Open Doorway to Truth: Legacy of the Minnesota Tobacco Trial
2009; Elsevier BV; Volume: 84; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.4065/84.5.446
ISSN1942-5546
AutoresR. Douglas Hurt, Jon O. Ebbert, Monique E Muggli, Nikki J. Lockhart, Channing R. Robertson,
Tópico(s)Public Health Policies and Education
ResumoMore than a decade has passed since the conclusion of the Minnesota tobacco trial and the signing of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) by 46 US State Attorneys General and the US tobacco industry. The Minnesota settlement exposed the tobacco industry's long history of deceptive marketing, advertising, and research and ultimately forced the industry to change its business practices. The provisions for public document disclosure that were included in the Minnesota settlement and the MSA have resulted in the release of approximately 70 million pages of documents and nearly 20,000 other media materials. No comparable dynamic, voluminous, and contemporaneous document archive exists. Only a few single events in the history of public health have had as dramatic an effect on tobacco control as the public release of the tobacco industry's previously secret internal documents. This review highlights the genesis of the release of these documents, the history of the document depositories created by the Minnesota settlement, the scientific and policy output based on the documents, and the use of the documents in furthering global public health strategies. More than a decade has passed since the conclusion of the Minnesota tobacco trial and the signing of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) by 46 US State Attorneys General and the US tobacco industry. The Minnesota settlement exposed the tobacco industry's long history of deceptive marketing, advertising, and research and ultimately forced the industry to change its business practices. The provisions for public document disclosure that were included in the Minnesota settlement and the MSA have resulted in the release of approximately 70 million pages of documents and nearly 20,000 other media materials. No comparable dynamic, voluminous, and contemporaneous document archive exists. Only a few single events in the history of public health have had as dramatic an effect on tobacco control as the public release of the tobacco industry's previously secret internal documents. This review highlights the genesis of the release of these documents, the history of the document depositories created by the Minnesota settlement, the scientific and policy output based on the documents, and the use of the documents in furthering global public health strategies. More than a decade has passed since Minnesota settled its litigation against the tobacco industry. The Minnesota settlement has been recognized as one of the most important public health events of the second half of the 20th century because it exposed the tobacco industry's long history of deceptive marketing, advertising, and research.1Weinstein H Big tobacco settles Minnesota lawsuit for $6.6 billion.Los Angeles Times. May 9, 1998; (Statement made by C. Everett Koop, Former U.S. Surgeon General) (Accessed February 19, 2009.): A1http://articles.latimes.com/1998/may/09/news/mn-47882Google Scholar It has also been more than 10 years since the tobacco industry's individual settlements with the states of Mississippi (1997), Florida (1997), and Texas (1998) and since the signing of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between 46 US State Attorneys General and the tobacco companies (1998). These agreements are the 5 largest settlements in the history of litigation.2World Health Organization Towards Health With Justice: Litigation and Public Inquiries as Tools for Tobacco Control. World Health Organization, Geneva Switzerland2002http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/final_jordan_report.pdfGoogle Scholar Before the Minnesota tobacco case, filed in 1994 by the Minnesota Attorney General and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, successful litigation against the cigarette manufacturers had been almost universally unsuccessful. The "first wave" of suits from the 1950s to the 1970s were met by an industry that had adopted a "scorched earth" litigation strategy, outspending individual litigants by orders of magnitude while vehemently denying any association between their product and diseases such as lung cancer.2World Health Organization Towards Health With Justice: Litigation and Public Inquiries as Tools for Tobacco Control. World Health Organization, Geneva Switzerland2002http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/final_jordan_report.pdfGoogle Scholar Through hundreds of cases between 1950 and 1970, the tobacco industry disclosed only a few thousand internal documents, thereby maintaining an impregnable wall of silence.3Ciresi MV Walburn RB Sutton TD Decades of deceit: document discovery in the Minnesota tobacco litigation.William Mitchell Law Rev. 1999; 25: 477-566Google Scholar The first crack in this wall occurred during the "second wave" of tobacco litigation; this wave was marked by the 1983 Cipollone case, in which plaintiffs aggressively sought and received a small cache of damning documents.4Douglas CE Davis RM Beasley JK Epidemiology of the third wave of tobacco litigation in the United States, 1994-2005.Tob Control. 