10/1/2007 TO YOLO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; LT. DANIEL STROSKI - WORKERS' COMPENSATION FRAUD UNIT by Sandi Trend

Sandra (Sandi) Trend 7352 Huntington Square Lane #155 Citrus Heights, CA 95621 Phone: (916) 267-5310 October 1, 2007 TO: Daniel Stroski, Investigator c/o Yolo County District Attorney 301 Second Street Woodland, CA 95695 RE: David Bell vs Agraquest WCAB Case ID: SAC 332586 Dear Investigator Daniel Stroski, It meant so much to me for you to take time out and talk to me Tuesday, September 11, 2007 at the State of California Fraud Assessment Commission meeting. After what we went through at the WCAB the day before was unnerving to say the least, but talking to you has given me some hope. The company my son, David Bell worked for was Agraquest in Davis, CA. They discover, isolate, develop and then manufacturer microorganisms that are found all over the world (mostly soil) [enclosed with this letter is the June 17, 2007 Sacramento Bee article; “Natural entrepreneur”] which Pam Marrone talks about ”scoured the world for biopesticides” 1 This is only one of the many articles where Agraquest boasts “searching the world for microorganisms” “use of microbe hunters” to be used as a replacement for chemicals for use as pesticides, fungicides, biocides and insecticides. [Many articles relating to this are found on Agraquest’s own website] My son will attest to the fact that soil was smuggled in on a commercial airliner by Stephen Flanagan who at the time was working for Agraquest. David believed he was returning from somewhere in South America. David said they were laughing about how it was brought in. The “green suitcase” sat with a bag [or baggies] of dirt/soil for some time on the counter in the lab where my son worked. David had since called APHIS (United States Department of Agriculture) inquiring whether Agraquest had a soil permit at that time and was told no. It is against the law to bring soil into the United States without a soil permit. [APHIS quarantine regulations 7 CCR 330] 2 After David’s inquiry to APHIS , the founder and CEO of the company [Pam Marrone] more or less stepped down in her position. Now, she is no longer at Agraquest and has started another company called Marrone Organic Innovations. [June 17, 2007 Sacramento Bee “Natural entrepreneur”] 3 When David worked at Agraquest and thereafter the entire existence of the company and it’s survival depended on Agraquest first product Serenade (QST 713, Bacillus Subtilis bacteria) and any reporting of any adverse effects to human health would cause un-repairable harm to the existence and future of Agraquest as discussed in the Securities and Exchange Commission filing 2002 4 .

• (The statement “We have been issued three U.S. patents for Serenade” - all patents to date with Serenade and/or bacillus subtilis used contain, but is not limited to; bacteria, fungus, insects, larvae, nematodes and chemicals HISTORY David Bell had been attending Sacramento State University and was only 4 units shy of getting a Bachelor of Science with a major in Biology and a minor in Chemistry when he wanted to gain some experience in the biotechnology industry.

On July 30/1998 David Bell was given a letter of “job offer” from Pam Marrone, CEO and founder of Agraquest [1995] for the position of Temporary Research Technician “for the next six month, possibly one year” This job offer letter was signed by David Bell on August 4, 1998 and he began working for Agraquest on August 10, 1998. When his employment began Agraquest was located at 1105 Kennedy Place Suite 4, Davis California - which sits on the corner of J Street and Kennedy Place in Davis. This is a residential neighborhood with an apartment across the street (J Street) and houses across the street (Kennedy Place) [Pictures enclosed] David’s “project” was the Laginex Project. Laginex is a trade name given to the fungus Lagenidium Giganteum and secret ingredients by Agraquest. Laginex was to be used as a vector control for mosquitos as it eats mosquitos from the inside out. David was to find an agent that would extend the shelf life of Laginex. While working at Agraquest, David helped other employees at Agraquest when needed and at any given time and he was in all areas of Agraquest as well as their “farms” or sites that Agraquest used to test their microbial and fungicidal discoveries [off site]. David Bell assisted with the Serenade projects: known QST 713 and possible QST 513. Of primary concern (not known as a hazard at the time and he was never told this powder was a hazard [Found on the 1997 EPA Final Risk Assessment on Bacillus Subtilis] was he “bagged” Serenade powder to be used at Agraquest’s test sites as well as product being sent to farmers. He “bagged” powder without respiratory protection in the hallway and bathroom in the building which was located at 1105 Kennedy Place, Suite 4 in Davis California. There wasn’t the proper ventilation that would be required for a microbial laboratory. The hallway where he “bagged” Serenade powder had no exhaust what-so-ever and the bathroom where he “bagged Serenade powder had a standard household fan. • This building would not have been compliant with OSHA standards and protocols for a microbial laboratory; BIOSAFETY IN BIOMEDICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES BMBL Section III Laboratory Biosafety Level 3 (BSL 3) [footnote #26] • [The March 2, 2005 Qualified Medical Examiner, Dr NG discusses the health effects of working with bacillus subtilis - [footnote #44]

On August 24, 1998 AQ submitted to the EPA a “registration of Serenade Bio fungicide Wettable Powder” Also submitted to the EPA at that time was a “petition which proposed establishing and exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticide, strain QST 713” [EPA C. Regulatory History] 5 Sometime in the last week of December 1998 or the first 2 weeks of January 1999 David Bell was instructed to pick up a “drum” at one of the offsite “farms” and bring it back to the lab so it could be used for “new broth”. When he retrieved the “drum” it had 2 - 3 gallons of liquid remaining in it. David asked what he should do with the liquid and asked if it was safe... he was told yes it was safe. He was told to dump it and clean it out. (This liquid was dumped in the “drain” behind the building which was merely a concrete slab that had been semi hollowed out. This drain leads and empties directly onto the dirt of the property. at the end of the building... it has since been “jackhammered” out. [Pictures enclosed] I have recently found that 1105 Kennedy Place, where the above took place is now set to have apartments built on the land. This concerns me greatly. I have pictures that I took of the portion of this building where the Agraquest lab was. On the exterior wall a pipe is coming out of the wall where an outside faucet is. On the joint of the pipe there was/is a growth of “something” . Evidently the crow had stopped to drink from the drip and it died (David Bell thinks this “drip” could have been from the condensation line from the air conditioning unit. We don’t know if each suite had a separate air conditioning unit or there was one unit for to whole building) . When I took these pictures there was not a sign of a single insect nor fly around the crow, which I thought was strange. Approximately 2 weeks later I went back to the lab and the crow was still there and didn’t show any signs of decay what-so-ever. [pictures enclosed]. The “clean” faucets are pictures of the other faucets around the building of 1105 Kennedy. Place. I also took a couple of pictures of the building next door, 1107 Kennedy Place and as you can tell this was a “clean” faucet. [Pictures enclosed] I have also enclosed pictures of Agraquest’s new lab that is located at 1530 Drew Avenue, Davis CA. To the best of my knowledge the company is still at this address.

On January 18, 1999 David Bell was so sick that after leaving work he went directly to Immediate Care Medical Clinic for an emergency medical visit and saw Dr Dorothy Peterson at which time he was given 250 mg of Zithromax (filled at Rite Aid Pharmacy) and told he needed to go to an ear, nose and throat specialist immediately. NEVER REPORTED EMPLOYER: [Insurance Code Section 11760], Labor Code 5401 Reg 101119 Claim Form provided to employee within one day of knowledge of injury , Labor Code 3602, Liability exists for any injury sustained by an employee “arising out of and in the cours of employment”, Labor Code 4600 Medical Treatment; employee is entitled to treatment that is “reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury”, Labor Code 4650 Injury Causes Temporarey Disability-Payment to Begin, PHYSICIAN: CALIFORNIA CODES HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 105200-105225, • (Upon return to work David Bell was told by Janelle, the company receptionist that at the same time David Bell got sick that 11 other people had called in sick. She said she was instructed by Pam Marrone to “shut and lock the lab door” • It is California State Law that any adverse effects of any pesticide be reported) [April 3, 1998 PESTICIDE REGISTRATION NOTICE 98-3 NOTICE TO MANUFACTURERS, FORMULATORS, PRODUCERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND REGISTRANTS OF PESTICIDE PRODUCTS]] 6 On January 19, 1999 David Bell saw Dr McKennan at Sacramento ENT who ordered more Zithromax and Vicoden for pain. Dr McKennan also ordered blood tests and x-rayed David Bell’s sinus cavities. NEVER REPORTED PHYSICIAN: CALIFORNIA CODES HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 105200-105225 On January 21,1999 David Bell saw Dr. Nancy Appelblatt at Sacramento ENT who performed a rhino scope on David Bell who prescribed 500 MG of Levaquin and 10 MG of prednisone. . NEVER REPORTED PHYSICIAN: CALIFORNIA CODES HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 105200-105225 On January 22, 1999 David Bell had a Maxillofacial limited CT at Radiological Association of Sacramento On January 25, 1999 David Bell returned to Sacramento ENT and saw Dr. Nancy Appelblatt who prescribed HYDROCODONE W/APAP-7 5/750 TABs. [1/25/1999 Dr. Nancy Appelblatt chart notes] 7 NEVER REPORTED PHYSICIAN: CALIFORNIA CODES HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 105200-105225 On January 29, 1999 David Bell returned to Sacramento ENT and Saw Dr Nancy Appleblatt and was prescribed Biaxin. [1/29/1999 Dr. Nancy Appelblatt chart notes] 8 NEVER REPORTED PHYSICIAN: CALIFORNIA CODES HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 105200-105225 On February 2, 1999, 15 days after his emergency medical visit to Immediate Care Medical Clinic, David had to have an emergency sinus surgery because of severe infection in the sinus cavities. His family was led to believe by Dr Nancy Appelblatt that if he didn’t have this surgery he would die. NEVER REPORTED PHYSICIAN: CALIFORNIA CODES HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 105200-105225. 9

[The March 2, 2005 Qualified Medical Examiner, Dr NG reported that it was his opinion that working with bacillus subtilis was the reason for this 1st surgery - footnote #44] On February 12, 1999 Dr. Nancy Appelblatt faxed to Agraquest: [stated David Bell can return to work] 10 On April 26, 1999 Agraquest submitted to to the EPA “Petition for Tolerance Exemption (PP 8F5032) for Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 on all agriculture commodities from AgraQuest Inc of Davis CA.”

[EPA Regulatory History QST 713 had already been submitted to the EPA for registration on August 24, 1998 - footnote #5 • During a registration or a re-registration of any pesticide product [biological included] it has to be established that the product will not cause any adverse health or adverse environmental effects. The California Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) and the EPA mandates that a product to be used within the state has to clearly show that there are no adverse effects on the environment or human health. If there is the products registrations or re-registrations will be canceled and full investigations as to the safety of the product will be conducted. 3

• Department of Pesticide Regulations [DPR] Chapter IX) 11 • EPA Regulating Biopesticides FIFRA 6(a)(2) 12 • Role and Functions of the EPA 13 • David Bell’s illness was never reported by Agraquest as is required by the above Federal and State agencies. • California Code of Regulations: Title 8 Section 342 death of an employee at the workplace

Immediate reporting of any serious injury, illness, or

On 6/1/1999 David was told his position was being terminated as they were going to “scrap” the Laginex project and was given $1,441.00 in severance pay. David had no reason to question that his position was being terminated as he was hired as a “Temporary Research Technician” “for the next six month, possibly one year” [July 30/1998 Page 2] On 6/19/1999 Agraquest submitted to the EPA an “Application for New Active Ingredient for Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 - for use in formulating end use products to control various fungal plant pathogens and terrestrial use by Agraquest Inc. of Davis CA” On December 28, 1999 David Bell wrote and sent a private e-mail to Laura Cunningham-Hilbig , David Bell’s ex-supervisor and safety officer at Agraquest.(page 000065 of David Bell’s subpoenaed employment file) Subject: RE: hi Laura Date: 28 Dec 99 06:53 MST From David Bell <david.a.bell@usa.net> To: lhilbig@agraquest.com,hilbig@agraquest.com,lchilbig@agraquest.com • This e-mail was then sent by Pam Marrone, CEO and founder of Agraquest to agraquest.com allowing all employees access to read the contents: (page 000065 of David Bell’s subpoenaed employment file), Subject: [FWD: hi laura} Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:53:18-0700 From “Pamela G. Marrone” <agraquest@agraquest.com> Organization: AgraQuest, Inc. To: agraquest@agraquest.com • Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 USC §119 • California Penal Code 631 On ?? (believed to be December 28, 1999) A memo was sent to all employees at Agraquest about David Bell. (page 000085 of David Bell’s 2004 subpoenaed employment file) This memo we believe was an attempt to keep anyone from speaking to David and to successfully continue to cover-up that he had gotten sick as a result from working at Agraquest. The memo was a smear tactic to lead the employees to believe that David was a disgruntled ex-employee, and put in the mind of the employees that there was a potential threat to the company and the employees by David. Prior to this David was well thought of by the employees. Until we received the employee file in 2004 David couldn’t understand why his ex-coworkers were avoiding him. 14 On December 29, 1999 Brian Campbell, David’s ex co-worker who began employment at Agraquest after David and had previously worked with Pam Marrone and other scientists that were now at Agraquest [Pam Marrone was President of this company] wrote of his meeting with David on October 6, 1999 at Home Depot on Truxell Boulevard in Sacramento, CA. Nowhere within this memo does Brian Campbell indicate that the meeting with David was other than friendly and cordial. It is in total disbelief that what followed on January , 2000 when Brian Campbell filed a civil action in the form of a TRO against David. This action must have therefore been at the instigation of Agraquest, specifically Pam Marrone 15 • During the September 10, 2007 WCAB trial Brian Campbell had stated on the witness stand that his employer now is Morrone Organic Innovations [Pam Marrone}

