Document 1y3wRgw6YqJD7gMpMQ0JwVjq

F I L. E: D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR' THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS iaSIUH Miuci 0> BEAUMONT DIVISION APR 2-1970 DAMES R. COONEY. CLERK CLARENCE BOREL VS. l-'liih'EUOAKU PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION T AL CIVIL ACTION NO. LA'10 REPLY OF DEFENDANT. PHILIP CAREY CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES Philip Carey Corporation, one of the defendants in the above entitled and numbered cause, through its attorneys of rrcnpil, mu Iter, the following .inr.wrr:: .mil nli.i rr l. i on:: l.i> Un written interrogatories heretofore served on it. INTERROGATORY i,'0. 1 Please give the names and trade names or all typer, of Insula Ling materials inanuTac Lured by yuu, giving the UaLes that you began to manufacture such materials, starting in 19^0, a description of the materials ana what they contain. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 Plymouth Meeting, Penns ylvania Name, Trade Name and Description Date of Manufacture Content:: (1) 85? Magnesia Pipe Covering and Block 190G-1961 Sasic magnesium Carbonate and Asbestos, fiber (2) No. 19 Kitemp Pipe Covering and Block 1906-1961 Diator.aceous earth and asbestos fiber (3) Tcmp-Chek Pipe Covering and Block (A) Alltemp Pipe Cover ing and Block (5) Careytemp Pipe 1940-195* 195"-1958 1958-1962 Diatomaceous earth, basic magnesium carbonate and asbestos fiber Expanded Perlite, Bentonite clay and ashest.os fiber Expanded Perlite, Bentonite clay, chopped glass roving and asbestos fiber SI. ft '`.ia.i!I':-. t Lackland, Ohio (1) Careytemp Pipe 1958Sept. 1969 Expanded Perlite, Bentonite clay, chopped glass roving and asbestos (?) Now Careytemp 1500 Pipe Covering and IS 1 ock Sept.23, 1969 to present Expanded Perlite, bentonite uiay and chopped glass roving (3) Airccll Pipe Covering 1906-1960 and Board Asbestos paper (asbestos fiber and starch)and sodium silicate m Excel Pipe Covering and Board 1906-1960 Asbestos paper and sodium silicate (5) Careyeel Pipe Covering 1906-1960 and Board Asbestos paper and sodium silicate (6) Asbestos Rope and Wick 1906-195'! Asbestos Fiber and cotton fiber (7) 50 Cement 19^0-1967 Mineral Wool fiber, asbestos fiber and Fentonito cia.v (8) MW 1 Cement 1950-1967 Mineral wool fiber, Portland cement and Bentonite clay (9) Asbestos Finishing Cements //100 003 007 J7LF20 OM90 19t0-1967 /..-.bestoc fiber, ground r.yj'.'u:;. .uni Bentonite clay (10) No. 19 Vitricel Cement 19^0-1967 Asbestos fiber, ar.d mica Linden, New Jersey (1) Asbestos Paper Pipe Covering (4, 6 and 6 ply Aircell Coverings) Feb. 18, 1969 to present Asbestos paper and sodium silicate Since September of 1969 , asbestos fiber has been eliminated from recular Careytemp and fiberglass has been substituted therefor. It was felt that Carey temp reinforced with gjas;-. fiber is leas susceptible to breakage. INTERROGATORY NO. 2 Did you ever at any time give warninr.r. to worker.-, of the dangerous nature of your products? If so, describe your warning:; and to whom such warnings were given. -2- . . . > ."V :| : !.- ! |l: ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY HO. 2 The allegations and implications of Interrogatory No. 2 as to your defendant's insulating material being of a "dangerous nature" is specifically denied. four defendant does not believe that any of its Industrial insulating material is of a "dangerous nature". Inasmuch as your defendant has no control, or right of control, over employees of Insulating contractors, or other contractors or owners witli respect to the working conditions of any non Philip Carey Corporation employees, it has assumed that the employees of such insulating workers have been furnished with a safe place in which to work. INTERROGATORY NO. 3 What studies have you made to determine the effect of your products on the lungs and physical condition of persons employed as insulators and asbestos workers who use your products? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3 We'havu made no studies to determine tin. effect of our products on tiie iungs and physical condition of persons finj 11 nyi -il I n:; I, f ;i tor;: a;: ,a:*.bi.*;: to.: wt.ia-,. a*.: hy j r i:K : 11 contractors or owners who use our products. INTERROGATORY NO. 4 Who made such studies, when were they made, and attach copies of the reports of such studies. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO.i5 Did you package and sell any products containing asbestos from the years 19^0 to 1967? If so, how were the products sold, how were the products packaged, and were these products universally used throughout the United States? ANSWER to INTEKHOCATOUY NO. <j Yes. Products were sold to the distributer trade, to insulation application contractors, and to owners who used their own application crews, or who contracted with insulation appli cation contractors. Pipe covering and block were packaged in cardboard cartons. The products have been used throughout the United States. -3- <7 t jji r i,! INTEKKUUATOHY NO. 0 If these products were used primarily In any sped Tic locntinn or area, plr.v.r- explain where such prnihict.s wit*' I * i * i iiui i* i iy u:;cd ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6 The products were used primarily in industrial metrupuJ1 tun arcus oust oi* the Mississippi River. INTERROGATORY NO. 7 ho you recognize that prolonged use of the insulating materials manufactured by you can cause or contribute to cause various occupational diseases, including asbestosis, silicosis and dermatitis? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 Your defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 7 for the reason that the same is wholly irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in the case at bar. Subject' to the above and foregoing objections your defendant answers by stating that assuming that Lhe interrogatory refers to the usual, customary and expected use of its products, the answer is no. Your defendant knows of no case in which any period of use, commercial, residential or other, of its insulating materials has caused any disease. INTERROGATORY NO. 6 Has your company done any studies or has your company conducted any studies concerning the effects of inhalation of asbestos dust or fibers by one using or being exposed to any of the asbestos materials manufactured by your company? In answer to this question, please give the date and nature of your studies, if any, the name or names of the persons conducting the studies and their address, what the purpose of the studies were, and attach a copy of any report based upon such studies, showing to whom such report was given and when. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. S No. INTER nor, ATORY NO. 9 Have you or any of your employees conducted studies designed to minimize or eliminate the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to. the use of your company's products? Jf ::n, i> lv Lho name or of :;uch person;: conducting ;:ueh studio::, attach copies of such studies, hy whom tlir.v wore moth*, mil l.. wli.iui Lliey were given, anil when, audstale what action, if any, was taken based upon such studies in an effort to minimize or eliminate the effects of inhalation of asbestos dust -li- or fiber.". upon those using or being exposed to the dust and fibers contained in such products a:: manufactured by your company. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9 No. INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Do you or your company have any regular inspection of areas where workers are using products manufactured by your company containing asbestos as to the dust count? If you do not,then please explain why this is not done, and if you do, please explain what action, if any, is taken by your company following the taking of dust counts at any of the locations referred to above. Also, please give the dates, if any, that your company first started making this dust count. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Inasmuch as your defendant's products are sold to insulation application contractors, and/or to owners who may and do use their own insulation application employees, and such product.-. are used at various points in the United States, a program as suggested in Interrogatory No. 10 is not feasible. INTERROGATORY NO. 11 Does your company recognize that as early as the year i^OC H. Montague Murray, a physician in London's Charing Cres ital, found spicules of asbestos in the lung tissue . I!' you agree with this, then state what action, if any, yo ur cc has taken since 1900 to reduce or eliminate the dangers to u ho:;C us in g your asbestos products from inhaling the dust unu J* I li\- ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11 Your defendant objects to Interrogatory No. il J-n- til- following reasons: (a) The same is too vague and to indefinite. Your defendant does not understand what is meant by the term "recognize" as used therein; (b) Such interrogatory inquires as to matters which upon its face.reflects that it is within the personal l.itnw [.il:v rif y 11 i.i i do fondant., ami is Ili.-i-.-Pur,. i, I. - of the purview and intent of the federal laws of procedure, and particularly Federal Rule 33; (e) Such interrogatory does not inquire as to any matter of fact as authorized by Federal Rule 33; (d) Such interrogatory inquires to a medical opinion which is not required to be answered under Federal Rule 33. a a: -5- (3) The interrogatory inquires as to a matter which is immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this action. Subject to the above and foregoing objections and exceptions, your defendant says that it is not familiar with Dr. Murray's findings. INTERROGATORY NO. 12 Does your company recognize that in 1924, Dr. W.E. Cook, also of England, found clear evidence of asbestosis and that such discovery was published in the British Medical Journal of July 26,1924, and re-published in 1927? If you do, then please state what action, if any, was taken by your company based upon these studies to reduce or eliminate asbestosis iri (.Ini::** u:;iiijr yinji* |tritlui: I.::. T T yowi* .*in:*.w<*i* is l.hnh you (in not recognize the truth of such statement, then please state wimL your company has done in an effort to keep abreast of medical literature concerning the disease produced from the products which you manufacture, if in truth you have. Alir.WF.i;.-. TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12 Your defendant objects to Interrogatory No. if for t:.*c following reasons: (a) The same is too vague anc indefinite. 'four defendant does not understand the term" recognise-" as used therein. (b) The same inquires as to a matter t.-.at, upon its face, reflects that it j r. not within the personal kncwlcd-e of your ilutVinJant. , .mi) I:; thci ' l'oi.........' -J I I N* .'*<! of Federal 33; (c) The same does not inquire as to any matter of fact as authorized by Federal Rule 33; (d) The same inquires as to a medical opinion which is not required to be answered by Federal Rule 33; (e) The matter Inquired about is immaterial and S ('!** fi.'vant* !, :\uy hi l.lii:: h*u . Subject to'the above and foregoing objections and exceptions, your defendant says that it is not familiar with Dr. W.E. Cool:'.: finding:'.. INTERROGATORY NO. 13 Does your company recognize that in 1931, an English Parliament passed legislation making asbestosis a compensable disease and requesting improved methods of exhault ventilation nnd du.