Could you explain to me just how such measurements
would be taken?
A. The most simple technique is to mark a piece
of coral and then come back a few months later and see
how much it has grown.
Q. A second method you mentioned was measurement
of the growth of coral organisms themselves.
Can you tell me how that will be carried out?
A. I guess that what I -- the technique that I
just gave you applies to the second method we have
mentioned where you would actually measure the organism
itself, either directly, or you can use indirect methods.
For the reef itself, probably indirect techniques,
such as those used by Steve Smith, may give you quicker
Q. What indirect techniques were those?
A. He measured the rate of calcium absorption
as the water traveled over the reef.
Q. Have you ever used any of these methods that
you have described yourself?
I believe you stated earlier that you had never
done any soundings. Have you used any other methods?
Q. Sir, what method do you use when you are
carrying out your work on whether ultraviolet light
inhibits reef growth?
A. I use the rate of uptake of radioactive
Q. Can you tell me how that method proceeds?
A. Basically, what you do is to put the coral in
a medium that contains some radioactive calcium, mix it
in with the calcium ions of the seawater. The coral
will take up the radioactive and nonradioactive calcium.
Depending on how rapidly they take up this
radioactive or nonradioactive calcium, you can determine
how fast it is growing by converting uptake of the
radioactive calcium into total calcium and then into
calcium carbonate, which is the skeleton of the coral.
Q. Do other researchers use this method of
measuring the rate of uptake of radioactive calcium?
A. It has been used by quite a number of workers.
Q. Sir, if we could turn now to your article in
Origins that we have marked as Exhibit 2, looking at
page 89, I think the second page of the article, there
is a reference in the middle of the paragraph on that
page to the Great Barrier Reef off Australia, and
drilling operations, and I will quote, "Drilling
operations down through this structure have run into
quartz sand (a non-reef type of sediment) at less than
200 meters, indicating that it is a very shallow
structure that does not necessarily require a vast amount
of time for development."
Sir, are you aware of any other drilling that has
ever been done on the Great Barrier Reef that indicated
a greater depth to the structure than 200 meters?
Q. Do you know what sort of equipment the
investigator, Dr. Stoddart, apparently was using in this
drilling operation that is referred to?
A. Dr. Stoddart did not do that. He was just
reporting another scientific report in his review.
Q. I see.
Do you know the maximum drilling capacity of the
equipment that was used?
- - -
Q. Have you ever heard of any drilling carried out
on the Great Barrier Reef which ran through reef structure
and then into quartz sand and when carried deeper ran
into new reef structure underneath the quarts sand layer?
A. I do not know of such instance-
Q. Are you aware of any depths derived from
drilling operations in Florida, the Bahamas and depths
and restructures there that have been derived from
A. I have.
As I mentioned earlier, in general the Caribbean
reefs are considered to be quite shallow. There is
carbonate material below and I think there is controversy
as to whether or not it is reef material or not.
Q. So that I take it that in Florida then there
is some material that's generally agreed to be reef
material and then additional depths below it as to which
there is not general agreement with whether it is or is
not reef material?
A. I don't know if that is in Florida, but it is
in the Western Atlantic.
Q. Do you, yourself, have a few as to this other
carbonate material below the reef material and whether
it is or is not reef?
A. I have never studied it.
Q. I see.
Do you have any view, either based upon your study,
or based upon reliance upon another authority whom you
respect on that question, whether that material is or
is not reef material?
A. It would be reliance on another authority.
Q. Do you have another authority in mind on whom
you rely, or do you have a view on that question?
A. I would have to go back to the scientific
literature to find out who the authority is on that.
I think there are some question about it.
Q. Do you have in mind now the depth of material
that would be reef material in that area if in fact one
accepted that the carbonate material were reef material?
A. It is very great.
Q. Do you know if it is greater than the depth of
the drilling mentioned at Eniwetok in your article?
A. I wouldn't be surprised, I would not be sur-
Q. If you assumed that the lower carbonate material
that we have been discussing, as to which there is con-
troversy about its nature, were reef material, would that
change your opinion about the likelihood that creation
science offered enough time for that reef material to have
accumulated within the time assumed to have passed since
the origins of life?
A. It would certainly be in the balance against
Q. Sir, turning to page 90 of your article, the
first full paragraph at the top of the page, the sentence
near the, or several sentences in the middle of that
paragraph which read, "Light is also important for coral
reef growth. Coral are colonial animals many of which
harbor symbiotic algal plants that require light. One
will not get the luxuriant type of growth necessary for
live reef survival without light."