On January 1, 2000 a civil action was filed against David Bell purportedly to be at the request of Brian Campbell [SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF YOLO -CASE NO: PT00-86] 16 On January 24, 2000 a letter was written by the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, LLP - Christopher L. Russell

concerning the 12/28/1999 e-mail that David Bell had sent to Laura Hilbig of Agraquest. [Addressed in this letter was the issue of Agraquest’s EMPLOYEE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION INVENTIONS AGREEMENT] 17 On January 26, 2000 Laura Hilbig wrote - RE: Phone call from David Bell on January 26, 2000 : (found in David Bell's Employee file, obtained through a subpoena, on 6/16/2004 and received by Farrell, Fraulob & Brown law office on 8/2/2004) [this clearly shows that David Bell did not get a copy of the EMPLOYEE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION INVENTIONS AGREEMENT that he had signed when he was hired by Agraquest (8/10/1998) 18 On February 3, 2000 David Bell answered the letter sent to him from the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, LLP Christopher L. Russell: on January 24, 2000: David Bell. addressed in this letter: 1) he was never debriefed when his position was terminated, 2) apologized for the misunderstanding, 3) will keep the information secret, 4) requested a copy of his employee file California Civil Code §56.20, Labor Code §§432, 1198.5, California Government Code §1798, 5 USC §552a 5) notified Agraquest to stop harassing him 6) addressed Agraquest coerced an employee to file a TRO against him, 7) questions whether he was let go or fired; “Employer’s are required to notify employees at the time of discharge of the reasons for the discharge and to confirm this in writing within 15 days.”) California Senate Bill 1348 (1985 Term), 8) Agraquest’s disclosure of confidential information to third parties regarding his job performance at Agraquest - Willful release and disclosure of personal information; California Penal Code §5377.5, 9) “disclose of information by either Agraquest or it’s employees without consent constitutes a breach of”; Agraquest Employee Privacy Policy, The Fair Credit Report Act 15 USC §1681, the Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act of the California Constitution Section 1 Article 1I 19 On February 9, 2000 David Bell wrote a reply to William D. Kopper, Attorney at Law with reference to the complaint and the TRO petition served on him: David Bell addressed in this letter: 1) objections to complaint, 2) meeting Brian Campbell at Home Depot on Truxell Boulevard, 3) “do not want your client or your client’s employer [Agraquest] near me again” 20 • California Penal Code §5377.5, Willful release and disclosure of personal information: “ • Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 USC §119 electronic communications sent by nonemployees is protected by law” • California Penal Code 631 On February 10, 2000 David Bell filed a response to the petition for injunction prohibiting harassment Case PT00-86 with the Superior Court of California, County of Yolo: [David Bell’s objection to petition] 21 On February 18, 2000 Brian Campbell wrote a confidential memo to Pam Marrone: (found in David Bell's Employee file, obtained through a subpoena, on 6/16/2004 and received by Farrell, Fraulob & Brown law office on 8/2/2004) 22 On ??? date- This appears to be scripted questions to be asked of Brian Campbell about David Bell in relation to him (Campbell) fearing David Bell (found in David Bell's Employee file, obtained through a subpoena, on 6/16/2004 and received by Farrell, Fraulob & Brown law office on 8/2/2004): On February 18/2000 Case PT00-86 was heard in the Superior Court of California, County of Yolo: [TRO was dissolved. Petitioner has not met burden] 23

• (At this hearing David Bell asked witness Laura Cunningham-Hilbig if he was fired. She said “No David , you were let go”. • David Bell asked witness Laura Hilbig and Brian Campbell if they were both being paid by Agraquest for their appearance in court that day. The answer from both , “Yes” • The judge asked Brian Campbell “If you were so afraid of David Bell why did it take you this long to file for a restraining order?”) • **The minutes and decision of the court were not in David Bell’s Employee file, obtained through a subpoena, on 6/16/2004 and received by Farrell, Fraulob & Brown law office on 8/2/2004) 5

On 6/20/2000 Agraquest was issued a Conditional Time-Limited Registration on QST 713 Technical. and given time to submit and correct deficiencies in their 4/26/1999 and 6/15/1999 submissions on QST 713 Serenade wettable powder. (EPA BIOPESTICIDE REGISTRATION ACTION DOCUMENT) 24 On March 12, 2002 David Bell sent a letter of complaint which addressed the issues that Agraquest was not following the standards as had been set for BMBL Section III Laboratory Biosafety Level 3 Labs to the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health because of concerns about the safety to the remaining employees at Agraquest. 25 BIOSAFETY IN BIOMEDICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES 26 BMBL Section III Laboratory Biosafety Level 3 (BSL 3) • Addressed on the complaint filed with Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health • (#8 “Minors from Davis High School present in laboratories” an 8 year old was allowed in the lab (Agraquest) and allowed to work with microorganisms) • Davis Enterprise, The (CA) Daughters see the working world Jeff Hudson/Enterprise staff writer Published: April 28, 2000] 27 NO DATE - David Bell received a letter from OSHA about his complaint. 28 (The fine was $200.00) • (Denise Manker stated at the WCAB trial on 9-10-2007 that it was only one fume hood)

• (Denise Manker helped start Agraquest with Pam Marrone in 1995 and has vested interest in the company) •

• (Davis Enterprise article “AgraQuest marks a decade in Davis” By Beth Curda/Enterprise staff writer” • Alison Portello/Enterprise photo: Caption: AgraQuest President Pam Marrone, left, and Denise Manker, manager of global product development, are two of four original employees.

•

On August 12, 2002 (on Denise Manker’s letterhead) Agraquest received ? from Dave Ward of ?; Subject: FW: Agraquest Ex Mod worksheet. [Agraquest received a .74 reduction for only reporting 1 claim for years 19982000] 29 • X-MOD EVASION - INSURANCE CODE SECTION 11760 On September 12, 2002 David Bell had his 2nd sinus surgery. [OUTPATIENT PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATION REPORT - HEALTH SOUTH SURGERY CENTER] 30 On October 3, 2003 David Bell filed a claim with Workers Compensation [10/3/2003 Agraquest listed the wrong workers compensation insurance carrier] On October 3, 2003 Agraquest listed Preferred Employees Insurance Company as being their workers compensation insurance carrier. 31 [Preferred Insurance was not the workers compensation carrier until 2003]. [There were two denials issued by Preferred Insurance: 32 10/23/03 2/5/2004] On October 18, 2003 David Bell had result from Mayo Clinic Lab that showed histo yeast in his blood, 1:8 titer (a fungus or mold that causes histoplasmosis) 33

After investigating it was found that scientists at Agraquest are listed as “inventors” on United States patent # 6,004,774. with the patent assigned to Agritope out of Oregon. Stated on this patent is: “Additionally, an antifungal composition comprising an extract produced by B. subtilis strain ATCC 55614 may be used to treat human fungal diseases in which the disseminated disease propagule is a condidia, for example, Aspergillus sp., Histoplasma sp., and Tinea sp. 34 On the dates 1/22/1999 through 1/26/1999 Agraquest Inventors assigned their interest to this patent over to Agritope [Oregon]. Also stated shows Pamela Gail Marrone as “first named inventor” 35

David Bell first sought emergency medical treatment on January 18, 1999 with Immediate Care Medical Clinic, followed by visits to Sacramento ENT beginning January 19, 1999 with subsequent emergency sinus surgery on February 3, 1999. [page 3] On February 3, 2004 David Bell had his third sinus surgery: [Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ] 36 On May 13, 2004 David Bell wrote a letter to Workers Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau requesting the name of the insurance carrier for workers compensation coverage for Aqraquest Inc. while he was employed there. On May 19, 2004 David Bell received a letter from Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau in reply to his letter of May 13, 2004 requesting the name of the insurance carrier for workers compensation coverage for Aqraquest Inc. 37

[The carrier had been Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation with two policy periods: 06/01/98 expiring 06/01/99 and policy period 06/01/99 expiring 06/01/00] On June 16, 2004 Agraquest was served with a subpoena for the production of David Bell’s employee file 38 • A COPY OF THIS EMPLOYEE FILE WAS REQUESTED BY David BELL ON 2/3/2000 IN A LETTER WRITTEN TO AGRAQUEST’S ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER L. RUSSELL OF THE LAW FIRM OF MORRISON & FOERSTER.

On June 21, 2004 American Datamed copied David Bell’s employee file. 39 ON July 14 2004, 285 days after David Bell submitted his claim for workers compensation, he received a NOTICE OF DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS. from Golden Eagle/Liberty Mutual. • [After careful considerations of all available information, we are denying all liability for your claim of injury because you did not report your claim prior to your termination as required by LC 3600] 40 On August 2, 2004, 47 days after the subpoena for the production of David Bell’s employee file and 42 days after American Datamed copied the file, it was received by Melissa Brown attorney from Farrell, Fraulob & Brown.

On August 11, 2004 David Bell tested positive on an Environmental IgG test to pathogens that are on Agraquest Patents and/or Agraquest inventors are listed on the patents 42 On November 15, 2004 Dr Vincent Marinkovich, Allergy and Immunology (education: Harvard Medical School) wrote a letter concerning David Bell’s exposure to pathogens and his health status: 43 On March 2, 2005 the Qualified Medical Examiner, Dr NG filed a report concerning David Bell 44 On November 16, 2006 David Bell had his 4th sinus surgery [ Baptist Health System - San Antonio, TX] 45

Many tests, procedures, scripts etc. are not included in this report. David Bell had to have IV Immunoglobulin Infusions in 2003, 2004 and 2005 46 as he was told his IMMUNOGLOBULIN were low (B-Cells) He was diagnosed with CVID 47 by Dr Nagy - Immunologist. . Prior to the Infusions he was given a series of Immunoinjections at the immunologist’s office. In 2006 David Bell was told he might have to back on the IV Immunoglobulin Infusions as his IMMUNOGLOBULIN levels are fluctuating. 48 (Several attempts were made by David Bell to exercise his legal rights concerning exposures while working at Agraquest and “Workers-RIght-To-Know“ laws)

On October 21, 2005 at the beginning of the WCAB hearing David Bell submitted “NO TITLE” to the Judge Volkan several issues. Contained within the “STATEMENT OF FACTS” addressed: “POINT Employees and ex/employees are not afforded the knowledge as to what they are being exposed to let alone the safety of this exposure as is companies who have STRAIN ACCESS AGREEMENT with AgraQuest”. 49 This was accepted by the Judge Volkan and entered into the WCAB file. On July 29, 2006 David Bell wrote a letter to Daniel Reich of Katchis, Harris & Yempuku, defense council for Agraquest and Liberty Mutual Insurance on WCAB CASE # SAC 332586 concerning his “worker-right-to know” with relation to Hazards at workplace (AgraQuest). 50 On August 8, 2006 Daniel Reich of Katchis, Harris & Yempuku answered David Bell’s letter of July 29, 2006 concerning “Workers Right to Know Law” 51 On August 31, 2006 David Bell filed ”OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF READINESS TO PROCEED” WCAB; Case # SAC 332586 52 On October 4, 2006 David Bell filed a “MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY” with WCAB; Case # SAC 332586. 53 Contained within the motion: 1) scientific justification for this request 2) legal grounds for this discovery request.

On 10/10/2006 - Daniel Reich

OF KATCHIS, HARRIS & YEMPUKU

“DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY” 54 On October 20, 2006 WCAB hearing [supplement to minutes of hearing]. COMMENT/DISCUSSION/MOTION “Defendant is requested to confirm presence of: 1) Acremonium sp., 2) Staphlococcus aureus, 3) Alternaria sp., 4) Penicillium sp.. 5) Curvularia sp., 6) Acinetobacter sp., 7) Bacillus sp., 8) Staphylococcus sp., 9) Coccoides immitis, 10) Histoplasma capsulatum (inadvertently forgot to list pseudomonas) • David Bell has shown “positive” in his blood tests and cultures 55 • Pseudomonas as well as 9 microorganisms listed on the request have been linked to Agraquest’s (and/or inventors from Agraquest listed as inventors) on United States patents and international patents. The 10th microorganism,

Acinetobacter has been found in the midgut of mosquitos (David Bell worked with mosquitos and their larvae on the Laginex project during his employment at Agraquest).

[minutes] “question of hazards at workplace” (Judge Volkan) (This question has never been addressed by Agraquest)

• (Agraquest worked with “hazardous material” and “biological and other hazardous waste”) • Agraquest’s Securities and Exchange Filings: Agraquest Inc

• 10/03/01 Agraquest Inc

• 1/11/02

• 8/03/01

Agraquest Inc

On November 14, 2006 Daniel Reich of Katchis, Harris & Yempuku sent a letter to David Bell; re: October 20, 2006 order requesting information on microorganisms at Agraquest. 59 On August 14, 2007 John Overton of Overton & Overton Law Firm letter to: (1 Agraquest. Inc, (2 Daniel N Reich of the Law Office of Katchis, Harris and Yampuku, (3 Lynne Rendon of Golden Eagle/Liberty Mutual pursuant to: Please be advised that my office represents Applicant/Plaintiff in the Workman’s Compensation Case referred to herein, and that by law, my client Mr. David Bell is entitled to all of the documents we believe might prove applicable to his case. We hereby formally/legally request that you, your administrator, or the insurance carrier submit to my office on or before August 27, 2007 all copies of the following documents that were previously requested by my client and ignored by the WCAB, or were ordered through the WCAB, but have never been received during the processing of this litigation matter: 60 ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS OF WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW

December 31, 2004 Hollie Rutkowski, of the Compensation Law Center letter to: Agraquest, Daniel N. Reich; Law offices of Katchis, Harris & Yempuku and Lynne Rendon; Golden Eagle/Liberty Mutual 61 • Labor Code 5402 • When the employee “files” the Claim Form with the employer the 90 days during which discovery may be conducted to reject a claim begins. Filing is governed by Labor Code 5401. If not rejected within this time period the claim is presumed compensable. The presumption is “rubuttable only by evidence discovered subsequent to the 90-day period.” • The June 13, 2005 filing with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on David Bell’s compensation claim was erroneous as the denial of the claim was 6 months “past” the allotted time allowed On September 10, 2007 WCAB TRIAL OF DAVID BELL VS AGRAQUEST • RE: The August 14, 2007 letter of requests in the August 14, 2007 from John Overton: Daniel Reich attorney for the defense stated that he had sent all medical reports [specifically] Dr. Smith and Dr. Wood’s charts [Texas] received [2006] and “Social Security records obtained to 7352 Huntington Square Lane #155, Citrus Heights, CA. Daniel Reich went as far as to say that he had a “proof of service”. The address that he said the information had been sent to is a locked mailbox and at no time was this information received at said address. The witness for the Plaintiff, who resides at said address was not allowed to take the stand during the trial and this fraudulent statement could not be rebutted. . • Many statements by the defense witness’s could not be properly cross examined or statements rebutted as this trial was only given 4 hours of calendar time. The Applicant/Plaintiff was not allowed to present critical evidence to support his claim and to rebut testimony [documented proof] of misleading information given by the defense witness’s.

On September 10, 2007 During the WCAB trial Brian Campbell was seen sitting at the back of the court holding and reading David Bell’s confidential medical report written by David Bell’s QME, Dr Ng. Brian Campbell never had authorization from David Bell, in writing or otherwise to have access to any confidential information concerning him. Brian Campbell did not have authorization from David Bell to view his file within the worker’s compensation system and therefore could have only obtained this report from the defense attorney, Daniel Reich. • Willful release and disclosure of personal information California Penal Code §5377.5,.

Thank you for your time Mr Stroski. I will be anxiously waiting to hear from you. Respectfully, Sandi Trend cc: David Bell file

1 Natural

2 7

entrepreneur” Sacramento Bee article June 17, 2007 • “For 17 years, the Davis-based scientist and entrepreneur has scoured the world for the biopesticides made by microorganisms that live on plants and in the soil.” • "I do test my creations," Marrone said. • Her search for a new biopesticide often starts with a bag of dirt. Boxes in her lab hold dozens of Ziploc bags full of soil from places where she or a colleague noticed that something ought to have been growing but wasn't: A bare spot in a creek bed in Inverness, a patch near her mother's house where the crabgrass wouldn't grow. • "You wonder what's in the soil that's making that happen," Marrone said. "You're looking for what produces a lot of microbes warring against each other." • “Those conditions tend to favor unusual microorganisms that produce complex cocktails of chemicals that could be turned into a product.” • “And Marrone has a hunch that, somewhere out in the wild, there's a blockbuster biopesticide waiting to be discovered.” • "It's not sitting in somebody's lab," she said. "If we're going to develop an organic Roundup, we're going to have to find it.”

CFR 330 United States Department of Agriculture - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Soil is strictly controlled under APHIS quarantine regulations 7 CFR 330 because it can readily provide a pathway for the introduction of a variety of dangerous organisms into the United States. Importation of soil into the United States from foreign sources is prohibited, and movement within the continental U.S. is restricted unless authorized by APHIS under specific conditions, safeguards and controlled circumstances described in a permit and/or compliance agreement.

