Document 31NMmOgxBqvmxzy4wy6ON7Da

1 The Honorable Sharon Armstrong 2 3 4 RECEIVED 5 SEP 0 1 2005 6 BERGMAN & FROCKT 7 8 9 10 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 12 13 ALVIN JENSEN and PAULINE JENSEN, a 14 married couple, Case No. 04-2-20249-3SEA 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 SAGERHAGEN HOLDINGS, INC., et al. 18 Defendants. SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF J. MICHAEL MATTINGLY IN SUPPORT OF WARREN PUMPS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS 19 I, J. Michael Mattingly declare and state as follows: 20 1. Iam one of the attorneys representing Warren Pumps, Inc. in this matter. 21 22 2. During oral argument on August 26, 2005 on Warren Pumps, LLC's Motion for 23 Summary Judgment and Warren Pumps, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of 24 Corporate Successor Liability, plaintiffs counsel asserted for the first time (to my knowledge) 25 that Warren Pumps itself "specified" the use of certain asbestos-containing components for use 26 in pumps that it manufactured for the vessels built for the U.S. Navy. In support of that PAGE 1 - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF J. MICHAEL MATTINGLY IN SUPPORT OF WARREN PUMPS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS Steven V. Rizzo, P.C. Lincoln Place, Suite 350 1620 S.W. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503)229-1819 1 contention, plaintiff has submitted a supplemental affidavit pointing to portions of the record 2 that she contends establish that Warren Pumps "specified" the use of these asbestos-containing 3 component parts. 4 3. As discussed in the supplemental exhibits below, Warren Pumps' previously 5 designated "person most knowledgeable," Roland Doktor, has testified on numerous occasions 6 that Warren Pumps did not specify the use of any components for pumps that it contracted to 7 8 build for installation on U.S. Navy vessels. Rather, as he explained in his depositions, Warren 9 Pumps built pumps to military specifications, and the materials used for construction of those 10 pumps were specified by the military, not by Warren Pumps. 11 4. Attached hereto as "Exhibit A" is a true and accurate copy of the relevant pages 12 of the deposition transcript of Roland Doktor in the matter of In re XXIV Cases of Bergman. 13 Senn. Pageler & Frockt. KCSC 89-2-18455-9SEA, taken on April 24, 2003. Mr. Doktor was 14 15 designated as Warren Pumps' "person most knowledgeable" for numerous subjects at issue in 16 that deposition. Among the subjects discussed were Warren Pumps compliance with military 17 specifications in the production of various pumps for use onboard U.S. Navy vessels. His 18 testimony included the following passages: 19 Page 26, Lines 17-22; 20 O. Can you describe the type of support that Warren Pumps provides to the United 21 States Navy? A. We manufacture products to both naval, as well as specific shipyard 22 specifications, and within those confines would produce a product to meet all the requirements therein. 23 Page 31, Lines 14-22: 24 Q. In the ordinary course of shipboard repair, how would Navy personnel at 25 shipyards know how to maintain and repair Warren products? A. Under the provisions of the military specifications and most of the ship 26 specifications, we're required to submit with the products instruction manuals or technical manuals, as well as the Navy has their own ongoing programs for PAGE 2 - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF J. MICHAEL MATTINGLY IN SUPPORT OF WARREN PUMPS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS Steven V. Rizzo, P.C. Lincoln Place, Suite 350 1620 S.w. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503)229-1819 1 instructions. 2 Page 32, Lines 2-8: 3 Q. Okay. What was the nature of the technical manuals that would be provided to the Navy? 4 A. The technical manuals had their own specifications that they were written to. They were submitted for approval and approved as such by whatever buying 5 activity or the Navy itself, depending on who the procuring activities might be. 6 Page 33, Lines 11-23: 7 Q. Okay. Would those - would the Navy specify a Warren pump for a particular class? 8 A. No. Normally the procedure would be a competitive procurement based on a specific military specification or a specification that the government would 9 supply to those entities. Q. And that would be called the--you're familiar with the term "QPL"? 10 A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay, qualified products list. Would that be the process that Warren Pumps 11 would undergo to obtain approval of its products? A. Yes, sir. 12 Page 35, Lines 5-20: 13 Q. Were thereparticular shipyards that Warrenmaintained aparticularly 14 competitive advantage at? A. Not that I can think of, no. 15 Q. It was just the practice of, say, Pascagoula would like Ingersoll-Rand and - for some reason, and Bath would like - Bath Naval Shipyard would like Warren? Is 16 that the - A. Not necessarily. 17 Q. Okay. A. Again, there werecertain government rules thathad to be, youknow, met; and 18 the shipyards had to go to--in a lot of instances years ago, they had to go to those people who were on the QPL, which meant that, you know, they didn't 19 have a choice, you know, and usually it came down to, you know, a price- competitive situation at that point. 20 Page 35, Line 21 through Page 36. Line 22: 21 Q. Can you describe for us - I'm familiar with the QPL qualification process for 22 inert products. I'm not familiar with it particularly for machinery such as pumps. Can you describe what would be the process of obtaining approval under the 23 QPL for Warren Pumps? A. Well, within a particular military specification, it would list those tests that had 24 to be completed to qualify the product; and again, without a particular specification in front of me. I'd just be going from memory; and if you'd like me 25 to--I mean, I don't know. Q. Yes, if you could, you know, walk us through the product--excuse me--walk us 26 through the process of obtaining approval under a QPL, that would be very helpful. PAGE 3 - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF J. MICHAEL MATTINGLY IN SUPPORT OF WARREN PUMPS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS Steven V. Rizzo, P.C. Lincoln Place, Suite 350 1620 S.W. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503)229-1819 1 A. There was usually a performance test that had to be run to demonstrate the product would meet the conditions of the specification. There was an endurance 2 test to make sure that it did have the life expectancy that was required by the specification. There was a shock test that was required. A vibration test might 3 have been required. Those were the--and also an incline test. Those were the tests that had to be performed. 4 Page 36, Lime 23 Through Page 37. Line 10: 5 Q. Would Warren Pumps design a new product around a particular naval building 6 program? A. Usually the specification would tell you how to build the product. So depending 7 on what specification was given to us, we would use that specification to build the product. 8 Q. So you would kind of design the product around the specifications that the Navy set forth for, say, the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers? 9 A. The specifications are fairly specific on what they're looking for. So it kind of paints a very narrow box of what is actually to be done. 10 Page 42, Lines 21-24: Page 43, Lines 3-11: 11 Q. Okay. I'm trying to lapse into the vernacular. Did--can you describe for us the 12 requirements for these technical manuals? Mr. Rizzo: This has been asked and answered, but I will allow the witness to answer 13 the question again. A. Again, I'm not--it's per the military specification; and without reviewing the 14 specification, I couldn't tell you exactly what the content might be or what was required. 15 Q. Okay. I appreciate that, sir. What would you review to be able to answer that question more fully? 16 A. The military specification that a particular manual was written to. 17 Page 43, Line 25 Through Page 44, Line 8: 18 Q. Okay, and so long as Warren meets those technical - strike that. As long as Warren satisfies the mil. Specs for technical manuals, other than that, the 19 composition of those manuals is Warren's prerogative? A. No. Again, the specification is pretty precise on the information that they're 20 looking for. I mean, that's just based on my knowledge of regular just Navy specifications. 21 Page 47. Lines 14-20: 22 A. Okay. Again, the pump is built to the specification. The specification tells us 23 what types of materials to use in most cases, if not all cases. So we would just be following those guidelines within the specification to design and build the pump. 24 So I mean, as far as the Navy is concerned, that's what we have to do. 25 Page 97, Lines 12-24: 26 Q. PAGE 4 - Noting counsel's objection, the package pump turbine unit designated in Exhibit 6, what would be done to protect individuals working around it from the heat that SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF J. MICHAEL MATTINGLY IN SUPPORT OF WARREN PUMPS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS Steven V. Rizzo, P.C. Lincoln Place, Suite 350 1620 s.w. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503)229-1819 1 was generated both from the steam going through the turbine and from the hot water going through the pump? 2 A. That would be totally depending on the specification that we built the pump to, whether the military specification required it or the ship specification itself 3 would require it; but without seeing the--for a particular application, I couldn't tell you. I mean, this is the standard product here as you see it. 4 Page 99, Lines 3-9; 5 Q. Okay. What would be the type of instances that would require insulation? And 6 again, I'm just talking now about the turbine end of the pump designated in Exhibit 6. 7 A. Usually the specification that the turbine was bought to or procured through, or the ship spec might have that specification that that be done. 8 Page 123. Lines 2-8 & 16-21: 9 Q. And so that I understand, what was the purpose of this document? And by "this 10 document," I mean Exhibit 8. A. This document would have been required 11 Q. I want to ask you just some questions--and is the information provided in the 12 various charts on Exhibit 8 the information that the shipyard needs to know in order to install the product correctly and in conformity with military 13 specifications? A. Yes. 14 Page 125. Lines 18-24; Page 126, Lines 1-9: 15 Q. Okay. Can you explain for us the--moving up--we're still on the right-hand 16 side of 000308--can you explain to me what this certification data encompasses? A. The certification data lists the applicable military specifications or any other 17 ship-specific or contractual-specific information that might be required. Q. Would these applicable specifications be the specifications that we were talking 18 about earlier in this examination? A. Yes, these were the military specifications themselves. 19 Q. And would they govern the pump at issue in these documents? A. Yes, sir. 20 5. Attachedhereto as "Exhibit B" is a true and accurate copy of the relevant pages 21 of the deposition transcript of Roland Doktor in the matter of Gudmundson v. John Crane. Inc., 22 23 et al.. Madison County (Illinois) Circuit Court Case No. 03-L-538, taken on January 18, 2005. 24 Plaintiffs attorneys, Waters & Kraus, served as plaintiffs counsel in that matter. In the 25 Gudmundson deposition, Mr. Doktor testified as follows: 26 //// PAGE 5 - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF J. MICHAEL MATTINGLY IN SUPPORT OF WARREN PUMPS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS Steven V. Rizzo, P.C. Lincoln Place, Suite 350 1620 S.W. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503)229-1819 1 Page 60. Lines 12-24: 2 Q. Okay. What I'm asking is why is it relevant for Warren Pumps to have a Military specification? 