United States v Philip Morris: Supporting File Archive Index
If these documents need to be converted to HTML, the Adobe Acrobat site [external link] provides conversion forms and plug-ins
Title or Name |
Type |
Description |
---|---|---|
Amended Complaint |
02/2001 - The Complant - First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive and Declatory Relief |
|
|
09/1999 - The Complant - Complaint for Damages and Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Appendix identifying racketeering acts. |
|
First Opinion | Judge Kessler ruling. 116 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.D.C. 2000) |
|
Second Opinion |
Court granted a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as against B.A.T. Industries. |
|
Order #41 | 12/2000 - Discovery - The Court appointed a Special Master to assist in resolving case management and discovery disputes. | |
Order #230 | 10/2002 - Discovery - The Tenth Case Management Order, Order #230, set a new schedule for the completion of discovery and other pretrial matters, and advised that trial was set to commence in September 2004. | |
Order #600 | Discovery - By Order #600 (dated July 21, 2004), the Court granted in part and denied in part the United States’ motion for sanctions against Philip Morris for spoliation of evidence, finding that eleven Philip Morris executives and officers “at the highest corporate level” violated the Court’s document preservation order and Philip Morris’s policies. The Court precluded the eleven Philip Morris executives from testifying at trial and imposed sanctions against Philip Morris of $250,000 per violator, for a total monetary sanction of $2.75 million. (327 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2004).) | |
Letter of Request for International Judicial Assistance | Australian and English Proceedings - In October 2002, the Court issued a Letter of Request for International Judicial Assistance to the Australian court to take the testimony of Nicholas Cannar, who was BATCo’s in-house legal head from 1985 to 1991 and then director of legal services from 1996 to 1999 for BATCo’s Australian subsidiary, then called W.D. & H.O. Wills and now called BATAS. | |
Justice Bell Decision | HTML | Australian and English Proceedings - In October 2003, Justice Bell of the New South Wales Supreme Court, Australia, issued a decision denying motions to quash Mr. Cannar’s subpoena filed by BATCo, by Mr. Cannar, and by BATAS. ([2003] NSWSC 802 (8 October 2003).) |
Chief Justice Spigelman Decision | HTML | Australian and English Proceedings - In May 2004, Chief Justice Spigelman of the New South Wales Supreme Court - Court of Appeal authored a unanimous decision, denying BATCo and BATAS leave to appeal, and dismissing Mr. Cannar’s appeal. ([2004] NSWCA 158 (18 May 2004).) BATCo has filed an application for special leave to appeal to the Australia High Court. (No. S217 of 2004.) |
Letter of Request for International Judicial Assistance (Martin Broughton) |
Australian and English Proceedings - 10/2002 | |
Final Proposed Findings of Fact | PDF (2,543 pages; 15.5 MB) |
Final Pretrial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - 07/2004 -The United States filed its Final Proposed Findings of Fact which detailed the defendants’ conduct over the past 50 years. Executive Summary (27 pages) |
Final Proposed Conclusions of Law (Volume I) | Final Pretrial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - (175 pages) - Sets forth the legal grounds upon which the lawsuit is based. | |
Final Proposed Conclusions of Law (Volume II) | Final Pretrial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - (134 pages) - Regarding Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses | |
Order #182 | Pretrial Motions- 07/2002 - Pre-Trial - Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Jury Demand. As a result the trial is set as a bench trial, with Judge Kessler as the fact-finder, rather than a jury trial. 273 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D.D.C. 2002 |
|
Order #356 |
Summary Judgement- 05/23/2003 - Court denies Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Advertising, Marketing, Promotion, and Warning Claims and granted, in part, the United States’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses and dismissed a number of each defendant’s affirmative defenses. The Court held that the Federal Trade Commission did not have exclusive jurisdiction over advertising or marketing conduct and that the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not preclude the United States’ RICO claims. |
|
Order #501 | Summary Judgement- 02/24/2004 - By Order #501, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claims that Defendants Advertised, Marketed, and Promoted Cigarettes to Youth and Fraudulently Denied Such Conduct. 304 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D.D.C. 2004) |
|
