Document 2ROB7Rz3dkgqV7Vn8ypZ3gdMb

JO;v 20 1983 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR#MTT A Pa, FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. WDCP-8 3-1 IN RE: ASBESTOS-RELATED LITIGATION ) ) OBJECTIONS OF GAF CORPORATION ) TO PLAINTIFFS' STANDARD FIRST ) SET OF INTERROGATORIES ) COMES NOW defendant, GAF Corporation, by and through its undersigned attorney, and respectfully objects to all of the interrogatories, as set forth in the "General Objections" stated in response thereto and hereby incorporated by reference; further, the defendant, GAF Corporation, respectfully objects to the following interrogatories on the grounds stated in response thereto and hereby incorporated by reference: 1, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 44 , 45 , 46, 47, 53, 63 , 64, 65, 66, 73, 7 ^1, 75 , 76, 8 1, 82, 89, 91 , 92 , 93, 94, 95, 96 , 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 , 114, 115, 129, 130 , 131, 132, 133, 134 , 135, 138 , 141 , 157, 158 , 159, 160, 161, 162 ,-163, 164, 165, 166 , 167, 168 , 169, 170, 17 1 , 172, 175, 176, 177 , 178, 179, 180, 181 , 182. This the day Of V\ _ , 1983. * CO rlYyygvtLTgV iyy Charles H. Mercer, Jr. w AKINS, MANN, PIKE & MERCER, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant GAF Corporation P. O. Box 17884 Raleigh, NC 27619 Telephone: (919) 781-6400 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. WDCP-83-1 IN RE: ASBESTOS-RELATED LITIGATION ) ) RESPONSES OF GAF CORPORATION ) TO PLAINTIFFS' STANDARD FIRST ) SET OF INTERROGATORIES ) COMES NOW defendant, GAF Corporation, by and through its authorized agent, Patricia Corbutt, an Assistant Secretary of GAF, as evidenced by the verification attached to "Responses of GAF Corporation to Plaintiffs' Standard First Set of Interrogatories," and states the following: 1. Each response separately and fully answers each interroga tory, except as to those to which objections are made. 2. The responses to these interrogatories are based upon material gathered from various sources, and the answers given herein are based upon the information gathered and are true and correct to the best of defendant's knowledge, information, and belief. 3. The correctness or authenticity of the information gathered is not guaranteed, but it is believed that such information gathered is accurate. 4. Defendant reserves the right to amend or change any answer if subsequent information shows different facts or beliefs. 5. Patricia Corbutt has verified the "Responses of GAF Corpo ration to Plaintiffs' Standard First Set of Interrogatories" in her capacity as an Assistant Secretary of GAF Corporation. This the 1 b'^'day of w--g-- , 198 3. Charles H. Merce AKINS, MANN, PIKE & MERCER, P. A. Attorneys for Defendant GAF Corporation P. O. Box 17884 Raleigh, NC 27619 Telephone: (919) 781-6400 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. WDCP-83-1 IN RE: ASBESTOS-RELATED LITIGATION ) ) RESPONSE OF GAF CORPORATION ) TO PLAINTIFFS' STANDARD FIRST ) SET OF INTERROGATORIES ) Comes now defendant GAF Corporation ("GAF"), in response to the Plaintiffs' Standard First Set of Interrogatories, as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND LIMITATIONS The defendant, GAF Corporation, objects to any interrogatory or part thereof, or any instruction, which would require it to assemble or provide answer from documents, writings, records, or publications in the public domain, and therefore available to and obtainable by plaintiffs. The defendant, GAF Corporation, further objects to any interroga tory or part thereof, or instruction, which would purport to require GAF to provide information which is protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. GAF further objects to any interrogatory or part thereof, or instruction, which attempts to impose any obligation on this defendant to supplement its responses to these interrogatories beyond what is expressly required by Rule 26(e). By filing these responses and objections at this time, GAF does not waive its position that an automatic stay is in effect as a result of petitions filed in bankruptcy by Johns-Manville Corporation, Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, Johns-Manville Amiante Canada, Inc., Unarco Industries, Inc. , and Amatex Corporation, nor does this defendant intend to compromise its position that a temporary stay should at least be granted in the court's discretion. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and specifically reserving its right to object to the admissibility of information provided at such time as it might be offered as evidence in this case, GAP provides the following responses to Plaintiffs' Standard First Set of Interrogatories. RESPONSES AND FURTHER OBJECTIONS 1. Objection. This defendant objects to this interrogatory and its subparts on the basis that they seek information which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. However, without waiving the foregoing objection, these responses to interrogatories by GAF Corporation have been executed and verified on information and belief by Patricia Corbutt, Assistant Secretary, GAF Corporation, 140 West 51st Street, New York, New York 10020. Further answering this interrogatory, without waiving the foregoing objection, the following persons have supplied information and response to these interrogatories: Phillip Bettoli - (Retired) - Technical Director - Research Department - GAF Corporation - South Bound Brook, New Jersey 08880. Residence address: Route 3, Box 437, Palmyra, Virginia 22963. Length of Employment: 1958-present, as he continues as a consultant with GAF. William Schwingen - Product Manager - Insulation - GAF Corporation 140 West 51st Street - New York, New York 10020. Residence Address: 1302 Marlborough Avenue, Plainfield, New Jersey 07060. Length of Employment: 1955-present. William Fassuliotis - Director of Safety and Occupational Health - GAF Corporation - Wayne, New Jersey 07470. Residence Address: 62 Ridgeview Avenue, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830. Length of Employment: 1971-1981. 2. GAF Corporation was incorporated in Delaware in 1929 as American I.G., Corporation. Its name was changed in 1939 to General Aniline and Film Corporation, and again in 1968 to GAF Corporation. GAF maintains its principal place of business at 140 West 51st Street, New York, New York 10020. On May 26, 1967, GAF merged with The Ruberoid Company, assuming its assets and liabilities. The Ruberoid Company was originally incorporated in New York in 1886 as The Standard Paint -2- Company. This company was succeeded by a company of the same name, which was incorporated in West Virginia in 1889; and that company was in turn succeeded by The Standard Paint Company, incorporated in New Jersey on June 16, 1905. The name of the company was changed to The Ruberoid Company on March 10, 1921. GAF is authorised to transact business in North Carolina, and was so authorized on March 1, 1971. The registered agent for GAF Corporation is The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc., 1300 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. 3. Yes. 4. (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (d) Yes. (e) Yes. (f) GAF may have relabeled asbestos products manufactured by another company, but is without specific information concerning any such relabeling. 5. Products known to have been manufactured and sold by GAF Corporation are as follows: CALSILITE PIPE COVERING AND BLOCK, manufactured commercially from 1949 to October 1971, was a lightweight, hard, white-colored substance of various thickness and sizes. Calsilite pipe covering came in standard sections, with diameters ranging from 1 inch to 24 inches. Calsilite pipe covering was manufactured in two half-circle pieces, to be assembled around a standing pipe. Calsilite block was manufactured in various sizes and thicknesses, and also came as a "scored" block. From 1949 until approximately 1954, Calsilite pipe covering and block contained 3.5% amosite asbestos fiber, 5.6% Canadian chrysotile asbestos fiber, and 2.0% Vermont chrysotile asbestos fiber. Subsequent to 1954, all Vermont asbestos was eliminated in the product and replaced by a combination of amosite asbestos and Canadian chrysotile asbestos. Calsilite pipe covering and block was largely unprofitable and thus was discontinued in mid-1970 when it was replaced by -3- asbestos-free Calsilite, which was similarly unprofitable. Calsilite pipe covering and block was manufactured at Gloucester, New Jersey. 