Document 15Kd98gzMbkNqvBoE79bKYNNj

1 John E. Dittoe J. David Bickham 2 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH L MAY Professional Corporation 3 1999 Harrison Street Oakland, CA 94612 4 (415) 763-2000 5 Attorneys for Defendant Chrysler Corporation 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF SOLANO 9 10 In re: 11 SOLANO COUNTY COMPLEX ASBESTOS LITIGATION, 12 / No. 2830 13 14 DEFENDANT CHRYSLER CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' STANDARD INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT PURSUANT 15 TO GENERAL ORDER 30.00 16 17 Propounding Party Plaintiffs 18 Responding Party 19 Set Number Defendant Chrysler Corporation One 20 21 Defendant Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) provides the 22 following responses to plaintiffs' interrogatories, both for 23 itself and as successor in interest to American. Motors 24 Corporation (AMC): 25 26 Z PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT i NO.C W ~ Hb 1 1 GENERAL RESPONSE 2 3 These interrogatories have little to do with the 4 issues involving Chrysler or AMC in any particular lawsuit, and 5 thus, by their nature, far exceed the scope of the allegations 6 in any complaint against Chrysler or AMC. Chrysler and AMC, 7 therefore, object to these interrogatories as being grossly 8 overbroad, oppressive, harassing, shotgun, designed to seek 9 information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated 10 to lead to the discovery of relevant information, and an undue 11 burden upon Chrysler and AMC. 12 13 These interrogatories are also objected to to the 14 extent that they call for information protected by the attorney15 client and/or work product privileges. 16 17 Furthermore, the following specific responses are 18 based upon Chrysler's current knowledge of the facts inquired 19 into in these interrogatories. Due to the remote nature of many 20 of these facts, the changes in Chrysler's and AMC's corporate 21 structure over the years, and the limited extent of existing or 22 available records, Chrysler is supplying information based upon 23 preliminary investigation, and as such, these responses may 24 contain information that is neither complete nor reliable. 25 Therefore, Chrysler expressly reserves the right to supplement 26 2 1 or modify these responses as additional information is 2 discovered. 3 4 Chrysler responds to these interrogatories without 5 waiving any of the general or specific objections stated. These 6 general objections are explicitly incorporated into each of the 7 specific responses set forth below. 8 9 SPECIFIC RESPONSES 10 11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 12 a. Robert D. Maples; 13 b. 12000 Chrysler Drive, Highland Park, Michigan 14 48288-1919; 15 c. Claims Supervisor; 16 d. Mr. Maples has been a Claims Supervisor since 17 he began his employment with Chrysler in 1984. 18 19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Yes. 20 a. Chrysler Corporation; 21 b. Delaware; 22 c. 1925; 23 24 25 26 3 1 d. 12000 Chrysler Drive, Highland Park, Michigan 2 48288-1919; 3 e. Not applicable. 4 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Before 1986, 6 Chrysler was known as Chrysler Corporation. Chrysler underwent 7 a corporate reorganization in 1986 and began doing business as 8 Chrysler Motors Corporation. On January 1, 1990, Chrysler 9 resumed doing business as Chrysler Corporation. Chrysler is the 10 successor in interest to AMC. 11 12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4; Chrysler has been 13 qualified to do business in California since approximately 1925. M 15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Since 1925, Chrysler 16 has manufactured automobiles that included asbestos containing 17 products. 18 19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: No. 20 21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: No. 22 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Yes. 24 25 26 4 1 a. Since 1925 Chrysler has manufactured 2 automobiles that have included asbestos containing 3 products. It has also marketed replacement parts A under the names Mopar, Cycle-Weld, and Cycle-Bond; 5 b. Chrysler began marketing automobiles that 6 included asbestos containing products in 1925; 7 c. Chrysler currently markets vehicles that 8 include asbestos containing products; 9 d. Chrysler believes that brake linings it has 10 distributed contained 50 percent, by weight, 11 chrysotile asbestos fiber; however, it is unaware of 12 the specific compositions of the asbestos containing 13 friction products purchased from outside suppliers. 14 e. Brake linings, clutch facings, transmission 15 bands, and heat resistant gaskets and seals; 16 f. Chrysler brake linings have had the Chrysler 17 logo stamped on them; 18 g. See Response to Interrogatory No. 8(e); 19 h. Chrysler has distributed asbestos containing 20 friction products manufactured by the following; 21 Abex, Bendix, Chrysler, Raybestos-Manhattan, and 22 Johns-Manville. 23 AMC sold asbestos containing friction 24 products manufactured by the following: 25 Bendix Corporation, Kelsey-Hayes, Borg and 26 5 1 Beck, Dana, Valeo, Wagner Electric, Abex, 2 and OEM; 3 i. Chrysler has purchased asbestos fiber from 4 Asbestos Corporation, Limited 830 Mooney Street, 5 Bentford Mines, Quebec, Canada G6651; Carry Canadian 6 P.0. Box 190, East Braughton Station, PQ, Canada 7 GON IHO; Johns-Manville P.O. Box 5108, Ken Caryl 8 Ranch, Denver, Colorado 80217; 9 AMC did not purchase raw asbestos for 10 incorporation into its vehicles; 11 j. Unknown. 