection with allegations that Prozac could be 19 linked to violent aggressive behavior. 20 A. Uh-huh. 21 Q. When did you first become 22 aware of concerns or allegations that there may 23 be some link between use of Prozac and violent 24 aggressive behavior? Page 54 1 A. Again, I don't have a perfect 2 recall here, but it would have certainly been 3 after the initial lawsuits or lawsuit pertaining 4 to alleged suicidal ideation, and there were 5 several lawsuits filed alleging Prozac as a 6 causative agent in violent behavior, but I don't 7 remember the specifics of them. 8 Q. Do you remember any concern 9 about that, you know, whether the -- whether it's 10 an allegation or whether it's raised in any way, 11 do you remember any concern about this issue of 12 violence and aggression before what we refer to 13 as the Wesbecker suit, that is the instance where 14 an individual down in Louisville, Kentucky went 15 into his former place of employment and killed 16 and wounded a number of individuals? 17 MR. FREEMAN: Question of 18 clarification. When you say concerned about, do 19 you mean any reason to believe that it caused it 20 or any research that he knows of or -- I don't 21 know what you mean when you say concerned about 22 it. 23 MR. SMITH: Either way. 24 Q. Was there any discussion or Page 55 1 speculation or do you remember it being raised at 2 all, whether or not there might be a relationship 3 between Prozac and increased violence and 4 aggressive behavior? 5 A. I certainly don't remember any 6 discussion about the potential causality prior to 7 the Wesbecker incident. 8 Q. You do recall the Wesbecker 9 incident? 10 A. I remember the Wesbecker name, 11 and I don't know the exact date. 12 MR. SMITH: Let's take a quick break. 13 (A SHORT RECESS WAS TAKEN.) 14 (PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 1 WAS 15 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND 16 RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.) 17 Q. Mister Bryson, we've handed 18 you a document that's been marked Exhibit 1, 19 which appears to be a portion of the minutes of 20 the board of directors of Eli Lilly and Company 21 meeting that contains a Prozac update, correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. This has to do with the 24 meeting of the board of directors of Eli Lilly Page 56 1 and Company that occurred on Monday, September 2 17, 1990, is that right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And you were a member of the 5 board of directors at that time, were you not? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you have any recollection 8 with respect to whether or not you were present 9 at that meeting? 10 A. I'm sure I was present at that 11 meeting, I only missed one board meeting in the 12 time I was a board member. 13 Q. And you don't recall missing 14 the September, 1990 board meeting? 15 A. No. 16 Q. How often was the board 17 meeting in 1990? 18 A. I think eight times a year. 19 Somewhere in that time frame we switched from ten 20 to eight, but I believe we were probably already 21 at eight by 1990. 22 Q. At the time you would have 23 been an executive vice-president with Eli Lilly 24 and Company? Page 57 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And I believe we already 3 enumerated the duties that you had at that time? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. This is a little less than a 6 year before you were elected president of Eli 7 Lilly and Company? 8 A. I think you're right. I 9 didn't become president until November 1 of '91. 10 When I was elected, you probably have the 11 minutes, but it may have been this meeting or the 12 October meeting in 1991, I'm not sure, I don't 13 remember which. 14 Q. Mister Bryson, in September, 15 1990, did you know that it was Mister Wood's 16 intention to step down as chief executive officer 17 of the corporation? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Do you recall when he 20 announced that intention? 21 A. He told me in June of '91. 22 Q. Did he tell you at that time 23 that he intended to recommend you as the chief 24 executive officer of the corporation? Page 58 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Had you and he discussed that 3 prior to that? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Was this a job you wanted? 6 A. It sounded appealing at the 7 time. 8 Q. I guess you wanted it at the 9 time? 10 A. Right. 11 Q. Do you recall Doctor Leigh 12 Thompson coming into the meeting and making a 13 presentation in connection with Prozac? 14 A. Not specifically, I mean 15 Doctor Thompson would appear periodically at 16 board meetings to talk about various medical 17 subjects, so this particular presentation I don't 18 specifically remember. 19 Q. Would it be accurate to state 20 that Doctor Leigh Thompson was an individual at 21 Eli Lilly and Company that you and/or other 22 members of the board of directors of the company 23 came to rely on to advise you in connection with 24 scientific medical matters involving the company? Page 59 1 A. Well, I don't think that's an 2 accurate statement. Doctor Thompson at the time 3 had the medical division reporting to him, and so 4 he would report periodically on issues pertaining 5 to the medical division, and was certainly viewed 6 as an advisor, but not the sole advisor on any 7 particular medical subject. 8 Q. I guess the reason I asked 9 that is because as I understand it, at some point 10 he had become the chief scientific officer to the 11 board, is that right, do you know anything about 12 that? 13 A. I think his title now is chief 14 scientific officer. 15 Q. When did he obtain that title? 16 A. I don't remember exactly, but 17 it certainly would have been after this 18 particular date. Again, I'm sure the records 19 reflect that. 20 Q. Would it have been during your 21 tenure? 22 A. It's during my tenure as the 23 CEO. 24 Q. So you would have been the Page 60 1 individual who would have named Doctor Thompson 2 or at least recommended to the board that Doctor 3 Thompson become the chief scientific officer of 4 the corporation? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Am I saying it right, chief 7 scientific officer of the corporation? 8 A. His title is chief scientific 9 officer, yes. 10 MR. FREEMAN: The only trouble with 11 your question is I'm not sure that the board has 12 to pass on that, I'm not sure in my mind. 13 Q. Is that position something 14 that you named as chief executive officer of the 15 corporation or is that something that has to be 16 approved by the board? 17 A. That was an appointment that I 18 made, and my guess is now, and don't hold me to 19 this, it was probably January of '93 when that 20 happened. But it is the kind of appointment that 21 I probably would have informed the board in 22 general thinking about succession planning, but 23 would not have necessarily asked for their 24 approval. Page 61 1 Q. Is Doctor Thompson a member of 2 the board of directors of Lilly? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Never has been? 5 A. No. 6 Q. He's an officer of the 7 corporation, though? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And were you the one that made 10 him an officer of the corporation or did it -- I 11 guess he would have held officer status by virtue 12 of the fact that he was vice-president of 13 medical? 14 A. You're asking a legal detail 15 that I'm not familiar with. Previously Doctor 16 Thompson would have been part of the Lilly 17 Research Laboratory's organization, and whether 18 he was at the same time an officer of the 19 corporation, I don't know that kind of detail, 20 I'm sorry. 21 Q. Why did you name Doctor 22 Thompson as chief scientific officer of the 23 company? 