Is BAT breaking the terms of the Minnesota settlement at the Guildford Depository?
This would be something for the Minnesota courts to decide if the Minnesota plaintiffs were to question BATs actions. The consortium does not have the formal legal standing to take such an action. However, we would ask the question whether the conditions of access reflect the spirit of the Minnesota settlement. Is it reasonable for a company, which now claims a commitment to corporate social responsibility, to covertly monitor the work and daily activities of visitors, apparently rank the files selected by their potential public relations threat to the company, not provide a proper index of the materials, take a year or more to provide copies of documents that are now in the public domain, and to withhold other documents on the basis of opaque and unchallengeable privilege claims? On these latter two points, it is worth noting that BAT delayed the opening of the Guildford Depository by almost a year beyond the date when the Minnesota Depository opened, apparently to undertake additiona
