Document 2eLM4xOx2BjdJ8pG34qyyZRN

1 PATRICK J. HAGAN, ESQ. - Bar No.: 68264 EDWARD E. HARTLEY, ESQ. - Bar No.: 122892 KINCAID, GIANUNZIO, CAUDLE & HUBERT A Professional Corporation 200 Webster Street, Suite 200 Oakland, California 94604-0828 (510) 465-5212 5 Attorneys for Defendants KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION 6 KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC AUG 10 1992 7 LDP 9/2?/<2 8 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO -/s/ 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 n COY COSSEY , ,v V -Ov V , 12 vs. Plaintiff, 13 ABEX CORPORATION, ET AL, 14 Defendants. 15 J ACTION NO.' 920148 16 LYNN WEIMER 17 vs. Plaintiff, L 3> - 18 ABEX CORPORATION, ET AL. 19 Defendants. 20 ACTION NO. 914594 CONSOLIDATED PARTIAL RESPONSE OF KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION AND KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS y 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 rxEi^womccs or KINCAID. GIANUNZIO CAUDLE & HUBERT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION PRELIMINARY STATEMENT During April, 1992 Plaintiffs served Notices of Deposition and Requests for Production of Documents on defendants Kaiser Cement Corporation (''Kaiser Cement") and Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (''Kaiser Gypsum") , seeking production twenty-five categories of documents and related depositions. Copies of the notices are attached as Exhibit A. On May 1 Kaiser Cement and vj? 1 Kaiser Gypsum served Plaintiffs, by letter, with their objections. 2 (Exhibit B hereto). All objections stated in Exhibit B are 3 incorporated herein by reference. Among the objections was that 4 the requested categories have no geographic limitation and span 5 very long time periods.. Consequently, locating the responsive 6 documents would be unduly burdensome and oppressive. 7 However, Kaiser Gypsum agreed, without waiving any 8 objections, to produce appropriate responsive documents, if given 9 a reasonable amount of time to complete the task. By letter of 10 May 20, 1992, counsel for Kaiser Cement and Kaiser Gypsum indicated 11 several months would be needed to complete this task (Exhibit C), 12 but also indicated that certain categories of documents could be 13 provided before completion and prior to any depositions. ' 14 Since May, Kaiser Cement and Kaiser Gypsum have been 15 engaged in a diligent search through their voluminous retained 16 records for documents potentially responsive to the twenty-five 17 document production categories. Because neither firm's retained 18 records are organized in terms of the document production 19 categories, literally thousands of boxes must be thoroughly 20 examined to locate documents fully responsive to some requests (or 21 to determine that there are none). However, completion of that 22 task is not required in the case of documents responsive to document production category 15 (annual reports). 23 24 Accordingly, Kaiser Cement and Kaiser Gypsum provide the 25 following separate partial response to Plaintiffs request for 26 production of documents: 27 Request 15. All your annual reports for the years 1936 28 through 1991 inclusive, to include all alleged predecessors or 2 O 1 successors in interest and subsidiaries involved in the sale, 2 mining, milling, distribution, import, transport, installation, or 3 manufacture of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. 4 Kaiser Cement Response; Kaiser Cement objects to 5 this request on the grounds that it is oppressive and overbroad 6 (and therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of 7 admissible evidence) to the extent that it seeks annual reports 8 for years in which Kaiser Cement did not market asbestos- 9 containing products. The only years during which Kaiser Cement 10 issued annual reports and marketed any products that contained 11 asbestos as an ingredient were from 1959-76. During the years 12 1959-63 Kaiser Cement was known as "Permanente Cement Company"; 13 during the years 1964-76 Kaiser Cement was known as "Kaiser Cement' 14 & Gysum Corporation." Without waiving its objections, 15 Kaiser Cement agrees to produce these annual reports. 16 Kaiser Gvosum Response: Kaiser Gypsum adopts the above- stated objections of Kaiser Cement. 17 Without waiving those objections, Kaiser Gypsum responds that it never issued annual 18 reports, and, consequently, there are no documents responseive to 19 this request. 20 ` 21 DATED ; August 7, 1992 KINCAID, GIANUNZIO, CAUDLE & HUBERT 22 A Professional Corporation 23 24 25 26 27 # I-S3bc\caigl5jrp EDWARD E. HARTLEY, ESQ. --Bar No.; Attorneys for Defendants KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION AND KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC. 122892 28 3