-.t suppression in asbestos-textile factorer., and also instituted periodical luedicai examination:: for workers ..ngngod in particularly dusty processes in the asbestos-textile Industry? If you do recognize the truth of the statement above, please* state what action, if any, your company took in response -6. ,r I E to ouch knowledge in an effort to reduce or eliminate the effects of asbestos to thor.c using your products. If you do not recognize the truth of such statement, then please state why your company did not keep in touch with legislation and programs adopted endeavoring to reduce or eliminate the disease of asbestoois in those using asbestos products. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13 Your defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 13 for the following reasons: (:i) Such Interrogatory is vague and indefinite; lb) Such interrogatory does not inquire as to any matter of fact as authorized by the applicable federal rules; (c) Such interrogatory inquired as to a matter of law, which is not required to be answered by the Federal Rules of Procedure; (d) Such interrogatory inquires as to matters irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this action. Subject to the above and foregoing objections and exceptions your defendant says that'it' is not familiar with she described legislation allegedly passed by an English Parliament. Your defendant has never had a producing plant in England or subject tc English law. Your defendant has always complied with all applicable legislation and programs of jurisdiction to which it is subject. Your defendant assumes that contractors and/or owners using your defendant's products have complied with legislation and programs of the law making bodies having jurisdiction over them. INTERROGATORY HO. It Did you agree that once asbestos fibers or dust are inhaled into the lungs, there is no way to eliminate such dust or fibers from the lungs for the balance of such person's life? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14 Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory No. l'i for the following reasons: (a) Such interrogatory does not inquire as to a fact, but calls for the explanation of a medical opinion, .-Mill l.licj'i' fur,- do,-:: mil. fail within tin- ini'i-vli-w of (.In applicable federal rules. -7- I l o f' Subject to the above and foregoing exception and objection your defendant says that its answer is "no". INTERROGATORY NO. 15 Wlmt teclm j , 1l` any, doe:: your company use fu make dun I. samplings, explaining the technique and when it was commenced and what the purpose was and what action has been taken in response to the findings as to the dust samples. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15 Since the 1930's, dust samplings at our Dockland, Ohio plant have been taken by the Division of Safety and Hygiene, Industrial Commission of Ohio. The Division employs either an electrostatic precipitator owned by It or a "midgit ir.pir.ger" produced by Klne Safety Appliances Company. We believe that those devices charge dust particles either negatively or' pusi t i vvl y and impinge Lln.ni on a piaLe uppn:; i Leiy elm rgeil. samples thus collected are applied against screens in erder to measure the size and number of dust particles ar.c determine if the area sampled is within the safe standards prescribed by the Division. Dust collectors are in constant operation to maintain safe levels. An authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania followed similar procedures at our Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania i n::u f :it t mi plant prini* ft* if:: cliisi' in IV*.'. Af fin* pi*. .:**n : time, we are participating with a number of other companies in :i pror.raro conducted hy Un* II..*5. Depart, mfiif of Pulil j c .i!e:t 1 f ii Lo do to rmino safe dust JintiLs in urea.: in whit:li pcodm-f.: e. imi : .i-tl in part of asbestos, talc, mica or stone dust are produced. INTERROGATORY WO. 16 Does your company recognize that asbestos causes acoeseosinduced lung cancer? If your answer is "yes" when did you come to nucii realization and what action did you take in rcr.ponsc thereto. If your answer is "no", then please explain why no studies were made by your company to ascertain that this fact was indeed true and thereafter to take action to advice those exposed to your products of their dangerous nature. -8- u.n (-> ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY "NO. 16 Your defendant objects and except:; to Interrogatory Ho. 16 for the following reasons: (a) Such interrogatory does not inquire as to any matter of fact as authorized by the applicable Rules of Federal Procedure. (b) Such interrogatory inquires as to a medical opinion which is not required to be answered under the applicable KnJi.-rtil Rule:; of PrucccJure; Cc) Such interrogatory inquires as to an ultimate issue, which is solely to bo determined by tiio fact finder on the trial hereof. ."object to tin- above and foivgoi Hi" objections and except Ion;: , your defendant says that *'it does not know". INT~,r?RORATORY NO. 17 Does your company recognize that there is a direct connection between the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers and the disease mesothelioma? If your ntisw.-r i:: "yc:;" ihi question, then please advise what notices were given Lj Loose exposed to your asbestos products of this fact. AI.'Sw'ER 70 INTERROGATORY NO. 17 Yntir defendant Ol>j<*rt.:: onii x* |t.:I... Jri.'rt ;. . y for the following reasons: (a) That such i ntiTT'fii'.ltcry is V.n-I- : :: ; your defendant doe;; not understand wts.:. ;-.