Document 3Goea0dexLXyJQjMekkMYq43

FILE NAME: DWDW DATE: D DOC#: DW DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION >DW &ZZZW^Z STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF MARION ) MARION COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ) SS CIVIL DIVISION ROOM NO. 13 ) CAUSE NO. 49D13-2012-MI-045060 66628074 May 24 2021 08:22PM DAVID CHAVIS and JEANNE CHAVIS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) 3M COMPANY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT BRAKE MATERIALS & PARTS, INC.'S ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' CASE-SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS COMES NOW Defendant Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. ("Defendant"), , and for its Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Case-Specific Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Discovery"), states as follows: INTRODUCTION These responses are based upon Defendant's present state of knowledge. Defendant has not yet completed its investigation, discovery and analysis, all of which are continuing in this action. All responses are based upon information and documents which are presently available to and specifically known to Defendant based on its investigation, discovery and analysis to date. Because the information sought by these discovery requests relates to events which occurred approximately fifty (50) years ago, it is difficult, if not impossible, for Defendant to retrieve or reconstruct some of the requested information. Defendant's responses to these discovery requests are limited to knowledge and information available at this time and are based on the facts known and believed to be true at the time these discovery requests are provided. It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research and 1 analysis may supply additional facts, add meaning to known facts and possibly establish new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to additions to, changes in and variation from the following responses. These responses are given without prejudice to Defendant's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts. Any responses are based upon information now available to Defendant, and Defendant hereby reserves its right to revise, correct, amend, add to or otherwise clarify its objections or responses. In responding to this Discovery, Defendant does not concede the relevance, materiality or admissibility of any information sought by this Discovery or of any responses thereto. These responses are specifically made subject to and without waiver of any objections in any proceedings, including trial. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Defendant objects to this Discovery on the following bases and incorporates these General Objections by reference in each answer and response as though fully set forth in each response: 1. Defendant objects to this Discovery to the extent that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, not sufficiently limited in time, oppressive, seeks information and documents that are palpably irrelevant to the subject matter of this litigation, and seeks information and documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses asserted in a pending action and not proportional to the needs of the case. 2. Defendant objects to this Discovery to the extent that it imposes greater obligations than those permitted or required under the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure and other applicable Indiana State law. 2 3. Defendant objects to this Discovery to the extent that is seeks information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. 4. Defendant objects to this Discovery to the extent that it seeks information and documents that are not within its custody or control, are otherwise within the public domain or are equally available to Plaintiffs. 5. Defendant objects to this Discovery to the extent that it seeks information and documents regarding products, services or activities to which Plaintiffs have not alleged exposures in this action. Defendant's responses do not include information and documents concerning any such products, services or activities. 6. Defendant objects to this Discovery as overly broad, vague and ambiguous insofar as it seeks information and documents that do not relate to the product(s) at issue or the alleged exposure(s) at issue in this case and as irrelevant and improper. 7. Defendant objects to this Discovery to the extent that it calls for an expert opinion, which is not the proper subject of discovery at this stage of the legal proceedings. 8. Defendant objects to this Discovery to the extent that it calls for a legal conclusion, which is not the proper subject of discovery. 9. Defendant objects to this Discovery which is not the proper subject of discovery to the extent that it seeks confidential or private information, trade secret or proprietary information. 10. Defendant objects to this Discovery to the extent it uses terms or phrases that are argumentative or ambiguous, and definitions which would give words meanings other than their usual commonly understood meanings, and Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs' definition of "asbestos," "asbestos-containing materials," and "asbestiform mineral." 3 11. Defendant also objects to Plaintiffs' definition of "Friction Parts" on the basis that they are overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that the definition would require providing information or producing documents that relate to products or materials that Plaintiffs have not alleged Plaintiff David Chavis was exposed relating to Defendant. 12. Defendant also objects to Plaintiffs' definition of "identify," "identity," or "identification" on the basis that they are overly broad and unduly burdensome. 13. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs' definition of "Defendant," "You" and "Your" (to wit, "defendant separately answering these interrogatories, including its subsidiaries, affiliated entities, joint venturers, and/or its merged or acquired predecessors and predecessors-ininterest, whether admitted or alleged in the Complaint, its present or former officers, agents, and all other persons acting on behalf of the defendant or such subsidiaries or such predecessors including a corporation, sole proprietorship, general or limited partnership, association for profit or any other business venture"), on the grounds that this definition is vague, overly broad and unintelligible; is neither factually nor legally accurate; and exceeds the permissible limits of discovery. This definition renders the requests overly broad and potentially limitless in scope. 14. Defendant objects to each interrogatory and request for production of documents related to products beyond those to which Plaintiff David Chavis alleges exposure. 15. Defendant objects to each interrogatory and request for production of documents concerning years outside of the time period during which Plaintiff David Chavis alleges any exposure relating to Defendant. 16. Defendant objects to each interrogatory and request for production of documents to the extent that it seeks to require Defendant to provide information and documents other than that which may be obtained through a reasonably diligent search of its records. 4 17. The responses made herein are made without in any way waiving or intending to waive, but on the contrary reserving and intending to reserve (1) the right to object on any and all grounds to the use of information or documents, for any purpose, in whole or in part, in any subsequent step or proceeding in this action or any other action; (2) the right to object on any and all grounds to any other discovery procedure involving or relating to the subject matter of these interrogatories and document requests; and (3) the right to supplement these responses should additional information or documents be discovered. ANSWERS TO CASE-SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories, or who has assisted in identifying, locating or retrieving documents responsive to Plaintiffs' CaseSpecific Requests for Production, identify such person and include the length of time employed by Defendant or other employer and a year-by-year listing of all other positions, titles, or jobs held. Also identify each admission and/or interrogatory, including subparts, for which each person provided such information. ANSWER: Information and assistance in responding to the Discovery was provided by Defendant's representatives Scott Bethke and Margaret Bethke and these answers and responses were prepared with the assistance of counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all witnesses who are likely to have relevant and discoverable information related to the claims and defenses in this action, and provide the following: (a) The name of the witness; 5 (b) The address and telephone number of the witness; (c) The individual's job title, position and responsibility; and (d) The subject of the information the witness may have. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is premature and to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client, attorney work product or any other privileges. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant identifies individuals and entities identified in Plaintiff David Chavis' deposition testimony; Mr. Chavis' employment, medical and Social Security records; Plaintiffs' discovery responses; all other Defendants' discovery responses; any information in bankruptcy claims Plaintiffs have or will file; deposition testimony (along with exhibits) of any witnesses, co-workers and defendants in this matter; and expert discovery, the disclosure of which is premature at this time. This is information that Plaintiffs' counsel is either already in possession of, or which is equally available to them. Defendant's discovery and investigation are continuing. Also, see Defendant's Preliminary Witness List filed in this action and the preliminary witness lists filed by Plaintiffs and all co-defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify any and all accounts with Defendant held by Northern Indiana Public Service Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana from 1970 through 1974, and state the dates the accounts were open/active. 6 ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent the phrase "accounts with Defendant held by Northern Indiana Public Service Company" is vague. Defendant understands the reference to having an account to indicate that Northern Indiana Public Service Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana (hereinafter "NIPSCO") could charge against an account for any services provided by Defendant. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant responds that it can locate no records and has no information indicating that NIPSCO maintained an account with Defendant from 1970 to 1974. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify all sales of all Friction Parts, components, and replacement parts thereof by Defendant, any predecessor or related company to (or for use at) Northern Indiana Public Service Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana from 1970 through 1974. Specifically, identify: (a) The type or trade name, manufacturer, model number, serial number, part number, specifications, and/or any other identifying information of the product supplied; and (b) The date(s) sold, quantity of product sold and location of shipment or delivery. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Defendant also incorporates its General Objection relating to the overbroad definition 7 of "Friction Parts." Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant has no records of sales of any kind to NIPSCO from 1970 through 1974. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify any and all accounts with Defendant held by David Chavis at any time from 1960 through 2000, and state the dates the accounts were open/active. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent the phrase "accounts with Defendant held by David Chavis" is vague. Defendant understands the reference to having an account to indicate that Mr. Chavis could charge against an account for any services provided by Defendant. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant responds that it can locate no records and has no information indicating that Mr. Chavis maintained an account with Defendant from 1960 to 2000. Defendant responds further that its historical practice has not been to provide accounts for individuals. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify all sales of all Friction Parts, components, and replacement parts thereof by Defendant, any predecessor or related company to David Chavis from 1960 through 2000. Specifically, identify: 8 (a) The type or trade name, manufacturer, model number, serial number, part number, specifications, and/or any other identifying information of the product supplied; and (b) The date(s) sold, quantity of product sold and location of shipment or delivery. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Defendant also incorporates its General Objection relating to the overbroad definition of "Friction Parts." Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant has no records of sales of any kind to Mr. Chavis from 1960 through 2000. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify the type or trade name, manufacturer, specifications, model number, serial number, part number, and/or any other identifying information of any and all brake linings supplied to or stocked, sold, distributed or used by Defendant prior to 2000 and all suppliers providing such brake linings to Defendant prior to 2000, including the quantity supplied by supplier and by year. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case and to the extent it seeks 9 information relating to time periods wherein Defendant did not sell any asbestos-containing brake linings. Defendant has limited its answer to this interrogatory accordingly. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant used Grizzly brand brake linings during the time period of 1970 to 1974. The Grizzly brake linings were supplied by Maremont Corporation. Shortly before that time period, Defendant began using asbestos-free brake lining manufactured by Abex, as it became available, and as the range of application/coverage by the manufacturer became more complete. Defendant has no documentation or information identifying the quantity of Grizzly or Abex brake linings supplied to it during that time period. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: For each product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7 that was an asbestos-containing product, identify: (a) The date(s) you: (i) began supplying and/or distributing the product; (ii) began marketing the product; (iii) ceased to supply and/or distribute the product; (iv) recalled the product from the market, if ever, as a result of asbestos-related health concerns; (b) The supplier(s) of the product to Defendant, by year and by product; (c) Whether you at any time specified the use of asbestos-containing materials for the expected use of the product; (d) The type and percentage of asbestos contained in the product; (e) A general description of the physical appearance and nature of the product, including any generally used method of identification of the product such as distinctive markings, edge codes and/or logos, color, physical characteristics, and the dates, inclusive, during which they appeared; 10 (f) The type or trade name, manufacturer, specifications, model number, serial number, part number, and/or any other identifying information of any and all asbestos or asbestos-containing materials or components incorporated in, applied to, added to or used in the design, manufacture or construction of the product and the year(s) during which each such material was incorporated in, applied to, added to or used in the product, the source or supplier of each such material/component, and years of supply by each; (g) The reasons why asbestos was used as an ingredient in the product; (h) The packaging in which the product was sold, including, but not limited to, type of package, size, color, and writings or trademarks thereon as well as any packing materials, wrappings, or inserts of any kind, including, but not limited to, instructions, warnings, or cautions of any kind; (i) Any written instructions, wrapping, or printed insert, which was, or is, placed in the container, package or carton with each such Product, and the inclusive period of time during which each written instruction, wrapping or printed insert was placed in the container, package, or carton; and (j) Whether Defendant at any time, gave warnings regarding the product and asbestos to the purchaser and/or to the persons who would be installing, servicing, or removing the product and, if so, describe the same, state to whom they were given, the dates they were given, and describe the manner in which they were given. 11 ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case and to the extent it seeks information relating to time periods wherein Defendant did not sell any asbestos-containing brake linings. Defendant has limited its answer to this interrogatory accordingly. Subject to and without waiving the objections Defendant has never specified the use of any type of materials, asbestos-containing or otherwise, in any brake lining it sold or used. Warnings on the brake linings, if any, would have been provided by Grizzly. Also, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: For each product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7 purchased by Defendant from another company and sold, supplied, distributed, re-labeled or re-branded by Defendant? If so, with respect to each, identify: (a) The product; (b) The company from which Defendant purchased the product; (c) The company which manufactured the product; (d) The date(s) during which said re-labeled or re-branded product was sold, supplied or distributed by Defendant; and (e) Any and all agreements, including, but not limited to, distribution or licensing agreements, between the manufacturer and the Defendant concerning the 12 product(s), including the dates, products and geographical areas involved, and produce a copy of each such agreement. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case and to the extent it seeks information relating to time periods wherein Defendant did not sell any asbestos-containing brake linings. Defendant has limited its answer to this interrogatory accordingly. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant never re-labeled or re-branded Grizzly or any other brand of brake lining. Defendant has not located an agreement with Grizzly or Abex during the time period of 1970 to 1974. Defendant further responds that it did not sell brake linings outside the Ft. Wayne general geographical area. Also, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: State whether, based upon the material contents, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, each asbestos-containing product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7 could generally be applied or installed, applied, overhauled, serviced, maintained, repaired, handled, or otherwise used without liberating asbestos fibers. Defendant has limited its answer to this interrogatory accordingly. 13 ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects as the request improperly seeks expert opinion. Subject to and without waiving the objections, see Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 8. To the extent Plaintiffs allege that Defendant sold or serviced brake linings to or for NIPSCO or Mr. Chavis already mounted on metal brake shoes, no alteration would be necessary prior to installation. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify any and all tests, studies, research, or analysis designed to test or evaluate the amount of asbestos dust or fibers released during the operation, use, handling, installation, removal, repair, service or maintenance of Friction Parts, components, and replacement parts thereof manufactured, distributed, and/or supplied by you at any time prior to 2000 which you ever conducted, sponsored, received the results of, financed, and/or participated in any manner (including as a subject), including a description of where and when these tests/studies/research/analysis were conducted, by whom these tests/studies/analyses were conducted, the methodology used, the results thereof and any action you took as a result of any such study, test, research, or analysis. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Defendant also incorporates its General Objection relating to the overbroad definition 14 of "Friction Parts." Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify each and every trade or industry association/organization to which Defendant and its predecessors belonged to from their creation until the present, and for each such association/organization, identify the date(s) defendant was a member. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify any and all documents, which you submitted to and/or received from any organization listed in response to the preceding Interrogatory (including any committee, subcommittee and/or affiliate thereof) which refers to, relates to or concerns any and/or all of the following subjects: (a) Asbestos; (b) Asbestos-related disease; (c) The hazards of asbestos; (d) Working with and/or around asbestos (including, but not limited to, recommended practices, controls, TLVs, standards etc.); 15 (e) Medical monitoring of persons working with and/or around asbestos and/or otherwise exposed to asbestos; (f) Marketing asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products; (g) Asbestos related claims and/or litigation; (h) The publication and/or dissemination of information concerning asbestos, asbestos-related diseases and/or the hazards of asbestos (including withholding the same); (i) Warnings, cautions and/or notices concerning asbestos, asbestos-related diseases and/or the hazards of asbestos (including withholding the same); (j) Government proceedings and/or actions regulating asbestos (including proposals to do so); (k) Medical/scientific information and/or research concerning asbestos, asbestosrelated diseases, working with and/or around asbestos, and/or the hazards of asbestos; (l) Occupational health and safety/industrial hygiene (as they concern asbestos, asbestos-related diseases, working with and/or around asbestos, and/or the hazards of asbestos). ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify: (a) The year that Defendant was first advised of either threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust, promulgated by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; (b) The information contained in the advise; (c) The specific person(s) receiving such advise; (d) The steps or action you took to advise your sales personnel of the recommendation; (e) The steps or action you took to advise your customers, dealers, distributors and contractors of the ACGIH recommendation; (f) Any comment you filed or submitted to ACGIH; and (g) Identify all documents related to ACGIH. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant is not aware of ever being advised or aware of this concept. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: State how and when any official of Defendant and/or any predecessor or related entity became aware of the health hazards of asbestos, including, but not limited to, the understanding 17 that exposure to asbestos would, could or might cause or contribute to causing pleural disease, asbestosis, mesothelioma, lung cancer, and any other forms of cancer. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly broad and assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant is not aware of specifically how or when its officers first learned of any specific health hazards of asbestos. Defendant had no knowledge of any alleged health hazards associated with exposure to asbestos in brake linings until no earlier than the late 1970's or early 1980's. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: With respect to each disease set forth in Interrogatory No. 15, identify: (a) The manner in which Defendant first obtained said knowledge, notice, information or understanding; (b) Any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the receipt of such knowledge, notice, information or understanding; and, (c) Defendant's responsive action to receiving such knowledge, notice, information or understanding. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly broad and assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant refers to its response to Interrogatory No. 15. Also, see Defendant's answers to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 32. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 17: If you contend any person or entity other than you is, or may be liable in whole or in part for the claims asserted in this lawsuit, for each such person or entity, identify the specific product(s) that you contend exposed Plaintiff David Chavis to respirable asbestos fibers, the percentage of asbestos in each such product, the type and source of the asbestos in each such product, the exposure level(s) to which you contend David Chavis was exposed to each such product, and the relative frequency, proximity, and regularity of David Chavis' exposures to each such product. ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not in evidence, and excessive in scope and time. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Defendant further objects as the request improperly seeks expert opinion. This interrogatory is also inappropriate as it requests that Defendant prematurely set forth various defenses and evidence in support, and inappropriately requires that Defendant prematurely produce the opinions of its experts. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant answers that to the extent Plaintiff can establish that Mr. Chavis' injuries are in any way attributable to brake linings sold or used by Defendant, then fault should lie with Grizzly/Maremont. Also, see the parties' discovery responses and deposition testimony provided in this action. Responding further, Defendant states its investigation is ongoing and it reserves the right to supplement this response in accordance with the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure and any applicable case management order. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Identify the names, addresses and telephone numbers of any current or former directors, offices, employees, representatives and agents who have given sworn deposition or trial testimony regarding Defendant's involvement in asbestos personal injury or wrongful death litigation, and identify the current location and custodian of the deposition or trial testimony. ANSWER: None. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify all experts this Defendant intends to call at trial of this matter and identify the nature of the testimony he/she will provide specifically in relation to his/her review of this case, evidence and testimony. ANSWER: Defendant states it has not yet identified its expert witnesses in this action. Defendant will identify its experts in accordance with the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure and any applicable case management order and reserves the right to supplement this response, accordingly. REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 20 VERIFICATION The undersigned, Scott Bethke, being duly sworn says that he is the President of Brake Materials & Parts, Inc.; that he has verified the foregoing Brake Materials & Parts, Inc.'s Responses To Plaintiffs' Case-Specific Interrogatories for and on behalf of Brake Materials & Parts, Inc.; that he is duly authorized to do so; that certain of these matters stated therein are not within the personal knowledge of affiant; and that the facts stated therein have been assembled by authorized representatives and counsel Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. and affiant is informed that the facts stated therein are true. Date: May 24, 2021 AS TO OBJECTIONS: Byi Scott Bethke RILEY BENNETT EGLOFF LLP RILEY BENNETT EGLOFF LLP 500 N. Meridian Street, Suite 550 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 636-8000 (317) 636-8027 Fax ifecht@rbelaw.com /s/ Jeffrey B. Fecht Jeffrey B. Fecht Attorneys for Defendant, Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. 21 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1: All documents regarding or related to each of the Interrogatories above. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unlimited in scope and time, and seeks information not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent this request seeks information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the objections, no specific documents were identified in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. Also, see response to Request No. 2. REQUEST NO. 2: All documents relied upon or reviewed in answering these discovery requests. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unlimited in scope and time, and seeks information not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the objections, see receipt regarding white and yellow pages listings and Grizzly/Maremont and Abex documents being produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 3: All tangible things that are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing. Seeking production of all things relevant to the claims and defenses in this case constitutes a fishing expedition and the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to 22 the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected by either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to the extent this request requires the premature disclosure of expert witnesses, expert opinions, expert reports and expert testimony contrary to the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. REQUEST NO. 4: All documents relating to all accounts with Defendant which were held by Northern Indiana Public Service Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana from 1970 through 1974 RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request to the extent the phrase "accounts with Defendant held by Northern Indiana Public Service Company" is vague. Defendant understands the reference to having an account to indicate NIPSCO could charge against an account for any services provided by Defendant. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 5: All files and records related to the products, including, but not limited to, all Friction Parts, components, and replacement parts thereof supplied by Defendant, any predecessor or related company to (or for use at) Northern Indiana Public Service Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana from 1970 through 1974. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant also incorporates its General Objection relating to the overbroad definition of "Friction Parts" and objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to the products, services or types of exposures in question. 23 Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant responds that it has no documents referencing sales of any products or services provided to NIPSCO during the referenced time period. REQUEST NO. 6: Any and all documents which concern sales calls or visits by your representative(s) to Northern Indiana Public Service Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana from 1970 through 1974. RESPONSE: None. REQUEST NO. 7: All documents that is in your possession, custody, or control to or from Northern Indiana Public Service Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana from 1970 through 1974. RESPONSE: None. REQUEST NO. 8: All documents relating to warnings regarding the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products as communicated to Northern Indiana Public Service Company and to persons who would be working with, using, installing, or removing the asbestos-containing product(s) identified in response to Interrogatory No. 5. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes facts, is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to the products, services or time relevant to the allegations in the present case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. 24 REQUEST NO. 9: All documents relating to all accounts with Defendant which were held by David Chavis from 1960 through 2000. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request to the extent the phrase "accounts with Defendant held by David Chavis" is vague. Defendant understands the reference to having an account to indicate that Mr. Chavis could charge against an account for any services provided by Defendant. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 10: All files and records related to the products, including, but not limited to, all Friction Parts, components, and replacement parts thereof supplied by Defendant, any predecessor or related company to David Chavis from 1960 through 2000. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant also incorporates its General Objection relating to the overbroad definition of "Friction Parts" and objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to the products, services or types or time frames of exposures alleged by Plaintiff. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 11: All documents relating to warnings regarding the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products as communicated to David Chavis prior to 2000. 25 RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this request not limited to the products, services or types of exposures in question. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 12: All documents identifying all any suppliers of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6 and No. 7 to Defendant and all documents relating to the supply of such products to Defendant. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Subject to and without waiving the objections, see receipt regarding white and yellow pages listings and Grizzly/Maremont and Abex documents being produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 13: Any and all documents referring to, relating to, or reflecting the design, preparation, design and/or preparation of manufacturing specifications for the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7 and components and replacement parts thereof. 26 RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 14: All documents concerning any relabeling agreements or rebranding agreements between Defendant and any manufacturer(s) or supplier(s) for the relabeling or rebranding of any products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 15: All documents relating to Defendant's publication and distribution of instructions, warnings, cautions and instruction manuals for use with its products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7, including the contents and intended audience. 27 RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 16: All documents relating to Defendant's efforts, if any, to communicate the hazards of exposure to asbestos to the users of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 17: All documents relating to the asbestos content of any and all asbestoscontaining products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7 herein and/or the asbestos-containing materials incorporated, added, utilized, or applied to the product, including, but not limited to: 28 (a) any decisions Defendant may have made to reduce, alter, or eliminate the asbestos content of such materials, component, and/or external parts; and (b) any decisions Defendant may have made to halt the manufacture, purchase, supply or distribution of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 18: All specifications and other documents that suggest, identify, or contain a designation for any type of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials to be used in the manufacture and/or construction of any products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7 and/or for any replacement parts thereof. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. 29 Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 19: Any and all material safety data sheets prepared by or on behalf of Defendant for any and all asbestos-containing products identified in response to interrogatory No. 4, No. 6 and No. 7. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 20: All documents relating to your efforts to evaluate the amount of asbestos dust or fibers released during the operation, use, handling, installation, removal, repair, service or maintenance of any asbestos-containing products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7, including, but not limited to, any studies, research, tests, or analysis the results thereof, and all actions taken in response thereto by you. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to 30 Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 21: Identify any and all tests, studies, research, or analysis designed to test or evaluate the amount of asbestos dust or fibers released during the operation, use, handling, installation, removal, repair, service or maintenance of Friction Parts, components, and replacement parts thereof manufactured and/or supplied by you at any time prior to 2002 which anyone ever conducted, sponsored, received the results of, financed, and/or participated in any manner (including as a subject), the results thereof, and any action you took as a result of any such study, test, research, or analysis. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant also incorporates its General Objection relating to the overbroad definition of "Friction Parts" and objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to the products, services or types of exposures in question. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 22: All documents relating to, reflecting or regarding the removal of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing materials from the asbestos-containing products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7 and programs directed at such removal. Please include any feasibility studies or research conducted concerning asbestos-free replacement products. 31 RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 23: All documents concerning any distribution, licensing, relabeling and/or rebranding agreements between Defendant and any manufacturer(s) or supplier(s) for the products identified in response to interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Defendant has limited its answer to this interrogatory accordingly. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant has not located an agreement with Grizzly or Abex during the time period of 1970 to 1974. REQUEST NO. 24: All packaging inserts for any and all asbestos-containing products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7, including, but not limited to, inserts with a 32 warning concerning asbestos, the hazards of asbestos, and/or procedures for working with and/or around asbestos. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 25: All documents relating to the procedure(s), if any, which you recommended or used for installing, removing, maintenance and servicing of the asbestos-containing products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. 33 REQUEST NO. 26: Any and all pictures, photographs and/or like representations of asbestoscontaining products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7 and/or their packaging, labels, tags and/or like materials. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Defendant also incorporates its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as if fully restated herein. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 27: All documents relating to the decision, if any, to discontinue the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials on/in any products Defendant, any processor or related company designed, manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, applied, installed, patented, specified and/or re-labeled. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, assumes facts, excessive in scope and time, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. 34 REQUEST NO. 28: All documents relating to any and all studies conducted before you directed that production and/or sale of asbestos-containing products be stopped, or asbestos eliminated from your products (and if so, identify each study by date, author, title and subject matter and attach a copy), including any documents describing or directing this change (including, but not limited to, all product change requests regarding asbestos). RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 29: All files and records related to the asbestos-containing products Defendant purchased from, manufactured, sold, supplied and/or distributed to any co-defendant in this case. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant has no records responsive to this request for the time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant. REQUEST NO. 30: All documents that demonstrate Defendant had knowledge regarding any hazards or potential hazards from breathing airborne asbestos or using asbestos-containing products. 35 RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 31: All documents relating to any and all studies, research, tests, and/or analysis concerning the health hazards of asbestos you ever conducted, sponsored, received the results of, financed, and/or participated in any manner (including as a subject), the results thereof, and all actions taken in response thereto by you. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods, products or services relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 32: All documents relating to Defendant's knowledge of either threshold limit values (TLVs) or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust, promulgated by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, including, but not limited to, when and how Defendant was first advised of such values. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant 36 evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not limited to time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 33: All files and records related to any claims filed by Defendant or any other related entity for compensation from any Asbestos Trust established for the purpose of providing compensation for asbestos-related injuries, property-damage, or economic loss. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Subject to and without waiving the objections, none. REQUEST NO. 34: All sworn statements which were previously made by Defendant and/or any of its present or former directors, officers, agents, representatives or employees concerning asbestos-related injuries related to and/or arising from any asbestos-related claim(s) or lawsuit(s). This includes, but is not limited to, all discovery responses, responses to requests for admission, declarations, affidavits and/or testimony (whether by deposition or in court, and with corresponding exhibits) (excluding those in matters to which a client of MAUNE RAICHLE HARTLEY FRENCH & MUDD, LLC, GEORGE & FARINAS, or DOBS & FARINAS was a party at the time) provided by your former directors, officers, employees, agents, corporate representative(s) or other fact witnesses in your control. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, and unlimited in scope and time. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent it seeks 37 information and materials that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence because it is not limited in scope to products or services identified and at issue in this action. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information and documents that are otherwise within the public domain or are equally available to Plaintiffs. Subject to and without waiving the objections, see affidavits of Thomas Broxon and Scott Bethke being produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 35: All depositions and trial transcripts (with corresponding exhibits) (excluding those in matters to which a client of MAUNE RAICHLE HARTLEY FRENCH & MUDD, LLC, GEORGE & FARINAS, or DOBS & FARINAS was a party at the time) in any case alleging asbestosrelated injuries as a result (in whole or in part) of exposure to asbestos, asbestos-containing products, talc and/or talc-containing products reflecting testimony by any of your current and/or former directors, officers, employees, representatives, and/or agents. RESPONSE: None. REQUEST NO. 36: All documents or other tangible things relating to Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, documents that relate to the medical condition of David Chavis at any time. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague as to "relate to" and to the extent it requests information gathered in litigation that constitutes attorney mental impressions, opinion, legal theories and legal conclusions so as to be subject to the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent it calls for the premature disclosure of expert opinions, expert reports and expert 38 testimony contrary to the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information and documents that are otherwise within the public domain or are equally available to Plaintiffs. Subject to and without waiving the objections, other than information that may be contained in pleadings and documents produced during discovery of this matter, which are equally available to Plaintiff, Defendant is not aware of responsive documents. REQUEST NO. 37: All documents of any type that relate or pertain to David Chavis, his family, any co-workers, the jobsites he worked at, locations where he lived, and/or the allegations in this lawsuit. This request is without time or location limitation n and includes any and all worksites, residences, and locations identified by in Answers to Interrogatories and deposition testimony in this matter. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague as to "relate to or pertain to" and to the extent it requests information gathered in litigation that constitutes attorney mental impressions, opinion, legal theories and legal conclusions so as to be subject to the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent it calls for the premature disclosure of expert opinions, expert reports and expert testimony contrary to the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. Subject to and without waiving the objections, other than information that may be contained in pleadings and documents produced during discovery of this matter, which are equally available to Plaintiffs, Defendant is not aware of responsive documents. REQUEST NO. 38: Copies of all communications and information exchanged between you (including your agents) and any expert in this case. 39 RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request as overbroad and premature. Defendant also objects to the request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents exchanged with consulting experts, which are generally not discoverable under Indiana law, and to the extent it may otherwise seek documents beyond that allowed in expert discovery in Indiana. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant's experts will be disclosed and Defendant will produce any discoverable documents responsive to this request in accordance with the Court's case management order and the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. REQUEST NO. 39: All reports, correspondence and records which relate to the subject matter of this case to or from any expert who is expected to testify at trial. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request as overbroad and premature and to the extent it may otherwise seek documents beyond that allowed in expert discovery in Indiana. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant's experts will be disclosed and Defendant will produce any discoverable documents responsive to this request in accordance with the Court's case management order and the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. REQUEST NO. 40: All reliance materials utilized by any expert designated in this case which Defendant intends to call at trial of this case. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request as overbroad and premature and to the extent it may otherwise seek documents beyond that allowed in expert discovery in Indiana. 40 Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant's experts will be disclosed and Defendant will produce any discoverable documents responsive to this request in accordance with the Court's case management order and the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. REQUEST NO. 41: All reports, writings (whether publishes or unpublished) and/or other documentation written, created and/or edited by any of your experts whom you expect to testify at the trial of this matter that in any way pertain to asbestos and the hazards of asbestos and/or diseases that may result therefrom. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request as overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to the request as premature and to the extent it may otherwise seek documents beyond that allowed in expert discovery in Indiana. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant's experts will be disclosed and Defendant will produce any discoverable documents responsive to this request in accordance with the Court's case management order and the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. REQUEST NO. 42: Copies of any studies published in the last 12 months authored by any person you intend to call as an expert witness in this case. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request as overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to the request as premature and to the extent it may otherwise seek documents beyond that allowed in expert discovery in Indiana. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant's experts will be disclosed and Defendant will produce any discoverable documents responsive to this request in accordance with the Court's case management order and the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. 41 REQUEST NO. 43: Copies of the most recent Curriculum Vitae of any person YOU intend to call as an expert witness in this case. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request as overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to the request as premature and to the extent it may otherwise seek documents beyond that allowed in expert discovery in Indiana. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant's experts will be disclosed and Defendant will produce any discoverable documents responsive to this request in accordance with the Court's case management order and the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. REQUEST NO. 44: For each expert you intend to call at trial produce all documents reflecting or relating to payments made by you or any attorney/agent acting on your behalf for the period of January 1, 2000 to the present. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request as overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to the request as premature and to the extent it may otherwise seek documents beyond that allowed in expert discovery in Indiana. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant's experts will be disclosed and Defendant will produce any discoverable documents responsive to this request in accordance with the Court's case management order and the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. REQUEST NO. 45: All documents relating to your policies, practices or procedures regarding handling, safekeeping or transporting documents, commonly referred to as "record retention policies." 42 RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant has documents responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 46: Defendant's privilege log for this discovery. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, burdensome, harassing and seeks information rather than existing documents. Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant is not withholding any documents based on any privilege other than privileged communications and the undersigned's attorney work product dated and/or created after the commencement of this action. RILEY BENNETT EGLOFF LLP RILEY BENNETT EGLOFF LLP 500 N. Meridian Street, Suite 550 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 636-8000 (317) 636-8027 (FAX) jfecht@rbelaw.com /s/ Jeffrey B. Fecht Jeffrey B. Fecht Atty. No. 20875-29 Attorneys for Defendant, Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. 43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney certified that the foregoing was electronically served on all counsel of record on the date shown on the file or service stamp on the first page of this document, by using eFile & Serve. /s/ Jeffrey B. Fecht Jeffrey B. Fecht 44 APPLICATION FOR DIRECTORY ADVERTISING N DIRECTOR** STATE DIRCODE BILLING ICON TACT DW CODE c;ir.'E MARKET CODE FT UVN II N 23043 LM I LP 23043 NAME BRAKE MATERIALS PARTS INC 2430 ACCOUNT NO AREA CODE TELtfHONE.NO. 743-3331 STREET NO. FR 800 A/R/S NO. Oft ADDRESS 5HEPMAN BLVO CITY OR DESIGNATION CONTACT TOH BROXON rOMEHflGNATURE .Si *7 _ SALES REPRESENTATIVE NUMBER NAME^ J STATE ZIP CODE 46802 GROUP NO. TERR. OLD TELEPHONE NO. y // TITLE CURRENT MONTHLY TOTAL NEW MONTHLY TOTAL 24.30 7 IB v Suing instsuciions CONTROL CL HO CODE ITEM GL0012B430SRL 01 IO999999W0L 0120127970TM 0121 0130|127970|TBL 0131 0132 CLASSIFICATION BRAKES-L IN ING-MFRS OISTRS ALPHA BRAKE SERVICE /FL/ GRIZZLY BRAKE LININGS BRAKE SERVICE /FL/ GRIZZLY BEAR LINING /CAP/ DISTRIBUTOR MONTHLY RATE /f- 3-riO '7' n .