Document 442441oMLxKzk69rndv6g7rgG

18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERVILLE STATE OF LOUISIANA ___L. IS PLAINTIFF'S || EXHIBIT I EXX RQ JOSEPH A. CLEBERT and GLORIA GOMEZ CLEBERT VERSUS MCCARTY CORPORATION, ET AL SUIT NO.: 38,744 DIVISION "B" EXXON'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Exxon Corporation ("Exxon") hereby responds to the requests for admission propounded by plaintiffs and received - by Exxon on February 19, 1991, as follows: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 * Admit that during the period October 25, 1951 through February, 1975, Fred S. Venable was in the employ of Exxon Company, USA and/or its predecessors as an industrial hygienist. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ.._2 Admit that the following memorandum, copies of which are attached for identification, reports and/or records were maintained in the course of Fred S. Venable's business activities. Please answer separately as to each. (a) Letter dated October 25, 1951 from Fred S. Venable to E.E. Moore. (b) Memorandum dated November 2, 1951 from Fred S. Venable to Dr. Howard Hansen. (c) Memorandum dated December 4, 1951 from Fred S. Venable to Dr. E.R. Hawkins. (d) Undated memo from Fred S. Venable to Dr. K.S. Jones, subject asbestos exposure of air samples collected on October 9, 1974. (e) Memorandum dated July 17, 1979, from B.A. Martin to J.W. Affolter and, among others, Fred S. Venable. - cuunimicnn EM002600 _ (f) Exxon Company, USA Safety Standard No. 161, Safe Handling of Asbestos. (g) Memorandum dated August 11, 1972, from Fred S. Venable to E.R. Felton and Walter Brock. (h) Memorandum dated March 9, ' 1972, from F.S. Venable to J.W. Hammond. (i) Memorandum dated July 20, 1972, from Fred S. Venable to E.R. Felton and W.H. Brock re asbestos regulations. (j) Memorandum dated December 28, 1971, to CDS from R.O. Laird. (k) Memorandum dated January 7, 1972, from S.C.P. to Ray. (l) Memo reply dated July 21, 1972, from Walter Brock. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 Exxon objects to Request for Admission No. 2 because it does not seek information which is admissible into evidence nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Admissibility of these documents cannot be established by' evidence of Fred Venable's "business activities," but rather can only be established by evidence of Exxon's ordinary course of business. Subject to the foregoing objections, Exxon denies the request for admission. Submitted by: Gary A. Bezet (#3036) KEAN, MILLER, HAWTHORNE, D'ARMOND, McCOWAN & JARMAN Post Office Box 3513 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821 Telephone.:. (504) 387-0999 David W. Ledyard STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON & BISSELL 1400 San Jacinto Building 595 Orleans Beaumont, TX 77701.-3255 CLESACfll /OAtCtNCK * EM002601 V CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy nf the foregoing document has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel of record. Baton Rouge, Louisiana 1991. Gary A. Beset*. C&SMDM/OAlCXMtfc EM002602