3 A. We would MS. PERRITANO: objection, beyond the scope. 4 A. We would be building pumps for the government that would be required to be furnished under this military specification. 5 Q. The government sets the specifications for which you build a pump to furnish to them, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Page 95. Lines 20-25; 8 Q. This fire and bilge pump drawing is dated when? MS. PERRITANO: There it is. 9 A. It was traced or drawn in 1940. Q. And it was finally approved by Warren Pumps on what date? 10 Page 96. Lines 1-5: 11 A. It doesn't -doesn't have a Warren Pumps approval, it has a bureau of ships 12 approval, supervisor of ship building approval Q. And the date of that is what? 13 A. March 20th, 1941. 14 Page 98. Lines 20-24: 15 Q. This drawing was made when? A. This one was November of 1940. 16 Q. And it was approved by the bureau of ships when? A. March 20th, 1941. 17 6. Attached hereto as "Exhibit C" is a true and accurate copy of the relevant pages 18 of the deposition transcript of Roland Doktor in the matter of Cadlo v. Asbestos Defendants 19 20 (BHC). Alameda County (California) Superior Court Case No. 412325, taken on October 20, 21 2003. In that deposition, Mr. Doktor testified as follows: 22 Page 112. Lines 19 Through Page 113. Line 15: 23 Q 24 25 A. 26 Q. PAGE 6 - So getting back to paragraph 4--we're going to fight this one here--you state that NAVSEA personnel, and I suppose that also refers to Bureau of Ships, its predecessor, personnel exclusively developed ship designs and plans as well as comprehensive and detailed regulations and specifications for all shipboard equipment, correct? Yes. And let me just stop right there. With respect to the specifications, would those be the type of specifications that Warren Pumps would adhere to, if you will, in SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF J. MICHAEL MATTINGLY IN SUPPORT OF WARREN PUMPS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS Steven V. Rizzo, P.C. Lincoln Place, Suite 350 1620 S.W. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 229-1819 1 manufacturing pumps for the Navy? A. If that was a requirement of the contract, yes. 2 Q. Was it always a requirement of the contract? A. I would say inmost cases, yes. 3 Q. Were there ever cases that you're aware of that Warren Pumps did not have to build pumps to specifications pursuant to a contract for the United States Navy? 4 Mr. Dumont: For use on a Navy ship? Mr. Andreas: Yes. 5 The Witness: No, no. No to that one. 6 Pages 114, Lines 4-25: 7 A. They specifically told you what materials to use in most cases. They would tell you all the tests that had to be done, any reports that had to be submitted and in 8 some cases what type of calculations to use in your design. Q. Were Warren Pumps designed for specific Navy ships or for specific needs 9 associated with those ships? A. Yes. 10 Q. You would agree the two of those would probably go together, correct? A. For the most part. 11 Q. And you would agree that on board a ship there's a specific need for what the pump would do so if would be designed as such, correct? 12 A. Yes. Q. And that would be part of the design, correct? 13 A. Yes. Q. And you would agree with me that in getting it qualified under the qualified 14 products list for use in a Navy ship--first of all, that's the process you have to go through, correct? 15 A. Yes, you had to go through. 16 Page 115, Lines 1-24 17 Q. You had to go through. There's usually a performance test, correct? A. Yes. 18 Q. And that was to demonstrate that the product would meet the conditions of specification, correct? 19 A. Performance specification, correct. Q. There was an endurance test to make sure it had the life expectancy that was 20 required by specifications, correct? A. Yes. 21 Q. The specifications spoke to that issue as well? A. Yes. 22 Q. There was a shock test that was required so that it met, I suppose, the shock requirements as laid out in the specifications, correct? 23 A. Yes. Q. There was a vibrations test that might have been required, correct? 24 A. Yes. Q. And maybe even anincline test, correct? 25 A. Yes. Q. These areall tests that had to be performed to meet the specifications, correct? 26 A. Yes. PAGE 7 - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF J. MICHAEL MATTINGLY IN SUPPORT OF WARREN PUMPS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS Steven V. Rizzo, P.C. Lincoln Place, Suite 350 1620 S.W. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503)229-1819 1 Page 117, Lines 10-21: 2 Q. Well, let me ask you about the two ships in question here then, the 666 and the 781. Were the pumps' specifications exclusively developed by NAVSEA or the 3 Bureau of Ships? A. They carry specifications noting that the Navy Department did--Navy 4 Department specifications as well as BUSHIPS approval. Q. With respect to the drawings with respect to the 666 and the 781, are you telling 5 us that those were--those specs were exclusively developed by the Navy and/or the Bureau of Ships? 6 A. I believe so, yes. 7 6. Attached hereto as "Exhibit D" is a true and accurate copy of drawing previously 8 submitted by plaintiff and Bates stamped WP24-000066. This document was previously 9 submitted by plaintiff as "Exhibit 16" in her Response In Opposition to Warren Pumps Motion 10 for Summary Judgment On Corporate Successor Liability on August 15, 2005. Plaintiff 11 resubmitted only a partial copy of this document in her August 29, 2005 supplemental 12 13 Declaration of David Frockt. The full drawing previously submitted includes a section for "List 14 of Materials" that was omitted by plaintiff in her supplemental Declaration. The "List of 15 Materials" states that the material specification for "asbestos metallic cloth" is "33P2." The 16 "List of Materials" further states that the material specification for "insulating material" is 17 "33M2." 18 7. Attached hereto as "Exhibit E" is a true and accurate copy of Navy Department 19 Specification 33P2e for "Packing, Asbestos-Metallic Cloth, Sheet." This is the military 20 21 specification for the "asbestos metallic cloth" listed in plaintiffs "Exhibit 1." 