12 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: No. 14 15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: No. 16 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: No. 18 19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: No. 20 21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: No. 22 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14; No. 24 25 26 6 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Yes. 2 a. Chrysler's Trenton Chemical Plant 3 Trenton, Michigan. 4 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 6 a. 1959 7 b. 1988 8 c. Chrysler manufactured brake linings at its 9 Trenton Plant. 10 11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: No. 12 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: No. 14 15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: No. 16 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: NO. 18 19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: NO. 20 21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Since 22 Chrysler has sold through dealerships in northern California, 23 thousands of automobiles that included asbestos containing 24 products. Thus, Chrysler is unable to respond to this 25 interrogatory due to its extremely broad scope and vague and 26 ambiguous nature. 7 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: See Response to .!l 2 Interrogatory No. 22 3 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Chrysler's outside 5 counsel in this matter, CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY, 1999 6 j Harrison St., Oakland, CA 94612, has some exemplars of Chrysler 7 : advertising. 8 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 10 a. 12000 Chrysler Drive, Highland Park, Michigan n 48288; 12 b. R. A. Houtman, Assistant Secretary, Chrysler 13 Corporation, 12000 Chrysler Drive, Highland Park, U Michigan 48288. 15 16 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Not applicable. 17 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Not applicable. 19 20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Original equipment 21 parts were distributed in new Chrysler automobiles. Authorized 22 Chrysler replacement parts were distributed in cardboard boxes. 23 24 25 26 8 1 From 1988 to the present the cartons for Chrysler's 2 asbestos containing replacement parts have contained the 3 following warning: 4 5 DANGER 6 7 CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS 8 AVOID CREATING DUST 9 CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE 10 HAZARD 11 12 With respect to the authorized asbestos-containing 13 replacement parts distributed by AMC, warnings placed on cartons 14 in 1980 read as follows: 15 16 CAUTION, AVOID CREATING DUST. 17 BREATHING ASBESTOS MAY CAUSE BODILY HARM 18 19 In 1981, AMC changed its warning to the following: 20 21 CAUTION, CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS. 22 AVOID CREATING DUST. BREATHING ASBESTOS 23 DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM. 24 25 26 10 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Yes. The following 2 warnings first appeared in Chrysler's 1984 Service Manuals: 3 4 CAUTION: When servicing brake 5 assemblies or components, do not create dust 6 by sanding, grinding or by cleaning brake 7 parts with a dry brush or with compressed 8 air. A water dampened cloth should be used. 9 Many brake components contain asbestos 10 fibers which can become airborne if dust is 11 created during service operations. 12 Breathing dust which contains asbestos 13 fibers can cause serious bodily harm. 14 15 CAUTION: When servicing clutch 16 assemblies or components do NOT create dust 17 by sanding or by cleaning clutch parts with 18 a dry brush or with compressed air. (A 19 water dampened cloth should be used). The 20 clutch disc contains "Asbestos Fibers" which 21 can become airborne if dust is created 22 during service operations. Breathing dust 23 containing "Asbestos Fibers" may cause 24 serious bodily harm. 25 26 11 1 The following warning first appeared in the 1978 AMC 2 Technical Service Manual which was published and distributed in 3 1977: 4 5 BRAKESHOE REPLACEMENT WARNING: When 6 servicing wheel brake parts, do not create 7 dust by grinding or sanding brake linings or 8 by cleaning brake parts with a dry brush or 9 compressed air. Use water dampened cloths 10 only to remove dirt and dust from brake 11 parts prior to disassembly. Many brake 12 parts contain asbestos fibers which can 13 become airborne if dust is created during 14 service operations. Breathing dust 15 containing asbestos fibers may cause serious 16 bodily harm. 17 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Chrysler is unable 19 to respond to this interrogatory because of the grossly 20 overbroad and oppressive scope of the information requested, and 21 the vague and ambiguous nature of the interrogatory. In 22 addition, since there are no Chrysler employees or contract 23 units in Solano County alleging that Chrysler is liable for 24 their asbestos exposure injuries, this interrogatory is seeking 25 information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to 26 the discovery of relevant information. 12 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Gerald A. 2 Sattelmeier has been Chrysler's manager of Industrial Hygiene 3 since 1976. 