Document 15yrJX6w1NBJov61E8L64NYBa

. ,-l'IUV.C`l. 133f c_- Iflffl BHKtK & Htto It I Lt-K* UirtCirTiH I i BAKES HOSTETLER uj Counsellors at Law Mu. r^o r.c.s&a Sons 2650 912 Walnut Snqsr Cnqmm31, Orb 45202*4098 (512) 629*9400 Rax (519) 929-0909 Writer'* Direct Dial: ($13)926-3409 E-MAIL' tharYey@bAker-boetetltr.com October 13.1997 Ellouise Niblo Baron & Budd The Centrum 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219-4281 RE: Georgia-Pacific Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories in Butler County, Ohio Dear Ms. Niblo: You requested additional information in response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories in the Butler County cases. Georgia-Pacific believes its initial responses were adequate particularly in light ofour beliefthat no Georgia-Pacific asbestos-containing products were sold to Asmco Steel Mills. Nevertheless, foe following supplements our initial interrogatory responses. All previously stated objections are renewed. A diligent effort was made to gather all available additional information, however, as I am sure you are aware, many offoe events occurred over 30 years ago and many offoe people involved in the manufacture and sale of Geotgia-Pscific's asbestos-containing products have died. In addition, attorneys from Baron A Budd have cross-examined Georgia-Paeific's National Sales Director for Gypsum on several occasions. I believe these arc thorough, complete responses. As we stated in response to your request for production of documents, you may come to Atlanta to review Georgia-Pacific's documents at a mutually agreed upon time. However, Baron A Budd lawyers have conducted Georgia-Pacific document productions and I believe you have copies ofGeorgia-Pacific documents in your office. The following are Supplemental Responses To The Interrogatories: 1. No one individual answered foe interrogatories. Each response was prepared by Georgia- Pacific counsel, and foe thoughts, mental processes, and investigations conducted by counsel are attorney client privileged. Documents were gathered at foe direction of counsel and reviewed by a(mnu)NeDxi-.eOzwooo C(aomm)mzams,-iommio Dtwvm, Courado (sox) aowmoo H(7o1u1s)ttona.i-TimtaoM Lons Bak, Causooaa lm ahobas, causoana (MX) U1-2B37 (SIS) 0X4-1400 Omando, Fiokba (407) *4*4000 WASWCKM.D.C. (SOI) *01-1100 RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM nuv.;4. lyyr E!14PM UHKEK & HOSTETLER/CINCiNNHTI N0.7S6 KS^cte) Page 2 of29 October 13( 1997 counsel. Certain information may have been obtained from Georgia-Pacific employees in conversation with counsel. Those conversations were conducted in anticipation of litigation and w3are protected by the attorney client privilege. General information was gathered by GeorgiaPacific counsel from Glenn Wilson, OJJ. Burch, William Lehnert and Gary Ricards. 3 and 4. See the corporate history listed in response to interrogatory number 3 which is a list of all names by which "Georgia-Pacific" has been known. Hie only corporate merger which is relevant to this litigation is the merger ofBestwall Gypsum into Georgia-Pacific which is listed in response to interrogatory number 3. Counsel for the plaintiffs have previously reviewed documents pertaining to that merger, Georgia-Pacific knows ofno other companies with which it has merged or whose assets and liabilities it has purchased which manufactured asbestoscontaining products at the time ofdie merger. It has never been claimed that Georgia-Pacific has any liability in this litigation other than for the product line it acquired in the Bestwall merger. If plaintiffs have any information which leads them to believe that Georgia-Pacific has any liability that arises from any company other than Bestwall, Georgia-Pacific will perform additional investigation and attempt to provide more information about that company. Georgia-Pacific never acquired any company or liabilities of any company for asbestos insulation products of foe type that one would expect workers at an Aimco Steel mill to work with or around. 5. Georgia-Pacific has never been in foe business ofmining raw asbestos or installing asbestos-containing products. For a period oftime, Georgia-Pacific manufactured and distributed a small number ofproducts which contained a m*11 amount of asbestos. None would be expected to be used in a steel mill. They are: RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM . r*jv.d<t. c.- 1SM1 t'TJ. (VO r. **' vei Page 3 of29 October 13,1997 All Purpose Joint Compound (a) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. (b) 1. All Purpose 2. Not Applicable. 3. Georgia-Pacific first placed all purpose joint compound on the market fiat national distribution in 1967. Friar to that time, all purpose may have been available for sale in limited areas. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free all purposejoint compound. 4. Dry white or off-white powder. 5. This product is used to finish walls and ceilings. 6. Packaged in bags. 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that all purposejoint compound contained 0 to 7% chrysotile asbestos. 8. See 7 above. (c) See (b)(3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret and which is irrelevant except for the information provided in response to (b)(7) above. (e) Its packaging. (f) See (b)(4) above. (g) See (b)(5) above. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM . NOV.24.1997 e!15PM oHKcjK & HOSTfc. I LLK '-JLriLirfiH i i no. n?o r.a/jo Page 4 of29 October 13,1997 Bedding Compound (a) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. (b) 1. Bedding Compound. 2. Not applicable. 3. Hie first year that Georgia-Pacific or its predecessors sold bedding compound was 1956. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free bedding compound. 4. Dry white or off-white powder. 5. This product is used to finish walls and ceilings. 6. Packaged in bags. 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that bedding compound was a joint compound which contained 0 to 7% chrysotile asbestos. 8. See 7 above. (c) See (b)(3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret and which is irrelevant except for the information provided in response to (b)(7) above. (e) Its packaging. (f) See (b)(4) above. (g) See (b)(5) above. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM c.' ism BHKtK & Mus> 11.1 utK ci.rtcj.rriH i x Mu. rx> r.o/jw Page 5 of29 October 13,1997 Central Mix (a) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. (b) 1. Central Mix. 2. Not applicable. 3. 1970-1973. 4. Dry white or off-white powder. 5. This product was used to finish walls and ceilings. 6. Packaged in bags. 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs interrogatory on die grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that central mix was ajoint compound which contained 396-7% chrysotile asbestos. 8. See 7 above. (c) See (bX3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on foe grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret and which his irrelevant except for foe information provided in response to (b)(7) above. (e) Its packaging. () See (bX4) above. (g) See (b)(5) above. Dry Wall Adhesive (a) Georgia-Pacific. (b) 1. Dry wall adhesive. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM . .NOV.24.1337 2515PM BAKER & HOSTETLER* CINCINNATI NO.796 P.7730 Page 6 of29 October 13,1997 2. Not applicable. 3. 1972. 4. Paste. 5. Designed to adhere wallboard to wood studs. 6. Packaged in caulking tape tube. 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that dry wall adhesive was a dry wall adhesive which contained 0.8% chiysotile asbestos. B. See 7 above. (c) See (b)(3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret and which his irrelevant except for foe information provided in response to (bX7) above. (e) Its packaging. (f) See (b)(4) above. (g) See (b)(5) above. Joint Compound (a) Georgia-Pacific. (b) 1. Joint Compound, Joint System 2. Not applicable, 3. 1956-present Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-freejoint compound. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM NOV. 24.1997 2--15PM BAKER & HOSTETLER*CINCINNATI No.rsto r.a/jki Page 7 of29 October 13,1997 4. Dry white or off-white powder. 5. Joint compound is used to finish walls and ceilings. 6. Packaged in bags. 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states firstjoint compound is ajoint compound which contains 0 to 6% chryaotile asbestos. 8. See 7 above. (c) See (bX3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds first it seeks information which is a trade secret and which is irrelevant except for foe information provided in response to (b)(7) above. (e) Its packaging. (f) See (b)(4) above. (g) See (b)(5) above. Kalite (a) Geoxgia-Pacific's predecessor. (b) 1. Kalite 2. Not applicable. 3. 1956-1959. 4. Dry white or off-white powder. 5. Kalite was an acoustical plaster. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM nLv.c**.i33r CilbMl BHKtK & HOSTElLtK-ir(t.INNftTl NQ.rao Page 8 of29 October 13,1997 6. Packaged in bags, 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that kalite was an acoustical plaster which contained 0 to 2.6% chrysotile asbestos.. 8. See 7 above. (c) See (bX3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret and which his irrelevant except for the information provided in response to (bX7) above. (e) Its packaging. (f) See (b)(4) above. (g) See (b)(5) above. Laminating Compound-Ready Mix (a) Georgia-Pacific. (b) 1. Laminating Compound-Ready Mix 2. Not applicable. 