24 A. Well, Doctor Thompson was Page 62 1 named chief scientific officer for several 2 reasons. One, was to enable us to prepare or put 3 together a succession plan for Doctor Perelman in 4 the Lilly Research Laboratories. Secondly, there 5 was some other functions that needed to be 6 supervisor performed, and we put those functions 7 and set up two new divisions under Doctor 8 Thompson, one was a pharmacoeconomics division, 9 and another was a medical informatics area. And 10 when Doctor Thompson became the chief scientific 11 officer, we put those responsibilities under him. 12 At that point, he had no responsibilities 13 specifically within the Lilly Research 14 Laboratories. 15 Q. You say you needed to put a 16 plan together for succession for Doctor Perelman? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. Give me -- elaborate on that a 19 bit. 20 A. Well, Doctor Perelman was 21 getting old, like the rest of us, he was 22 approaching age sixty-five, and so we were -- and 23 as you know, he retired at the end of 1993. So 24 it was just a matter of putting a succession plan Page 63 1 in place, and in this case it entailed giving 2 Doctor Watanabe some additional responsibility in 3 that his post my departure, they have since named 4 Doctor Watanabe president of Lilly Research Labs. 5 Q. Okay. But would that have put -- 6 at least while you were there, would that have 7 put Doctor Thompson over Doctor Watanabe or -- 8 A. No. 9 Q. -- reporting to Doctor 10 Watanabe? 11 A. No, Doctor Thompson, in the 12 chief scientific officer role, did not report to 13 Doctor Watanabe, nor vice versa. He reported 14 directly to me as the CEO, but actually for 15 administrative purposes, he reported to Doctor 16 Perelman. On the organizational chart, Doctor 17 Thompson reported to me, but in terms of 18 administrative responsibility and supervisory 19 responsibility, Doctor Perelman performed that 20 function. Doctor Watanabe -- when Doctor 21 Thompson moved to that role, Doctor Watanabe 22 assumed all the responsibilities for discovery 23 research at Lilly and reported to Doctor 24 Perelman. Page 64 1 Q. Had there been a chief 2 scientific officer before you named Doctor 3 Thompson to that position? 4 A. No. 5 Q. It was a newly created post? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And I assume then that you had 8 the ultimate confidence in Doctor Thompson and 9 his ability to advise Lilly or the board of 10 directors in connection with scientific matters? 11 A. I had the ultimate confidence 12 in Doctor Thompson in performing the role we put 13 him in in January -- I believe it was January or 14 early '93, as the chief scientific officer. 15 Q. Doctor Thompson, at least by 16 virtue of these minutes, reported to the board on 17 statistics regarding the occurrence of suicide 18 and suicidal ideation in the United States and 19 the data of these phenomena that occurred during 20 the clinical trials and marketing experience, 21 correct? 22 A. Yes, according to the minutes. 23 Q. And he indicated that suicides 24 and suicidal acts were reported infrequently in Page 65 1 the extensive controlled clinical trials, and 2 that the occurrence and emergence of suicidal 3 thinking occurred less often in patients treated 4 with Prozac than on comparable drugs, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 MR. FREEMAN: That's what it says. 7 A. That's what the minutes 8 reflect. 9 Q. And the minutes also reflect 10 that Doctor Thompson advised the board of 11 directors of the corporation that suicide, 12 suicidal acts, and suicidal thoughts more 13 probably reflect the patient's underlying 14 disorder and not a causal relationship to Prozac, 15 correct? 16 A. It says Doctor Thompson 17 concluded. I think he was making a medical 18 interpretation rather than advising the board, I 19 mean he was informing the board, I think is the 20 appropriate way to describe his presentation. 21 Q. Well, his information was 22 taken by the board or at least by you as a board 23 member and officer of the corporation as being 24 medical information pertinent to suicide and Page 66 1 pertinent to Prozac. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And you looked to him as 4 having more expertise in this area than you did? 5 A. For sure. 6 Q. Then let me make sure I 7 understand, Mister Bryson. Do you feel that your 8 education or training enables you to render a 9 scientific opinion as an expert concerning 10 whether or not there is a link between Prozac and 11 suicidal thinking or violent aggressive behavior? 12 A. No. 13 Q. You are a pharmacist? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. But as far as knowing anything 16 about serotonin reuptake inhibitors and the 17 psychology or psychiatry of depression, you're 18 not an expert in that? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. I assume you've never 21 dispensed Prozac as a pharmacist? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. You never dispensed anything 24 as a pharmacist back in North Carolina? Page 67 1 A. That's essentially correct. 2 Q. I know you probably don't have 3 a specific recollection of Doctor Thompson's 4 presentation, but do you recall generally that 5 Doctor Thompson advised the board in September, 6 1990 concerning this potential link between 7 Prozac and suicides? 8 MR. FREEMAN: Potential lack of link. 9 A. As the minutes reflect, I mean 10 this is obviously a refresher for me, but 11 obviously Doctor Thompson commented on his 12 analysis -- or the analysis, I shouldn't say his, 13 of the data, and concluded as it says here that 14 there was no proven linkage between suicidal 15 ideation and the ingestion of Prozac. 16 (PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 2 WAS 17 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND 18 RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.) 19 Q. Mister Bryson, Exhibit 2 is 20 some Lilly, I believe its term is E-mail, going 21 between Dr. Leigh Thompson and several of the 22 psychiatrists and scientists at Lilly within the 23 medical division. Do you know Dr. Dan Masica or 24 know who he is? Page 68 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Dr. Robert Zerbe? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Dr. John Heiligenstein? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Dr. Charles Beasley? 7 A. I have heard the name. 8 Q. Dr. David Wheadon? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. I believe Gordon, Gilad 11 Gordon, is not a M.D. 12 A. I think he is, I think he's an 13 M.D. 14 Q. These are apparently -- 15 apparently Dr. Leigh Thompson had asked these 16 gentlemen to assist him in reviewing some data 17 for this September 17 board meeting, and starting 18 with the lower one-third of page one through the 19 top-third of page three, is apparently Dr. 20 Heiligenstein's comments in connection with Dr 21 Beasley and Wheadon, from their review of the 22 presentation that Dr. Thompson was going to make. 23 Do you understand that? 24 A. Yes. Page 69 1 Q. Read with me at the bottom of 2 page one where they say verbatim four or verbatim 3 four, however you want to say it, we feel that 4 caution should be exercised in the statement that 5 suicidality and hostile acts in patients taking 6 Prozac reflects the patient's disorder, and not a 7 causal relationship to Prozac. Post-marketing 8 reports are increasingly fuzzy, and we have 9 assigned yes, reasonably related on several 10 reports. Do you see where that's stated? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did Dr. Thompson -- do you 13 have any recollection of Dr. Thompson advising 14 the board in connection with this September 17th 15 meeting that his scientists had advised him that 16 there should be caution when you say that 17 suicidality and hostile acts in patients taking 18 Prozac reflects the patient's disorder and not a 19 causal relationship to Prozac? 20 A. I don't remember any statement 21 pro or con on that subject. 