Document 0J1Xqy8ZoB7j681QwbY9qXkdk

lObiiy kdu*ii oui< jU*-3^3-0/00 rage c*ss . STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 48,138 DIVISION "A" FRANK FRANCES CASHIO, ET AL versus OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL FILED: DEPUTY CLERK DEFENDANT, EXXON CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES NOW' COMES defendant, Exxon Corporation ("Exxon"), who submits these objections and answers to the Interrogatories propounded by plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter as follows: ++++++P.RELIMINAR-Y STATEMENT v These answers to plaintiffs' Interrogatories have been compiled as the result ofan investigation into the historical practices and the procedures followed by Exxon over many decades. Through the passage oftime, mam- persons with knowledge ofthese matters are unknown, cannot be located, or have passed away. Similarly, the passage oftime has probably resulted in the inability to locate documents which may have existed in earlier years. Accordingly, the information available to Exxon regarding these historical matters is incomplete and may remain incomplete despite continuing efforts to locate knowledgeable persons and relevant documents. With this perspective in mind, the following answers represent Exxon's best knowledge to date regarding these inquiries. Due to the breadth ofmany ofthese Interrogatories, diligent inquiry still is underway to ascertain whether additional, reasonably responsive information or documentation may exist To the extent additional information is ascertained during Exxon's continuing investigation, these answers will be supplemented. When Exxon's response refers to documents it will make available, Exxon will provide responsive documents from its corporate offices as they are kept in the normal course of business, to plaintiffs' counsel for inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time and location. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Exxon objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that these Interrogatories seek information protected by the Attorney-Client, Work Production. Investigative and Party Communication Privileges, or Joint or Common Defense Privileges; is proprietary or confidential in nature, or is subject to any other applicable exemption, privilege or immunity, and such information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. 2. Exxon objects to these Interrogatories because they are overly broad to the extent that these Interrogatories seek information that is not limited in scope to the work area and period ofemployment of the plaintiffs or seek information that is in the public domain and is as accessible to plaintiffs as to this defendant 3. Exxon objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they call for the revelation of information and documents prepared in anticipation oflitigation or subsequent thereto as part ofand to advance the defense ofthat litigation. 4. Exxon objects to all Interrogatories to the extent they inquire into the mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories of Exxon's legal representatives. 3. Exxon objects to all Interrogatories to the extent they seek information which is not in Exxon's possession, custody or control. ` PARTICULAR ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY. NO,J. State the name, address, job title, length oftime employed by defendant and a year*by year list ofall other positions, titles orjobs held when working for defendant for each person who has supplied any information used in answering these Interrogatories. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to this Interrogatory No. 1 because it potentially seeks privileged information. Without waiving these objections, undersigned counsel prepared the answers to these Interrogatories, after discussions with his client INTERROGATORY NO. 2 Please identify' the name ofthe answering defendant including all prior names or predecessor entities, describe the chain oftitle ofthe facility where the plaintiff alleges he worked, and provide a corporate history ofthe answering defendant. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2 * The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Without waiving these objections: 'Standard Oil Company ofNew Jersey, 1882; 'Standard Oil Company; 'Humble Oil and Refining Company ("Humble"), 1959; 'Standard Oil Company changed its name to Exxon Corporation in 1972; 'Humble, Esso Chemical Company, Inc. and Enjay Chemical Company merged into Exxon Corporation which became Exxon Company, U.S.A in 1973. INTERROGATORY NO. 3 Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeach and every person known to defendant or to defendant's agents, having knowledge offacts relevant to this case, as well as a summary ofthe knowledge possessed by each individual. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as over broad, repetitive, unduly burdensome, harassing and 2 vague. The request is over broad because even though plaintiffs were present at Exxon facilities over limited periods of time, the request is not so limited. It is also overbroad because it asks Exxon to identify anyone with "knowledge of acts relevant to this case," regardless ofwhether they are former or current Exxon employees. The request is repetitive, unduly burdensome and harassing since it seeks information that plaintiffs1 already have, and have provided to defense counsel in the form of plaintiffs' discovery responses in this case, as well as the depositions of professor James W. Hammond and the exhibits attached to those depositions provided to defendant in Emery v. Owens Corning, et al. and in turn provided plaintiffs by defendant Plaintiffs' discovery demands seek to cause unnecessary and added costs to this litigation by asking the defendant to produce the same information the plaintiffs already have. The Interrogatory is even more burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they were working at an Exxon facility. In Mr. Font's case, he alleged in his deposition his presence on three Exxon facilities in the late 1960s and 70s intermittently as an employee ofsubcontractors. Yet he was unable to be any more specific than that In his petition, he alleges exposure at Exxon from the 1960-1975 intermittently. He does not give specifics as to when he worked at a certain facility. In Mr. Green's case, while discovery has revealed that he may have worked for Exxon's predecessors at certain periods oftime, it does not specify at which facilities he worked during that time period. Like Mr. Font in the amended petition. Green alleges exposure at Exxon over an uncertain period oftime, i.e., the 1960s to the 1970s intermittently.2 Based on these ambivalent time periods, there may be hundreds ofpeople or none whose names would be responsive to this request The task of discovering that number would be monumental. To the extent the request seeks information about anyone who has "knowledge ofacts relevant to this case," it is impermissibly vague. The quoted phrase is not defined. INTERROGATORY NO. 4 By 1985, was the answering defendant aware ofinformation or facts concerning any reported association between exposure to asbestos or asbestos products and the following: a. Asbestosis? b. Pleural Disease? c. Lung Cancer? d. Mesothelioma? e. Gastrointestinal cancer? f. Other cancers? g. Other health effects? If not by 1985, when, if ever, did you become aware of information or facts concerning any reported association between exposure to asbestos or asbestos products and the health effects listed above? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 4 as over broad, unduly burdensome, vague and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory is overbroad since it seeks information regarding Exxon's knowledge presumably both before and after plaintiffs worked at its premises. For the same reason, it seeks irrelevant information since Font and Green claim exposure at least a decade before the time period requested. What Exxon knew after they were on Exxon's premises is wholly immaterial. The request is unduly burdensome because, even assuming Exxon's knowledge during plaintiffs' presence on its facilities were relevant, plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity 'Since the petition only states claims against Exxon by Font and Green, those are the only two plaintiffs addressed in these responses. 'Admittedly, Font and Green have supplemented this information in their work history sheets provided to defendant February 16,1998. However, the information regarding work history remains ill-defined and non-specific. For example, Green alleges he worked in various capacities at an Exxon facility or a facility of its predecessor intermittently from 1945 to 1978, for a total time period of approximately eight years. Font merely alleges working for a one year period oftime at Exxon Plastics from 1960 to 1976. His deposition testimony contradicts that allegation. 3 when and where they were working at an Exxon facility. The request is vague because it is not limited to a specified level ofexposure to asbestos, the location ofthe asbestos, the duration ofthe exposure, or the type ofasbestos. It also fails to define terms such as "other cancers," "health effects" or "pleural disease." Without waiving this objection, Exxon responds that it does not agree that all asbestos exposure causes any of the diseases listed. Further, see the deposition of James W. Hammond, vols. I-IV ("Hammond's deposition"), specifically, see vol. II, Russell Allen v. American Petrofina, Inc., et aL, dated July 6, 1990 and documents produced in response to Request for Production of Documents, including No.2 which in turn includes Exxon's Procedures Concerning Safeguarding Workers From Asbestos Health Hazards before OSHA ("Corporate Report"). INTERROGATORY NO. 5 Ifyour answer to Interrogatory No. 4 as to any ofthe sub-parts is affirmative, please provide a reasonable description ofthe following: a. The time and manner this defendant learned ofsuch an association; b. Any documents you received prior to plaintiff's last presence at your facility which referred to, reflected or discussed facts concerning the association between exposure to asbestos and the disease set forth in Interrogatory No. 4, and the identity ofthe person(s) so communicating, the manner in which you received these documents, including by medical or scientific studies or attendance at conferences, lectures, conventions, symposia or meetings and the current custodian ofsuch records. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5 See previous answer. v INTERROGATORY NO, 6 Please identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility owned or operated by you in which asbestos products were assembled, stored, used, prepared for use, installed or fabricated, specifying the dates each such plant is or was in operation and the time span during which each named item was stored, used, prepared for use, installed or fabricated. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO- $ The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 6 in its entirety as over board, and unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory is over broad because it seeks information on all plants which fit into the described category without regard to location, whether plaintiffs worked there or the dates in which asbestos products were allegedly assembled, stored, etc. For similar reasons, the request seeks totally irrelevant information and is unduly burdensome. Even assuming the request were limited to plants where plaintiffs worked and was found to seek relevant information, answering the Interrogatory would be unduly burdensome because plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. It is further burdensome because there are miles ofpiping in Exxon's facilities, some ofwhich is insulated, and yet plaintifls have been unable to narrow the locations where they have worked. Exxon also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Exxon assembled, prepared for use or fabricated asbestos products. Without waiving these objections, see invoices, purchase orders, etc. produced to plaintiffs in Emery. INTERROGATORY NO. 7 Please state whether you educated plaintiff or other workers concerning any potential health hazards known by you and or any safety precautions necessary to guard against any adverse health effects arising from the use of, handling of, or working around asbestos-containing insulation products at your facility before 1985. Ifso. please provide a reasonable description of: a. When and in what manner plaintiffor other workers were so informed; b. Documents communicating, reflecting or otherwise discussing such conveyed information including the substance and who received them and when; c. Programs, seminars or classes which were sponsored, attended or initiated hy your company to convey such information; d. Any safety equipment, including respiratory masks or devices which were issued or 4 otherwise provided to plaintiff or other workers at your facility, and the programs utilizedto instruct them with respect to proper usage ofany such equipment, including the nature and substance ofsuch programs and who participated and when; e. Any persons with responsibility for developing, implementing and overseeing the application ofsuch programs for any period oftime; Medical monitoring or industrial hygiene programs designed to follow up on the health and safety ofplaintiffor other workers at your facility. Ifnot by 1985, when, ifever, did you begin so educating plaintiffor other workers. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 7 in its entirety as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and information which is equally accessible to plaintiffs. The Interrogatory is overbroad because it seeks information on education which was provided both before and after plaintiffs were allegedly working at an Exxon premises. The request presumably seeks information going back to Exxon's beginnings. For all ofthese reasons, the Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information. It also seeks irrelevant information to the extent it requests information on education of"other workers." What other workers were taught is immaterial to Font and Green's claims against Exxon. The request is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming Exxon's educational policies during plaintiffs' presence on its facilities were relevant, plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they were working at an Exxon facility. Additionally, the information can be equally accessed by plaintiffs by merely recollecting what they received in terms of asbestos education. ' Without waiving these objections, see Hammond's deposition, pp. 357-358,422-430,433,469 471,472,473-77, vol. I, at 105-109. According to Mr. Hammond, Exxon employees were provided safety manuals which discussed dust control. These manuals were also provided to contractor supervisors. Additionally, in the Dust Producing Operations in the Production ofPetroleum Products and Associated Activities ("Bonsib Report"), authored by Roy Bonsib in 1937, he discussed procedures to control or reduce the hazard of dust The Bonsib Report has a section on the use of respiratory protective equipment. See also documents produced in response to Request for Production, including No. 2 which in turn includes the Corporate Report INTERROGATORY NO, 8 Have you ever conducted, directed, sponsored, or participated in any epidemiological or toxicological studies concerning any potential association between asbestos exposure and the diseases listed in Interrogatory No. 4? Ifso, please provide a reasonable description of: a. When each study was conducted? b. The purpose ofeach study? c. The identify ofthe person or organizations conducting and when and how the results of the study were disseminated; d. Whether or not any ofyour employees were included in any ofthe studies; e. Whether any ofthe studies are ongoing; and f. The title or publication name ofeach such study. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 8 in its entirety as over broad, and unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome because it asks defendant to provide data on every epidemiological or toxicological study without specifying the time period. To the extent these studies w>ere done before or after plaintiffs were working at one ofExxon's premises, the information sought is totally irrelevant The request is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming the type oftesting described during plaintiffs' presence on its facilities were relevant, plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they were working at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, see Hammond's depositions, pp. 494-498. See also documents produced in response to Request for Production of Documents, including No. 14. 5 INTERROGATORY NOJ> Please provide a reasonable description of any audit or inspection ofyour facility and or your other facilities by a governmental agency which was concerned with or resulted in warnings, citations, reprimands or other findings with regardto the use ofasbestos resulting in potential exposure to persons. In your answer, please identify' the person or entity conducting such audits or inspections. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO,. 9 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 9 in its entirety' as over broad, vague, burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome because it requests a listing of each occasion when any governmental agency inspected any of defendant's facilities. The request seeks irrelevant information for similar reasons and because the failure to conduct such inspections, ifthat occurred, could not have affected plaintiffs or their health. The request is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming the inspections during plaintiffs' presence on its facilities were relevant plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they were working at an Exxon facility. Additionally, "findings with regard to the use of asbestos resulting in potential exposure to persons" is impermissibly vague. Without waiving these objections, to date no documents have been found responsive to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Please provide a reasonable description of any medical examination program(s), medical monitoring program(s), or other medical surveillance offered or sponsored by your facility or its insurance carries with regard to plaintiffor other workers, exposed or potentially exposed to asbestos at your facility. With respect to each such program, please provide a reasonable description of: a. The manner ofcommunicating with employees about such programs; b. Whether or not the programs were mandatory or optional; c. Whether or not the program or examinations were for all workers, including employees ofcontractors on defendant's premises, orjust for defendant's payroll workers; d. What each program or examination consisted of, e. What the criteria were for worker participation; and f. For each study, what percentage of workers were found to have an asbestos-related disease or malignancies; g. What records ofsuch program, examination or surveillance exist at this time, including but not limited to reports, x-rays, medical notes and/or descriptions of any kind or correspondence. ANSWER-T.OINTERROGATORY NO, 10 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 10 in its entirety as it is over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome because it asks for information on any medical examination, monitor or surveillance program offered by Exxon with regard to plaintiffor other workers exposed or potentially exposed to asbestos at your facility. The request is not limited in time even though plaintiffs were present at Exxon facilities at limited periods oftime. For this reason, the request is also irrelevant To the extent Interrogatory No. 10 relates in part to "other workers," it also seeks particularly irrelevant information. Even assuming the time period and locations in this Interrogatorywere limited by the petition and/or discovery and that the information were relevant, the request is unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they were working at an Exxon facility. Withoutwaiving these objections, see Hammond's deposition, deposition ofNeill Weaver, M.D. John Lione's trial testimony and Corporate Report and other documents produced in response to the Request for Production ofDocuments. INTERROGATORY NO. 11 Please identify if your company was a member of, or subscribed to scientific or medical periodicals published by, the following trade organizations, associations, panels, or other groups and 6 entities relating to occupational disease and or industrial hygiene related to asbestos before 1985; a. The American Petroleum Institute ("API"); b. The Chemical Manufacturers Association ("CMA") (or its predecessor, the MCA); ' c. Chlorine Institute; d. Industrial Hygiene Foundation; e. National Insulation Manufacturers Association; f. The Asbestos Textile Institute; g. The Asbestos Information Association; h. The National Safety Council ("NSC"); i. ACGIH; j. The American Occupational Medical Association; k. The American Public Health Association; l. The American Chemical Society [sic]; m. The American Chemical Society, n. NIOSH o. Other organizations addressing other occupational diseases or industrial hygiene concerns relating to asbestos. In your answer, please state whether your company participated in any meeting ofthese trade groups relating to asbestos or asbestos-related diseases and please identify all documents received as a result of such memberships or subscriptions relating to relating to asbestos-related diseases or which referto any discussions held at such meetings relating to asbestos or asbestos-related diseases, and the names ofthe person(s) who you have reason to believe would have attended these meetings on behalf ofyour company. - ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 11 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is overbroad and unduly burdensome because it seeks the described information concerning defendant prior to 1985 and presumably from Exxon's beginnings. For these reasons and because plaintiffs were not working at Exxon during the entire time span mentioned in the request, it seeks irrelevant information. The request is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming the request were limited to the time periods or locations specified in the petition and/or discovery and the information were relevant, plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they were working at an Exxon facility. The Interrogatory is also impermissibly vague because it does not define the terminology "subscribed to," or "relating to occupational disease andor industrial hygiene related to asbestos." Without waiving these objections, Exxon belongs to .API. CMA and NSC. Exxon is trying to determine if there are any other company memberships responsive to this request See also Hammond's deposition. Weaver's deposition and documents produced in response to the Request for Production of Documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 12 Please provide a reasonable description ofany method for atmospheric monitoring for asbestos (personal or area) employed by your facility by 1985. Ifyour response to the foregoing sentence is "none," please state whether such monitoring was being done at any ofyour other facilities and, ifso, when did such monitoring begin at those facilities. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 12 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 12 as overbroad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The Interrogatory is overbroad because it seeks information on atmospheric testing at anytime prior to 1985 and presumably from Exxon's beginnings, including times when plaintiffs were not working at Exxon's facilities. Moreover, that part ofthe request which seeks information on any Exxon facilities is overbroad since plaintiffs were only working at specific locations. For similar reasons, the request is unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information. The Interrogatory is further burdensome because, even assuming atmospheric monitoring for the times plaintiffs were on the premises were requested and considered relevant, plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they were working at an Exxon facility. 