Document 3a58Y77Xy4na3RBzR1QyV0bE

FILE NAME Ford FD DATE 0000 DOC FD018 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Legal - Ford's Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's first set of Request for Production HAROLD KINTZ VS NO 940,143 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY TEXAS 128TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ALLIEDSIGNAL INC ALLIEDSIGNAL AUTOMOTIVE AFTERMARKET BRAKE a division of Alliedsignal Inc. GARRETT AUTOMOTIVE a division of Alliedsignal Inc. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES INC THE CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY CHRYSLER CORPORATION DANA CORPORATION THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY FORD MOTOR COMPANY GAF CORPORATION GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION LO AUTO SUPPLY L.P. THE HOME DEPOT INC MCCAULEY LUMBER COMPANY MCCORD CORPORATION MCCORD PAYEN INC and UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY / FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION This is the supplemental response of the Defendant Ford Motor Company Ford to Plaintiff's First Set of Request for Production Plaintiff's Requests PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Ford's Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Requests has been prepared in full compliance with the Texas Court Rules pursuant to a reasonable and duly diligent search for information properly requested For many years Ford has had at any time hundreds of thousands of employees in different locations throughout the world In conducting its business Ford has created every year millions of documents that have been kept in numerous different locations and have been moved frequently from site to site as employees have changed jobs Accordingly Ford does not and could not possibly represent that its responses constitute all of the information requested Rather as required by the Texas Court Rules Ford's responses reflect all responsive information identified by Ford before the date of the responses pursuant to a reasonable and duly diligent search and investigation conducted in connection with these requests To the extent that the requests purport to require more Ford objects on the grounds that a the requests seek to compel Ford to conduct a search beyond the scope of permissible discovery contemplated by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and b compliance with the requests would impose an undue burden and expense Furthermore in compliance with the Texas Court Rules Ford responds to Plaintiff's Requests only with respect to information and documents in Ford's possession custody or control Some or all of Plaintiff's Requests purport to call for information or documents not in the possession custody or control of Ford but in the possession custody or control of other separate legal entities To the extent that Plaintiff's Requests attempt to require Ford to obtain information and documents not in Ford's possession custody or control Ford objects on the grounds that they a seek to compel Ford to conduct a search beyond the scope of permissible discovery contemplated by the Texas Court Rules and b impose an undue burden and expense on Ford Ford does not concede that any of its responses will be admissible evidence at trial Further Ford does not waive any objections whether or not stated herein to use such answers at trial When Ford uses any terms or phrases that Plaintiff has purported to define such terms and phrases should be given either a the meanings set out by Ford herein or in the individual responses or b in cases of ordinary words that Plaintiff has attempted to define in a manner inconsistent with their meanings the ordinary meaning of such words Additionally Ford in its own going searches for information which may be relevant to asbestos litigation has accumulated approximately 20,000 pages of privileged documents To the extent that Plaintiff's requests may seek information that may be contained in these documents Ford will make them available for inspection and copying at Plaintiff's expense at its offices in Dearborn Michigan at a mutually agreeable time during regular business hours Ford objects to sorting through these documents and copying and mailing them to Plaintiff in answer to these requests since to do so would require the expenditure of thousands of dollars hundreds of hours of human effort and would in all likelihood take several weeks if not months to complete SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 1 Copies of at least ten depositions or trial transcripts taken since July 1988 for all expert and fact witnesses listed by the DEFENDANT in this case The Defendant does not have to produce copies of the requested documents if this Plaintiff's attorney was present for the deposition or trial testimony of the witness The Defendant does not have to provide copies of the requested documents if they were previously copies of the requested documents if they were previously produced Further Defendant does not have to produce documents for witnesses that they strike from their lists prior to this production being due However this request remains in effect for all Defendants who have not yet listed witnesses and for witnesses that may be listed before trial in this case Further this request is only for depositions and trial transcripts where testimony related in whole or in part to asbestos asbestos related diseases asbestos products and materials and asbestos litigation This request does not include any such deposition or trial testimony for Dr. Keith Wilson nor Dr. Paul Stevens or