3 “Natural

entrepreneur”

Sacramento

Bee

article

June

17,

2007

• “...greenhouse and laboratory squeezed into a warehouse strip in eastern Davis. That's right: It's not easy being green.” 4 Agraquest 2002 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE: S-1/A PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT: 9 FILED AS OF DATE: 20020111 [Agraquest, Inc.] FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS Overview • Since our inception in January 1995, we have focused on discovering, developing, manufacturing and marketing effective, safe and environmentally friendly pest management products for the agricultural and institutional and home markets. We have devoted substantially all of our efforts toward research and development activities and have recently commenced marketing and sales efforts for Serenade, our first natural pest management product. • Agraquest began commercial production of Serenade in 2000. . • Our Proprietary Technology Platform • Using our proprietary technology platform, we isolate and screen naturally occurring microorganisms in a highly efficient manner to identify those that may have novel, effective and safe pest management characteristics. We then employ natural product chemistry to analyze and characterize the compound structures of selected microorganisms to identify product candidates for further development and commercialization. • To date, we have screened more than 19,000 microorganisms, which has enabled us to identify 23 product candidates that display high levels of activity against insects, nematodes and plant diseases. These include Serenade, a biofungicide.... • Our proprietary technology platform has the following advantages: . Highly efficient discovery process. We believe we can discover new effective product candidates faster than other developers of pest management products. • Our first product, Serenade, was discovered after testing only 713 microorganisms. • Major agrichemical companies typically test hundreds of thousands of chemicals each year to discover a single new product. To date, we have identified 23 product candidates from the more than 19,000 microorganisms in our database. We believe these product candidates can compete with synthetic chemical pesticides on performance, cost-effectiveness, shelf life and ease of use. • For example, we spent approximately $6 million for the testing, initial development and approval process for Serenade. The cost to bring a new synthetic chemical pesticide or genetically modified crop to market is estimated to be at least $70 million to $100 million. • We have been issued three U.S. patents for Serenade

5 EPA

BIOPESTICIDE REGISTRATION ACTION DOCUMENT - Bacillus subtilis Strain QST 713 C. Regulatory History AgraQuest Inc. submitted an application August 24, 1998 for registration of Serenade Bio fungicide Wettable Powder and QST 713 Technical along with a pesticide petition which proposed establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticide, strain QST 713 of Bacillus subtilis on growing crops

6 April 3, 1998 PESTICIDE REGISTRATION NOTICE 98-3 NOTICE TO MANUFACTURERS, FORMULATORS, PRODUCERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND REGISTRANTS OF PESTICIDE PRODUCTS ATTENTION: Persons Responsible for Federal Registration of Pesticides SUBJECT: Guidance on Final FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) Regulations for Pesticide Product Registrants I. B A C K G R O U N D On September 19, 1997, EPA published in the Federal Register the final rule codifying EPA's interpretation and enforcement policy regarding section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which requires pesticide registrants to report information concerning unreasonable adverse effects of their products to EPA (62 FR 49370). The purpose of the rule is to clarify what information to submit, how and when to submit it, as well as which failures to report information, or delays in reporting, will be regarded by EPA as violations of FIFRA section 6(a)(2), actionable under FIFRA sections 12(a)(2)(B)(ii) and 12(a)(2)(N). In comparison to previous EPA policy statements, some reporting requirements have been expanded, and others reflect increased flexibility or exemptions for reporting specific types of information. This rule will become effective June 16, 1998, and will supersede all previous policy statements pertaining to section 6(a)(2). EPA is working with registrants in anticipation of the rule’s effective date to prepare them for implementing the new FIFRA 6(a)(2) regulations smoothly and effectively. III. AGGREGATE REPORTING The regulations establish different requirements for reporting timeframes and for content of incident reports depending on the defined severity categories (see Section VIII. Exposure Types and Severity Categories). VI. CAUSATION AND DELAYED EFFECTS One of the key differences between the regulations and earlier guidance (the 1979 Enforcement Policy) concerns the issue of causation. In the past, an incident was reportable if the registrant inferred that a link existed between the effect and exposure or if similar incidents occurred three or more times. Under the new regulations, neither an inference nor a pattern needs to be established before reporting an incident. If basic information is available -- an effect, an exposure, the identity of the pesticide, location where the incident occurred and a person to contact -- the incident is reportable. VII. EXPERT OPINION INFORMATION Conclusions or opinions of experts must be submitted under FIFRA 6(a)(2) if the registrant possesses the information and either 1) the information is otherwise reportable under one of the substantive provisions of the rule; or 2) the registrant knows, or should reasonably know, that the information, alone or in conjunction with other information, might raise concerns about the continued registration of a pesticide or about the appropriate terms and conditions of registration of a pesticide. As a general matter, the Agency frequently relies on the "weight of evidence" in making pesticide regulatory decisions, and it considers expert opinion that tends to confirm or validate otherwise reportable information. In this context, expert opinions can play an important role in Agency decision-making. VIII. EXPOSURE TYPE AND SEVERITY CATEGORIES The 6(a)(2) regulations define the severity categories assigned to each incident. In an effort to provide additional guidance on the assignment of severity categories, the Agency has expanded the definitions for humans and domestic animals. The severity category definitions for humans were derived from standard definitions used by the American Association of Poison Control Centers. The examples of severity categories for domestic animals were prepared in consultation with the National Animal Poison Control Center/American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The persistence of symptoms or the development of delayed symptoms should be considered when classifying severity. For example, human cases may report developing common symptoms like headaches, general weakness, memory and concentration problems, depression, irritability, muscular aches and pains, or shortness of breath. If these symptoms last for just a few days and are minimally troublesome (do not require treatment) then they would be classified as minor (H-D). However if symptoms persist for one month or longer they would be classified as moderate (H-C). Symptoms persisting for two or more months that significantly alter daily activities would be classified as major (H-B). If exposure to the pesticide is reported to lead to the development of unusual sensitivity to pesticides, other chemicals, or to odors (sometimes alleged as hypersensitivity or multiple chemical sensitivity), efforts should be made to collect information about specific symptoms such as headaches or shortness of breath. If symptoms persist for two or more months, and significantly alter daily activities then such a case would be classified as major. If symptoms persist for less than two months, the incident would be classified according to the appropriate definition. H-B - Human - Major §159.184 (5)(i)(B): “If the person alleged or exhibited symptoms which may have been life- threatening, or resulted in adverse reproductive effects or in residual disability.” Residual disability is any adverse effect which lasts for months or years after the initial poisoning and limits a major activity, e.g., require continuous health care, time off work, or modification of daily activities. Examples include delayed neuropathy, renal damage requiring dialysis, permanent change in vision, development of chronic respiratory disease such as asthma. X. INFORMATION INVOLVING CHEMICALS SIMILAR TO REGISTERED CHEMICALS Information involving a chemical different from any contained in a registrant's registered pesticides is nonetheless reportable by that

PESTICIDE

REGISTRATION

NOTICE

98-3

NOTICE

MANUFACTURERS,

FORMULATORS,

PRODUCERS,

DISTRIBUTORS

AND

REGISTRANTS

PESTICIDE

PRODUCTS,

continued

registrant if the registrant knows or should know that the information is relevant to the registered pesticide and is otherwise reportable under section 6(a)(2). Examples of types of information that a registrant should know are relevant to its registered product include, but are not limited to, a study of a chemical in the same class as the registered pesticide where the study suggests (or the registrant knows that an expert concludes) that it applies to all chemicals in the class; certain toxicity information relating to a chemical which the Agency or an expert has concluded shares a common mechanism of toxicity with the registrant's registered pesticide; etc. In any particular case, the determining factor is likely to be the nature of the information available to the registrant suggesting that the otherwise reportable information is relevant to the registrant's registered product. XV. REPORTABLE INJURIES AND PROPERTY DAMAGE On the other hand, if someone reports that a product has a bad odor and that the odor made the person nauseous and gave them a headache, the incident is reportable. The registrant cannot be sure that the nausea and headache are not poisoning effects. 7

January 25, 1999 Dr. Nancy Appelblatt chart notes: **TYPED "MARKEDLY BETTER THAN WHEN I SPOKE WITH HIM. ENDOSCOPY REVEALS MARKED INFLAMMATION & DEVIATED NASAL SEPTUM. THERE IS A POLYP IN THE L MIDDLE MEATUS. SCAN WAS REVIEWED AND DOES LOOK LIKE HE HAS CHRONIC PROBLEMS. ULTIMATELY HE WILL NEED SURGERY

8 January 29, 1999 Dr. Nancy Appelblatt chart notes: "COMES IN BECAUSE OF SYMPTOMS OF ACUTE L FACIAL PAIN AND NUMBNESS" "HAS HAD FLU-LIKE ILLNESS LAST WEEK. "RAN FEVER AND WAS PLACED ON ZITHROMAX" "FLU-LIKE SYMPTOMS HAVE RESOLVED" ""INTRANASAL EXAM DONE W ? AND WITHOUT NEO-SYNEPHRINE DECONGESTANT. HE HAS A SHARP MIDSEPTAL DEFLECTION GOING RIGHT INTO THE L MIDDLE MEATUS. TURBINATES ARE POLYPOID & NASOPHARYNX AND LARYNX ARE CLEAR" "FIRST, L UPPER TEETH BECAME PAINFUL AND THEN L PART OF FACE & TEETH BECAME NUMB. HE HAS HAD CHRONIC NASAL OBSTRUCTION. HE HAS CHRONIC ALLERGIES. HE IS CHRONIC MOUTH BREATHER" ASSESSMENT: "ADVISED CONTINUED USE OF VICODIN, HOT AND COLD COMPRESSES. ADVISED NEO-SYNEPHRINE 3-4 X'S DAY TO PROMOTE SINUS DRAINAGE. ONCE THE ZITHROMAX IS FINISHED I WILL START HIM ON CEFZIL. I ORDERED CT SCAN OF SINUSES. MAY REQUIRE URGENT DRAINAGE" 9 FEBRUARY 3, 1999 SURGERY - OUTPATIENT PATHOLOGY - HEALTH SOUTH SURGERY CENTER SURGICAL PATHOLOGY REPORT ANTHONY J MATHIOS, M.D.: "A. R SINUS CONTENTS & NASAL" CONSISTS OF APPROX. 1 CC OF BONE, CARTILAGE, BLOOD & SOFT TISSUE." B. "LABELED L SINUS CONTENTS. CONSISTS OF 0.5 CC OF SIMILAR TYPE TISSUE. BONE MATERIAL IS HARVESTED ALONG WITH THE REMAINING SOFT TISSUE & ALL ARE SUBMITTED IN ONE CASSETTE B FOR MICROSCOPIC EVALUATION" B. "FRAGMENTS OF CHRONICALLY INFLAMED SINUS TURBINATE TISSUE WITH ACCOMPANYING FRAGMENTS OF BONE (LEFT SINUS CONTENT) C. FRAGMENTS OF CHRONICALLY INFLAMED SINUS LINING WITH ACCOMPANYING NODULAR MEMBRANOUS BONE (L ETHMOID BONE ASTEOMA) C. "LABELED "OSTEOMA?" CONSISTS OF TWO FRAGMENTS OF TISSUE, ONE OF WHICH APPEARS TO BE BONY, BUT UPON SECTIONING DIVIDES AS IF IT IS SOFT TISSUE. THE FRAGMENTS ARE 5 & 9 MM IN GREATEST DIMENSION. LARGEST IS DIVIDED IN HALF AND SUBMITTED IN ONE CASSETTE DIAGNOSIS: "FEW FRAGMENTS OF BENIGN CHRONICALLY INFLAMED SINUS LINING WITH ACCOMPANYING FRAGMENTS OF BONE. FRAGMENTS OF HYALIN CARTILAGE COMPATIBLE WITH SEPTUM. (R SINUS CONTENT AND NASAL CARTILAGE" B. "LABELED L SINUS CONTENTS. CONSISTS OF 0.5 CC OF SIMILAR TYPE TISSUE. BONE MATERIAL IS HARVESTED ALONG WITH THE REMAINING SOFT TISSUE & ALL ARE SUBMITTED IN ONE CASSETTE B FOR MICROSCOPIC EVALUATION" 1 0 FEBRUARY 12, 1999 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: LETTER OF SURGERY/2 WK RECOVERY/CAN RETURN TO WORK

(David Bell didn’t return to work until the 5th week after surgery) 1 1 Department of Pesticide Regulations [DPR] Chapter IX REGULATORY ACTIONS AFTER THE PRODUCT IS REGISTERED F. ADVERSE EFFECTS DISCLOSURE • If during the registration process, or anytime after registration, the registrant (or applicant) has evidence of an adverse effect or risk to human health or the environment, the registrant (or applicant) MUST IMMEDIATELY SUBMIT THE INFORMATION TO DPR. The-Registrants were requested in Ca Notice 92-5 to identify adverse effects disclosures in their cover letter • If there is reason to believe that use or continued use of the pesticide constitutes an immediate substantial danger to persons or to the environment, the director may, after notice to the registrant, suspend the registration pending a hearing and final decision. • Procedure for Adverse Effects Disclosure

Department

Pesticide

Regulations

[DPR] Chapter

continued

G. REEVALUATION • California law requires DPR to continuously evaluate registered pesticides. DPR established the reevaluation process to implement this requirement. A number of factors may result in a registered pesticide product or group of products being reevaluated: Public or worker health hazard. H. RISK ASSESSMENT • Upon registration of a new active ingredient product, the active ingredient is prioritized for risk assessment. Risk assessment of currently registered active ingredients can be triggered by a number of different factors, including the identification of potential adverse effects. Risk assessments are generally related to chronic human health effects. Risk assessment prioritization is determined by the Adverse Effects Advisory Panel. The Adverse Effects Panel is made up of representatives from the Medical Toxicology Branch (Med. Tox.), the Worker Health and Safety Branch (WHS), and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Evaluation and Reevaluation 1 2 EPA FIFRA 6(a)(2) • Regulating Biopesticides FIFRA 6(a)(2) Before a pesticide can be marketed and used in the United States, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that EPA evaluate the proposed pesticide to assure that its use will not pose unreasonable risks of harm to human health and the environment. This regulation involves an extensive review of health and safety information. Il. Background • On September 19, 1997, EPA published in the Federal Register (62 FR 9388 et seq.) (FRL-5739-1) new regulations governing the reporting by pesticide registrants of information under section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). That section requires registrants to report to EPA additional factual information in their possession related to whether a pesticide causes unreasonable adverse effects in the environment. Among other things, the new regulations provided registrants with detailed instructions on whether, when, and how to report information in the possession of the registrant or its agents. Until the new rule is effective, registrants are required to comply with Agency guidance issued in 1979 (44 FR 40716, July 12, 1979). • At the time the regulations were promulgated, the Agency was sensitive to the significant need for training and other implementation issues raised by the regulations. The Agency therefore established an effective date for the regulations of June 16, 1998. At the time the regulations were published, the Agency also announced its intention to provide assistance to registrants in implementing the regulations. In addition to providing speakers at seminars and conferences, the Agency commenced preparation of guidance documents to help explain to registrants their responsibilities under the new regulations. On April 3, 1998, the Agency issued Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 98-3 which provided guidance to registrants on a broad range of issues. In addition, the Agency promulgated a direct final rule and technical corrections to the regulations, which were published on June 19, 1998 in the Federal Register (63 FR 33580) (FRL-5792-2). The June 1998 document corrects the definition of registrants which identifies the parties subject to the regulations, specifies time frames for reporting certain types of adverse effects information, and specifies information to be submitted to the Agency about reportable detections of pesticides in food, feed, and water. On June 10, 1998, seven pesticide trade associations requested that the effective date of the regulation be deferred for 120 days after issuance of the technical corrections and other guidance. The seven trade associations observed that the new regulations impose extensive new reporting obligations on pesticide registrants which must train numerous individuals to implement their compliance programs. Because of Agency delays in issuing all needed technical corrections and guidance, the trade associations believed that registrants did not have sufficient time to address all requirements before the effective date of the regulations. The Agency has considered the issues raised by the trade associations and has determined that, given the timing of the issuance of the guidance documents and the technical corrections, it would be appropriate to defer the compliance date of the regulations for an additional 60 days in order to allow registrants the opportunity to incorporate the material included in the guidance documents into their training and implementation programs in an orderly fashion. • Accordingly, the Agency is hereby extending the adjustment period and changing the compliance date of the final rule published at 62 FR 49388, September 19, 1997 from June 16, 1998, to August 17, 1998. EPA is also modifying Sec. 159.159 to reflect this new date. While EPA is deferring the compliance date for the new regulations for a brief period, EPA is also aware that some registrants may wish to comply with the new regulations immediately rather than continue to comply with the preexisting requirements for another 2 months. Any registrant that wishes to comply with the new regulations immediately may do so provided that the registrant first informs the Agency in writing of its desire to be bound by the new regulations effective June 16, 1998. Such notice should be submitted to Kathryn Bouve, the Agency contact person, at the address given above