2006; 15: iv9-iv16Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar Other events converged in the mid-1990s to expose the tobacco industry's wrongdoing. In 1994, copies of internal documents from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation were leaked and were ultimately published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1995.5Glantz SA Barnes DE Bero L Hanauer P Slade J Looking through a keyhole at the tobacco industry: the Brown and Williamson documents.JAMA. 1995; 274: 219-224Crossref PubMed Scopus (96) Google Scholar Although these documents were not numerous (4000 pages), they were selected because of their damning content and were sent anonymously to Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, a widely recognized tobacco control researcher. These documents became the basis not only for the articles in JAMA but also for the book The Cigarette Papers.6Glantz SA Slade J Bero LA Hanauer P Barnes DE The Cigarette Papers. University of California Press, Berkley, CA1996Google Scholar The publication of this book was a historic event and provided the deepest look inside the tobacco industry before the Minnesota litigation. In 1994, the US Food and Drug Administration, under the leadership of then-director David A. Kessler, MD, sought to regulate tobacco products by claiming not only that these products were drug delivery devices but also that the industry controlled and manipulated the form and quantity of nicotine contained within their products.7Nicotine in cigarettes and smokeless tobacco is a drug and these products are nicotine delivery devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Jurisdictional Determination, 61 Fed Reg 44619-01 (Aug 28, 1996).http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/090602/800253a7.pdfGoogle Scholar In addition, Jeffrey Wigand, PhD, a former vice president at Brown & Williamson, began to cooperate with the Food and Drug Administration and ultimately told his story on the television program 60 Minutes.8JeffreyWigand.com Web site. Jeffrey Wigand on 60 Minutes, February 4, 1996. http://www.jeffreywigand.com/60minutes.php. Accessed February 20, 2009.Google Scholar The industry was further exposed in Congressional hearings chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (Democrat, California), during which chief executives were forever immortalized on videotape as they swore before Congress and the American people that nicotine was not addictive.9Representative Henry Waxman Web site. Issues and Legislation: Tobacco.http://www.house.gov/waxman/issues/health/tobacco_leg.htmGoogle Scholar All of these events were damaging to the tobacco industry, but even collectively their legacy does not compare with that of the Minnesota tobacco trial, which changed the tobacco control landscape forever. Although the terms of the massive tobacco settlements included large monetary awards and unprecedented public health relief (Table 1), the legacy of the Minnesota trial isthe public disclosure of millions of pages of previously secret internal documents from the tobacco industry and the continued disclosure of such documents produced during discovery in US smoking and health litigation from 1998 to 2008. For the first time in history, the Minnesota settlement also allowed public access to the files of UK tobacco giant British American Tobacco (BAT). The MSA also required large tobacco companies to maintain their letter-sized records on the Internet and to deposit any oversized or electronic media in Minnesota until June 2010. To date, these legal settlements have resulted in the release of approximately 70 million pages of documents, thousands of audiovisual files, and hundreds of other electronic media files. No other comparable dynamic, voluminous, and contemporaneous document archive exists. We would argue that the use of these documents in furthering public health goals based in science, policy, and litigation—the 3 fronts on which the tobacco industry had successfully escaped accountability for decades—has been nothing short of astounding.TABLE 1Summary of the US Tobacco SettlementsType of reliefMultistate settlement agreementMinnesotaTexasMississippiFloridaMonetaryPayments made to settling states in perpetuity, totaling approximately $206 billion through 2025Settlement payments totaling $1.3 billion for years 1998-2003; annual payments of approximately $200 million beginning in 1998$15 billion over 25 y; additional $2.3 billion through 2003 for indigent health care costs$3.4 billion over 25 y$11.3 billionInjunctive/equitable Prohibits marketing of tobacco to children and opposition to proposals/rules/legislation intended to reduce tobacco use by childrenYesYesYesNoYes Prohibits opposition to legislation or rules governing tobacco controlYesYesNoNoNo Prohibits the support of legislation that would preempt, override, abrogate, or diminish settlement