Corwin Hinshaw RESPONSE Objections Lack of Relevance Burden Overly Broad Lack of Particularity Privileged Premature SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 6 All documents reflecting how and when DEFENDANT first learned of the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure RESPONSE Objections Lack of Relevance Burden Overly Broad Lack of Particularity Premature SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE Without waiving any of the previously stated objections Ford cannot state when a Ford employee first had knowledge of such information It is known however that the initial knowledge of a suggestion of potential hazards associated with asbestos brakes came in a telephone call from Dr. Selikoff to Dr. Roy Gealer of Ford Research and Engineering in April 1975 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 11 All books pamphlets memoranda written materials or any other documents of any kind or character in the DEFENDANT's possession prior to 1980 that would indicate that asbestos fibers when inhaled can be hazardous to the health of human beings RESPONSE Objections Lack of Relevance Burden Overly Broad lack of Particularity | Premature SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE Without waiving any of the previously stated objections Ford states that in the early 1970's Arnold Anderson and Roy Gealer of Ford's Scientific Research Staff conducted tests to determine the quantity of asbestos fibers liberated from brake linings during the braking process They concluded that over 99.98 of the asbestos fibers in brake linings decomposed during the braking process into other materials Their results were published in a 1973 SAE paper by A. Anderson and R. Gealer entitled Asbestos Emissions From Brake Dynamometer Tests In 1973 Ford's Industrial Hygiene Department conducted air sampling tests on brake linings being cleaned by brake mechanics using air hoses They determined that asbestos levels were well below existing or proposed O.S.H.A standards This testing was done by Mr. Anderson and Henry Lick under the supervision of Paul Toth the then manager of Industrial Hygiene Ford states that commencing in the early 1970's Ford participated in and provided partial funding for studies done by Dr. Irving Selikoff and others at what is now the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York which work was reported on in a paper entitled Asbestos Exposure During Brake Lining and Maintenance and Repair published in Environmental Research Vol 12 pp 110-128 1976 The work done was a study of the environmental pollution if any caused by asbestos in brake linings The study came to focus on the occupational exposure of mechanics during brake repair and maintenance Ford's Research and Engineering Department and Industrial Hygiene Department were advised of the study In addition Ford issued an August 3 1973 memorandum to Plant Safety Engineers directing that brake drums be cleaned using industrial type vacuum cleaners The memo directed that air hoses should not be used to clean brake drums Simultaneously Maintenance Bulletin 137 was issued by the Plant Engineering Office to the same effect On October 24 1975 Ford Technical Service Bulletin 99 was distributed to Ford and Mercury Dealers It recommended that a vacuum cleaner be used for cleaning brakes In January 1976 a Technical Service Bulletin 104 was issued to the dealers indicating that Ford recommended the use of an industrial vacuum cleaner in brake cleaning operations The 1977 edition of the Rotunda Catalog and Ford's Shop Manual for Dealerships recommended that brakes not be cleaned with an air hose and that a vacuum cleaner be used for this purpose In November 1983 Ford issued Bulletin No. 83-22 on brake and clutch servicing Technical Service Bulletins are presently distributed to approximately 29,000 Ford and Mercury dealer technicians These documents are the results of corporate activity and are not the work of any single author These bulletins have not been superseded In the spirit of cooperation Ford will produce a copy of the above described documents Additionally as mentioned in Ford's Preliminary Statement Ford will make available for inspection at a mutually agreeable time in Dearborn Michigan a collection of documents and other materials pertaining to asbestos which may contain information responsive to this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 14 All correspondence house memos correspondence to or from third parties and correspondence between DEFENDANT and defendant's customers concerning the hazards of asbestos from 1930 until the date of DEFENDANT's last sale or purchase of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3 RESPONSE Objections Lack of Relevance Burden Overly Broad lack of Particularity Premature SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE Without waiving any of the previously stated objections Ford states that in the early 1970's Arnold Anderson and Roy Gealer of Ford's Scientific Research Staff conducted tests to determine the quantity of asbestos fibers liberated from brake linings during the braking process They concluded that over 99.98 of the asbestos fibers in brake linings decomposed during the braking process into other materials Their results were published in a 1973 SAE paper by A. Anderson and R. Gealer entitled Asbestos Emissions From Brake Dynamometer Tests In 1973 Ford's Industrial Hygiene Department conducted air sampling tests on brake linings being cleaned by brake mechanics using air hoses They determined that asbestos levels were well below existing or proposed O.S.H.A standards This