-nr.. : . I "r-....... i i :y---i.: Ueiviti ; (b) Such interrogatory does not inquire as to any matter of fact authorized by the Federal Ruies cf Procedure. Cc) Sucii interrogatory inquires as to a medical opinion which is not required to be answered under the Rules cf Federal Procedure. (d)` Such interrogatory inquires as to an ultimate issue in the case at bar, which is to be determined by the fact finder. Subject to the above and foregoing objections and exceptions your defendant answers "no". Your defendant knows of no case of mesothelioma among its employees, or those working with its products. INTERROGATORY NO. 18 Does your company place any warning signs on its asbestos products? If so, please state exactly what the warning is, where it is used, and when its use was first begun. If your answer to this question is "yes", then please explain why your company user, such warning notices. : !< 4'l ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18 Mo. however, person:: working with your defeiid.inl 1:: asbestos products are furnished, and urged Lo use, inasks recommended l>y (.It*- W. g. bureau of Miuu;;, and dust, eo! Ircl.ni-;: a t. Laclied Lo saw. iwji-:iii.-uuATuny no. i-j Do you agree that asbestos has been directly associated medically with the disease of cor pulmonale? AiVSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19 Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory :io. 19 for the following reasons: (a) Your defendant says that such interrogatory is vague and indefinite. Your defendant does not understand what is meant by the term "directly associated" as used therein; (b) Such interrogatory does not inquire ar. to any matter of fact as authorized by Federal Rule 33; () ouch interrogatory inquires as Lo a medical opinion which is not required to be answered by the applicable Federal Rules of Procedure; td) Such interrogatory inquires as to an ultimate issue which is to be determined solely by the fact finder on a trial hereof. Subject to the above and foregoing objections and exceptions your defendant answers "no". INTERROGATORY .VO. 20 Does your company recognize that asbestos fiber exists Tor an infinity of year.".? In other wnnl:: , unlike some dangerous products, it does not eventually dissipate or reduce itself in danger to those who might be exposed to it? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20 Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory No. 10 for the following reasons: (a) Such 1 nt.rrrognr.ory 1r. vague and i mii*f i ni l o . Your defendant does not understand what is meant by the term "recognize" as used therein; (h) Such interrogatory docs not inquire as to any matter of fact by Federal Rule 33; (c) Such interrogatory inquires as to a scientific opinion not required to be answered l>y i.ur applicableiVilecai Rule;; of I'rueodure. -10- in Subject to the above and foregoing objections and exceptions your defendant says that it understands that asbestos fiber is inorganic. INTERROGATORY NO. 21 Does your company recognize that year-by-year more asbestos is used In the United States, and therefore the public is thereby exposed to a greater and greater extent to the inhalation of asbestos dust and fiber? If your answer is "yes", then please state what action your company has taken to reduce or ellr.ir.ite this danger and what action, if any, you have taken to notify the public at large of this danger. Af.'gwm,- TO INTERROGATORY NO. f 1 Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory :.o. 21 for the following reasons: (a) Said interrogatory is too vague and indefinite inasmuch as your defendant does not understand what is meant cy the term "recognize" as used therein; (b) The same is irrelevant and immaterial to any i . r a. in this action. Subject to the above and foregoing objections anc exceptions your defendant says that it is not familiar wit-, all of working condition:: where asbestos product.: art- us .. therefore must answer that it does not know. INTERROGATORY NO. 22 111;; your company consulted with Dr. Irving J. Sell i._ , of New York, New York, concerning asbestosis, and if co, please state when and under what circumstances and what informati, if any, was furnished by your company, giving dates, to him. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22 Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory :.'c. 22 for the reason that the same is immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this action. Subject to the above and foregoing objection and exion the answer is "no". INTERROGATORY NO. 23 Does your company contribute any funds to research con cerning asbestos and its relation to lung and larynx diseare? If so, please state the amount of money contributed, when s::u to whom, attaching any report or reports from ouch individual or organization to whom your funds were contributed. -11- ff ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23 Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory No. 23 for tlie reason that the sane is irrelevant and imaterial to any issue in this action. Subject to the above and foregoinG objection and exception your defendant says that it has not contributed to an.v rcsrnrcii concerning asbestosis and its relation to lungs and larynx 1 i. it uiidi'iv.Luiul;; Lli.'it a buh;: i d i ;ir.v I' j't'Ui' ile IN.-ml.ii;I , which is a member of a Quebec Mining Association, made some contribution, the amount of which is unknown, and your defendant has not received any report from such association or research organization. IN7ERROCATORY NO. 2 Uu you have any labor inspector-: ox- anyone from yoor company whose Job it is to go to areas where your products are being used to make a dust level-count, anti i f so, please rtn;, when your company started such procedure, the purpose of it, amJ what action, if any, was taken in i-cupuri;;-.