beneficiaries' rights/recoveries under the settlement agreementYesYesNoNoNo Requires disclosure of information about lobbying payments likely to affect public policyYesYesNoNoNo Restricts tobacco companies' marketing practices (eg, ban of billboard and transit advertising of tobacco products)YesYesYesNoYes Bans payment for inclusion of tobacco product placement in any motion picture made in the United StatesYesYesNoNoNo Restricts merchandising of products with tobacco brand names or logosYesYesNoNoNo Forbids material misrepresentations regarding the health consequences of using tobacco productsYesYesNoNoNo Prohibits anticompetitive practicesYesYesNoNoNo Halts operations of The Council for Tobacco Research–U.S.A., IncYesYesNoNoNo Dissolves The Tobacco Institute, Inc., and Center for Indoor Air ResearchYesNoNoNoNo Most-favored-nation clauseYesYesYesYesYes Open table in a new tab The first peer-reviewed article based on tobacco companies' internal documents introduced during the Minnesota trial by the plaintiffs' witnesses was published 10 years ago in JAMA.10Hurt RD Robertson CR Prying open the door to the cigarette industry's secrets about nicotine: the Minnesota Tobacco Trial.JAMA. 1998; 280: 1173-1181Crossref PubMed Scopus (184) Google Scholar The article and the authors' testimony focused on nicotine addiction, pH manipulation, and low-tar/low-nicotine cigarettes. Since then, several hundred peer-reviewed articles have been published. We summarize the multiple legacies of the Minnesota trial and the MSA by highlighting the effect that these internal documents from the tobacco industry have had on tobacco control around the world. The terms of the Minnesota settlement provided for the creation of 2 publicly accessible document depositories: one in Minneapolis, MN (Minnesota depository) and the other in Guildford, England, near London (Guildford depository) (Table 2). The Minnesota depository contains materials from all defendants, whereas the Guildford depository contains only materials produced to the Minnesota plaintiffs from the defendant BAT.13Consent Judgment. The State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota v Philip Morris et al. Court File No. C1-94-8565.http://www.library.ucsf.edu/sites/all/files/ucsf_assets/mnconsent.pdfDate: May 8, 1998Google Scholar At their sole expense, the settling tobacco industry defendants were obligated by the Minnesota settlement to allow public access to the litigation depositories for 10 years.13Consent Judgment. The State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota v Philip Morris et al. Court File No. C1-94-8565.http://www.library.ucsf.edu/sites/all/files/ucsf_assets/mnconsent.pdfDate: May 8, 1998Google Scholar After the Guildford depository had been open to the public for only a year, BAT's public relations firm reported to the company that its depository was a "skeleton" in the company's closet,14Legacy Tobacco Documents Library Web site Shandwick W. Presentation to BAT. British American Tobacco, March 22, 2000http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wpm30a99Google Scholar in part because of the public airing of its internal documents relating to cigarette smuggling, price fixing, control of scientific research by attorneys, and political attacks against the World Health Organization (WHO).15Muggli ME LeGresley EM Hurt RD Big tobacco is watching: British American Tobacco's surveillance and information concealment at the Guildford Depository.Lancet. 2004; 363: 1812-1819Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (26) Google ScholarTABLE 2Overview of Tobacco Document SourcesaLTDL = Legacy Tobacco Documents Library; MSA = Master Settlement Agreement; TDO = Tobacco Documents Online.Guildford depositoryMinnesota depositoryInternetLegal instrumentMinnesota settlement: one-time deposit of materials produced to Minnesota plaintiffsMinnesota settlement: tobacco defendants required to deposit materials in Minnesota within 30 days of production to the plaintiffs, provided defendants do not claim privilege over the documents or the records are not subject to any protective orderMSA: Tobacco defendants required to place materials online within 45 days of production to the plaintiffs, provided defendants do not claim privilege over the documents or the records are not subject to any protective orderContentsBritish American Tobacco materials (documents, videotapes, audiotapes) up to circa 1995Materials of all US-based defendantsbUS-based defendants include Philip Morris USA, Inc (now Altria Group, Inc); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (now Reynolds American, Inc); Brown & Williamson (now Reynolds American, Inc); Lorillard Tobacco Company; The Tobacco Institute, Inc (disbanded by the MSA); and The Council for Tobacco Research–U.S.A., Inc (disbanded by the Minnesota settlement and the MSA). (documents, videotapes, audiotapes, slides, DVDs, CDs, oversized materials, hard drives, other electronic storage media) up to circa 2003 All documents of US-based defendantsbUS-based defendants include Philip Morris USA, Inc (now Altria Group, Inc); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (now Reynolds American, Inc); Brown & Williamson (now Reynolds American, Inc); Lorillard Tobacco Company; The Tobacco Institute, Inc (disbanded by the MSA); and The Council for Tobacco Research–U.S.A., Inc (disbanded by the Minnesota settlement and the MSA). up to circa 2003Industry Web site Tobacco Archives: www.tobaccoarchives.comMain nonindustry Web sites LTDL: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/TDO: http://tobaccodocuments.org/Estimated volume of materials6-7 million pages of documents, 500 videotapes and audiotapes60 million pages of documents, 20,000 other media materials (documents, videotapes, audiotapes, slides, DVDs, CDs, oversized materials, hard drives, other electronic storage media)We were unable to verify estimates for document collections online. However, the online collections should contain what is deposited in Minnesota with the exception of other media collections, which are available only in MinnesotaClosing datecPending the outcome of the tobacco defendants' appeal of the final order in the United States' Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations case, which (among other things) established additional obligations for public document disclosure on the part of the tobacco defendants until September 2021.11,12At least until end of February 2009At least until end of December 2008June 30, 2010a LTDL = Legacy Tobacco Documents Library; MSA = Master Settlement Agreement; TDO = Tobacco Documents Online.b US-based defendants include Philip Morris USA, Inc (now Altria Group, Inc); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (now Reynolds American, Inc); Brown & Williamson (now Reynolds American, Inc); Lorillard Tobacco Company; The Tobacco Institute, Inc (disbanded by the MSA); and The Council for Tobacco Research–U.S.A., Inc (disbanded by the Minnesota settlement and the MSA).c Pending the outcome of the tobacco defendants' appeal of the final order in the United States' Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations case, which (among other things) established additional obligations for public document disclosure on the part of the tobacco defendants until September 2021.11United States v Philip Morris USA I et al., 449 F Supp 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006). appeal pending, No. 06-5267 (D.C. Cir.). Order # 1021. Filed September 20, 2006.Google Scholar12Unites States v Philip Morris USA. No. 06-5267 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 2008) (order setting date of oral argument).Google Scholar Open table in a new tab When the depositories were opened to the public in May 1998 (Minnesota) and February 1999 (Guildford), approximately 35 million pages of once-secret internal documents were available for public review.3Ciresi MV Walburn RB Sutton TD Decades of deceit: document discovery in the Minnesota tobacco litigation.William Mitchell Law Rev. 1999; 25: 477-566Google Scholar Since the settlement in 1998, the number of pages of tobacco industry documents available for public review has nearly doubled because (1) the Minnesota settlement mandated that all of defendants' previously unproduced documents in any US civil smoking and health litigation during the following 10 years be placed into the Minnesota depository13Consent Judgment. The State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota v Philip Morris et al. Court File No. C1-94-8565.http://www.library.ucsf.edu/sites/all/files/ucsf_assets/mnconsent.pdfDate: May 8, 1998Google Scholar and (2) the MSA required the settling tobacco defendants to place oversized and electronic media into the Minnesota depository.16Project Tobacco Web site Master Settlement Agreement. Paragraph IV(g).http://www.naag.org/backpages/naag/tobacco/msa/msa-pdf/1109185724_1032468605_cigmsa.pdf/file_viewDate: November 23, 1998Google Scholar In one case alone, the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) case against the tobacco industry, United States v Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al, the tobacco defendants were forced to produce an additional 26 million pages of documents.17United States v Philip Morris USA I, et al. 449 F Supp 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006). appeal pending, No. 06-5267 (D.C. Cir.) http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/tobacco2/amended%20opinion.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2009.Google Scholar The Minnesota depository currently houses approximately 60 million pages, and the Guildford depository, approximately 6 to 7 million pages. The Minnesota settlement, in combination with the terms of the MSA, has also made publicly available approximately 20,000 other media materials (audiotapes, videotapes, CDs, DVDs, slides, maps, oversized paper materials, microfilm, and external storage devices such as hard drives). Before the Minnesota litigation, US tobacco companies had produced only a relatively small number of documents during several decades of litigation, and BAT had never produced a single document in a smoking and health action.3Ciresi MV Walburn RB Sutton TD Decades of deceit: document discovery