Document 2Jj0pRaDYv5Br6bOGOJwQGEXg

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO IOLA E. BERRY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEIRS AND ESTATE OF LUTHER AUGUSTINE BERRY, DECEASED Plaintiff vs. A-BEST PRODUCTS COMPANY, ET AL. Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 429667 JUDGE HARRY A. HANNA DEFENDANT. F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY Defendant, F.B. Wright Company hereby answers the Plaintiffs' First Master Set of Interrogatories in accordance with Ohio Civil Rule 33. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS F.B. Wright Company, at all times relevant hereto, has been a distributor of industrial rubber and plastics products. It has never been a manufacturer of any product and therefore objects to any interrogatory that implies or suggests that this Defendant manufactured any asbestos or asbestos-containing product at any time. Defendant objects to the "Instructions" and "Definitions" segments of Plaintiffs' First Master Set of Interrogatories to the extent that either seeks to impart on this answering Defendant any requirements or obligations beyond those which are required under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure or to the extent they define terms other than as those terms are commonly understood or defined under Ohio law. Because F.B. Wright Company did not distribute any asbestos-containing product after 1979, Defendant objects to any interrogatory which seeks the discovery of, or otherwise implies, information relevant to customers and/or distributees beyond the applicable time of Defendant's sales. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs' Master Set of Interrogatories to the extent they seek any information regarding sales to entities other than the Plaintiffs' employers as those employers are identified on "Exhibit A", aka Baron & Budd Site" attached to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. F.B. Wright Company reserves its right to amend these responses in the event new and/or more accurate information becomes available. Defendant F.B. Wright Company further objects to Plaintiffs' First Master Set of Interrogatories to the extent they seek information which is protected by the Attorney/Client privilege, the Attorney Work Product Doctrine, or as trial preparation material, as well as to the extent they seek the opinions of expert witnesses which are beyond the scope of discovery within this stage of the Court's Case Management Plans. Defendant, F.B. Wright Company incorporates this Preliminary Statement and General Objections into each and every interrogatory answer below, without repeating and restating them individually. Without waiving any of these objections, and subject thereto Defendant F.B. Wright Company hereby responds to the Plaintiffs' First Master Set of Interrogatories Propounded to Defendant, F.B. Wright Company, as follows: 1. For each Interrogatory below, please state the name and last known address of each person answering it, including whether he/she is employed by Defendant and if employed by Defendant include 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. ANSWER: William J. Reno 9999 Mercier Avenue Dearborn, Ml Mr. Reno has been Chief Executive Officer and Secretary-Treasurer of F.B. Wright Company since 1994. He began employment with the Company on a part-time basis in its warehouse in 1969 and continued to work part-time until 1971. From 1971 to 1973, he was employed by the Company in inside sales. From 1973 to 1975, he worked primarily in the Company's Accounting Department and part-time in outside sales. From 1975 to 1980, he served as Secretary-Treasurer and parttime in outside sales. From 1980 to 1982, Mr. Reno was Chief Executive Officer and worked part-time in outside sales. From 1982 to 1994, he served as Chief Executive Officer and President. He is employed by the Company as its C.E.O. and Secretary. 1.1 Please identify all documents used, related to, or referred to in connection with the preparation of or answers to these Interrogatories and state the number of the Interrogatory and its subpart to each such document. ANSWER: There are no specific "documents" to which Defendant referred in answering these Interrogatories. 2. Please state whether or not Defendant is a corporation. If so, please state: (a) Your correct corporate name; (b) The state of your incorporation; (c) The address of your principal place of business; (d) Your registered agent for service in the state of Ohio; (e) For each Defendant claiming that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction, list year by year the total amount of income received by Defendant from entities in Ohio, any and all years that Defendant, as defined, has been licensed to do business in Ohio, and any real property owned at any time by Defendant or its present or past subsidiaries. ANSWER: Yes. (a) F.B. Wright Company (b) Michigan (c) 9999 Mercier Avenue, Dearborn, Ml 48120 (d) None (e) Not applicable. 3. State Defendant's complete corporate or business history, including dates of incorporation, mergers, consolidations, reincorporations, and the like. Also provide historical information regarding all predecessors, prior names, asset purchases, acquisitions or spin-offs. In addition: (a) if Defendant or any of its predecessors or subsidiaries at any time purchased, assumed, or in any other manner acquired ANY of the assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity at any prior time engaged in any aspect of the placing of asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce or the insuring of asbestos-related risks, then please state the following as to each acquisition; (b) the name or description of each corporation, entity or assets acquired by Defendant, that entity's state of incorporation and principal place of business, its date of incorporation, and the name of Defendant at the time of acquisition; (c) the manner by which each such corporation, entity or interest therein, was acquired (e.g., merger, consolidation, change of name, stock sale, transfer or purchase of assets or product line); (d) the date of each such acquisition; (e) the state in which each such acquisition was effected; (f) the state law governing each such acquisition if specified by contract; (g) whether Defendant became legally responsible for the past torts of each such corporation or entity; (h) identify each document reflecting or related to the history and/or transactions) set forth in answer to this Interrogatory. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant F.B. Wright Company objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, specifically in reference to the words "and the like." Notwithstanding this objection, the answer to the Interrogatory is as follows: F.B. Wright Company was founded in 1938 in Highland Park, Michigan and began as a sole proprietorship by Forrest B. Wright. Approximately two years later, William H. Reno joined Forrest Wright and the two continued to operate the business at the Company's main office in Highland Park, Michigan. The business was incorporated in the 1950's, and became S Corporation in either the late 1980's or early 1990's. It has made no acquisitions or asset purchases and has had no prior names, it has owned in the past shares of stock in F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati (which was formed in 1969 and incorporated in Delaware) and has held minority shareholder interests (approximately 10 percent each in F.B. Wright Company of Ohio and F.B. Wright of Pittsburgh). F.B. Wright Company has had no ownership interest in the latter two companies, however, since sometime in the 1980's. Its only acquisition occurred in January, 1987, when it purchased a small urethane molding operation, Allied Urethane Products, which it subsequently sold in November, 1989. Allied Urethane did not manufacture, sell or distribute any asbestos-containing products during the period it was owned by F.B. Wright Company 3. Objection. Defendant F.B. Wright Company objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, specifically in reference to the words "and the like." Notwithstanding this objection, the answer to these subparts is: (a-h) Not applicable. 