Role and Functions of the EPA• 1- Background - The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) came into existence on 1 January 1972 and operates under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (hereafter referred to as the Act). This document aims to assist the public and stockholders gain a better understanding of the EPA, and to indicate where the public can become involved in environmental protection processes. - 4. Establishment of the EPA and the importance of the Act The Act establishes the EPA, defines the environment, notes the range of functions of the EPA and empowers it. Part 1 of the Act: defines environment to mean ‘living things, their physical, biological and social surroundings, and interactions between all of these (section 3(1)). Specifically, section 3(2) notes – For the purposes of the definition of “environment” …the social surroundings of man are his aesthetic, cultural, economic and social surroundings to the extent that those surroundings directly affect or are affected by his physical or biological surroundings

NO DATE - MEMO TO ALL AGRAQUESTERS "To all Agraquesters: Today, i received an e-mail from David Bell, a former temporary employee, that indicates he has not put issued behind him from when he was here. Agraquest will address this e-mail from david as an indication of the potential to harm agraquest and the company's employees. The e-mail is not directly threatening and while there is little likelihood of damage or injury, the potential exists. " Every employee should report anything suspicious to Pam. Avoid contact with david so as not to aggravate the issue. as a precaution, the Davis police will be notified. Better to be safe. Regards LCH" [Laura Cunningham-Hilbig]

DECEMBER 29, 1999 BRIAN CAMPBELL • I did encounter David Bell at Home Depot as he mentioned in his e-mail. The following s my account of our meeting. • David lifted his hand in a greeting when he saw me from a distance. • We approached each other and began conversation. i asked what he was doing and how his family was, we talked specifically about Sheridan, his daughter. I asked about his court case. He said that he had to pay approximately [$] 4,800 to comcast. He joked to me about the prosecuting attorney and his soap opera like remarks during the trial. • We did not speak about the supposed informant and it waS not mentioned as part of the conversation pertaining to the trial. • I was at Home Depot to purchase a level in order to install shelves I had previously purchased, in the the garage. I shared with David that I also purchased window coverings from Home Depot because the price is much lower than elsewhere and they have a nice selection. I did not purchase and have not purchased any blinds as he mention in his e-mail. the Home Depot mentioned is the Truxell location. • David also told me he walked off his job after a couple of weeks due to unsanitary conditions • I told him we hired Lisa Henry to continue the work on Laginex. • He gave me his business card and told me about his business and how his was growing at the expense of Comcast by converting their customers. I have the business card he gave me. we shook hands and went our ways." [copy of business cards] {Agraquest Employee File page 000074}

JANUARY 1, 2000 TRO FILED (ASSUMED DATE) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF YOLO CASE NO: PT00-86 BRIAN J. CAMPBELL VS. DAVID BELL

JANUARY 24, 2000 LETTER FROM MORRISON & FOERSTER - CHRISTOPHER L. RUSSELL • In connection with your employment, you executed an employee proprietary information inventions agreement (copy attached). also in receipt of e-mail message that you sent to various employees

•

• Pam Marrone sent the e-mail to the employees at Agraquest On December 28, 1999 and not David [page 4] • ....which you threaten to publish Agraquest's trade secrets. "my confidentiality agreement expires in 18 months at which time i will publish the ingredients required to stabilize it. the need for this product outweighs AQ's interest. "many live could be saved yearly and I do ot believe profit outweighs those lives. AQ is sitting on a fantastic product and it is a real shame that AQ is quiet about the knowledge it holds." Serenade is a neat product but does not hold the promise of ever saving a single life." • If you take the actions described above, you will breach the employee proprietary information and inventions agreement that you executed when you commenced your employment with agraquest. (reference cited). • You are hereby notified that the president of Agraquest does not authorize you to disclose any proprietary information. (more reference to to agreement). as a result of your threat, Agraquest hereby demands assurances that you will not breach your obligations under the employee proprietary information and inventions agreement by responding to me in writing within 10 days of this letter. if Agraquest has not received adequate assurances within that period, Agraquest will take any and all actions that it deems necessary.

January 26, 2000 LAURA CUNNINGHAM-HILBIG "At 8:17 PM, David Bell called me at home. David Bell called me from a pay phone. I kept the call as short as possible but reiterated a few points. David Bell wanted to apologize for writing that he would publish the formulation of Laginex. he thought he was only held to the secrecy agreement for 18 months or so. He did not get a copy of his secrecy agreement from janelle after he signed it. he has one now. I told David that formulations are trade secrets and always confidential

February 3, 2000 David Bell LETTER TO MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP - CHRISTOPHER L. RUSSELL "I have read your letter and the enclosed employee proprietary information and inventions agreement. I can assure you and agraquest, inc that i will not and have not breached any obligation under the agreement. • At the time of dismissal, Agraquest Inc. failed to conduct a debriefing. Otherwise I would have known that the term of such agreement was indefinite. • I apologize for any misunderstanding regarding the employee proprietary information.... • "I will keep the formulation of Laginex as, discovered by myself & Laura Hilbig a secret indefinitely along with all other proprietary knowledge. • Under California law, employees have a right to review their own personnel files (CA CODES CITED). I request that Agraquest Inc immediately provide me, for my review, a copy of my personnel file. I will gladly pay for any copying cost. • Furthermore, I am notifying Agraquest Inc, and its' employees to stop threatening me, harassing me & cease unlawful, willful release of my private/confidential information. • Agraquest Inc has recently retaliated against me by persuading an employee to file a restraining order subsequently intruding into my life. The timing of this request for a restraining order is so obvious as to gain leverage against me. • COERCED THAT EMPLOYEE TO FILE A STATEMENT CONTAINING MANY INCORRECT, DECEITFUL AND LIBELOUS STATEMENT ABOUT MY CHARACTER BASED ON HEARSAY. • AGRAQUEST INC CONTENDS THAT EITHER I WAS RELEASED BECAUSE THE POSITION ENDED OR THAT I ALLEGEDLY THREATENED BRIAN CAMPBELL AND WAS FIRED.

February 9, 2000 REPLY TO WILLIAM D. KOPPER, ATTORNEY AT LAW • "I object to any hint that your client (Brian Campbell) Is threatened or in any danger of violence by me. I am willing to discuss/resolve this matter. strongly object to paying any sum of money for this. "I do not want your client or your client's employer near me again. Have never wished harm or harmed the plaintiff in any way. I have never threatened Mr Campbell with any violence nor has he been a vicim of any violence." • " I did see Mr Campbell on Oct 6, at the Home Depot on Truxell Boulevard in Sacramento. Saw Mr Campbell/he waived and approached me. At no time did Mr Campbell appear to be in a threatening situation or in grave danger." "We both greeted one another and stood there for over an hour talking, laughing and asking questions of each other about work and our families. Mr Campbell even introduced me "as a friend from work" to his other friend. We said goodbye." • "Plaintiff's continued harassment is an invasion of my protected privacy rights and is prohibited by law. except for one time, I have never seen or had any contact with Mr Campbell since May 28., 1999 ." • " I did see Mr Campbell on Oct 6, 1999 at the Home Depot on Truxell Boulevard in Sacramento. Saw Mr Campbell/he waived and approached me. at no time did mr campbell appear to be in a threatening situation or in grave danger." • "we both greeted one another and stood there for over an hour talking, laughing and asking questions of each other about work and our families. Mr Campbell even introduced me "as a friend from work" to his other friend. we said goodbye." • "I have never seen or communicated with Mr Campbell since that afternoon." never have I contacted, molested, harassed, attacked, struck, threatened, sexually assaulted, battered, telephoned, sent any message to" • "....... (never) followed, stalked, destroyed any personal property, disturbed the peace, kept under surveillance or blocked movements in public places or thoroughfares of Mr Campbell. • "On the contrary............. (next 5 paragraphs). Again, I am willing to discuss and resolve this matter but I strongly object to paying any sum of money for a reason without cause. do not want the plaintiff near me." • "want the plaintiff to leave me alone. Mr Campbell's harassment in an invasion of my protected privacy rights and prohibited by law." • I Would ask that you speak to your client and request that he cease and desist from the harassment and other behavior invasive on my right to privacy" • Warrentless search of my premises... the plaintiff does not have my written consent to request, disclose or remove any information about me

FEBRUARY 18, 2000 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF YOLO-CASE NO: PT00-86 BRIAN J. CAMPBELL VS. DAVID BELL • checked: Personal Conduct Orders: do not consent to the order requested, stay-away orders: do not consent of the order requested, denial: I deny doing all of the acts stated in item 19 of the petition, knowing and willful conduct: • I, David Bell , defendant in the above entitled matter, make the following declaration of supporting information relation to petitioner's petition for injunction prohibiting harassment and related order to show cause filed January 19, 2000." I have never made any threats of violence directed toward plaintiff. I never made any statements indicating that I would "beat-up" anyone as related to plaintiff's statement. I have never stated that I have a connection with any "mob" member anywhere. I never made any of the statements which the plaintiff attributes to me regarding any alleged "informant." "the reason that I did not attend that party on May 28, 199 as related by the plaintiff was because my stepfather had died recently and I did not want to attend the party for personal reasons. I never made any statements to the plaintiff or anyone that I believed the plaintiff was the alleged "informant". I do not know or have I ever known or been concerned with whether an "informant" has related any of my acts to anyone. I never made any statements to anyone that I "wanted to take revenge" against anyone the last time that I saw the plaintiff was on October 6, 1999 when the plaintiff and I were both shopping at Home Depot in Sacramento. the plaintiff and I engaged in a friendly conversation for approximately 30 minutes. the plaintiff introduced me to his companion as a "friend from work." I have no animosity toward the plaintiff nor have I ever. the purported e-mail which I allegedly sent to Ms. Hilbig-Cunningham was a conversation letter in which plaintiff purports that I stated that if the plaintiff was the informant. It did not make me "feel good" that a fellow employee used my salary for his personal gain. the e-mail speaks for itself and does not reflect the statement of someone who is "highly unstable" as claimed by the plaintiff. Since October 6, 1999, I have had absolutely no contact with plaintiff. The plaintiff does not allege that he has had any contact with me since May 1999. I have no desire to have any contact with the plaintiff. However, I have not harassed plaintiff in any way and, therefore, restraining orders are not appropriate. The plaintiff has failed to show any course of conduct knowingly and willfully directed against plaintiff. In fact, plaintiff has not alleged any improper conduct which was directed toward plaintiff " My acts, if any, did amount to a course of conduct knowingly and willfully directed against plaintiff. OTHER ORDERS: I do not consent to the orders requested in the petition, supporting information: see attachment 11, continued in attachment 11 "I am not required to pay a fee for filing this response because plaintiff is seeking order(s) restraining violence or threats of violence.

February 18, 2000 BRAIN CAMPBELL CONFIDENTIAL MEMO Please keep this letter from David Bell TO WILLIAM KOPPER; It will be an important document if future developments concerning the harassment restraining order or other issues concerning David Bell. "I refrained from responding to David Bell (though William Kopper) until I received this letter today. there are eight days until the hearing from today. David does not have an attorney. I am satisfied with his response (however, indirectly) "asked william to settle for two years restraint and increased the scope to include my family (more generous than the judge would likely award me if I were to obtain the restraint through a legal proceeding) and he would pay 687.00$ attorney fees." "do not know what David Bell's response to the settlement offer is. his initial call to William indicated that he wanted to go to court. I don't see any sign of him wanting to go to court."

