Document 0q8dZRd4DD6m0296jNkmzDXex

CAUSE NO. 98-07665-F CHARLES ERNEST BAKER, ET AL VS. OWENS CORNING, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO: Plaintiff, PETER E. PETSCH, et al by and through their attorney ofrecord, Stephanie Finch, BARON & BUDD, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. COMES NOW, THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATION, one of the Defendants in the above styled cause, and make and files its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Request for Admissions and Second Request for Production Propounded to Premise Defendant, The Lubrizol Corporation. Respectfully submitted, STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON, BISSELL & LEDYARD, L.L.P. 23754/173568 David W. Ledyard State Bar No. 12109400 Michael T. Bridwell State Bar No. 02979600 14th Floor, San Jacinto Braiding Beaumont, Texas 77701-3255 (409)981-1000 (409)981-1010 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This will verify that a true and correct copy of Lubrizol Corporation's Objections and Response to Plaintiffs First Request for Admissions and Second Request For Production has been furnished to counsel for plaintiff, by certified mail, return receipt requested, and to all other known counsel of record by regular U.S. Mail, on this 3/Zttay of July, 2000. 23754/173568 2 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DEFINITIONS 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition ofthe terms "Defendant", "you", "your", and "your company". To the extent the terms can be read to refer to Defendant's attorneys, any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any of these terms necessarily invades the work product privilege in violation ofRule 192.5 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 503 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. To the extent the terms are defined to include predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates, as well as present and former officers, directors, agents, employees and other persons acting or purporting to act on behalfofthe corporate defendant, any interrogatory or request for production utilizing these terms is so overly broad, and overly burdensome to which to respond, so as to make any request or interrogatory utilizing the term virtually impossible to answer. Further, to the extent the definition is defined to include any merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates, any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any of these terms is necessarily overly broad, overly burdensome to which to respond, and calls for material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs apparent attempt to place upon Defendant the burden to seek information from former officers, directors, agents and employees over whom Defendant no longer has dominion or control. Any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any of these terms is a "fishing expedition" in violation of Texas law as concerns discovery. 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "document", "documents", "written materials", or "printed matter" as the definition of those terms renders any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any ofthese terms overly broad, overly burdensome to which to respond, harassing, and reduces any such interrogatory or request for production to a "fishing expedition" in violation of Texas law concerning discovery. Defendant further objects to the definition of these terms as calling for the production of material or information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the definition ofthese terms to the extent it purports to include an obligation to locate and produce information or documentation which is no longer in the possession or control ofthis Defendant or from entities who are not parties to this cause of action. 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "meeting" or "meetings" as any interrogatory or request for production utilizing those terms is overly broad, and over burdensome to which to respond in that it purports to require documentation or information concerning any casual or coincidental meeting. 23754/173568 3 THE LUBR1ZOL CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that Defendant ordered, purchased or otherwise acquired asbestos-containing products,1 asbestos-containing friction products, and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestoscontaining products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant admits that it acquired certain asbestos-containing products at certain times and for use in certain locations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, and/or machinery requiring the use ofasbestos or asbestos-containing products were utilized on Defendant's Premises between the years 1959 and 1979. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as the term "utilized" is vague, ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations in the context ofthis suit. Defendant further objects as this request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. 23754/173568 4 Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all ordering and sales documents pertaining to the purchase or acquisition of such asbestos-containing products for use at Defendant's Premises, including but not limited to invoices, price quotations, purchase orders, requisitions, bills oflading, and other purchasing and/or shipping documents of the similar nature. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome to which to respond and it calls for material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as it is further overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, it was foreseeable that asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises would or could be removed, stripped, replaced or repaired at some time after installation. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome to which to respond and it calls for material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as it is further overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. 23754/173568 5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce all documents that in anyway pertain to abatement ofasbestos-containing materials on Defendant's Premises, including but not limited to a removal plan or organized written criteria or schedule for the removal of asbestos at Defendant's Premises, and in operation and maintenance plan. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, overly burdensome to which to respond and it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as it is further overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to his request in that the term "agreement" is not defined and Defendant does not understand the last phrase "and in operation and maintenance plan", as such is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that Plaintiffworked on premises owned by Defendant or by a predecessor-in-interest of Defendant. RESPONSE: Without waivingany ofthe foregoing objections. Defendant admits that Plaintiffwas an employee of Defendant between 1966 and 1976, and that Plaintiff therefore worked on premises owned by Defendant during those years only. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 23754/173568 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: If you admit the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your admission that Plaintiff was on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Withoutwaiving any ofthe foregoing objections, Defendant states that it previously has made documents available for inspection by Plaintiffs counsel which support its admission that Plaintiff was its employee of Defendant between 1966 and 1976. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce all records identifying contractors and/or the employees ofcontractors who were on your premises between the dates 1959 and 1979, including but not limited to sign-in-logs, gate records, visitor's logs, identification badge logs and procedures, and other documents of a similar nature. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, overly burdensome to which to respond and it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to any particular alleged employer of Plaintiff, to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that is possesses no documents from the relevant time frame and location responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce the contract documents pertaining to the contractors who performed services on Defendant's Premises between the years 1959 and 1979, including but not limited to invitations to bid, requests for proposals, bids, proposals, scope of work, specifications, blueprints, plans, acceptances, contracts, amendments, addenda, change orders, and other contract documents of a similar nature. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, overly burdensome to which to respond and it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated 23754/173568 7 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to any particular alleged employer of Plaintiff, to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that Plaintiff worked on Defendant's Premises where Defendant used or applied asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and calling for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and calling for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. 