22 Q. Do you recall that Dr. 23 Thompson had advised you at the board meeting 24 that there were post-marketing reports at the Page 70 1 time in which they had assigned yes, reasonably 2 related in connection with this causal link 3 between Prozac and suicide and violent aggressive 4 behavior? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Would that have been 7 significant for you to know at the time, Mister 8 Bryson, that scientists -- the clinical research 9 physicians at Lilly were assigning, quote, yes, 10 reasonably related to reports of suicidality and 11 violent aggressive behavior? 12 A. I think it would have been 13 important to understand the context. As this 14 document states, post-marketing reports, as I 15 understand it, are often very inconclusive, and 16 as it says here, fuzzy. And there are times when 17 I believe the Lilly policy is to err on the side 18 of conservatism without knowing direct causal 19 link, and maybe in this case put down yes, 20 possibly, or whatever. 21 Q. Well, I take it from your 22 answer, Mister Bryson, you say err on the side of 23 conservatism, are you making the assumption that 24 this -- that these scientists are erroneous in Page 71 1 their assessment of whether or not there's a 2 relationship to suicidality in these 3 post-marketing reports? 4 A. No, I'm not making that 5 statement. 6 Q. You don't know, these 7 scientists could be entirely accurate when 8 they've said yes, reasonably related, on these 9 post-marketing reports? 10 A. That's entirely possible. I 11 don't think anyone knows. From looking at the 12 post-marketing data, I don't think you can always 13 draw a conclusion. 14 Q. Well, you understand what 15 these scientists are talking about, though, don't 16 you, Mister Bryson, in connection -- there are 17 documents and there are government forms called, 18 among other things, 1639s, where there's a report 19 of a particular adverse event, correct? 20 A. Yes. I've never seen one, but 21 I take your word for it. 22 Q. As chief executive officer of 23 the corporation, you were aware that Lilly had 24 reporting requirements in connection with adverse Page 72 1 experiences? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. With any of their 4 pharmaceuticals, correct? 5 A. Right. 6 Q. And that it was the duty of 7 particular clinical research physicians at Eli 8 Lilly and Company to examine those reports, 9 correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And did you know that in 12 connection with the clinical research 13 investigators, those investigators conducting 14 clinical trials, that the protocols called for 15 those investigators to assign a causal 16 relationship between the alleged adverse event 17 and the drug in question? 18 MR. FREEMAN: If you know, answer. 19 A. No, I didn't know. 20 Q. That doesn't surprise you, 21 though, that in Lilly clinical trials, Lilly was 22 interested in their investigators investigating 23 and making some determination in connection with 24 whether or not the drug under investigation Page 73 1 caused the particular adverse event? 2 A. Well, I'm not a practicing 3 physician, but I think my understanding is in 4 many cases it's not easy to determine causality, 5 and therefore I don't know what the forms 6 require. I think the forms undoubtedly require 7 that physicians report observed side effects. 8 Whether they're also required to determine 9 causality, I don't know the answer to that. 10 Q. Did you know, Mister Bryson, 11 when you were chief executive officer of Eli 12 Lilly and Company that there were physicians who 13 were reviewing reports of adverse events in 14 connection with Lilly products and making an 15 assignment in connection with whether or not 16 those events were related to the Lilly product? 17 A. No. 18 Q. You think that would be 19 something that would be worthwhile to do, though, 20 don't you? 21 A. Well, again, it depends on 22 whether or not the evidence was -- scientific 23 evidence was clearly stated, I mean there are 24 times when investigators may or may not have the Page 74 1 ability to make that causality determination. 2 Q. But you see my point is here, 3 apparently physicians at Lilly were making that 4 determination. 5 A. Well, yes, but, I think we're -- 6 maybe I've gotten lost here, I apologize. I 7 think we're talking about two different things, I 8 mean talking about double-blind randomized 9 clinical studies and physicians reporting side 10 effects is one thing. Post-marketing reports is 11 another reporting mechanism that -- I don't know 12 the details of it, but it's quite different, I 13 think, in terms of the documentation and the 14 detail and the support behind that documentation 15 than what you would get in a randomized 16 double-blind clinical trial. 17 Q. Well, are you saying that the 18 events should be investigated more carefully or 19 would be investigated more carefully if the 20 adverse event occurred during a clinical trial or 21 occurred in a post-marketing situation? 22 A. Well, you'll have to ask 23 somebody in the medical division or the FDA that 24 question, but my observation would be that -- or Page 75 1 my, maybe guess is a better word, would be that 2 the physicians have a lot more information on 3 patients that they're following closely in 4 clinical trials than they do on patients that are 5 often reporting post-marketing -- where 6 post-marketing events are reported. 7 Q. Okay. It would make sense, I 8 would assume, to you as formerly the chief 9 executive officer of the corporation, that if the 10 adverse event occurred during a clinical trial, 11 the clinical trial investigator would have more 12 information concerning the particular patient in 13 the particular circumstance, correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. But if the event occurred 16 during the post-marketing phase, out in the field 17 by a member of the public, then maybe the Lilly 18 lawyer -- the Lilly physician wouldn't know as 19 much about it, but the own personal physician of 20 that patient might have the most information 21 concerning that particular adverse event and 22 whether or not it's causally related to use of 23 the drug. Could you say that? 24 A. Well, I don't think, again, Page 76 1 that's always clear. My guess is, if I were a 2 patient, and I could come to you one time, you 3 could have very little medical history about me 4 as a patient, and you could prescribe any drug, 5 and I could have a side effect, you might not 6 have all the medical history about my previous 7 conditions or, you know, what other drugs I was 8 taking, whereas, I think, in a well-controlled 9 clinical trial, that information is well 10 documented as part of the patient history. 11 Q. All right. 12 A. So my point is, I don't think 13 it's always clear that the personal physician or 14 a physician who prescribes a product for a 15 patient always has perfect information or 16 substantial information about that patient's 17 medical history. And at the same time, that 18 patient -- that physician could submit a 19 post-marketing report form. 20 Q. What was Lilly's policy in 21 connection with making the determination of a 22 particular adverse event when it occurred in a 23 post-marketing setting? 24 A. You'll have to ask Dr. Page 77 1 Thompson that question, but it's my understanding 2 that the policy was to submit those events to the 3 Food and Drug Administration. 4 Q. Was there any policy by Lilly 5 clinical research physicians to talk with the 6 physician who reported the adverse event to get 7 information concerning the event itself, and the 8 patient? 9 A. My understanding -- my guess 10 is the answer to that is yes. Again, you're 11 talking about policy within a specific division 12 that I don't know the exact answer to. But, I 13 mean, that makes sense, that as a follow-up to 14 understand the events involved with the 15 development of a drug, that there's communication 16 between the clinical investigators and 17 representatives of Lilly. 