Document 2q21eRmjy7BqOZa77kkZENw25

RECEIVED MAY 1 - 2002 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EAST ST. LOUIS DIVISION JOYCE E. BOGNER, Individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate of RICHARD T. BOGNER, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. AIRCO, INC. et.al,, Case No.: 01-CV-627-DRH Defendants. DEFENDANT SHELL OIL COMPANY'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO ALL DEFENDANTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF B.F. GOODRICH n/k/a GOODRICH CORPORATION COMES NOW defendant. Shell Oil Company, by and through its counsel, and for its answers and objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents Directed to All Defendants With the Exception of B. F. Goodrich n/k/a Goodrich Company, exhibits as follows: INTERROGATORIES 1. Please state whether or not you ever supplied vinyl chloride monomer to the Henry plant. If so, please state when and how much vinyl chloride monomer you supplied to the Henry plant. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, unlimited in time, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant Shell has a record of supplying a volume of 2,519,777 pounds of vinyl chloride monomer to the Henry, Illinois plant in 1979. Defendant Shell was unable to locate any records reflecting shipments of vinyl chloride to the Henry plant before 1979 or after 1979. 2. If you supplied vinyl chloride monomer to the Henry plant, please specify the method by which you supplied it to the Henry plant. ANSWER: Defendant was unable to locate the invoice(s) indicating the method of shipment of the vinyl chloride monomer shipped to the Henry, Illinois plant in 1979. 3. If you supplied vinyl chloride monomer to the Henry plant, please identify all warnings you made concerning possible health hazards from exposure to vinyl chloride monomer shipped to Henry, including the applicable dates of said warnings. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, unlimited in time, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it presumes the existence of a duty to communicate information directly by defendant to the Henry plant or plaintiffs decedent when it is evident from the allegations in the Complaint that decedent was an employee of a sophisticated producer and user of vinyl chloride monomer and products produced therefrom. Subject to and without waiving these objections, see attached MSDS dated June, 1978 which, upon information and belief, would have been the type of warning produced with the shipment(s) of vinyl chloride to the Henry, Illinois plant in 1979. 4. Please state whether or not you ever had any financial relationship with BFG concerning railcars that transported products or material to or from the Henry plant. If so, please explain that relationship, including applicable the dates of said relationship. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, unlimited in time, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as the terms "financial relationship" are vague and would require this defendant to speculate. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant Shell was unable to locate the invoice(s) indicating the method of shipment of the vinyl chloride monomer shipped to the Henry, Illinois plant in 1979. 5. Please identify the documents from your initial disclosure that fit within the definition of Phase I Discovery as described by the court. ANSWER: This defendant has produced over 6,516 documents to plaintiffs counsel. While some the documents pertain to B.F. Goodrich, it is believed that none of the documents are specific to the Henry, Illinois plant or Mr. Bogner. 6. In the documents referenced in your disclosure in this case, please identify any and all documents within that bates range that have not been produced to the plaintiffs. ANSWER: None. To this defendant's knowledge, all the documents referenced in Shell's initial disclosure were produced to plaintiffs counsel in the case of Daniel J. Ross, et al. v. Conoco, Inc., et al. 7. In the documents referenced in your disclosure in this case, please identify all documents that have been redacted and state the reason for said redaction. ANSWER: None of the documents produced have been redacted. 8. Please state whether BFG's Henry plant was ever included in any epidemiologic study that you sponsored. If so, please identify the study, the contractor for the study and when and how the study was published. ANSWER: Not to this defendant's knowledge. 9. Please state whether or not you had any swap or exchange agreements related to the supply of vinyl chloride monomer to the BFG Henry plant at any time between 1965 and 1989, inclusive. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving this objection. Shell was unable to locate any such agreements. 10. Please state whether or not you had any swap or exchange agreements concerning, regarding or reflecting any shipment of polyvinyl chloride from the BFG Henry plant at any time between 1965 and 1989, inclusive. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving this objection, while Shell is unclear as to the meaning of this interrogatory, Shell has been unable to locate any such agreements. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. Please produce any and all documents concerning, regarding or reflecting any vinyl chloride monomer you supplied to the Henry plant from 1965 to 1989, inclusive. RESPONSE: See attached. 2. Please produce any and all documents concerning, regarding or reflecting the method by which you supplied vinyl chloride monomer to the Henry plant from 1965 to 1989, inclusive. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these objections, see answer to Interrogatory No. 2. 