in the Minnesota tobacco litigation.William Mitchell Law Rev. 1999; 25: 477-566Google Scholar For decades, the tobacco industry had engaged in "scorched earth" litigation tactics aimed at building a nearly impregnable wall around the industry. Included in the industry's litigation tactics were abuses of the attorney-client privilege doctrine as a means of keeping scientific documents secret.3Ciresi MV Walburn RB Sutton TD Decades of deceit: document discovery in the Minnesota tobacco litigation.William Mitchell Law Rev. 1999; 25: 477-566Google Scholar In Minnesota, the industry faced a brilliant legal team representing the State and a wise, no-nonsense veteran judge who held both sides accountable. In fact, we think that the courageous rulings of the judge, the Honorable Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick, resulted in revelations about this industry that no one could have anticipated.18Phelps D Judge Kenneth Fitzpatrick: order in the court; unflappable jurist in spotlight as state, Blue Cross join in lawsuit against tobacco firms.Minneapolis Star Tribune. January 27, 1997; : 1DGoogle Scholar Viewed in this context, the sheer volume and breadth of the documents and electronic media available for public review as a result of the Minnesota settlement and the MSA are staggering. Although the Minnesota litigation resulted in previously unimaginable access to millions of tobacco industry records, substantial barriers have prevented public access to the depositories' contents during the past 10 years. Although the Minnesota depository was administered by an independent third-party paralegal firm,19Smart Legal Assistance. 119 North 4th Street Minneapolis, MN 55104 Direct: (612) 340-1030. Fax: (612) 340-0019. Email: [email protected] http://www.tobaccoarchives.com/docbasic.html. Accessed February 20, 2009.Google Scholar BAT was allowed to manage the daily operations of the Guildford depository.20Guildford depository. Unit 3A, Opus Business Park Moorfield Road, Slyfield Guildford, GU1 1SZ. Tel: +44 (1483) 464 300. Requests for admission to the Guildford depository should be faxed to the BAT Legal Department: British American Tobacco. Globe House 4, Temple Place London, UK WC2R 2PG, Fax: 44 20 7845 2783.http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/Google Scholar In doing so, the company violated the spirit of the Minnesota settlement, a fact documented by both the legislative and judicial branches of government and by journalists and academicians.15Muggli ME LeGresley EM Hurt RD Big tobacco is watching: British American Tobacco's surveillance and information concealment at the Guildford Depository.Lancet. 2004; 363: 1812-1819Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar, 17United States v Philip Morris USA I, et al. 449 F Supp 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006). appeal pending, No. 06-5267 (D.C. Cir.) http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/tobacco2/amended%20opinion.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2009.Google Scholar, 21Glantz S The truth about big tobacco in its own words: it is time to truly open up British American Tobacco's depository in Guildford [editorial].BMJ. 2000; 321: 313-314Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 22Collin J Lee K Gilmore AB Unlocking the corporate documents of British American Tobacco: an invaluable global resource needs radically improved access.Lancet. 2004; 363: 1746-1747Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (36) Google Scholar, 23Lee K Gilmore AB Collin J Looking inside the tobacco industry: revealing insights from the Guildford depository [editorial].Addiction. 2004; 99: 394-397Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar, 24Select Committee on Health. House of Commons Health: Second Report. Smoking in Britain: awareness of the health risks of smoking. Session 1999-2000. Publications and Records Web site.http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhealth/27/2702.htmGoogle Scholar Operations at the Minnesota depository were also affected by BAT's conduct with respect to its obligations to make certain litigation documents publicly available. In 2006, Mayo Clinic sought legal relief for its research team from BAT's interference with document research conducted at the Minnesota depository. Mayo sought to compel BAT to produce documents that Mayo thought BAT was obligated to produce into the depository in accordance with the Minnesota settlement and to order BAT to cease interfering with Mayo investigators' use of and access to documents.25Memorandum of Law of Support of the Mayo Clinic's Motion to Compel the Deposit of Documents by British American Tobacco Company and to Preclude its Interference with the Use of the Documents in the Minnesota Depository. January 17, 2006. The State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota v Philip Morris et al. Court File No. C1-94-8565. http://stic.neu.edu/MN/court_orders/2134.min.html. Accessed February 23, 2009.Google Scholar The court did not address the merits of Mayo's claim because it held that Mayo, which was not a party to the Minnesota