18 Q. Well, during that period of 19 time that you were chief executive officer of the 20 corporation, that would have, had it been put to 21 you, that would have been what you would have 22 wanted to have been done, correct? 23 A. Well, maybe you -- would you 24 state that again, because we've been all around Page 78 1 the subject and I'm not sure where we are. 2 Q. If somebody came to you within 3 the Lilly organization when you were chief 4 executive officer of the corporation and said 5 Mister Bryson, as president of the company, do 6 you want us to obtain as much information as 7 possible when we investigate these adverse events 8 related to Prozac, you would, of course, told 9 them yes, make a thorough and complete 10 investigation, would you not? 11 A. Yes, but they would take that 12 question to Dr. Perelman or Dr. Herr, they 13 wouldn't come to me. But I think prudent 14 practice would be to do everything you can to 15 understand as best you can, and it's not always 16 possible, it's difficult to track patients and/or 17 physicians, but do everything you can to 18 understand what's happening with your product. 19 Q. It doesn't take a medical 20 doctor to make that determination, does it, that 21 that would be the best policy? 22 A. Well -- 23 Q. To get as much information as 24 possible. Page 79 1 A. That is a medical question. 2 There are also regulatory issues involved. 3 Q. Turn to page two. Right at 4 the middle of the page under what says page five, 5 it says under suicidal thinking in clinical 6 trials you may want to note that trials were not 7 intended to address issue of suicidality. Also 8 in paragraph two, patients were excluded who were 9 serious suicidal risk. My question is -- did I 10 read that correctly? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did Dr. Thompson advise the 13 board in September, 1990 that the clinical trials 14 were not intended to address the issue of 15 suicidality? 16 A. I don't recall that. 17 Q. Were you under the impression 18 that the clinical trials done on Prozac did 19 address the issue of suicidality? 20 A. I don't remember that 21 specific. I mean my recollection was that the 22 clinical trials on Prozac were conducted to 23 demonstrate safety and efficacy in the treatment 24 of depression. Page 80 1 Q. All right. Do you know 2 whether that included, as is stated here, the 3 issue of suicidality? 4 A. No, I don't. 5 Q. Did you know that patients -- 6 that many patients were excluded from the Prozac 7 clinical trials if they were, quote, serious 8 suicidal risk, end quote? 9 A. No, I did not know that. 10 Q. Would this have been something 11 that you would have been interested in as a 12 member of the board in December -- September, 13 1990, that the clinical trials in fact were not 14 intended to address the issue of suicidality? 15 MR. FREEMAN: You are beginning to ask 16 him medical questions. 17 A. You sure are. 18 MR. FREEMAN: And he's not a medical 19 doctor. 20 MR. SMITH: I know that, I asked him. 21 I asked him would you have wanted to know as a 22 member of the board of directors of Eli Lilly and 23 Company this information. 24 MR. FREEMAN: Since he's not a medical Page 81 1 doctor, and since there are ethical 2 considerations in connection with it, I suggest 3 that he's an inappropriate person to ask that 4 question. 5 MR. SMITH: I'm not holding him to a 6 medical standard, I'm asking him what he would 7 have wanted as a member of the board of directors 8 of Eli Lilly and Company. 9 A. But you are asking me a 10 question about protocol designed for a central 11 nervous system illness, and I don't have the 12 scientific background to understand all the 13 elements and nuances of that. There may be very 14 good reasons to exclude certain patients in a 15 particular kind of clinical trial. As a matter 16 of fact, some cases may be determined by the FDA, 17 not by the company itself. 18 Q. I'm not asking -- my question 19 is not whether or not it was appropriate or 20 inappropriate to do this, I'm asking you would 21 you have wanted to know, as a member of the board 22 of directors in September of 1990 when this issue 23 was receiving a lot of media attention, that the 24 clinical trials were not intended to assess the Page 82 1 issue of suicidality? 2 MR. FREEMAN: Paul, he can't answer 3 that question without getting into medical 4 opinion. 5 A. The only answer I can give you 6 is -- I mean I don't have perfect recollection of 7 Leigh Thompson's presentation on the 17th, and 8 consequently, I don't remember whether Leigh made 9 any reference to that subject or not. 10 Q. All right. Can we say that 11 this would have been something that you would 12 have left to the medical division in general, and 13 Dr. Thompson and his staff specifically? 14 A. I think protocol design for 15 sure is left to the medical division and the 16 specialists in the medical division. 17 (PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 3 WAS 18 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND 19 RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.) 20 (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.) 21 Q. I can point you to some 22 specific points, but I want you to at least have 23 the opportunity to know what you're looking at. 24 A. Okay. Page 83 1 Q. Exhibit 3 appears to be 2 minutes of the special pharmaceutical product 3 strategy committee of which you were a member, is 4 that right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And this occurred back in 7 January of 1988, correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And the balance of the three 10 pages are minutes in connection with Prozac, 11 right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. In 1988, would marketing have 14 been something over which you would have had 15 ultimate responsibility? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Who was responsible for sales? 18 A. For pharmaceutical sales and 19 marketing? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. Gene Step. 22 Q. Why were you on the special 23 pharmaceutical product strategy committee then? 24 A. I was just a high ranking Page 84 1 executive in the company, so I was on the product 2 strategy committee as a result of that. 3 Q. Did you make these meetings 4 generally? 5 A. Generally, yes. And special 6 in this case -- by the way, the product strategy 7 committee had a regular calendar set up a year in 8 advance, I'm not sure of the frequency, but I 9 think once a month. Special in this case denotes 10 something outside of that calendar, so it was an 11 additional meeting that was called. So the 12 committee title itself was product strategy 13 committee. 14 Q. The second paragraph of page 15 two indicates that Dista would initially 16 introduce Prozac to psychiatrists, correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And that promotions to primary 19 care physicians would follow in ninety days? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. And that the reason that 22 Prozac would initially be introduced to 23 psychiatrists would be that they account for 24 twenty-five percent of the antidepressant Page 85 1 prescriptions in that they influence general 2 practitioners, correct? 3 A. Yes, that's what this says. 4 Q. Was it the belief at the time, 5 at this time in 1988, that Lilly would be able to 6 increase their sales of Prozac by virtue of 7 moving from psychiatrists to general 8 practitioners and emphasizing Prozac? 9 A. The answer is obviously yes. 10 I mean there are a relatively small number of 11 psychiatrists in the United States, and many more 12 primary care physicians. 13 Q. And if you've got primary care 14 physicians writing prescriptions for Prozac, 15 you're going to have more prescriptions for 16 Prozac. 17 A. Primary care physicians see 18 depressed patients. So it's just a matter of -- 19 Q. I understand that, and I'm not 20 suggesting that there be one over the other. 