3. 1969. 4. Paste. 5. This product was used to laminate wallboard. 6. Packaged in bags. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM c. ifat-n nu. < 3 r. <os ju Page 9 of29 October 13,1997 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving fids objection, Geaigia-Paeifio states that laminating compound-ready mix was a laminating compound which contained 0 to 4% chzysotile asbestos. 8. See 7 above. (c) See (b)(3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on file grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret and which his irrelevant except for fiie information provided in response to (b)(7) above. f*tkL. (e) Its packaging. (0 See (b)(4) above. (g) See (b)(5) above. Lite Acoustic (a) Georgia-Pacific's predecessor. (b) 1. Lite acoustic. 2. Not applicable. 3. 1958-1964. 4. Dry white or off-white powder. 5. Lite acoustic was an acoustical plaster. 6. Packaged in bags. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM . NOV.24.1997 2:16PM BAKER & HOSTETLER*CINCINNATI NU. r 30 r. ils&o Page 10 of 29 October 13,1997 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on fire grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that lite acoustic was an acoustical plaster which contained 25-29.09% cfarysotile asbestos. 8. See 7 above. (c) See (b)(3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret and which his irrelevant except for the information provided in response to (b)(7) above. (e) Its packaging. I (0 See (bX4) above. Si (g) See (b)(5) above. Patching Plaster (a) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. (b) 1. Patching plaster. 2. Not applicable. 3. 1956-present Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-fiee patching plaster. 4. Dry white or off-white powder. 5. Patching plaster is used to patch certain plasters. 6. Packaged in bags and boxes. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM nuv . tA. iyyr <l i6Pn bHKEK & HOSTETLER* LirK-iNNHI 1 I'lU. f^O Page 11 of29 October 13,1997 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks mformation which is a trade secret However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that patching plaster is a patching plaster which contains 0 to 2% cfaxysotile asbestos, t-- 8. See 7 above. (c) See (b)(3) above. 4( ) Georgia-Pacific otrjects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on file grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret and which bis irrelevant except for the information provided in response to (b)(7) above. (e) Its packaging. tf) (g) Ready Mix (a) (b) See (b)(4) above. See (b)(5) above. Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. 1. Ready mix. 2. Not applicable. 3. 1963-present Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free ready mix. 4. Paste. 5. Ready mix is used to finish walls or ceilings. 6. Packaged in boxes and cans. v* RECEIVED T1MEN0V. 24. 1:18PM . .NOV.24.1997 16PM BAKER & HOSTETLER/CINCINNATI NO.?9e> t-'.lJsdkS Page 12 of29 October 13,1997 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to fills portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on file grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that ready mix is a joint compound which contained 0 to 4.6% chrysotile asbestos. 8. See 7 above. (c) See (b)(3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs intenogatoxy on fixe grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret and which his irrelevant except for the information provided in response to (b)(7) above. (e) Its packaging. (f) See (b)(4) above. (g) See (b)(5) above. Spackling Compound (a) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. (b) 1. Spackling compound. 2. Not applicable. 3. 1956-1970 or 1971. 4. Dry white or off-white powder. 5. This product was used to finish walls and ceilings. 6. Packaged in bags and boxes. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM NOV.4.1937 Z516PM BflKER & HOSTETLER/ CINCINNATI NO.796 P.14730 Page 13 of 29 October 13,1997 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiff's interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that spackling compound was ajoint compound which contained 5.5% chrysotile asbestos. 8. See 7 above. (c) See (bX3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiff's interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret and which his irrelevant except for the information provided in response to (bX7) above. (e) Its packaging. (0 (S) Speed Set See (b)(4) above. See (b)(5) above. (a) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. (b) 1. Speed set 2. Not applicable. 3. 1963-present Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free speed set 4. Dry white or off-white powder. 