22 8. Attached hereto as "Exhibit F" is a true and accurate copy of Navy Department 23 Specification 33M2b" for "Magnesia; Block, Cement, and Pipe-Covering." This is the military 24 specification for the "insulating materiar/"85% magnesia insulation" identified by plaintiff in 25 her supplemental "Exhibit 1." 26 9. Plaintiffs supplemental "Exhibit 2," which concerns Quimby Pump Company, PAGE 8 - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF J. MICHAEL MATTINGLY IN SUPPORT OF WARREN PUMPS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS Steven V. Rizzo, P.C. Lincoln Place, Suite 350 1620 S.w. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503)229-1819 1 Inc. pumps, includes documents relating to certain "globe valves" that plaintiff contends were to 2 be incorporated into the Quimby Pump Company, Inc. pumps. The drawing that is Bates 3 stamped JEN 000921 identifies the "Globe, Angle & Cross Valves" to be used incorporated into 4 the Quimby pumps as needing to comply "Per Navy Spec. 45-V-14." 5 10. Plaintiffs supplemental "Exhibit 3," a generic drawing of what plaintiff refers to 6 as a Quimby Pump Company, Inc., "Gear In Head Screw Pump," specifies "Packing J. Mansvill 7 8 #270." I have not seen anything in the record, including in the Supplemental Declaration of 9 Everett Cooper, that this product contains asbestos or that it was in any particular pump used 10 onboard the USS Hornet (CV-12). In fact, the drawing has a date of 1952, which is almost a 11 decade after the vessel was built. 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of Washington that the 13 foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 14 15 Dated: August 30, 2005 at Portland, Oregon. 16 17 18 19 20 Michael Mattingly, WSBA# 33452 Attorney for Warren Pumps, Inc. 21 22 23 24 25 26 PAGE 9 - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF J. MICHAEL MATTINGLY IN SUPPORT OF WARREN PUMPS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS Steven V. Rizzo, P.C. Lincoln Place, Suite 350 1620 S.w. Taylor street Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503)229-1819 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS JANE GUDMUNDSON, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of HARVEY G. GUDMUNDSON, Deceased, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN CRANE, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) No. 03-L-538 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) VIDEOTAPED EVIDENCE DEPOSITION OF ROLAND DOKTOR Taken on behalf of Plaintiff January 18, 2005 Certify Question: Page 114, Line 13 Sarah L. Paszkiewicz, CSR/RMR/CCR Certified Shorthand Reporter License No. 084-004225 C.C.R. No. 801 [Examination by Mr. Iola] Page 58 1 need to get the both-sided copy. 2 MR. IOLA: Well, here's mine. I 3 don't care. Is what you gave me this morning 4 both-sided? 5 MS. PERRITANO: I did, but I have 6 another one for him. 7 MR. IOLA: Okay. 8 MS. PERRITANO: Give me one second. 9 MR. IOLA: One sec, Mr. Doktor. 10 We're going to pull the correct form ofthe 11 document here with copying ofboth sides ofthe 12 page, so that you'll have a complete set. 13 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 14 MS. PERRITANO: Why don't you mark -- 15 MR. IOLA: Here, let me just mark 16 mine. When she finds it, I'll take hers. 17 (Whereupon Exhibit 4 was marked.) 18 Q. (By Mr. Iola) Let me hand you what's 19 been marked as Deposition Exhibit Doktor Number 20 4. 21 And ask you ifthat is the Mil Spec 22 that was produced to me this morning, in 23 reference to the Gudmundson case? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. And at the very top, right 1 19158 dated December 29, 1955, correct? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. Can you tell the Members ofthe Jury, 4 Mr. Doktor, what a Military Specification is 5 designed to do or what it's designed to say and 6 to whom it speaks? 7 MS. PERRITANO: Objection to the 8 extent it's beyond the scope ofthe deposition. 9 Feel free to -- 10 A. I'm not sure what -- what you're 11 really asking. 12 Q. (By Mr. Iola) Okay. What I'm asking 13 is why is it relevant for Warren Pumps to have a 14 Military Specification? 15 A. We would -- 16 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, beyond the 17 scope. 18 A. We would be building pumps for the 19 government that would be required to be furnished 20 under this Military Specification. 21 Q. (By Mr. Iola) The government sets 22 the specification for which you build a pump to 23 furnish to them, correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, time Page 60 Page 59 1 comer ofthat document, it lists that Mil Spec 2 as what number? 3 A. MIWM9158. 4 Q. And it says a date ofthat Mil Spec, 5 correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And what's the date, sir? 8 A. 29 December 1955. 9 Q. And then it says it supersedes a 10 prior version ofthe Mil Spec, correct, sir? 11 A. Well, the S47-1 is a specification. 12 I would not call that what we would know today as 13 a Mil Spec, because it doesn't have the MIL 14 designation. 15 Q. But it is a specification from the 16 United States Navy, correct? 17 A. It's a specification from the United 18 States Government, whether it was a naval spec or 19 a general spec, I don't know. 20 Q. Very well. A specification from the 21 U.S. Government dated when? 22 A. 1 March 1939. 23 Q. So at least as early as March 1,1939 24 the U.S. Government issued some kind of spec with 25 respect to a portion ofwhat became Military Spec 1 frame. 2 Q. (By Mr. Iola) They kind of outline 3 what they require the pump to have and be built 4 like; and then you put your heads together to 5 build the finest pump you can that meets that 6 outline, correct? 7 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, time 8 frame, relevance. 