21 A. Uh-huh. 22 Q. My point is, is that you're 23 going to increase your market, you're going to 24 increase your sales if you have a product that is Page 86 1 prescribed by general practitioners and not 2 limited to psychiatrists. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. On page -- well, it's marked 5 three eighty-one of that exhibit, up in the top 6 one-third it indicates that as of January 15, 7 1988 there were a total of thirty-one deaths in 8 patients involved in the Prozac clinical trials. 9 In our analysis, none of the deaths were 10 attributed to the patient's use of Prozac. It 11 says eighteen were suicides, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall Dr. Masica 14 making that presentation at that meeting? 15 A. No. 16 Q. I assume then you wouldn't 17 have recalled that eighteen of the thirty-one 18 deaths as of January 15, 1988 were related to 19 suicide? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do you recall any concern at 22 that time that there might be a relationship 23 between Prozac and suicide? 24 A. No. Page 87 1 (PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 4 WAS 2 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND 3 RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.). 4 Q. Exhibit No. 4 appears to be 5 either a Telex or E-Mail or some type of written 6 communication between Germany and Indianapolis, 7 does it not? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And Bad Homburg is where you 10 had your German, what is it, division or 11 affiliate? 12 A. Yes, an affiliate. 13 Q. And this is a communication to 14 individuals in Indianapolis from Germany 15 including Dr. Zerbe and Dr. Weinstein -- 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. -- and Dr. Leigh Thompson, 18 correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. The entire document has to do 21 with registration of Prozac in Germany, doesn't 22 it? 23 A. Appears to, yes. 24 Q. And point ten indicates that Page 88 1 the BGA suspects Fluoxetine to be a stimulating 2 activating drug, side effect profile suicide, 3 suicide attempts, correct? 4 A. Yes, that's what the document 5 says. 6 Q. Did you know, Mister Bryson, 7 that in 1984 the German equivalent to the Food 8 and Drug Administration suspected that Prozac was 9 a stimulating activating drug? 10 A. No. 11 Q. With a side effect profile of 12 suicides and suicide attempts? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Turn with me to point 15 fourteen. There your German affiliate indicates, 16 quote, we've already -- as we already explained 17 by our Telex to Dr. Zerbe of June 8, 1984, we 18 need a careful analysis of suicides and suicide 19 attempts, patient by patient, symptomatology, 20 severity upon entry into the study, and week by 21 week until the event occurred, dose of 22 Fluoxetine, side effects, et cetera. This is a 23 very serious issue in the opinion of the BGA. It 24 might well be that we will have to recommend Page 89 1 concomitant tranquilizer intake for the first two 2 or three weeks in the package literature. Did I 3 read that correctly, sir? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did you know that the German 6 government was in 1984 considering that 7 concomitant tranquilizers be used in connection 8 with Prozac for the first two or three weeks? 9 A. No. 10 Q. You don't -- nobody brought 11 this to your attention back in 1984? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Would this have been something 14 that should have been submitted to the Food and 15 Drug Administration? 16 A. You're asking me a question 17 about U.S. regulatory issues, and I have no 18 knowledge of that. 19 Q. If you had been asked during 20 your tenure as chairman of the board of Eli Lilly -- 21 A. I was never chairman, I might 22 still be there. 23 Q. Chief executive officer, would 24 you have recommended that the Food and Drug Page 90 1 Administration have this? 2 A. I don't -- again, you're 3 asking me a medical question. I don't think the 4 FDA -- I don't know that the FDA is interested in 5 every concern of every regulatory body around the 6 world. I mean they do their own analysis and 7 obviously if it's a significant scientific issue 8 that's well documented, then it's routinely 9 reported. 10 Q. Let's talk about that then, 11 because I have another document I would like to 12 show you. 13 A. Are we through with 4? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. Okay. 16 (PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 5 WAS 17 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND 18 RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.). 19 Q. Exhibit 5 is a document that 20 apparently was authored in April of 1985, 21 correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And that, again, is 24 communications from your German Bad Homburg Page 91 1 division to the home office at Indianapolis, 2 correct? 3 A. Yes, and to locations in 4 western Europe as well. 5 Q. At one time this would have 6 been something you would have had some 7 responsibility over? 8 A. Yes, three years before this, 9 right, part of it. 10 Q. But you didn't have this 11 responsibility in 1985, did you? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Now, apparently this also 14 concerns Prozac and the registration of Prozac in 15 Germany, correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And that document reflects 18 that there was a meeting with a professor and his 19 co-worker to use them as a consultant to the 20 company to secure registration of Prozac in 21 Germany, correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And this consultant expert had 24 reviewed some data, correct? Page 92 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And had left a twenty-one page 3 typewritten report? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And that on the second page, 6 he, the author of this Telex, summarizes findings 7 in the report of the Lilly consultant, correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. That consultant observed is, 10 down at the one, two, three, four, five, six, 11 seven, seventh bullet point under safety, quote, 12 still not resolved is the fact that suicide 13 attempts have been observed more frequently on 14 Fluoxetine as compared to Imipramine. Only 15 epidemiologic data or literature on other 16 antidepressants may help to identify whether it 17 happened by chance that incidents of suicide 18 attempts was abnormally high on Fluoxetine or 19 abnormally low under comparitors, end quote, 20 correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And with respect to the 23 benefit risk ratio, that consultant observed that 24 this was not unequivocally positive, and says, Page 93 1 quote, therefore it is of great importance to 2 determine certain type of patients who will 3 better respond to Fluoxetine than to Imipramine 4 so that higher risk might be acceptable, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Were you aware of this 7 consultant that had made these findings back in 8 1985? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Was it ever mentioned to you 11 that there was a twenty-one page report of a 12 Lilly consultant that had observed suicide 13 attempts more frequently on Prozac than on 14 Imipramine? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Obviously you hadn't seen the 17 twenty-one page report either? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Would this twenty-one page 20 report have been something that should have been 21 sent to the Food and Drug Administration in your 22 opinion? 23 A. I think that's a determination 24 that medical would make, and again, I also don't Page 94 1 know the regulatory requirements. 