- to you:- 1'inui nr.:. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2U No. The areas in which your defendant'j product.- applied are on construction cites, marine vessels and which are owned and controlled by others. INTEKHUGATORY NO. 2'j Is your company familiar with the hearing conducted is March, 1967, before the House of Representatives of the united States Congress Sub-Committee on Labor? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25 i Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory No. 25 for the following reasons: (a) The same is vague and indefinite inasmuch as your defendant does not understand what is meant by the term "familiar" as used therein; (b) The same does not inquire as to any matter of fact as authorized by the applicable Federal Rules of Procedure. (c) The same does not set forth sufficiently and with particularity the specific hearing inquired about; -1 (di Such interrogatory is immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this action. Subject to the above and foregoing objections and exceptions the answer is "no". INTERROGATORY NO. 26 Do you agree that the problem of asbestos dust extends further than to those merely using your products but that the exposure is shared with other construction workers as well ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26 Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory No. 26 for the following reasons: (a) The same does not inquire as to any matter of fact as authorized by the applicable Federal Rules of Procedure; (b) Such interrogatory inquires as to a medical or scientific opinion which is not required to be answered under Federal Rule 1?; (c) Such interrogatory is immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this action. Subject to the above and foregoing objections and except! your defendant says its answer it "rio". ino. 27 II" your answer Lo the preceding interrogatory .to. J.. "nu", l.lieii please sl.nl.. wlietli'T nr iml. you I1.1v r.n::'i I i nri seif yourself with Dr. William H. Stewart, Surgeon-General of the United States, testifying before the Committee mentioned above Lli.it. |I rnli.'tli I y t.lirer ami mu.--ha 1 f mi Minn ** ns true L inn nr. i-.: .1 he.ing rxfior.ed Lo asbestos dust in addition Lo those koikens actually using the materials containing asbestos";' ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27 your defendant says LliaL Its answer is LImL it dm..: imi 1 know. Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory No. 27 for the following reasons: (a) Such lnterrugatoi'y Is vague and i ndwl'lni Lo. Vour defendant does not understand what is meant by the term "familiarized" as used therein; (b) Such Interrogatory does not inquire as Lo any natter of fact an author i :-.ed by the app I i i:nb I e Federal iinles nl" Procedure; (c) Sucli interrogatory inquires as to a matter involving a medical opinion, which is not required to be answered under the Federal Rules of Procedure; -lb- (d) Such interrogatory is immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this action. Subject to the above and foregoing objections and exceptions you r defendant says Ui:iL it is not familiar with .-.aid Les Lj ninny. INTKmtOCATORY NO. ?8 Do you recognize or agree that the problems of air laden with asbestos dust is so great that possibly millions of the I .r-f >|. 1. Jn |.|ir United Sl.nl.r:: are lining spn::-1 t.o t.ln' I iili:i 1 a 1.1 on of asbestos dust who have nothing to do with its use or appli cation? If your answer is "yes", then please advise what action your company has taken, if any, to advise the general public of the dangerous nature of asbestos and what steps have been taken to endeavor to protect the general public from the dangerous effects of the inhalation of the asbestos dust and fibers, when such action was taken, and what it consists of. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY HO. 28 Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory No. 28 for the following reasons: (a) Such interrogatory does not inquire as to a matter of fact as authorized by "Federal Riis 33; (b) Such interrogatory inquires as to a scientific cr medical opinion which is not required to be answered under the applicable Federal Rules of Procedure; (c) Such interrogatory is immaterial and irrelevant so any issue in this action. Subject to the above and foregoing objections and exceptions your defendant answers "no". INTERROGATORY NO. 29 Is it possible with all of your products containing asbestos to distinguish your products from those manufactured by a competitor? If your answer is "yes" please describe how you contend your product? in all instance? can bo dir.ti nr.ui shed from that of a competitor. If there are products which cannot be, in your opinion, distinguished from products of a similar kind manufactured by a competitor, please state the name of such product, who manufactures it, as well as the product manu factured by your competitor. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2? "Careytemp" may be distinguished from insulation products manufactured by others through its formulation protected by patents in the United States and certain other countries. We have only one licensee, whose limited right to manufacture "Careytemp" is described in our answer to Interrogatory No. 3G. -it- We discontinued the manufacture of 85' magnesia approximately Luu years ago. The cartons in wljicii our magnesia products were .