Sir, I take it that applies to light at wavelengths
other than ultraviolet?
A. Visible light, mainly.
Q. Because I understand you had stated that your
research earlier indicates that ultraviolet light is
Q. So that I take it, then, that as to visible
light, coral reef growth will be best the closer to the
surface it is, assuming that that means it gets more light
than at depth?
A. We don't have data to make that statement yet.
It would be a reasonable assumption to make.
One would think that would be the case, but there is
a factor known as photo-inhibition where visible light
interferes with photosynthesis, which could interfere
with the function of the algae, or could interfere with
coral reef growth which might not be related to ultra-
Q. Sir, returning to your discussion of ultraviolet
light earlier, I believe you stated that ultraviolet
light is absorbed by water and that it is absorbed more
than some of the other wavelengths, the visible white
Q. Do you have any opinion about what depths
probably gives the best growth for coral rates or the
highest rates of growth in coral?
A. No, I don't.
Ultraviolet light is not absorbable as readily by
the sea as the textbooks state.
There is a very common error in textbooks.
I don't know how it got in, but it's been copied and
recopied, in a few centimeters you lose all your ultra-
violet light, and this is not the case, it is much further
And actual measurements which have been done varies
according to the kind of water.
In clear water you have much more transmission of
ultraviolet light than in cloudy water where ultraviolet
light is absorbed preferentially over visible light,
compared to clear waters.
Experimentation needs to be done to determine what
depth it would be best at.
Q. Do you have, base on that work you have done
with ultraviolet light so far, do you have a view as to
at what depth you would get, you would be likely to get
growth rate measurements that were relatively uncontem-
plated by this ultraviolet inhibition?
A. Ultraviolet light does not stop all of a sud-
den at one particular point in the sea, it is an exponen-
tial decay, and while you get less and less as you go
down, there is no one point where you can say, "Ultra-
violet light stops here."
Visible light also decreases.
A lot of research needs to be done in this area,
which is very fascinating, and that is to determine
what is the ideal balance here between getting the maxi-
mum visible light and the minimum ultraviolet light.
This research has not been done.
Q. Are you able to make any estimate or approxi-
Would the range of this balance, maximum visible
light, minimum ultraviolet, be at a depth of centimeters
or a few meters?
A. I would guess a few meters, the range.
Q. So that below that you wouldn't regard ultra-
violet inhibition as an important problem?
Q. Sir, referring again to page 90, and a study
by Chave, Smith and Roy, it says, they suggest, "Net
rates of growth of .8 to 26 millimeters per year."
Q. "The net growth rate of a reef is the combina-
tion of total carbonate production less carbonate losses
by biological, chemical and physical factors."
Sir, do you know at what depth the findings that
were studied by Chave, Smith and Roy were taken?
A. They did not do the actual measurements
Q. Yes, sir, I understand.
It says that they were analyzing findings of other
Do you recall at what level the measurements were
taken by others that they studied were?
A. They used the general literature, it was at
Q. I see.
Do you know whether Odom and Odom, who are mentioned
later in that paragraph, suggesting a growth rate of
80 millimeters per year did surface investigation?
A. This was a surface, definitely a surface area
in their study.
- - -
Q. The next study you mentioned is Smith and
Kinsey, using an analysis of the carbon dioxide system
in seawater, suggesting a growth rate of two to five
millimeters per year.
A. That was a very surficial study, also.
By "surficial" I mean very near the surface.
Q. Are you aware of any growth rate studies
which have been made on reefs at depths below, say, I
believe you said a few meters below the surface.
A. Just those soundings. Those soundings are at
Q. Would it change your opinion of the
reliability ot find out that there had been growth rate
studies done at depths of between five and 20 meters
that gave very low growth rates?
A. It would strain the suggestion, no question.
Q. Sir, I believe you go on then to list three
factors which suggest that reef growth might take place
faster than surficial measurements indicate, and one of
them is that surficial estimates may be inhibited by
The second that you mentioned on page 91 is that
in addition to ultraviolet light, surficial estimates
might be lowered because of inhibition of the coral
organisms when they are exposed to air during very low
tides, for instance.
Would you also regard that factor as minimized or
eliminated if measurements were taken between five and
20 meters below the surface?
A. Yes. They could not be exposed. They would
not be killed, actually, as they are sometimes.
Sometimes the coral organisms are killed at low
tide due to too much exposure to air.