5. Speed sot is used to finish walls or ceilings. 6. Packaged in bags. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM nuv.:<. iwr t.' l/m BHKJt-K & HOSTETLER* CINCINNATI NO.736 P.15/3W Page 14 of 29 October 13,1997 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to fins portion ofplaintiffs intenogatory on fire grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that speed set was a joint compound which contains 0 to 6.75% chiysotile asbestos. 8. See 7 above. (c) See (b)(3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiff's interrogatory on fire grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret and which his irrelevant except for the information provided in response to (bX7) above. (e) Its packaging. (f) See (bX4) above. (g) See (b)(5) above. Texture (a) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. (b) 1. Texture, certex, bestex, texture. 2. Not applicable. 3. 1956-present Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free texture. 4. Dry white or off-white powder. 5. Texture is used to give a textured appearance to walls or ceilings. 6. Packaged in bags. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM .NOV.24.1997 2:17PM BAKER & HOSTETLER/CINCINNATI r*j. i'So r.ityju Page IS of29 October 13,1997 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to fins portion ofplaintiff's interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret However, without waiving fins objection, Georgia-Pacific states that texture is a texture which contains 0 to 15% chiysotile asbestos. 8. See 7 above. (c) See (bX3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on file grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret and which his irrelevant except for the information provided in response to (b)(7) above. (e) Its packaging. (0 See (b)(4) above. (g) See (b)(5) above. Topping Compound (a) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessors. (b) 1. Topping compound. 2. Not applicable. 3. 1956-present. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free topping compound. 4. Dry white or off-white powder. 5. Topping compound is used to finish walls or ceilings. 6. Packaged in bags. VN. 1 RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM . NOV. tLA. 1.937 L: 17PM WHKLK & HOSTETLER* CINCINNATI NO.790 f. 1 (sdO Page 16 of29 October 13,1997 7. Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that topping compound is ajoint compound which contains 0 to 7% chrysotile asbestos. 8. See 7 above. (e) See (bX3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion ofplaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that.it seeks information which is a trade secret and which his irrelevant except for the information provided in response to (bX7) above. (e) Its packaging. (0 See (b)(4) above. (g) See (b)(5) above. Triple Duty Joint Compound (a) Georgia-Pacific. (b) 1. Triple duty. 2. Not applicable. 3. 1965-present Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free triple duty joint compound. 4. Dry white or off-white powder. 5. Triple duty is used to finish walls or ceilings. 6. Packaged in bags. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM NOV. 24.1937 t::i7PM BRKtK & HOST.lUtKUirn>irrli no. rx> r. Page 17 of 29 October 13,1997 7. Georgia-Pacific. Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs interrogatory on fire grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that triple duty is ajoint eompoundwhich contains 0 to 7% chrysotile asbestos. 8. See 7 above. (c) See (b)(3) above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objocts to this portion ofplaintiffs intexxogatoiy on fire grounds that it socks information which is a trade secret and which his % irrelevant except for fire information provided in response to (b)(7) above. (e) Its packaging. (0 See (bX4) above. (g) See (b)(5) above. 6. Georgia-Pacific has no record ofpatents issued for its asbestos-containing products. 7. Baron & Budd have previously reviewed formulas for Georgia-Pacific's products. Over the years, minor formula changes were made for each offile products. In the past formulas were produced to counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for plaintiffs may review formulas at a mutually agreed upon time. There would be no way to determine the exact purpose of each and every formula change. In general, formulas were changed to improve product performance or workability or because of the availability of certain raw materials. In 1970, an effort to remove RECEIVED T1MEN0V. 24. 1:18PM  nuv.^.isar = 17PT1 BHKEK & HOSTETLER/CINCINNATI NO.796 P.19730 Page 18 of 29 October 13,1997 asbestos from Georgia-Pacific's asbestos-containing products was undertaken. In die course of this effort, many different formulas were developed and tested. Asbestos-free formulas were used for all products by 1977. Asbestos-free formulas are still in use and are privileged trade secrets. 