3. Please produce any and all documents concerning, regarding or reflecting any warnings you made concerning possible health hazards from exposure to vinyl chloride monomer you shipped to the Henry plant from 1965 to 1989, inclusive. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it presumes the existence of a duty to communicate information directly by defendant to the Henry plant or plaintiffs decedent when it is evident from the allegations in the Complaint that decedent was an employee of a sophisticated producer and user of vinyl chloride monomer and products produced therefrom. Subject to and without waiving these objections, see attached MSDS dated June, 1978 which, upon information and belief, would have been the type of warning produced with the shipment(s) of vinyl chloride to the Henry, Illinois plant in 1979. 4. Please produce any and all documents concerning, regarding or reflecting any financial relationship you had with BFG concerning railcars that transported products or material to or from the Henry plant from 1965 to 1989, inclusive. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these objections, see answer to Interrogatory No. 4. 5. Please produce any and all documents identified in your initial disclosure that fit within the definition of Phase I Discovery as described by the court. RESPONSE: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 6. Please produce any and all documents identified in your initial disclosure that have not been produced to the plaintiffs. RESPONSE: AH documents referenced in the Initial Disclosure were produced to plaintiffs counsel in the case of Daniel J. Ross, et al. v. Conoco, Inc., et al. If plaintiffs counsel is missing any documents identified by this defendant in its Initial Disclosure, such documents will be made available for inspection and/or copying at a mutually convenient time and place, as agreed upon by counsel. 7. Please produce any and all documents identified in your initial disclosure that have been redacted. RESPONSE: None. 8. Please produce any and all documents concerning, regarding or reflecting any epidemiologic study that included Richard T. Bogner. RESPONSE: This defendant is unaware of any such study. 9. Please produce any and all documents concerning, regarding or reflecting any swap, exchange or tolling agreement involving vinyl chloride monomer or polyvinyl chloride to or from the Henry plant at any time between 1965 to 1989, inclusive. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, unlimited in time, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Shell was unable to locate any such agreements. Respectfully submitted, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP James JY. VW firt.etl ^ #02903571 Christine M. Kocot #06226888 Matthew S. Shorey #06270604 One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600 St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2740 (314)621-5070 (314)612-2331 (facsimile) Attorneys for Defendant Shell Oil Company VERIFICATION STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF HARRIS ) )SS. ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared S. J. Paul, who acknowledged that (s)he occupies the position of Assistant Corporate Secretary with Shell Oil Company and is authorized to execute this verification to plaintiffs interrogatories on behalf of Shell Oil Company and its former division. Shell Chemical Company, ("Shell"); that while (s)he does not have personal knowledge of all the facts recited in the foregoing, the information contained therein has been collected and made available to him/her by others from sources usually searched to secure the necessary information or data; and that the responses made in the attached pleadings are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge, information and belief based upon the information made available, andJhaLJhe foregoing responses are verified on behalf of Shell Oil Company. f "''N On this j-liul day of in the year 2002, before m LU. a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared S. J. Paul, known to me to be^Jhe person who executed the within Verification, and acknowledged to me that (s)he executed the same for the purposes therein stated. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal in tl^e City and State aforesaid, the day and year first above written. My Commission Expires: Notary Public, State of Te^as REBECCA RODRIGUEZ Notary Public, State of Texas My Commission Expires MARCH 23,2005 ssssssssssss CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this Xl~'~ day of ftyAJ, 2002 to the following attorneys of record: John A. Slevin, Esq. Vonachen, Lawless, Trager & Slevin 456 Fulton Street, Suite 425 Peoria, IL 61602 Attorneys for Plaintiff William B. Baggett, Jr., Esq. William B. Baggett, Esq. Charles B. Cappel, Esq. Wells T. Watson, Esq. Baggett, McCall, Burgess & Watson 3006 Country Club Road (70605) P.O. Drawer 7820 Lake Charles, LA 70606 Attorneys for Plaintiff Randall A. Bono, Esq. Charles W. Chapman, Esq. The Simmons Firm, LLC 301 Evans Avenue, Suite 300 P. O. Box 559 Wood River, IL 62095 Attorneys for. Plaintiff Michael J. Sweeney, Esq. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 Attorneys for Defendant PPG Industries, Inc. Scott E. North, Esq. Heather W. Guthrie, Esq. Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP 41 S. High Street Columbus, OH 43215-6194 Attorneys for Defendant Georgia-Pacific Corporation John E. Heinrich, Esq. Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, L.L.P. One American Place, 22Dd Floor P.O. Box 3513 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Attorneys for Defendant Honeywell International Inc. f/k/a AlliedSignal Inc. Ron Simon, Esq. Simon & Associates 1742 N. Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Attorneys for Plaintiff Herschel Hobson, Esq. Law Offices of Herschel L. Hobson 2190 Harrison Avenue Beaumont, TX 77701 Attorneys for PlaintifT Carol A. Rutter, Esq. Mark G. Arnold, Esq. Christine F. Miller, Esq. Husch & Eppenberger, LLC 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105-3441 Attorneys for Defendants Olin Corporation, Monsanto Company, and The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Joseph C. Orlet, Esq. Matt Grant, Esq. Husch & Eppenberger 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105-3441 Attorneys for Defendants The American Chemistry Council, f/k/a The Chemical Manufacturers Association and The Manufacturing Chemists Association; Goodrich Corporation, f/k/a B.F. Goodrich Company, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Sasol North America Inc., f/k/a CONDEA Vista Company and Vista Chemical Company; Conoco, Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-interest to the Continental Oil Company, Thompson-Apex Company and Conoco Chemicals; The Dow Chemical Company, EPEC Oil Company, f/k/a Tenneco Oil Company, EPEC Polymers, f/k/a Tenneco Polymers, Inc.; Ethyl Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation, Inc., Predecessor-in-Interest to Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Pactiv Corporation; PolyOne Corporation, f/k/a The Geon Company; PPG Industries, Inc.; Tenneco Automotive Inc.; Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, f/k/a Tenneco Inc. and Union Carbide Corporation Gordon R. Broom, Esq. Larry E. Hepler, Esq. Troy Bozarth, Esq. Jeffrey S. Hebrank, Esq. Burroughs, Hepler, Broom, MacDonald, Hebrank & True 103 West Vandalia Street, Suite 300 P.O.Box 510 Edwardsville, IL 62025-0510 Attorneys for Defendants Honeywell International Inc. f/k/a AlliedSignal Inc., Occidental Chemical Corporation, Occidental Electrochemical Corporation, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., GenCorp, Inc., Georgia Gulf Corporation, and Whittaker Corporation W. Kelly Stewart, Esq. Thomas E. Fennell, Esq. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue 2727 North Harwood Dallas, TX 75201 Attorneys for Defendants Occidental Chemical Corporation, Occidental Electrochemicals Corporation, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., GenCorp, Inc., and Georgia Gulf Corporation David A. Oliver, Esq. Sloane J. Underwood, Esq. Porter & Hedges, L.L.P. Bank of America Center 700 Louisiana Street 35* Floor Houston, TX 77002-2764 Attorneys for Defendant The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Diane F. Bosse, Esq. Thomas W. Bender, Esq. Volgenau & Bosse, LLP 750 Main Seneca Building 237 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14203 Attorneys for Defendant The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Stephen Robert Clark, Esq. Andrew J. Cross, Esq. Stephanie R. Poe, Esq. Polsinelli Shalton & Welte 100 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63102 Attorneys for Defendant The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Mark Herrmann, Esq. Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114-1190 Attorneys for Defendants Occidental Chemical Corporation, Occidental Electrochemicals Corporation, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., GenCorp, Inc., and Georgia Gulf Corporation Thome D. Harris III, Esq. Attorney and Counselor at Law 326 South Broad Street New Orleans, LA 70119 Attorney for Defendant Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. David J. Bailey, Esq. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue 3500 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree St., N.E. Atlanta, GA 30308-3242 Attorney for Georgia Gulf Corporation Douglas J. Behr, Esq. Arthur S. Garett, HI, Esq. Natasha L. Drew, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, NW, Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20001 Attorneys for Defendant The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Robert H. Shultz, Jr., Esq. Kent L. Plotter, Esq. Robert G. Jones, Esq. Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen Mark Twain Plaza II, Suite 100 103 West Vandalia P.O. Box 467 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Attorneys for Defendants Airco, Inc., n/k/a The BOC Group, Inc., Borden, Inc., Monochem, Inc., and Rhone-Poulenc Inc., now known as Aventis CropScience USA Inc. as corporate successor by merger to Stauffer Chemical Company Randy Solomon. Esq. Ann Millette, Esq. Baker & Hostetler LLP 3200 National City Center 1900 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44114-3485 Attorneys for Defendant Airco, Inc. n/k/a The BOC Group, Inc. Stephen H. Rovak, Esq. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal -One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3000 St. Louis, MO 63102 Attorneys for Defendant Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. Michael W. Davis, Esq. Prentice H. Marshall, Jr., Esq. Darin V. Osmond, Esq. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood Bank One Plaza 10 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Attorneys for Defendants Borden, Inc., and Monochem, Inc. Kevin Donovan, Esq. Glen R. Stuart, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Attorneys for Defendant Rhone-Poulenc Inc., now known as Aventis CropScience USA Inc. as corporate successor by merger to Stauffer Chemical Company Timothy J. Coughlin, Esq. David E. Nash, Esq. Heidi B. Goldstein, Esq. Thompson Hine LLP 3900 Key Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Attorneys for Defendants Goodrich corporation, f/k/a The B.F. Goodrich Company, and PolyOne Corporation, f/k/a The Geon Company Richard J. Lorenz, Esq. Loren & Carter 3511 Clayhead Road Richmond, TX 77469 Attorneys for Defendants EPEC Oil Company, f/k/a Tenneco Oil Company; EPEC Polymers, Inc-, f/k/a Tenneco Polymers, Inc.; and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, f/k/a Tenneco Inc. it