Q. Sir, the third factor that you referred to,
toward the bottom of page 91, is that there may be
other sources of carbonate on a reef other than the
growth rate on corals themselves, and you referred to a
study indicating that a reef might act as a filter for
carbonate in seawater, and another referring to the
possibility that sediments on or near the bottom might
contribute to reef growth due to upslope movement?
Q. Do you know of any studies on reefs that
indicate upslope movement of sediments?
A. Well, this horizon guyot, I suppose you would
call it, it certainly is the base of the reef; at least
it's the same type of structure as a reef, except it
does not reach the surface.
Q. Would that horizon guyot have any actual
living coral reef on it?
A. Not at present.
Q. Do you have any notion of how much below
present sea level the top of horizon guyot might be?
A. It is probably about one to one and a half
Q. If we were referring to a reef which was near
the surface, what would you expect to be the source of
sediment which might be trapped on the reef?
Q. And the upwelling would bring that sediment
A. From further down.
Q. I see.
From how much further down?
A. The floor of the ocean or sediment that's
suspended in the seawater.
Q. Sir, I'm sorry, I can't recall if I asked you
this question or not.
Are you aware of any study that has been done of
the possible upslope movement of sediment at or near the
surface, rather than at a depth of one or one and a half
A. There are rather outstanding examples of very
rapid movement at the surface on the reefs during typhoons
and storms, where blocks 10 to 20 feet in diameter have
been pushed up on top of the reef.
Q. Yes, sir, I believe they are mentioned on
the next page.
Before we turn to that, are you aware of any
studies of simple current-produced upslope movements
taken at or near the surface or on any living reef as
opposed to on a submerged guyot?
A. Upswelling is probably a phenomenon that
occurs probably around all reefs, and if there is any
sediment in the seawater, as you expect in most cases,
the reef can act as a trap for that sediment.
Q. Sir, I don't want to be rude and cut you off,
but since you have to leave in a very short time, my
question is not what you might surmise, but are you
aware of any studies of upslope movement of sediment
which have been carried out on reefs or within, let's
say, 50 meters of the surface as opposed to a depth of
greater than one kilometer?
A. I cannot imagine that such studies have not
Q. All right, sir.
Please, I don't want to be rude, but are you aware
A. No, if that's what you want.
Q. Yes, sir.
Sir, there is some references then to rapid growth
rates for corals, and you state that "the fastest growth
rate reported for any coral is the stag's horn species
Sir, are growth rates for Acropora representative
of all reef corals?
I stated so in the article.
Q. I take it that they are significantly more
rapid in their growth rates than other reef corals?
Q. Sir, are you able to tell me what percentage
of the corals on a given reef would be Acropora?
A. This would vary very much according to --
sometimes you find complete, almost a complete stand of
Acropora in a wide portion of reef. Other times you
hardly find any.
Q. Is there a generalization that you could
A. Probably not.
Q. I take it then the relationship between
Acropora growth rates and the growth rates of any given
reef would obviously depend upon the percentage of the
reef corals that were made up of Acropora; is that
Q. Is Acropora, is it a surface coral or does it
grow at depth?
A. Well, no corals grow significantly at depth.
Maybe I misunderstood your question.
What do you mean by "surface" and "depth"?
Let's put it this way. Acropora grows very well
for several meters down.
Q. And then you say for several meters?
A. Scores of meters, let's put it that way.
Q. You say scores of meters. Do you mean two-
A. I have seen Acropora down 50, 60 feet.
Q. So that's as much as 20 meters?
Q. I take it then -- I'm sorry, I believe I've
asked that already.
Would you regard evidence that Acropora was
primarily -- I'm sorry, I'll restate that.
Would you regard evidence that Acropora is generally
a small percentage of the coral in reefs as diminishing
the importance of fast Acropora growth rates to reef
A. Are you saying, if there is as few number
of Acropora, would this tend to say that reefs don't
grow as fast?
Q. If you were convinced or if evidence suggested
that Acropora was commonly a small constituent among the
corals on reefs, would that diminish its importance as
an indicator that reef growth might be faster than
- - -
Q. Sir, still on page 92.
There is a reference there to a study by Shinn in
Do you know the depth at which --
A. Just a few feet down.
Q. I'm sorry, you have anticipated my question.
Let me make certain that I had it right.
Do you know the depth at which Shinn studied the
growth in that study?
And your answer is a few feet down?