115 and 214 INSULATION CEMENTS, produced for sale by GAF between 1937 and 1975, were off-white to light-gray colored cements, composed entirely of chrysotile asbestos fiber meeting the 0-0-1-15 and 0-0-2-14 specifications of the Quebec test, respectively. They were used for insulating and finishing boilers, tanks, fittings, etc. Production of these products was discontinued because they were not profitable. These cements were produced at Hyde Park, Vermont. 313 INSULATION CEMENT was sold from 1960 until 1971. It is believed that this product was manufactured by a company other than GAF, and sold under the GAF label. It is believed that "313" insula tion cement was produced by Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, now Keene Corporation, and, perhaps, other manufacturers of asbestos insulation cement, for sale by GAF. The asbestos used in this product was a chrysotile fiber meeting the 0-0-3-13 specification of the Quebec test. 412 INSULATION CEMENT is believed to have been sold only subse quent to 1960, until 1971, although this cement may have been sold until 1975. It is believed that this insulation cement was manufac tured by a company other than GAF for sale under the GAF label. It is believed that "412" insulation cement was produced by Baldwin-EhretHill, now Keene Corporation, and, perhaps, other manufacturers of asbestos insulation cement, for sale by GAF. The asbestos used in this cement was chrysotile fiber meeting the 0-0-4-12 specification of the Quebec test. CALSILITE INSULATION CEMENT was produced by GAF from 1951 to in or around 1960. It was lighter in texture and less dense than other GAF insulation cements, although it probably contained impurities similar to those contained in the other GAF cements. The ground calsilite gave the product a lighter appearance than was true for other GAF cements, as well as a somewhat chalky consistency. Calsilite insulation cement contained 45% chrysotile asbestos fiber of grade 7K or better. -4- T/NA-100 INSULATION JACKETING, manufactured from 1962 to September 1971, was used for covering insulated tanks and for protecting insulated piping. T/NA-100 was a white-colored two-ply laminated product consisting of a layer of asbestos paper in which chrysotile asbestos fibers were bonded with Neoprene and a layer of polyvinyl floride (Tedlar) plastic film attached by adhesive on one side. Manufacture of this product was discontinued because it was not profitable. T/NA-100 was manufactured at South Bound Brook, New Jersey. ASBESTOS PAPER AND MILLBOARD were manufactured from 1928 until 1981. Asbestos paper was a whitish to dark colored chrysotile paper . composed of organic materials mixed with asbestos fibers. It was used as a jacketing or pipe wrap. Flat and corrugated asbestos papers were manufactured in various thicknesses. The color of such products varied from light gray to dark gray. GAF also manufactured several varieties of "air cell" corrugated asbestos paper. Such papers consisted of a single flat sheet of asbestos paper, to which was bonded a corrugated sheet of asbestos paper. Asbestos wallboard was an asbestos paper product of greater thickness than asbestos paper. Asbestos millboard was a gray or off-white colored densely compressed sheet of uniform size and thickness composed of asbestos fiber combined with binding materials. Millboard was used as an industrial fire barrier and in the manufacturing of gaskets and insulating components used in consumer products. The asbestos content in these products varied, but as a general rule, in the wallboard and the millboard it was less than 40%. Generally, chrysotile asbestos fibers were used in the production of these papers. With respect to relabeling, it is believed that GAF or its predecessor, Ruberoid, may have relabeled and sold or distributed, or supplied labels to others for relabeling, certain insulating cements, including "7M," "313," and "412" insulation cements. The suppliers of raw asbestos for inclusion in or as such products which may have been -5- relabeled are believed to include Canadian Johns-Manville, Ltd., Johns-Manville Corporation, and Baldwin-Ehret-Hill and its predecessors and successors. 6. Objection. This interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Without waiving its objection, GAF answers as follows: (a) The asbestos content fluctuated over a period of manufacture, both in terms of asbestos content by weight and type based on factors such as raw materials availability, customer and production requirements, and products development and improvement. For Calsilite, asbestos content was approximately 12-13%. South African Amosite asbestos generally accounted for the largest single type of asbestos in this product. Except as set forth before, insulation cements were 100% chrysotile asbestos. Asbestos paper and millboard contained 10% to 90% chrysotile fibers. (b) See response to Interrogatory No. 5. (c) (i) Calsilite - 1250 degrees F. Cements - 1000 degrees F. T/NA-100 - 200 degrees F. Asbestos Paper - Not applicable. Asbestos Millboard - 1000 degrees F. (ii) See response to Interrogatory No. 5. (iii) Calsilite pipe covering and block products were packaged in corrugated cardboard cartons. The cartons displayed on the outside the word "Calsilite," together with identification of the manufacturer and various calsilite logos. Temperature ranges for the product were also often displayed on the outside of the carton. Labels employed for Calsilite identified the manufacturer as The Ruberoid Company and, after 1967, GAF. After i960, a special "fire-in-the-pipe" symbol was added to the Calsilite logo. Warning labels were placed on the cartons of Calsilite products beginning in late 1964 or early 1965. -6- GAF insulation cements were packaged in 50 and 100 pound burlap bags until the early 1950's, after which date 50 and 100 pound kraft paper bags with a plastic lining were employed. GAF insulation cements were packaged with the name of the company on the bag and, in some instances, heat ranges for the product. Accordingly, subsequent to purchase of the Vermont mines in 1937, until merger with GAF in 1967, insulation cement produced from the Vermont mine was packaged with a label bearing the name of The Ruberoid Company. After 1967, the insulation cement was packaged with a label bearing the label of GAF Corporation. In or about 1965, GAF began placing warning labels on the kraft paper bags in which its insulation cement was sold. T/NA-100 was sold in rolls of various lengths and widths. The rolls were shipped in corrugated cartons with the name of GAF or The Ruberoid Company on the carton. Flat asbestos papers and asbestos rollboard were shipped in rolls of various widths, packaged in corrugated cardboard cartons. Corrugated asbestos paper products and asbestos rollboard products were sold in rolls, sheets, and blocks. When sold in blocks, the corrugated paper products and the asbestos rollboard products were often built up by adhering several layers of the paper or rollboard. Corrugated paper flat sheets and blocks and asbestos rollboard flat sheets and blocks were also shipped in corrugated cartons of varying sizes. Asbestos millboard flat sheets were also shipped in corrugated cartons of varying sizes. Such cartons identified The Ruberoid Company and, after 1967, GAF as the manufacturer or such products. Also, with respect to corrugated asbestos papers, asbestos rollboard, and asbestos millboard, throughout the period of their manufacture, the label on the cartons also identified the products as "Corrugated Asbestos Paper," "Asbestos Rollboard," and "Asbestos Millboard," respectively. Warning labels were placed on packages of these products in or prior to 1971. Individual sheets of asbestos millboard were labeled with warnings in or about 1979. -7- (iv) Calsilite - designed for use in modern high pressured steamlines and equipment. Insulation Cements - used for insulating and finishing asbestos paper; used to wrap furnaces, furnace piping, air conditioning ducts, and jackets. Excellent protection for wood partition exposed to heat;-ideal applica tion for any application where paper is desired and a degree of fireproofing is needed. Asbestos Paper - designed to be used as jacketing or pipewrap. Asbestos Millboard - designed to be used wherever a lightweight fireproofing material is required. It is employed in insulating ovens and ranges and for lining grates, ceilings, and walls. T/NA 100 - insulation jacketing, wrapped around standing pipes; also used for covering tanks and rounded surfaces. (v) GAF does not know whether any of our asbestoscontaining thermal insulation products have been used interchange ably with those of other manufacturers. However, we assume that our products could be used interchangeably with those of other manufacturers. (vi) To the best of its knowledge, GAF obtained raw asbestos fiber from the following sources: 1947 - Union Asbestos; The Russell Manufacturing Company; United Soviet Socialist Republic; United States Rubber Company; Vermont Mines; Asbestos Refuse; Huston Asbestos Company; Government Amosite Asbestos Fiber; Union Asbestos Rubber Company; Johnson's; Johnson Company, Ltd.; Johns-Manville; Canadian JohnsManville. 