4 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 6 7 (1) On December 8, 1983, James Knoll was deposed in 8 Vaughn v. Raymark Industries, et al., Civil Action 9 No. 82-1655-C(A) in the United States District Court 10 for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division 11 with Walter L. Floyd appearing for plaintiffs. On 12 June 15, 1984 Mr. Knoll was deposed in Horn v. Bendix 13 Corp., Civil Action No. 80-2-09935-3 Washington State, M King County Superior Court with Thomas H. Hart III 15 appearing for plaintiffs. On June 29, 1987, Mr. Knoll 16 was deposed in Webb v. Celotex Corp., et al., Michigan 17 State, County of Wayne with JoAnn Carlson appearing 18 for plaintiffs. Mr. Knoll was also deposed on 19 June 14, 1988 in Coates v. Raymark Industries, et al.. 20 Civil Action No. L-095651-85 in the Superior Court of 21 New Jersey, Middlesex County with Angelo J. Cifaldi 22 appearing for plaintiffs. 23 (2) On July 15, 1986 Gerald A. Sattelmeier was deposed 24 in Boatnar v. Chrysler Corporation et al., in the 25 Circuit Court for the County of Wayne in the State of 26 Michigan. Plaintiffs were represented by Joseph F. 13 1 Bruegger. Mr. Sattelmeier was also deposed on 2 March 9, 1989 in Coates v. Raymark Industries, et al. 3 Plaintiffs were represented by Angelo Cifaldi. 4 (3) On June 14, 1988 Jack L. Koblin was deposed in 5 Coates v. Raymark Industries, et al., in the Superior 6 Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County. Plaintiffs 7 were represented by Angelo Cifaldi. 8 (4) On June 14, 1988 Paul D. Kelly, Jr. was deposed in 9 the case of Coates v. Raymark Industries, et al., with 10 Angelo Cifaldi appearing for plaintiffs. On June 15, 11 1988 Mr. Kelly was deposed in Becker v. Baron 12 Brothers, No. L-91267-85 in the Superior Court of New 13 Jersey, Middlesex County. Plaintiffs were represented 14 by Francis A. Tomes. 15 (5) On December 15, 1983, Stanley V. Puidokas and 16 Richard J. Wirth were deposed in Dorothy St. Jacque, 17 et al. v. Johns-Manville Corp., C 137, 465 in 18 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 19 20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Chrysler and/or, 21 Chrysler employees have had memberships in the American 22 Industrial Hygiene Foundation, the National Safety Council, the 23 Friction Material Safety Institute, and the Motor Vehicle 24 Manufacturers Association. 25 26 14 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Chrysler and/or 2 Chrysler employees have received the IHF Digest. 3 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39: No. 5 6 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Yes. Chrysler has 7 had a library in Highland Park, Michigan. 8 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41: No. 10 11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42: No. 12 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Since there are no 14 individuals in Solano County alleging exposure to asbestos on 15 the facility identified in Interrogatory Response No. 15, this 16 interrogatory is seeking information that is neither relevant 17 nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information, 18 and thus it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. 19 20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Not to the best of 21 Chrysler's knowledge at this time. 22 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Not to the best of 24 Chrysler's knowledge at this time. 25 26 15 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46: There is no 2 Interrogatory No. 46 in this set. 3 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47: See Response to 5 Interrogatories Nos. 32 and 33. 6 7 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Since there are no 8 individuals in Solano County who produced any of Chrysler's 9 asbestos containing products who are alleging asbestos exposure 10 due to this activity, this interrogatory is seeking information 11 that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery 12 of relevant information. However, Chrysler has never required 13 the mechanics who worked on its automobiles to wear respirators. 14 15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 49: No. 16 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Yes. Chrysler was 18 first notified of such a claim in the complaint in the case of 19 Friedman v. General Motors Corp., et al. 20 21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Chrysler does not 22 categorize its documents regarding workers' compensation claims 23 according to the type of injury to its employees. Since 24 Chrysler has had thousands of employees and there have been 25 numerous workers' compensation claims stemming from their 26 16 1 employment, this interrogatory is objected to as being 2 oppressive, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. 3 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 52; See Response to 5 Interrogatory No. 51. 6 7 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 53; Chrysler has 8 sufficient assets to respond to claims for damages. 9 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 54: NO. 11 12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 55: NO. 13 14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 56: There is no 15 Interrogatory No. 56 in this set. 16 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 57: No. 18 19 DATED: August j'-j , 1990. 20 21 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY Professional Corporation 22 23 24 By j/ David Bickham 25 Attorneys for Defendant Chrysler Motors Corporation 26 17