mistaken in her assumption of how the manuscripts for Volume 23
of the Review were handled (Paper 289 at 42). That Cooperman
dealt with a large number of manuscripts, authors and editors
does not, without more discredit Cooperman's testimony.
Cooperman was consistent throughout her testimony. She testified
that for Volume 23, a copy of each manuscript for the keynote
topic was sent to each guest editor (Findings 75 and 76).
organizing and orchestrating each Volume was and still is (as of
the date of her deposition and cross-examination testimony) Ms.
Cooperman's job as production editor (Findings 52 and 53). As
part of her job, Ms. Cooperman performs certain routine tasks.
We are not persuaded that the shear volume of information that
Ms. Cooperman dealt with in 1993 discounts her consistent
recollection of how manuscripts were handled for Volume 23.
Snitzer additionally argues that it was possible that
Cooperman only sent one copy of the Hill manuscript to
Dr. Laudise and not to Dr. Hill (Paper 289 at 41). Snitzer
directs us to the Cooperman May 12, 1992 letter in which the
letter indicates that one copy of the manuscript sent by Dr. Hill
will be sent to the senior editors (Finding 73). Snitzer argues
that the reference to "senior editors" in the letter was correct
and even if it was supposed to be guest editors, that the letter
indicates that only one copy was sent to the guest editors, and
that it was likely that the one copy was sent to Dr. Laudise.
52
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007