8. Georgia-Pacific products were distributed by Georgia-Pacific. Counsel for plaintiffs have reviewed Georgia-Pacific sales records in die past and may review diem at a mutually agreed upon time in Atlanta. It is unclear bow Illinois sales records could be relevant to this litigation. Georgia-Pacific does not have detailed records about products that were sold to Johns-Manvillc, Flintkote or Big Horn. Furthermore, Georgia-Pacific has no current information about Big Horn fit and in fact, does not know ifit still exists. The products sold were all ofdie same type as those products made by the Gypsum Division of Georgia-Pacific and by BestwalL Counsel far the plaintiffs have previously reviewed records concerning these sales. 8.2 & 8.3 Georgia-Pacific has no reason to believe that any ofits asbestos-containing products were ever used at Arznoo Steel. These products were not ofthe type that would be expected to be used at a steel mill and any such use would be unforeseeable and inappropriate. No records have been identified that show any sales to Aimco Steel. Georgia-Pacific does not know who else may have sold products to Armco Steel. J RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM NOV. A. iyy/ ' 18FT1 BHKtK & HOSTE.1 LLK* ^INCiNNH I 1 no.ry& Page 19 of29 October 13.1997 9. Georgia-Pacific has no information that any ofits sales representatives who had responsibility for any of its asbestos-containing products called on any Armco Steel Plant. Furthermore, there would be no reason for a Georgia-Pacific Gypsum sales person to call on such a facility* 12. The plant in Acme, Texas, has been in operation from 1956 through the present It manufactured Joint Systems, Lite Acoustic and Kahte, in addition to many products that did not * contain asbestos. The Blue Rapids, Kansas, plant has been in operation from 1956 through the present It manufactured Joint Systems and Lite Acoustic, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. The Ford Dodge, Iowa, plant has been in operation from 1956 through die present It manufactured Joint Systems and Lite Acoustic, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. The Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant has been in operation from 1956 through die present. It manufactured Lite Acoustic, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. The Sigurd, Utah, plant has been in operation from 1956 through die present It manufactured Joint Systems and Lite Acoustic, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. The Brunswick, Georgia, plant has been in operation from 1959 through die present It RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM ci iwti i3HKt_rs & MUbit.iixJocirfuj.rrt-111 nu. r.ti/oe Page 20 of 29 October 13,1997 manufactured Joint Systems and Lite Acoustic, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. 13. Georgia-Pacific does not have detailed records about products that were sold to JohnsManville, Flintkote or Big Horn. Furthermore, Georgia-Pacific has no current information about Big Horn and in fact, does not know ifit still exists. The products sold were all ofthe same type as those products made by the Gypsum Division of Georgia-Pacific and by BestwalL Counsel for the plaintiffs have previously reviewed records concerning sales. % 14. C. W.Lebnert's address is 4100 Steamboat Bend East, Fort Meyers, Florida. The addresses ofHoggatt and Shuttleworth are unknown. IS. Dryjoint compound was mixed with water and applied to drywall with a trowel It could be lightly brushed with a wet sponge or lightly sanded to remove imperfections in the Ready Mix was premixed and was applied wet to drywall with a trowel and brushed with a sponge or lightly sanded. Acoustical plaster and textures could be applied to walls or ceilings with a machine or mixed with water and applied to walls or ceilings with a trowel or other tool 16. Some asbestos-containing joint system products created dust during mixing or application, whereas others (such as ReadyMix, sold in paste form) did not Sanding with sandpaper could create dust, whereas brushing with a wet sponge would not Once die product RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM BHKtX & HU911.1 IX rtu. rao r. ilc.' Page 21 of29 October 13,1997 was properly installed, Georgia-Pacific is not aware of any dust being released from any ofits asbestos-containing products. 17. Formulas for the products exist and have been produced by Georgia-Pacific and reviewed by counsel for the plaintiffs. 