1948 - Johnson Company, Ltd.; United Soviet Socialist Republic; Union Asbestos and Rubber; Government Amosite Fiber; Russell Manufacturing; Vermont Mines. -8- 1949 - United Soviet Socialist Republic; Government Amosite Asbestos Fiber; Russell Manufacturing; Johnson's; Pacific Customers Brokerage; Johnson Company, Ltd.; Canadian Johns-Manville; Johns-Manville; Vermont Mines; Asbestos Corporation Ltd. 1950 - United Soviet Socialist Republic; Russell Manufacturing; Johnson's; Canadian Johns-Manville; Vermont Mines; Asbestos Ltd. 1951 - United Soviet Socialist Republic; Johnson Company, Ltd.; Canadian Johns-Manville; Vermont Mines; Asbestos, Ltd. 1952 - United Soviet Socialist Republic; Johnson Company, Ltd.; Vermont Mines. 1953 - Johnson Company, Ltd.; Vermont Mines; Cape Asbestos Co., Ltd.; Johns-Manville Corp; North American Asbestos Corp. 1954 - Johnson Company, Ltd.; Vermont Mines; Cape Asbestos Co., Ltd.; Egnep Ltd.; Johns-Manville Corp.; Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd.; North American Asbestos Corp. 1955 - Egnep Ltd.; North American Asbestos Corp. 1956 - Johns-Manville; North American Asbestos Corp. 1957 - Egnep Ltd; North American Asbestos Corp.; Ruberoid. 1958 - Egnep Ltd.; North American Asbestos Corp. 1959 - Johnson Company, Ltd.; North American Asbestos Corp. 1960 - Vermont Mines; Johnson Company, Ltd.; Lake Asbestos of Quebec; Egnep Ltd.; North American Asbestos Corp. 1961 - Vermont Mines; Johnson Company, Ltd.; Lake Asbestos of Quebec; Flintkote Mines, Ltd.; Egnep Ltd.; North American Asbestos Corp. 1962 - Vermont Mines; Johnson Company, Ltd.; Lake Asbestos of Quebec; North American Asbestos Corp. 1963 - Vermont Mines; Johnson Company, Ltd.; Lake Asbestos of Quebec; Flintkote Mines, Ltd.; Egnep Ltd. -9- 1964 - Vermont Mines; Johnson Company, Ltd.; JohnsManville; Lake Asbestos of Quebec. 1965 - Vermont Mines; Johnson Company, Ltd.; JohnsManville; North American Asbestos Corp. 1972 - Vermont Mines; Johns-Manville Sales Corpora tion. 1973 - Vermont Mines; Johns-Manville; Johns-Manville Sales Corporation. 1974 - Vermont Mines; Johns-Manville. 19.7 5 - Vermont Mines; Johns-Manville. 1976 - Johns-Manville; Vermont Mines; Atlas Asbestos; Lake Asbestos of Quebec. 1977 - Vermont Mines; Johns-Manville? Lake Asbestos of Quebec. 7. See response to Interrogatory No. 5. 8. Yes. 9. Calsilite - an original patent was held on calsilite by Herbert Abraham, former president of The Ruberoid Company. GAF filed a patent application for its asbestos-free Calsilite on October 8, 1971. The patent application, entitled "Calcium Silicate Thermal Insulation Reinforced with Cellulosic Fiber," filed October 8, 1971, and rights to the process for which the product was sought were sold to the pur chasers of the Calsilite plant. Dresser Industries. The insulation cements were generic products, and thus could not be patented. A product similar to T/NA-100, including aspects of the method of manufacture for T/NA-100, was covered by U. S. Patent No. 3,300,927 dated January 31, 1967. Patents on flat and corrugated asbestos paper, asbestos rollboard products, and asbestos millboard products may have been held by the H. F. Watson Company, which developed most of the processes for manufacture of these products. -10- 10. Minor changes in the composition of Calsilite were made constantly throughout the period of manufacture to facilitate its manufacturing process. A major change in composition took place in 1954, when all Vermont chrysotile asbestos was eliminated from the product. A second major change in composition occurred in the mid1960's, when Ruberoid developed "Calsilite SS." Calsilite SS was designed specifically to prevent stress corrosion and chloride cracking of austenitic stainless steel piping. Another major change in composi tion occurred in 1970, when GAF developed an asbestos-free Calsilite, replacing the asbestos with sulphite pulp. There were no changes in composition of the insulation cements during the period of their manufacture and sale by GAF, other than periodic changes in appearance due to changes in the source of supply of the asbestos sold as insulation cement. To the best of GAF's knowledge, there was no significant change in the composition of T/NA-100 over the period of its manufac ture, other than routine changes in the manufacturing process to account for variations in raw materials. Minor changes in the composition of flat and corrugated asbestos paper products, asbestos rollboard products, and asbestos millboard products were made from time to time to compensate for changes in raw materials. A major change in composition of the paper products and millboard products occurred in or about 1975, when latex binders were added to the products. 11. See response to Interrogatory No. 5. 12. Objection. Documents exist with respect to the testings of such products, but only for quality control purposes and not with respect to testing for health, safety, or related purposes. Accord ingly, such documents are not relevant to the thrust of the actions that are a part of these coordinated proceedings in which plaintiffs' interrogatories have been filed. In light of the marginal relevance of the aforementioned documents to these actions. Interrogatory No. 12 is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence and, accordingly, GAF objects to this interroga tory. 13. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 12. 14. Objection. See response to Interrogatory No. 12. Without waiving the foregoing objection, this defendant states that design changes were made, but they were minor and were not related to health or safety considerations. It is because of the marginal relevance of these changes to this action that the listing or production of such .documents requested in this interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome. 15. Objection. See objection and response to Interrogatory No. 14. 16. No. 17. Not applicable. 18. Yes. 19. Objection. See objection and response to Interrogatory No. 6. Without waiving the foregoing objection, this defendant states that in approximately 1964, Ruberoid Company began placing warning notices on packages of its thermal insulation products containing asbestos fiber: CAUTION THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. INHALATION OF ASBESTOS IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. IF DUST IS CREATED WHEN THIS PRODUCT IS HANDLED, AVOID BREATHING THE DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTILATION CONTROL IS NOT POSSIBLE, WEAR RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY THE U. S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMOCONIOSIS PRODUCING DUST. In approximately 1970, this warning label was changed to read as follows: CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. INHALATION IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. AVOID BREATHING DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTILATION IS NOT POSSIBLE, WEAR RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY THE U. S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMOCONIOSIS PRODUCING DUST.' -12- In approximately 1972, this warning label was further changed to read as follows: CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS AVOID CREATING DUST BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM 20. Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Additionally, this interrogatory is overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, and oppressive. Further, this interrogatory seeks information which is not common to most or all of the cases pending in the Western District of North Carolina and, therefore, this interrogatory is not within the scope of discovery contemplated by the Initial Pre-Trial Order Coordinating Proceedings. 21. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 20. 22. Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is not common to most or all of the cases pending in the Western District of North Carolina and, therefore, this interrogatory is not within the scope of discovery contemplated by the Initial Pre-Trial Order Coordi nating Proceedings. Expressly reserving its objection, this defendant responds that it maintains at its principal place of business certain shipping records of asbestos-containing thermal insulation products. The information contained therein is retrievable by reference of year, company shipped to and/or job site shipped to. The only relevant shipments of GAF's asbestos containing thermal insulation products that could be relevant would be those made to job sites on which and during years in which a particular plaintiff actually worked, which is another reason for objection to this interrogatory. 23. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 22. 24. Yes. 25. Companies which insure or insured GAF include, but for general comprehensive liability are not limited to, the following: -13- The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company Agrippina Ruckversichrungs, Aktiengeselleschaft AIU Insurance Company Alba General Insurance Company, Ltd. Allianz International Insurance Company, Ltd. American Centennial Insurance Company American Excess Insurance Company American Motorists Insurance Company American Re-Insurance Company Andrew Weir Insurance Company, Ltd. Assi-curazioni Generali Spa Baloise Fire Insurance Company, Ltd. Beacon Fire Insurance Company, Ltd, Bellefonte Insurance Company Bercanus Insurance Company Bermuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company Birmingham British National Life Insurance Company Bryanston Insurance Company, Ltd. CNA Reinsurance of London, Ltd. California Union Insurance Company City Insurance Company Columbia Casualty Company Commercial Union Insurance Company Compagnie D'Assurances Maritimes Aeriennes Et Terrestres Compagnie Europeene D'Assurances Industrielles S.A. Continental Casualty Company Dart Insurance Company, Ltd. Dominion Insurance Company, Ltd. The Drake Insurance Company, Ltd. Edinburgh Assurance Company, Ltd. El Paso Insurance Company, Ltd. Employer's Liability Insurance Company Employer's Mutual Insurance Company Employer's Reinsurance Corporation English and American Insurance Company, Ltd. ESIS Excess Insurance Company, Ltd. Fidelidade Insurance Company of Lisbon Fireman's Fund Insurance Company First State Insurance Company Folksam International Insurance Company (U.K.) Ltd. General Reinsurance Corporation Granite State Insurance Company Great Atlantic Insurance Company The Home Indemnity Company The Home Insurance Company Ideal Mutual Insurance Company of North America Insco, Ltd. Integrity Insurance Company Leslie Eric Kemp Lexington Insurance Company Lloyds of London London & Edinburgh Insurance Company, Ltd. London & Overseas Insurance Company, Ltd. Louisville Insurance Company, Ltd. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company Mentor Insurance Company (U.K.) Midland Insurance Company Minster Insurance Company, Ltd. Mission Insurance Company Mutual Reinsurance Company National Casualty Company of America National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, North Atlantic Insurance Company, Ltd. Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance Company The North River Insurance Company North Star Reinsurance Corporation The Orion Insurance Company, Ltd. Pacific & General Insurance Company/ ltd. The Prudential Insurance Company of America Prudential Reinsurance Company The River Plate Reinsurance Company, Ltd. River Thames Insurance Company, Ltd. St. Helen's Insurance Company, Ltd. St. Katherine Insurance Company, Ltd. Scan Reinsurance Company, Ltd. Scottish Lion Insurance Company, Ltd. Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Company, Ltd Sphere Insurance Company Sotrebrand Insurance Company (U.K.) Stronghold Insurance Company, Ltd. Swiss Union General Insurance Company, Ltd. Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance Company (U.K.) Ltd Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company (U.K.) Ltd. Transamerica Insurance Company Transit Casualty Company Turegum Insurance Company Underwriters at Lloyd's of London P.J.F. Green R.A. Jackson J. E. Green W. B. Rouse R. J. M. Merrett H. G. Hill L. R. Drew P. E. J. Cameron-Webb L'Union Atlantique D'Assurances, S.A. United Standard Insurance Company Walbrook Insurance Company, Ltd. "Winterthur" Swiss Insurance Company World Auxiliary Insurance Corporation, Ltd. Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company (U.K.) Ltd -16- 26. See response to Interrogatory No. 6(c)(iii). 27. Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and vague in that it is unlimited in time. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks information which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. 28. (a) Asbestos mine located in Eden, Vermont, until closed in 1944, and Lowell, Vermont, mine opened. (b) 1929-1975. (c) In the 1960's, Ruberoid's raw asbestos fiber customers included Raybestos-Manhattan, General Electric of Bendix, Hooker Chemical) Wyandotte Chemical, B. F. Goodrich, and from 1972 to 1975, Philip-Carey. GAF has only a limited amount of such sales information prior to 1962. (d) Unknown at this time; approximately 1964. 29. Not applicable. 30. Not applicable. 31. No. Imported asbestos was used in Ruberoid/GAF products, but neither Ruberoid nor GAF imported asbestos products or raw asbestos. See response to Interrogatory No. 6(c)(vi). 32. Not applicable. 33. GAF sold its asbestos mine in March 1975 to the Vermont Asbestos Group. 34. No. 35. Not applicable. 36. GAF does not know whether other defendants have "interchanged" this information among themselves. 37 . Not applicable; see response to Interrogatory No. 36. 38. No. 39. None 40. Not applicable. 4 1. Not applicable. 42. From time to time during the period beginning in approximately 1930, GAF called upon local physicians from surrounding cities or towns near its plant locations to perform routine physical examina tions and to administer routine medical treatment when and if neces sary. There are no records presently within the possession, custody. -17- or control of GAF which reflect the names of these physicians or the professional services performed by them. 43. (a) William Fassuliotis - Director of Safety and Security 197 1 to 1981. (b) To coordinate and oversee corporate programs relating to safety, security, and health. In the area of occupational health, the director's duties are to assure, as far as possible, that employees work in a hazard-free environment. 44. Objection. This interrogatory is vague, overly broad, and oppressive. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks information with respect to the respondent's manufacturing facilities which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Further, this interrogatory seeks information which is not common to most or all of the cases pending in the Western District of North Carolina and, therefore, this interrogatory is not within the scope of discovery contemplated by the Initial Pre-Trial . Order Coordinating Proceedings. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that this interrogatory is not applicable to this defendant, and refers plaintiffs' attorneys to the response to Inter rogatory No. 39. 45. Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and seeks information which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Expressly reserving its objection, this defendant states that it is believed that GAF, in the normal course of membership mailing, received whatever publications were transmitted to it by those trade or other industrial associations to which it belonged. 46. Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad, and it seeks information which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Expressly reserving its objection, this defendant does not recall whether any of the trade and/or the other industrial associations to which it belonged conducted studies or researched the relationship, if any, between the exposure of asbestos fiber or products and pulmonary pathologies. -18- 47. Objection. See objection and response to Interrogatory No. 46. 48. GAF made no direct contributions. 49. See response to Interrogatory No. 48. 50. No. 51. None, except to the extent that GAF may have received certain periodicals from trade or industrial associations to which it belonged and belongs. 52. Purchasers of GAF materials were provided with GAF sales materials and, from 1964 on, were provided with warning labels upon those GAF packages containing its industrial thermal insulation products. 53. Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Additionally, this interrogatory, seeks information which is not common to most or all of the cases pending in the Western District of North Carolina and, therefore, this interrogatory is not within the scope of discovery contemplated by the Initial Pre-Trial Order Coordinating Proceedings. Finally, this defendant objects because, based on its knowledge, information, and belief, none of the plaintiffs in the actions now pending in the Western District of North Carolina were ever employed by GAF Corporation. 