4. Please state whether or not Defendant has purchased, assumed, or in any other manner acquired any of the assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity (such corporations or entities being limited to those engaged in the mining, selling, manufacturing, marketing or distribution of asbestos-containing products). If so, please state the following: (a) the name or description of each corporation, entity or assets acquired by Defendant, its state of incorporation and principal place of business, its date of incorporation, and the name of Defendant at the time of acquisition; (b) the manner by which each such corporation, entity, or interest therein, was acquired (e.g. merger, consolidation, change of name, stock sale, transfer or purchase of assets or product line); (c) the date of each such acquisition; (d) the state in which each such acquisition was effected; (e) the state law governing each such acquisition if specified by contract; (f) whether Defendant became legally responsible for the past torts of each such corporation or entity; (g) whether the acquisition concerned asbestoscontaining products. ANSWER: It has not. 4 (a-g): Not applicable. 4.1 For each corporation, other than the answering Defendant, that has at any time in the past been involved in the placing of asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce for which officers of the answering Defendant's corporation have also served as officers, directors or served in any managerial position while employed by the answering defendant, state: (a) the name of the entity involved in the placing of asbestos products into the stream of commerce; (b) the manner in which the entity was involved in the placing of asbestos- containing products into the stream of commerce (i.e., mining, milling, manufacturing, distributing, installing, rebranding, etc.); (c) the specific products placed into the stream of commerce by the entity, year by year and by brand or trade name; (d) the name, positions and a brief description of the responsibilities of the person or persons serving the answering Defendant and the entity simultaneously, including the positions held with the entity and with the answering Defendant. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and confusing. Notwithstanding this objection, however, and not intending to waive it, the answer to this Interrogatory is: a. F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati b. Upon information and belief, F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati distributed some asbestos products at some time between its incorporation in 1969 and 1982; it did not manufacture any products but distributed those of other companies. c. Upon information and belief, F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati distributed certain Garlock and Johns-Manville products; the years of distribution or specific product names distributed are unknown. d. William J. Reno was President of F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati until sometime in 1998; Jack Doerr is currently Chairman and Treasurer of F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati. He is the President and Treasurer of F.B. Wright Company. 5. Has Defendant ever engaged in the mining, manufacturing, selling, marketing, installation or distribution of asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the following: (a) The name of the company engaged in the activity (whether it is Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, Defendant's subsidiary or some other entity related to Defendant); (b) As to each product mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed, please state the following: (1) The trade or brand name. (2) Its identification number (model, serial number, etc.). (3) The time period it was manufactured, mined, marketed, distributed or sold. (4) Its physical description including color, general composition, and form. (5) A detailed description of its intended use and purpose. (6) A detailed description of the type package in which it was sold, listing the dates of each type of package used, a physical description of the package, and a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. (7) The percent of asbestos which it contained. (8) The percent of asbestos by asbestos type (amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, chrysotile). (c) The time period during which each of these products were on the market; (d) The material components/ingredients of each such product, giving specific or approximate percentage both by weight and by volume of each material component/ingredient (this interrogatory is not limited to the asbestos component of the product but seeks information as to the nature, weight and volume of non-asbestos ingredients, as well) of each such product; (e) How each of these asbestos-containing product can be distinguished from those of competitors; (f) A description of the physical appearance of such product; (g) A detailed description of the intended uses. F.B. Wright Company has never mined, manufactured or installed any asbestos-containing product. It has sold and distributed products as identified below. 1. Upon information and belief, at some time ending in 1979, F.B. Wright Company sold and distributed products manufactured by Garlock, Sepco, Nicolette, Southern Asbestos, Johns-Manville, B.F. Goodrich and Raybestos Manhattan. 2. Unknown. 3. The time period these companies' products were distributed is not known for certain, although F.B. Wright Company discontinued selling any asbestos products manufactured by any entity in 1979. 4. The products were generally sheet packing rope and pump packing. The composition and form are unknown. 5. The products were used for packing and heat insulation. 6. This Defendant does not presently know of the type of packaging it sold more than 20 years ago; however, the packaging was the same as it was received from the manufacturers. 7. Unknown. 8. Unknown. While the exact time period each of the products were on the market is unknown, F.B. Wright Company can state affirmatively it discontinued the sale and distribution of any asbestoscontaining product in 1979. Unknown. Unknown. Asbestos rope generally came to F.B. Wright Company on a spool and was braided in appearance. It was generally an off-white color. Sheet packing manufactured by Garlock bore Garlock's name on the packing and was gray-black in appearance. (g) Unknown, other than that products were used for packing and heat insulation. 6. Does Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies claim that any patent would cover any product listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please state the following: (a) The date of each patent; (b) The date same was issued; (c) The number of each patent application that is pending. ANSWER: F.B. Wright Company does not hold any patents and therefore the answer to this question is unknown. 7. Have any of the products listed above in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 been altered in chemical composition since first being marketed? If so, please state the following: (a) The trade name of each such product; (b) The date each such product was altered; (c) The nature of the alteration; (d) The reason for the alteration. ANSWER: Unknown. 8. Have any of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 ever been marketed, distributed, packaged, labeled, and/or sold by any other company or business? If so, please state the following: (a) The name and address of each such company. (b) The names and address of Defendant's distributors in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky since 1940. (c) The date of each sale. (d) The name of the person at each location with whom you primarily dealt. (e) A list of all asbestos-containing products that you sold to each location from 1945 to 1980. (f) The amount of each asbestos product sold to each location during this period. (g) Please identify all documents relating to this distributor for the particular location. ANSWER: Yes. Upon information and belief, the asbestos-containing products were marketed and sold by the manufacturers themselves as well as by their distributors. (a) See answer to interrogatory 5(b)1; Garlock was located in Palmyra, New York; other addresses are unknown. (b) Not applicable. (c) Unknown. (d) Unknown. (e) Unknown. (f) Unknown. (g) Unknown. 