7 Without waiving these objections, following the Bonsib report in 1937, Exxon started using the midget impinger which was mentioned in that report, to evaluate asbestos dust and particles at the Bayway (and presumably other facilities). The impinger was a hand-operated small aluminum pump that did not have any static electricity sparks to it; it operated like an organ grinder and at one-tenth of a cubic foot per minute rather than one cubic foot per minute. It was wom around the neck sometimes by the worker. Other times it would be held up to the worker's nose. New areas or operations were monitored. See also Hammond's deposition, pp. 230-237,356-370,373-377,377, Bonsib Report, Corporate Report and other documents produced in response to the Request for Production of Documents. INTERROGATORY. !VO._I3 Please provide a reasonable description of any steps you took or programs adopted between 1972 and 1985 to determine the location of any asbestos-containing materials located at your facility, stating the dates such steps were taken or programs adopted, any procedures or rules utilized to locate, analyze and report the presence of asbestos-containing materials and the names ofthe persons who took or analyzed the samples andor generated reports horn such analysis. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 13 as overbroad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory is overbroad because it requests information pertaining to years during which plaintiffs were not working at an Exxon facility. While it refers to your facility and your facility is defined as the facility wherethe plaintiffworked, it is still overbroad because plaintiffs do not indicate exactly where they worked and when. For similar reasons, the request is unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information. The request is also burdensome because, even assuming the location of asbestos containing materials during the times plaintiffs were on specific premises were requested and considered relevant, plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they were working at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, defendant Exxon followed all state and federal regulations pertaining to asbestos. See also documents produced in response to the Request for Production of Documents, including No. 2. IM.IERRQfiAI.ORY NO, 14 Please state the address of defendant's principal place of business and the parish wherein defendant's primary place ofbusiness is located. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14 Exxon Corporation 5959 Las Colinas Boulevard Irving, Texas 75039 INTERROGATORY NO. IS Please identity* currenbprior employee or employees who would be designated by you to testify* at a corporate deposition regarding the following areas relating to the time period the plaintiffworked at your facility. The person(s) so designated should be able to address corporate and/or facility awareness up to 1985 regarding the following area. In your answer, please state the positions or titles held in your company: a. Potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to asbestos; b. Safety, medical and environmental staffing at your facility; c. Engineering controls utilized at your facility relative to the reduction, mitigation or elimination ofexposure to asbestos; d. Safety and industrial hygiene policies, practices and procedures at your facility relative to the reduction, mitigation or elimination ofexposure to asbestos; e. Industrial hygiene monitoring conducted at your facility for asbestos; f. Medical monitoring and testing programs for the employees at your facility exposed to asbestos materials ofany type; g. The policies, procedures, and practices with regard to informing employees working at your facility ofabnormal x-ray findings such as increased interstitial markings, pleural plaques, etc., and their possible relationship to the employee's prior asbestos exposure; 8 h. The personal protective and respirator.- protection equipment utilized at your facility for the protection against asbestos materials; i. Any hazard communication "safety program" or other similar program for which the purpose was to inform employees working at your facility ofthe potentially hazardous qualities ofany asbestos-containing material present at your facility; j. Material safety data sheets which refer to asbestos; k. Toxicological studies concerning asbestos which this defendant either conducted, coordinated or sponsored which relate or refer to asbestos, published or unpublished; l. Epidemiological studies (formal or informal, internal or third party, proposed, published or unpublished, completed or still in progress) which included workers at your other facilities and all documents which refer, reflect or relate to such studies (and regarding whether such studies were for the specific purpose of investigating asbestos-related disease); m. The consideration, adoption, and or establishment ofa respiratory protection program at your facility; n. The purchase or acquisition of asbestos-containing insulation products for use at your facility", and o. Compliance with federal and state regulations, specifically, regulations pertaining to workplace safety practices and exposure to asbestos. [If your response to any of the above subparts includes any claim that you employ no person or persons that meet the descriptions in the sub-parts, please identify the employee or employees) or other source(s) of information upon which you rely to make such a statement] ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Defendant will provide this information to plaintiffs as soon as possible. INTERRPGATOJ*0-<L16 Please identity- the names of all manufacturers, distributors and/or contractors whom you have reasonto believe sold or otherwise provided asbestos-containing thermal insulations products or other asbestos-containing products for use at your facility up to 1985. In your answer, please specify to the extent you are able, the trade or brand name for the product, and a reasonable description of all documents reflecting the acquisition ofsuch products. ANSWER TQ INTERROGATORY NO, 16 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory is overboard because it requests information pertaining to years during which plaintiffs were not working at an Exxon facility. While it refers to your facility and your facility is defined as the facility where the plaintiffworked, it is still overbroad and burdensome because plaintiffs do not indicate exactly where they worked and when. For similar reasons, the request is unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information. Without waiving these objections, see invoices, purchase orders and other documents produced in the Emery litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 17 Please state the following with respect to each expert witness that you may call during trial of these cases. Please designate with specificity' the expert witnesses that you will call, including the name, address and job classification ofeach such expert witness; the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expected to testify and a summary ofthe grounds for each opinion and whether any such expert has provided a report or other documentation to you, and ifso, identify each such document or report ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. See Witness List INTERROGATORY NO. 18 List all fact witnesses you intend to call at trial, and state the subject matter oftheir testimony and the substance ofthe facts to which they are expected to testify. 9 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. See Witness List INTERROGATORY NO- 19 Identify by style, cause number, and date, every lawsuit filed against defendant wherein the claimant alleged injury from exposure to asbestos. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. IS The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 19 in its entirety, as over broad and unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. It is over broad because it seeks information on all suits, regardless oflocation or time period. Additionally, any suits other than that filed by plaintiffs have no bearing on this litigation. The request is also vague because it does not define asbestos products or injury. Without waiving these objections, Exxon is attempting to gather this information pertinent to the Baton Rouge facilities. INTERROGATORY NO. 20 Please identify all insurance companies, corporations or syndicates which may provide insurance coverage (either primary or excess) with regard to vour facility for plaintiffs asbestos-related personal injury claim asserted in the present case. In your answer, please list the names ofeach such company, the type ofcoverage for each policy and the applicable dates ofcoverage. AJVSWERTQ.IMTERRQfiATQRYJVQ^P. The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 20 in its entirety as over broad, burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is overbroad and unduly burdensome because it seeks insurance information for years in which plaintiffs were not working at an Exxon facility and presumably from Exxon's beginnings to present day. For these same reasons, the request seeks totally irrelevant information. The Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming it were limited to the time periods or locations specified in the petition and or discovery and the information about insurance coverage were relevant, plaintiffs fail to identify- with sufficient specificity when and where they were w'orking at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections. Exxon states that it is self-insured for purposes of this litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 21 Please state whether defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever operated a safety department or medical department at defendant's facility, and ifso, please state the years ofoperation. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 21 in its entirety as it is over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is ova-broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks information on a safety department or medical department in place at times and locations where plaintiffs were not working. For similar reasons, it seeks totally irrelevant information. The request is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming it were limited to the times and locations identified in the petition and or through discovery and the information were relevant, plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they were working at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, upon information and belief, Exxon or its predecessors had both a safety and medical program in place at the Baton Rouge facility from its inception. INTERROGATORY NO. 22 Please identify all persons employed in the following capacities at your facility during the time frame the plaintiffworked there, their current location ifno longer employed by your company, and the dates oftheir employment: 10 fuj rage it*as a. Plant Manager Superintendent; b. Medical Director Supervisor, c. Toxicologist; d. Industrial Hygienist; e. Safety Manager'Supervisor, f. Environmental Manager, and & Plant Physician. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 22 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome since plaintiffs do not specify in detail where and when they worked at an Exxon facility. Without waving these objections, see Hammond's deposition, pp. 281*84 and 581-582 and Corporate Report and other documents produced in response to Request for Production ofDocuments. IN.TERRQGAIORY.NQ.-23. Please state when your company stopped utilizing asbestos-containing products in your facility' or any portion thereto. In your answer, please include a reasonable description ofthe reason why your company was prompted to remove asbestos-containing materials and/or cease to utilize them, who made that decision, and how it was carried out AKSffiERiaiNIERBOCATQBY NO-22 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects hrInterrogatory No. 23 in its entirety as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence since plaintiffs have failed to identify exactly when and where they were working at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: during maintenance procedures, asbestos free insulation was used as a replacement for worn insulation. See Hammond's deposition, pp. 698-699 and other documents produced in response to Request for Production of Documents, including No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO- 24 Please state when your company was fust advised ofthe Threshold Limit Values or Maximum Allowable Concentration ofAsbestos Dust by the American Conference ofIndustrial Hygienists, and state the name ofthe employee official ofthe company receiving such advice, as well as a reasonable description and identification of all documents which reflect communication of such advice of the American Conference ofIndustrial Hygienists. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 24 in its entirety as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence since plaintiffs have failed to identify exactly when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. Defendant further objects because to its knowledge, there is no such group as the American Conference ofIndustrial Hygienists. Without waiving these objection, in 1947, the Journal of American Hygiene Association published maximum allowable concentration for asbestos dust, 5 million particles per cubic foot, a recommendation by the American Conference of Government Hygienist Defendant knew about threshold limits before that date as evident in the Bonsib report. See also Hammond's deposition, p. 327 and exhibits thereto. INTERROGATORY NO. 25 Please describe all recommended internal company asbestos exposure levels that were suggested by any toxicologist physician, industrial hygienist or safety professional, employed by your company up to 1985. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2S The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 25 in its entirely as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The request is overbroad and unduly burdensome because it seeks this information for times and II locations when and where plaintiffs did not worked at Exxon. For these reasons, the Interrogatory also seeks totally irrelevant information. The Interrogatory' is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming it were limited to the times and locations specified in the petition and/or through discovery, and the information sought were relevant, plaintiffs fail to state with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, Exxon followed pertinent regulations, including those promulgated by ACGIH, AHA, EPA and OSHA See also Bonsib report INTERROGATORY NO. 26 Please provide a reasonable description ofindustrial hygiene controls and/or work practices or procedures that were utilized up to 198S to control, mitigate or reduce asbestos emissions associated with activities involving stripping, applying, mixing, fabricating or cutting asbestos-containing insulation products and the date when your company fust began using such controls. Ifnone, please provide a reasonable description of such controls and or work practices or procedures that existed in your facilities and when they were implemented. ANSWER TQ INTERROGATORY NO,26 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 26 as it is over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for reasons explained in the preceding response. Without more specific information regarding when and where plaintiffs worked, it is impossible to determine which controls and/or work practices or procedures were in effect during the'ir presence. Without waiving its objections, upon information and belief the reports from Roy Bonsib, OSHA regulations and "American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygiene M.AC. Values" were utilized at various times. Internal Procedures developed, implemented, overseen and/or revised by James Hammond which he discusses on pages 105-109 ofhis deposition in the Allen case were (are) also applicable to the asbestos exposure issue. Exxon had many industrial hygiene controls, such as attempting to avoid production ofdust, attempting to control the dust by doing the job wet and supplying the workers with respirators to perform the operation. The respirators provided included the Comfo M.S.A and others and were approved by the Bureau ofMines. See also Hammond's deposition, pp. 451 - 454,95 - 96,105 -109, and documents produced in response to Request for Production ofDocuments, including No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 27 Does your company have, has it ever had, or have any of your predecessors had a research department? If so, give the year such a department was established, whether or not such a research department has operated continuously since being established, how much was allocated each year for research purposes related to asbestos, and what percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessors spend on research concerning the health effects ofasbestos. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory 27 as it is over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks information regarding the research department regardless ofthe goal ofthe research department or when plaintiffs worked at an Exxon facility and presumably from Exxon's beginnings until present day. For these reasons and because the existence of a research department has no bearing on the issues in this lawsuit, the request seeks irrelevant information. The Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming it were limited to the times and locations identified in the petition and'or through discovery, and the information sought were relevant, plaintifls fail to state with sufficient specificity where and when they worked at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, ifplaintiffs are seeking air monitoring research information, same was done since Bonsib's report See also Hammond's deposition, pp. 225-228,243-244,251 252. ' INTERROGATORY NO. 28 12 Please identify and provide a reasonable description of any and all safety manuals, training manuals or other similar documents provided to or made available to plaintiffor other workers at your facility up to 1990. (Include in your answer the dates when each ofthese manuals were provided anchor made availableto describe any language which may have been included regarding the health or safety hazards associated with asbestos exposure). Ifnone, please state whether such safety manuals, training manuals or other similar documents were provided to workers at any ofyour facilities and, ifso, when. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Further, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as it is over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the times when and locations where plaintiffs worked at an Exxon facility. Additionally, the request seeks information on manuals regardless ofwhether they discuss asbestos exposure. For these reasons, the Interrogatory also seeks totally irrelevant information. The request is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming it were limited to the times and locations identified in the petition and through discovery and the information sought were relevant, plaintiffs have failed to identify' with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, upon information and belief workers were provided safety manuals which discussed dust and control and personal protection. Bonsib also discussed safety measures in Ihe Bonsib Report See Hammond's deposition, pp. 422-429. Because of Exxon's policy ofreplacing old manuals with the most current safety information, upon information and belief, manuals in effect when plaintiffs worked at Exxon are no longer in Exxon's possession. But see exemplary manuals produced'in response to Request for Production ofDocuments, including No. 16. INT.ERBOQAT(3B.YJVJCL29 Please state whether or not your facility ever ottered any type ofrespiratory masks, appliance or other protective equipment to workers up to 1985 for use while handling or working around or in the presence ofother handling asbestos-containing products? Ifso, please state the following: a. Describe the type of protective equipment provided (e.g., disposable paper masks, disposable cloth masks, cartridge respirators, airline-supplied; respirators, etc.), as well as the name ofthe manufacturer, the model number, and the dates ofusage; b. The reason the protective equipment was offered; c. A list ofwhich crafts were offered which equipment; d. What recommendations or guidelines were provided to workers concerning proper usage ofsuch equipment; e. Whether the use of any ofthe equipment was mandatory or optional; f. The identify of anyone having responsibility for ordering such equipment, training workers on its proper usage and overseeing that such equipment was used properly; and g. Identify- and describe all documents relating to the decision to provide such equipment. Ifsuch respiratory masks, appliances or other protection equipment were not provided at your facility during this time period, please state whether such respiratory masks, appliances or other protection equipment were provided at any ofyour other facilities and, ofso, when. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29 See answer to Interrogatory No. 26. INTERROGATORY NO. 30 Please provide a reasonable description of any industrial hygiene controls (e.g., exhaust ventilation, wetting down procedures, closed conveyor systems), recommended safe working practices (e.g., respiratory protections, roping offareas in which asbestos is being applied or removed, etc.) or exposure monitoring programs with respect to asbestos exposure at your facility up to 1985. Ifthere were no industrial hygiene controls at your facility during this time period, please state whether there were any such hygiene controls, recommended working practices, or exposure monitoring programs at any of your other facilities and. if so, when they were implemented. Ifthere were industrial hygiene controls, recommended working practices, or exposure monitoring programs at your facility during this time period, please state: a. The substance ofthe industrial hygiene controls, safe working practices or exposure monitoring: b. The date when such a control, practice or monitoring was put in place and the years 13 each remained in effect; c. The means by which the employees were informed of the need for such a control, practice or monitoring; d. The identify ofthe persons involved in the drafting, implementation and operation of each such control, practice or monitoring; and e. Describe all documents referring to such controls, practices or monitoring. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30 See Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 26 and 29. INTERROGATORY NQ, 31 Please provide the following information as to each written or oral caution, warning, hazard statement, explanation, or written instructions w ith regard to proper procedures to be followed when working around asbestos which your facility gave to workers up to 1985; a. The precise wording ofeach caution, warning, etc.; b. The date when such caution or warning was first provided; c. The manner such w anting or instruction w as disseminated; d. Which workers received the warnings; e. The persons involved in drafting and conveying the warnings; and f. Identification ofall documents reflecting or referring to such warnings. Ifno such cautions, warnings, statements, explanations or instructions were given at your facility during this time period, please state whether any such cautions, warnings, statements, explanations, or instructions were given at any ofyour other facilities and, ifso, when they were implemented. ANSWER TO-iNTERROGATQRYN.0,-31- The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 31 as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it seeks information about warnings given to workers other than plaintiffs. Additionally, the request seeks not only written warnings, but any oral statement, explanation etc. Considering Exxon's size heading that request would be impossible. The request is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming it were limited to the times and locations identified in plaintiffs' pleadings and through discovery, plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. ' Without waiving these objections, see documents produced in response to Request for Production of Documents No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 32 Has your company conducted business or entered into contracts to do business at your facility with the United States Government involving the use, installation, and/or removal ofasbestos in excess of $10,000 for any ofthe following calendar years: a. 1960: h. 1967 b. 1961; i. 1968 c. 1962: d. 1963: j- 1969 k. 1970 e. 1964: 1. 1971 f. 1965; m. 1972. & 1966; Ifthe answer is "no,'' please state whetheryour company ever conducted business or entered into contracts to do business at any ofyour other facilities with the United State Government involving the use, installation, and or removal of asbestos in excess of S10,000 for any ofthe calendar years listed above. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, the Interrogatory is over broad because it requests information pertaining to years during which plaintiffs were not working at an Exxon facility. Without waiving this objection, upon information and belief, defendant responds no to both requests. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 33 Please provide a reasonable description of any steps taken to comply with 50:204.275 ofthe Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act pertaining to Threshold Limit Values for asbestos at your facility for any year betw een 1960 and 1972. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33 The general objections are incorporated in this response as ifhilly stated herein. Additionally, this request is over broad and unduly burdensome since it requests information applicable when plaintiffs were not working at Exxon's facilities. It is vague in that it does not define "steps." Moreover, it requests defendant to state a legal conclusion as to what constitutes compliance with a federal regulation. Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or supplement any ofthe above answers. . Respectfully submitted, WEISS & EASON, L.L.P. GREGORY C. WEISS (#14488) STEPHEN R. BARRY (#21465) 1515 Poydras Street Suite 1100 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Phone No. (504) 528-9192 DAVID LEDYARD, ESQ. STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON & BISSELL 595 Orleans Street 14th Floor - San Jacinto Building Beaumont, Texas 77701-3255 Telephone: (409)981-1000 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, EXXON CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have on this___ day of March 1998, served a copy ofthe above and foregoing pleading on counsel for all parties to these proceedings by facsimile STEPHEN R. BARRY KK-1U3 18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERVILLE NO. 48,138 STATE OF LOUISIANA DIVISION "A" FRANK FRANCES CASHIO, ET AL versus OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL FILED: DEPUTY CLERK QEEEftPAIYL-EXXQN CQREQBAXLQN'.3. OBJECT1QMSAMI RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NOW COMES defendant, Exxon Corporation ("Exxon"), who submits these objections and responses to Plaintiffs' Master Set of Request for Production of Documents propounded by plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These answers to plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents have been compiled as the result ofan investigation into the historical practices and the procedures followed by Exxon over many decades. Through the passage oftime, many persons with knowledge ofthese matters are unknown, cannot be located, or have passed away. Similarly, the passage oftime has probably resulted in the inability to locate documents which may have existed in earlier years. Accordingly, the information available to Exxon regarding these historical matters is incomplete and may remain incomplete despite continuing efforts to locate knowledgeable persons and relevant documents. With this perspective in mind, the following answers represent Exxon's best knowledge to date regarding these inquiries. Due to the breadth of many of these requests, diligent inquiry still is underway to ascertain whether additional, reasonably responsive information or documentation may exist To the extent additional information is ascertained during Exxon's continuing investigation, these answers will be supplemented. When Exxon's response refers to documents it will make available, Exxon will provide responsive documents from its corporate offices as they are kept in the normal course of business, to plaintiffs' counsel for inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time and location. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 2 1. Exxon objects to the Request for Production of Documents to the extent that these requests seek information protected by the Attorney-Client, Work Production, Investigative and Party Communication Privileges, or Joint or Common Defense Privileges; is proprietary or confidential in nature, or is subject to any other applicable exemption, privilege or immunity, and such information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. Exxon objects to these requests because they are overly broad to the extent that these requests seek information that is not limited in scope to the work area and period ofemployment ofthe plaintiffs or seek information that is in the public domain and is as accessible to plaintiffs as to this defendant 3. Exxon objects to these requests to the extent that they call for the revelation of information and documents prepared in anticipation oflitigation or subsequent thereto as part ofand to advance the defense ofthat litigation. 4. Exxon,objects to all the requests to the extent they inquire into the mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories of Exxon's legal representatives. . 5. Exxon objects to all the requests to the extent they seek information which is not in Exxon's possession, custody or control. PARTICULAR RESPONSES TO.REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1 .411 documents in the possession of defendant relating or pertaining to all prior lawsuits or other claims involving allegations of asbestos exposure by anyone in any of your facilities at which the plaintiffnow alleges exposure to asbestos, including, but not limited to, copies oftranscripts of prior deposition or trial testimony; all product lists: "work history sheets" or other discovery responses from previous or ongoing lawsuits, and any other documents regarding these lawsuits or claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1 . The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. It is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time to encompass the time periods plaintiffs worked at Exxon. Even ifthe request were limited to suits involving the time period identified in plaintiffs' petition and through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome because plaintiffs fail to state with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. The request is vague because it does not define "asbestos exposure" to include the level, duration or circumstances of inhalation. The request further seeks irrelevant information to the extent that lawsuits filed by other individuals have no bearing on the issues in the instant litigation. Exxon also objects since this request would require Exxon to produce documents that (a) might violate the privacy rights ofsuch persons and might subject Exxon to an invasion ofprivacy lawsuit by one ormore ofsuch persons, (b) might violate confidentiality or non-disclosure requirements imposed by governmental statute, rule, regulation, or imposed by contract, and would be violative ofthe physician-patient privilege. Subjectto and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See Bate Stamp Nos. EM002514 - EM002657; EM003821 - EM003822. . REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2 ' All documents relating or pertaining to all co-workers or persons that worked at the same facilities as plaintiffs regarding their identification ofasbestos-containing products. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify' a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion of what is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it encompasses times and locations not involving plaintiffs and because it does not limit co-workers to those who worked with plaintiff. Even if the request were limited to the time and place specified in plaintiffs' petition and through discovery and concerned direct co-workers, answering it would be unduly burdensome because plaintiffs fail to identify' with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility and because the requests seeks information on Exxon employees as well as employees ofsubcontractors. The request is also vague to the extent "regarding their identification of asbestos-containing products" and other terms are not defined. Exxon also objects since this request would require Exxon to produce documents that (a) might violate the privacy rights ofthe "coworkers" and might subject Exxon to an invasion ofprivacy lawsuit by one or more ofsuch "co-workers", (b) might violate confidentiality or non-disclosure requirements imposed by governmental statute, rule, regulation, or imposed by contract, and (c) would be violative ofthe physician-patient privilege. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See Bate Stamp Nos. EM00745 - EM001302; EM001425 - EM001572; EM003525 - EM003532. REQUESTJLQR ERQRUCTIQNJLQ-3. All documents (including but not limited to invoices, receipts or purchasing records) pertaining or relating to the presence or absence ofasbestos-containing products at the sites identified in plaintiffs' discovery responses. RESPONSE TP.REQUESI-im? The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it seeks information from time periods when plaintiffs did not work at Exxon. Even if limited to the general time periods asserted in plaintiffs' petition and through discovery, answering the request would be unduly burdensome because plaintiffs' fail to identify' with sufficient specificity when they worked at Exxon, or where on Exxon's premises they worked The request is vague since it does not define or identify the particular asbestoscontaining product Subject to and without waiving these objections, see documents produced by Exxon in the Emery matter and which were listed in Attachment 1. See also Bate Stamp Nos. EM00745 EM001302; EM001425 - EM001572; EM003525 - EM003532. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4 All documents relating to referring to your knowledge ofthe presence or absence ofasbestos- containing products manufactured sold or distributed by any ofthe defendants in this case at anyjob site at which plaintiffalleges he worked. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify- the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought. 2 this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information to the extent it seeks information about time periods when plaintiffs did not work at Exxon. Even assuming the request were limited to the time periods asserted in plaintiffs' petition and through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome because plaintiffs fail to identify- with sufficient specificity when they worked at Exxon. Moreover, the exact facilities are ill-defmed. The request is vague to the extent that the term "knowledge" and other terms are not defined. Finally, the request seeks irrelevant information in the absence ofany attempt to link the presence ofasbestos-containing products to the exact locations where plaintiffs worked. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Exxon responds as follows: See response to the previous request for production. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5 .All documents stating the names, identity- or current residential or business address of current or former co-workers ofplaintiff at your facilities. BESEQMSE-IO. REQUESTJEQB.PRQD.llCIIQMt2LC>,.S The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify- a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information to the extent it does not limit itselfto work situations around asbestos containing products. The request is unduly burdensome because plaintiffs fail to identify- with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. The request is vague because it does not sufficiently define the terms "co-workers ofplaintiffs." Exxon also objects since this request would require Exxon to produce documents that (a) might violate the privacy rights ofthe "co-workers'' and might subject Exxon to an invasion ofprivacy lawsuit by one or more ofsuch "co-workers", (b) might violate confidentiality or non-disclosure requirements imposed by governmental statute, rule, regulation, or imposed by contract, and (c) would be violative ofthe physician-patient privilege. Without waiving these objections, upon information and belief no such documents exist in the form requested. REQUEST FORJgRPP.lLCILOJi NO, $ .All documents relating or pertaining to any claims made against you or your insurers, whether in the form of a lawsuit workers' compensation claim. OSHA complaint or otherwise, involving the presence or use of asbestos-containing products at anv ofvour facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6 ' The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. W'ithout specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information to the extent it is not limited specific time periods. Assuming it were limited to time periods specified in plaintiffs petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. The request also seeks irrelevant infoimation because it does not limit itself to suits pertaining to asbestos related injury. Assuming the request seeks suits pertaining to asbestos related injury, it remains vague since it does not identify- any type of asbestos product and does not relate the level, duration, or circumstances of inhalation. The request also seeks irrelevant information because it seeks information on individuals other than plaintiff whose suits against Exxon have no bearing on plaintiffs' instant litigation. Exxon further objects that this request would require Exxon to produce documents that (a) might violate the privacy rights ofsuch persons and might subject Exxon to an invasion ofprivacy lawsuit by 3 one or more of such persons, (b) might violate confidentiality or non-disclosure requirements imposed by governmental statute, rule, regulation, or imposed by contract, and would be violative of the physician-patient privilege. Subjectto and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See Bate Stamp Nos. EM002514 - EM002657 and EM003821 -EM003822. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7 A copy of all pictures, or documents that contain pictures ofany asbestos-containing products in use at any ofyour facilities. RESPONSETO REQUEST NO. 7 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Hie request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited to the time periods involving plaintiffs and because it requests pictures of products around and or with which plaintiffs did not weak. Assuming it were limited to pictures ofproducts around and or with which plaintiffs worked and were taken during the same time period alleged by plaintiffs, answering the request would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. 'Hie request is vague since terms such as `'in use" are not adequately- defined. ` REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION ISO- 8 All documents relating or pertaining to the identify and present location of any persons that previously filed a lawsuit or other claim against defendant regarding alleged exposure to any asbestoscontaining products at your facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify- a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion of what is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information since it requests information on all litigants regardless ofwhen they were employed and regardless oftheir injuries, ifany, or status oftheir lawsuit. Even if the request were limited to the time periods alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify- with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. The request also seeks irrelevant information because it seeks information on individuals other than plaintiffwhose suits against Exxon have no bearing on plaintiffs' instant litigation. The request is vague to the extent that "claim" is not defined. Exxon also objects since this request would require Exxon to produce documents that (a) might violate the privacy rights ofother litigants and might subject Exxon to an invasion ofprivacy lawsuit by one or more of such litigants, (b) might violate confidentiality or non-disclosure requirements imposed by governmental statute, rule, regulation, or imposed by contract, and (c) would be violative of the physician-patient privilege. Without waiving these objections, some ofthe information is not within the defendant's control, also see defendant's response to Request for Production of Documents No. 1. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9 All documents in your possession (including but not limited to pictures, photographs, drawings, sketches or otherwise) relating or pertaining to identifiable characteristics of asbestos-containing products. Documents responsive to this request include items reflecting names, packaging, or other characteristics ofsuch products. 4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9 'Che general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify- a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal - opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is also over broad and seeks irrelevant information since it requests information on documents relating to identifiable characteristics ofasbestos*containing products without regard to the nature ofthe product, the facility where the product was located and/or when the product was present at an Exxon facility. Even if the request were limited to the locations and time periods alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify' with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility and the particular products around which they worked. REQUEST.FOR PROPUCIIOIS: NO- IQ. .All documents, document indexes and computer databases that allow you to access specific knowledge concerning the presence or absence of any asbestos-containing products at your specific facilities. RESPONSOaRE.Q-lW-iS-Qao The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify' the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify' a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion of what is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information since it does not link the presence or absence of asbestos to plaintiffs and particularly to when and where plaintiffs worked at Exxon. .Assuming it were limited to the locations and time periods asserted in plaintiffs' petition and through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. The request is vague since it does not define "knowledge" or "access" and other terms. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11 .All documents in your possession concerning property damage litigation relating or pertaining to the presence of asbestos-containing products at your facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify- the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it seeks information on any litigation regardless ofthe time period. .Assuming it were limited to the time periods alleged by plaintiffs in their petition and through discovery, answering the request would be unduly burdensome because plaintiffs fail to identify- with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. Additionally, the information sought is irrelevant because it concerns properly damage, as opposed to personal injurylitigation. The request further seeks irrelevant information because it concerns suits and claims filed by other individuals whose lawsuits have no bearing on the instant litigation. Exxon also objects since this request would require Exxon to produce documents that (a) might violate the privacy rights ofother litigants and might subject Exxon to an invasion ofprivacy lawsuit by one or more of such litigants, (b) might violate confidentiality or non-disclosure requirements imposed by governmental statute, rule, regulation, or imposed by contract REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12 Produce any and all documents, memoranda and or other writings that reflect, indicate or in any 5 uj/u * t JO uO.JJ u (UmOuc wii Auac wwiijiwK fi utfiiftdiiiy cdUrfirauAl r^ge wj/jj way relate to communications between you and any manufacturer of asbestos-containing products concerning or related to the asbestos contained in such products. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to locations where the asbestos containing products were located. Even assuming the request were limited to the time periods and locations alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to state with sufficient specificity when and where they' worked at Exxon. The request is vague since it does not identify the type ofasbestos containing products. Nor does it define "reflect indicate or in any way relate." Subject to and w ithout waiving these objections, see invoices, purchase orders, etc. produced in Emery. See also Bate Stamp Nos. EMG03826 - EM003847. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13 Produce any and all documents, memoranda and or other writings, including but not limited to books, pamphlets, or other written materials of any kind or character in your possession that w ould indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health ofhuman beings. RESXQlVSEJ:pREQjLlEgXM>i3 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify1 the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion of what is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited to the time periods alleged by plaintiffs. Even assuming it were limited to those time periods, answering the request would be unduly burdensome because the time periods are so ill defined. The request is vague since it does not define the terms "indicate." or "hazardous to the health." It also does not specify the type of asbestos, or the level, duration, or circumstances of inhalation. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See Bate Stamp Nos. EM000745 - EM001302; EM001425 - EM001572: EM002075 - EM002219; EM002433 - EM002511; EM002658 - EM002952: EM002953 - EM003176; EM003447 - EM003524; EM003525 - EM003532. . REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 Produce any and all publications in your possession that were disseminated or published by any trade association or organization and that contain information relating to the hazards ofasbestos and all documents which refer to such publications. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information to the extent it seeks publications regardless ofwhen they came into defendant's possession. Even assuming the request were limited to publications acquired during the time period plaintiffs were working at Exxon, answering the request would be unduly burdensome because that time period is so ill defined. The request is vague since it does not define "hazards" or the type ofasbestos. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, defendant responds as follows: See Bate Stamp Nos.EM00745 - EM001302: EM002057 - EM002219; EM002433 - EM002511; EM002658 - EM002952; EM002953 - EM003176: EM003447 - EM003524. See also James Hammond's deposition and exhibits thereto referred to in response to Exxon's interrogatories. 6 /a g uOiOO Q: CAA^dOd li rtOSe jCi'UCA rrosiAdtny Ldaouramt rage c*t REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15 _ Produce any and all documents, memoranda and or other writings that indicate and or reflect or refer to any inspections by any regulatory agency for the purpose ofascertaining w hether health or safety regulations were being followed or adhered to at any ofvour plants, including but not limited to written reports produced by such agency. This request specifically seeks any and all such documentation referring to dust hazards, including but not limited to asbestos in your plants. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information since it requests information concerning any ofExxon's plants, it is not limited to the time period alleged by plaintiffs, and it is not confined to health or safety regulations concerning asbestos. Even assuming the request were limited to the locations and times asserted by plaintiffs in their petition and through discovery, and were confirmed to asbestos, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to state with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. The request is also vague because it does not define and or identify' "indicate and or reflect or refer," "dust hazards" and the type of asbestos. Additionally the information requested pursuant to this discovery request is equally accessible to plaintiffs. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16 Produce any and all safety meeting minutes or other documents, memoranda and or writings that refer to the dangers of asbestos and or safety measures to be used in the vicinity of asbestos at defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 16 The general objections are incoiporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify' the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion of what is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery' ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it concerns facilities and time periods not alleged by plaintiffs. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discos'ery. answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. The request is also vague since it does not define and or identify the "asbestos," "safety measures" or "vicinity." Subject to and without waiving these objections. Exxon responds as follows: See Bate Stamp Nos. EM00745 - EM001302; EM001425 - EM001572; EM001898 - EM002074; EM002953 EM003176; EM003447 - EM003524. See also deposition ofJames Hammond and exhibits thereto referred to in Exxon's Answers to Interrogatories. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17 Produce any and all contracts, memoranda, and or other writings that in any way reflect arrangements made for the removal of asbestos and or the installation of asbestos products at defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify' the writings to be produced with specificity and does not identify- a class or a type ofwriting requested. Without specific identification ofthe writings sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion of what is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and 7 uu.jj io:cnzaoetn nose icnics rroa.'Adcny Ldonirauii 504-525-5703 Page 25/33 seeks inelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited the times and locations involving plaintiffs. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiff: it is unduly burdensome because plaintiffs fail to state with sufficient specificity when, and where they worked at Exxon. The request is also vague since it does not define "asbestos" or "asbestos products." Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See James Hammond deposition and exhibits thereto referred to in Exxon's .Answers to Interrogatories. See also invoices, purchase orders, etc. produced in Emery. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18 Produce any and all documents, memoranda and or other writings that in any way reflect a removal plan or organized written criteria or schedule for the removal of asbestos at defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify- a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or location. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify- with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. The request is also vague since it does not define or identify- any type of asbestos product. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See James Hammond deposition and exhibits thereto referred to in Exxon's Answers to Interrogatories. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19 .Any and all videotapes and or photographs and or other recordation ofthe plaintiff. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request is unduly burdensome because discovering all recordations ofplaintiffs within the ill-defined time period and locations asserted in their petition and through discovery would be a difficult if not monumental task. Additionally, the request is vague over broad since it uses the ambiguous term "recordation." Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant has not taken any surveillance videotapes ofplaintiffs. REQUEST FOR PRODI CTION NO, 20 .Any and all material safety data sheets for any asbestos-containing product used at defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify- the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify- a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion of what is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited to time or location. Assuming the request were limited to the locations and time periods asserted in plaintiffs' petition and through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify- with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. The request is also vague because it does not define or identify- the type of asbestos containing product. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows. Upon 8 information and belief, no such material safety documents for asbestos products and for relevant time periods are in defendant's possession. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21 Produce any and all documents, memoranda and/or other writings that indicate and or refer to - in any way a decision related to ceasing the use of asbestos-containing products in any ofyour plants. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney woric product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects thatthe request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or location. Assuming the request were limited to the locations and time periods asserted in plaintiffs' petition and through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. The request is also vague because it does not define or identify' the type of asbestos containing products or the terms "indicate or refer to." Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See EM Bate Stamp Nos. EM001425 - EM1482 and James Hammond's deposition and exhibits thereto which are referred to in Exxon's .Answers to Interrogatories. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22 Produce any and all documents, memoranda and/or other writings that reflect and or demonstrate in the form ofa map and or chart the layout ofdefendant's facilities, including the location and dimensions of all buildings and specifically including, but not limited to, the location and or placement of asbestos-containing products at any time. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify' the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify' a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location. .Assuming the request were limited to the locations and time periods asserted in plaintiffs' petition and through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at an Exxon facility. The request is also vague since it does not define or identify the type ofasbestos product or the phrase "reflect or demonstrate." Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: Upon information and belief, defendant does not possess any documents which define the exact location of asbestos in the miles of piping at all of defendant's facilities. See Bate Stamp Nos. EM002431 EM002432 and deposition ofJames Hammond and exhibits thereto referred to in Exxon's Answers to Interrogatories. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23 Produce any brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material ofany kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos that have been published, distributed, or disseminated by you. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad andseeks irrelevant information because it is not limited to time or location. Even assuming 9 IWtkA*ii4uCki< IW4C 4VIUVN fjgw.Adtny .dO*xrdUAt 3tt4"33-3/tf3 fage z?/33 the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. The request is also vague since it does not define or identify the type ofasbestos products or the "injury resulting from the use" ofsame. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See Bate Stamp Nos.EM00745 - EM001302; EM001425 - EM001572; EM002953 - EM003176; EM003447 EM003524; EM003525 - EM003532 and deposition testimony of James Hammond and exhibits thereto referred to in Exxon's Answers to Interrogatories. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24 Produce any photographs of asbestos products in place or asbestos products being fabricated and'or utilized at defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24 See response to Request for Production No. 7. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25 Produce any photographs ofwarning signs or other statements in place at any time in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products or asbestos in place at any time in defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. It is over broad because it is not limited in time or to location and it includes warnings or other statements having nothing to do with asbestos. Even assuming the request were limited to the time periods and locations alleged in plaintiffs petition and through discovery and it exclusively concerned asbestos related warnings, answering it would be unduly burdensome because plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. The request is vague since it does not define or identify- asbestos products or "asbestos in place." Subject to and without waiving these objections, upon information and belief, defendant has not located any documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26 Produce any documents indicating in any way that individuals claimed injury to their lungs as a result of exposure to asbestos at defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26 SeeResponse to Request Nos. 1 and 6. In addition, the request is over broad because it is not limited to location. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27 Produce any memoranda, writings or other documents, including but not limited to corporate minutes, w'hich in any way contain a discussion ofthe hazards or potential hazards ofasbestos. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify- the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type ofdocument requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney w-ork product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects thatthe request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad because it is not limited in time or to location. and insofar as the request relates to documents that "contain a discussion ofthe hazards or potential hazards of asbestos." is not limited in subject matter to any type ofdusts. Subject to and without waiving these objections, and without admitting the hazards or potential hazards of asbestos, defendant responds as follows: See Bate Stamp Nos. EM001425 - EM001572; EM002953 - F.M003176: F.M003525 - F.M003532, and James Hammond deposition and exhibits 10 03/07/38 88:35 To:Elizabeth Rose Schick Froa:Kathy ledairault 584-525-5783 Page 28/33 thereto which were referred to in Exxon `s .Answers to Interrogatories. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28 Produce any insurance policies that might cover the claims made by plaintiff in this case. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Exxon is self insured for purposes ofthis litigation. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29 Produce any minutes or other notes or records from any meetings at which the hazards and/or potential hazards of asbestos wrere discussed by officers., agents, and/or employees ofdefendant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29 See Response to No. 27. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3Q Produce any and all documents, including invoices, shipping receipts, bills oflading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature related to the purchase and or installation of asbestoscontaining products at defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO- 30 See Response to Request No. 3. Further, the request is over broad because it is not limited to locations where plaintiffs allegedly worked. REOUEST.EORPRQPUCTION.NO.3.1 Produce any and all records, documents, memoranda or other writing reflecting in any way any inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company or hired by your company, that included the taking or measuring or "dust counts." This request specifically includes any and all ofyour plants or facilities where asbestos-containing products were used and or in place at any time. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information since it is expressly not limited in time or to location and includes counts for all dusts. Even-assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. The request is also vague since it does not (1) identify the type or specific location ofasbestos, (2) define "dust counts" or "asbestos containing products,"or (3) specify a unit ofmeasure or a type of application. Subject to and without waving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See Bate Stamp Nos. EM000745 - EM001302; EM001425 - EM001572; EM001605 - EM00I720; EM003424 EM003446; EM003533 - EM0Q3820; EM003826 - EM003847 and James Hammond's deposition. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32 In the event that defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts or measurements of any of its plants or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, produce any documents, memoranda, or other writings that in any way reflect the results ofsuch studies or counts and actions taken as a result ofsuch counts or studies. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32 See Response to Request No. 31. The request is also vague because it does not define or identify' "dust level counts or measurements," or "asbestos dust" 11 83/07/90 08:35 To:Elizb0th Rose Schick Free:Kathy Ladmirault 504-S25-S703 Page 29/33 t REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33 Please produce any and all reports, writings (whether published or unpublished) and or other documentation written, created and or edited by any of your experts that in any way pertain to asbestos and the hazards and or diseases that may result therefrom. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33 The general objections arc incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identity the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion of what is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad because it seeks documents written- created edited by experts regardless of the date. To the extent the request seeks expert writings created near or after retention of the expert, the writing is not discoverable under Ixmisiana law and particularly Weidenbacher v. St. Paul Fire rtr Marine Ins. Co., 347 So. 2d 1160, I at. 1977. and .Article 1424 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34 Produce any and all documents provided to any expert or fact witnesses as a result ofthe filing ofthis case. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Defendant further objects because this request seeks work product and is not discoverable under I .a. Code Civ. Proc. Art. 1424. REQUEST FOR.PRODUCTION MO, 3.5 lVoduce any and all curriculum vitae and or resumes of any of the experts and'or persons with knowledge of relevant facts that you have listed in your Answers to Interrogatories and or on your Witness List. ' RESEPM.SE TO REQUEST-MQ. 35 See Bate Stamp Nos. EM001436 - EM001459; EM001473 - EM001482; EM001437 EM001459. Defendant will supplement this response as soon as possible. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIQMMQ 36 Produce any and all documents which will be used at the time oftrial, including all potential exhibits and those documents which may be used to cross-examine other witnesses or in rebuttal, and which you contend are relevant to any of defendant's enumerated defenses in defendant's most recently filed Answer. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36 To the extent the request seeks information on when the possible exhibits may he used. i.e.. either on direct or cross examination, it is asking for work product which is not discoverable. To the extent the request is seeking possible impeachment evidence, same is likewise not discoverable. Subject to and without waiving this objection, see defendant's Exhibit List. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37 Produce a copy ofany and all regulations, orders, rules and-or policies which govern the safety ofthe defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as well as a legal conclusion. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location and it concerns all safety regulations regardless of whether asbestos is involved. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify- with 12 RECEIVED IIMEMAE. 5:41AM 03/07/98 08:35 TesElizabath Rot* Schick Fro:Kthy L4dirault 504-525-5703 P*q* 30/33 sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. Further, the request seeks a legal conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: Sac Bate Stamp Nos. EM00745 -F.M001302: F.M001898 - F.M002074: FA1002220 - EM002430; F.M002433 EM002511: EM003447 - EM003524 and James Hammond's deposition. REQUEST FOR PROPrCTION NO. 38 Produce any and all documents which contain, relate or refer to complaints regarding safety conditions and or work place conditions at the defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identity' the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identity a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Additionally. E.xxon objects to the extent this request requires defendant to create documents that do not exist. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location and it includes any and all complaints (whether formal or informal) regarding any safety conditions regardless of whether they concern asbestos. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. The request is vague because it docs not define "relate or refer," complaints, "safety conditions" or "work place conditions." Subject to and without waiving these objections, upon information and belief, there have been no grievances filed relating to asbestos at the Baton Rouge facility, c REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39 Produce any and all documents which contain, relate or refer to complaints by union representatives ofthe employees at the defendant's plant regarding safety conditions and or work place conditions and or work place conditions at the plant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST.iNQ .39 See Response to Request No. 38. REQUEST FOR PROIH'CTIQJH NO. 40 Produce any documents, organizational charts or rosters, which identify- the members of the management at the defendant's facilities and their areas of responsibility. RESEQMSE.XQ REQUEST-NO- .-W The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify- a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification of the document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion of what is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See Bate Stamp Nos. EM003823 - EM003825. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41 Produce any and all Interrogatory answers, responses to requests for production and or responses to requests for admissions filed by defendant in any action wherein the plaintiff was claiming an injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos containing products. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41 13 F.ECEFEI- TIMEMAE. c: 41nM 03/07/98 00:35 To:Elizabeth Roes Schick Fro:Kthy ledeirault 504-525-5703 Page 31/33 The general objections arc incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it includes any action regardless oftime or location of alleged exposure. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. The request is also irrelevant because suits filed by other individuals have no bearing on the instant litigation. The request is vague since it does not define or identify the particular asbestos containing products. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See Bate Stamp Nos. EM002314 - EM002657. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42 Produce any and all correspondence, memoranda, documents and or other communications between defendant and any of its workers' compensation carriers regarding the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and docs not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. Additionally, the request seeks information that may he protected by the attorney client privilege or work product protection. The request is vague since it does not define or identify the particular asbestos containing products or the subject matter "regarding the hazards of asbestos." Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant is selfinsured and, therefore, there are no workers' compensation carriers. BEOUEST-F-PR PRODUCTION NO, 43 Produce any and all correspondence, construction contracts and/or other documents which discuss, relate or refer to services performed at any of defendant's facilities by the following entities: Anco Insulations; Acands (a k a-' Armstrong Contracting and Supply); Ford Bacon and Davis Construction Corporation; Jacobs Constructors; the McCarty Corporation; Hullinghorst, National Maintenance Corporation; Nichols Construction Corporation; Raytheon Engineers and Constructors; Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation; Tidewater Construction Corporation; Reilly-Benton Company, Inc. RESEQKSE XP.REQUEST.NP, .4? The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Further, this request docs not identify' the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification of the document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion of what is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity' when and where they worked at Exxon. The request is also vague since it does not define "discuss, relate or refer" to the subject matter. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See invoices, purchase orders, etc. previously' produced in Emery. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44 14 RECEIVED TIMEMAF.. 7. 5:41AM 03/07/98 08:35 To:Elizabeth Rose Schick FroetKithy Ladairault 504-525-5703 Page 32/33 Produce any and all correspondence, memoranda andor documents regarding asbestos, if any, which were provided by defendant to contractors performing services on defendant's premises. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44 _ The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification ofthe document or documents sought, this request demands the production of attorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion of what is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffs in their petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See also Bates Nos. EM003447 - EM003524. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4S Any and all material safety data sheets for any asbestos-containing product used at defendant's plant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 45 See Response to Request No. 20. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46 Produce any and all deposition transcripts or trial transcripts of any witness taken in any action wherein the plaintiff was claiming an injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products at defendant's plant and defendant andor defendant's officers and directors were a patty to the litigation, either as a defendant, cross-defendant or third party defendant RESPONSE XQ.fiE.Q.U-!?X.NQ^46 See Response to Request Nos. 16 and 26. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follow's: See Bate Stamp No. EM000001 - EM000744; EM000745 EM001302; EM001303 - EM001424; EM001721 - EM001897; EM002658 - EM002952. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47 Produce any and all Interrogatory answers, responses to Request for Production andor responses to requests for admissions filed by defendant and'or defendant's officers and directors in any action wherein the plaintiff was claiming an injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos containing products at defendant's plant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 47 See response to Request No. 41. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48 Produce any and all safety manuals and'or safety handbooks provided to defendant's employees at any time. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 48 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location nor to Exxon employee as opposed to employees of contractors. Assuming the request were limited to strictly Exxon employees employed at the same time periods and locations alleged by plaintiffs, answering the request would be unduly burdensome because plaintiffs fail to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they worked at Exxon. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See EM Bate 15 RECEIVED TIMEMAR. 8:41AM 03/07/98 08:35 To:EUzbth Rom Schick Fra*:K*thv S84-S25-5703 P*ge 33/33 Stamp Nos. EM003447 - EM003524.3 Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or supplement any ofthe above answers. Respectfully submitted, WEISS & EASON, L.L.P. GREGORY C. WEISS (#14488) STEPHEN R BARRY (#21465) 1515 Poydras Street Suite 1100 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: (504) 528-9192 DAVID LEDYARD, ESQ. STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON A BISSELL 595 Orleans Street 14th Floor - San Jacinto Building Beaumont, Texas 77701-3255 Telephone: (409)981-1000 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, EXXON CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have on this day of March 1998, served a copy ofthe above and foregoing pleading on counsel for ail parties to these proceedings by facsimile. STEPHEN R. BARRY 'Note that these are current safety manuals. Previous manuals are no longer in defendant's possession. 16 RECEIVED T1MEMAR. 3:41AM