Q. I believe you mentioned earlier the fact
that typhoons frequently build reefs by bringing up
large blocks and large amounts of debris onto reefs,
and you have referenced a couple of instances of that
on page 92 of your article.
Are you aware of any studies, or are you able to
generalize about the net effect of typhoons?
Q. Do typhoons occasionally produce a great deal
of erosion of reefs, as well as depositings?
A. The only cases I know of are where there have
been significant transport onto the reef from below, but
I have not -- I cannot state that I have looked at every
article in this area.
I have not made an exhaustive study of this.
Q. Do you have any knowledge or are you able to
make any estimate of whether typhoons are net depositors
or adders to reef growth or net eroders or subtractors
from reef growth?
A. No, I could not answer that question.
Q. Sir, going back to page 92, that study by
Shinn in 1976, you say that "Shinn studied the growth of
this species following destruction in a hurricane near
Do you know how much coral destruction was found in
Was that a significant subtraction from the reef
in that area?
A, He showed pictures of it that show a fair
amount of debris of coral still there.
So I don't think there was all that much extraction
Q. Sir, looking at now page 93 of your article,
you state in the last full paragraph on that page that
there are three main factors that you have mentioned
that indicate that reef growth may be faster than
surficial measurements would indicate.
And then you state, "Before any final conclusions
can be arrived at, one must also take into consideration
those factors that contribute to the attrition of
And the three listed there are destruction by
corallivores-- sir, are you aware of any studies that
seek to estimate the attrition factor by corallivores?
A. I don't know of any such. I doubt that
there has been an estimate of how significant it is.
Q. Are you able, from your own knowledge, to make
any estimate about how that --
A. No, and I don't know of anybody else that has
been able to arrive at that.
When these are considered estimates, they are
considered as unknown factors, to the best of my
But these are probably real factors, although the
quantity is unknown.
Q. Are you or has anyone been able to indicate
whether that factor may be greater or less in extent
than any of the three factors contributing to rapid
reef growth, as you mentioned earlier in the article?
A. Well, it certainly can't be faster than the
growth rate; otherwise, you would have no coral there at
And the fact that you have a lot of coral that's in
good shape indicates that this is probably a minor
factor, nevertheless a real one.
Q. Sir, I wanted to ask you about one factor that
I'm not sure is incorporated in your list of three.
Have you ever seen any studies of the possibility
of the depression, local depression of the earth's
crust under growing reef in the rate of reef growth?
A. This, I would probably not expect that to be
that great because the density of the material that you
are pushing down below is much greater than the density
of the reef itself.
Q. Would that be the case when you had reef
structure growing on, say, the quartz sand that was
referred to earlier in the Great Barrier Reef?
Would you say you would still not expect to find
depression of the underlying sediment?
A. Quartz sand probably has about the same
density as carbonate sand or reef material, so I don't
think that would make a different factor.
Q. And as to factors 2 and 3 listed there,
possible chemical breakdown and mechanical destruction
by waves and downslope of movement, are you aware of
anyone else or have you been able to make any estimates
as to the magnitude of those factors?
There are just suggestions here for people to
think about as they study this problem.
Possibly chemical breakdown could occur locally,
possibly. I don't think it would be significant in that
the seawater surface tends to be supersaturated and
therefore a solution of carbonates is very unlikely.
Q. And I take it you also are not aware of any
study of the magnitude of the mechanical destruction
or downslope movement?
Q. Are you aware of anyone who has ever been
able to estimate whether the net effect of downslope
movement and upslope movement would be in one direction
or the other?
A. These are factors that, as far as I know,
have never been measured.
Q. Then do you have any opinion about whether the
net effect of these two movements, upslope and
downslope, would be in one direction or the other?
A. Well, certainly downslope movement doesn't
go on forever because the reef builds up, so it has to
be net up.
Q. Sir, turning to page 94 in your article,
there is a reference to the experiments that you and
graduate students under you have conducted, indicating
that the rate of coral growth could be nearly
doubled by an increase in seawater temperature of 5
It says that this was true, at least temporarily.
Could you explain to me why that qualification
about temporary increase is included?
A. Because in the experiments that we conducted,
these were short-term experiments using radioactive
calcium under controlled conditions, and we only ran
the experiments for short periods of time. We felt
that was a more accurate measurement of the potential
because of the difficulty in keeping the coral under
laboratory conditions, under controlled conditions.
These organisms do not do well in the laboratory,
and because of this we try to keep the time at a
minimum so we would have as fresh an organism to test
Q. Did you find in these studies on raised
temperatures about the coral growth rates go up and then
remain steady at a plateau?