2 Q. Did Dr. Thompson ever advise 3 you in this September, 1990 board meeting that 4 there was a German consultant hired by Lilly that 5 had found frequent Fluoxetine incidents of 6 suicide as compared to Imipramine? 7 A. Not that I recall. 8 Q. Look at the third page of this 9 exhibit. Apparently that expert also indicated 10 that in connection with a prerequisite for 11 successful outcome, quote, limited indication, 12 that is mild to moderate indogenous depression, 13 plus the precautionary statement concerning 14 suicidal risk, correct? 15 A. Yes, that's what the document 16 says. 17 Q. Did you know that there was a 18 possibility that there was going to have to be a 19 precautionary statement in Germany concerning 20 suicidal risk and Prozac? 21 A. No. Did the final outcome 22 come out that way? 23 Q. The final outcome came out 24 where the present package insert -- I'll just Page 95 1 read this to you for your benefit. Quote, risk 2 of suicide -- 3 MR. SMITH: Do you want to read this 4 with me? 5 MR. FREEMAN: It says patient risks. 6 A. It says risk patients, risk of 7 suicide, Fluctin, which is the German name for 8 Prozac, does not have a general sedative effect 9 on the central nervous system. Therefore for 10 his/her own safety, the patient must be 11 sufficiently observed until the antidepressant 12 effect of Fluctin sets in. Taking an additional 13 sedative may be necessary. This also applies in 14 cases of extreme sleep disturbances or 15 excitability, end quote. That's our 16 understanding of what the present German 17 packaging insert requires. Do you have any 18 problem with that language? 19 A. I can't answer the medical 20 specifics, but it seems medical practice, prudent 21 medical practice around the world is that you 22 follow closely depressed patients, period. 23 Q. Do you have any problem with a 24 recommendation that a sedative be prescribed with Page 96 1 Prozac in certain individuals? 2 MR. FREEMAN: Be considered, be 3 considered, isn't that what it's saying? 4 MR. SMITH: The insert says taking an 5 additional sedative may be necessary. 6 MR. FREEMAN: May be necessary, all 7 right. 8 Q. Do you have any problem with 9 that language? 10 A. That's a medical 11 determination, I can't speak to that. 12 Q. Let me just show you -- would 13 you have any objection, as a member of the board 14 of directors and former chief executive officer 15 and president of Eli Lilly and Company, of that 16 particular language being contained in the United 17 States prescribing information? 18 MR. FREEMAN: Objection, that's a 19 medical question and an FDA question, neither of 20 which this witness is qualified. 21 MR. SMITH: My question is directed to 22 the witness as former chairman of the executive 23 committee -- 24 MR. FREEMAN: It's still a medical Page 97 1 question. 2 MR. SMITH: -- chief executive officer 3 of the company, and president of the company. 4 Q. I'm not asking your medical 5 opinion, I'm asking your opinion, Mister Bryson, 6 as president of the company, the boss. 7 A. It really is a medical 8 question. I think the determination of what 9 concomitant drugs are really administered is best 10 determined by a professional looking at each 11 individual patient, and by the regulatory bodies 12 who really look at all of the information. I 13 mean I can't really say yes, that should be in, 14 or no, it should not be. 15 Q. Well, I understand that you're 16 not a medical doctor. But as the president of 17 the company, would you have had any objection to 18 that language being used? 19 MR. FREEMAN: He's already -- you've 20 asked him and he's answered it, so that's it. He 21 said it's a medical question. 22 A. It's a medical question. 23 Q. I didn't know whether he had 24 instructed you not to answer it or just gave you Page 98 1 some help in the last answer. 2 A. I'll take it. 3 Q. Can we say that, in connection 4 with this question, that you as president would 5 have looked to advice from the medical division 6 since you're not a doctor? 7 A. The determination of the 8 package insert wording is often -- it's my 9 understanding is jointly determined by -- finally 10 determined by the Food and Drug Administration, 11 and the Lilly Research Labs, which would 12 certainly include the medical division, would 13 make Lilly's recommendation and present Lilly's 14 data, and the final language is really determined 15 by the regulatory bodies. And as you no 16 doubtedly know, it's different around the world. 17 Q. Well, did Lilly have a policy 18 of taking into account determinations and 19 requirements of foreign regulatory bodies in 20 connection with safety of their product? 21 A. Say that again, I'm sorry. 22 (THE COURT REPORTER READ BACK THE 23 REQUESTED TESTIMONY.) 24 A. Yes. Do we comply with Page 99 1 regulatory requirements in individual countries? 2 Q. Obviously you do. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. My question is, does Lilly 5 have a policy in connection with looking to those 6 regulatory bodies, and if they raise an issue on 7 safety, Lilly will examine that issue themselves? 8 A. Yes, it's my understanding. 9 Q. In other words -- my point 10 here is, and I won't beat around the bush, German 11 government obviously from these documents is 12 raising a question early on in connection with 13 whether or not Prozac is activating and whether 14 or not it presents a risk of suicide, correct, by 15 virtue of what these documents say? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. You see the German package 18 insert, which is different, and mentions Prozac, 19 risk of suicide, and prescribing tranquilizers in 20 close observations, correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Which is in some part 23 different from the United States prescribing 24 information? Page 100 1 MR. FREEMAN: Objection. The basis on 2 which you stated that is incorrect, and if you'll 3 read the question back, I'll state specifically 4 the objection. 5 MR. SMITH: Can I finish my question? 6 MR. FREEMAN: Why don't you start over 7 then. 8 MR. SMITH: I can't do that. 9 MR. FREEMAN: Okay. Continuing 10 objection. 11 Q. The German government is 12 raising this as a safety issue, are they not? 13 A. They're raising a question is 14 my understanding. 15 Q. Do you know of anything that 16 was done by Eli Lilly and Company to examine that 17 safety issue? 18 A. I don't know whether anything 19 was or was not done. 20 Q. Do you have -- 21 A. In 1984, as I said, I had no 22 involvement with the pharmaceutical division. 23 Q. Do you know -- well, I'm 24 talking about policy. Do you know whether Page 101 1 there's specific things that the company itself 2 requires to be done other than mere compliance 3 with foreign regulations? 4 A. I think the company certainly 5 demonstrated it approaches issues like this in a 6 sound scientific fashion, and Dan Masica, in the 7 PSC presentation that you referred to, obviously 8 analyzed suicide patients, the potential of 9 patients taking -- who died of suicide while 10 taking Prozac. So obviously an analysis was 11 done. 12 Q. As far as counts? 13 A. As far as numbers. 14 Q. The committee meeting, he just 15 gave accounts, correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Numbers? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I believe it was thirty-one 20 deaths, eighteen attributable to suicides, 21 correct? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Other than that type of 24 analysis, do you know of any analysis that he Page 102 1 made? 2 A. No, I do not. 3 Q. Did you know, Mister Bryson, 4 that there were discussions in connection with 5 the Food and Drug Administration once this issue 6 of suicidality came up in the United States of 7 Lilly doing further studies? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did you know that the Food and 10 Drug Administration had suggested that large 11 prospective studies be done examining this issue? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did you know that the Food and 14 Drug Administration has suggested that a 15 potential rechallenge protocol or rechallenge 16 study be done? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Did you know that in that 19 particular study, that the patients who had had 20 suicidal experiences, suicidal ideation, on 21 Prozac would be rechallenged with Prozac, given 22 the drug again under controlled circumstances, to 23 see whether or not the adverse event was 24 duplicated? Page 103 1 A. No. 2 Q. Did you know that a protocol 3 specifically was prepared by Lilly setting out 4 how such a rechallenge study would be done? 5 A. No. This is not information 6 that I would have normally received. 7 Q. Well, if this protocol was 8 sent to the Food and Drug Administration when you 9 were the chief executive officer, would you not 10 have received some information concerning studies 11 being done in connection with this issue? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Wasn't this issue of suicide 14 and Prozac, violent aggressive behavior and 15 Prozac, something that you were interested in 16 when you were the chief executive officer of the 17 corporation? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And what had -- had you made 20 any determination yourself with respect to 21 whether or not this issue had been scientifically 22 examined? 23 A. I relied on Dr. Perelman and 24 the medical division. Page 104 1 Q. What did Dr. Perelman and the 2 medical division tell you when you were the chief 3 executive officer concerning what had been done 4 to investigate this issue? 5 A. Well, I don't recall anything 6 specifically, but obviously my recollection is in 7 a very general way that we had thoroughly looked 8 at suicidal ideation and the use of Prozac. 9 Q. In what way had this thorough 10 analysis been made? 11 A. If I'm not mistaken, this was 12 an important part of the FDA advisory committee 13 presentation on the use of antidepressants, and 14 the Prozac information was presented, and I don't 15 recall the specifics -- the one thing that I do 16 recall in a general way was when all the patients 17 who were taking Prozac, when the data was 18 compared to suicidal ideation patients taking 19 Prozac versus patients taking placebo versus 20 patients taking tricyclic antidepressants, the 21 incidence of suicide was lower in the case of 22 patients taking Prozac in well-controlled trials 23 than it was with patients taking tricyclic 24 antidepressants, and lower than patients who were Page 105 1 on placebo. 2 Q. So that would necessarily have 3 had to have been the clinical trial data that was 4 being analyzed? 5 A. Yes, obviously. But under 6 that data, under those circumstances, I think 7 there's a very significant ethical question. If 8 you know that the incidence of suicide is lower 9 in patients taking Prozac than it is in patients 10 taking a placebo, I think there's a serious 11 ethical question about whether or not you would 12 rechallenge patients and have some of them go on 13 placebo when they're known depressives. 14 Q. Why do you suspect that Lilly 15 would have prepared and gone to the trouble of 16 preparing a formal protocol for the FDA? 17 A. I don't know. Maybe the FDA 18 demanded it, I don't know. 19 Q. Why would the FDA have 20 demanded it if there had been serious ethical 21 problems? 22 A. You're making an assumption 23 the government is always logical. 24 Q. And if the -- if it was Page 106 1 demonstrated that Prozac in fact lowered the 2 incidence of suicidality, what would be the 3 problem from an ethical standpoint of 4 rechallenging individuals with Prozac? 5 A. The ethical problem is not 6 Prozac, it's do you put known depressed patients 7 on placebo. 8 Q. No, I don't think that known 9 depressed patients are going to get placebo under 10 the rechallenge protocol. 11 A. I've never seen the protocol, 12 so I don't know. 13 Q. You didn't even know a 14 protocol existed until today, did you? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Nobody ever brought a protocol 17 to you and discussed this issue with you while 18 you were the chief executive officer of the 19 corporation. 20 A. I'm not a physician. 21 Q. You didn't know what efforts 22 were being done to investigate this 23 scientifically, especially after the FDA advisory 24 committee, did you? Page 107 1 A. No, I did not. 2 Q. The FDA advisory committee, I 3 believe, was September, 1991, and you became 4 chairman of the board, chief executive officer, 5 in November, 1991? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Was it your judgment or was it 8 your understanding when you became chair -- chief 9 executive officer that this issue of the question 10 of Prozac and aggressive behavior and Prozac and 11 suicidality had been put to rest? 12 A. I actually don't remember the 13 specific dates, but the Food and Drug 14 Administration did issue a report following the 15 advisory committee meeting, and I don't know 16 exactly what the dates were of that. 17 Q. Do you know of any scientific 18 inquiry that occurred while you were the chief 19 executive officer of the company in connection 20 with studying whether or not there would be a 21 link between suicide and Prozac? 22 A. I don't remember any direct 23 contact or specific contact on that subject. 24 Q. Were you aware of any Page 108 1 discussions between Dr. Leigh Thompson and Dr. 2 Paul Leber of the Food and Drug Administration 3 where there was mention made that there be some 4 count placed on the number of events reported in 5 connection with suicides and Prozac? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Do you know Dr. Paul Leber? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Do you know who he is? 10 A. I know he works in the FDA, 11 but that's the extent of my knowledge. 12 Q. Mister Bryson, let me cover 13 just a couple more areas, and I think I'll have 14 you out of here in five minutes. 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. Dr. Perelman mentioned that 17 there was a regular meeting every Tuesday of the 18 executive committee to review ongoing progress of 19 Prozac, the problems associated with or allegedly 20 associated with Prozac, as well as the marketing 21 of this drug. 22 MR. FREEMAN: Not executive committee. 23 Q. Or a committee that comprised 24 many members of the executive committee. And I Page 109 1 believe he mentioned that you were on that 2 committee, is that correct? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. Do you have any specific 5 recollection of anything mentioned in any of 6 these meetings with respect to Prozac and suicide 7 and Prozac and violent aggressive behavior? 8 A. Well, the meetings were held, 9 I think almost every Tuesday, or they may not 10 have been weekly, but close to it, at least in 11 the beginning. And I agree with Joe, it's not an 12 executive committee meeting, it was a meeting 13 with people that may have had some issues related 14 to Prozac, and the primary purpose of the 15 meetings was an efficient means of communication 16 about all the Prozac issues. So any kind of 17 study that came up would have probably been at 18 least mentioned or noted or activities or news 19 articles or whatever. 20 Q. Do you have any recollection 21 of you, yourself, having any specific question in 22 mind or presenting any question or in any way 23 contributing to the discussions in the committee 24 concerning the issue of Prozac and suicide or Page 110 1 Prozac and violent aggressive behavior? 2 A. No, not specific recollection. 3 Q. Anything in general? 4 A. Well, no. I mean, again, it 5 was a weekly kind of update on all the issues, so 6 you would have covered lots of things. I don't 7 remember any one specific topic or question or 8 presentation, I mean it went on for, I don't 9 know, a couple of years maybe. 