testing was done by Mr. Anderson and Henry Lick under the supervision of Paul Toth the then manager of Industrial Hygiene Ford states that commencing in the early 1970's Ford participated in and provided partial funding for studies done by Dr. Irving Selikoff and others at what is now the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York which work was reported on in a paper entitled Asbestos Exposure During Brake Lining and Maintenance and Repair published in Environmental Research Vol 12 pp 110-128 1976 The work done was a study of the environmental pollution if any caused by asbestos in brake linings The study came to focus on the occupational exposure of mechanics during brake repair and maintenance Ford's Research and Engineering Department and Industrial Hygiene Department were advised of the study In addition Ford issued an August 3 1973 memorandum to Plant Safety Engineers directing that brake drums be cleaned using industrial type vacuum cleaners The memo directed that air hoses should not be used to clean brake drums Simultaneously Maintenance Bulletin 137 was issued by the Plant Engineering Office to the same effect On October 24 1975 Ford Technical Service Bulletin 99 was distributed to Ford and Mercury Dealers It recommended that a vacuum cleaner be used for cleaning brakes In January 1976 a Technical Service Bulletin 104 was issued to the dealers indicating that Ford recommended the use of an industrial vacuum cleaner in brake cleaning operations The 1977 edition of the Rotunda Catalog and Ford's Shop Manual for Dealerships recommended that brakes not be cleaned with an air hose and that a vacuum cleaner be used for this purpose In November 1983 Ford issued Bulletin No. 83-22 on brake and clutch servicing Technical Service Bulletins are presently distributed to approximately 29,000 Ford and Mercury dealer technicians These documents are the results of corporate activity and are not the work of any single author These bulletins have not been superseded In the spirit of cooperation Ford will produce a copy of the above described documents Additionally as mentioned in Ford's Preliminary Statement Ford will make available for inspection at a mutually agreeable time in Dearborn Michigan a collection of documents and other materials pertaining to asbestos which may contain information responsive to this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 15 All correspondence house memos correspondence to and from third parties and correspondence between DEFENDANT and defendant's customers regarding the content of DEFENDANT's containing products from 1930 until the date of DEFENDANT's last sale or purchase of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3 RESPONSE Objections Lack of Relevance Burden Overly Broad lack of Particularity Premature SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE Without waiving any of the previously stated objections Ford states that it sold vehicles and replacement parts which included containing brake linings pads and clutch facings through thousands of franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors in the United States under names such as Ford Mercury Ford Authorized Remanufacturers and under various lines and series names such as Motorcraft Ford also sold vehicles to the United States government Ford additionally states that it did not manufacture asbestoscontaining friction products Such components were purchased from suppliers to Ford (Oe a BREST containing friction products on the majority of Ford's regular production vehicles were phased out by 1984. Such products on the remainder of the regular production vehicles were phased out by 1993 as suitable substitutes were found However Ford believes asbestos is still used on some heavy trucks and limousines rear brake assemblies as an appropriate substitute has not yet been found for these applications Ford understands the type of asbestos fibers in these products to be chrysotile However since Ford did not manufacture these products it does not know percentages of asbestos that they contain but generally it is thought to be for example between 40 and 60 asbestos by weight in brake linings REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 18 Any correspondence and records to or from purchasers users of DEFENDANT's products or services insurance carriers distributors suppliers or subsidiary reflecting any warnings pertaining to asbestos and containing products RESPONSE Objections Lack of Relevance Burden Overly Broad lack of Particularity Premature SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE Without waiving any of the previously stated objections Ford believes it first o became aware that warnings related to asbestos health hazards or potential asbestos Ere SR health hazards had been placed on containing friction products in 1980. An employee from the Ford Parts and Service division observed a warning label on a carton from Bendix Soon thereafter Ford began using the following warning on its cartons CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS AVOID CREATING DUST BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM WHEN SERVICING THIS BRAKE LINING OR ANY COMPONENT RELATED TO IT OR LOCATED NEAR IT PREVENT ASBESTOS DUST FROM BEING AIRBORNE BY VACUUMING THIS ASSEMBLY WITH AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE VACUUM CLEANER EQUIPPED WITH A HIGH EFFICIENCY FILTER SYSTEM AND BY WASHING THE ASSEMBLY WITH AN APPROPRIATE BRAKE PARTS WASHER IF NECESSARY NEVER REMOVE DUST OR DIRT FROM THIS ASSEMBLY BY BLOWING WITH COMPRESSED AIR Ford will produce a copy of a sample aftermarket carton 10