54. No. 55. Not applicable. 56. Not applicable. 57. No. 58. Not applicable. 59. No. 60. No. 61. No. 62. Not applicable. 63. Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks informa tion which is not common to most or all of the cases pending in the -19- Western District of North Carolina and, therefore, this interrogatory is not within the scope of discovery contemplated by the Initial Pre-Trial Order Coordinating Proceedings. 64. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 63. 65. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 63. Without waiving this objection, GAP responds "yes." 66. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 63. Without waiving this objection, GAF refers plaintiffs' attorneys to the response to Interrogatory No. 19. 67. None. 68. ` No. 69. Yes; however, the dates of subscription are unknown. 70. See response to Interrogatory No. 19. 71. None. 72. No. 73* Objection. This interrogatory seeks information.which is not common to most or all of the cases pending in the Western District of North Carolina and, therefore, this interrogatory is not within the scope of discovery contemplated by the Initial Pre-Trial Order Coordinating Proceedings. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks information regarding this defendant's trial preparation strategy. Expressly reserving its objection, this defendant states that it cannot identify said materials at this time. 74. Objection. This defendant does not have the expertise to define a technical term such as "threshold limit value." Further, "threshold limit value" is a term of art used by medical and scientific researchers. This defendant objects to answering this interrogatory on the ground that it calls for an expert opinion, medical or technical. Further, any definition that this defendant may assign to such a term may not be the same definition as may be applied by other persons similarly situated. Finally, this defendant objects to the interroga tory on the basis that it is overly broad, uncertain, irrelevant, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible to these cases. -20- 75. Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving the foregoing objection, this defendant states that it has not employed "asbestos insulating mechanics," and thus is not familiar with the "prescribed threshold limit values" at job sites at which insulating products are made. 76. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 74. Expressly reserving its objections, this defendant states that it does not have specific recollection concerning the date on which it first became aware of threshold limit values recommended by the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists. GAF has always endeavored to operate within the limits recommended. The recommendations of the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists are a matter of public record and equally available to plaintiff. The first value GAF is able to recall is five million particles per cubic foot. 77. None. 78. GAF products were supplied in ready-to-use form. However, where on-site fittings were required, the following procedures were necessary. Calsilite was packaged pre-cut in various lengths and attached by the use of a metal band. Very little cutting was necessary. When it was necessary to cut on the job at the point of application, the applicator could use either a hand or power saw for that operation. GAF Insulation Cements were mixed with water into a heavy paste consistency and then applied with a trowel. T/NA-100 produced little, if any, dust during its application because it was saturated with Neoprine. Any cutting would usually be done on a band saw and, due to the nature of the product, would not result in any appreciable dust. Asbestos paper and millboard are generally cut by mechanical knife or die-cut on a punch press. The only markings on any of the aforementioned products were imprints made by filters into which the products were set, molded, pressed, etc., during manufacturing. 79. GAF now recognizes the name of W. C. Dresden, but has no first-hand familiarity with or knowledge of his work. 80. In approximately 1964, this defendant became aware of opinions expressed by some members of the medical profession, such as Dr. Irving Selikoff, that asbestosis could occur among insulation -21- workers, although the opinions did not relate specifically to the use of this defendant's products. 81. Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in these cases. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that, to the best of its knowledge, it began acquiring literature on asbestos and asbestosis in 1972 or 1973, after it became involved in asbestosis litigation. The relevant documents are maintained at GAF's Wayne, New Jersey, offices. 82. Objection. This interrogatory is uncertain in its use of the terms "letters of warning" and "likelihood of injury," and overly broad in that it seeks information which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that OSHA and some other governmental agencies communicated with it concerning asbestos and asbestos-related materials. Such notices, however, have not been retained, and no further information regarding them is available. 83. See response to Interrogatory No. 82. 84. See response to Interrogatory No. 82. 85. No. 86. No. 87. Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks informa tion which is not common to most or all of the cases pending in the Western District of North Carolina and, therefore, this interrogatory is not within the scope of discovery contemplated by the Initial Pre-Trial Order Coordinating Proceedings. Finally, this defendant states that there is no indication that any of the plaintiffs in the cases pending in the Western District of North Carolina was ever an employee of GAF Corporation. Without waiving its objection, this defendant does state that it does not know the date that each plant first notified employees working in that particular plant as to the need to wear and use respirators, but that such date would be no later than 1964. -22- 88. See response to Interrogatories Nos. 19 and 87. 89. Objection See objection to Interrogatory No. 87. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that it cannot recall any specific bulletins. 90. No. 91. Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is not common to most or all of the cases pending in the Western District of North Carolina and, therefore, this interrogatory is not within the scope of discovery contemplated by the Initial Pre-Trial Order Coordinating Proceedings. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that this is not known at this time. 92. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 91. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that this is not known at this time. 93. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 91. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that this is not known at this time. 94. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 91. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that this is not known at this time. 95. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 91. 96. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 91. 97. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 91. 98 . Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 91. 99. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 91. 100. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 91 . 101. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 91. 102. Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that it is no longer in the industrial thermal insulation business and has not been since September 30, 1975. In 1970, GAF began the production of asbestos-free Calsilite, (Calsilite II). GAF does not have specific personal knowledge of the asbestos-free products produced by other manufacturers. -23- 103. Yes. 104. Objection. This interrogatory is unduly burdensome and harassing and does not seek information which is relevant or calculatec to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Without waiving its objection, this defendant responds that any relevant documents have been referred to in responses to related interroga tories. 