9 A. It is -- It is a document for which 10 we would use to design the pump and manufacture 11 the pump. 12 Q. (By Mr. Iola) What is your 13 understanding ofwhy you produced this Mil Spec 14 that's dated December 29, 1955 in this case? 15 A. It's within the time frame that we 16 were asked to look at. 17 Q. And the time frame that you were 18 asked to look at, was what? 19 A. 1951 to 1955. 20 Q. And in 1951 to 1955 was the time 21 frame ofwhat? 22 A. Mr. Gudmundson's service on the 23 Bausell. 24 Q. Okay. And Mr. Gudmundson's service 25 on the Bausell was while he was in the United Page 61 POHLMAN REPORTING COMPANY 314-421 -0099 16 (Pages 58 to 61) EXHIBIT_ _ PAGE_ iL [Examination by Mr. Iola] 1 on this drawing? 2 A. Can you give me a second just to look 3 real quick? 4 Q. Absolutely. 5 MS. PERRITANO: Take your time. 6 THE WITNESS: I need to take my 7 glasses off. 8 A. I did not see any. 9 Q. (By Mr. Iola) Okay. These gaskets 10 are installed during the initial construction of 11 the pump, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. The initial construction ofthis pump 14 takes place at the Warren Pumps or Warren Steam 15 Pump Company manufacturing facility, correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Was this pump, this fire and bilge 18 pump, manufactured at the Warren, Massachusetts 19 Warren Pump facility? 20 MS. PERRITANO: Ifyou know. 21 A. It doesn't indicate on the drawing 22 whether -- whether it was or not. 23 Q. (By Mr. Iola) But it's not the type 24 ofpump that you identified earlier was 25 manufactured at the Rhode Island facility, Page 94 Page 96 1 A. It doesn't -- doesn't have a Warren 2 Pumps approval, it has a Bureau of Ships 3 approval, supervisor ofship building approval. 4 Q. And the date ofthat is what? 5 A. March 20th, 1941. 6 Q. Is it your understanding that this is 7 the drawing that was in effect at the time the 8 fire and bilge pumps installed upon the USS 9 Bausell were constructed? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Next -- 12 MS. PERRITANO: Is that two pages? 13 Q. (By Mr. Iola) Yes. Next I want to 14 turn your attention to Bates stamped drawings 15 WP-IL-00238 and WP-IL-00239. Do you see those 16 documents, sir? 17 A. Yes. 18 MR. IOLA: Ifyou would kindly, 19 please, mark WP-IL 00238 as Deposition Exhibit 20 Number 9. 21 (Whereupon, Exhibit 9 was marked.) 22 Q. (By Mr. Iola) And let me state for 23 the record and ask you to confirm that these two 24 drawings, 238 and 239, are the lagging outline 25 6-by-9-by-12 vertical single fire and bilge pump, 1 correct? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. So, naturally, you would assume that 4 this is a pump that was manufactured at the 5 Warren manufacturing facility in Warren, 6 Massachusetts, correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did Warren purchase these gaskets 9 precut? 10 A. I do not know. 11 Q. Did Warren purchase sheet gaskets? 12 MS. PERRITANO: For this particular 13 pump? 14 Q. (By Mr. Iola) Yes, sir. 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. Do you know who was the supplier of 17 these asbestos gaskets for the fire and bilge 18 pump? 19 A. No. 20 Q. This fire and bilge pump drawing is 21 dated when? 22 MS. PERRITANO: There it is. 23 A. It was traced or drawn in 1940. 24 Q. (By Mr. Iola) And it was finally 25 approved by Warren Pumps on what date? Page 95 1 correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And this is one drawing that, again, 4 is too big to fit on one page, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. So that's why we're only marking it 7 as Deposition Exhibit Number 9, even though it's 8 two Bates stamp numbers for the record. 9 This is a drawing ofWarren Steam 10 Pump Company, Incorporated, correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Ofthe lagging outline for the 13 6-by-9-by-12 vertical single fire and bilge pump, 14 correct? 15 A. Lagging and outline, yes. 16 Q. And the lagging and outline for 17 6-by-9-by-12 vertical single fire and bilge pumps 18 installed upon the USS Bausell, correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Again, it shows the range ofDD-829 21 to DD-849, correct? - 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And the purchase order number 24 A-17909, correct? 25 A. Yes. Page 97 POHLMAN REPORTING COMPANY 314-421 -0099 25 (Pages 94 to 97) iEXHIBIT. [Examination by Mr. Iola] 1 Q. Which we previously discussed is 2 exactly the order number that we previously 3 marked as Exhibit Number 4 MS. PERRJTANO: I believe it was 7. 5 Q. (By Mr. Iola) 7, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. This is a lagging and outline, 8 correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What is a lagging and outline? 11 A. Well, the outline shows all the 12 critical dimensions ofthe size ofthe pump. The 13 lagging is the metal covering the steam cylinder. 14 Q. And the purpose ofthis drawing or 15 these two pages is to do what? 16 A. To show the customer the exact sizes 17 and locations ofall pertinent information that 18 they would need, once the pump was delivered to 19 them. 20 Q. This drawing was made when? 21 A. This one was November of 1940. 22 Q. And it was approved by the Bureau of 23 Ships when? 24 A. March 20th, 1941. 25 Q. And this is a drawing that Warren Page 98 Page 100 | 1 scope, irrelevant. 2 A. I don't know what Warren's thinking 3 was at that time. 4 Q. (By Mr. Iola) Well, when Warren 5 makes these drawings, Warren understands that the 6 pump must be installed and lagged in accordance 7 with these or they wouldn't bother to make the 8 drawings, right? 9 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, relevance, 10 beyond the scope. 11 A. This is the information the customer 12 would need to make sure it was installed 13 properly. 14 Q. (By Mr. Iola) But this information 15 comes from Warren, correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Warren knows it's giving the customer 18 this information, correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Warren is knowledgeable about 21 educating the customer about the use ofthis 22 pump, correct? 23 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, beyond the 24 scope. 