Document 2jzpO6X81rJaJaMVq3wgyNLxb

A(J$-25-9r 13:IT Frc:PHELPS DUNBAR H 0 7136261388 T-655 P.02 Job-621 FRANCISCO S. GALVAN, ET AL Plaintiffs, VS. owens-corning fiberglas CORPORATION, ET AL Defendants. NO. 940-17X47 IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS S 5 ISOTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES.TO PLAINTIFF'SREOUESIFOR ADMISSIONS TO: Plaintiff Daniel B. McFarland, by and through his attorneys of record, Kimberly Schauck. Baron & Budd, The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue. Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. Pursuant to Rules 166b and )67 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Union Pacific Railroad Company as Successor-in-lntcrcat to Texas Pacific Railway (Improperly named as Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. d/b/a Union Pacific Railroad Co., Individually and aa Successor-in-lnterest to Texas & Pacific Railway), Defendant herein, hereby submits ics Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions. REOUESTSFOR ADMISSIONS REQt/EST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit or deny that asbestos-containing products were m general use aboard Defendant's railway cars, engines and/or locomotives during the time period Plaintiffwas employed by Defendant. RESPONSE- Objection. Defendant objects to the term "general use" in this Request. Further, this Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unlimited in scope and stake information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit or deny that Defendant ordered, purchased or otherwise acquired asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, machinery requiring die use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products and/or materials for use during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that it used asbestos-containing products during the steam era. However, Defendant denies that it had knowledge during the period ofplaintiffs employment that railroad employees were at risk of acquiring an asbestos-related disease under the circumstances in which railroad employees worked. request rORADMissiON NO. 2: Admit or deny that Defendant used or implemented upon Defendant's railway cars, engines and/or locomotives on which or in the vicinity of which Plaintiff worked, asbestos-containing 1 RECEIVED TfMEAQG. 25. 7:21PM AUC-25-S? 19:17 FroorPKELPS DUNBAR H 0 7136261388 T-655 P.03 Job-621 products, asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request because it is not limited in scope to the plaintiffs employment period, subject to this objection. Defendant admits that it used asbestos-containing products during die steam era. request for ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit or deny that Defendant's cars, engines and/or locomotives which Plaintiff worked on or around were unfit because of the presence of and/or use ofasbestos-containing products, machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products and/or asbestos-containing friction products on these railway cars, engines and/or locomotives. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST for ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit or deny that Plaintiff was a railroad worker, as that term is generally understood, during his employment with Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant admits thee Daniel B. McFarland was employed by the railroad. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit or deny that Plaintiff, in the course and scope ofhis work as a railroad worker and/or employee of Defendant, worked on and/or around Defendant's railroad, railway cars, engines and/or locomotives where asbestos, asbestos-containing products and/or machinery calling for the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products were present. RESPONSE: Although Defendant lacks direct knowledge. Defendant admits that Plaintiff McFarland claims that he worked on steam engines for a limited time period. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit or deny that Defendant was aware at any time during the periods of time Plaintiff worked for Defendant that airborne asbestos dust created a potential health hazard to those who breathed such dust. RESPONSE: Defendant dentes that it had knowledge during the period of Plaintiff MoFarland'* employment that railroad employees were at risk of acquiring an asbestos-related disease under the circumstances in which railroad employees worked. * REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. &: Admit or deny that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant or by a predeccasor-in-interest of Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant admits this request. request FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit or deny that Plaintiff worked on and/or around Defendant's railway cars, engines and/or locomotives where asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products and/or materials were installed, used, prepared for use, replaced or repaired. RESPONSE: Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny this Request in its entirety. Defendant admits that asbestos-containing products were used during the steam era but denies that it had knowledge that the products were a potential health hazard to railroad employees under the type Ofduties they performed. POS:7KH.I 2 RECEIVED TIMEAUG. 25. 