Filmmaker says he went undercover for law firm suing Dole in banana plantation worker case

Filmmaker: I was undercover operative for law firm

LOS ANGELES — A filmmaker who went to Nicaragua to make a documentary said Thursday he became an undercover operative for a Texas law firm that was suing Dole Foods on behalf of purported banana plantation workers who claim they were left sterile by pesticide exposure.

Jason Glaser testified about his transformation into a secret sleuth, saying he told none of the people he interviewed in Latin America about his dual role.

He was called to the witness stand by attorney Steve Condie, who represents six men claiming they were left sterile by pesticide exposure while working on Dole banana plantations from 1970 to 1980.

Dole investigators uncovered evidence that some Nicaraguans suing the company had lied, saying they were sterile when they had fathered children and vowing they worked on banana farms when they did not.

The first trial on the issue ended in 2007 with jurors awarding $2.3 million to Condie’s clients. Dole is seeking to overturn the verdict. A second similar case was dismissed after testimony about fraud.

Glaser, 32, said he went to Latin America to pursue a documentary in 2007 after brief stints working for MTV and HBO.

He told a harrowing story of encountering corruption and said he and his crew came under fire by someone with an AK-47 in Honduras where their driver was killed and he was splattered with blood.

After his initial work in Nicaragua, he said, “I decided the film wasn’t going to change a lot in this world.”

He said he then was offered a job as an operative by the Provost-Umphrey law firm in Beaumont, Texas, which was representing a number of purported banana workers in multimillion dollar lawsuits.

“I decided to work with the firm and help with the legal process,” he said. “I decided to use the film for that purpose.”

Condie sought to show Glaser’s taped interviews in court, but Judge Victoria Chaney noted the interviews were in Spanish and said it was unlikely they could be translated in time for her ruling. She agreed, however, to hear Glaser’s account.

Under questioning by Dole attorney Scott Edelman, Glaser said the Texas law firm paid $17,000 a month to him and his crew, including picking up expenses for their office, a cleaning person and gardeners.

He said the lawyers were aware that he was using hidden tape recorders to surreptitiously tape interviews and had no objection.

Glaser, who said he studied filmmaking at Columbia College in Chicago and University of Edinburgh, Scotland, said he came to see himself not as a filmmaker, but as “a facilitator and an activist.”

“I think I am trying to bring change to people who don’t have a voice,” he said. “I am more than a filmmaker.”

He said he never saw himself as a journalist and did not purport to be unbiased.

“I don’t think anyone has ever seen a documentary that is unbiased,” he said.

At the outset, he indicated that he saw “the transnationals,” companies such as Dole, as exploiting the workers.

But he said he now shares “the suspicion of everyone in this courtroom that there are people in Nicaragua saying they are banana workers who were not. I believe it’s a troubling issue.”

He acknowledged that he shared information with a Nicaraguan lawyer who held rallies to denounce Dole, providing him with a photograph of a Dole investigator that was printed on flyers and distributed with a message suggesting he should be beaten.

He said he was unaware the picture was used for such a purpose.

That investigator testified in a companion case that distribution of the picture forced him to flee the country in fear for his life.

Glaser said he resisted Condie’s entreaties to testify until late May, when he decided to leave Nicaragua for good.

“I decided I was tired of all this secrecy,” he said. “I snapped. I was through with it.”

The judge ordered Glaser to return to the witness stand Friday.

Earlier in the day, attorneys debated how much Dole attorneys knew about the alleged fraud when the first case went to trial.

Condie accused them of withholding the information for tactical reasons, but Dole attorney Theodore Boutrous said that was “absurd.” Boutrous said admissible evidence was required to bring such an allegation to the court and, “admissible evidence didn’t exist.”