UM Grace Case

Judge Molloy greeted the jury after the morning recess, saying, “When I left last week it was spring, and now it’s winter again.  Good morning.”  Chuckles were heard throughout the courtroom and the jury box.  Molloy informed the jury that the case against Robert Walsh had been “disposed of” and the jury should not guess or speculate as to why.  Kris McLean then stood and stated, “Yes, Your Honor, the government rests its case-in-chief,” propelling the trial into its next phase.  David Bernick, attorney for WR Grace, rose and called his first witness, Elwood “Chip” Wood.

Wood was the executive vice president of Grace’s Consumer Products Division from 1977 until early 1982.  He is an MIT trained chemical engineer with a master’s degree and an MBA.  Wood’s testimony began by establishing his contacts with the government in regards to this case.  Wood received two offers of immunity from the government—first in 2004, applicable to his pre-indictment interview with the government, and again in March 2009, for the testimony he will give at trial.  Wood expected to be called as a witness for the government and kept his schedule open in anticipation.  Bernick made much of the fact that Wood had no additional contact from investigators or the government attorneys to follow up on his 2004 interview, to clarify any testimony, or request new information.  Intimated by this line of questioning is the “special relationship” the defense argues Agent Marsden created with Robert Locke during the same time period.  Wood understood the use immunity letters to mean that he would not be prosecuted in this matter so long as he told the truth.

When he started at CPD in 1977, Wood said his responsibility was to treat questions and issues regarding tremolite as the primary and highest priority, and not to “assume or be handicapped by any previous beliefs of disbeliefs” about the issue.  After laying out the expansive uncertainties informing the tremolite controversy, Bernick moved Wood through the assessment and contingency planning activities going on in early 1977.  Wood described for the jury what he and a committee did between February and May 1977 to swiftly develop a plan to help Grace address the new OSHA regulations and impending MSHA regulations.  Wood’s testimony reinforced the defense theme that Grace was cooperating with the government agencies, and that the leader of CPD instructed every request for information to be answered candidly.

Wood explained Grace’s decision to stop fighting the proposed MSHA regulations in August 1977 (Exhibit 8908).  He recalled the decision as “one of those bright line things that you remember very clearly”—Wood went into this boss’s office and explained succinctly that if Grace was going rely on the government’s science and expertise in determining safety standards, Grace could not oppose the regulations.

Wood’s testimony regarding Grace’s reaction to the changing regulatory environment and development of a plan of action was apparently elicited to refute the obstruction counts. Wood said the goal of CPD was to “putt past the whole”—i.e. to “do more than you have do in cases of such uncertainty.”  His testimony also created a back-drop for the additional questioning of Robert Locke which is expected to come this afternoon.

The noon recess was called as Wood began discussing Grace’s opposition to the NIOSH proposal.

–Kirsten Madsen (posted at 4:16 p.m.)