litigation, did not have legal standing to enforce the Minnesota settlement.26Order RE Tobacco Depository. August 18, 2006. The State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota v Philip Morris et al. Court File No. C1-94-8565.Google Scholar Although the 10-year public access provision of the Minnesota settlement was an ingenious instrument for furthering the discovery of revelations regarding the industry's behavior, users of the depositories have ultimately been unable to seek relief from disruptions to research and issues related to document access at the depositories.27Brief of Amicus Curiae in United States v Philip Morris USA I, et al. The Regents of the University of California in Support of the United States' Proposed Final Judgment and Order, August 24, 2005. http://www.library.ucsf.edu/sites/all/files/ucsf_assets/amicus_curiae_ucsf.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2009.Google Scholar Now that 10 years have passed, whether the depositories will close as stated in the Minnesota settlement or will remain open with the addition of new documents is unclear. The Minnesota settlement provided that the Minnesota depository would be in operation for 10 years from May 8, 1998,13Consent Judgment. The State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota v Philip Morris et al. Court File No. C1-94-8565.http://www.library.ucsf.edu/sites/all/files/ucsf_assets/mnconsent.pdfDate: May 8, 1998Google Scholar and that the Guildford depository would be maintained for a period of 10 years after its opening on February 22, 1999.13Consent Judgment. The State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota v Philip Morris et al. Court File No. C1-94-8565.http://www.library.ucsf.edu/sites/all/files/ucsf_assets/mnconsent.pdfDate: May 8, 1998Google Scholar Accordingly, the Minnesota depository was set to close on May 8, 2008, and the Guildford depository, on February 22, 2009. However, the final order in the RICO case against the tobacco industry requires that the defendants maintain the Minnesota and Guildford Depositories until September 2021.11United States v Philip Morris USA I et al., 449 F Supp 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006). appeal pending, No. 06-5267 (D.C. Cir.). Order # 1021. Filed September 20, 2006.Google Scholar Were that decision to be upheld, it would enforce the disclosure of contemporary documents about the tobacco industry's activity, especially because the "light" cigarette case ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States will undoubtedly result in the filing of new litigation against the industry. The tobacco defendants have appealed the case; oral arguments were heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in October 2008.12Unites States v Philip Morris USA. No. 06-5267 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 2008) (order setting date of oral argument).Google Scholar A decision is expected in early 2009. Although the Minnesota settlement required the tobacco defendants to deposit their hard-copy documents in depositories, the MSA obligated the settling tobacco parties to make their documents available online until June 30, 2010.28Project Tobacco; National Association of Attorneys General Master settlement agreement. Paragraphs IV(c) and IV(d).http://www.naag.org/backpages/naag/tobacco/msa/msa-pdf/1109185724_1032468605_cigmsa.pdf/file_viewDate: November 23, 1998Google Scholar In effect, most of the documents produced by US-based defendants and placed into the Minnesota depository have also been posted on industry-created Web sites, with the exception of oversized and electronic materials that the MSA requires to be deposited in Minnesota.16Project Tobacco Web site Master Settlement Agreement. Paragraph IV(g).http://www.naag.org/backpages/naag/tobacco/msa/msa-pdf/1109185724_1032468605_cigmsa.pdf/file_viewDate: November 23, 1998Google Scholar The tobacco industry's Web sites, developed under the MSA,29Tobacco Archives. com Web site.http://www.tobaccoarchives.com/Google Scholar were initially perhaps easier to search than were the hard-copy documents at the depositories30Malone RE Balbach ED Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire?.Tob Control. 2000; 9: 334-338Crossref PubMed Scopus (247) Google Scholar; however, these electronic files have proved to be difficult to use because of impaired search functions, inconsistencies between the tobacco entities' Web sites, and inaccessibility to images. Furthermore, tobacco industry Web sites allow their managers to track user searches.27Brief of Amicus Curiae in United States v Philip Morris USA I, et al. The Regents of the University of California in Support of the United States' Proposed Final Judgment and Order, August 24, 2005. http://www.library.ucsf.edu/sites/all/files/ucsf_assets/amicus_curiae_ucsf.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2009.Google Scholar In response to the limited search capability of tobacco industry sites, the research community sought to make tobacco document images more accessible and useable and to create permanent images on the Internet. After the
Referência(s)