18. Prior to the time Georgia-Pacific or Bestwall placed products that contained a small amount of asbestos on the market, defendant did not know or have reason to know thst any ingredient in any product which it made was hazardous. To fee best ofour knowledge, GeorgiaPacific did not conduct medical tests. When Georgia-Pacific first heard a suggestion feat there might be a potential health hazard to persons using products similar to those manufactured by Georgia-Pacific, it began a reformulation program which resulted in fee elimination of asbestos from its asbestos-containing products and/or removal ofcertain products from its product lines. 19. Documents concerning performance testing of fee products have been produced by Georgia-Pacific and reviewed by counsel for fee plaintiffs. 21. Georgia-Pacific did not know or have reason to know feat any ingredient in any product which it made was hazardous. To the best of our knowledge, Georgia-Pacific did not conduct medical tests. During fee time Georgia-Pacific manufactured asbestos-containing products a RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM  rtuv.ew. ltst-n bHKLK & Hub 11.1 LtK> cinuxmH i i nu. c'bo r.tL*/36 Page 22 of 29 October 13,1997 variety ofperformance tests were performed. Records ofthe test were produced to and reviewed by counsel for plaintiffs. When Georgia-Pacific first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons using products similar to those manufactured by GeorgiaPacific, it began a reformulation program which resulted in the elimination ofasbestos from its asbestos-containing products and/or removal ofcertain products from its product lines. Many tests were performed in tire course oftire reformulation programs. Documents reflecting these tests have been produced to and reviewed by counsel for plaintiffs. 22. Georgia-Pacific is not a medical institution and did not conduct medical tests. 25 and 26. Beginning in the late 1960's Georgia-Pacific became aware ofpotential health hazards to persons exposed to asbestos in sufficient quantities who woe employed in unrelated industries. At or about the same time, Georgia-Pacific became aware of disputes within the medical or scientific community as to whether, and under what circumstances, breathing asbestos dust could cause or contribute to asbestosis, mesothelioma or hmg cancer. These medical and scientific disputes continued throughout tire time Georgia-Pacific was engaged in the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and the dispute continues ever as oftoday. Georgia-Pacific employees Matthew Fink and Glenn Wilson who may have had personal knowledge concerning these matter have died and cannot provide additional details. To the best RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM NOV.24.1997 2*18PM BRKEK & HOSTETUJ<rliMULNNHU nu. rx> r.c.twso Page 23 of 29 October 13,1997 of Georgia-Pacific's knowledge, the first study in the published medical and scientific literature regarding potential disease associated with asbestos-containing drywall products, such as those manufactured by Georgia-Pacific did not appear until approximately 197S. ^ 27. Georgia-Pacific never employed a physician as medical director. There is no record that lists every person who could have studied or investigated, in any way, asbestos-related disease. Many physicians were retained to perform examination of Georgia-Pacific's employees pursuant to OSHA regulations. However, these physicians and their findings are not relevant to this litigation and are not calculated to lead to die discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs were not employed in joint compound facilities. Furthermore, it has not been shown that they were end users ofproducts offire type manufactured by Georgia-Pacific. Additionally, GeorgiaPacific employees have a right ofprivacy concerning their medioal examinations. 29. As stated previously, Georgia-Pacific never employed a medical officer. Georgia-Pacific has no specific information regarding "recommendations" made by industrial hygienists or medical consultants. Beginning in the late 1960's Georgia-Pacific became aware ofpotential health hazards to persons exposed to asbestos in sufficient quantities who were employed in unrelated industries. At or about file same time, Georgia-Pacific became aware of disputes within the medical or scientific community as to whether, and under what circumstances, breathing asbestos dust could cause or contribute to asbestosis, mesothelioma or lung cancer. These medical and scientific disputes continued throughout the time Georgia-Pacific was RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM lym 111 LJ%# IA nu* Page 24 of 29 October 13,1997 engaged in the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and die dispute continues ever as of today. Georgia-Pacific employees Matthew Fink and Glenn Wilson who had personal knowledge ofthese matter have died and cannot provide additional details. To the best of Georgia-Pacific's knowledge, the first study in die published medical and scientific literature regarding potential disease associated with asbestos-containing drywall products, such as those manufactured by Georgia-Pacific did not appear until approximately 1975. 