The verified petition of the plaintiffs filed with this Court on May 13, 1965, seeking costs as the result of the trip of plaintiffs' representatives to Detroit, Michigan, on May 11, 1965, for inspection of the records of the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, pursuant to the order of this Court entered May 10, 1965;

The Affidavit of Eugene I. Pavalon filed with this Court on May 28, 1965, in support of a motion seeking an order requiring the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION to permit plaintiffs' representatives to copy certain specified records and to set rules and procedures for the taking of the evidence depositions of certain of the said defendant's employees;

The verified Answer of General Motors Corporation to the Petition of Delmar Franklin, et al, to Strike the Answer of General Motors Corporation, filed by the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION with this Court on May 28, 1965, in answer to the said petition of the plaintiffs filed with this Court on May 13, 1965;

The Affidavit of Louis G. Davidson filed with this Court on June 2, 1965, in support of the motion of plaintiffs for an order requiring the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION to produce certain of its sepecified records for inspection and copying by plaintiffs' representatives and for the setting of a date certain for the commencement of the taking of the evidence depositions of certain of the said defendant's employees, or in the alternative. for an order finding the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION to be in contempt of the orders and authority of this Court;

The Affidavit of Ellis J. Premo, a chief engineer of Chevrolet Motors Division of the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, and the Affidavit of Frank W. Hall, an attorney associated with the firm of Hubbard, Hubbard, O'Brien & Hall, counsel for the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, both of which affidavits were filed with this Court on June 10, 1965, in support of the motion of the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION for a protective order and for an order modifying the prior orders of this Court:

The Affidavit of Eugene I. Pavalon filed with this Court on June 10, 1965, in support of the motion of the plaintiffs for the entry of a Rule against the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION to show cause why the said defendant's answer to the amended complaint of the plaintiffs should not be stricken and why the said defendant should not be defaulted for its willful conduct in contempt of this Court in refusing to comply with the provisions of the said orders of this Court;

The Affidavit of Eugene I. Pavalon and the Affidavit of Edward E. Tate, a professional mechanical engineer employed by the said Louis G. Davidson and the law firm of Herbolsheimer & Lannon, attorneys for the plaintiffs herein, both of which affidavits were filed with this Court on June 22, 1965, in support of the plaintiffs' Answer to the Motion of the Defendant General Motors Corporation for a Protective Order;

The transcripts of the proceedings had in this matter in Detroit, Michigan. in which proceedings the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION was producing certain of its records and documents for inspection by plaintiffs' representatives, on May 11, May 17, May 18, May 19, May 20, May 26. May 27. May 28 and June 1, 1965, which transcripts were filed pursuant to leave of Court granted in the said order of this Court entered on June 2, 1965;

The proceedings before this Court on May 10, May 13, May 28. June 2 and June 10, 1965, the certified transcripts of which are on file with this Court. And this Court being fully advised in the premises finds as follows:

1. That the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION has knowingly, wilfully and intentionally refused to comply with the said order of this Court entered April 27, 1965, requiring it to produce certain of its specified records and documents for inspection by plaintiffs' represenatives in Detroit, Michigan, on May 10, 1965, and to make available certain of its employees for the taking of their evidence depositions in Detroit, Michigan, beginning May 10, 1965, following the inspection of its said records and documents by plantiffs' representatives;

2. That the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION knowingly, wilfully and intentionally refused to comply with the provisions of the said order of this Court entered May 10, 1965, requiring it to produce on May 11, 1965, in Detroit, Michigan, all of its records which were produced and were to be produced for inspection by counsel in the case of Anderson v. General Motors

Corporation, a Florida case involving the issue of the defective design of the Corvair automobiles, for inspection and copying by plaintiffs' representatives; 3. That the defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, during the said proceedings of May 11, 1965, engaged in such tactics as refusing to produce its said records in the presence of plaintiffs' representatives because counsel in the Florida litigation was also present in the room, and refusing to produce its said records and documents which it had assembled for production for counsel in the Florida litigation because the production of the records in the Florida litigation was continued during that day, and refusing, without justification, to identify certain of its records produced in large boxes, which conduct was a mockery of the authority of this Court and was conduct which was in contempt of this Court; 4. That the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION did knowingly, wilfully and intentionally refuse to comply with the said order of this Court entered May 13, 1965, by:

(a) Continuing to refuse to make available an employee or employees to testify regarding the identity of its said records which were being produced during the said proceedings had in Detroit, Michigan, on May 17th through May 20th, May 26th through May 28th, and June 1, 1965, as required by the said order;

(b) Continuing to refuse to produce the records in categories as called for by the said order and the order of this Court entered on April 27, 1965;

(e) Its contumacious conduct in running the soundtrack of a promotional film which plaintiffs' counsel had waived seeing, while counsel for the plaintiffs was attempting to make a statement for the record, and in insisting on showing promotional films regarding the Chevy II and the Impala automobiles;

(d) Its refusal to produce all of its proving ground test records regarding the Corvair automobiles and other rear engine automobiles, as required by the said order;

(e) Its refusal during the proceedings of June 1, 1965, to produce any of its records in the presence of certain persons selected by plaintiffs' counsel to assist in the inspection of the said records;

(f) Its refusal to make available certain of its named employees for the giving of their evidence depositions on June 1, 1965;

5. That the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION did knowingly, wilfully and intentionally refuse to comply with the said order of this Court entered May 28, 1965, by knowingly, intentionally and wilfully refusing either to furnish promptly copies of certain of its records, at plaintiffs' expense, which copies the plaintiffs had previously ordered, or to produce said records so as to permit plaintiffs' representatives to copy the said records, notwithstanding the entry of a protective order on May 28, 1965, restricting the plaintiffs' use of the said copies of this litigation and directing plaintiffs' counsel and representatives not to furnish copies of the said records to other counsel involved in other Corvair litigation:

6. That the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION engaged in a deliberate and calculated course of conduct during the said proceedings in Detroit, Michigan, by producing large masses of irrelevant and immaterial records; that the production of said records had not been required by the orders of this Court ; that plaintiffs' counsel repeatedly requested during the said proceedings that the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION not produce the said masses of irrelevant and immaterial records; that after plaintiffs' counsel had specified particular categories of records and identified particular movies which were not required to be produced by the orders of this Court and which plaintiffs' counsel did not want to examine and see, the same defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION persisted in producing and showing to the plaintiffs' representatives the said specified records and movies; that the said conduct of the defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION was designed and calculated to harass and oppress the plaintiffs and to demean this court ordered proceeding; 7. That the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION did knowingly, wilfully and intentionally violate the provisions of the said order of this Court entered June 2, 1965, by :

(a) Refusing either to furnish plaintiffs' representatives on June 7, 1965, in Detroit, Michigan, copies of its specified records of which the plaintiffs had previously ordered copies or to furnish its said records so as to permit plaintiffs' representatives to copy the said records;

(b) Refusing to produce for inspection and copying by plaintiffs' representatives beginning June 7, 1965, certain of its proving ground test records regarding its Corvair automobiles and prototypes;

(c) Refusing to make available certain of its named employees for the giving of their evidence depositions beginning on June 14, 1965;

8. That the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION did knowingly, wilfully and intentionally refuse to comply with the said order of this Court entered June 10, 1965, by :

(a) Refusing either to furnish copies of certain of its records on June 14, 1965, of which records the plaintiffs had previously ordered copies, or to furnish its said records so as to permit the plaintiffs' representatives to make copies of the said records;

(b) Refusing to produce for inspection and copying by plaintiffs' representatives all of its proving ground test records of all of its model year Corvair automobiles and prototypes on June 14, 1965, in the General Motors Building, in Detroit, Michigan;

(c) Refusing to make available certain specified employees for the giving of their evidence depositions, which depositions were required to follow plaintiffs' inspection of the said proving ground test records;

That the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION refused to comply with the provisions of the said order notwithstanding the additional protection this Court granted it in the said order of June 10, 1965, at the request of the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, which protection restricted the use of the said copies of its records to this litigation and which order prohibited the plaintiffs or any of their representatives employed to work in this, litigation to divulge any of the information acquired as the result of the inspection of said defendant's records to anyone not directly connected with this litigation;