8.01 Has Defendant ever purchased asbestos-containing products from any other Defendant? ANSWER: Yes. See answer to interrogatory 5(b)1. 8.02 If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is yes, please state the following: (a) name each Defendant from whom this Defendant purchased any asbestos-containing product; (b) list each product purchased from each co-Defendant; (c) list the dates of each purchase of asbestoscontaining products from each co-Defendant. ANSWER: (a) See answer to Interrogatory 5(b)1. (b) See answer to Interrogatory 5(b)4. (c) F.B. Wright Company does not know when it first bought any asbestos-containing product from any of the entities identified in answer to Interrogatory 5(b)1. However, F.B. Wright Company discontinued the sale of all asbestos-containing products manufactured by any entity in 1979. 8.03 Has Defendant ever sold asbestos-containing products to any other Defendant? ANSWER: Unknown. 8.04 If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is yes, please state the following: (a) name each Defendant to whom this Defendant sold any asbestos-containing product; (b) list each product sold to each co-Defendant; (c) list the dates of each sale of asbestos-containing products to each co-Defendant. ANSWER: Not applicable. 8.05 Has Defendant engaged in the manufacture and/or sale and/or distribution and/or marketing and/or supply and/or purchase and/or use of non-asbestos-containing products for use in connection with temperatures above 125Fahrenheit since 1930? If so, please state: (a) the date such activity began; (b) the years during which such activity took place; (c) the date when such activity was terminated; (d) if such activity was terminated, the reason(s) why; (e) the geographical area into which you claim the product(s) were sold, purchased, or used; (f) identify the organizational unit of Defendant so engaged; (g) the site(s) at which each such product was manufactured; (h) the material components of each such product, giving specific or approximate percentage both by weight and by volume of each material component of each such product; (i) the temperature ranges for which each product(s) was intended to be used; G) the product's generic name; (k) the product's trade or brand name; (l) the container in which the product was shipped (i.e., paper bags, cardboard boxes) including the size and amount of the container; (m) a description of any logos, writing impressions or identifying markings which appeared on the product, as well as a description of the package used, the dates that type of package was used, and any logos, product names, trademarks, etc. which appeared on the package; (n) whether the words "non-asbestos" or "asbestos free" were used on the package; (o) a detailed description of the intended method of preparation and application of the product; (p) a description of the physical appearance of the product, including size, shape, color and texture. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory seeks the discovery of information that is neither relevant nor admissible, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Notwithstanding this objection, and not intending to waive it, the answer to this Interrogatory is yes, in the distribution of certain products. (a) After 1979 (b) After 1979 to the present. (c) Not applicable. (d) Not applicable. (e) F.B. Wright Company sells products throughout Michigan and in Northwest Ohio. (f) Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous and defendant does not know what is meant by "the organizational unit." (g) Not applicable. (F.B. Wright Company does not manufacture products). (h) Unknown. (i) Temperature ranges for the individual products are as recommended by the manufacturers. (j) Gasket and packing products. (k) Refrasil high temperature resistant textiles; Gore-Tex sheet gasketing; Bentley Harris thermal products; and Garlock sealing systems. (l) The products identified in 8.05(k) are packaged in the packaging provided by the various manufacturers; the size and amount of the containers is unknown. (m) Gore-Tex sheet gasketing bears the name ("GR") on the product itself. Some of the Garlock product also contains the word "Garlock" on certain products. (n) Unknown whether those words were used on packages although present literature of Refrasil indicates a feature as being "an asbestos replacement; Garlock product literature refers to the gaskets as being "non asbestos". (o) The products are to be prepared and applied as recommended by the individual manufacturers. (p) In general, rope was braided; sheet packing was textured; and packing could come on a spool. 8.06 Did Defendant ever market or distribute any asbestos-containing product manufactured in whole or in part by someone else? If so, please state the following for each such product: (a) the name and address of the manufacturer; (b) the product's trade and brand name; (c) the organizational unit of Defendant who did so; (d) date(s) beginning, ending and during which the marketing or distributing took place; (e) whether the product was distributed through the same channels as those used for products manufactured by Defendant, and if not, please explain the exact channels of distribution; (f) identify all documents relating the marketing or distribution. ANSWER: Yes. (a) See answer to Interrogatory 5(b)1, above. (b) See answer to Interrogatory 5(b)1, above. (c) Objection. Vague and ambiguous. (d) Although the beginning dates of sale are unknown, the distribution of any such products was discontinued in 1979. (e) Defendant did not manufacture products; therefore, the answer to this interrogatory is not applicable. (f) None. 8.1 Does Defendant have reason to believe that any of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 were used at any of the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto? If your answer is "yes", please state: (a) The basis of your answer. (b) Which of Defendant's asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 were used at each job site listed on Exhibit A. ANSWER: No. (a) Not applicable. (b) Not applicable. 8.2 For each company or business that Defendant knows may have marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold those products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please state the following as to each job site listed on Exhibit A: (a) The name and address of each such company; (b) The date of each sale from Defendant to such other company; (c) The name ofthe person at each other company with whom Defendant primarily dealt. (d) Names and quantities of the asbestos-containing products that you marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974. (e) Identify all documents relating to the sales to each such company. ANSWER: Unknown. 8.3 If you do not know any business that may have marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 to any of the job sites listed on Exhibit A, please state the names and last known addresses of those companies who Defendant knows marketed, distributed, installed and/or sold their asbestos-containing products in Ohio from 1950 to 1974. For each of those companies, please state the following: (a) Name and address of each such company; (b) The dates of each sale from Defendant to such other company; (c) The name ofthe person at each other company with whom Defendant primarily dealt; (d) The names of the asbestos-containing products that Defendant marketed, distributed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974. ANSWER: Unknown. 8.4 Does Defendant have records and/or any knowledge that reflects sales of their asbestos-containing products to any of the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto? If so, please state the following as to each job site listed on Exhibit A: (a) The names and last known addresses of those people with such knowledge. (b) The location of such records. ANSWER: No. 9. Did Defendant or any of Defendant's distributors, as listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 8.1, 8.2, and/or 8.3 have sales representatives who specifically called on the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto, from 1945 to 1975? If your response is yes, as to each site listed on Exhibit A, please state the following: (a) The name and last known address of each such representative and whether they are still employed by Defendant; (b) The period of time they acted as your representative; (c) Their general responsibility as to each facility; (d) Whether that person is still alive; and (e) Any documents relating, referring or pertaining thereto. ANSWER: No. 9.1 Identify all managers and sales personnel responsible for your sales or installation of any asbestos-containing products in Ohio from 1930 to the present and state their position, last known address and the local or regional office through which they were employed. ANSWER: F.B. Wright Company had no personnel responsible for sales of asbestos-containing products in Ohio to any entity identified on Exhibit A. 10. Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying or removing asbestos-containing products? If so, please state: (a) The name of each subdivision; (b) The full address of the home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business; and (c) Whether said division or subsidiary conducted such business at any of the sites listed on Exhibit A from 1940 to 1975? If so, please state the following as to each job site listed on Exhibit A: (1) The dates of such contracts; (2) The specific asbestos-containing products that were used or removed in each contract. ANSWER: No. 11. Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying or removing asbestos-containing refractory? If so, please give the name of each subdivision, the full address of the home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business. ANSWER: No. 12. Please identify by location and product produced, each plant in which products listed in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5 have been manufactured and/or assembled arid the dates said plants have been in operation. ANSWER: Upon information and belief, Defendant, F.B. Wright Company believes that Garlock manufactured its products in Palmyra, New York; if F.B. Wright Company sold any asbestos-containing products manufactured by B.F. Goodrich, upon information and belief, they would have been manufactured in Akron, Ohio. 13. Has Defendant, at any time, entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as a buyer or a seller, concerning any asbestos-containing products and/or materials? If so, please state: (a) The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products under such agreement; (b) The trade name affixed to such products; (c) The periods of time covered by each such agreement; (d) The volume (in dollars amounts) of each such transaction; (e) The purchaser of such products; (f) Does Defendant currently have in its possession any of the writings or contracts concerning such rebranding agreement? ANSWER: No. 13.1 Have you ever owned or operated a business or portion thereof which engaged in construction, erection or tear-out of furnaces, pipes, boilers, turbines, lehrs, ovens, kilns, etc? If so, please state: (a) the name of said business; (b) the date of commencing business and cessation of business, if applicable; (c) type of construction or tear-out performed; :(d) state whether said business installed or supplied asbestos-containing products on the furnaces, pipes, boilers, turbines, lehrs, etc., i.e., gaskets, pipecovering, block, cement, rope, cloth, clothes, etc., containing asbestos, asbestos pipe, board, etc.; (e) state the trade name and/or manufacturer of any asbestos-containing product which you installed or supplied to any site on Exhibit A. (f) provide the dates for the applicable construction, installation or tear-out project. ANSWER: No. 13.2 Do you have within your custody, possession, or control any packages that presently or formerly packaged asbestos-containing products or were produced for the purpose of packaging asbestos-containing products contemporaneous with your manufacture sale or distribution of such asbestos-containing products? If so, provide the following: (a) a description of each such package; (b) the present location and custodian of each such package; (c) the date or approximate date on which each such package was produced. ANSWER: No. 14. What is the name, address and job title of each individual who participated in the design and preparation of manufacturing specifications for each such product listed above in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? ANSWER: F.B. Wright Company does not manufacture, and has not manufactured, any asbestos-containing products. Therefore, the answer to this interrogatory is not applicable. 15. As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please describe how each product was to be cut, shaped, scribed, mixed and applied on the job. In answering this question, give particular reference as to whether or not the materials were to be sawed or cut on the job, blown into confined areas, mixed with water in a cement or paste. ANSWER: Unknown. 16. Based upon the material contents of the asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, please state which products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 could be applied by a worker without creating dust. ANSWER: Unknown. 17. Do any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character now exist relating to the design and preparation of the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please: (a) List each such written material or document; (b) Identify the person or persons presently in possession of each such document; (c) State where each such document is located. ANSWER: Unknown. 18. Priorto releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 forsale and usage, were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said products to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state: (a) The name of the products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; (c) The results of such tests. ANSWER: Unknown. 18.1 Prior to releasing any products for sale and usage (whether asbestos-containing or not), were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said products to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state: (a) The name of the products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; (c) The results of such tests. ANSWER: Unknown. 19. Does Defendant have or control 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 listed in Interrogatory No. 5 hereinabove? (a) Identify each such written material or document; (b) Identify each person who presently has possession of each such document; (c) State where each such document is located. ANSWER: No. 20. Were any design changes or modifications made as a result of such tests listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 18 hereinabove? If so, please state: (a) The trade name of the product changed or modified; (b) The nature of the change made and the date of such changes or modifications; (c) The name, address, and job classification of each person in charge of making a change. ANSWER: Unknown. 21. After releasing for sale, distribution or marketing the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5, did Defendant conduct any tests (either on animals or humans) to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of said materials and/or products? (a) The names of the products tested and the dates of said tests; (b) The name, address, and job classification of each person and/or agency conducting said tests; (c) The results of said tests; (d) Whether, as a result of any tests conducted, any products were removed from the market; (e) The names of all products removed from the market as a result of said tests. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory implies that the F.B. Wright Company released products as if it were the manufacturer of those products, which it was not. Notwithstanding this objection, however, and not intending to waive them, the answer to this interrogatory is no. 22. Has Defendant ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies concerning the effects of the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers on workers or other persons applying, using and/or working around any of the asbestos products manufactured, sold, distributed and/or relabelled for distribution by you or your predecessor? If so, please state: (a) The dates and nature of such studies; (b) The names and addresses of persons conducting such studies; (c) The purpose of such studies; (d) Identify and list those persons to whom such reports were given and the date of such dissemination; (e) State any publication or other written dissemination of the results of such studies; (f) State the nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; and (g) Attach a copy of reports based upon such studies. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant F.B. Wright Company did not manufacture or re label for distribution any products. To the extent it distributed any asbestos-containing products, the answer to this interrogatory is no. 23. Before placing in the market the asbestos-containing products that Defendant, mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed on the market, did Defendant make or cause to be made, any studies to determine whether their asbestos-containing products would be hazardous to people? If so, please state: (a) The date of said studies; (b) What studies were done; and (c) The titles of each study. ANSWER: See objection to Interrogatory No. 22; notwithstanding this objection, however, the answer to this interrogatory is no. 24. Please state whether or not Defendant ever conducted or caused to be conducted any tests in the field (where asbestos-containing products were applied, removed or utilized) to determine the nature and extent of asbestos dust and/or fiber exposure to insulators, applicators, fellow employees, or other workers removing and/or tearing out asbestos-containing products, and/or other workers in the vicinity thereto? If so, please identify: (a) The date, place and nature of each and every test; (b) The particular asbestos-containing products to which each test applied; (c) The results of each test with particular reference to the number of asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air found at each site; and (d) The persons to whom the results said tests were given and the date of such dissemination. ANSWER: No. 25. Please state whether or not Defendant ever obtained any knowledge concerning the likelihood of asbestos being hazardous to human health. If so, please state: (a) When Defendant first became aware of the hazardous potential of asbestos dust and asbestos fibers; (b) The manner in which the Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies first obtained this knowledge and became aware of said hazards and from what source this information was obtained; (c) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company, or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; (d) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. (e) The name, address and job classification of the custodian of such information. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant F.B. Wright Company objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and seeks to establish allegations as facts. Notwithstanding this objection, however, and not intending to waive it, upon information and belief, Defendant F.B. Wright Company became aware of an alleged potential health hazard associated with some asbestos in approximately 1979. (a) See answer to interrogatory 25, above. (b) F.B. Wright's product manager, Robert Holmberg, advised the Company ofalleged health hazards associated with the exposure to asbestos under certain conditions. (c) A memorandum was published in 1979 advising company personnel that the company would discontinue selling any asbestos-containing product. (d) Yes. (e) Not applicable (see 25(d) above.) 26. Please state when Defendant first became aware of the possible association between inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers and the contraction of asbestosis and cancers including, but not limited to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, renal cancer, lymphoma, lung cancer and mesothelioma. As to each disease or condition, please state the source of that information, including a description of all tests conducted relative to the possibility of such a relationship. ANSWER: Objection. See objection to interrogatory 25 above. Notwithstanding this objection, however, and not intending to waive it, at sometime during 1979, F.B. Wright Company learned of more serious concerns involving asbestos and possible health hazards. There was no specific reference to any disease or condition, however, as is stated in this interrogatory. 27. Please identify all physicians, industrial hygienists, and other employees (including their names and addresses) who were employed, retained or otherwise engaged by Defendant for research, investigation or study concerning asbestos or asbestos-related diseases. ANSWER: Objection. Attorney work product privilege; notwithstanding this objection, however, and not intending to waive it, the answer to this interrogatory, is upon information and belief, none. 28. As to each person who acted in a medical advisory capacity (as it relates in any way to asbestos) to Defendant, please list their name, the date individual acted in this capacity, and that person's current address and job title. ANSWER: None. 29. Please state if any medical officer or industrial hygienist or medical consultant ever made at any time any recommendations and/or suggestions to Defendant pertaining to the risks or hazards to persons involved in the manufacture or use of asbestos products and, if so, please state when, by whom or to whom such recommendations and/or suggestions were made and the substance of each recommendation. ANSWER: No; not applicable. 30. Please state the scientific and/or medical periodicals to which Defendant, its medical department, research department, industrial hygiene divisions, engineering department or consulting physicians subscribed between 1945 and 1975. ANSWER: None. 30.1 Please state whether Defendant, its medical officer or industrial hygienist or medical consultant or physicians were ever involved in testing or received literature or correspondence from the Mellon Institute. ANSWER: No. 30.2 Has Defendant, or any engineer, industrial hygienist or physician in Defendant's employ, been a member in any professional group, trade group or any of the following groups: American Ceramics Society Asbestos Textile Institute National Insulation Manufacturers Association Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association Quebec Asbestos Mining Association Asbestos Information Association Industrial Health Foundation Industrial Hygiene Foundation Iron and Steel Institute National Safety Counsel Refractories Institute Air Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc. Sprayed Mineral Fiber Association American Society of Mechanical Engineers If the answer is yes, state the following: (a) The name of the group or groups in which Defendant or individual(s) were members; (b) The name and position individual(s) within the Defendant, as defined, who were members; (c) The years Defendant or individual(s) were members of the groups; (d) Whether Defendant paid the individual(s) dues or membership fees or reimbursed the individual(s) for dues or membership fees in the group. ANSWER: No. 30.2 (a-d): Not applicable. 31. State in detail what test, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust, fibers or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with and/or around, installing and/or applying your asbestos containing products. ANSWER: None. 32. For each test described in Interrogatory No. 3 1, please give the name of the person conducting the test, the date of the test, and attach true copies of any documents, including but not limited to, reports, findings or memoranda concerning such tests or studies. ANSWER: Not applicable. 33. Please state the year that Defendant was first advised ofeitherthreshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and state the name of the employee/official of the company receiving such advice. ANSWER: Not applicable. 33.1 State whether Defendant at any time conducted, caused to be conducted, or had conducted on any job site, or at any of Defendant's plants or buildings, any air sampling, dust counts, dust observations, dust sampling tests or other activities to determine air quality. If your answer is in the affirmative, please indicate: (a) the date of any such air samples, tests, or activities; (b) by whom such activities were performed; (c) where such activities were performed; (d) the results of any such activities. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Notwithstanding this objection, to the extent "any job site" refers to the companies located on Exhibit A, Baron & Budd Site List, the answer to this interrogatory is no. 34. Does Defendant maintain a library dealing with industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and engineering and/or research? If so, state: (a) The date each such library was established; (b) The location of each library; (c) The name(s) of the librarian(s) since 1930; (d) List all journals subscribed to by you concerning asbestos, industrial hygiene, medicine, safety, and/or engineering; (e) List all books and articles dealing with asbestos and asbestos-related diseases and the date acquired. ANSWER: No. 34 (a-e) Not applicable. 35. Did Defendant in the 1920's or 1930's commission, or participate in the arrangements with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for studies at the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, concerning the effect of inhalation or ingestion of asbestos fibers upon human and/or animal bodies. ANSWER: No. 36. When was Defendant first aware of reports of studies of the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, entitled "Effects of the Inhalation ofAsbestos Dust in the Lungs of Asbestos Workers" by A.J. Lanza, Assistant Medical Director published in the J. Public Health Report, Vol. 5 0, No. 1, dated January 4, 193 5 ("Lanza Report")? ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory implies the Defendant at some time was aware of the reports referenced, which it was not. As such, the interrogatory is misleading in its implication. 36.1 Did Defendant ever contract with Saranac Laboratories to study the hazards of any dust producing product manufactured by you (whether asbestos-containing or not)? If so, identify by date and author all documents concerning or any way related to such .<?%, study. j ANSWER: No. 36.2 -Did Defendant ever contract with Saranac Laboratories to analyze dust or products? If so, identify by date and author all documents concerning or any way related to such analysis. ANSWER: No. 37. Please state whether Defendant at any time has been a member of any "trade organization" or "trade association" composed of other manufacturers, miners, distributors, and/or sellers of asbestos-containing products and, if so, please identify the name and address of each such association or organization, the dates of membership, and the names of any publications issued or written by such association or organization. ANSWER: No. 38. With respect to each trade organization or association listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 37, please state whether the minutes of the group's meetings and any correspondence between the members of such groups concerning the hazards of asbestos exposure are available. ANSWER: Not applicable. 39. Please identify by name the technical and trade association periodicals to which Defendant subscribed, and state whether Defendant had knowledge of any articles being printed, or withheld from printing, in said periodicals pertaining to the potential hazards of asbestos. If so, please state the following: (a) The title of each such article; (b) The periodical in which each such article was published; (c) The date each such article was published; (d) A detailed explanation of the reason for withholding any such article for printing; (e) Produce documentation which refers, alludes or mentions articles which were withheld for publication. ANSWER: 39. (a-e): Not applicable. 40. Please state whether, prior to 1975, Defendant sponsored, or attended any meeting, seminar, conference, convention or legislative hearing where the subject of occupational health and exposure to asbestos was discussed and, if so, please state the date and place of such meeting and the name and address of any speakers or participants. ANSWER: Unknown. 41. As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please state whether Defendant, at any time, published and/or distributed any printed materials, including but not limited to brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packagings or other written materials of any kind or character that contain any warnings, cautions, caveats or directions concerning the possible health effects of the products on a person. If so, please state as to each product: (a) The name of each relevant product; (b) The wording of each such warning; (c) A description of each such printed material; (d) The method used to distribute the warning to persons who are likely to use the products; (e) The date each such warning was issued; (f) Whether any warning accompanied any of your asbestos-containing products' sales literature, handout or pamphlets; (g) Please attach a copy of the warning and date said warning was issued; (h) The name, address, and job classification of each person who presently has possession of the above-described documents; (i) The name or names and addresses of the company who provided, produced, or manufactured the boxes or containers on which the warning appeared and dates these boxes with the warnings appeared. ANSWER: Upon information and belief, Defendant F.B. Wright Company received product literature from the manufacturer whose products it distributed. F.B. Wright Company does not recall receiving any literature that contained any warnings concerning the possible health effects of the product from these manufacturers. 41. (a-i): Not applicable. 42. Has sales material been prepared by Defendant or its agents for purposes of marketing or advertising the asbestos products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please state: (a) The name and address of each person or entity who prepared same; (b) The name, address and job title of each person who presently has possession of same; (c) The date same was prepared; (d) The media used to disseminate the sales material. ANSWER: No; F.B. Wright Company used the literature that was provided by the manufacturers of the products it distributed. 42. (a-d): Not applicable. 43. Has any written material of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant, Defendant's predecessor or any of Defendant's subsidiary companies or their agents indicating how the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 should be used or maintained by the ultimate user or those working in facilities or at job sites where the product was used, installed or removed, including, but not limited to, those sites listed on the job site list attached as Exhibit A? If so, please state the following: (a) The name, address and job classification of each person who prepared same; (b) The name, address and job classification of each person who presently has possession of same; (c) The dates and manner in which said material was distributed to purchasers of the products in answer to Interrogatory No. 5. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory is misleading in its implication that Defendant had subsidiary companies, which it did not. Notwithstanding this objection, however, and not intending to waive it, the answer to this interrogatory is no. 43. (a-c): Not applicable. 44. Was any written material of any kind prepared by Defendant and distributed to those individuals listed in response to Interrogatory No. 9? If so, please state the following: (a) Identify the written material by content and date; (b) To whom was it delivered. ANSWER: No. 44. (a-b): Not applicable. 45. Does Defendant contend that asbestos-containing products can be manufactured so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or around, installing or applying same? If so, please state the following: (a) The date that Defendant first determined that another product could be used in place of asbestos; (b) The chemical of the substitute; (c) Whether the substitute is suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used; (d) Whether Defendant used the substitute for asbestos to 1971; (e) Whether Defendant ever used the substitute for asbestos for high or low heat insulation. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant F.B. Wright Company has made no contentions with respect to manufacturing. Notwithstanding this objection, the answer to this interrogatory is unknown. 45. (a-e): Not applicable. 