Filmmaker in Dole case: I was never a 'yes man'

A filmmaker whose interviews are a critical part of hearings about the validity of a multimillion dollar judgment against Dole Food Co. insists he "wasn't here to be a yes man" for either side in the dispute over damage to Nicaraguan banana workers.

Jason Glaser acknowledged he was being paid by lawyers representing the workers who claim pesticides made them sterile. But he said his tapes of mysterious "John Doe" witnesses, one of which was played in court Friday, may have helped or harmed either side in the lawsuit.

Glaser told Judge Victoria Chaney he is concerned about his safety as a result of testifying.

"Nobody likes the guy who shows both sides," he said.

Chaney presided over the 2007 trial in which jurors awarded six plaintiffs $2.3 million. She held three days of hearings this week to consider whether to throw out the verdict after Dole investigators uncovered evidence that some of the workers suing the company had lied.

Glaser, 32, said he went to Nicaragua to do a documentary about the plight of banana workers who said they were rendered sterile after working on Dole plantations in the 1970s and early 1980s.

"I was pretty wet behind the ears," he said of his first involvement with the story. "I wasn't organized."

He said he quickly realized he could do more good by working for the Provost-Umphrey law firm of Beaumont, Texas, which was representing numerous plaintiffs with cases against Dole. He said he had no qualms about acting a dual role, and during many surreptitiously recorded interviews he told about five or six people that he was working for the law firm.

He recounted traveling to Costa Rica, where he lunched with a man representing 600 to 1,000 workers with potential cases against Dole.

The filmmaker said he wound up advising the man to not allow different factions to dilute their efforts.

"I told him, 'Dole is going to have a field day with your group, cutting you up in small groups,'" Glaser said. "I wanted to see if there was a way to unify all these factions."

He said a man who would become one of the "John Doe" witnesses wanted to see some lawyers, and he suggested the Provost-Umphrey firm. But the relationship fell apart when the man asked lawyers to take care of sexual molestation charges pending against him in Nicaragua.

Later, a member of Glaser's crew was able to interview the witness by phone and tape him talking about a plan to fake sperm tests for plaintiffs.

Glaser said he also had contact with the infamous "Witness X," who has been credited with breaking the case for Dole by disclosing massive fraud by the plaintiffs.

His biggest revelation was that "Witness X" died of kidney failure last year, but he said he saw "Witness X" at his family's farm in Nicaragua.

"I talked to him about whether there were false plaintiffs," Glaser said. "He said there were. He said some of those people were bought to increase their pocketbooks. He looked pretty guilty."

An indication of the fraud was seen in the videotape of one witness who claimed to have been rendered sterile by pesticide exposure from 1973 to 1980. Under Glaser's questioning, he admitted that he had a daughter born in the late 1980s, long after he was supposed to have become sterile.

Another witness confirmed in a phone interview that a Nicaraguan judge gathered principles in the case and told them how to fake lab tests for sterility.

Steve Condie, an Oakland lawyer who is opposing dismissal of the jury award, questioned Glaser at length and cited records that indicate Dole knew of the fraud before the case began and held back the information. Lawyers for the Westlake Village, Calif., company deny this.

Glaser, who said he decided to testify after his identity was "outed" by a Dole investigator, said he has started a nonprofit foundation to assist ailing farm workers and plans to return to Nicaragua.

Chaney, who has been elevated to the state appellate court and returned to Superior Court for the last act of the case, Tellez v. Dole, asked lawyers to address in arguments Monday whether she can dismiss the case to preserve the integrity of the court system and prevent future frauds.

"The court system in the United States prides itself on being run with no fraud, bribery or chicanery," she said. "At least some of the plaintiffs in the Tellez case - not all - have brought fraudulent claims, and does that impact all of them? Does this court have a right to police itself to preserve the sanctity of the system?"