25 A. Yes. Page 99 1 Pumps puts together, correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And this is intended show the 4 customer what the customer must do with this pump 5 to properly install it and for it to properly 6 operate, correct? 7 MS. PERRITANO: Objection. 8 A. In a manner ofspeaking, yes. 9 Q. (By Mr. Iola) In other words, ifthe 10 customer ignored this lagging and outline 11 drawing, would this pump work effectively? 12 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, ifyou 13 know. 14 A. They wouldn't know how to -- how to 15 run the piping, so that it would run properly. 16 Q. (By Mr. Iola) So the customer has to 17 hook up the pump in accordance with these 18 specifications to properly work and maintain the 19 product that you're selling them, correct? 20 MS. PERRITANO: Objection. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. (By Mr. Iola) And Warren knows that 23 at the time these drawings are made by Warren, 24 correct? 25 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, beyond the 1 Q. (By Mr. Iola) Warren identifies a 2 list ofmaterial to be used on this pump, 3 correct? 4 A. Part -- Part ofthe list of 5 materials, yes. 6 Q. Part ofthe list ofmaterials, right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Part ofthe list ofmaterials 9 includes material part number 232, correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And what is material part number 232? 12 A. Asbestos metallic cloth ring. 13 Q. And what do you understand asbestos 14 metallic cloth ring is? 15 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, ifyou 16 know. 17 A. Well, there's a further description 18 under remarks. 19 Q. (By Mr. Iola) And what does that 20 say? 21 A. It's 1 /16th-by-one-inch wide. 22 Q. And what is the type ofmaterial? 23 A. The description on the drawing is 24 asbestos and it's material spec 33P2. 25 Q. And what does that mean, that the Page 101 POHLMAN REPORTING COMPANY 314-421-0099 26 (Pai 98 to 101) EXHIBIT. PAGE, OF. 1 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 3 ------ OOO------- 4 ANTHONY CADLO, ELAINE ROSCHEWSKI, 5 Plaintiffs, 6 vs. No. 412325 400223 7 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC), 8 Defendants. / 9 10 11 12 13 DEPOSITION OF ROLAND DOKTOR 14 15 16 17 18 Taken before CATHERINE M. MEYER 19 CSR No. 11596 20 October 20, 2003 21 22 23 24 EXHIBIT___ -- 25 PAGE ,,.i__0F_L2- Page 112 1 MR. DUMONT: I'm going to object. If you're 2 asking him in general, I'm going to object. If you're 3 asking him about these specific ships, then - 4 MR. ANDREAS: Let me ask a foundational 5 question on that, Dick. 6 BY MR. ANDREAS: 7 Q. Mr. Doktor, do you have any specific knowledge 8 about how the contracts were administered and 9 specifications utilized with respect to those contracts 10 as to the DD666 or the DD781? . 11 A. The drawings list those specifications for the 12 materials of those pumps, yes. 13 Q. Sure. And to the extent that you make the 14 statements you do in paragraph 4 of your declaration 15 here, you would expect that the same type of process was 16 followed with respect to these ships, the DD666 and 781, 17 correct? 18 A. I would suspect, yes. 19 Q. So getting back to paragraph 4 -- we're going 20 to fight this one here -- you state that NAVSEA 21 personnel, and I suppose that also refers to Bureau of 22 Ships, its predecessor, personnel exclusively developed 23 ship designs and plans as well as comprehensive and 24 detailed regulations and specifications for all 25 shipboard equipment, correct? Aiken & Welch Court Reporters R. Doktor 10/20/03 EXHIBIT. PAfiF 1 F ip 1 A. Yes. Page 113 2 Q. And let me just stop right there. With respect 3 to the specifications, would those be the type of 4 specifications that Warren Pumps would adhere to, if you 5 will, in manufacturing pumps for the Navy? 6 A. If that was a requirement of the contract, yes. 7 Q. Was it always a requirement of the contract? 8 A. I would say in most cases, yes. 9 Q. Were there ever cases that you're aware of that 10 Warren Pumps did not have to build pumps to 11 specifications pursuant to a contract for the United 12 States Navy? 13 MR. DUMONT: For use on a Navy ship? 14 MR. ANDREAS: Yes. 15 THE WITNESS: No, no. No to that one. 16 BY MR. ANDREAS: 17 Q. And with respect to the specifications 18 themselves, let's just talk about those for a minute, 19 the specifications were primarily performance 20 specifications; were they not? 21 A. No. . 22 Q. Tell me what they were. 23 A. They were design specifications. 24 Q. They were design specifications, design in the 25 sense that the Navy wanted a pump or pumps to fit within Aiken & Welch Court Reporters R. Doktor 10/20/03 PAGE. L*JZ Page 115 1 Q. You had to go through. There's usually a 2 performance test, correct? j I 1 3 A. Yes. | 4 Q. And that was to demonstrate thatthe product j 5 would meet the conditions ofspecification,correct? j I 6 A. Performance specification, correct. j 1 7 Q. There was an endurance test to make sure it had j 8 the life expectancy that was required by specifications, j 9 correct? j 10 A. Yes. j 11 Q. The specifications spoke to that issue as well? J 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. There was a shock test that was required so 14 that it met, I suppose, the shock requirements as laid 15 out in the specifications, correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. There was a vibrations test that might have j 18 been required, correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And maybe even an incline test, correct? 21 A. Yes. | 22 Q. These are all tests that had to be performed to 23 meet the specification, correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And to the extent that there were component Aiken & Welch Court Reporters R. Doktor 10/20/03 EXHIBIT--------- " PAGE_Jx_OF--h- Page 116 1 parts that the Navy wanted incorporated in the pumps 2 themselves, what involvement did Warren Pumps have in 3 that process? 