9. That this Court entered orders on April 27, May 13, June 2 and June 10, 1965, setting a date and time certain for evidence depositions of the same specified employees of the defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, and to date the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION has refused to proceed with any of the said scheduled depositions;

10. That this Court entered orders on May 28, June 2 and June 10, 1965, requiring the defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION to make available copies of certain of its records to the plaintiffs' representatives, and to date the defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION has refused to make available to the said plaintiffs' representatives any copies of its said records specified in the said orders and requested by the plaintiffs;

11. That this Court entered orders on April 27, May 13, June 2 and June 10, 1965, requiring the defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION to produce all of its proving ground test records regarding the Corvair automobiles and prototypes and other rear engined cars, and the said orders of June 2 and June 10, 1965, required the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION to first produce all of its said proving ground test records; that the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, in defiance of the said orders of this Court, wilfully and intentionally produced only a part of the said proving ground test records, and after the entry of the said orders of this Court on June 2 and June 10, 1965, the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION refused to produce any more of its said proving ground test records; 12. That as a direct result and in consequence of the said wilful and contumacious conduct of the defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, in refusing to comply with the said orders of this Court, the plaintiffs have been denied their right to the discovery to which they are entitled under the laws of the State of Illinois; and in further consequences of said actions of the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, the said plaintiffs have been prevented from obtaining evidence which they have sought for use in the trial of this cause, which is presently set for early October, 1965; that the said discovery sought by the plaintiffs pursuant to the lawful orders of this Court would have led to the discovery of information material and relevant to the issues in controversy as formed by the pleadings filed herein; that the employees of the defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION whom the plaintiffs sought to depose would have been able to give testimony material and relevant to the issues in controversy; that the said wilful and contumacious conduct of the defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION has thereby had the effect of jeopardizing and prejudicing the rights of the plaintiffs to try their cases on the merits and to obtain justice in the courts of this state;

13. That the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION even now has not indicated any willingness or inclination to make a good faith effort

to comply with the orders of this Court and in fact, in the responses and affidavits it has filed with this Court, has set forth conditions which the defendant indicates this Court and the plaintiffs must accept before the said defendant will endeavor to comply even in part with the said orders of this Court; that to date the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION has shown no will nedeavor to comply even in part with the said orders of this Court;that to Court;

14. That by reason of the said contumacious conduct of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION in engaging in a sham and largely superficial compliance with the orders of this Court, in producing mainly irrelevant and immaterial records and moving pictures, in not having available any employees of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION who could answer questions as to what said records and movies purported to contain or show, in not producing any index to said large volumes of documents which proved on inspection to be largely irrelevant to the issues in the case, and by reason of other similar conduct of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION on June 1, 1965, at said proceedings in Detroit, Michigan, as shown by the transcripts of said proceedings and by affidavits filed herein, which acts and conduct of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION were calculated to defy the order of this Court and which harassed and oppressed the plaintiffs, counsel for the plaintiffs temporarily interrupted said proceedings in Detroit, Michigan, on June 1, 1965, to seek further relief by way of an order of this Court to compel a genuine compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of the orders of this Court:

15. That this Court sought to grant such relief and to compel compliance with its prior orders by the entry of the said orders of June 2, 1965, and June 10, 1965, specifying with the greatest particularity what records were to be produced, in what sequence they were to be produced, when the depositions were to proceed, and laying down further ground rules for the said proceedings for the protection of all parties to the said proceedings; that since the entry of said orders of June 2, 1965, and June 10, 1965, and in violation and defiance of said orders of this Court, the defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION has, without leave of court, continued said evidence depositions to some unknown time, and despite a broad protective order entered for the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION on June 10, 1965, with the consent of the plaintiffs, the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, in violation and defiance of said orders of the Court, has refused and failed to produce any further records or documents, or to furnish at plaintiffs' expense any copies of those documents previously ordered by the plaintiffs from the documents produced by GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION pursuant to orders of Court, and said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION has, without leave of court, and in violation and defiance of said orders of the court, terminated all further proceedings in Detroit, Michigan, in these actions:

16. That the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION did knowingly and willfully refuse to comply with the orders of this Court hereinabove set forth and did knowingly and willfully engage in said course of conduct for the express purpose of preventing the plaintiffs from exercising their lawful right to inspect, examine and copy certain of its specified documents and records, which are relevant to the issues in controversy, and for the express purpose of preventing the plaintiffs from taking the evidence depositions of certain of its specified employees;

17. That the said contumacious conduct of the defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, in defying and refusing to comply with the said orders of this Court, has demeaned the authority of the Court and has and will encourage disrespect for and disobedience of the orders and judgments of the courts of the State of Illinois;

18. That the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION has failed to show cause why its answer to the amended complaint of the plaintiffs should not be stricken and why the said defendant should not be defaulted for its contempt of this Court in its continuing wilful and international refusal to comply with the said orders of this Court, and why a judgment should not be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION on the issue of liability only;

19. That the said conduct of the defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, in contempt of this Court, has had the effect of impeding and thwarting the lawful rights of the plaintiffs in prosecuting their cause of action in this Court;

WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the rule heretofore entered on the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION be made absolute and the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION be and it hereby is adJudicated as having been and continuing to be in contempt of this Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the answer of the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, to the amended complaint of the plaintiffs. be and it is hereby stricken; that a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, DELMAR FRANKLIN; ELIZABETH A. FRANKLIN; DEBRA FRANKLIN, a minor, by ELIZABETH A. FRANKLIN, her mother and next friend, and WILLIAM FRANKLIN, a minor, by ELIZABETH A. FRANKLIN, his mother and next friend, be and it is hereby entered against the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION as to the matter of liability only;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial of the only remaining issue in controversy, the amount of the damages of the plaintiffs, if any, be deferred until the final disposition of the petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition filed in the Supreme Court by the said defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.

Enter: Circuit Court June 29, 1965.

June 29, 1965.

NICHOLAS J. BUA, Judge.

EXHIBIT 147

Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF,

AMERICAN TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION,
Watertown, Mass., March 17, 1966.

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: To show the relationship between Ralph Nader and the American Trial Lawyers Association, a national bar association of 25,000 trial lawyers who preponderantly represent accident victims, I am sending you and your Committee the following enclosures with factual comments:

(1) See December, 1965, issue of ATL News Letter, especially pp. 340–343 and November 1965, issue, p. 307, together with other enclosures.

Comment: We believe these enclosures will show that the relationship between ATL and Nader was not designed to promote Nader or to "get G.M." or "get the Corvair" but to help our 25,000 member attorneys to help their clients who are the victims of the modern explosion of product-caused injuries.

First, our Products Liability Exchange was activated in 1957 long before the first Corvair litigation in 1964.

Second, our concern with accident prevention and civilly arming the consumer with a bigger stick far exceeds the single major problem of unsafe design of automobiles but includes all product caused injuries whether caused by G.M. or not and ranges from Abrasive Wheels, Adhesives, Amusement Devices through Fireworks, Guns. Hair Dyes, Plant Sprays and Punch Presses to Waterproofing Materials, X-Ray Equipment and Zinc Sulphate.

Third, Product liability cases are essentially "battles of experts." This means in practice a lopsided contest between industry and the injured consumer, because industry owns the experts and can drown the claimant's attorney in an avalanche of retained experts. Therefore, ATL strains to assemble in its publications lists of experts and others with available expertise to do what we can to equalize this one-sided battle of the experts. You will note from the enclosed News Letters and copies of correspondence with our members that Nader's name is not listed alone but along with whatever other technical experts and authors we could find for the legitimate aid of our members and their clients who, after all, are just fellow Americans.

Fourth, I can frankly state that Nader never received one red cent from the ATL Products Liability/Consumer Protection Exchange for the limitless hours he put into his writing, research, and consultations. For instance, he appeared as a participant in our 1964 Annual Convention, Americana Hotel, New York City, and addressed us on the topic, "Automobile Design Hazards-Realities and Remedies." He did not receive any compensation or even reimbursement for his travel and hotel expenses or for his time. We had him on the program for the same reason we invited Hon. Edward J. Speno, Senator New York State Legislature Chairman, Joint Legislature Committee relating to motor vehicle traffic