23754/173568 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Plaintiff, in the course and scope of his work as an employee of an independent contractor, worked around Defendant's employees who were using and/or applying asbestoscontaining products. RESPONSE: After reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny at this time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9 Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Plaintiffworked on and/or around Defendant's Premises in areas where asbestoscontaining products were installed, used, prepared for use, replaced or repaired, stored or loaded, unloaded or transported. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, overly broad, and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that in 1959 Defendant was aware that airborne asbestos dust created a potential health hazard to those who breathed such dust. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that it is vague and ambiguous, the term "health hazard" is not defined and Defendant does not know which health hazard is being referred to at any particular period of time. Since health hazards often are dependent 23754/173568 9 on the quantity of exposure, this request is vague and ambiguous because the quantity of exposures have not been defined. Without waiving said objections, Defendant answers that it is impossible to know in an organization the size of this Defendant exactly what year it would have obtained this kind of information through the knowledge of its employees. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE; Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9; Admit that Defendant was aware of the presence of and/or use of asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises during the time period Plaintiff was working on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible, and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects that plaintiff has not sufficiently identified the period of time in question. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11; Produce any and all photographs or video-graphic depictions or films depicting the use by you or your employees of any safety precautions (such as containment areas, warning signs, etc.) taken to protect bystanders from the hazards ofairborne asbestos resulting from the use ofasbestoscontaining products by your employees at any locations. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, overly burdensome to which to respond, and calling for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects 23754/173568 10 to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving any of the foregoing, Defendant has not located any relevant documents responsive to this request. To the extent that those documents exist and are located, they will be made available for review by Plaintiffs' counsel at the offices of Defendant's counsel at a time and date to be mutually agreed upon by counsel. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that Defendant did not distribute any literature or warnings of any kind to its employees during the period of time Plaintiff worked on Defendant's Premises regarding the potential health hazards to those who breathe airborne asbestos dust. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects that plaintiff has not sufficiently identified the period of time in question. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: If you deny the foregoing, produce all such warnings. RESPONSE: Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that Defendant consciously decided not to warn its employees of the dangers of asbestos. 23754/173568 11 RESPONSE:, Defendant objects to this request as it is argumentative as well as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that Defendant did not continuously provide face masks to contract employees working with or around asbestos from 1959-1979 for the purpose ofprotecting these employees from inhaling asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects that the phrase'' contract employee'' is vague and ambiguous, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request insofar as it assumes a duty to provide equipment to independent contractors who were retained to perform various activities as experts in the various fields in which they were retained and as independent contractors, agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect their own employees. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad as it is not limited in scope to any particular alleged employer of Plaintiff, to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that you did not erect containment barriers to prevent emission ofasbestos dust at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within 23754/173568 12 Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admitthat you did not utilize engineering controls such as isolation or enclosure at the work sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 23754/173568 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that you did not utilize ventilation or exhaust systems to divert dust at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that you did not utilize dust collection engineering controls to trap airborne asbestos dust at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. 23754/173568 14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE; Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that you did not require your employees to handle, mix, apply, remove, cut or score asbestos-containing products in a wet state to prevent emission of airborne asbestos fibers at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. ' RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that you did not evacuate the premises prior to the utilization of asbestos-containing materials at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiff was present. 23754/173568 15 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request in respect to the term "utilization" as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that you did not post warning, caution or hazard signs prior to the utilization of asbestos-containing materials by your employees at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request in respect to the term "utilization" as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. 23754/173568 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that you did not issue any warnings to others at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request in respect to the term "using" as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Produce all documents reflecting payments made to contractors between the years 1959 and 1979, including Plaintiffs employer, including but not limited to invoices, bills, check requests, requisitions, canceled checks, or other documents ofa similar nature reflecting payment for services rendered by Plaintiffs employer. 23754/173568 17 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, overly burdensome to which to respond and it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to any particular alleged employer of Plaintiff, to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that is possesses no documents from the relevant time frame and location responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that the use of asbestos-containing materials on Defendant's Premises created a substantial risk of injury. RESPONSE: Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request in respect to the term "use" as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant had to power to control Defendant's Premises. - 23754/173568 18 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" and "control" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" and "control" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were 23754/173568 19 experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant had the power to manage the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power," "manage," "use," and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. 23754/173568 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms ''power" /'manage", "use", and "condition," are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant had the power to direct the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" /'direct", "use" and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. 23754/173568 21 Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power", "direct", "use" and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their w'ork were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. 23754/173568 22 Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant had the power to superintend the use or conditions of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power", "superintend", "use", and "conditions" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power", "superintend", "use" and "conditions" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossiblewithout speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, 23754/173568 23 Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within , Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant had the power to restrict the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power", "restrict", "use", and "condition", are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably 23754/173568 24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power", "restrict", "use" and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant had the power to regulate the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. 