2 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF YOLO - CASE NO: PT00-86 MINUTES [DECISION] APPEARANCES; Plaintiffs PRESENT BRIAN J. CAM[P]BELL- W/BY ATTYS: WILLIAM KOPPLA - DEFENDANT(S) DAVID BELL [CHECKED] MOTION/PETN/APP DENIED - "TRO DISSOLVED" OTHER ORDERS; "PETITIONER HAS NOT MET BURDEN" TRIAL MINUTES- [CHECKED] - 3. WITNESSES SWORN FOR PLTFF: "BRIAN JOSEPH CAMPBELL, LAURA HILBIG" 4. WITNESSES SWORN FOR DEFT: "DAVID BELL" 2 4 EPA BIOPESTICIDE REGISTRATION ACTION DOCUMENT Bacillus subtilis Strain QST 713

• •

II. OVERVIEW A. Product Overview Microbial Pesticide Name: Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 Trade Name(s): QST 713 Technical, Serenade®, Rhapsody®, Rhapsody® ASO, Serenade® ASO, Serenade® MAXTM Serenade Biofungicide Wettable Powder, Serenade® AS, Serenade® Garden Disease Control Concentrate, and Serenade® Garden Disease Control Ready To Use OPP Chemical Code: 006479 g. Although analyzed batches were acceptable, the submitted manufacturing process did not have sufficient

EPA

BIOPESTICIDE

• •

•

• •

• • • •

• • •

REGISTRATION

ACTION

DOCUMENT

Bacillus

subtilis

Strain

QST

713,

continued

quality control required. Therefore, the Agency is requiring, as a term and condition of the registration, additional quality control procedures. Batches that do not meet the criteria must not be used for commercial production. Detailed requirements are described in Confidential Business Appendix. Before this manufacturing process can be changed, adequate storage stability data must be provided to the Agency and approved. h. Data listed in Table 4. are required to be completed and submitted within specified time frames, as elaborated in Section VII, Actions Required by Registrant. 4. Risk Mitigation To mitigate any risk to pesticide handlers and applicators, standard personal protective equipment are required including: long sleeved shirt and long pants; waterproof gloves; shoes plus socks; dust/mist filtering respirator (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C), or a NIOSH approved respirator with any N, P, R, or HE filter; and a Restricted-entry Interval (REI) of 4 hours are required to mitigate occupational exposure and risk to pesticide handlers C. Labeling Rationale 1. Human Health Hazard (WPS and non-WPS) Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 products with commercial use sites are subject to the Worker Protection Standard. Because of the low toxicity of Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 , the Re-entry Interval for uses within the scope of WPS is 4 hours. Precautionary statements and personal protective equipment as specified below are required based on the acute toxicity categories of this organism. VII. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY REGISTRANTS A. Precautionary Labeling Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 products must state the following under the heading "Precautionary Statements": Personal Protective Equipment required for Applicators and other handlers must wear: Long sleeved shirt and long pants. Waterproof gloves. Shoes plus socks. Dust/mist filtering respirator (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C), or a NIOSH approved respirator with any N, P, R, or HE filter. WPS labels must state the following under the heading "User Safety Recommendations" Users should wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco, or using the toilet. Users should remove clothing immediately if pesticide gets inside. Then wash thoroughly and put on clean clothing. Users should remove PPE immediately after handling this product. If gloves are worn, wash the outside of gloves before removing. As soon as possible, wash thoroughly and change into clean clothing. C. Labeling The attached label for Serenade Bio fungicide Wettable Powder and QST 713 Technical conform with the labeling requirements for Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713. Some of the essential label requirements are highlighted below. Signal word is "Caution," based on (toxicity category III). D. Data Necessary to Support a Conditional Registration The data required to fulfill the data gaps are discussed below and the time frames for submission summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Summary of Conditional Registration Data Requirements: Storage Stability: Data for the 12 month storage stability of the end-use product has not been submitted. This data, along with clarification/justification of the plating technique description described in MRID# 4446517-03 and 446519-03 should be provided. Manufacturing Process: Additional data are required to upgrade submitted process, MRID# 446519-04 to acceptable. Manufacturing Process: Additional data must be provided to address deficiencies noted in MRID# 448923-01 and 448944-01. Freshwater Fish toxicity/pathogenicity: MRID 448848-01 - did not meet guideline requirements. A new study must be submitted. Freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity/pathogenicity: Confirmatory 21 day Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrate Study must be performed. Attenuated and filter sterilized controls should be used in the test. Test lab should attempt to determine cause of death and whether pathogenicity involved. 30 Day Toxicity/Pathogenicity in Paleomonetes vulgaris ( shrimp): Required due to report of disease in terrestrial amphipod crustacean associated with B. subtilis infection. Protocol must be submitted before initiating study. Non-target insect-parasitic Hymenoptera: Confirmatory data on potential pathogenicity based on a new 30 day study must be submitted. Honey bee Dietary toxicity/pathogenicity: A 30 day whole hive study is necessary to support a non-expiring registration. The study must follow the EPA approved protocol.

EPA

BIOPESTICIDE

REGISTRATION

ACTION

DOCUMENT

Bacillus

subtilis

Strain

QST

713,

continued

4. To C. C.

•

• •

• • • •

• • •

Risk Mitigation mitigate any risk to pesticide handlers and applicators, standard personal protective equipment Labeling Rationale Labeling 1. Human Health Hazard (WPS and non-WPS). Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 products with commercial use sites are subject to the Worker Protection Standard. Because of the low toxicity of Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 , the Re-entry Interval for uses within the scope of WPS is 4 hours. Precautionary statements and personal protective equipment as specified below are required based on the acute toxicity categories of this organism. VII. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY REGISTRANTS A. Precautionary Labeling Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 products must state the following under the heading "Precautionary Statements": Personal Protective Equipment required for Applicators and other handlers must wear: Long sleeved shirt and long pants. Waterproof gloves. Shoes plus socks. Dust/mist filtering respirator (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C), or a NIOSH approved respirator with any N, P, R, or HE filter. WPS labels must state the following under the heading "User Safety Recommendations" Users should wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco, or using the toilet. Users should remove clothing immediately if pesticide gets inside. Then wash thoroughly and put on clean clothing. Users should remove PPE immediately after handling this product. If gloves are worn, wash the outside of gloves before removing. As soon as possible, wash thoroughly and change into clean clothing. C. Labeling The attached label for Serenade Bio fungicide Wettable Powder and QST 713 Technical conform with the labeling requirements for Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713. Some of the essential label requirements are highlighted below. Signal word is "Caution," based on (toxicity category III). D. Data Necessary to Support a Conditional Registration The data required to fulfill the data gaps are discussed below and the time frames for submission summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Summary of Conditional Registration Data Requirements: Storage Stability: Data for the 12 month storage stability of the end-use product has not been submitted. This data, along with clarification/justification of the plating technique description described in MRID# 4446517-03 and 446519-03 should be provided. Manufacturing Process: Additional data are required to upgrade submitted process, MRID# 446519-04 to acceptable. Manufacturing Process: Additional data must be provided to address deficiencies noted in MRID# 448923-01 and 448944-01. Freshwater Fish toxicity/pathogenicity: MRID 448848-01 - did not meet guideline requirements. A new study must be submitted. Freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity/pathogenicity: Confirmatory 21 day Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrate Study must be performed. Attenuated and filter sterilized controls should be used in the test. Test lab should attempt to determine cause of death and whether pathogenicity involved. 30 Day Toxicity/Pathogenicity in Paleomonetes vulgaris ( shrimp): Required due to report of disease in terrestrial amphipod crustacean associated with B. subtilis infection. Protocol must be submitted before initiating study. Non-target insect-parasitic Hymenoptera: Confirmatory data on potential pathogenicity based on a new 30 day study must be submitted. Honey bee Dietary toxicity/pathogenicity: A 30 day whole hive study is necessary to support a non-expiring registration. The study must follow the EPA approved protocol. 1. Conditional Time-Limited Registration

March 12, 2002 David Bell LETTER OF COMPLAINT OF NON COMPLIANCE • l. Agraquest’s safety protocols and laminar hoods are inadequate for the soil materials cultured. Biosafety in Biomedical and Microbiological Laboratories states that “Biosafety Level 3 practices and facilities are recommended for propagating and manipulating sporulating cultures already identifies as C immitis and for processing soil and other environmental materials known or likely to contain infectious arthroconidia. “ C. immitis is endemic to the Southwester United States, including the Sacramento Valley. • 2. No pre-employment or post employment physicals and immunizations are provided or required, besides a drug screen. Biosafety in Biomedical and Microbiological Laboratories states that “An additional level of protection for at risk personnel

• March 12, 2002 David Bell LETTER OF COMPLAINT OF NON COMPLIANCE, continued

•

• • • • • • • • • • • •

may be achieved with appropriate prophylactic immunizations. A written organizational policy that defines at-risk personnel, specifies risks as well as benefits of specific vaccines, and distinguishes between required and recommended vaccines is essential. In developing such an organizational policy, these recommendations and requirements should be specifically targeted at infectious diseases known or likely to be encountered in a particular facility.” Tetanus, Tb and Valley Fever are likely buy more are possible. 3. No MSDS files are maintained on biological agents. The MSDS files are only maintained on chemicals. 4. Lab Coats are worn around the building between lab and office spaces. Employees are allowed to take lab coats home for 5. Broken glass receptacles are not autoclaved before disposal. 6. An insect and rodent control program is not in effect for the microbiology laboratories. 7. Few, if ay, Biohazard signs anywhere in the building. They said it looked bad for the laboratory tours. 8. Minors from Davis High School present in laboratories. 9. Laboratories not locked and without double doors. Seams are not sealed. Sink is not ear door. Microbiological laboratory located in room next to cafeteria. No log of the personnel entering and using the laboratory. 10. Inadequate training of personnel using biological material. 11. Cultures are allowed to grow in drawers and cabinets in laboratory. 12. Fire doors are blocked open 13. Research farm and off site storage facility have no safety precautions.

• 2 6 BIOSAFETY IN BIOMEDICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES BMBL Section III Laboratory Biosafety Level 3 (BSL 3) • Biosafety Level 3 is applicable to clinical, diagnostic, teaching, research, or production facilities in which work is done with indigenous or exotic agents which may cause serious or potentially lethal disease as a result of exposure by the inhalation route. Laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents, and are supervised by competent scientists who are experienced in working with these agents. • All procedures involving the manipulation of infectious materials are conducted within biological safety cabinets or other physical containment devices, or by personnel wearing appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment. The laboratory has special engineering and design features. • It is recognized, however, that some existing facilities may not have all the facility features recommended for Biosafety Level 3 (i.e., double-door access zone and sealed penetrations). In this circumstance, an acceptable level of safety for the conduct of routine procedures, (e.g., diagnostic procedures involving the propagation of an agent for identification, typing, susceptibility testing, etc.), may be achieved in a Biosafety Level 2 facility, providing 1) the exhaust air from the laboratory room is discharged to the outdoors, 2) the ventilation to the laboratory is balanced to provide directional airflow into the room, 3) access to the laboratory is restricted when work is in progress, and 4) the recommended Standard Microbiological Practices, Special Practices, and Safety Equipment for Biosafety Level 3 are rigorously followed. The decision to implement this modification of Biosafety Level 3 recommendations should be made only by the laboratory director. • The following standard and special safety practices, equipment and facilities apply to agents assigned to Biosafety Level 3: • A. Standard Microbiological Practices • 1. Access to the laboratory is limited or restricted at the discretion of the laboratory director when experiments are in progress. • 2. Persons wash their hands after handling infectious materials, after removing gloves, and when they leave the laboratory. • 3. Eating, drinking, smoking, handling contact lenses, and applying cosmetics are not permitted in the laboratory. Persons who wear contact lenses in laboratories should also wear goggles or a face shield. Food is stored outside the work area in cabinets or refrigerators designated for this purpose only. • 4. Mouth pipetting is prohibited; mechanical pipetting devices are used. • 5. Policies for the safe handling of sharps are instituted.

• • •

•

6. All procedures are performed carefully to minimize the creation of aerosols. 7. Work surfaces are decontaminated at least once a day and after any spill of viable material. 8. All cultures, stocks, and other regulated wastes are decontaminated before disposal by an approved decontamination amination method, such as autoclaving. Materials to be decontaminated outside of the immediate laboratory are placed in a durable, leak proof container and closed for 9. An insect and rodent control program is in effect (see Appendix G). B. Special Practices 1. Laboratory doors are kept closed when experiments are in progress. 2. The laboratory director controls access to the laboratory and restricts access to persons whose presence is required for program or support purposes. Persons who are at increased risk of acquiring infection or for whom infection may have serious consequences are not allowed in the laboratory or animal al rooms. For example, persons who are immunocompromised or immunosuppressed may be at risk of acquiring infections. The director has the final responsibility for assessing each circumstance and determining who may enter or work in the laboratory. No minors should be allowed in the laboratory. 3. The laboratory director establishes policies and procedures whereby only persons who have been advised of the potential biohazard, who meet any specific entry requirements (e.g., immunization), and who comply with all entry

• BIOSAFETY

• •

•

• •

•

• •

•

• •

•

• •

• • •

• •

BIOMEDICAL

AND

MICROBIOLOGICAL

LABORATORIES,

continued

and exit procedures, enter the laboratory or animal rooms. 4. When infectious materials or infected animals are present in the laboratory or containment module, a hazard warning sign, incorporating the universal biohazard symbol, is posted on all laboratory and animal room access doors. The hazard warning sign identifies the agent, lists the name and telephone number of the laboratory director or other responsible person(s), and indicates any special requirements for entering the laboratory, such as the need for immunizations, respirators, or other personal protective measures. 5. Laboratory personnel receive the appropriate immunizations or tests for the agents handled or potentially present in the laboratory (e.g., hepatitis B vaccine or TB skin testing), and periodic testing as recommended for the agent being handled. 6. Baseline serum samples are collected as appropriate and stored for all laboratory and other at-risk personnel. Additional serum specimens may be periodically collected, depending on the agents handled or the function of the laboratory. 7. A biosafety manual specific to the laboratory is prepared or adopted by the laboratory director and biosafety precautions are incorporated into standard operating procedures. Personnel are advised of special hazards and are required to read and follow instructions on practices and procedures. 8. Laboratory and support personnel receive appropriate training on the potential hazards associated with the work involved, the necessary precautions to prevent exposures, and the exposure evaluation procedures. Personnel receive annual updates or additional training as necessary for procedural changes. 9. The laboratory director is responsible for ensuring that, before working with organisms at Biosafety Level 3, all personnel demonstrate proficiency in standard microbiological practices and techniques, and in the practices and operations specific to the laboratory facility. This might include prior experience in handling human pathogens or cell cultures, or a specific training program provided by the laboratory director or other competent scientist proficient in safe microbiological practices and techniques. 10. A high degree of precaution must always be taken with any contaminated sharp items, including needles and syringes, slides, pipettes, capillary tubes, and scalpels. a. Needles and syringes or other sharp instruments should be restricted in the laboratory for use only when there is no alternative, such as parenteral injection, phlebotomy, or aspiration of fluids from laboratory animals and diaphragm bottles. Plastic ware should be substituted for glassware whenever possible. b. Only needle-locking syringes or disposable syringe-needle units (i.e., needle is integral to the syringe) are used for injection or aspiration of infectious materials. Used disposable needles must not be bent, sheared, broken, recapped, removed from disposable syringes, or otherwise manipulated by hand before disposal; rather, they must be carefully placed in conveniently located puncture-resistant containers used for sharps disposal. Non-disposable sharps must be placed in a hard-walled container for transport to a processing area for decontamination, preferably by autoclaving. c. Syringes which re-sheathe the needle, needleless systems, and other safe devices are used when appropriate. d. Broken glassware must not be handled directly by hand, but must be removed by mechanical means such as a brush and dustpan, tongs, or forceps. Containers of contaminated needles, sharp equipment, and broken glass should be decontaminated before disposal, and disposed of according to any local, state, or federal regulations. 11. All open manipulations involving infectious materials are conducted in biological safety cabinets or other physical containment devices within the containment module. No work in open vessels is conducted on the open bench. Clean-up is facilitated by using plastic-backed paper toweling on non-perforated work surfaces within biological safety cabinets. 12. Laboratory equipment and work surfaces should be decontaminated routinely with an effective disinfectant, after work with infectious materials is finished, and especially after overt spills, splashes, or other contamination with infectious materials. a. Spills of infectious materials are decontaminated, contained and cleaned up by appropriate professional staff, or others properly trained and equipped to work with concentrated infectious material. Spill procedures are developed and posted. b. Contaminated equipment must be decontaminated before removal from the facility for repair or maintenance or packaging for transport, in accordance with applicable local, state, or federal regulations. 13. Cultures, tissues, specimens of body fluids, or wastes are placed in a container that prevents leakage during collection, handling, processing, storage, transport, or shipping. 14. All potentially contaminated waste materials (e.g., gloves, lab coats, etc.) from laboratories are decontaminated before disposal or reuse. 15. Spills and accidents that result in overt or potential exposures to infectious materials are immediately reported to the laboratory director. Appropriate medical evaluation, surveillance, and treatment are provided and written records are maintained. 16. Animals and plants not related to the work being conducted are not permitted in the laboratory. C. Safety Equipment (Primary Barriers) 1. Protective laboratory clothing such as solid-front or wrap-around gowns, scrub suits, or coveralls are worn by workers when in the laboratory. Protective clothing is not worn outside the laboratory. Reusable clothing is decontaminated before being laundered. Clothing is changed when overtly contaminated. 2. Gloves must be worn when handling infectious materials, infected animals, and when handling contaminated equipment. 3. Frequent changing of gloves accompanied by hand washing is recommended. Disposable gloves are not reused.