4 MR. DUMONT: Well, I'm going to object unless 5 you want to specify these two ships. It goes beyond the 6 scope of the notice again. 7 MR. ANDREAS: Are you instructing him not to 8 answer this question? 9 MR. DUMONT: Yes, I am. 10 BY MR. ANDREAS: 11 Q. Well, getting back to paragraph 4 of your 12 declaration, sir, it says that "NAVSEA personnel 13 exclusively developed ship design and plans, as well as 14 comprehensive and detailed regulations and 15 specifications for all shipboard equipment..." So I 16 want to get to that part about the personnel at NAVSEA 17 exclusively developed those specs. Would that include 18 specs for the pumps? 19 A. I'm sorry? 20 MR. DUMONT: Unless you want to relate it to 21 the ships that are relative to this case, then it's 22 beyond the scope. 23 MR. ANDREAS: I think we already agreed that 24 the two ships at issue were constructed and would fall 25 within the category of what he described here in : Aiken & Welch Court Reporters R. Doktor 10/20/03 PAGE_iL_OF_j. 1 paragraph 4 of his declaration. Page 117 2 MR. DUMONT: So if you want to ask the 3 question - 4 MR. ANDREAS: Reading it - 5 MR. DUMONT: If you want to ask the question 6 with respect to these ships, then it's relevant. If 7 you're talking in general terms, it's beyond the scope 8 of the notice. 9 BY MR. ANDREAS: 10 Q. Well, let me ask you about the two ships in I 11 question here then, the 666 and the 781. Were the I 12 pumps' specifications exclusively developed by NAVSEA or 1 13 the Bureau of Ships? 14 A. They carry specifications noting that the Navy 15 Department did -- Navy Department specifications as well 16 as BUSHIPS approval. 17 Q. With respect to the drawings with respect to 18 the 666 and the 781, are you telling us that those 19 were -- those specs were exclusively developed by the 20 Navy and/or the Bureau of Ships? 21 A. I believe so, yes. 22 Q. How do you know that? 23 A. Just from the type of information that's on 24 those drawings. 25 Q. What involvement did Warren Pumps have in the Aiken & Welch Court Reporters R. Doktor 10/20/03 fxhTrit C PAGE l/OF page--|--of_4_ _ _ SIS Reproduced at the National Archives J, MAY 10 1933 NAVV DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATION 33P2e MAR. 1, 1933 SUPERSEDING 33P2d Sept. 1, 1927 PACKING, ASBESTOS-METALLIC-CLOTH, SHEET Technical requirements eontorm In detail to Federal Specifications HH-P-31, Grade,I officially rovisea by the Federal Specifications Board on May 26, 1931. Copies of Iho Federal specification are therefore unnecessary and are not available for distribution by the Navy Department. A. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS. General Specifications for Inspection of Material, issued by the Navy Department, and Federal Specification ZZ-R-601, Rubber Goods; Genera] Specifications (Methods of Physical Tests and Chemical Analyses), in effect at date of invitation for bids, shall form part of this specification. B. GRADE. Packing shall be furnished in but one grade. C. MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP. C-l. Material.--Asbestos-metallic cloth sheet packing shall be made of woven asbestos wire-insertion cloth treated with a rubber compound. ' C-2. Workmanship.--Packing shall show no evidence of poor workmanship. D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. See section E. E. DETAIL REQUIREMENTS. E-l. Cloth.--Shall be woven from yarn containing not less than 00 per cent, by weight, long fiber asbestos of not less than 12 per cent, by weight, water of composition. There shall be not less than 20 strands in the warp and 10 strands in the filling per linear inch. E-2. Strands.--Each strand of the warp and filling shall consist of two plies of asbestos yarn and one brass or copper wire, twisted together. _ E-3. Wire insertion.--The wire insertion shall be brass or copper and shall be 0.007 inch in diameter, plus or minus 0.001 inch. E-4. Rubber compound.--The rubber compound shall be not more than 50 per cent, by weight, of the finished packing. E-5. Construction.--Sheet packing: Mo inch in thickness shall be one ply of cloth weighing not less than 2.75 pounds per square 160649--33 MU 0) <0 T) X3 sa I- 2 O X3 Of o >P 4> tro. ei <G p O fl<rt p (ri a* SS u ^^2 SS'Stf -G2a-I&2tjoo, > Sf s ' Crt a wGiG oo *p -m +| fl -M a3 Sg -*%J-* _-pS fl 2 2 0) G ,GP 9O _>n*43 " P 1 sS glJ'Sas -*-> 3-c htc cj *x3h _ O < ** Pi ** - ^ P- a a> -0wf)l *3 O0 g8-g.{So Si p&SS5St 1 &>> ,pokfJl .11 .w (ijrt S_ $ p^2 2 d 3-p go a 9 S+> CO Si co fl pi GO G~*-.ps pfl) a fl S25G<'-fC20l SfmlNr^Ca:i -5hCoP)*Lj0*^jP*) lm"qfl. &S?Ri 0$ ,2fl,'2pa3 M -3 7 T3 o Ofl eM 3 3 ? ft 222 -cOao>sh&|do0&f^l-2edj T^3 p22^1 CLrr> fyt sfs Bao s^ooSlu&8SoiSS<4i^--ir|i2Sfljr-.s)&w 4 S 3fS .S*a p-^c o 4-3 CO fl? I .--S33 -2",.v' oV jaf) ^CaQ-^r* q >- S g'fts ,, 0- | s Jj-w** So ojoi pc P-i `-G2.eOs X2 o'*c o CW) $,,* fUl) g g 6 g, Ao-o J~ ,w S 5 5>^xi 5 `84*0 mS 8y~ .*S 1a1 Sg^.2S oj,d w o g'S'S-S8 O 00 st, Sa'3SQ^m" 9 2 t 9 E-S^al P 0^3 ft B a ."-a.. IIk^I f-gjis'S fl) G .g X) ^-7.5OMa cS(Qo 'W? 'E.E'd-fii &SP M a x im u m Pounds 5. 50 10.50 16.00 21.50 Pounds 6.25 11.75 17.75 24.00 I a 1 ti c e fl Issxx SagSg * i2.S^ S I|,-IM"S_j O"So-J5g&t"D* dg-g^Sgfe oP3 B Jft hD-92 P,,. ZUHUi .si-S-2| sOJ soHS 373 . t. twrcact b J33 -SBooo'lSTM*"* >bSC*oi -^9 sss^> ^lifasS vjoj3 p, s s .g_3 a o5'gS,sI g.S|g9 a g cd rtj---P J S ,, 'S 2j *S3 M2 2^*If 5"" J&S^5--P33 t|5-9 " 3.2t! E a o.u . _ _ .. 3 oo . -3 C o | '. i"o COI. fMl )c28Ww ^&8-| o 3b|5'3 *8T3oS - a -o .35S 3f-STSt d Q 3.2 "Es-S-S-d foc. 8S&.-CPMCU^T?i i2^-td! *S WpCp^3fl'ffil?fe D^^tpCcs 2 _J*t3 2 o Sgo gKfrte-a5t',aw0g(7iiiggCrcq? Sa o3 A ? v P. co "disfl) o *" d > fl c oa,rt o O' o'-S i'S I^IJS o> -- <A O l5 S| S'S G fl3 O 4cafl5'- . cT ufl>.w2 fl) |i!|i ft wo. o S aSg,*2 Mrfi' liilsi faia is s s* ei-SS-* aS| .g ^^ mS tK* g aet,'5Sg?v'*--. 4l41 |sla ; ^'1', Sllss ig'ggg Mens l-J-QgSS"S4 - 5 .fl'slsg .ojg3.nj> 85 y P^^|cNC1Xtg<N'1 CO >6-%P 766*16% i %w.a3 Sa 4 exhibit page_Zjif_Z_ soAHjDjy inuojjRjs} sir jb REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AUG 1 - 1935 TV 3N\ O NAYY DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATION 32M2b June 1, 1935 SUPERSEDING MM2. Jut- 2. 