30. Georgia-Pacific has no records concerning periodical subscriptions between 1945 and 1975. i? 31 and 32. In November 1973, testing ofproducts similar to those ofGeorgia-Pacific was conducted through die Gypsum Association in which Georgia-Pacific was a member. The tests were done with OSHA approval. The results ofthe testing are contained in a report dated November 19,1973 entitled "Evaluation ofExposure to Asbestos During Mixing and Sanding of Joint Compounds," which was finalized and made available to members in the spring of 1974. A copy ofdie report was produced and reviewed by counsel for plaintiffs. It is believed that counsel for plaintiffmaintain a copy ofthis document. 33. Georgia-Pacific does not presently have information about when it first received this information. It is likely that either Matthew Fink or Glen Wilson, both of whom are dead, first received the information, although it can not be confirmed because oftheir unavailability. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM %NOV.24.1997 2:19PM BAKER & HOSTETLER*CINCINNATI Page 25 of29 October 13,1997 NO.796 P.26*'30 34. Georgia-Pacific never maintamed specific industrial hygiene, medicine, safety, or research libraries. Georgia-Pacific does not now maintain a general library. The general library was dismantled in 1994. It was not created or maintained as a medical or scientific library and it is very unlikely that it contained publications regarding asbestos. There are no records of any asbestos-related publications in that library. 37. No, Georgia-Pacific was never a member of any trade associations specifically consisting ofmanufacturers, miners, distributors or sellers ofasbestos-containing products. As stated in its previous response, Georgia-Pacific was a member offile Gypsum Association, ASTM and AWCl Membership dates are unknown for ASTM and AWCL Gypsum Association dates were given in the previous response. Georgia-Pacific does not have detailed information regarding all publications ofthese associations. Publications in Georgia-Padfic's possession have previously been produced to counsel for plaintiffs and copies of this document production are believed to be maintained in the files of counsel for plaintiffs. More detailed information concerning publications ofthese trade associations can be obtained from the trade associations. 38. Minutes ofmeetings may be available through the trade association but these documents are not under Georgia-Pacifie's custody or control. Some minutes and correspondence were identified in Georgia-Pacifie's business records. Copies ofthese documents were produced to RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM iNOV.24.1597 2:19PM BAKER & HOSTETLER# CINCINNATI no. Page 26 of 29 October 13,1997 counsel for plaintiffs and it is believed that counsel for plaintiffs maintained copies. They may be reviewed again at a mutually agreed upon time in Atlanta. 39. Georgia-Pacific did not maintain periodical lists for its trade associations. 40. Interrogatory 40 is vague and overly broad. As stated previously, it would be impossible to identify every meeting or representative of Georgia-Pacific may have attended where asbestos hazards were discussed. To foe best of our knowledge, prior to 1975, Georgia-Pacific has no record ofhaving attended any legislative hearing concerning asbestos. Asbestos was discussed in certain meetings offoe Gypsum Association. Minutes of these meetings have been produced to counsel for plaintiffs and in fact have been previously identified as exhibits by counsel for plaintiffs* exhibit lists. Georgia-Pacific objects to foe extent that this interrogatory seeks information about meetings which are attorney-client privileged. 42. Georgia-Pacific can not respond on behalf of any entity other than itself. Furthermore we are not aware of any other entity that would have advertised Georgia-Pacific's products. The small amount of advertising that exists have hem previously produced to counsel for plaintiffs. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM nov.24.iyyy 4 =iypn BHKLK & HOSTElLtK#UiNCJ.NNHU NO. <-30 r.co/ou Page 27 of 29 October 13,1997 44. Georgia-Pacific has no ^formation to indicate dial it ever distributed information to anyone associated with Armco and believes that since it did not supply products ofthe type used by Annco and never sold products to Annco that it would never have corresponded with Annoo. 