Order #509 | Summary Judgement - 03/10/2004 - By Order #509 (dated March 10, 2004), the Court granted in part and denied in part the United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses Asserting Violations of the Eighth Amendment (denied without prejudice) and the Ex Post Facto Clause (granted) of the United States Constitution and that the Decision in United States v. Carson Controls the Scope of Disgorgement in this Case (denied without prejudice). 310 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2004) |
|
Order #510 | Summary Judgement - 03/2004 - By Order #510, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Grounds that the Government’s RICO Claims Violate Separation of Powers. 310 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2004) |
|
Order #523 | Summary Judgement - 04/2004 - By Order #523, the Court denied defendant Liggett Group, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (based on its alleged withdrawal from the RICO conspiracy). 316 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004) |
|
|
Summary Judgement - 05/06/2004 By Order #540 , the Court denied the United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Element that Defendants Have Caused Mailings and Wire Transmissions. By Order #538 , the Court granted the United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses that the RICO Claims and Sought Relief are Prohibited by the Tenth Amendment and Separation of Powers and that Defendants are not Jointly and Severally Liable for any Disgorgement Ordered by the Court. By Order #537 (dated May 6, 2004), the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Grounds that there is No Reasonable Likelihood of Future RICO Violations, finding that the existence of the Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) did not in itself eliminate reasonable likelihood of future RICO violations. |
|
|
Summary Judgement - 05/21/2004 By Order #549, the Court denied the Joint Motion of Defendants the Counsel for Tobacco Research (“CTR”) - U.S.A., Inc. and the Tobacco Institute (“TI”) for Summary Judgment. By Order #550, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing the Government’s Disgorgement Claim. (319 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C. 2004), appeal filed, No. 04-5252 (D.C. Cir.).) Defendants have filed an interlocutory appeal on the issue related to United States v. Carson. Oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is scheduled for November 17, 2004. |
|
Order #556 |
Summary Judgement - 05/28/2004 - By Order #556, the Court denied defendant British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited’s Motion for Summary Judgment. |
|
Order #586 | Summary Judgement - 07/07/2004 - By Order #586, the Court granted the United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses Asserting Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel, Release, Accord and Satisfaction, and Mootness (based on the Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”)). 327 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004) |
|
Order #588, amended by Order #624 |
Summary Judgement - 07/08/2004, amended 08/10/2004 - By Order #588, amended by Order #624, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Government’s Nicotine Manipulation and Addiction Allegations. |
|
Order #589 | Summary Judgement - 07/09/2004 - By Order #589 , the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claims That Defendants Suppressed the Development of Potentially Less Hazardous Cigarettes. 327 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2004) | |
Order #591 | Partial Summary Judgement - 07/15/2004 - By Order #591, the Court granted in part and denied in part the United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment That Each Defendant is Distinct from the RICO Enterprise (granted), That a Defendant's Liability for RICO Conspiracy Does Not Require That Defendant To Participate in the Operation or Management of the Enterprise (granted), and That RICO Liability Extends to Aiders and Abettors (denied without prejudice to developing argument during trial). 327 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2004) |
|
Order #471 | Trial - 01/16/2004 - The Court issued a detailed Trial Procedure Order, Order #471, which, among other things, mandated procedures for written direct testimony, written testimony of adverse witnesses, and guidelines for the admission of prior testimony. | |
Trial Outline | Trial - 01/15/2004 - The United States filed a brief Trial Outline. | |
Factual Memorandum | Trial - 08/2004 - The United States filed a detailed Factual Memorandum providing background information on anticipated U.S. trial witnesses, other individuals likely to be mentioned during the trial, cigarette brands and manufacturers, and organizations likely to be mentioned during the trial. | |
Order #471A | ||
Order #680 |