A. Not very much of a plateau.
Q. Did they decrease at all after the initial
A. It tends to decrease, and you kill them.
They are pretty temperature-sensitive.
You kill them -- 10 degrees more will usually kill
Q. But when you simply raised the temperature
5 degrees, did they go from whatever their growth rate
had been and up to nearly double?
Q. And then did they maintain that increased
A. Not for -- I mean, it is a curve. It drops
back down afterwards.
Q. Even if the temperature is maintained?
If the temperature is maintained, as far as we have
been able to test over a couple hours, the extra growth
rate is maintained.
Maybe I'm missing your question.
Q. Sir, I wondered if you raised the temperature
of the water 5 degrees centigrade, how long does it
take for the growth rate to nearly double?
A. As far as we know, it is instantaneous.
- - -
Q. If you maintained the temperature for several
hours did the rate continue at that nearly doubled level?
A. A couple of hours we will say, yes; beyond that
we have not tested. That's why the qualification is there.
Q. And you say you haven't tested because
evidently the elevated temperature kills them?
A. No, not in this case.
We can keep them for, I am sure we can keep them for
longer periods than that. It is just a question of the
time it takes for these experiments, because one of the
things you are probably not aware of, we are dealing here
with highly variable organisms and it takes a great deal
of work to determine one point. Some coral tips will
grow as much as 20 to 30 times as fast as another.
So you can imagine what the statistical problems and
the evaluation problems are involved in connection with
that, hence the data comes very slow.
Q. Sir, do you have any views as to what
mechanisms in nature might have been the occasion for
seawater temperatures in creating 5 degrees centigrade?
A. One of the most popular ideas is that possibly
there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse glass in that it
allows the visible light to come through and the infrared
light is trapped. Hence, the greenhouse gets warm.
Carbon dioxide can act in more or less that same
fashion, hence, it is assumed if there was more carbon
dioxide in the air in the past, the temperatures of the
world would have been warmer than at present.
Q. Are you aware of any evidence of that having
been the case?
A. Evidence that is used for, one bit of
evidence that is used for it is the fact that plants
tend to do better in an atmosphere that is increased in
Carbon dioxide is occasionally added to greenhouses
to get the plants to grow better, hence, it looks like
maybe the plants were adapted to a different carbon
dioxide level than we have at present.
Q. Are you aware of any evidence that that
mechanism, or any other, may have actually raised the
seawater temperature by five degrees centigrade within
the few thousand year period that's posited by Creation
A. Certainly the fact that the fossil record
shows tropical organisms way beyond the Arctic Circle suggests
that life has been here under much warmer conditions than
Q. I see. And you regard that as having taken
place within the past few thousand years?
Q. Sir, the last sentence of your paper is,
"Our present knowledge does not preclude rapid rates of
development; some factors definitely facilitate it."
Would you say that our present knowledge establishes
rapid rates of development?
A. No, no.
Q. You would say no more than that it simply does
not preclude their having existed in the past?
Q. And in addition to the factors that
definitely facilitate it, is it true that there are some
factors that definitely inhibit rapid rates of growth?
A. Cooler temperatures, lack of nutrients.
Life is a delicate thing.
Q. Isn't it true that you listed several, three,
in your article, factors that inhibit rapid rates of
Q. So that you have listed three factors which
would facilitate and there which would inhibit it?
A. Right. I would call that a balanced
MR. WOLFE: Mr. Williams said when we began today,
he said it was necessary for you to leave about 4:00,
and I observed it's about 4:00 o'clock right now.
I, for sure, do not want to interfere with you making
I wonder whether it is possible, before we stop for
today, to agree to a time when we might conclude the
deposition on another occasion?
MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have any suggestions?
MR. WOLFE: Well, I think, I can make myself
available pretty much whenever Dr. Roth can be.
I think the problem is he must leave and I expect
the problem at another time would be when he would be
available because he is not doing this all the time.
Another problem, even allowing for our respective
positions about whether or not you have made proper
discovery about what areas he might testify in, if I don't
know that he is limited to coral reefs, then I want
to be able to talk about catastrophism and the
possibility that he will address general scientific
principles and the like.
So it is even hard to estimate how long it will
take to finish when we didn't even agree what areas he
is liable to testify on.
MR. WILLIAMS: Let me say that we don't, by talking
about it, even agree to it being resumed.