45. This interrogatory is unclear. Apparently, in the main portion, it asks about manufacturing asbestos containing products that are hazard free. Some asbestos-containing joint system products created dost during mixing or application, whereas others (such as ReadyMix, sold in paste form) did not Sanding with sandpaper could create dust, whereas brushing with a \ wet sponge would not Once die product was properly installed, Georgia-Pacific is not aware of any dust being released from any ofits asbestos-containing products. Georgia-Pacific never manufactured or sold any asbestos containing insulation products. In the subsections ofdie interrogatory, it appears to ask about replacement substances used in place of asbestos. In the 1970s Georgia-Pacific first received information which suggested a possible potential health hazard associated with the use of ssbcstos-containing products in the building construction industry. As a result, Georgia-Pacific immediately began efforts to reformulate its products to eliminate asbestos. No one substance was ever identified which could be used in place of asbestos in Georgia-Pacific's asbestos containing products. Several products could not be reformulated and were withdrawn from the market. Formulas for replacement products are in use today and are privileged trade secrets. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM NOV.24.1997 ZJ20PM BAKER & HOSTETLER/ CiNLiNNATI NO. r.c.'asaa Page 28 of29 October 13,1997 46. See response to 44. Georgia-Pacific does not believe any ofits products were used st Armco. As explained in our previous response, packaging for Georgia-Pacific products had warnings and products in use would have displayed the warnings. However, Georgia-Pacific does not believe Armco ever purchased or used any Georgia-Pacific asbestos containing products and does not believe it ever communicated directly with Armco. 56. Coverage for Georgia-Pacific asbestos claims is uncertain. Potential coverage depends upon many factors such as dates of exposure and date of disease manifestation. Coverage for each plaintiffs claim is determined individually, based upon many factors, including that particular individuals own exposure dates and disease manifestation dates. Without specific information for a particular plaintiff; Georgia-Pacific can not state what, if any, insurance is available. 58. Georgia-Pacific believes the last sale of its asbestos-containing products was shortly after it ceased manufacture ofthe products. At present we have no more complete information concerning the last sale of asbestos-containing products. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1: 18PM  ITS/T 1791 foam tJHKt-K & MUbI tTLtK* LiNCiNNRTI no. /bo r. Page 29 of 29 October 13,1997 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS The law firm ofBaron & Budd has conducted several oomplete document productions of Georgia-Pacific documents. Copies were made and we expect they are maintained in Baron ft Budd's files. From time to time, plaintiffs' experts have testified drat drey were furnished with copies of Georgia-Pacific documents by Baron ft Budd. Despite these previous thorough reviews of Georgia-Pacific's documents, and subject to all objections in our previous responses, you may review documents requested at a mutually agreed upon time in Atlanta, Georgia Sincerely, ft HOSTETLER LLP REH/jmb Robin E. Harvey RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM NOV.E4.1997 514PM BAKER & HOSTETLER/CINCINNATI BAKER HOSTETLER llp Counsellors at Law MU. cx> r. i/jv CAV ^ Suite 2650.312 Walnut Street. Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-4038 . (513) 929-3400. Fax (513) 929-0303 DATE: November 24,1997 COMPANY: Baron & Budd NAME: Ladd Gibke, Esq. FAX NUMBER: (214) 520-1181 COMMENT: FROM: Robin E. Harvey, Esq. Baker Sc Hostetler LLP 312 Walnut Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-4038 Phone: (513)929-3408 Fax: (513)929-0303 ATTORNEY #4199 "'HARGETO: 61906-1 (CHentiMatter Number) We are transmitting 30 page(s), including this cover letter. If transmission la net complete, please call (513) 929-3400. AFTER TRANSMISSION PLEASE RETURN TO: .! ! -i : I-'1 4.,t *' ' 3 Secretary Attorney/Paralegal Other THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. be reader of this message is not die intended recipient or die employee of agent responsible for delivering die message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (collect), and return die original message to us at die above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. RECEIVED TIMENOV. 24. 1:18PM