46. Did Defendant give any warnings to any individuals at the sites listed on Exhibit A, including any individuals who owned, operated, or managed the facilities at the sites listed on Exhibit A, regarding the potential health hazards of any product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5. If yes, please state: (a) Name of person most knowledgeable about this communication. (b) Name of person at the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto most knowledgeable about this communication. (c) Dates of each communication. (d) Contents of each communication. ANSWER: Inasmuch as Defendant knows of no sale of any asbestos-containing product to the companies identified on Exhibit A, the answer to this interrogatory is no. 46. (a-d): Not applicable. 47. Did any person prior to 1970, file a claim against any Workers' Compensation carrier covering Defendant alleging that he or she contracted a disease as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, please state the following: (a) A list of each such claim by claimant's name, date filed, the caption and jurisdiction involved; (b) The disease alleged in each such claim; (c) A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim; and (d) The name, address and job classification of the person or persons having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: No. 47 (a-d): Not applicable. 47.1 Please identify all documents concerning or in any way related to any decisions made by you to cease manufacturing asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Defendant F.B. Wright Company has never manufactured asbestoscontaining products. 47.2 Has any person or company from which you purchased asbestos-containing products ever issued a recall of their products or taken any action to take those products off the market after said products were in your possession? If so, provide: (a) the date of said recall; (b) the name of the company which issued the recall; (c) a copy of the recall. ANSWER: Unknown. If any recalls were issued, F.B. Wright Company was not advised of them. 47.2 (a-c): Not applicable. 47.3 State what action, if any, you have ever taken since 1930 to minimize or eliminate any risk of occupational disease or pneumoconiosis to those at any time engaged in the manufacture or production of asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and misleading. Defendant F.B. Wright Company did not manufacture any asbestoscontaining products. 47.4 State what action, if any, you have ever taken since 1930 to minimize or eliminate any risk of occupational disease or pneumoconiosis to those at any time engaged in the use, as distinguished from the manufacture, or exposed to the use of asbestos-containing or industrial insulation products or who were otherwise exposed to asbestos-containing or industrial insulation products. (a) describe such action; (b) state when such action was taken; (c) state what written material exists related to such action; (d) state the names, job titles and last known address of the individuals who undertook such actions. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and confusing. Notwithstanding this objection, however, and not intending to waive it, upon information and belief, the answer to this interrogatory is none. 47. (a-d): Not applicable. 48. Did Defendant receive notice prior to 1968 that any person was claiming injury or had sustained an abnormal x-ray reading as a result of using asbestos products manufactured, sold, installed, and/or distributed by Defendant? If so, please state: (a) The name and address of each claimant; (b) The date of notice of each claim; (c) A description of the claim; (d) The type of injuries allegedly sustained; (e) The name and address of each attorney representing the individuals making such claims; (f) The style and court number of each such claim; (g) The resolution of each claim. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory is ambiguous and implies that a person, prior to 1968, made a claim for injury as a result of using an asbestos product distributed by F.B. Wright Company. Upon information and belief, no such claim was ever made. Further the interrogatory implies the Defendant manufactured or installed asbestos-containing products, which it did not. 48. (a-g): Not applicable. 48.1 Describe the method by which you have maintained records concerning the manufacture, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery and/or installation or tear-out of each of asbestos-containing products. For each description provide the following: (a) each present and former company or corporate department, division or subdivision responsible for maintaining such records; (b) the manner in which the records are kept (e.g., boxes, computer tape, microfilm, etc.); (c) the inclusive dates of any such manufacture, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery, and/or installation or tearout which such record keeping system covers; (d) the present location at which all such records are maintained; (e) the identity of each person employed by you at any time from 1930 to the present who is or was responsible for the collection and maintenance of such records. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory is vague and misleading and implies that Defendant F.B. Wright Company a manufacturer or installer of asbestos-containing products, which it was not. As to the sale or distribution of any asbestos-containing products manufactured by manufacturers, however, upon information and belief, and following a thorough search, no such records have been maintained. 48.1 (a-e): Not applicable. 48.2 State whether any records concerning the manufacture, sale, supply, distribution, advertising, delivery, use or installation or tear-out of asbestos-containing products have been destroyed or discarded and if so, indicate: (a) the date and location of such destruction or discard; (b) the custodian and location of such records prior to their destruction or discard and the identity of each employee, representative, official or agent who ordered, authorized or supervised such destruction or discard. ANSWER: Objection. See objection to Interrogatory 48.1. Notwithstanding this objection, however, and not intending to waive it, the answer to this interrogatory is yes. (a) Records, including invoices of sales, have been destroyed in keeping with the Company's document retention policy and records would have been discarded from the Company's offices in Dearborn, Michigan. (b) The custodian of records, depending upon the year in question, would have been the head of the accounting department, i.e., the company's controller. Records were kept at F.B. Wright Company in Dearborn, Michigan, prior to their destruction in accordance with the Company's record retention policy. 48.3 For all documents, other than invoices, work orders and/or purchase orders, which relate to matters relevant to all the preceding interrogatories: (a) Is there any kind of index for the documents? (b) How many pages is the index of documents? (c) How many documents are referred to in the index? (d) Is the index maintained in electronic format (i.e. database, word processing or other computerized format)? (e) What manner of electronic format is used? ANSWER: (a) There are no documents and, therefore, there is no index, (b-e): Not applicable. 48.4 For all invoices, work orders and/or purchase orders, which relate to matters relevant to all the preceding interrogatories: (a) Is there any kind of index for the documents? (b) How many pages is the index of documents? (c) How many documents are referred to in the index? (d) Is the index maintained in electronic format (i.e. database, word processing or other computerized format)? (e) What manner of electronic format is used? ANSWER: 48.4 (a-e): Not applicable. 49. Has Defendant obtained statements from any witnesses including Plaintiffs? If so, please: (a) list each witness who has given a statement and the name, address, and job title of each person having custody of any such statement. ANSWER: Objection. Attorney work product privilege. Notwithstanding this objection, however, and not intending to waive it, the answer to this interrogatory is no. 49. (a): Not applicable. 50. Do you contend that Plaintiff/Decedent improperly used those products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please set forth in detail in what respect the product was improperly used. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant F.B. Wright Company has not contended anything with respect to the plaintiffs use of products. Discovery is ongoing and Defendant answers this interrogatory as unknown. This interrogatory will be supplemented in a timely basis in accordance with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. 51. As to the sites listed on Exhibit A, and as to each Plaintiff/Decedent, please state whether Defendant contends that there was any substance other than asbestos which contributed to or caused Plaintiff Decedent's injuries. If your answer is yes, please state the following: (a) The facts upon which you rely; (b) The identity of the sources upon which you rely which substantiate these facts. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant F.B. Wright Company has not contended anything with respect to the plaintiffs use of products. Discovery is ongoing and Defendant answers this interrogatory as unknown. This interrogatory will be supplemented in a timely basis in accordance with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. 51. (a-b): Not applicable. 52. Would any respirator, mask or other breathing devices prevent inhalation of the asbestos dust and fibers contained in products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, state: (a) When the respirator was sold; (b) A detailed description of such respirator or other breathing devices, including name of manufacturer and model number; (c) The basis of your claim that such respirators or other breathing devices will prevent the inhalation of such dust and fibers; (d) Identify any tests performed regarding the efficaciousness of such respirators and other breathing devices in preventing the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers including date, title, author and number; (e) List all documents which mention, allude or refer to tests performed on breathing devices which prevented the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous and further lacks the specificity required to adequately answer the question. Notwithstanding this objection, however, and notintending to waive it, the answer to this interrogatory is unknown. 52. (a-e): Objection. Unknown. 53. Does Defendant expect to call expert witnesses at the trial of this case? If so, please state the following: (a) Their identity and last known address; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The expert's specific conclusion and specific opinions and the specific basis therefore; (d) The expert's qualifications to render the opinions set forth above; (e) Whether any person identified in sub-paragraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify such document or report; (f) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to sub-paragraph (a) above; and (g) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treaties, article, 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 answer. ANSWER: Undecided. This interrogatory will be timely supplemented in accordance with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. 54. Please state the name and last known address of each expert witness who is not retained or employed for that purpose who is an employee of Defendant and will render an opinion within his expertise at the time of trial. ANSWER: Undecided. 55. Does Defendant admit that service of process was properly had on it in these cases? If not, please state why. ANSWER: Objection. "These cases" is improperly and inadequately defined such that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Therefore, Defendant responds to this interrogatory with a qualified no. 55.1 For each and every affirmative defense asserted in Defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, or the cross-claims or counter-claims of any party against Defendant, state: (a) the facts upon which Defendant relies for each and every affirmative defense; (b) each and every document which will be offered to prove each and every affirmative defense; and (c) each and every witness who will testify in support of each and every affirmative defense. (d) the substance and subject matter of the anticipated testimony of each witness identified in the preceding response. ANSWER: Objection. Under the terms of the court's standing order, affirmative defenses are not separately asserted and this Defendant is presently able to answer this interrogatory. As each individual plaintiffs case is processed in accordance with the Court's case management plans, however, this interrogatory answer will be timely supplemented as affirmative defenses are asserted, discovery is completed, and Defendant is able to adequately respond. 55.1 (a-d) Objection. Under the terms of the court's standing order, affirmative defenses are not separately asserted and this Defendant is presently able to answer this interrogatory. As each individual plaintiff's case is processed in accordance with the Court's case management plans, however, this interrogatory answer will be timely supplemented as affirmative defenses are asserted, discovery is completed, and Defendant is able to adequately respond. 56. Does Defendant have policies of insurance that might cover the claims that have been made by Plaintiffs herein? (a) If so, please list the name of each insurance carrier who may have coverage, the amount of such coverage, and the dates of each such policy. ANSWER: Objection. Because this Defendant did not supply or distribute any asbestos-containing product to the jobsites listed on Exhibit A, Baron & Budd Site List, this Interrogatory seeks the discovery of information that is neither relevant nor admissible, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. 56.1 Has Defendant ever been involved in any litigation concerning potential insurance coverage for asbestos products liability matters? If so, please state: (a) the case caption, court and date of filing of each case in which you have been involved; (b) whether you were Plaintiff or Defendant; (c) a brief statement of the issues; (d) identify by date, authorand recipient(s), (including recipients of carbon copies) all documents listed as exhibits by either party in this litigation; (e) identify by deponent and date all individuals who were deposed in these cases; (f) identify by date, author and recipient(s) all documents that have been placed on a protective order in such litigation; (g) identify all expert witnesses retained for use at trial in any of the above litigation by name, address and telephone number. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is neither nor admissible nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Notwithstanding this objection, the answer to this interrogatory is no. 56.1 (a-g): Not applicable. 57. Please state the name and address of each person who has knowledge of relevant facts regarding claims and defenses of this lawsuit. ANSWER: William J. Reno 9999 Mercier Avenue Dearborn, Michigan J. Michael Reno 9999 Mercier Avenue Dearborn, Michigan Harry Johnson 9999 Mercier Ave. Dearborn, Ml 58. State the last date that Defendant sold, distributed, manufactured, installed, and/or otherwise placed asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce. ANSWER: Defendant F.B. Wright Company has never manufactured or installed any asbestos-containing product. It has distributed products and, as indicated in answers to certain interrogatories above, last distributed an asbestos-containing product in 1979. Respectfully submitted, fit________ SAMUEL R. MARTILLOTTA (0006473) MANSOUR, GAVIN, GERLACK & MANOS CO., L.P.A. 55 Public Square, Suite 2150 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (216) 523-1500 Attorney for Defendant, F.B. Wright Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The original of the foregoing Defendant, F.B. Wright Company's Responses to Plaintiffs Master Set of Interrogatories Propounded to to F.B. Wright Company was served upon Ladd R. Gibke, Esq., Co-counsel for Plaintiff, at Baron & Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75219; and upon Susan L. Bozorth, Esq., Co-counsel for Plaintiff, at Baron &^Budd, 30 Overbrook Boulevard, Suite F, Monroe, OH 45050, by U.S. Ordinary Mail this day of July, 2002. A ; a ,^ Samuel R. Martillotta -