I don't know how long we have been here, but it's
been approximately since 10:00 o'clock, with several
interruptions, I recognize, but I think it is probably
an adequate amount of time.
However, if you have any proposals I will certainly
be glad to look at this for a continuation and get
together with Dr. Roth.
The very real problem is going to be to find time
when I can be back here in view of the other depositions
to which I'm already committed to and intend to take,
and also the fast approach of the trial date.
MR. WOLFE: The thing that concerns me most is the
fact that I came today expecting that Dr. Roth was going
to testify, as the witness list said, about coral reefs,
and that is the deposition that I have prepared to take.
And the time that we have had would be very nearly time
enough, if that were to be it.
But the fact that you are unwilling to stipulate that
his testimony will be confined to that, means that I do
not even known that this has been the half of the
deposition that I would want to take, because you
introduced other areas that are at least as large as this
MR. WILLIAMS: I wouldn't anticipate that they would
be as large, as long as this one.
To the extent that we are going to call upon Dr.
Roth for other areas, that will be dictated by what is
going to be presented by plaintiffs, and I'm not in a
position to have that. At this point I haven't deposed
the plaintiffs' witnesses.
MR. WOLFE: Well, then, in terms of suggestions, I
would undertake to make myself available to continue the
deposition at any time when Dr. Roth is available, and
it is probably easier if it happens during the time when
we are all gathered here on the West Coast. On the other
hand, we all have other things to do while we are here.
If there is any other time between now and the end
of this week, on Saturday, when Dr. Roth is available,
and there is someone available to appear from the
Attorney General's office to attend the deposition, that
is clearly most probable and that's my first suggestion.
It would help a great deal in the continuation if
you could either stipulate that the witness list is, in
fact, going to be the last word and that coral reefs will
be the area in which he testifies, or if you want to now
at this moment make an effort to add other areas, that
you at least put a cutoff on the ones that you have added
today as opposed to holding out the possibility when
depositions are taken next week you will want to add
others in ten days.
MR. WILLIAMS: At this time I don't have any present
intention to add significant other areas. However, I'm
not going to preclude myself from adding as the case
develops, and the proof of the plaintiffs develops.
That would hamstring me.
MR. WOLFE: And I expect that I can sympathize with
that to some extent.
On the other hand, you have clearly the obligation,
as you come up with new notions about what any one of
these witnesses are going to testify about, to give us
notice and an opportunity for discovery.
MR. WILLIAMS: I told you the other two areas today
that I would anticipate presently, and if there should
be any other areas that do arise, we will give prominent
attention to that.
MR. WOLFE: I would suggest, if Dr. Roth can be
available, and someone from the Attorney General's Office
can appear with him, we try to find another time before
this time on Saturday in order to conclude.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I can tell you without looking
at my schedule, because it has been somewhat -- I think
long labors have gone into the schedule for this, and I
don't honestly feel there will be much other time this
week, with the fact that other depositions are scheduled
and other work in progress, and I think we'll have to
be leaving this area at various times, and I feel like it
will not be feasible to this week.
MR. WOLFE: Well, then again, I'm trying to
distinguish between preaching and honesty.
I really think it's been impossible to really
substantially conclude the deposition because there is a
great deal that Dr. Roth has done that we haven't been
able to talk about, and this recent appearance of
catastrophism and general scientific principles testimony,
I was not prepared to take a deposition in those areas
since today was apparently the first that we knew of
the possibility of there being testimony there.
So if it is not going to be possible this week, I
hope we can work out another time when we will be able
to take additional testimony, and failing that, we will
reserve our fight to make application to preclude
testimony in areas as to which we have had neither
adequate notice or adequate discovery.
Dr. Roth, thank you very much.
[Whereupon, the deposition was adjourned, to be
continued at a time and place to be set by counsel.]
- - -
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )
I hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing
DR. ARIEL ROTH
was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled
cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and
place therein stated; that the testimony of said witness
was reported by
JOHN F. KEATING and CAROLINE ANDERSON,
Certified Shorthand Reporters and disinterested persons,
and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting, and
that the pertinent provisions of the applicable code
or rules of civil procedure relating to the original
transcript of deposition for reading, correcting and
signing have been complied with.
And I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either or any of the parties to said
deposition, nor in any way interested in the outcome
of the cause in said caption.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my seal of office the ________ day of
I have read the foregoing transcript and desire
to make the following corrections.
Reads Should Read
Page Line Page Line
DR. ARIEL ROTH