23754/173568 25 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power", "regulate", "use" and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: ,, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" ,"regulate", "use" and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. 23754/173568 26 The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant had the power to govern the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power", "govern", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. 23754/173568 27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power", "govern", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant had the power to oversee the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" ,"oversee", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in 23754/173568 28 time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" ,"oversee", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time norscope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. 23754/173568 29 Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant had the power to administer the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power", "administer", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without .waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power", "administer", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation 23754/173568 30 as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that between the years 1959 and 1979 Defendant controlled Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and 23754/173568 31 ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant managed the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. 23754/173568 32 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "manage", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "manage", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. 23754/173568 33 The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant directed the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "direct", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. 23754/173568 34 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "direct", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant superintended the use or conditions of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "superintended", "use", and "conditions" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossiblewithout speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in 23754/173568 35 time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "superintended", "use", and "conditions" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor. scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. 23754/173568 36 Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant restricted the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "restricted", "use" and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without .waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "restricted", "use" and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant 23754/173568 37 objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36; Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant regulated the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. .. ' RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "regulated", "use" and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably 23754/173568 38 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "regulated", "use" and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this, entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant governed the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. ' 23754/173568 39 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "governed", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: _ Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "governed", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. 23754/173568 40 The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38. Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant oversaw the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "oversaw", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. 23754/173568 41 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "oversaw", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admit that, between the years 1959 and 1979, Defendant administered the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "administered", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in 23754/173568 42 time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "administered", "use", and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. 23754/173568 43 Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admit that Defendant retained some control over the manner in which Plaintiffs work was performed. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what work, specific task, or activity he performed on Defendant's premises, thereby making the phrase "plaintiffs work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what work, specific task, or activity he performed on Defendant's premises, thereby making the phrase "plaintiff's work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this 23754/173568 44 particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: Admit that Defendant retained some control over the manner in which Plaintiffs employer performed the work requested by the Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what work, specific task, or activity he performed on Defendant's premises, thereby making the request vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, and unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities, on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. 23754/173568 45 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what work, specific task, or activity he performed on Defendant's premises, thereby making the request vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, and unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that Plaintiffwas not entirely free to do the work on Defendant's Premises in his own way. . RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what work, specific task, or activity he performed, thereby making the phrase "the work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time, nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. 23754/173568 46 Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what work, specific task, or activity he performed, thereby making the phrase "the work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: Admit that Plaintiffs employer was not entirely free to do the work requested by Defendant on Defendant's Premises in its own way. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify whatwork, specific task, or activity he performed, thereby making the phrase "the work requested by Defendant" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. 23754/173568 47 Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what work, specific task, or activity he performed, thereby making the phrase "the work requested by Defendant" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details oftheir work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admit that asbestos-containing gaskets were installed at Defendant's Premise. 23754/173568 48 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that asbestos-containing pipe covering was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. ` 23754/173568 49 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that asbestos-containing boilers were installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: * Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. 23754/173568 50 Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47; Admit that asbestos-containing fireproofing was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: Admit that asbestos-containing joint compound was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. 23754/173568 51 Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: ' Admit that asbestos-containing insulation was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written.. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. 23754/173568 52 Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admit that such installation was done under your direction, supervision, and/or control. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the terms "such installation" and "direction, supervision and/or control" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial, including but not limited to all documents identifying the entities or individuals who directed, supervised, and/or controlled such installation activities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the terms "such installation" and "direction, supervision and/or control" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. 23754/173568 53 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Produce all documents that indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and overly burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, this request includes terms which are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the terms. Plaintifffails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration), or type of health injury in their requests. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time or location. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: Admit that you supervised the health and safety procedures implemented by contractors working on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what work specific task, or activity was performed, thereby making the phrases "health and safety practices" and "implemented by contractors" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the term "supervised" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to any particular alleged employer of Plaintiff, to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details oftheir work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. 23754/173568 54 Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: Admit that you supervised the health and safety practices implemented by Plaintiffs employer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what work specific task, or activity was performed, thereby making the phrases "health and safety practices" and "implemented by Plaintiffs employer" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the term "supervised" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to any particular alleged employer of Plaintiff, to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on its premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agreed to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, of not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without.waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: Admit that you did not protect the Plaintiff from exposure to asbestos on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the term "protect" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous 23754/173568 55 in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52; Produce all documents supporting the legal theories and factual bases of your defenses set forth in your response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure under Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure 194.2, subparagraph (c). RESPONSE: Defendant does not yet have enough information to finalize its possible defenses, and is unable to respond at this time. Discovery is continuing. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: Admit that Plaintiffs exposure to asbestos at Defendant's Premises was a substantial contributing factor in causing his asbestos-related injury. . RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as calling for a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects as this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as calling for a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects as this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the 23754/173568 56 premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: Admit that Defendant did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk of asbestos-related injury. RESPONSE: Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the term "reasonable care" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: Admit that Defendant did not reduce or eliminate the unreasonable risk ofharm posed by the use of asbestos-containing products at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the terms "unreasonable risk of harm" and "use" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, 23754/173568 57 which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the terms "unreasonable risk of harm" and "use" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it possesses no documents responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57: Admit that Defendant's failure to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm to Plaintiff was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs asbestos-related injury. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as calling for a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects as this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request in that this request assumes that Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos or that plaintiff has an asbestos related injury. 23754/173568 58 Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request as calling for a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects as this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request in that this request assumes that Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos or that plaintiff has an asbestos related injury. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56; If you contend that while at the premises on which you or your employees were working with asbestos-containing materials, Plaintiff was not exposed to sufficient quantities of asbestos dust to produce the disease(s) complained of, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects as this request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked, and, therefore, Defendant is unable to respond at this time. Discovery is continuing. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: If you contend that Plaintiff is suffering from an asbestos disease as a result of exposures other than asbestos dust at the premises on which you or your employees were working with asbestos-containing materials, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects as this request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within 23754/173568 59 Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. At this time, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he contends that Mr. Petsch does not have an asbestos-related injury and discovery is continuing as to what asbestos exposures he may have had on other premises. Discovery is continuing. Without waiving any of these objections, Defendant states that Plaintiffs testimony, work history, and medical records, and expert testimony may be responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Ifyou contend that Plaintiffdoes not suffer from the asbestos-related disease(s) complained of, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant does not yet have enough information to finalize its contentions. Discovery is continuing. Without waiving any of these objections, Defendant states that Plaintiffs testimony, work history, and medical records, and expert testimony may be responsive to this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: If you contend that Plaintiffwas not exposed to asbestos dust at the premises on which you or your employees were working with asbestos-containing materials, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects as this request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked, and, therefore, Defendant is unable to respond at this time. Discovery is continuing. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Produce any and all documents and other tangible things which refer to the document retention (and/or destruction) policy of Defendant, including the following: 23754/173568 60 a. Any document retention and/or destruction policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. b. Any record retention and/or destruction, dumping, or purging policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records created, maintained or stored by electronic and/or magnetic means, including but not limited to records that have been microfilmed, microfiched, imaged, scanned, or stored on tapes, disks, diskettes, CDrom, databases, etc. or on or within any computer hardware, backup system, download system, file dumping or other system ofinformation management, whether on-site or off-site, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to the request as it is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "fishing expedition" under Texas law. Defendant further objects to the request as calling for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of. admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Produce any and all documentation, including but not limited to lists, inventories, indices, databases or print-outs thereof, archives, storage inventories, logs, or other search aids that refer or relate to the existence, extent, type, organization, filing system, method ofaccess or retrieval, and/or location of Defendant's documents (maintained or stored on-site or off-site) described in the preceding paragraphs. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to the request as it is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "Ashing expedition" under Texas law. Defendant further objects to the request as calling for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 23754/173568 61 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58: Admit that Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant within two (2) years of the date of discovering his asbestos-related condition or the existence of any asbestos-related causes ofaction. RESPONSE: Based on reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59: Admit that Defendant is liable for Plaintiffs asbestos related illness. RESPONSE: Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies the request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60: Admit that asbestos is still in use and/or in place on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as calling for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects as this request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61: Admit that Defendant no longer uses asbestos on its Premises. 23754/173568 62 RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request as calling for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects as this request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor to the area(s) within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this entire request as ambiguous and unintelligible as written. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. 23754/173568 63