<Ls~tk-<Ck _ - ea\ A- J LAST PAGE 1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS APPLICATION THE ABOVE APPLICANT requests the Telephone Company to insert and/or make the changes shown "in the above advertising items in ihe FORTHCOMING AND SUBSEQUENT issues of the Telephone Directory and agrees to poy the TOTAL AMOUNT PER MONTH as Shown above EACH MONTH IN ADVANCE on publication of said .advertising items. THE ABOVE APPLICANT certifies that he has authority to use TRADE NAMES and TRADE MARKS included on this application in accordance with item 5 on the reverse of this application. 20QC3-DC (REV 2-73) I J ' Nf f \ UU IM BRAKE SYSTEMS 168 N MICHIGAN AVE.. CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60601 h JV udgJ J n July 21, 1972 TO: All Grizzly Rebuilders SUBJECT: New Resale Price Sheets Please be advised that this letter supersedes our Bulletin #251 of July 10, 1972. We wish to emphasize that the suggested resale price sheets included with Bulletin #251 have no effect whatsoever on the pricing of merchandise sold by Grizzly to you. There has been no price increase by Grizzly /Maremont to you on our products. Suggested resale price sheets represent, as you know, only a marketing service by Grizzly. Pricing changes, such as the separate pricing for riveted as opposed to bonded axle sets, reflect a cross section of current prices used by independent Grizzly rebuilders. As indicated previsouly, such resale price schedules are to be used, at your discretion, with customers whom you service. We hope that this will clarify any situations that may arise concerning either the suggested resale price sheets or our bulk segment and other product pricing. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely , r. David R. Carlson Vice President -- Saies Brake Systems Division DRC:sp #253 jJtrj A DIVISION OF MAREMONT CORPORAT'ON / AUTOMOTIVE GROUP MARKETING, INC. A SALES SUBSIDIARY OF MAREMONT CORPORATION HEAVY DUTY PRODUCTS DIVISION MAREMONT BUILDING 168 N. MICHIGAN AVE. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601 263-7676 J une 24 , 19 70 Mr . B . J , Broxon Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. 815 S. Lafayette St. Ft. Wayne, Indiana 46802 Dear Tom: We wish to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation for your attendance at the recent Grizzly Council Meeting, We feel the meeting was very worthwhile and the success we achieved was a direct result of the members' participation. All of with a mutual your suggestions and contributions were presented constructive attitude which will help solve our problems. Your recommendations are now being reviewed and will be re capped very quickly. An updalted status report will be mailed to you no later than July 16 covering the items remaining on the old list, and a detailed listing of the new recommendations will be mailed at the same time. Thanks again for us improve ours. taking time from your business in helping Best regards , JWG/s jh jTAf , Greenen mice President Sales /Brake Systems Products Exhaust Systems - Brake Components Ride Control Products . Camshafts . Remanufactu red: Clutches Generators . Starters . Armatures Starter Drives Alternators Solenoids Voltage Regulators Carburetors Fuel Pumps - Water Pumps Power Brake Units American Brake Shoe Company j* S. K. Wellman Division 200 EGBERT ROAD. BEDFORD. OHIO 44014 TEL: 216-232-2400 January 12, 1968 Sea Hymph P. 0. Box Syracuse, Manufacturing 298 Indiana 46567 Corporation Attention: Mr. James A. Cummins Dear Mr. Cuamins: Thank you fox your inquiry. The closest Velvetouch Metalik Dealer to you is: Brake Material and Supply Lafayette Street Fort Wayne, Indiana Phone: 561-4670 Mr. Tom Broxon The sets required for your 1967 Pontiac are: front 2133-313; rear 2134-272. This is assuming that you do not have front disc brakes . Trailer hauling is a problem evidently not taken into consideration by the vehicle manufacturers from a brake standpoint. Needless to say, this does add to the work the brake oystem must especially important that the. entire system - hydraulics, drums, etc * i be in top condition when trailering. do. It is springs, I would suggest the use of the heavy duty, heat resistant springs made by Lee Manufacturing (also sold under the name of Gibson). I would further suggest that high temperature fluid be used since the vehicle brakes are generating higher than normal heat. This extreme heat also tends to distort drums so it would be wise to check for an out-of-round condition before installing your new linings. Our experience with Velvetouch Metalik on vehicles, both cars and trucks, has been most gratifying. ALL-METAL FRICTION PRODUCTS Sea Nymph Manufacturing Corporation Page two to quote from "Mobile Home Journal": "The car owner will feel a noticeable improvement on downhill braking, on stop-and-go freeway driving, and while trailer towing. Standard brakes won't resist heat fade nearly as well as the new heavy-duty types." If I may be of any further help, please contact me. i Regards, J J - . i VC .. David A. Antel Service Representative as cc: Mr. Tom Broxon, Mr. Lee Bigler, A, L. Womer Brake Materials & Supply Lee Manufacturing / a- A .7 i .1 m t!. I ), 'J: m v, . s f m 1 > :;y^y @ Heavy Duty Brake Linings. National Sales Office Abex Friction Products Division 3001 W. Big Beaver Road Suite 710 Troy, Ml 48084 Phone 313/643-4400 Regional Distribution Centers Philadelphia Distribution Center Abex Friction Products Division 4667 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19047 Phone 215/322-2122 San Francisco Distribution Center Abex Friction Products Division 26328 Corporate Avenue Hayward, CA 94545 Phone 415/782-9000 Chicago Distribution Center Abex Friction Products Division i1 818 Lively Boulevard Wood Dale, I L 60191 Phone 312/595-1144 L Atlanta Distribution Center Abex Friction Products Division 4030 Pleasantdale Road N.E. Atlanta, GA 30340 Phone 404/448-8211 An IC Industries Company A1073 I Friction Products Division 3001 W. Big Bonvtr Hd., Troy, Michigan 40084 L'>r ') 4 rv Xm . . V: i% t" v\ m Abex brake lining Preferred by an industry that demands the best. The world's finest quality brake lining is produced by Abex, the largest manufacturer of friction products in the v/or'd. Every Abex lining is the product of the most comprehensive testing and quality controlled manu facturing procedures ir the industry Each has been carefully compounded with the right blend of organic materials, resins and metals to deliver consislen: oerformance for specific applications. Before each product reaches the marketplace, it is given the most grueling tests possible at Abex's Research and Development facilities in Mahwah, New Jersey. Mahwah is one of the most sophisticated testing facilities in the world. General characteristics of each Abex product line are shown in this brochure. In addition, your Abex distrioutor is fully qualified to help you pinpoint the correct brake lining for your specific vehicle or apDlication. See him for more information. He can show you tested proof why Abex lining is your choice when only the best will do. Your Abex distributor more than quality linings. Each Abex distributor has Abex quality lining and blocks selected esoecially for the particular needs of his customers. In addition, he is also trained and ready to provide you with many extra services in mainten ance techniques and personnel education. See your Abex distributor for the best in linings and service. v AUTHORIZED j DISTRIBUTOR ASBESTOS-FR^E Abe* Corporation, Friction Products Division, Wlnctiestar, VA 22601 Heavy Duty Strip Lining Designed for light and medium duty stop'n go delivery trucks and buses. Provides improved stopping performance for heavy duty applications of hydraulically braked vehicles. Asbestos-free material. Extended-life-formula signifi cantly increases lining life. Excellent stable friction with good fade resistance and recovery. Heavy Duty Blocks Designed for demanding high speed highway and low speed city braking. Improved stopping perfor mance over other premium grades of organic material. Asbestos-free material. Extended-life-formula provides significant increases in lining life. Excellent stable friction with good fade resistance and recovery. r / ./ * .r.#, <!>" h o y - --S4 jiti HEAVY DUTY BLOCKS TOP QUALITY FRICTION PRODUCTS 4515D Heavy Duty Cam Blocks A high performance lining design ed for repeated high speed high way braking and low speed braking in city areas, Good stable friction throughout a wide range of temperatures for the life of the lining. Withstands brake drum soak tem peratures in excess of 500. Good fade resistance and recovery characteristics. Superior wet friction characteristics. Recommended for use on highway trucks and trailers. (Abex Heavy Duty Blocks are designed to operate efficiently in 90% of all the operating conditions encountered. When operating with extremely overloaded conditions or consistently high temperatures, use Abex Extra Heavy Duty or Logging Blocks.) il STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF ALLEN ) )SS. ) IN THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 02D0 1-991 l-CP-2074 JEROME & SHIRLEY OTT, h/w ) 801 West Market Street ) Piereeton, IN 46562 ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) A.P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC. ) a/k/a Green Refractories Co. ) Green Boulevard ) Mexico, MO 65265 ) ETAL. ) ) Defendants. ) AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS BROXON Thomas Broxon, affirms under the penalties of perjury, that: 1 . I am over the age of eighteen, of sound mind, and have personal knowledge of the matters contained herein. 2. Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. is located in Fort Wayne, Indiana and has been in business since 1936. Since 1936, Brake Materials & Parts has been in the wholesale business of selling brake and automotive parts to the public. 3. The company was originally started by my father, Harold Broxon. In 1947, 1 took over the company. I incorporated Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. in 1952. I have continuously worked in the store from 1936 until my retirement in 1989. The company is now owned and operated by my daughter Margaret Bethke and son-in law, Scott Bethke. 4. As a former General Manager and President of the company, I have access to all records maintained by Brake Materials & Parts, Inc., including accounts receivable, accounts payable, order processing and inventory records. 5. I am familiar with the lawsuit filed by Jerry Ott and Shirley Ott against Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. and several other defendants. 1 have reviewed the complaints and the depositions of Mr. Ott. 6. Throughout the company's existence, Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. has never possessed, sold, distributed or delivered any Bendix, Borg-Wamer, or Raylock, brake linings to any individual or company. In addition, throughout the company's existence, Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. never possessed, sold, distributed or delivered any brake linings from any subsidiary or parent companies of Bendix, Borg-Wamer, or Raylock. 7. Throughout the company's existence, Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. has never manufactured any brake linings or any other product containing asbestos. Brake Materials has never designed, assembled, fabricated, produced, constructed, or prepared any product, or a component part of a product which contained asbestos before the sale of the product to a customer. Brake Materials has never had any knowledge that any of the parts which it sold were alleged to be defective (as they were not). 8. Brake Materials has never furnished a manufacturer with specification or exercised any control over the manufacturing process of any products sold by Brake Materials. Brake Materials has never altered or modified, in any significant manner, any product after Brake Materials received the product before it was sold to a customer. 9. Brake Materials has never been owned by any manufacturer of products supplied to Brake Materials. In addition, Brake Materials has never owned any part of a company who supplied parts to Brake Materials. 10. Throughout the company's existence, Brake Materials & Parts has never manufactured any brake linings or any product containing asbestos. 11. Throughout the company's existence, Brake Materials & Parts never mined and sold commercial asbestos. 12. It is my understanding that Mr. Ott claims to have worked for Transport Motors, Fort Wayne, Indiana from the period of 1951-1955. Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. did not sell, distribute, or deliver any Bendix, Borg-Wamer or Raylock brake linings to Transport Motors either prior to or during the years Mr. Ott claims to have worked for this company. \ 13. Prior to the year 1971, Brake Materials & Parts had no knowledge or information that asbestos was "dangerous". In addition, prior to 1971, Brake Materials had no knowledge or information that exposure to asbestos containing products posed any sort of health risk. Prior to 1971, Brake Materials had not seen any reports, either written or by way of the media, on the potential problems associated with exposure to asbestos-containing products. 14. Brake Materials never concealed any information concerning the dangers associated with asbestos from any of its customers (or anyone else). 1 5. Brake Materials did not participate in any conspiracy concerning asbestos. Brake Materials never conspired with anyone or any entity respecting a product supposedly containing asbestos. I affirm under the penalties of pequry that the foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of iny present belief and knowledge. Dated this day of March, 2000. ifM. iroxon I r. r STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF ALLEN ) )SS. ) IN THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 02D0 1 -99 1 1 -CP-2074 r JEROME & SHIRLEY OTT, h/w ) U 801 West Market Street ) C Pierceton, IN 46562 ) i ) u Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) A.P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC. ) u a/k/a Green Refractories Co. ) Green Boulevard ) Mexico, MO 65265 ) U ETAL. ) ) Defendants. ) AFFIDAVIT OF SCOTT BETHKE Scott Bethke, affirms under the penalties of perjury, that: r". 1 . I am over the age of eighteen, of sound mind and have personal knowledge of the U matters contained herein. J ! 2. I am currently the General Manager/President for Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. Brake Materials & Parts is located in Fort Wayne, Indiana and has been in business since 1936. Since f 1936, Brake Materials & Parts has been in the wholesale business of selling brake and U automotive parts to the public. I have been employed by Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. since 1986. 1 became President/General Manager of Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. in 1989. r i U 3. As General Manager and President, I have access to all records maintained by Brake Materials & Parts, Inc., including accounts receivable, accounts payable, order processing and inventory records. 4. I am familiar with the lawsuit filed by Jerry Ott and Shirley Ott against Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. and several other defendants. I have reviewed the complaints and the Li depositions of Mr. Ott. :  m \ 5. Throughout the company's existence, Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. has never possessed, sold, distributed or delivered any Bendix, Borg-Warner, or Raylock, brake linings to n any individual or company. In addition, throughout the company's existence, Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. never possessed, sold, distributed or delivered any brake linings from any subsidiary or parent companies of Bendix, Borg-Warner, or Raylock. i 6. Throughout the company's existence, Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. has never manufactured any brake linings or any other product containing asbestos. Brake Materials has rv never designed, assembled, fabricated, produced, constructed, or prepared any product, or a ! component part of a product which contained asbestos before the sale of the product to a customer. Brake Materials has never had any knowledge that any of the parts which it sold were alleged to be defective (as they were not). 7. Brake Materials has never furnished a manufacturer with specification or exercised any control over the manufacturing process of any products sold by Brake Materials. Brake Materials has never altered or modified, in any significant manner, any product after Brake n Materials received the product before it was sold to a customer. ! U 8. Brake Materials has never been owned by any manufacturer of products supplied to Brake Materials. In addition, Brake Materials has never owned any part of a company who supplied parts to Brake Materials. r~~ 9. Throughout the company's existence, Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. never mined and I sold commercial asbestos. 10. It is my understanding that Mr. Ott claims to have worked for Transport Motors, Fort -- Wayne, Indiana from the period of 1951-1955. Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. did not sell, distribute, or deliver any Bendix, Borg-Warner or Raylock brake linings to Transport Motors either prior to or during the years Mr. Ott claims to have worked for this company. n 1 1 . Prior to the year 1971, Brake Materials & Parts, Inc. had no knowledge or information that asbestos was "dangerous". In addition, prior to 1971, Brake Materials had no knowledge or information that exposure to asbestos containing products posed any sort of health n risk. Prior to 1971, Brake Materials had not seen any reports, either written or by way of the media, on the potential problems associated with exposure to asbestos-containing products. 12. Brake Materials never concealed any information concerning the dangers associated I with asbestos from any of its customers. Li 13. Brake Materials did not participate in any conspiracy concerning asbestos. Brake Materials never conspired with anyone or any entity respecting a product supposedly containing asbestos. n L.i ! ,) i_; I affirm under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of my present belief and knowledge. Dated this 3^ day of March, 2000. Scott Bethke r ! L.' n n t n i; r i n iI Lj U r~-