Tobacco.org

• Prof. fights tobacco subpoena, defends research freedom 

Students who have taken the IHUM course “World History of Science” in the last two years probably know history Prof. Robert Proctor for his crusade against the tobacco industry. Bespectacled and typically relaxed, he was often found in front of hundreds of freshmen presenting incriminating evidence against the business.

The professor has also appeared as a witness in 15 lawsuits against tobacco companies since 1998 and most recently agreed to appear in court on behalf of the plaintiffs in Stella Koballa, et al., etc. v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc., et al., etc., a civil lawsuit filed in 2007 against Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and several other large tobacco firms.

But in this latest bout with Big Tobacco, Proctor is facing stiff opposition.

While the suit awaits trial in the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, lawyers for R.J. Reynolds are attempting to obtain a manuscript of the professor's still-unpublished book on the tobacco industry and already had a subpoena for the work approved in late August. The defense wanted to use this manuscript for the cross-examination of Proctor when he takes the stand for the plaintiffs.

For Proctor, R.J. Reynolds' attempt to obtain his unpublished book, entitled Golden Holocaust: A History of Global Tobacco, is an attack on his private work and credibility before he can even take the witness stand.

“The tobacco industry is trying to win its cases by intimidating witnesses and harassing me,” . . .

While the subpoena has been approved, Proctor and the plaintiffs have yet to submit to the court's order. Instead, more than a week after the subpoena was issued, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the hopes the court would reconsider the decision. . . .

In the 27-page motion, the plaintiffs argued that the court's decision to obtain Proctor's work violated his rights to independently publish the book, to keep individual privacy and to gather information under the First Amendment. As such, the motion also asked that the work be placed under a protective order, preventing access to the manuscript for use as evidence in a court of law.

Jump to full article »