105. Objection. This interrogatory is improper and objected to because it is overly broad and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admis sible evidence. Additionally, it is vague, ambiguous, bardensome, and oppressive in requesting information with respect to products and years not shown to be relevant in these actions. Further, it is not limited to thermal insulation products; and it is burdensome and oppressive inasmuch as GAF products may have been purchased by the United States Government, General Services Administration, and any shipyard, from others than GAF. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, GAF responds as follows: GAF from time to time sold thermal insulation products to various agencies and departments of the United States Government pursuant to contract, purchase order, and otherwise. Such sales were, to the extent they took place, principally of Calsilite, a calcium silicate thermal insulating pipe covering and block. GAF did not commence sustained manufacture or sale of Calsilite on a "commercial basis" until April 1, 1949, and ceased operation of the Calsilite plant on October 14, 197 1. 106. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 105. Further, this interrogatory is burdensome and oppressive inasmuch as no list, compilation, abstract, or summary exists in discoverable form from which it would be possible to determine such percentages. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, GAF responds that it does not know the percentage of sales of asbestoscontaining materials to the United States Government, General Services Administration, or any shipyard during the stated period. -24- 107. GAF does not have within its corporate structure a section referred to as "contract units." 108. Not applicable. 109. Not applicable. 110. Not applicable. 111. Not applicable. 112. Not applicable. 113. Not applicable. 114. Objection. This interrogatory is too vague and ambiguous and calls for an expert technical opinion and speculation which this defendant cannot and is not competent to express. Further, without waiving its objection, this defendant states that the interrogatory is not applicable if one assumes that this interrogatory applies to "contract units." 115. Objection. See objection and response to Interrogatory No. 114. 116. Not applicable. 117. Not applicable. 118. Not applicable. 119. Not applicable. 120. Not applicable. 121. Not applicable. 122. Not applicable. 123. Not applicable. 124. Not applicable. 125. Not applicable. 126. Not applicable. 127. Not applicable. 128 . Yes. 129. Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is not common to most or all of the cases pending in the Western District of North Carolina and, therefore, this interrogatory is not within the scope of discovery contemplated by the Initial Pre-Trial Order Coordi nating Proceedings. Further, this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information which is not relevant and is -25- not calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in these cases. 130. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 129. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that the mines were of the "gravel pit" type, that is, above ground. 131. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 129. Without waiving its objection, this defendant responds "yes." 132. Objection. See objection and response to Interrogatory No. 131. 133. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 131. 134. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 131. 135. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. 129. Further, this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving its objection, and assuming that this interrogatory seeks information with respect to whether or not results of examinations led to furnishing miners with respirators,, this defendant responds that it does not have any such information with respect to such requests. 136. No. 137 . Not applicable. 138. Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous and requests that this defendant express certain medical opinions which it cannot and is not competent to express. Further, this interrogatory is not relevant and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in these cases. 139. No. 140. No. 141. Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in these cases. Without waiving its objection, this defendant responds that this defendant has in its possession some or all of the shipping records for certain of its industrial thermal insulation products containing asbestos for the years 1962 to 1975. These records are by job site and not by sales to specific companies or entities. 142. No. -26- 143. Not applicable. 144. Not applicable. See response to Interrogatory No. 107. 145. No. 146. Not applicable. 147. Yes. 148. Minor changes in the composition of Calsilite were made in approximately 1957 to facilitate the manufacturing process. The formulation of Calsilite was changed in July or August, 1971. At that time, an asbestos-free Calsilite was briefly placed on the market. Its manufacture was discontinued in the same year. The asbestos-free product Was discontinued because it was unprofitable. 149. GAF had limited but good experience with products referred to, because the whole line was discontinued. 150. Calsilite II asbestos was replaced by Sulphite. 151. 1970. 152. Unknown. 153. This defendant is not sure, but believes sometime in the 1940's. 154. Prior to 1971, this defendant was not allowed to make products outside of government specifications. Calsilite II was produced in order to try to get government specifications changed, but they rejected it. 155. Yes. 156. Not applicable. 157. Objection. GAF is unable to determine what information is sought by this interrogatory. 158. Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is not common to most or all of the cases pending in the Western District of North Carolina and, therefore, this interrogatory is not within the scope of discovery contemplated by the Initial Pre-Trial Order Coordinating Proceedings. 159. 160. 161. Objection. Objection. Objection. See objection to Interrogatory No. See objection to Interrogatory No. See objection to Interrogatory No. 158. 159. 159. -27- 162. Objection. This interrogatory is improper and objected to because it is overly broad and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, it is vague and ambiguous in that, among other reasons, the term "participation" and the phrase "develop specifications" are undefined and capable of various interpretations. Further, it fails to identify a particular and relevant product, time period, specification, or communication. Without waiving theforegoing objections, and subject thereto, GAF responds as follows: GAF's principal direct communication with the United States related to specifications for non-asbestos products intended for use on United States Navy vessels which would replace asbestos products required by the Navy. See further. Response to Interrogatory No. 163. 163. Objection. This interrogatory is objected to on the same grounds as stated in the Response to Interrogatory No. 162. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, and without in any way conceding that the Response to Interrogatory No. 162 is "yes," GAF responds as follows: Beginning in 1969, GAF developed a high temperature calcium silicate thermal insulation product that did not contain asbestos. This product was identified as "Calsilite II" or "Calsilite." In 1970 and 1971, William Schwingen and Richard Henry attempted to obtain Navy approval of GAF's non-asbestos Calsilite for use on the Navy's ships. GAF demonstrated the product's safety and suitability and had an independent laboratory perform tests for the Navy's benefit. However, the Navy, through the Naval Experimental Station in Annapolis, refused to permit GAF to remove the asbestos from the product and rejected non-asbestos Calsilite. Without Navy approval of the non-asbestos product, GAF determined to cease manufacturing Calsilite, and closing of the Calsilite plant was announced by GAF on October 14, 1971. GAF representatives were also members, along with representatives of the United States Navy, of standard-setting groups and committees of the American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, -28- Pennsylvania ("ASTM"). ASTM is a non-profit organization that provides a management system in which producers, users, ultimate consumers, and representatives of government and academia develop technical information in the published form of agreed-upon documents called "voluntary consensus standards." ASTM standards--test methods, specifications, definitions, practices, and classifications--are written by those having expertise in specific areas, who choose voluntarily to work within the ASTM system. Current membership is over 28,000 organizations and individuals, worldwide, with a total