Document 1JeMqnRnKpZvMK7M51nwn1KX

IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED OR TO BE FILED IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 68TM JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT IJTEX INDUSTRIES. INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION COMES NOW Defendant UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC. and, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, serves its Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Request for Production. Respectfully submitted, A K--' JAMES D. STANTON State Bar No. 19053260 ERIC W. MCNEIL State Bar No. 13830320 ~ THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES D. STANTON Turtle Creek Centre 3811 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Suite 450 Dallas, Texas 75219 Telephone: (214) 559-3232 Facsimile: (214) 559-0777 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION IL'LITM 16\15\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on Plaintiffs' counsel of record, via fax and certified mail, return receipt requested, on this the / ^ day of September, 2001. 1! -. /v L_. JAMES D. STANTON ERIC W. MCNEIL DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P" LIP* l 10^ 15 V\ns. Discovery, wpd Page 2 INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant of each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: Ray Snow Fred Pippert UTEX Industries, Inc. 10810 Old Katy Road Houston, Texas 77043 Mr. Snow has been employed by Defendant for 32 years. Each of his positions and the years they were held are listed below: Inside Sales, 1969-71 Outside Sales, 1971 Industrial Sales, 1972-73 Assistant Sales Manager, 1974-77 Sales Manager, 1977-82 Vice President General Sales Manager, 1982-86 Vice President Director of Sales, 1986-87 Vice President Director of Corporate Marketing, 1987-92 Vice President Corporate Marketing/Secretary, 1992-95 Executive Vice President, 1995-2001 Vice President Chief Operating Officer, 2001-present Mr. Pippert has been employed by Defendant for 30 years. Each of his positions and the years they were held are listed below: Inside Sales, 1971-73 Project Engineering, 1973-77 Manager Research & Development, 1977-82 Vice President Research/Development, 1982 Vice President Engineering & Technology, 1982-92 Vice President Engineering/Manufacturing Operations, 1992-98 Vice President Engineering/Corporate Manufacturing Operations, 1998-present DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1J:' LIT' 1 I 6W 5'Ails. Discovery wpd Page 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your correct corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the address of your principal place of business, the name and address of the person or entity authorized to accept service of process on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas. ANSWER: Defendant is a Texas corporation. Defendant's correct corporate name and principal place of business are: UTEX Industries, Inc. 10810 Old Katy Road Houston, Texas 77043 Defendant's registered agent for service of process is Joel J. Pippert, at the above address. Defendant currently holds a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale of material containing asbestos fibers? If so, identify the location of the mine(s), the years of its operation, the type of asbestos mined and whether you sold any asbestos to any Defendants in the Dallas County asbestos litigation. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time manufactured or sold. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1J `LITM 1 6M 5\Ans.Discovery wpd Page 4 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the product catalogs and brochures that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time marketed or sold. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the product catalogs and brochures that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If the answer to one or more of the last three interrogatories is in the affirmative or lists any products, state as to each named product the following: A. As to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. B. The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each product mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION I1: ` LIT' 1 16\| 5'Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 5 C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold. D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market. E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage of asbestos put in each product. F. The date each of the products was removed from the market and no longer sold or distributed and the reason or reasons therefor. G. The date asbestos was removed from such products, if ever, and the reasons therefor. H. A description of the physical appearance of each of the named products. I. A detailed description of the intended uses of the named products. J. Identify the last year that you sold each asbestos-containing product. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the product catalogs and brochures that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the design, preparation, or introduction into the market of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 still exist? If so, state: DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16\l 5\Ans.Discovery, wpd Page 6 A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where the documents are currently located. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. . Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the product catalogs and brochures that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Before distributing, selling, or placing the products listed in your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 into the streams of commerce, were any tests conducted to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products tested and the date of each test. B. The name, address, and job title of each person conducting the tests or involved with conducting the tests. C. The results of the tests. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16\ 15\Ans. Discovery,wpd Page 7 former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that it received some information during the 1970's regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant cannot state with certainty the sources of such information. However, Ray Snow has been attending meetings of the Fluid Sealing Association twice per year since approximately 1972, and believes that he received information regarding potential health effects and/or health hazards for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust during the early to mid-1970's at one or more of those meetings. The information received by Ray Snow specifically related to claims or lawsuits connected to the use of Johns-Manville insulation materials that contained asbestos. Defendant then contacted the vendors from which it purchased asbestos-containing products and asked them questions regarding potential health effects and/or health hazards for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant was informed by its vendors that Defendant's products did not pose any health hazards because, unlike Johns-Manville's insulation materials, the asbestos in Defendant's products was fully encapsulated and therefore could not become airborne. In addition to contacting its vendors to obtain this information. Defendant hired one or more outside companies to perform tests which measured the quantity of asbestos fibers, if any, released by (1) Defendant's manufacturing processes involving asbestos-containing products, and (2) the cutting of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing sold by Defendant. Defendant has previously produced to Plaintiffs' counsel all documents in its possession relating to such tests. Defendant does not recall who was retained to perform such tests, the exact dates of such tests, or the specific results of such tests, other than as indicated in the documents produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the testing of the products referred to in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\ 15\A ns. Discovery, wpd Page 8 Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has previously produced to Plaintiffs' counsel all documents in its possession relating to such tests. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Did Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies make any design changes or modifications as a result of those tests described in responses to Interrogatory No. 8? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The trade names of the products changed. B. The nature of the changes made and the date of such changes or modifications. C. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having caused a change to be made, or having made a change or modification. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: After releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use of or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products tested and the dates of such tests. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests. C. The results of those tests. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16M 5'Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 9 D. Whether, as a result of the tests, any products were removed from the market. E. The names of all products removed from the market as a result of these tests. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it received some information during the 1970's regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant cannot state with certainty the sources of such information. However, Ray Snow has been attending meetings of the Fluid Sealing Association twice per year since approximately 1972, and believes that he received information regarding potential health effects and/or health hazards for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust during the early to mid-1970's at one or more of those meetings. The information received by Ray Snow specifically related to claims or lawsuits connected to the use ofJohns-Manville insulation materials that contained asbestos. Defendant then contacted the vendors from which it purchased asbestos-containing products and asked them questions regarding potential health effects and/or health hazards for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant was informed by its vendors that Defendant's products did not pose any health hazards because, unlike Johns-Manville's insulation materials, the asbestos in Defendant's products was fully encapsulated and therefore could not become airborne. In addition to contacting its vendors to obtain this information, Defendant hired one or more outside companies to perform tests which measured the quantity of asbestos fibers, if any, released by (1) Defendant's manufacturing processes involving asbestos-containing products, and (2) the cutting ofasbestos-containing gaskets and packing sold by Defendant. Defendant has previously produced to Plaintiffs' counsel all documents in its possession relating to such tests. Defendant does not recall who was retained to perform such tests, the exact dates of such tests, or the specific results of such tests, other than as indicated in the documents produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\15\Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the potential health hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. The name of each product. B. A description of each document and how it relates to each product. C. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant has previously produced to Plaintiffs' counsel all such documents in its possession. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of the tests discussed in your response to Interrogatories No. 8 or 11? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products changed or modified. B. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having made a change or modification. C. The nature of the hazard or defect which resulted in such change or modification. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\I 16\15\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 11 ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material or any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of the asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No. 6? If so, state: A. The names of each relevant product. B. The exact wording of each warning statement on each printed material. C. A description of the printed material other than the warning statement. D. The method used to distribute the warning to persons likely to use the product. E. The date each warning was first issued, distributed, or placed on packaging. F. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning. G. The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof. H. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, i.e., the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\L1TM 16\ 15\Ans. Discovery, vvpd Page 12 Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states that it received some information during the 1970's regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant cannot state with certainty the sources of such information. However, Ray Snow has been attending meetings of the Fluid Sealing Association twice per year since approximately 1972, and believes that he received information regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust during the early to mid-1970's at one or more of those meetings. The information received by Ray Snow specifically related to claims or lawsuits connected to the use of JohnsManville insulation materials that contained asbestos. Defendant then contacted the vendors from which it purchased asbestos-containing products and asked them questions regarding potential health effects and/or health hazards for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant was informed by its vendors that Defendant's products did not pose any health hazards because, unlike Johns-Manville's insulation materials, the asbestos in Defendant's products was fully encapsulated and therefore could not become airborne. At some point thereafter. Defendant nevertheless began providing written warnings with its products concerning the possibility of injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. In response to each subpart above. Defendant states as follows: A. Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the product catalogs and brochures that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. B. Defendant does not recall the exact wording of any of the warnings provided. C. The warnings provided by Defendant were in the form of adhesive labels, which were placed either on the packaging that contained Defendant's products, or directly upon the products themselves. D. See answer to subpart C above. E. Defendant does not recall the date on which such warnings were first issued. F. Defendant does not recall who drafted or issued such warnings. G. Defendant does not know the current location of any such printed material. H. Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. IS: Before 1970, had you received notice that any individual or individuals, other than those Plaintiffs who have filed personal injury actions in Dallas County, Texas, is or are claiming or has or have claimed an injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company or any of its predecessors or subsidiaries before 1970? If so, state: A. The name and address of each claimant. B. The date of notice of each claim. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PALITM 16\l 5\Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 13 C. A description of the claim. D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained. E. The name and address of each attorney who represents each individual making a claim. F. The style and court number of each claim. G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Were your asbestos products distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled and/or sold by companies other than your own? If the answer is affirmative, list the names and addresses of each of those companies, and the products in question. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that most of the asbestos products sold by Defendant were purchased from various manufacturers or distributors, and then resold by Defendant to various distributors and OEM's, who in turn resold such products to other distributors and end users. It would therefore be impossible for Defendant to identify all of the companies in question for all time periods and all locations. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\l S^Ans-Discovcry-wpcl Page 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Did you or any of your predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries have any distributors or sales representatives of asbestos products in the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such distributor or sales representatives. B. The years in which such company or person distributed, marketed, or sold your products. C. What products were distributed, marketed, or sold and in what years. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: List each employee (including only physicians and/or hygienists) who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals and who has, had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of asbestos. ANSWER: Not applicable. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16\15\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so, state: A. The name of each such publication. B. The date of publication and the names of the author and publisher (if any). C. The date received by Defendant, if known. D. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that copies of all such written materials, if any, have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of asbestos comprised of other manufacturers, miners, marketers, and/or sellers of asbestos products? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such association or organization. B. The dates during which Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors were members. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16\15\Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 16 C. The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations. D. Whether any of those publications are still in your possession, and if so: 1. A description of the publications, including the date. 2. The current location of such publications. 3. The custodian of such publications. 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states that it received some information during the 1970's regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant cannot state with certainty the sources of such information. However, Ray Snow has been attending meetings of the Fluid Sealing Association twice per year since approximately 1972, and believes that he received information regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust during the early to mid-1970's at one or more of those meetings. The information received by Ray Snow specifically related to claims or lawsuits connected to the use of JohnsManville insulation materials that contained asbestos. Defendant then contacted the vendors from which it purchased asbestos-containing products and asked them questions regarding potential health effects and/or health hazards for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant was informed by its vendors that Defendant's products did not pose any health hazards because, unlike Johns-Manville's insulation materials, the asbestos in Defendant's products was fully encapsulated and therefore could not become airborne. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\L1TAI16\15\Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 17 With regard to each subpart above, Defendant states as follows: A. Fluid Sealing Association, 994 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 1019, Wayne, PA 19089. B. 1972-80, 1985-89, 1992-present (dates are approximate). C. Defendant does not recall. D. None to Defendant's knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products listed in your answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 were manufactured, assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing, specifying which plants produced each item, the dates each plant is or was in operation, and the time span during which each named item was produced or manufactured. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has operated plants at the following locations during the following periods of time (dates are approximate): 1950-60: 1960-76: 1976-present: Houston, Texas Humble, Texas Weimar, Texas INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes of marketing or advertising products containing asbestos? If so, state: DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\I 16\15\Ans. Discovery,wpd Page I 8 A. The name, address, and job title of each person or entity who prepared such materials. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials and their present location. C. The date the materials were prepared. D. The media used to disseminate the sales materials. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the product catalogs and brochures that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Have any written or printed materials or instructions of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents indicating how asbestos products should be used and maintained? If so, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person who prepared such materials or instructions or assisted in their preparation. B. The name, address and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials or instructions and their present location. C. The dates of distribution or use and the manner in which such materials or instructions were distributed to purchasers of Defendant's products or those of its subsidiaries or predecessors. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16\15\Ans. Discovery,wpd Page 19 D. The year each such written material or instruction was prepared and disclosed to potential consumers. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the product catalogs and brochures that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claims made by Plaintiffs in these cases? If so, list the name of each insurance carrier, the amount of initial coverage, amount of coverage remaining at the present time, and the effective dates of each policy. (If properly answered, this Interrogatory need not be supplemented as to the remaining amount of coverage). ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the insurance policies that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\I 16\15\Ans.Discovery, wpd Page 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 25: As to the disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was.caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease. C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease and/or of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states that it received some information during the 1970's regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant cannot state with certainty the sources of such information. However, Ray Snow has been attending meetings of the Fluid Sealing Association twice per year since approximately 1972, and believes that he received information regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust during the early to mid-1970's at one or more of those meetings. The information received DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16\15\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 21 by Ray Snow specifically related to claims or lawsuits connected to the use of JohnsManville insulation materials that contained asbestos. Defendant then contacted the vendors from which it purchased asbestos-containing products and asked them questions regarding potential health effects and/or health hazards for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant was informed by its vendors that Defendant's products did not pose any health hazards because, unlike Johns-Manville's insulation materials, the asbestos in Defendant's products was fully encapsulated and therefore could not become airborne. With regard to each subpart above, Defendant further states: A. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding asbestosis or its causes. B. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding asbestosis. C. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific information regarding asbestosis or its adverse consequences or effects. D. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific information regarding asbestosis or its adverse consequences or effects. E. None to Defendant's knowledge. F. Not applicable. G. Defendant has .never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding asbestosis or its causes. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: As to the disease lung cancer, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16\l5\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 22 F. Who is the custodian of such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states that it received some information during the 1970's regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant cannot state with certainty the sources of such information. However, Ray Snow has been attending meetings of the Fluid Sealing Association twice per year since approximately 1972, and believes that he received information regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust during the early to mid-1970's at one or more of those meetings. The information received by Ray Snow specifically related to claims or lawsuits connected to the use of JohnsManville insulation materials that contained asbestos. Defendant then contacted the vendors from which it purchased asbestos-containing products and asked them questions regarding potential health effects and/or health hazards for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant was informed by its vendors that Defendant's products did not pose any health hazards because, unlike Johns-Manville's insulation materials, the asbestos in Defendant's products was fully encapsulated and therefore could not become airborne. With regard to each subpart above. Defendant further states: A. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding lung cancer or its causes. B. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding lung cancer or its relationship to asbestos exposure. C. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific information regarding the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure except as stated above. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\15VAns.Discovery.wpd Page 23 D. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific information regarding the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure except as stated above. E. None to Defendant's knowledge. F. Not applicable. G. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding lung cancer or its causes. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: As to pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LJT\1 16\15\Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 24 Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states that it received some information during the 1970's regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant cannot state with certainty the sources of such information. However, Ray Snow has been attending meetings of the Fluid Sealing Association twice per year since approximately 1972, and believes that he received information regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust during the early to mid-1970's at one or more of those meetings. The information received by Ray Snow specifically related to claims or lawsuits connected to the use of JohnsManville insulation materials that contained asbestos. Defendant then contacted the vendors from which it purchased asbestos-containing products and asked them questions regarding potential health effects and/or health hazards for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant was informed by its vendors that Defendant's products did not pose any health hazards because, unlike Johns-Manville's insulation materials, the asbestos in Defendant's products was fully encapsulated and therefore could not become airborne. With regard to each subpart above, Defendant further states: A. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding the diseases listed or their causes. B. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding the diseases listed or their causes. C. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific information regarding the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure except as stated above. D. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific information regarding the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure except as stated above. E. None to Defendant's knowledge. F. Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\15\Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 25 C. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. G. Who is the custodian of such information. H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states that it received some information during the 1970's regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant cannot state with certainty the sources of such information. However, Ray Snow has been attending meetings of the Fluid Sealing Association twice per year since approximately 1972, and believes that he received information regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust during the early to mid-1970's at one or more of those meetings. The information received by Ray Snow specifically related to claims or lawsuits connected to the use of JohnsManville insulation materials that contained asbestos. Defendant then contacted the vendors from which it purchased asbestos-containing products and asked them questions regarding potential health effects and/or health hazards for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant was informed by its vendors that Defendant's products did not pose any health hazards because, unlike Johns-Manville's insulation materials, the asbestos in Defendant's products was fully encapsulated and therefore could not become airborne. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\1 16\l5\Ans Discovery.wpd Page 26 With regard to each subpart above. Defendant further states: A. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding mesothelioma or its causes. B. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding mesothelioma or its causes. C. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific information regarding mesothelioma or its causes. D. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific information regarding the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure except as stated above. E. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific information regarding the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure except as stated above. F. None to Defendant's knowledge. G. Not applicable. H. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding mesothelioma or its treatment. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: As to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such diseases were caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. What cancers has the Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers? C. The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated with Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16\15\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 27 G. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states that it received some information during the 1970's regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant cannot state with certainty the sources of such information. However, Ray Snow has been attending meetings of the Fluid Sealing Association twice per year since approximately 1972, and believes that he received information regarding potential health effects for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust during the early to mid-1970's at one or more of those meetings. The information received by Ray Snow specifically related to claims or lawsuits connected to the use of JohnsManville insulation materials that contained asbestos. Defendant then contacted the vendors from which it purchased asbestos-containing products and asked them questions regarding potential health effects and/or health hazards for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust. Defendant was informed by its vendors that Defendant's products did not pose any health hazards because, unlike Johns-Manvilie's insulation materials, the asbestos in Defendant's products was fully encapsulated and therefore could not become airborne. With regard to each subpart above, Defendant further states: A. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding the diseases listed or their causes. B. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific knowledge regarding cancer or its causes. C. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific information regarding cancer or its causes. D. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific information regarding the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure except as stated above. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P \LIT\116\l 5V\ns.Discovery.wpd Page 28 E. Defendant has never had a medical department or medical section, and has no specific information regarding the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure except as stated above. F. None to Defendant's knowledge. G. Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Does Defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactured or designed so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or exposed to them? If the answer is affirmative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys on which this answer is based. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Describe in detail the types of packages or packaging which Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies used for asbestos material or products, listing the dates each type of package was used, a physical description of each type ofpackage, and providing a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\l5\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 29 former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the product catalogs and brochures that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos materials or asbestos products? If so, state, as to each such agreement: A. The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products. B. The trade name affixed to those products. C. The periods of time covered by each such agreement. D. The volume, in dollar amount, of each transaction. E. The initial purchaser of the products. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant does not recall ever entering into a "rebranding agreement" with any other company, either as buyer or as seller. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\15\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 30 INTERROGATORY NO. 33: List the name and address of each company from which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor purchased materials or asbestos products which Defendant sold or distributed in any form, stating the form of the materials, the dates of such purchases, and the ultimate disposal of such materials. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Does Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessor currently have possession of any writings or contracts on those rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to Interrogatory No. 32? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person having custody of each of those documents and their current location. B. A brief description of each such document, including the dates and the parties signatory. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Prior to 1968, did any person file a claim against a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he/she contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers? If so, provide: DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\15\Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 31 A. A list of the claims, including each claimant's name, address and the date each claim was filed, and including the caption and jurisdiction of the claim. B. The disease alleged in each such claim. C. A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim. D. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? If so, for each such set of minutes, state: A. The dates of each such meeting. B. The general subject matter discussed at each meeting. C. Who was in attendance at each meeting. D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained. E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format. F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. ANSWER: No. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM16\l5\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 32 INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Do you or any of your subsidiaries, including foreign business entities, currently manufacture any products containing asbestos? If so, state: A. As to each product, whether such product is mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold. B. The names and addresses ofthe companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each of those products. C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market. E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product. F. A description of the physical appearance of each product and its packaging. G. A detailed description of the intended uses of each of the named products. H. Whether there are any warning labels on said products or containers regarding potential asbestos-related health hazards. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: State whether you or any of your predecessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies of invoices, shipping documents, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the mining, manufacture, marketing, sale or distribution of asbestos products. If so, state: A. The location of such documents. B. The name and address of the custodian of the documents. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\15\Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 33 C. The format in which the documents are kept, i.e., hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. D. In what form the documents can be accessed, i.e., by state, by product, etc., and if by product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that such records no longer exist. INTERROGATORY NO. 39: May you call company representatives as witnesses at the trial of any of these cases? If so, list: A. The name, address, and job title of each company representative who may be called. B. A summary of the testimony expected to be given by each such witness. C. List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs in that case. ANSWER: Defendant has made no determination regarding trial witnesses at this time, but will supplement to provide this information. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\I 16\15\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 34 INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Have Defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed, or contracted or supplied products containing asbestos? If so, for each such entity, state: A. Full and correct name; B. Principal place of business; C. State of incorporation; D. Date of acquisition by Defendant; E. Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in the State of Texas; ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Was each of your asbestos products generally expected to reach, or packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? If not, with respect to any such product, explain in what way the Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\15VAns.Discovery, wpd Page 35 INTERROGATORY NO. 42: For each asbestos-containing product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6, identify all foreseeable users such as insulators, helpers, pipefitters, welders, machinists, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, boilermakers, shipwrights and riggers, etc. of any of Defendant's asbestoscontaining products. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Based upon the material contents of your asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, can such products be generally applied without liberating asbestos fibers into the air? A. If there is a different answer concerning different products manufactured, sold, distributed, or used by your company, then specify the different products by precise manufacturer's name and popular name. B. If there is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in which a particular product was used, then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you are referring to and year involved. ANSWER: Yes. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\1 16\ 15\Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 36 INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Was it a foreseeable use of your asbestos-containing products that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced at some time after installation? ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Before 1970, did you or your subsidiaries or predecessors ever arrange for any labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company to go to job sites where your products were being used or installed to make or take dust level counts? If so, state when this procedure started, the purpose of such procedures, and all results of such procedures. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant is currently unaware of any such activities during the time period inquired about. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16\15\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 37 INTERROGATORY NO. 46: If Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is currently unaware of any such activities during the time period inquired about. INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Has your company or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies designed to assist in minimizing or eliminating the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use of your company's products? If so, give the following: A. Name of the person or firm conducting such studies; B. The date the studies began and the date they were completed; C. Any publication or other written dissemination of the results of the studies; D. The nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\15\Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 38 Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as being vague and ambiguous with respect to the term "studies." INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Does your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessors or subsidiaries ever had, a Research Department? If so, give the year such Research Department was established, and whether or not such Research Department has operated continuously since being established. State also: A. The amount of time and money expended each year on research concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products? B. What percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessors spend on research concerning the health effects of asbestos? C. State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities or such Research Department. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Does your company have, or has it ever had, or have your predecessors or subsidiaries ever had, a Medical Department? If so, state: A. The year such Medical Department was established; B. Whether or not such Medical Department has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Medical Director or Medical Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\L1TA116M 5\Ans. Discovery,wpd Page 39 ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Did your company or its predecessors or subsidiaries ever place any warning directly on any of its asbestos-containing product or on their packaging. If so, identify the product(s) and year said warning was first applied. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrogatory No. 14 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Did your company or its predecessors or subsidiaries ever stamp or place the name of the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any of its asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the name brand names of such products, a description of such stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16\l5\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 40 a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the product catalogs and brochures that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Has your company, or your predecessors or subsidiaries, ever devised a research plan to develop, or actually developed or had developed, a product which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for one or more of your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date that such research plan was begun and when such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Did your company or its predecessors or subsidiaries ever recall any products containing asbestos from the market or stream of commerce? If so, state: A. All details of such recall; B. The name of the product recalled, including the reason for the recall and the names and current addresses of those individuals who determined that it should take place; C. The dates of recall; D. The purpose for the recall. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16\15\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 41 ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Before 1970, did you ever manufacture or sell products which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date such asbestosfree products were first placed on the market. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Have any products you identified in your response to Interrogatory Nos. 52 and 54 not performed as intended? Please list all such products that have not performed as intended. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\15\Ans.Discovery, wpd Page 42 INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Did your company or its predecessors or subsidiaries ever make, order, or arrange for any industrial hygiene surveys regarding asbestos or asbestos-containing dust? If so, give the date of such surveys and state who, or what entity, was responsible for completion of such surveys. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections. Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as being vague and ambiguous with respect to the term "industrial hygiene surveys." INTERROGATORY NO. 57: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant or any predecessors or subsidiaries were first advised of such limits or concentrations; B. The name of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice; C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\I I6\I5YAns.Discovery.\vpd Page 43 former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that it currently has no specific information regarding such limits or concentrations other than what is contained in the documents previously produced to Plaintiffs' counsel, and further states: A. Defendant does not recall. B. Defendant does not recall. C. Defendant does not recall. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Were the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory No. 57 for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone? ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it currently has no specific information regarding such limits or concentrations other than what is contained in the documents previously produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: State in detail what tests, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing your asbestos-containing products. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\1 16\ 15\Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 44 ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 11 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Please state the following with respect to each expert witness you that you may call during trial of these cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you will call, including: (a) The name, address, and job classification of each such expert witness; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion; (d) Whether any person identified in subparagraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify each such document or report; (e) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above; (f) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\1 l6\15\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 45 ANSWER: Defendant objects to subpart (e) on the grounds that such request is beyond the scope of permissible expert discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant states that it has not yet made any determination regarding expert witnesses, but will supplement to provide the information requested. INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge of facts relevant to these cases involving, but not limited to: (a) identification of asbestos-containing products to which each and every individual Plaintiff, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, allegedly was exposed or facts disputing the identification of asbestos-containing products in this case. (b) Each and every individual Plaintiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged damages, injuries and/or facts disputing each and every Plaintiffs alleged damages and/or injuries; (c) the negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of each and every individual Plaintiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged injuries and/or damages; (d) each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed Answer in each of these cases. ANSWER: Defendant will supplement to provide this information as further information is obtained during discovery in this case. INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Please identify documents which will be used at time of trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\15\Ans. Discovery, wpd Page 46 ANSWER: Defendant will supplement to provide this information. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessor-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels," published in January, 1946 in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene & Toxicology, and authored by W. Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al ("the Fleischer-Drinker Report")? a. Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; b. please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Fleischer-Drinker" study prior to 1968; c. please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; d. please identify the name(s) and addresses) of any person(s) who can verify your above response; e. did Defendant ever rely on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk of asbestosrelated health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; f. if so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 63(a) above; g. if your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above? ANSWER: Defendant has never received this article. INTERROGATORY NO. 64: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Study of Asbestos in the Asbestos Textile Industry," published in 1938 in Public DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM16\l5\Ans.Discovery.wpd Page 47 Health Bill, No. 241, U.S. Public Health Service and authored by W.C. Dreessen ("the Dreessen Report")? a. Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; b. please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Dreessen" study prior to 1968; c. please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; d. please identify the name(s) and addresses of any person(s) who can verify your above response; e. did Defendant ever rely on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk of asbestosrelated health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; f. if so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory 63(a) above; g. if your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above? ANSWER: Defendant has never received this article. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LIT\116\15VAns.Discovery.wpd Page 48 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce a true and correct copy of each photograph of each asbestos-containing product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 4. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited as to time or scope. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of these objections, Defendant would show the following: (1) there is only one asbestos case currently pending against Defendant in Dallas County, (2) in that single case, a single plaintiff has identified a single asbestos-containing product sold by Defendant, and (3) that single plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, so that his claim is subject to the worker's compensation bar existing under Texas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has no photographs responsive to this Request, but refers Plaintiffs to the product catalogs and brochures that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce any diagrams or schematics indicating, stating or detailing the existence of any of your subsidiaries, predecessors, or divisions as defined on Page 1 of these Interrogatories and Request for Production. RESPONSE: Not applicable. DEFENDANT UTEX INDUSTRIES. INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P:\LITM 16\ 15VA ns. Discovery, wpd Page 49 The Law Offices Of James D. Stanton Attorneys and Counselors Turtle Creek Centre 3811 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Suite 450 Dallas, Texas 75219 Telephone: (214) 559-3232 Facsimile: (214) 559-0777 September 18, 2001 Tad Ground Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 Via facsimile (214) 520-1181 and CMRRR# 7000 1670 0001 5876 2477 Re: Cause No. 00-04264-H; Thielen vs. GAF Corporation, etal Dear Tad: Enclosed please find Defendant UTEX Industries, Inc.'s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production in the above-referenced matter. With kindest regards, Sincerely, EWM/cca Enclosure P:\LITU 16\ 15\Ground.09-18-01 .wpd Eric W. McNeil Tad Ground September 18, 2001 Page 2 cc: (w/o enclosure) All Other Counsel of Record (See attached Service List - Via facsimile)