• BIOSAFETY

• •

• • •

• •

•

• • •

•

BIOMEDICAL

AND

MICROBIOLOGICAL

LABORATORIES,

continued

4. All manipulations of infectious materials, necropsy of infected animals, harvesting of tissues or fluids from infected animals or embryonate eggs , etc., are conducted in a Class II or Class III biological safety cabinet (see Appendix A). 5. When a procedure or process cannot be conducted within a biological safety cabinet, then appropriate combinations of personal protective equipment (e.g., respirators, face shields) and physical containment devices (e.g., centrifuge safety cups or sealed rotors) are used. 6. Respiratory and face protection are used when in rooms containing infected animals. D. Laboratory Facilities (Secondary Barriers) 1. The laboratory is separated from areas that are open to unrestricted traffic flow within the building, and access to the laboratory is restricted. Passage through a series of two self-closing doors is the basic requirement for entry into the laboratory from access corridors. Doors are lockable (see Appendix F). A clothes change room may be included in the passageway. 2. Each laboratory room contains a sink for hand washing. The sink is handsfree or automatically operated and is located near the room exit door. 3. The interior surfaces of walls, floors, and ceilings of areas where BSL-3 agents are handled are constructed for easy cleaning and decontamination. Seams, if present, must be sealed. Walls, ceilings, and floors should be smooth, impermeable to liquids and resistant to the chemicals and disinfectants normally used in the laboratory. Floors should be monolithic and slip-resistant. Consideration should be given to the use of cove floor coverings. Penetrations in floors, walls, and ceiling surfaces are sealed. Openings such as around ducts and the spaces between doors and frames are capable of being sealed to facilitate decontamination. 4. Bench tops are impervious to water and are resistant to moderate heat and the organic solvents, acids, alkalis, and those chemicals used to decontaminate the work surfaces and equipment. 5. Laboratory furniture is capable of supporting anticipated loading and uses. Spaces between benches, cabinets, and equipment are accessible for cleaning. Chairs and other furniture used in laboratory work should be covered with a non-fabric material that can be easily decontaminated. 6. All windows in the laboratory are closed and sealed. 7. A method for decontaminating all laboratory wastes is available in the facility and utilized, preferably within the laboratory (i.e., autoclave, chemical disinfection, incineration, or other approved decontamination method). Consideration should be given to means of decontaminating equipment. If waste is transported out of the laboratory, it should be properly sealed and not transported in public corridors. 8. Biological safety cabinets are required and are located away from doors, from room supply louvers, and from heavilytraveled laboratory areas. 9. A ducted exhaust air ventilation system is provided. This system creates directional airflow which draws air into the laboratory from "clean" areas and toward "contaminated" areas. The exhaust air is not recirculated to any other area of the building. Filtration and other treatments of the exhaust air are not required, but may be considered based on site requirements, and specific agent manipulations and use conditions. The outside exhaust must be dispersed away from occupied areas and air intakes, or the exhaust must be HEPA-filtered. Laboratory personnel must verify that the direction of the airflow (into the laboratory) is proper. It is recommended that a visual monitoring device that indicates and confirms directional inward airflow be provided at the laboratory entry. Consideration should be given to installing an HVAC control system to prevent sustained positive pressurization of the laboratory. Audible alarms should be considered to notify personnel of HVAC system failure. 10. HEPA-filtered exhaust air from a Class II biological safety cabinet can be recirculated into the laboratory if the cabinet is tested and certified at least annually. When exhaust air from Class II safety cabinets is to be discharged to the outside through the building exhaust air system, the cabinets must be connected in a manner that avoids any interference with the air balance of the cabinets or the building exhaust system (e.g., an air gap between the cabinet exhaust and the exhaust duct). When Class III biological safety cabinets are used they should be directly connected to the exhaust system. If the Class III cabinets are connected to the supply system, it is done in a manner that prevents positive pressurization of the cabinets (see Appendix A). 11. Continuous flow centrifuges or other equipment that may produce aerosols are contained in devices that exhaust air through HEPA filters before discharge into the laboratory. These HEPA systems are tested at least annually. Alternatively, the exhaust from such equipment may be vented to the outside if it is dispersed away from occupied areas and air intakes. 12. Vacuum lines are protected with liquid disinfectant traps and HEPA filters, or their equivalent. Filters must be replaced as needed. An alternative is to use portable vacuum pumps (also properly protected with traps and filters). 13. An eyewash station is readily available inside the laboratory. 14. Illumination is adequate for all activities, avoiding reflections and glare that could impede vision. 15. The Biosafety Level 3 facility design and operational procedures must be documented. The facility must be tested f or verification that the design and operational parameters have been met prior to operation. Facilities should be reverified, at least annually, against these procedures as modified by operational experience. 16. Additional environmental protection (e.g., personnel showers, HEPA filtration of exhaust air, containment of other piped services and the provision of effluent decontamination) should be considered if recommended by the agent summary statement, as determined by risk assessment, the site conditions, or other applicable federal, state, or local regulations

2 7 April 28, 2000 Davis Enterprise, The (CA) “Daughters See The Working World” - Jeff Hudson/Enterprise staff writer Thursday was ''Take Your Daughter To Work Day,'' and employees at AgraQuest and Novo Nordisk Biotech in Davis were among those taking part. Cecily Gardner, 8, was following her dad, Bill Gardner, a microbiologist who's been with AgraQuest since 1998. It was Cecily's first chance to see her dad working in the lab on a regular business day, though she has dropped in with him on weekends in the past. The elder Gardner got his daughter involved in several tasks. ''I kind of know how to make more of the bacteria plates,'' Cecily said. ''We put them in a hot thing ... and we made these little glass things, put bacteria on them, and put them in a microscope. I saw blue and black things ... they were bacteria, and they were alive. ''It was interesting,'' Cecily said. ''I brought a notebook and I'm keeping a journal.'' Cecily, who's a third-grader at Holy Rosary School in Woodland, took the day off from school in order to learn more about her father's work. Taking part in ''Take Your Daughter to Work Day'' was actually Cecily's idea. ''She's the one who asked me,'' Bill said. He elaborated on Cecily's activities in the lab. ''We were screening primary isolation plates ... it's the first step of isolation from environmental materials. Then the materials were sub cultured to another plate. We had some of them under a scope to check for certain types of activity.'' Eventually, the materials will be screened. Some of them eventually might play a role in one of the biopesticides that AgraQuest markets 2 8 The

Division of Occupational Safety and Health Received your complaint against Agraquest, inc., located at 1530 Drew ave, Davis. The Division investigated the item(s) referenced in your complaint with the following results: • 1. Employer met minimum Cal/OSHA standards of many safety and health issues • 2. Employer was cited and fined for several illegal chemical fume hoods.

2 9 AGRAQUEST

EX MOD WORKSHEET “Hi, Mark: Here is a copy of your current experience modification worksheet. It shows that Agraquest has only reported 1 claim in the entire 3 years of its experience period, and that was only $756 This excellent record entitles you to a .74 experience mod. - only 1 point away from your lowest obtainable. Congratulations and keep up the good (safe) record. If you have any questions about this form, please let me know. Best regards, Dave Direct Line: 916-609-8325

12, 2002 OUTPATIENT PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATION REPORT - HEALTH SOUTH SURGERY CENTER STRIPS/RUBBERY/SOFT PINK TAN TISSUE MEASURING 2.1 X 0.3 CM. SHAVINGS FROM TURBINATE & OTHER STRIPS SUBMITTED IN CASSETTE. A FOLLOWING DECALCIFICATION. "CHRONICALLY INFLAMED RESPIRATORY TYPE& TURBINATE TYPE MUCOSA W/STROMAL & SUB EPITHELIAL FIBROSIS. BONE (R SINUS)" "CHRONICALLY INFLAMED RESPIRATORY TYPE AND TURBINATE TYPE MUCOSA W /STROMAL & SUB EPITHELIAL FIBROSE. BONE (L SINUS)

September

3 1 OCTOBER 3, 2003 WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM TO AGRAQUEST, INC 1530 DREW AVENUE, DAVIS CALIFORNIA *CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7002 2410 0005 3846 4408 "OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HUMAN PATHOGENS AND ALLERGENS LEADING TO SINUS SURGERY AND IMMUNODEFICIENCY" 3 2 RECEIPT OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM BY AGRAQUEST Aqraquest replied to the WCAB claim stating the name and address of the insurance carrier was Preferred Employers Ins. Co. (PAGE 000020 OF AGRAQUEST EMPLOYEE FILE) On 10/23/2003 a form was sent to Agraquest, Inc from Preferred Employers Insurance Company on Policy WKN 116040-1 EFFECTIVE 06/01/03 - 06/01/04; check “Date of Injury predates policy period” On 2/5/2004 Preferred Employers Insurance Company sent a denial of claim to Melissa Brown of Farrell, Fraulob & Brown law offices checking the following for coverage; “No claim has been filed”, “Sent to Preferred Employers in error” and “No Coverage / Policy canceled” 3 3 October 18, 2003 Mayo Clinic LAB RESULTS -MAYO CLINIC - "HISTO-YEAST POSITIVE - 1-8" Please see: November 15, 2004 Dr. Vincent Marinkovich, Allergy and Immunology (footnote #43) March 2, 2005 Qualified Medical Examiner, Dr NG footnote #44

3 4 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE United States Patent 6,004,774 Marrone , et al. December 21, 1999 Biological control of plant fungal infections Abstract The present invention is directed to a unique strain of Bacillus subtilis for inhibiting growth of plant pathogenic fungi and bacteria and methods for treating or protecting plants from fingal [fungal] and bacterial infections. Inventors: Marrone; Pamela Gail (Davis, CA), Heins; Sherry D. (Davis, CA), Manker; Denise C. (Davis, CA), Jimenez; Desmond R. (Woodland, CA), Bestwick; Richard K. (Portland, OR), Vandemark; George J. (Prosser, WA) Assignee: Agritope, Inc. (Portland, OR) Appl. No.: 09/199,871 Filed: November 25, 1998 3 5 AGRAQUEST ASSIGNMENTS -PATENT ASSIGNMENT ABSTRACT OF TITLE Patent # 6004774 Issue Dt: 12/21/1999 Application #: 09199871 Filing Dt: 11/25/1998 Inventors: Pamela Gail Marrone, Sherry D. Heins, Denise C. Manker, Desmond R Jimenez et al Title: BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF PLANT FUNGAL INFECTIONS Assignors: Marrone, Pamela Gail Exec Dt: 01/22/1999 Heins, Sherry D. Exec Dt:: 01/26/1999 Manker, Denise C. Exec Dt: 01/26/1999 Jimenez, Desmond R. Exec Dt: 01/25/1999 Assignee: Agritope, inc 16160 W. W. Upper Boones Ferry Road Portland, Oregon 97224 • (Please see January 18, 1999 through February 3, 1999 - David Bell’s Emergency medical visit to Immediate Care Medical Clinic & Sacramento ENT visits which lead to sinus surgery. The above assignments of Agraquest inventors were filed AFTER he got sick from working at Agraquet) • Bibliographic Data • Application Number: 09/199/871 Filing or 371 (c) Date: 11-25-1998 Patent Number: 6,004,774 First Named Inventor: Pamela Gail Marrone, Davis, CA (US) Issue Date of Patent: 12/21/1999 3 6 February 3, 2004 3rd SINUS SURGERY MAYO CLINIC, SCOTTSDALE SINUS ENDOSCOPY, SURGICAL LTSG51 MAYO CLINIC- SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 3 7 MAY 19, 2004 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE RATING BUREAU 06/01/98 expiring 06/01/99 and policy period 06/01/99 expiring 06/01/00. Who the carrier was between 6/01/2000 and 6/1/2003 is unknown. • The workers compensation insurance Carrier was not Preferred Insurance as was claimed by Agraquest in 2003. 3 8 JUNE

16,

2004

AGRAQUEST

3 9 JUNE

21,

2004

AMERICAN

SUBPOENA DATAMED

FOR

COPIED

David David

BELL's BELL'S

EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE

FILE FILE

4 0 JULY 14, 2004 LIBERTY MUTUAL DENIAL OF WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM: NOTICE OF DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR FOR WORKERS COMPENSATION BENEFITS DWC 500-E checked - After careful consideration of all available information, we are denying all liability for your claim of injury because: You did not report your claim prior to your termination as required by LC3600. 4 1 August 2, 2004 David Bell Employee File Received by Farrell, Fraulob & Brown • This employee file was requested by David Bell in writing to Agraquest’s Attorney at Law on February 93 2000 4 2 August 11, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL IgG TESTING • COLLECTION 8/4/04 *TEST RESPONSE **ALTERNARIA (POSITIVE), ** ASPERGILLUS ( POSITIVE), * BOTRYTIS (POSITIVE), *-CANDIDA (EQUIVOCAL), **** CLADOSPORIUM (HIGH POSITIVE), **EPICOCCUM (POSITIVE), ***FUSARIUM (HIGH POSITIVE), ***HELMINTHOSPORIUM (HIGH POSITIVE) **MUCOR (POSITIVE), ***PENICILLIUM (HIGH POSITIVE), *PULLULARIA (POSITIVE), *RHIZOPUS (POSITIVE), **STEMPHYLIUM (POSITIVE)

4 3 NOVEMBER 15, 2004 DR VINCENT MARINKOVICH, ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY • To Those Concerned; RE: David Bell - Mr Bell was seen in my office on 8/4/04 for complaints of chronic sinusitis and lung disease since January 1999, when he was working with soil testing at Agraquest. The soil samples contained both fungal spores and bacteria. He was diagnosed to have histoplasmosis at the Mayo Clinic in 2003, and he has evidence of old granulomatous disease from a CT chest scan and contrast material in September 2004. He shows some reduction in lung function by spirometry. Testing for IgG antibodies to mold showed “high positive” results for several molds commonly found in soil and “positive” results for several others. These results support his having been exposed to high levels of ambient mold spores in the recent past (last few years). I believer there is no question Mr Bell’s problems of sinusitis and lung disease, beginning when they did, are the direct result of exposure to fungal spores at work. It is almost certain that he continues to be colonized by some of these organisms in his sinus, nasopharynx and lungs. The sinus and nasal colonization is supported by direct visualized evidence of purulent inflammation in his nose and the recent reports by Dr. Ponikau of the Mayo Clinic proving that chronic sinusitis is almost always the result of fungal colonization in the sinus. The lung colonization is supported by his reduced spirometry results, his prodigious dark sputum production and the direct culture of fungi from his septum. 44

March 2, 2005 Qualified Medical Examiner, Dr NG REPORT • “It is therefore within medical probability that his exposure at work has aggravated his allergic rhinitis which in turn exacerbated his sinus aggravated his allergic rhinitis which in turn exacerbated his sinusitis resulting in the need for surgery in 1/99”