unit participation of well over 80,000 in 138 technical committees. In addition to the 6,700 standards contained in the 66-volume Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM also provides numerous other technical publications and related material which have evolved from committee activities. GAF representatives as well as other industry and Government personnel, including representatives from the United States Navy, voluntarily served on a number of ASTM committees and subcommittees. Specifically, GAF representatives served on Subcommittee C-16, which dealt with high temperature thermal insulation, from 1950 until 1971. At various times in this period, GAF representatives on Subcommittee C-16 were J. M. High, Thomas J. Walters, Duane Davis, and William Schwingen. Any standard or specification recommended or promulgated by ASTM would have been, and was, generally applicable to commercial and industrial applications, and no such standard or specification was designated specifically as intended for naval or maritime use. The United States Navy also initiated communications with GAF in the 1940's with respect to matters pertaining to the War effort and the expertise and assistance which commercial and industrial companies could lend to these efforts, including manufacture of products required by the Navy in the War effort. It is not known whether such inquiries related to specification-setting. However, such communica tions did relate to product manufacture. See also. Response to Inter rogatory No. 171. 164. Objection. This interrogatory is improper and objected to because it is overly broad and seeks information which is neither -29- relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admis sible evidence. Additionally, it is vague and ambiguous, in that, among other reasons, the term "developing specifications" is undefined and capable of various interpretations. Further, it fails to identify a particular and relevant product, time period, specification, or communication. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, GAF refers plaintiffs to Response to Interrogatory No. 165. 165. Objection. This interrogatory is objected to on the same grounds as stated in Response to Interrogatory No. 164. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, and without in any way conceding that the Response to Interrogatory No. 164 is "yes," GAF responds as follows: With respect to GAF's development of a non-asbestos calcium silicate thermal insulation product, and the United States Navy's refusal to approve the non-asbestos product or adbpt or promulgate specifications permitting the use of such a non-asbestos product, GAF has a limited amount of correspondence between GAF and the Navy which demonstrates (1) the Navy's pervasive knowledge of the properties of asbestos, including its potential for causing injury when used improperly by the Navy on naval vessels, and (2) the Navy's refusal to approve a non-asbestos product for use on naval vessels. Such corre spondence is within the possession or under the custody or control of GAF's Legal Department at its headquarters in New York. A limited amount of correspondence and other written material relating to ASTM is also within the possession or under the custody or control of GAF's Legal Department at its headquarters in New York. However, such materials are incomplete and GAF refers plaintiffs to ASTM for more complete documentation. References to GAF's War efforts are contained from time to time in Minutes of the Executive Committee of The Ruberoid Co., also within the possession or under the custody or control of GAF's Legal Depart ment in New York. 166. Objection. This interrogatory is improper and objected to because it is overly broad and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admis sible evidence. Additionally, it is vague and ambiguous in that, among -30- other reasons, the terms "initiate," "recommend," and "specifications" are undefined and capable of various interpretations. Further, it fails to identify a particular and relevant product, time period, specification, or communication. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, defendant refers plaintiffs to its Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 162, 163, and 167. 167. Objection. This interrogatory is objected to on the same grounds as stated in Response to Interrogatory No. 166. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, and without in any way conceding that the Response to Interrogatory No. 166 is "yes," this defendant responds as follows: In 1970, GAF recommended that United States Navy specifications be changed so as to permit use of GAF's non-asbestos calcium silicate thermal insulation product. William Schwingen and Richard Henry made such recommendations to the Navy. The Navy refused, in 1971, to change its specifications to permit use of GAF's non-asbestos product. GAF thereupon ceased manufacture, shipment, and sale of calcium silicate thermal insulation on October 14, 1971. 168. Objection. This interrogatory is improper and objected to because it is overly broad and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, it is vague and ambiguous, in that, among other reasons, it fails to identify a particular and relevant product, or time period. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, GAF refers plaintiffs to Response to Interrogatories Nos. 163, 165, and 167. 169. Objection. This interrogatory is objected to on the same grounds as stated in Response to Interrogatory No. 168. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, and without in any way conceding that the Response to Interrogatory No. 168 is "yes," defendant refers plaintiffs to Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 163, 165, and 167. 170. Objection. This interrogatory is improper and objected to because it is overly broad and seeks information which is neither -31- relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admis-r sible evidence. Additionally, it is vague and ambiguous, in that, among other reasons, it fails to identify a.particular and relevant product and time period, and certain of the terms are undefined and capable of various interpretations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, GAF refers plaintiffs to Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 163 and 171. 171. Objection. This interrogatory is objected to on the same grounds as stated in Response to Interrogatory No. 170. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, and without in any way conceding that the response to Interrogatory No. 170 is "yes," this defendant refers plaintiffs to Response to Interrogatory No. 163 and responds as follows: GAF was a member of the National Insulation Manufacturers Associa tion for certain years between 1950 and 1971, i.e., the years of manu facture of its calcium silicate thermal insulation, Calsilite, and was also a member of other trade associations dealing with products other than asbestos-containing thermal insulation products. Such trade associations internally discussed specifications applicable to thermal insulation products used for commercial and industrial applications. GAF is not specifically aware of efforts by such associations or groups to change or affect specific product requirements promulgated or enforced by the United States Navy. Furthermore, GAF objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the United States Navy was solely responsible for setting all product content, performance, packaging and labeling specifications applicable to all products it purchased or procured. Such specifications were promulgated and enforced within the sole determination and discretion of the United States Navy and asbestos-containing products purchased or procured by the Navy were similarly purchased or procured within the Navy's sole determination and discretion. 172. Objection. This interrogatory is objected to on the same grounds as stated in Response to Interrogatory No. 171. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, defendant refers plaintiffs to Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 163 and 165. -32- 173. Not applicable. 174. See Response to Interrogatories Nos. 171 and 175. 