7:2!PM AUH-25-97 19:17 FroasPHELPS DUNBAR H 0 713525138$ T-S55 P.04 Job-521 request FOR admission NO. IQ: Admit or deny that Defendant did not distribute any literature or warnings of any kind to its employees during the period of time Plaintiff worked for Defendant regarding the potential health hoards to those who breathe airborne asbestos dust. RESPONSE: Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny this Request in its entirety. Defendant admits that asbestos-coruaming products were used during the steam era but denies that it had knowledge that the products were a potential health hazard to railroad employees under the type of duties they performed. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, ti: Admit or deny that the friction products and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products and/or materials were placed on or used m Defendant's railway cars, engines and/or locomotives during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant and upon Defendant's railway cars, engines and/or locomotives where Plaintiff worked were the following asbestos-containing products. a. any asbestos-containing product and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos packing or asbestos-containing products and/or materials b. asbestos tiles c. asbestos millboard d. asbestos friction products e. asbestos pipecovering f. asbestos gaskets g. asbestos joint compound h. asbestos cement f. asbestos j. asbestos k. boilers t. brake shoes m. brake linings n. clutch linings o. firebrick p. refractories/castables q. turbines , * RESPONSE: Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny this Request in its entirety. Defendant admits that asbestos-containing products were used during the steam era but denies that it had knowledge that the produets were a potential health hazard to railroad employees under the type of duties they performed. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12. Admit or deny that Defendant engaged in any abatement programs for the removal of asbestos or asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products and/or materials at any time since 1965 on Defendant's railroad, railway cars, engines and/or locomotives during the time of Plaintiffs employment. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. request FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit or deny that Defendant was aware of the presence of and/or use of asbestos-containing products and/or machinery requiring (he use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products and/or PDJ:7JM1.1 3 ECEI7Er ?!MEA(JG. 25. 7:21 PM AU5-25-97 19:18 Proa:PHElP$ DUNBAR H 0 7136281388 T-855 P.05 Job-821 materials during the rime period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant and upon Defendant's railroad, railway cars, engines and/or locomotives where Plaintiff worked. RESPONSE: Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny this Request in its entirety. Defendant admits that asbesros-conraining products were used during the steam era but denies that it had knowledge that the products were a potential health hazard to railroad employees under the type of duties they performed. request pQR admission no. la- Admit or deny that Defendant became aware of the potential health hazards of airborne asbestos during the rime periods in which Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. RESpONSfe Defendant denies that it was aware ofany potential health hazard to railroad workers under the type of duties they performed. REQUEST for ADMISSION NQ^tS: Admit or deny that Defendant did not continuously provide face masks to crew members working with or around asbestos, asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos and/or asbectos*containmg products upon Defendant's railway cars, engines and/or locomotives from 1945 to die present for the putpose of protecring these crew members from inhaling asbestos, air borne asbestos fibers and/or dust. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST POR ADMISSION NO^)6: Admit or deny that during the rime Plaintiffwas employed by Defendant, it was foreseeable that asbestos-containing products on Defendant's railway cars, engines and/or locomotives would or i could be removed, stripped, replaced or repaired at some time after installation. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the term "foreseeable" in this Request. Further, this Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unlimited in scope and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit or deny that during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the Boiler inspection Act, formerly 45 U.S.C. 23; and restated at 49 U.S.C. 20701 et seq. , RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit or deny that Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant within three (3) years ofthe date ofdiscovering his asbeetos-related condition or the existence ofany asbestos-related causes of action. RESPONSE.- Defendant denies this Request. PD5'7J6.l 4 HECEIVED TIMEAUG. 25. 7:21PM I Al'5-25-97 19:18 Fron:PKELPS DUNBAR H 0 7138261988 T-655 P.06 Job-621 Respectfully submitted. PHELPS DUNBAR Deborah A. Newman Texas Bar No. 01237257 3040 Post Oak Boulevard Suite 900 Houston. TX 77056 (713) 626*1386 FAX (713) 626-1388 Attorney for Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and eormt copy ofthe foregoing Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Amended Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions has been sent via Facsimile to Kimberly Schauck, Baron & BUdd, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue. Suite 1100, Dallas. Texas 75219428 ] on this day of August, 1997 and via First Class Mail to all parties of record on attached service list, this ' th day of August. 1997. { , i*. . Deborah Newman )U v roiiTsay i 5 RECEIVED TIMEAUG. 25. 7:21PM