•

“As to work exposure, Mr. Bell reports working with bacillus subtilis. This is a bacterium that was used in making a product known as Serenade by the company. In the 1960s, proteolytic enzymes produced from cultures of were introduced as ingredients in detergent products. It became obvious that IgE-medicated sensitization to proteolytic enzymes occurred in a high proportion of detergent workers exposed to powder form. In 1969, Flindt reported enzyme sensitization in a group of detergent workers. (Flindt et al., Pulmonary disease due to inhalation of derivative of bacillus subtilis containing proteolytic enzymes,Lancet I: 1177-1181], 1969) About the same time, Pepys & Coworkers studied three workers with work-related asthmatic symptoms who were exposed to B subtilis-derived enzymes (Pepys 1969, Allergic reaction of the lungs to enzymes of bacillus subtilis and Lancet I, 1811-1814). These workers had prick test reactivity to B-subtilis alcalase and maxatase and exhibited both immediate and lape phase asthmatic response following inhalation challenges. A study performed in the United States on 38 detergent workers identified immediate onset upper respiratory tract, nasal and ocular symptoms in 11 workers and no respiratory symptoms in 25 workers, which often begins 3-8 hours after leaving work. (Franz et al., Clinical, immunologic, and physiologic observation in factory workers exposed to B-subtilis enzyme dust, Journal of Allergies 47; 170-179}. There is data in the literature associating exposure to bacillus subtilis products and respiratory disease as well as rhino conjunctivitis, (Kaner et al., Contact Dermatitis 2001, 45: 49-51, Flindt et al., Occupational Medicine, Volume 52, 2002). Clearly Mr. Bell is at risk for developing recurrent rhinitis and sinusitis. After all, he does have a history of the disease. He is atopic in that he is allergic to quite a few environmental, substances as documented by Dr. Nagy and other physicians. DISCUSSION: 1. H I S T O P L A S M O S I S ? (Darling first describe the disease in 1905 in autopsy material from a case seen in the Pan American canal zone and identified the organism Leishmaniea. He named these structures histoplasma capsulatum because they resembled plasmodium-like organism within histocytes. Histoplasma capsulatum is an ascomycetes of the family arthrodermataceae. Its telamorphic state is Ajellomyces capsulatum. H. Capsulatum grows as a mold in the soil and is found primarily in MICROFOCCUS containing large amount of rotted guano where starlings have roosted or bats have inhabited. Although H capsulatum is recognized as endemic in certain areas of North america and Latin America, its distribution is much wider. Cases of histoplasmosis have been reported from Europe and Asia. In the United Stats most cases have occurred within the Ohio and Mississippi Valley. Activities that disturb such sites are associated with exposure to H. Capsulatum.

March 2, 2005 Qualified Medical Examiner, Dr NG REPORT, continued

• MICROFOCCUS ACTIVITIES Caves, Chicken coops, Bird roosts, Bamboo canebrakes, School yards, Prison grounds, Decayed woodpiles, Dead trees, Contaminated chimneys, Old buildings any of the above, -Epidemiological studies at contaminated MICROFOCCUS-Laboratories Research Gorbach et al., Infection Disease, Second Edition, page 2336 • A titer of at least 1:32 have the greater significance, but titers 1:8 or 1:15 should not be disregard By the description of Mr. Bell, it is not surprising that he could have been exposed to histoplasmosis in the contaminated “MICROFOCCUS” as described by Gorbach et. al. The risk of a laboratory worker in contracting histoplasmosis is actually well-recognized by the Center of Disease Control CDC), which has published a monograph _Histoplasmosis Protecting Workers at Risk, Revised Edition. “Microbiology Laboratory workers is recognized to be at risk for acquiring histoplasmosis. (Newell et al., Ophthalmology Principle and Concepts, 7th Edition, Raphael et al.,, Occupational hazards from fungi causing deep mycoses, Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Occupation Medicine, 8:154-165, Chick et al., A combined field and laboratory epidemic of Histoplasmosis. American Review of Respiratory Disease, 105: 968-971, Schwartz et al., Occupational hazards from Deep Mycoses. Archives of Dermatology, 113: 1270-1275). 4 5 NOVEMBER 16, 2006 3RD

SINUS

SURGERY BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM - SAN ANTONIO, TX

"Post Operative Instructions" & Date; 11/16/2006 "Outpatient Home Instructions" 4 6 SUTTER INFUSION CENTER 2003-6/3, 7/3, 8/7, 9/6, 10/6, 11/17, 12/19, 2004 1/28, 3/1, 4/4, 5/2, 5/30, 6/27, 7/10, 8/1, 9/24, 10/24, 11/27, 12/28, 2005 2/2, 3/2, 3/20, 3/30, 4/24, 5/25, 6/22, 9/14, 10/12, 11/6, 11/9 4 7 CVID - COMMON VARIABLE IMMUNODEFICIENCY From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia • CVID is believed to be a genetically determined primary immune defect; however, the underlying causes are different. The result of these defects is that the patient doesn't produce sufficient antibodies in response to exposure to pathogens. As a result, the patient's immune system fails to protect them against common bacterial and viral (and occasionally parasitic and protozoan) infections. The net result is that the patient is prone to illness. Both parts of the immune system (the cellular and humoral system) are affected, hence its classification as a combined immunodeficiency • 4 8 November 14, 2006 Dr. Bruce A Wood • Collection Date: 9/25/06; Results Calculated Globulin 1.8 [Expected Range] 2.0 --3.8 - IgG 383 [Expected Range] 723 1685 IgM 56 [Expected Range] 69- 382 • Collection Date: 11/10/2006; IGG 1 245 [Reference Range] 250 - 930, IGG SERUM 578 [Reference Range] 694 - 1618 4 9 October 21, 2005 AGRAQUEST STRAIN ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH MAXYGEN • “In the Strain Access Agreement effective December 21, 2000 by and between Maxygen, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Maxygen"), and AgraQuest, Inc., a Delaware corporation it states: “AgraQuest has an extensive collection of organisms in its biodiversity collection ("Collection") and is willing to provide access to Maxygen, on a non-exclusive basis to at least three thousand (3,000) strains of organisms in the Collection.” “"Collection Strain" means a strain of organism found in the Collection. "Strain Information" means all information on a Collection Strain, including, without limitation, taxonomic information, information regarding biological and/or biochemical activities and any information concerning intellectual property rights relating to the strain, including rights owned or controlled by AgraQuest and any rights of third parties. Strain Information will include, without limitation, information sufficient for Maxygen to be able to identify strains of interest for its various research projects. Strain Information will also include, without limitation, information identifying the source of the strain, including the country of original collection and the date of collection. ”Future Information. AgraQuest will provide Maxygen with Strain Information concerning any future strain isolated by AgraQuest, or otherwise added to the Collection, until Maxygen has selected three thousand (3,000) strains of organisms from the Collection. Strain Information on newly isolated strains shall be provided to Maxygen as soon as practicable after being obtained.” 5 0 July 29, 2006 David Bell LETTER TO DANIEL REICH OF KATCHIS, HARRIS & YEMPUKU

“As requested prior, please provide me a complete list of all biological (insects, fungi and bacterium) and chemical hazards present in the laboratories at Agraquest, Inc. in compliance wt. the Workers’ Right to Know Laws” 5 1 August 8, 2006 Reply to David Bell from Daniel Reich OF KATCHIS, HARRIS & YEMPUKU • “I have your letter of 7/29/06.” • “Please note that I am not familiar with the “Workers Right to Know Law” as you put in your letter. Even if there is such a law, I would think that your request is overbroad, and likely outside the purview of workers compensation.” • “If you think you are entitled to the information requested, please let me know the specific legal authority to which you base your request and I will follow-up with the employer.”

5 2 8/31/2006 David Bell’s “OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF READINESS TO PROCEED” • 1. “I am not prepared to go to the WCAB for trial as discovery is still in progress” [As has been stated in the 7/29/2006 letter to Daniel Reich OF KATCHIS, HARRIS & YEMPUKU]. • 2. “As requested prior, please provide me a complete list of all biological (insects, fungi and bacterium) and chemical hazards present in the laboratories at Agraquest, Inc. in compliance with the Workers’ Right to Know Laws”. [As has been stated in the 7/29/2006 letter to Daniel Reich] (EXHIBIT 1] I ask the court to enforce my “workers right-to-know” rights (including but not limited to) Federal and State Codes and Laws; OSHA “Hazard Communication Regulation” (29 CFR, Section 1910.1200), the California “Hazard Communication Regulation” (T8 CCR, Section 5194), and the “Pesticides and Worker Safety Requirements” (T3 CCR, Ch.6, Subch. 3, Group 3, Section 6700 • “At this time, I am not prepared to go to the WCAB for trial as discovery is still in progress” [and] “As requested prior, please provide me a complete list of all biological (insects, fungi and bacterium) and chemical hazards present in the laboratories at Agraquest, Inc. in compliance wt. the Workers’ Right to Know Laws”... • I have a right to know what I was or could have been exposed to while employed at Agraquest, Inc. and am entitled to the information I have requested. • This is my life and is the reason I am requesting the court to enforce my “workers right-to-know” rights and require Mr. Daniel Reich, attorney for AgraQuest, Inc. and Liberty Mutual (Defendants) to comply with Federal and State Laws and provide me with a complete list and origin (identified and/or not identified) of all biologicals; [amended] insects, worms, fungi, mycoplasma, protozoans, viruses, bacterium and any other microbials that may be known or unknown to the scientific • community that Agraquest has had or ever held in its possession from its inception in 1995 (both locations; 1105 Kennedy Place and 1530 Drew Avenue, Davis California - as well as sites I was instructed to go to by the company. As Agraquest not only worked with “their own” microbes (ect.) they also collaborated with others and had access to other strains of the above • requested list. I request I be provided with this list also. (As per the CEO founder of Agraquest “We have over 23,000 microbes”.) • POINT & AUTHORITIES [included in “OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF READINESS TO PROCEED”] • Workers-Right-To-Know [Laws] • A warning that complies with the federal OSHA “Hazard Communication Regulation” (29 CFR, Section 1910.1200), the California “Hazard Communication Regulation” (T8 CCR, Section 5194), the “Pesticides and Worker Safety Requirements” (T3 CCR, Ch.6, Subch. 3, Group 3, Section 6700.) • l. FEDERAL-OSHA

“HAZARD COMMUNICATION REGULATION” (29 CFR, SECTION 1910.1200) • The Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) is based on a simple concept - that employees have both a need and a right to know the hazards and identities of the chemicals they are exposed to when working. They also need to know what protective measures are available to prevent adverse effects from occurring. The HCS is designed to provide employees with the information they need.

• 2. CALIFORNIA [HCS] “HAZARD COMMUNICATION REGULATION” (T8 CCR,SECTION 5194), • 3. CALIFORNIA “PESTICIDES AND WORKER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS” (T3 • CCR,CH. 6, SUBCH. 3, GROUP 3,SECTION 6700 • 4. California Pesticide Worker Safety Regulations (Revised 1997) • On February 4, 1997, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation sent to County Agricultural Commissioners final regulations that incorporate the federal Worker Protection • Standard requirements in the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Sec. 6723. Hazard Communication for Pesticide Handlers. • c) The employer shall inform employees, before they are allowed to handle pesticides and at least annually thereafter, of the location and availability of the records and other documents listed in this section or relating to employee training, monitoring, and potential exposure. If the location of the records and other documents changes, and employer shall promptly inform his or her employees of the new location. (d) The employer shall provide, upon request of his or her employee, employee representative, or employee's physician, access to any records or other documents required to be maintained pursuant to this chapter. Access shall be granted as soon as possible and not to exceed forty-eight hours from the date of the request.

***Also of note: Worker Safety Requirements” (T3 CCR, Ch.6, Subch. 3, Group 3, Section 6700)***

5 3 10-4-2006 “MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY” C. SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS REQUEST • The material is needed to evaluate plaintiff’s injury from a well know industrial injury(s) acquired in an employment field, microbiological research, riddled with known and rare illnesses acquired from handling human pathogens. Plaintiff alleges that exposure route to be from inhalation and/or ingestion through the course of employment with employer. Inhalation and ingestion are the two primary routes of contamination and infection of a microbiologist or worker in a lab of this type. Plaintiff alleges that employer promoted “daily tea time” in a biological lab to be attended by all employees. Plaintiff alleges known employee consumption of food and beverages in the laboratory by employer. Plaintiff alleges this lack of employer’s common sense and failure to follow any standard safety protocol to be a serious health risk to all employees and visitors of those laboratories of Agraquest. Plaintiff alleges that is not smart to have occupational allergens (subtilisn enzymes and mold) and hundreds of known human pathogens together in a lab that uses the sink for “daily tea time” to eat food and drink tea. Plaintiff alleges twelve fellow laboratory employees had become ill and the lab was locked because no other employee, who worked in that laboratory, could come to work during the week following the onset of plaintiff’s illness. Plaintiff alleges that epidemiology of disease is important to find all carriers of illness whether fellow employees or others that were granted. D. LEGAL GROUNDS FOR THIS DISCOVERY REQUEST • Molds in Indoor Workplaces, California Department of Health Services , Hazard Evaluation System and Information Services November 2005. • California Proposition 65 • Carol Allison v WCAB, 64 CCC624 • Labor Code 132 (a) • Labor Code 4553 • California Code of Regulations: Title 8 • Section 342 Immediate reporting of any serious injury, illness, or death of an employee at the workplace • Section 3204 Access to medical and exposure information • Section 3380 Personal protective equipment • Section 5144 Respiratory protection • Section 5194 Hazard communication program • California Code of Regulations: Title 3 • Section 6724(e) Training Records • Section 6723(a) Written training program • Section 6738(h) Respiratory program procedures • Section 6780(d) Emergency response program • Section 6602 Pesticide label • Section 6723(b) Pesticide safety information series • Section 6619 Treatment notification method • Section 6776 Field posting • Section 6674 Storage area posting • Section 6728(a) Identity of medical supervisor • Section 6728(b) Employee/medical supervisor agreement • Section 6728(c) Medical supervisor agreement, Blood results • Section 6728(d) Employee work practice review • Section 6726 Emergency medical care notice • Section 6738(h) Medical evaluation respirator use • Section 6624 Pesticide use records • Section 6728 Employee exposure records • American with Disabilities Act • Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act • Toxic Substance Control Act • OSHA Hazard Communication Standards • Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act • Consumer Product Safety Act • Freedom of Information Act • 7 USC § 136 h (d) where EPA has already made the determination that something is hazardous, the Confidential Business Information provision does not apply [IGNORED}

5 4 10/10/2006

“DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY” • Applicant’s petition is 12 pages long, and seeks to compel production from 27 separate categories of documents. • Initially, defendants wish to point out the applicant sites allegation as a basis for his request that simply do not exist, or concern some previous matter that has nothing to do with this present workers compensation claim. Mr Bell is apparently confusing his workers compensation claim with some previous legal matter involving AgraQuest. • Within each document category there are frequently numerous items sought. Clearly the request seeks documents on probably hundreds of things,, most of which have nothing to do with the Applicants workers compensation claim. • Consequently defendant object to applicant request as overbroad and burdensome, and nor reasonable calculated to lead to relevant discoverable evidence. • Notwhithstanding defendants objection, we have contacted the employer to review and respond to applicant discover request as of the 9/20/06 status conference and as noticed in the Objection to DOR filed by applicant on 8/31/06