1321 MP2b July I. 1925 C ( (> MAGNESIA: BLOCK, CEMENT, AND PIPE-COVERING Technical requirements conform In detail to Federal Specification HH-M-61, approved by the Director of Procurement April 3, 1034. Copies of the Federal specification are therefore unnecessary and are not available for distributionbythe Navy Department. A. APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS A-l. Navy Department General Specifications for Inspection of Material, of the issue in effect on date of invitation for bids, forms a part of this specification, and bidders and contractors should provide themselves with the necessary copies. B. GRADE AND TYPES B-l. The material shall be furnished in one grade only, and in the following types, as required: Type I, Pipe-covering, standard thickness. Type II. Pipe-covering, double standard thickness. Type III. Blocks. Type IV. Cement or plaster. C. MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP, ETC. C-l. Magnesia insulating materials shall contain not less than 85 percent of pure hydrated magnesium carbonate (4MgCO.Mg (OH) 1-5 HjO) and not less than 10 percent long-fiber asbestos. D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS D-l. The mixture of the magnesia and the asbestos fiber shall be homogenous throughout. D-2. The finished material shall weight not more than 18 pounds per cubic foot. E. DETAIL REQUIREMENTS E-l. Typee I and II, pipe-covering.-- E-la. Type I pipe-covering shall be furnished in a single layer. For pipe sizes from inch up to and including 10 inches, the covering shall be furnished in sections. For pipe sizes larger than 10 inches the covering shall be furnished in curved segments. 128097--88 Ga"o 0>*~ - rt.fi >.2u S-. 1|3 aSi id Eta fc- 9 TJ **=30 0Sq9*. oOt, 7ra3* g-*3*C.Oc u -3ar3v.<2*y gcbod firm M4 84*1 s o o &S,3 | U- 8 g O fl 73 c -- d2.fi 1 *1- a5 . s5S S'S-o^ 3^SS TJ -d s S* d M In O 1^1 >J s732 >3 iu 3 d0 ft .c9 *0 A 20-S<n 81 3 G * c. CO 23o 0Cs2O01-^Sd0O_S 3.fi J3 . U* 50 *o *? i ^|*22S1T..#3|5*J*iS^*<* Eio? d Ss *3 73 53 5 8j2 S w 3,,. c *3 .ja SjS S a*'g-^x8^tj S,* gE< <*2 I 8 S o"3 g'o'3-rS o-sS'-slls-l^ f"t2oSObt>-'fjSt|-2fSsi Sto>5g2<'jS"5 >^>d.^o; 0 3&3s!*33.20"^5?l^9ga 3-,o-eca0DS*^0hN*H7>3.<5if&lig3*Qar. afal-*Ha i?-S5 g oS'g^'S 2,"?"a .*17'a2.m 6c0 OI t1 oogfl >j3 5gO e3a5 j93jjS!9suSsT0i-l'-^S >i -fla[3 z o*S 0*3 1* If-11 ,,_ o-g a -| g3 8a ."2 g8.'Sa'Oe esSg *i'3 co J3 ag tgd1 2 fc" >"*,3 +3 fffeS s fi > 3.1-g 8 8 2 Snnr>efl ^ OGS G23 3 *otd,c *3Od4j-OL?.3,-adod3i4,SSf>ti .*3^^j2pJff22fqell W;s^^ a0C>0P 8 & &5T ag^ rT^sa37a~CjO-t;g:50| *5 agaj|g^| i" B )) L )) ) ) ) ) ac2^.sa021S^SP".--st.Sog-S"SaI's^GtSa)'!sj^Sj-ea!-s"O Si .S9fSr8firtS5: s*o'0lt8PajtiH3< i0,&5a -5 se^0s8.s*>%JSo^.i"^.-2s.&*8a."6-0!-saass8 li^lilil^iillllii ^s||g :&5*s a-t|i;3|g| 5 S-sa -2'o'! S- B S.-a ill!ili?-i|y":illli! " gfe-3 a5Z 'ss -,*0! tj73 1-o;sS |bp aa3api5Si-SEw^ Sg-1o."fe.s -a <* iI||l^-3"iSj||.S^-s 16 5H' < s5 52 92^t3i d-^rt.S3#- e l|1||l|l-|!l^|l-f| S flj-S ft_JS 9 G *731S 9 13l?ll!|aja-i.&'f2tgilas5laaiS.ri218-asi^ls=^^3d-5l-1048sl'-r*^0| $~ si^aS^Iwjj's^S'S I, 0 3O-3^TaaSi^os*&* >o.>BBc. .n2.2 a ss gftf1*|* -iS-a a a S-- a -I-ST32 . co 423 5! d lsf|j Sf,013t4JfS 2l^f3fildx5=Zfil-|f-t3nrt _i til2JTI2! <i:So dH.S AS idi5li idis!*cmtJfl aW-m<O 3^ 3w 11 .^1 fQt*Afdl)40S^>h3MOd^ jSISS s. *' S= -g 8 Jissl! 3 3C,,5,-.2c*2H: '"ft2t^g ea3 S 23S - . S-5 _aa*5- s8 8* i-^I=5 ! iiiffiti SGftS^bflv a s0 S "S1a3 u'S.2g^o 'S8"t3 o ao^S-gt-S^ d S*53J'-SSS'Oa'S-a' rfnx1 S a'jaJiS5 l?. ? * S ?1S I EXHIBIT ^ _ S3AIHD3TV 1VN0IIVN 3HI IV a3DnaO3H PAGE OF 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 10 PAULINE JENSEN, Individually and as 11 Personal Representative of the Estate of ALVIN JENSEN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. Case No. 04-2-20249-3 SEA DECLARATION OF AND/OR MAILING DELIVERY 14 SABERHAGEN HOLDINGS, INC., et al., 15 Defendants.I 16 I am employed by the law firm of Steven V. Rizzo, P.C. in Portland, Oregon. I am over 17 the age of eighteen years and not a party to the subject cause. My business address is Lincoln Place, Suite 350,1620 SW Taylor Street, Portland, OR 97205. 18 On the date below, I caused to be served the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF J. 19 MICHAEL MATTINGLY IN SUPPORT OF WARREN PUMPS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF MATRIALS SPECIFICATIONS on all 20 parties in this action by transmitting a true copy thereof in the following manner unless otherwise 21 I. Via US Mail 22 23 Matthew Bergman 24 Bergman & Frockt The Hoge Building, Suite 1601 25 705 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 26 Counsel for Plaintiffs Diane J. Kero Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell 600 University, Suite 2101 Seattle, WA 98101 Counsel for Dana Corp. PAGE 1 - DECLARATION OF DELIVERY AND/OR MAILING Steven V. Rizzo, P.C. Lincoln Place, Suite 350 1620 S.W. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 229-1819 Steven W. Block Christopher Tompkins Betts Patterson Mines 1 Convention Place 701 Pike Street, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Counsel for Borg-Warner Timothy K. Thorson Carney, Badley, Smith & Spellman 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5800 Seattle, WA 98104-7016 Counsel for Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. James F. Williams Pprlnnc Pnip 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4000 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Counsel for Honeywell International, Inc. I declare under penalty of peijury and under the laws of the State of Washington (RCW 9A.72.085) that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Portland, Oregon, this day of August 2005. Tasha Danner Litigation Assistant PAGE 2 - DECLARATION OF DELIVERY AND/OR MAILING Steven V. Rizzo, P.C. Lincoln Place, Suite 350 1620 S.W. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503)229-1819