175. Objection. This interrogatory is objected to on multiple grounds that (1) it is overly broad and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (2) the terms "participate" and "marketing" are vague and ambiguous and provide no basis for a meaningful response by GAF; (3) without specific identification of products or years, the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous and provides no basis for a meaningful response by GAF; (4) the United States Government set speci fications for products used on all United States Navy ships within its sole discretion and, accordingly, interrogatories with respect to "participation" by N.I.M.A. or other associations or groups with respect to such specifications are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (5) this interrogatory is irrelevant with respect to GAF inasmuch as Government specifications for asbestos-containing products manufactured by GAF had already been promulgated in their effective form prior to the date upon which GAF became a member of N.I.M.A.; and (6) this interrogatory should properly be directed to N.I.M.A., not to GAF. See Response to Interrogatory No. 171. 176. Objection. This interrogatory is improper and objected to because it is overly broad and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admis sible evidence. Additionally, it is vague and ambiguous, in that, among other reasons, it fails to identify a particular and relevant product or time period and with respect to its use of the terms "prepared," "published," "promote," and "advertise." Additionally, this interrogatory is compound and complex, thereby calling for an ambiguous and misleading response; and improperly characterizes brochures, cata logs, and pamphlets. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, this defendant refers plaintiffs to Response to Inter rogatory No. 177. 177. Objection. This interrogatory is objected to on the same grounds as stated in Response to Interrogatory No. 176. without -3 3- waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, and without in any way conceding that the Response to Interrogatory No. 176 is "yes," GAP responds as follows: Certain of GAF's brochures, catalogs, and pamphlets contained data listing physical characteristics, performance characteristics and specifications applicable to high temperature thermal insulation. Such specifications included a notation of compliance with various industry, federal specifications (applicable to non-military procure ment) and military specifications (applicable to military, including United States Navy, procurement). For example, a 1968 Product Data Sheet for GAF's Calsilite stated as follows: "Specifications. Calsilite Pipe Covering and Block meet specifications: ASTM C-533-64T, Federal Spec. HH-I-00523C (GSA-FSS), MIL-I-2781-D and MIL-I-2819D." This notation neither "promoted" nor "advertised" such data or specification within the common meaning of these terms, but provided necessary product data to purchasers. A limited number of product brochures is in the possession or under the custody or control of GAF's Legal Department in New York. 178. Objection. This interrogatory is improper and objected to because it is overly broad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, defendant refers plaintiffs to Response to Interroga tories Nos. 163 and 179. 179. Objection. This interrogatory is objected to on the same grounds as stated in Response to Interrogatory No. 178. Additionally, GAF objects that this interrogatory seeks information not relevant to this action, inasmuch as it is not limited to thermal insulation products containing asbestos. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, and without in any way conceding that the Response to Interrogatory No. 178 is "yes," GAF responds as follows: GAF's Calsilite was on QPL-2781 for certain years of GAF's manufacture of the product, including but not limited to certain years -34- between 1949 and 1971/ and Calsilite block was on QPL-2819 for the same years. Other of GAF's non-thermal insulation products were on other QPL's at other and various times. 180. Objection. See objection and response to Interrogatories Nos. 105 and 106. Without waiving the foregoing objections/ and subject thereto, GAF further responds as follows: (1) GAF does not know the percentage of Calsilite sales to the United States Navy during this period. (2) GAF also from time to time sold asbestos-containing nonthermal insulation products to the United States Navy. See also responses and objections noted above. 181. Objection. This interrogatory is improper and objected to because it contains various assumptions; is vague and ambiguous, in that, among other reasons, it fails to specify a particular and rele vant product or time period; and is incapable of being answered in its present form. In addition, it is argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, GAF responds as follows: GAF's high temperature thermal insulation, Calsilite pipe cover ing and block, complied with applicable federal and military specifica tions and, having been placed on applicable Qualified Products Lists, was available for purchase by the United States. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 171. 182. Objection. This interrogatory is objected to on the same grounds as stated in Response to Interrogatory No. 181. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, and without in any way conceding that the response to Interrogatory No. 181 is "yes," defendant refers plaintiffs to its Response to Interrogatories Nos. 165 and 181. 183. No. 184. Not applicable. 185. No. -35- 186. Not applicable. 187. Not applicable. This the \v day of , 1983. tg/f/VL -______ Charles H. Mercer, Jr. 'O AKINS, MANN, PIKE & MERCER, P.A. Attorneys for Defendants GAP Corporation P. O. Box 17884 Raleigh, NC 27619 Telephone: (919) 781-6400 -36- 1 State of New York ) ) ss. 2 County of New York ) 3 4 5 I, PATRICIA CORBUTT, being duly sworn, depose and 6 say that I am an Assistant Secretary of GAP Corporation, that 7 I have read the foregoing answers, that I am informed and be 8 lieve the matters therein to be true and on that ground allege 9 that the matters stated therein are true. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Swjo^n to be for ne this 16 day of 4.C/ ^ 19^3. 17 Notary Public 18 ge::ev;eve t. otonnor Notary Public. State of New York 19 No. 31-4673484 Qualified in New York County Commission Expires March 30,19$4 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on all counsel and parties of record by depositing a copy thereof in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Mr. Thomas F. Taft P. 0. Box 588 Greenville, N. C. 27834 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Mr. Joseph F. Rice P. O. Box 365 Barnwell, S. C. 29812 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Atlas Asbestos Corp. Ltd. 5600 Eochelega Street Montreal, Quebec, Canada Mr. J. Brian Scott Mr. Marshall A. Gallop, Jr. P. O. Box 269 Rocky Mount, N. C. 27801 ATTORNEYS FOR ARMSTRONG "" WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. Mr. Henry L. Anderson, Jr. P. O. Box 474 Fayetteville, N. C. 28302 ATTORNEY FOR A C & S Mr. F. Blackwell Stith P. O. Box 1427 New Bern, N. C. 28560 ATTORNEY FOR CELOTEX Mr. Howard E. Manning, Sr. P. O. Box 1150 Raleigh, N. C. 27602 ATTORNEY FOR EMPIRE ACE Mr. Armistead J. Maupin Mr. Richard M. Lewis P. O. Box 829 Raleigh, N. C. 27602 ATTORNEYS FOR EAGLE-PICHER Mr. Fitzhugh E. Wallace P. 0. Box 3557 Kinston, N. C. 28501 ATTORNEY FOR FORTY-EIGHT INSULATION, INC. Mr. Thomas E. Harris P. O. Box 867 New Bern, N. C. 28560 ATTORNEY FOR FIBREBOARD CORP. Mr. Richard Tyndall Mr. Richmond W. Rucker P. 0. Drawer 614 Winston-Salem, N. C. 27102 ATTORNEYS FOR FLINTKOTE Mr. James G. Billings P. O. Box 12807 Raleigh, N. C. 27605 ATTORNEY FOR KEENE CORPORATION Mr. W. Harold Mitchell P. O. Box 69 Valdese, NC 28690 ATTORNEY FOR LAKE ASBESTOS Mr. Marvin D. Musselwhite, Jr. P. O. Box 10096 Raleigh, N. C. 27605 ATTORNEY FOR NATIONAL GYPSUM Mr. William L. Hill II P. 0. Box 1268 Wilmington, NC 28402 ATTORNEY FOR NATIONAL GYPSUM Mr. Victor S. Bryant, Jr. P. 0. Box 341 Durham, N. C. 27702 ATTORNEY FOR NICOLET, INC. Mr. Donald E. Britt, Jr. P. O. Box 8 07 Wilmington, N. C. 28402 ATTORNEY FOR OWENS-CORNING Mr. Perry C. Henson Hr. J. Victor Bowman P. 0. Box 3525 Greensboro, N. C. 27402 ATTORNEYS FOR H. K. PORTER COMPANY Mr. Williams Kearns Davis Mr. Richard V. Bennett P. O. Box 49 Winston-Salem, N. C. 27102 ATTORNEYS FOR PITTSBURGH CORNING Mr. Gerard H. Davidson, Jr. Mr. McNeill Smith Mr. Robert A. Wicker P. 0. Box -21927 Greensboro, N. C. 27402 ATTORNEYS FOR RAYMARK INDUSTRIES Mr. Sanford W. Thompson IV P. O. Box 310 Raleigh, NC 27602 ATTORNEY FOR ROCK WOOL MANUFACTURING Mr. Moses D. Lasitter P. 0. Box 63 New Bern, N. C. 28560 ATTORNEY FOR CROWN CORK & SEAL Mr. William D. Caffrey Mr. Kenneth Kyre, Jr. P. O. Box 989 Greensboro, N. C. 27402 ATTORNEYS FOR OWENS-ILLINOIS This (i^day of , 1983. G&r-e. Charles H. Mercer, Jr. Tj AKINS, MANN, PIKE & MERCER, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant GAF Corporation