These practices followed a history of tobacco companies' attempts to hide information from public scrutiny through inappropriate privilege claims. The documents refused, based on BAT's claim of privilege or protected status, were simply omitted from production without identifying for their absence or stating any basis for the claim. At Guildford, BAT habitually took many months to process photocopy requests, with the delay ostensibly to permit review of potential privilege claims. 3–5 One seminal difference is that in Minnesota, privilege and protected document claims were made in advance of public access being granted, and requested photocopies were produced to visitors quickly. However, BAT asserted privilege over 70 000 documents.Ĭoncerns about restricted conditions of access to the Guildford Depository, which contrasted with the Minnesota Depository, have been previously described. 2 Prior to closure, public health groups (including the current authors) secured a large proportion of Guildford documents from BAT, and made digital copies available online. BAT closed the Guildford Depository in October 2015 following expiration of the Minnesota Settlement, and a US Supreme Court decision on extraterritoriality. The Minnesota Depository remains in operation, independently administered by paralegal firm Smart Legal Assistance. 1 Two depositories were created for this purpose, with British American Tobacco (BAT) being permitted to locate its documents in a company operated UK-based facility known as the Guildford Depository.
.png "redacted files smuggling")
#REDACTED FILES SMUGGLING TRIAL#
The legal settlement in 1998 between the State of Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, and defendant tobacco companies (Minnesota Consent Judgement) required the defendants to make accessible to the general public documents produced during the trial discovery process.
0 kommentar(er)
