Document 10Jm79B3M0DEY7BRj8BmjLjKm

ig 1 JENNIFER KUENSTER, State Bar No. 104607 JAMES W. CONWAY, State Bar No. 154505 2 THELEN REID & PRIEST, LLP 3 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105-3601 4 Tel: (415)371-1200 Fax: (415)644-6519 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 FORD MOTOR COMPANY ill JAN 2 8 2003 ,'LJ tj f iBy 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 HAROLD HOLDER and SHIRLEY 11 HOLDER, 12 vs. 13 Plaintiffs, ACandS, Inc., et al, 14 15 Defendants. Case No.: 414546 FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S CASE SPECIFIC STANDARD INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE 16 PROPOUNDING PARTY; Plaintiff HAROLD HOLDER and SHIRLEY HOLDER 17 RESPONDING PARTY: 18 SET NO.; 19 Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY ONE 20 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 21 1. These responses are based upon facts known or believed by Ford at the time of 22 answering these interrogatories. Much of the information requested dates back many years and is 23 difficult or impossible to reconstruct or retrieve. These discovery responses are made pursuant to 24 a reasonable and duly diligent investigation and search for the information requested. Ford 25 reserves the nght to amend these responses if new or additional information becomes available. 26 2. Ford further objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they are overly broad, 27 vague, ambiguous, and are not reasonably limited in scope or time. 28 SF #718267 vl 1- - FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S CASE SPECIFIC STANDARD INTERROGATORIES, SET NO ONE 1 or describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they may be made the subject of 2 a request for production of documents; 3 E. IDENTIFY the person(s) presently most knowledgeable about the information 4 sought in this interrogatory or its subparts. 5 ANSWER: 6 Vehicles manufactured by Ford incorporated brake friction products such as 7 linings, which are composed, in part, of asbestos. Ford purchased these components from 8 suppliers Ford understands the type of asbestos fibers used to be chrysotile. Because 9 Ford did not manufacture these components, it does not know percentages of asbestos that 10 they contain. 11 Ford further states that it sold service parts, which included brake linings, pads and clutch 12 facings, through franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors m the United States. These 13 aftermarket parts were sold under the name of Ford or Ford Authorized Remanufacturers. 14 Ford objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks 15 the discovery of information or documents that are neither relevant to the issues in this lawsuit nor 16 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 2 18 IDENTIFY each person who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to 19 these interrogatories. (Do not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) 20 ANSWER: 21 These are the responses of Ford, which have been prepared by and under the supervision of 22 Ford's attorneys, including counsel of record in this lawsuit, and with the assistance of various 23 Ford employees. The answers are verified on Ford's behalf by a duly authorized agent as required 24 under the applicable rules. 25 To the extent this Interrogatory seeks an additional or different response, Ford objects 26 because it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the 27 28 SF #715267 vl -3- FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S CASE SPECIFIC STANDARD INTERROGATORIES, SET NO ONE 1 3. Ford objects to each and every request to the extent that it seeks information which 2 does not refer or relate to the events, occurrences, time periods, or locations at issue in this lawsuit 3 and, as such, is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Such 4 discovery is irrelevant, unduly burdensome and harassing 5 4. Ford objects to each and every request to the extent that it requires the disclosure of 6 information (a) that was prepared in anticipation of litigation; (b) that constitutes privileged 7 attorney-client material; (c) that constitutes attorney work product; (d) that is subject to any other 8 privilege; and/or, (e) that is otherwise protected from disclosure. 9 5. Ford objects to each and every request to the extent that it seeks information equally 10 available to Plaintiff. 11 6. Ford objects to each and every request to the extent that it is overbroad, burdensome, 12 oppressive, harassing and repetitious. 13 7. The above-stated objections are hereby made applicable to each of Plaintiff s requests 14 and admissions and are incorporated into each response as though set forth in full. Each response 15 shall be deemed to be subject to, and shall not waive, any of the foregoing objections. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 1 17 Were any of THIS DEFENDANT'S ASBESTOS-CONTAINING FRICTION PRODUCTS 18 sold, shipped, MARKETED or otherwise distributed either to or for use at the DESCRIBED 19 SITES at or before the time designated in the Notice? If so: 20 A. IDENTIFY and state the NATURE and quantity of the ASBESTOS- 21 CONTAINING FRICTION PRODUCTS; 22 B. IDENTIFY to whom said ASBESTOS-CONTAINING FRICTION PRODUCTS 23 were sold; 24 C. IDENTIFY to whom said ASBESTOS-CONTAINING FRICTION PRODUCTS 25 were shipped; 26 D. Either attach all DOCUMENTS or disks containing such data, evidencing the 27 information sought in this interrogatory and its subparts to YOUR answers to these interrogatories 28 SF #718267 vl -2- FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS CASE SPECIFIC STANDARD INTERROGATORIES, SET NO ONE 1 attorney work-product doctrine, is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and seeks information 2 that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 3 4 5 If any person YOU have identified in YOUR answers to these interrogatories has had his 6 or her deposition taken, IDENTIFY the deposition by the name of the deponent, the date the 7 deposition was taken, the caption and number of the action in which it was taken, the court which 8 had jurisdiction over the action in which it was taken (including state and county) and either the 9 name and address of the court reporting agency which took the deposition or the name and address 10 of deponent's counsel of record. 11 ANSWER: 12 Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objection to Interrogatory No. 2. 13 14 DATED: January 23, 2003 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SF #718267 vl -4- FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS CASE SPECIFIC STANDARD INTERROGATORIES, SET NO ONE 1 JENNIFER KUENSTER, State Bar No. 104607 JAMES W. CONWAY, State Bar No. 154505 2 THELEN REID & PRIEST, LLP 3 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105-3601 4 Tel: (415)371-1200 Fax: (415) 644-6519 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 FORD MOTOR COMPANY 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 HAROLD HOLDER and SHIRLEY 11 HOLDER, 12 Case No.: 414546 PROOF OF SERVICE 13 vs. 14 Plaintiffs, ACandS, Inc., et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 18 CASE NO. 414546 19 20 I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. I am employed in the County 21 of San Francisco, State of California by Thelen Reid & Priest LLP. My business address is 22 101 Second Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, California 94105-3606. 23 On January 24,2003,1 served the following entitled document: 24 FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S CASE SPECIFIC STANDARD INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. 25 ONE 26 by placing a true and correct copy thereof m a sealed envelope addressed as follows: 27 28 SF #721437 vl 1- - PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 1 LEVIN & SIMES 2 160 SANSOME STREET 3 12TM FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 4 I am readily familiar with the firm's business practice for collection and processing of 5 correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On this day, I placed for 6 collection and processing the above document to be deposited with the United States Postal 7 Service in the ordinary course of business. And in the ordinary course of the firm's business, such 8 correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day that it is collected. 9 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 10 foregoing is true and correct. 11 Executed on January 24,2003, at San Francisco, California. 12 13 * '"David E. Schwartz L\ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 SF #721437 vl 2- - PROOFOF SERVICE BY MAIL