5 5 October 20, 2006 WCAB MINUTES AND SUPPLEMENT TO MINUTES David Bell shown “positive” on blood tests and cultures in list of microorganisms requested (inadvertently forgot to list pseudomonas) Pseudomonas as well as 9 microorganisms listed have been linked to Agraquest’s (and/or inventors from Agraquest listed as inventors) on United States patents and international patents. The 10th microorganism, Acinetobacter has been found in the midgut of mosquitos (David Bell worked with mosquitos and larvae on the Laginex project during his employment at Agraquest). 5 6 8/03/01 Agraquest Inc Securities and Exchange Commission (Hazardous Materials) 8/03/01 Agraquest Inc S-1® 7:199

Donnelley R R & S..05/FA 1: S-1................. Registration Statement (General Form) -- 99 pages

S-1 · 15th Page of 99 • We use hazardous materials in our business. Any claims relating to improper handling, storage or disposal of these materials could be time consuming and..... • Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of hazardous materials and disposal of biological and other hazardous waste. Some of these materials may be novel, including bacteria with novel properties and,..... • Our strategic collaborators may use hazardous materials in connection with our collaborative efforts. In the event of a lawsuit or investigation, we could be held responsible for any injury caused to persons or property by exposure to, or release of, hazardous materials used by these parties. Further, we may be required to indemnify our collaborators against all damages and other... S-1 · 48th Page of 99 • Our manufacturing operations are also subject to federal, state, local and foreign worker safety, air pollution, water pollution and solid and hazardous waste regulatory programs and periodic inspection. We believe that our ..... • EX-10.5 · 20th Page of 25 39. Hazardous Materials. • 39.1 "Hazardous Materials" shall mean (a) any oil, flammable substances, explosives, radioactive materials, hazardous wastes or substances, toxic wastes or substances or any other wastes, materials or pollutants which cause the Building to be in violation of any Hazardous Materials Laws; (b) asbestos in any form which is or during the term of this Lease becomes friable,..... • governmental or regulatory actions, agreements or orders threatened, instituted or completed pursuant to any Hazardous M a t e r i a l s Laws, together with any chemical, material or substance defined as or included in the definition of "hazardous substances", "hazardous wastes", "hazardous materials, "extremely hazardous waste", "restricted hazardous waste, or toxic substances" or words of similar import under any applicable local, state or federal law or under the • not limited to, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. {{9601, et seq.; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. {{1801, et seq.; the • EX-10.5 21st Page of 25 • 39.2 "Hazardous Materials Claims" shall mean any and all enforcement, cleanup, removal, remedial or other y and all claims made or threatened by any third party against Lessor, Lessee or the Building arising out of a violation of any Hazardous Materials Law. •

39.3 "Hazardous Materials Laws" shall mean any federal, state or local laws, ordinances, regulations or policies relating to the environment, health and safety, any Hazardous Materials (including, without limitation, the use, handling,

transportation, production, disposal, discharge or storage transportation, production, disposal, discharge or storage..... • 39.4 Lessee shall immediately advise Lessor in writing of (i) any and all Hazardous Materials Claims, (ii) the presence of any Hazardous Materials on, under or about the Building in accordance with, without 25359.7, (iii) any remedial action taken by

• 8/03/01

Agraquest

Inc

Securities

and

Exchange

Commission,

continued

• Lessee in response to any (A) Hazardous Materials on, under or about the Building or (B) Hazardous Materials

Claims, (iv)

Lessee's discovery of the presence of Hazardous Materials on, under or about any Premises adjoining the Building, and (v) Lessee's discovery of any accordance therewith, or to be otherwise any restrictions on the ownership, occupancy, or use of the Building under any Hazardous Materials Laws. In addition, Lessee shall provide Lessor with copies of all communications with federal, state and local governments or agencies relating to Hazardous Materials Laws and all communication with any person relating to Hazardous Materials action in response to the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, disposal or release of any Hazardous Materials by Lessee or any of Lessees agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, invitees, discharged, deposited, injected, dumped, spilled, leaked, disposed of, or released Hazardous Material to the lowest maximum level of concentration required for such Hazardous Material by any applicable Hazardous Materials Law or federal, state or local governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the..... • jurisdiction over the Land and any other areas that may be contaminated with respect to such level and thereafter shall promptly reduce such Hazardous Material to the lowest maximum level set forth in such rulings, or (B) if Lessee is unable timely to obtain such rulings, Lessee shall promptly reduce such Hazardous Material to a level agreed to by Lessor and Lessee, or (C) if Lessor and Lessee cannot agree to a level of concentration, then Lessee shall promptly reduce each Hazardous Material for which a level is not otherwise established in accordance with this Paragraph 39 to a level thereafter agreed to by a..... • 39.6 Lessee shall not create or permit to continue in existence any lien upon the Building imposed pursuant to any Hazardous Materials Law; provided, however, that Lessee may, at its..... EX-10.5 · 22nd Page of 25 • a party if it so elects, any legal proceedings or actions initiated in connection with any Hazardous Materials Claims. • investigation) which arise out of or relate in any way to any use, handling, production, transportation, disposal or storage of any Hazardous Materials in or on the Building whether by Lessee or any of Lessee's agents, employees,..... • damages directly or indirectly arising out of (a) the use generation, storage, discharge or disposal of Hazardous Materials by Lessee, or any of Lessee's agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, invitees or licensees..... • of any closure or other required plans. In addition, Lessee agrees that in the event any Hazardous Material is caused to be removed from the Building by Lessee, Lessor or any other person, the number assigned by the Environmental Protection Agency to such Hazardous Material shall be solely in the name of Lessee and Lessee shall assume any and all liability for such removed Hazardous Material. Lessee understands and agrees that its liability to the aforementioned indemnified parties shall arise upon the earlier to occur of (a) discovery of any Hazardous Materials on, under or about the Building, or (b) the institution of any Hazardous Materials Claim, and not upon the realization of loss or damage...... • matters pertaining to the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, disposal or release of any Hazardous Materials on, under, about or in the vicinity of the Land, to any person, entity or governmental agency or..... • Hazardous Materials. • (a) To the best of Lessor's knowledge, without any investigation or inquiry, (i) no Hazardous Materials have been spilled, disposed of, or stored, on, under, or at the Land, whether by accident, burying,..... EX-10.5 · 23rd Page of 25 • (b) Lessor shall take any and all necessary remedial action required by any Hazardous Materials Laws in response to the presence of any Hazardous Materials on, under or about the Land or the Building existing on or before the Commencement Date, and as required by any federal, state or local 5 7 10/3/01 Agraquest Inc. Securities and Exchange Commission (Hazardous Materials) S-1/A · 15th Page of 100 • We use hazardous materials in our business. Any claims relating to improper handling, storage or disposal of these materials could be time consuming and • Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of hazardous materials and disposal of biological and other hazardous waste. Some of these materials may be novel, including bacteria with novel properties and • S-1/A · 16th Page of 100 • Our strategic collaborators may use hazardous materials in connection with our collaborative efforts. In the event of a lawsuit or investigation, we could be held responsible for any injury caused to persons or property by exposure to, or release of, hazardous materials used by these parties. Further, we currently are required to indemnify our collaborators under some circumstances • S-1/A · 49th Page of 100 • Our manufacturing operations are also subject to federal, state, local and foreign worker safety, air pollution, water pollution and solid and hazardous waste regulatory programs and periodic inspection.

•

5 8 1/11/02 Agraquest Inc. Securities and Exchange Commission (Hazardous Materials) 1: S-1/A............... Form S-1 Amendment #2 -- 102 pages • S-1/A · 15th Page of 102 • We use hazardous materials in our business. Any claims relating to improper handling, storage or disposal of these materials could be time consuming and Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of hazardous materials and disposal of biological and other hazardous waste. Some of these materials may be novel, including bacteria with novel properties and • liable for damages or penalized with fines, and this liability could exceed our cash resources. In addition, given the hazardous nature of the materials used in the manufacturing process of our business, we may be held strictly liable • S-1/A · 16th Page of 102 • Our strategic collaborators may use hazardous materials in connection with our collaborative efforts. In the event of a lawsuit or investigation, we could be held responsible for any injury caused to persons or property by exposure to, or release of, hazardous materials used by these parties. Further, we currently are required to indemnify our collaborators under some circumstances • S-1/A · 50th Page of 102 • Our manufacturing operations are also subject to federal, state, local and foreign worker safety, air pollution, water pollution and solid and hazardous waste regulatory programs and periodic inspection. 5 9 November 14, 2006 Daniel Reich of Katchis, Harris & Yempuku letter to David Bell This is in response to the 10/20/06 order signed by Judge Volkan at the Sacramento WCAB. Please note that the following organisms marked with a “yes” are thought to have been present at Agraquest during your employment period: 1) Acremonium - Yes 2) Staph aureus - No, not at the time Bell was at AQ. We got this strain in late 2001. 3) Alternaria - Yes 4) Penicillium - Yes 5) CURVULARIA - Yes 6) Acinetobacter - No 7) Bacillus - Yes 8) Staph sp - No, not at the time he was here 9) Coccoides - No 10) Histoplasma - NO

August 14, 2007 John Overton Letter • 1. All medical reports, including Dr. Smith and Dr. Wood’s charts you received last December. • 2. Wage statements. • 3. Any statement taken from applicant pertaining to his injury. • 4. Investigation reports regarding applicants injury. • 5. Copies of any videotapes, films, and/or photographs that have been taken of applicant. • 6. Any statements made by applicant with reference to applicants rights or desires to participate in vocational rehabilitation • 7. A history of all benefits paid, the dates, and amounts. • 8. Any statements prepared by a Qualified Rehabilitation Representative in this matter • 9. Any reports or statements prepared by a case management worker • 10 All communications with applicant’s former counselors • 11. Social Security records obtained by you last year. • 12. All copies of any current governmental inspection, report or citation and/or notifications of penalty of Agraquest, Inc., and their premises related the microbe Bacillus Subtilis. • 13. All formal federal/state USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) inspection & authorization permits for each soil collection and/or soil sample extracted from any foreign country and brought into any Agraquest facility ( APHIS Quarantine Regulations Title 7, CFR Part 330). • 14. All copies of any governmental retroactive or postdated inspection, report or citation and notification of penalty of Agraquest, Inc., and their premises. • 15. Any memos, e-mail messages, letters, or any other media that you have received through any means from any employee and/or former employee of Agraquest that is not legally protected or bound under “client-attorney” confidentiality privilege. • 16. Any laboratory chemical handling, health, and safety protocol, policies, and procedures that were in effect during the time that Mr. Bell was employed with Agraquest. • 17. Any laboratory microbial handling, health, and safety protocol, policies, and procedures that were in effect during the time that Mr. Bell was employed with Agraquest. • 18. Any records of specialized training that employees were given in regard to environmental/laboratory handling, health, and safety protocol, policies, and procedures that were in effect during the time that Mr. Bell was employed with Agraquest.

August

14,

2007

John

Overton

Letter,

continued

• 19. Any Agraquest record, memo, or report that was ever filed with any government agency as to Mr. David Bell’s medical condition specific to any chemical and/or microbe Agraquest was responsible for reporting under any government regulation for any purpose whether it be registration, accident, or illness. • 20. Any Agraquest record, memo, or report that was ever filed with any government agency as to the proper disposal of any hazardous waste chemicals/microbes, soils, etc., in compliance with regulations enforcing such items. • 21. Any Agraquest record, memo, policy or procedure that directs the proper disposal of any hazardous waste chemicals/microbes, soils, etc., in compliance with regulations enforcing such items conducted by any employee of Agraquest. • 22. Any Agraquest record, memo, policy or procedure for any general or specialized formal training that directs the proper disposal of any hazardous waste chemicals/microbes, soils, etc., in compliance with regulations enforcing such items conducted by any employee of Agraquest. • Our demands are pursuant to CWC [DWC] Board Rule 10608, that you submit to my office within 6-days receipt of this letter, the following documents: All medical records, medical-legal reports, personnel records, witness statements, investigative reports, pictures and/or subrosa films, DWC-1, wage statements, all Agraquest company correspondence relating to this litigation matter, and employee benefit(s) information in your possession. Accordingly, this rule obligates you to submit to me any subsequent physician reports you obtain within 6-days following such receipt. Please consider this as a continuing demand from our office. • Further, our demand is that all you submit to our office any workers compensation benefits, including temporary disability benefits, permanent disability benefits, mileage reimbursement, medical expenses, and vocational rehabilitation benefits to which Mr. Bell is entitled. • Pursuant to CWC [DWC] [DWC] Regulation 10510, service must be made on this office of all documentation including but not limited to documentation issued (as identified and expressed herein) in compliance with Labor Code Section 4610, and all regulatory documents expressed below. Failure to comply immediately in response to us in submitting all documentation specified, shall be considered by us as a willful failure to comply with this these regulations. • Legal Statutes guiding this formal documentation request under: “Employee Right to Know” • California Code of Regulations (CCR) Subchapter 7, • “General Industry Safety Orders,” Group 16 • “Control of Hazardous Substances,” Article 109 • “Hazardous Substances and Processes,” 5194 • “Hazardous Communication”, T3 CCR, Chapter 6, Subchapter 3, Group 3, Section 6700 • “Pesticides and Worker Safety Requirements” • APHIS Quarantine Regulations Title 7, CFR Part 330, “Federal Plant Pest Regulations; General; Plant Pests; Soil, Stone, and Quarry Products; Garbage” • EPA 40 CFR, Part 159, “Reporting Requirements For Risk/Benefit Information” FIFRA, Section 6(a)(2) Pursuant to Regulation 10510, service must be made on this office of all documentation, including but not limited to documentation issued in compliance with Labor Code Section 4610. Please consider this a continuing demand, and serve us with all documents pertaining to those listed herein, if you should receive them in the future.

The above demands were ignored and never answered by Agraquest, Daniel Reich and Lynne Rendon of Golden Eagle/Liberty Mutual

DECEMBER 31, 2004 HOLLIE RUTKOWSKI DEMAND LETTER • Demand is hereby made for all workers’ compensation benefits, including temporary disability benefits, permanent disability benefits, mileage reimbursement, medical expenses, and vocational rehabilitation benefits and services to which Applicant is entitled. • Please assure that all benefits are paid in a timely manner with the appropriate documentation copied to this office. • Pursuant to Regulation 10510, service must be made on this office of all documentation, including but not limited to documentation issued in compliance with labor code section 4610. We will consider any failure to comply with this regulation as improper service. • INVESTIGATION • Lynn Rendon of Golden Eagle/Helmsman Management made an untimely denial. Mr Bell filed a Claim Form on October 3, 2003 for date of injury January 11, 1999. Agraquest Inc. acknowledged receipt of the Claim Form on October 3, 2003. Agraquest Inc. then notified the wrong carrier of the claim. The time for Agraquest Inc. to accept or deny the claim expired on or about January 3, 2004. Golden Eagle/Helmsman Management did not deny the claim until July 14, 2004. The denial is more than six months late. • In addition, the denial was made in bad faith. This is not a [post-termination claim. Mr. Bell started treating for his illness in January 1999. Lynn Rendon stated in her denial that Mr. Bell did not report this injury prior to his termination. He is not required to report his claim if he has received treatment prior to being terminated, laid off or fired, as Mr. Reich well know [knew]. Therefore I am demanding that Mr. Reich provide me with proof that Mr. Bell was terminated, laid off or fired prior to the first day that he received treatment in January 1999. If the Employer does not have such proof and you persist in denying this claim in bad faith, I will consider filing sanctions, as the only reason you will have to support your bad faith