-.liinpcd would distinguish the product:: from like product.:: manufactured at that time by Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, John-Manville Products Corporation, The Ruberoid Company, Ualdwin-Ehret Hill, Inc., and Mundet Corl; Corporation. We believe that today 85X magnesia products are manufactured by only a few companies, all of which are outside of the United States. We discontinued the manufacture of asbestos paper insulation products approximately eight years ago. The cartons in which these products were shipped would distinguish them from like products of others. Without cartons, these products of our manufacture would be difficult to distinguish from like products manufactured at that time by Ace Asbestos Company, Empire-Ace A.'.lionl.n.: Company; Pad! 1 am Insulation (Nu:i[::m.y . i s i.uwn ii:.-.ul.il i. :: Company, Standard Asbestos Manufacturing i Insulating Company, Johns-/,anvilie Products Corporation, Ealdwis-Esret-Kill, Inc., and Smith S Ka.nsler Corporation. Today, suer products arc- manufactured by Empire Asbestos Company only to the best of our knowledge IMTKRROOATORY NO. 30 It is true, is it not, that most of the products manufactured by your company containing asbestos will in most instances have to be cut, sawed, scribed, shaped or mixed by the ultimate user and his employees? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY KO. 30 The statement is untrue. In 1959, we licensed S & B Engineering i Supply Company, Inc., Houston, Texas, to manufacture and use, transfer or sell '`Careytemp" insulation elements molded to fit valves, tube turns, tees, ells, unions, flanges and other fittings of boilers, breachings, piping and the like requiring insulation. We purchase the elements from our licensee and furnish them to our customers purchasing conventional forms of -.15- "Careytemp". The availability of such elements has eliminated the cutting, sawing, scribing, shaping and mixing by the ultimate purchaser and his employees. There have been isolated instances In which insulation workers and their local unions have resisted the use of such elements. Non-standard fittings require a minor amount of on-site cutting or sawing. INTERROGATORY NO. 31 Please give the state of incorporation of your company, the date it was organized, and the domicile of your company at this time. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31 The State of Ohio. December 1, 1966. It is domiciled in the State of Ohio. INTERROGATORY HO. 3J How many years has your company been engaged in the manu facture of products containing asbestos and which are commonly' used by insulators and asbestos workers? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32 Ten years and nine months. INTERROGATORY NO. 33 If you, your company, or your company's attorneys, contend that any respirators or other breathing device is currently or. the market that will prevent the inhalation of asbestos riu.-.t and fibers, give the detailed description of such respirator or other breathing device, together with how you know this will prevent the inhalation of such dust and fibers, what tests were conducted, by whom and where, with sufficient detail to enable us to obtain the results of such tests. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33 No contentions are made with respect to masks or respirators recommended by U.S. Bureau of Mines. INTERROGATORY NO. 3*1 It is true, is it not, that your company has for many years manufactured insulating materials containing asbestos and that such products have been placed upon the open market to be purchased and used by the public? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3^ See our answer to Interrogatory No. 5 INTERROGATORY MO. 35 Do you or your company recognize that such asbestos insulating materials are dangerous and harmful to human beings and to the health of man? If your answer to this o.uestion is "yes" then please explain when you came to this conclusion and what, if anything, you have done about it to notify the public. If your answer is that your products are not harmful then explain what tests were made upon which you base such conclusion. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO'. 35 Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory No. 35 for the following reasons: (a) Same is vague and indefinite. Your defendant, duos not understand what is meant by the term "recognized" as used therein; (b) The same does not inquire a;; to any matter of fact as authorized by Federal Rule 33; (c) Such interrogatory inquires as to a medical opinion which is not required to be answered by the Federal Rules of Procedure; (d) Such interrogatory inquires as to an ultimate factissue which is to be determined solely by the fact fir.tc-r upon the trial hereof. Subject to the above and foregoing objections ar.c exceptions your defendant says that it does not recognise accuracy of the statement made. It Is possible that m.sst t:?.:c substances may be injurious to health only when the quantity of airborne particles exceed certain levels over a period of tire. INTERROGATORY NO. 36 Please state whether or not your company has had knowledge of any deaths or serious lung disease among your employees whicn has been attributed to the inhalation of asbestos dust or fibers.- If so, please give the number, the names where known, and address of such persons, together with the name and address of the doctor who administered treatment to such persons, if known. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36 Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory No. 3r* for the following reasons: (a) The same does not inquire as to any matter of fact authorized by the applicable Federal Rule:-. rr Procedure; (b) The same inquires as to a matter of medical opinion which is not required to be answered under Federal Rule 33; -17- (c) The came is immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in till a action. Subject to the above and foregoing objections and following dates of lung disease cases among its employees which may have been attributed to the Inhalation of anbento:: dual or fibera: (1) Henry N. Hocrot, 10109 Wayne Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215, Or. Ralph C. Scott, Holmes Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio; iJr. R.J. Duffnot', 40 6 Went Benson St., Cincinnati, Ohio 45215; Dr. J.E. Singer, 4026 Clifton Avenue,Cincinnati, Ohio; Dr. Prank Princl, address unknown. (2) Clarence Hulette, 9163 Vinton Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45231. (3) William . Latto, 1073 KascnStreet, Warren, Ohio. Dr. F.O. Kravic, address unknown; Dr. Carl Druckner, Ormond Beach, Florida. (4) Essie Jackson, 3425 Bevis Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45215- Dr. V.A. Plessinger, Central Trust Tower, Cincinnatti, Ohio 45202. (5) Roosevelt Cross, 747 Jackson Street, Cincinnati, Oldo 45215. Ur. F. Jay Ach, 3337 Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215* (6) R. L. Griffith, 2713 Vine St., Cincinnati, Chit. Dr. V.A. Plessinger, Central Trust Tower, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. (.7) Harlan Williams, 9680 Dick Road, Harrison, G.iio 45030, Dr. V.A. Plessinger, Central Trust Tower, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. (6) Earl B. Bolds, 625 Oak Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215. Dr. V.A. Rjssinger, Central Trust Tower, Cincinnati, Ohio; Dr. Carl G. Ruehlmann, Crescent i Cooper, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215. ('.*) Robert j. 'nor.-.mnn, 1726 Hay ter Street, Lakewood, California,- Dr. George H. Derry and Dr. neginulu Smart, addressed unknown, Kr. Korsman worked for our company 60 hours in June, 1967 and 83 hours in December, 1967. (10) William C. McCormick, 3169 Live Oak, Huntington Park, California. Dr. Carlos A. Prietto, St. Francis Hospital. Kr. McCormick worked for our company 112 hours in October, 1967. (11) Edward L. Pfleghaer, 141 Monterey Street, Brisbane, California. Dr. Manuel Morales, address unknown. Mr. Pfleghaer worked for our company for a short period in 1956, earning gross wages of $260.35 and n short period in 1956, number of hours and wages unknown. -1 rC (ID) Wayne E. Boyer, 1).?? Pain Street, La:: Vegas, Nevada. Ur. J.K. MeBeath, 637 East Sahara Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Mr. Boyer worked for our company on a part time basis, earning gross wages of $631.10 in 1966 and $2,161).38 in 1967. (13) Lowel M. Pond, 10989 Araery Avenue, South Gate, Calif. Dr. Carlos Prietto and Dr. Frank F. Frazier, addresses unknown. We have no record of employing Mr. Pond. We have a record of employing one Milton L. Pond from December 7, 1967 until December 27, 19G7- (111) Morris L. Frislie, 2^36 West Lomita Blvd., Lomita, California. Dr. John A. Chapman and Dr. John Reeves, Torrance Memorial Hospital. Mr. Frislie worked for our company from August 29, 1966 to January 10, 1969* INTERROGATORY NO. 37 Assume for the purpose of this question that it has boon known for many years that asbestos ilur.t and fiber:: have have been dangerous to human beings: Assuming the truth of such statement, has your company done anything prior to 1966 to notify any segment of the American population of such danger. If r.o, plcar.c explain what. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37 Your defendant objects ana excepts to Interrogatory No. IT for the following reasons: (a) Such interrogatory does not inquire as to any matter of fact authorized by the Federal Rules of Procedure. (b) Such iritcrrogatory poses a hypothetical question to your defendant, to which r.o answer is required under the Federal Rule of Procedure. Subject to the above and foregoing nb.ioilon:: .\nh ox'n.-f.tior. your defendant says that it does not accept the truth of the question as stated. For many years prior to 1966 your defendant has advised its employees concerning the breathing of any kind of dust, and has furnished its employees with masks, and has installed mechanical dust collector::. INTERROGATORY NO. 38 If your company manufactures any insulating products which are commonly used by insulators and which contain asbestos, please describe how the following products are cut, shaped, mixed, and applied on the jobs: (1) Asbestos cement; (.?) Asbestos pipe covering; (3) Asbestos bricks or blocks; (4) Asbestos sheeting; -IV-' (U) Asbestos insulation used to cover extremes of heat as well as cold; (<>) Ashoslu:: insulation in loo::*- form which may bo blown into homes or buildings; (V) Asbestos in spray form, oo giving particular reference as to whether or not the materials have to be sawed or cut on the Job, blown, into confined area ir niixtMl with waive iriln n cement or Then pi case r.tni. if there is any way known to you that the above products can be used and applied without the worker inhalinc any of the asbestos dust or fibers. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38 (1) Not applicable; (2) Cut with a knife or saw; (!) Cut with a kill fo or saw; (>l) H..L :i|<|-l l.mhl.-; (!'j) Cut with a knife or saw; (6) Not applicable; (7) A blend of asbestos fibers, white mineral wool fibers and inorganic binders is applied by mechanical spray equipment, which, at a nozzle, combines atomized water mist with the mix to form a lightweight mat. The dry mix is conveyed pneumatically to the nozzle through an airtight hose. Applicators wear masks to prevent inhalation of any free asbestos dust or fibers. INTERROGATORY NO. 39 Do you have any statistical figures available showing the number of employees employed with your company who artexposed to asbestos dust and fibers and who have worked for your company twenty years or longer who have lung disease? If so, please give such figures. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39 Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory No. 39 for the reason that such interrogatory is immaterial and irrelevant to any case at bar. Subject to Lite above and foregoing objection:; ami exceptions your defendant answers "no". INTERROGATORY NO. 40 Tf you have available, do you have any medical information or information of your own knowledge, concerning the mosL common cause of death of one having asbestosio, then please describe what the most frequent cause of death from one suffering from such disease is. AH.'-.WKi: TO TNTilHROGATORY NO. AO Your defendant objects and excepts to Interrogatory No. *10 f --r the fo) lowing reasons: -20- C\( (a) Such Interrogatory does not inquire as to any matter of fact as authorized by Federal Rule 33; (b) Such interrogatory inquires as to a matter of medical opinion which is not required to be answered; (c) Such Interrogatory is immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this case. Subject to the above and foregoing objections and exceptions the answer is "no". INTERROGATORIES NOS. <11. <12 and 43 Interrogatories No. Ul, <12 and 43 and the answers thereto are as follows : .* ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES III. *12 and *3 YEAR Net Profit (tronnoroTi'7sV) CONSOLIDATED Net Worth t(<? nooio '-t; NtL Sales* (/ "'/i(rt,oo^ 1 `rS.T; 1560 2,C 0C 35,233 69,365 lyoi 1062 1,875 t Jo*. .-/ *s> ^. * 7 3, 1963 l'.'OA VJt.'s 2.1C2 9 \r ? 2,61 'i 35.St 3 w ; 1 ^? z v j- 19&6 V Ili7 2,87'.' 1 ,280 .<n i r.r ;.* - , * U 'w f:r., 7 1968 <1,670 <-<',331 S . e32 Approximately 12S of the amounts shown in derived from sales of products t ui'chased from others for resale. <*3- (Continued) The total amount of sales of insulation product: containing asbestos is as follows: YEAR NET SALES (7000's}* I960 1961 1962 1963 196<i 1965 1966 1967 1968 2,672 2,05 2,38? 1,763 1,96 2, <(17 2,739 2,567 2,396 Approximately 9Z of the amounts shown is derived from sales of products purchased from others for resale. INTERROGATORY NO. 4 4 Please give the name and address of the president of your company; and also the name and address of the Chairman of the Soard of Directors: ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44 Charles E. Tennesson, Jr. 7285 Post and Rail Lane Cincinnati, Ohio 4 52*13 Caul A. Julinao'i 51 Oakwood Drive, Box 1034 Chapel Hill, North Carolina. INTERROGATORY NO. 45 If your company has been unable to answer any of the fore going interrogatories herein propounded, or any of the inter rogatories hereinafter propounded, please state the name and address of the person in your company having knowledge of the matters inquired about in these interrogatories. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45 Nut applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 46 Does your company recognize that Dr. Irving J. Selikcff, of New York, New Y'ork, is an outstanding authority in fluid of asbestosia, particularly among insulation war..era. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46 Your defendant objects and except; to Interrogatory ,;c. 46 for the following reasons: (a) The same ia vague and indefinite inaj.-nuch a.; l.lii:: defendant doc.*, not understand wisat in meant by the term "recognize" as used therein; (!>) Such Interrogatory doca not inquire aa to any matter of fact as authorized i y Federal Rule 'i?,; (c) Such 1 ntrrroratory inquired as to a natter of medical opinion for which an artawer j;; riot required by Federal Rule 33; (d) Such i nt.rrroratory is irrelevant, and .immaterial t<> any l.:.;iir In Llii.: act lull. Subject to the above and foregoing objections and exceptions your defendant answers: Wu can nuj Lliui- -tfrir'iu rior deny lli-- ::l.;it.eineiit. INTERROGATORIES NOS.4? THROUGH 64 -22- 10 ' "u r I' ll M rf l i.1 ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. *17 THROUGH 81) With respect to Interrogatories Nos. *17 through ar.d including Interrogatory 8*1, your defendant objects and excepts for the following reasons: (a) The same do not inquire as to a matter of fact as authorized by the applicable Federal Rules of Procedure; (b) Such interrogatories inquire as to a matter of law which does not require to be answered under Federal Rule 33; (.c) Such interrogatories are immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in the case at bar. Subject to the above and foregoing your defendant says that it is not familiar with the laws of any state other than tin: ono in which It. operator.. Under t.ho Workmen's Coinprnr-al. i on law of tiie State of Ohio asbestosis is not mentioned. DATED this the ! day of , 1970. FULBRIGijS* CR00KEE, .-FEE";,!;, BATES XJ0WORSKI ,.y w. N. "'Arnold,Tr. Bank of the Southwest 5; Houston, Texas 770GB Attorneys for Defendant Carey Corporation THE STATE OF TEXAS' COUNTY HARRIS 5 BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this cay personally appeared W. N. Arnold, Jr., known to me to be the attorney of record for the defendant mentioned above and to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instru ment, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes- and consideration therein expressed and that the same is true ar.d correct. Given under my hand and seal of office this the . fv " day of _______, 1970. Notary Pubi/ic in and for Harris County, Texas I certify that the above and foregoing Answers of Defendant, Philip Carey Corporation to Written Interrogatories was served upon plaintiff, iiiiiii,.':aaaaaasgg, by mailing a copy thereof to his attorney, Mr. Ward Stephenson, Stephenson, Thompson A Hui-ris , P. 0. Ltox 68, Orange, Texas .^7763*)1 by cyrti f j eh mail, .urn r -coipt , on this nf , l'>7h. K.N.Virnold, Jr. s -23 C/ / l 3t t i; t' Ji*'.r *1 i* J ji *u !