10 Q. Did you have any specific 11 responsibilities in connection with your 12 membership in that group? 13 A. Well, the reason I was there 14 was -- at the time the meetings were held, the 15 corporate communications or corporate affairs 16 function reported to me. So the media issues -- 17 somebody else was actually there, but I mean I 18 was there because that function reported to me. 19 Q. Would it be accurate to state 20 that the plans were that Lilly would defend 21 Prozac in the media as a safe and efficacious 22 drug? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And that -- Page 111 1 A. I think initially, for a long 2 time, Lilly did not directly defend Prozac on 3 talk shows or whatever because there was very 4 strong feeling that our communication about the 5 drug should be to professionals in the health 6 care community. 7 Q. But that feeling changed or 8 that direction changed at least. 9 A. I think there were certain 10 circumstances where an accurate representation of 11 the company position on various issues, either 12 promotion or scientific issues, needed to be 13 presented and couldn't be presented effectively 14 by an outside representative. 15 Q. There was a plan to attack the 16 Church of Scientology, was there not? 17 A. No, I don't agree with that. 18 Q. Well, do you disagree that it 19 was a feeling on the part of Lilly that it should 20 be pointed out that the attacks on Prozac were 21 generated by the Church of Scientology, that they 22 were not scientifically founded, and that the 23 Church of Scientology in in effect a cult? 24 A. I think the Lilly position was Page 112 1 that the allegations by CCHR in many cases, or as 2 far as I know, every case, were not factual. 3 And, so, there certainly was an effort to defend 4 Prozac and defend the company, defend itself 5 vis-a-vis the attacks from the Citizens 6 Commission on Human Rights. 7 Q. And part of that defense would 8 have been an offing against CCHR, Church of 9 Scientology? 10 A. I don't think there's any 11 evidence of that. 12 Q. If that were written, you 13 haven't seen that written? 14 A. That we were going to attack 15 CCHR? 16 Q. Attack the Church of 17 Scientology. 18 MR. FREEMAN: If you have got anything 19 written on that subject, please present it to 20 him. 21 MR. SMITH: I don't think I have it 22 with me, but if it's been written, whatever is 23 written speaks for itself. 24 A. I certainly have no Page 113 1 recollection of any plan or any document. 2 MR. SMITH: You're not going offend 3 me, I'm not a member of the Church of Scientology 4 or CCHR, nor are any of my clients. Anything 5 else specifically with respect to communications 6 that was involved in this Tuesday morning 7 meeting? 8 A. Nothing specific that I 9 recall. 10 Q. Were you involved in any way 11 in discussions of reducing the dosage of Prozac 12 from twenty to ten milligrams? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Do you recall any discussions 15 concerning that issue? 16 A. I think there would have been 17 discussion at the Tuesday morning meeting, and 18 probably other places as well, but maybe a 19 reporting of the Tuesday morning meeting of the 20 liquid formulation, which was a mechanism for 21 physicians to lower the dose if they so chose. 22 Q. But as far as the pulvule 23 dosage, it had been manufactured only in twenty 24 milligram pulvules for -- from 1987 until 1993, Page 114 1 and in 1993, ten milligram came out, correct? 2 A. I mean I don't remember, but I 3 do remember that the ten milligrams was approved, 4 I don't know exactly when. 5 Q. Do you recall any discussion 6 of adverse events being related to higher doses 7 of Prozac versus lower doses of Prozac? 8 A. I don't recall seeing any 9 evidence that there was a correlation between 10 side effects and dosage. 11 Q. Do you recall any discussion 12 of that, whether you saw any evidence or not? 13 A. I don't recall it 14 specifically. My guess is when the ten milligram 15 issue probably would have been for information 16 purposes brought up either here or at product 17 strategy committee, somebody would have talked 18 about side effects and dosage relationship, but I 19 don't remember it specifically. 20 Q. Do you recall who that would 21 have been that would have addressed that issue? 22 A. No, I don't. 23 Q. Who were the other members of 24 that meeting -- of that Tuesday morning group? Page 115 1 A. Certainly Perelman, Dick Wood, 2 when he was there, Earl Herr, Gene Step, Sidney 3 Taurel, when he was in town, somebody from 4 corporate affairs, usually Mitch Daniels, I would 5 assume, somebody from legal, J.B. King, usually, 6 and possibly other people. And then depending on 7 the subjects, and I think the attendees differed 8 depending on the issue. There would have been 9 somebody from the Lilly Research Laboratories, 10 like Gary Tollefson or Bob Zerbe or people of 11 that nature. 12 Q. Was Leigh Thompson generally 13 in attendance at those meetings? 14 A. Leigh would have certainly 15 been at some. I don't know whether -- I don't 16 know what generally in attendance means. I don't 17 remember -- Leigh travelled a lot, I don't 18 remember him being there each week. 19 MR. SMITH: I think that's all I have, 20 Mister Bryson, thank you. 21 MR. FREEMAN: No questions. 22 (THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED.) Page 116 1 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ) 2 : ss COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) 3 4 I, MARY KATHLEEN NOLD, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN 5 AND FOR THE STATE OF KENTUCKY AT LARGE, DO HEREBY 6 CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TESTIMONY OF 7 VAUGHN D. BRYSON 8 WAS TAKEN BEFORE ME AT THE TIME AND PLACE AS 9 STATED IN THE CAPTION; THAT THE WITNESS WAS FIRST 10 DULY SWORN TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, 11 AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH; THAT THE SAID 12 PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN DOWN BY ME IN STENOGRAPHIC 13 NOTES AND AFTERWARDS TRANSCRIBED UNDER MY 14 DIRECTION; THAT IT IS A TRUE, COMPLETE AND 15 CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE SAID PROCEEDINGS SO 16 HAD; THAT THE APPEARANCES WERE AS STATED IN THE 17 CAPTION. 18 WITNESS MY SIGNATURE THIS THE 13TH DAY OF 19 JUNE, 1994. 20 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 10, 1994. 21 22 23 _________________________ MARY KATHLEEN NOLD 24 COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF KENTUCKY AT LARGE Page 117 1 2 3 E R R A T A S H E E T 4 5 STATE OF INDIANA ) : SS 6 COUNTY OF ) 7 8 I, VAUGHN BRYSON, THE UNDERSIGNED 9 DEPONENT, HAVE THIS DATE READ THE FOREGOING PAGES 10 OF MY DEPOSITION AND WITH THE CHANGES NOTED 11 BELOW, IF ANY, THESE PAGES CONSTITUTE A TRUE AND 12 ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION OF MY DEPOSITION GIVEN ON 13 THE 26TH OF MAY, 1994 AT THE TIME AND PLACE 14 STATED THEREIN. 15 PAGE NO. LINE NO. CHANGE REASON Page 118 1 PAGE NO. LINE NO. CHANGE REASON 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _____________________________ 9 VAUGHN BRYSON 10 SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 11 _____ DAY OF __________, 1994. 12 _____________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF 13 INDIANA AT LARGE Page 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Page 120 1 DIRECT EXAMINATIONBY MR. SMITH:...................13 2 COMMONWEALTH.....................................117 3 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 1.........................56 4 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 2.........................68 5 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 3.........................83 6 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 4.........................88 7 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 5.........................91 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Page 121