Document 4akxb1YMZ4kgxQGVY4RpKxnzG
1 Duane W. Grummer, Esq. (State Bar #59445)
Maureen McTague, Esq. (State Bar #178574) 2 LYNCH, GILARDI -Sc GRUMMER
50 Francisco Street, Suite 400 3 San Francisco, California 94133
Telephone: 4 Facsimile:
(415) 397-2800 (415) 397-0937
5 Attorneys for Defendant
A.P. GREEN SERVICES, INC. 6 f/k/a Bigelow-Liptak Corporation
7
PLAINTIFFS j EXHIBIT
a BIiC--53
Received JAN 3 1 1997
WARTNiCK ..ay* ("h?v.
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
.9
010
11 ~12
13 '^14
7lL5 16
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JAMES BARRINGER, Plaintiff,
VS .
RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, et al., Defendants.
) NO. 971279 ) ) RESPONSE TO FORM ) INTERROGATORIES
)
) ) ) ) )
17 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff JAMES BARRINGER
18 RESPONDING PARTY:
Defendant A. P. GREEN SERVICES, INC.
19 SET NUMBER:
ONE
20 Defendant, A.P. GREEN SERVICES, INC., hereby responds to
21 plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Set Number One, as follows:
22 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1.
23 Duane Grummer, Maureen McTague
24 Lynch, Gilardi & Grummer 50 Francisco Street, Suite 400
25 San Francisco, CA 94133.
26 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES No. 3.0.
27 3.1 Yes. (a) A.P. Green Services, Inc.
28 (b) Bigelow Liptak Corporation, up to 1986. (c) Michigan, 1926.
1
(d) Mexico, Missouri (e) No.
3.2 No.
3.3 No.
3.4 No.
3.5 No. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 4.1. 4.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3. 12.4.
12.5. 12.6, 12.7. 13.1. 13.2. 14.1. 14.2. 16.1, 16.2. 16.3. 16.4,
16.5. and 16.6
This defendant objects to the use. of the term "INCIDENT" in the
context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
"injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
specified in the complaint or in" these interrogatories which of
these particular sites is the "INCIDENT" which is the subject of
this interrogatory. Thus, this interrogatory is vague, ambiguous,
and unintelligible in the context of this lawsuit'.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1.
This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
"injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
2
I
1 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of 2 these particular sites is the "INCIDENT" which is the subject of
3 this interrogatory. Thus, this interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, 4 and unintelligible in the context of this lawsuit. 5 Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the use of the term
6 "material allegation."
The complaint does not contain any
7 allegation which are particularly relevant to this defendant.
8 Rather, the complaint contains allegations generic to hundreds of
9 defendants, and it is not specified at which location or in what
10 manner this plaintiff was allegedly exposed to asbestos as a result
11 of the acts or omissions of this defendant. This defendant denied
12 the generic allegations of the complaint on information and belief,
13 and cannot respond further at this time. Similarly, this defendant
14 stated several affirmative defenses in its answer in order to avoid
15 possible waiver of them, and cannot provide further information at >
16 this time.
17 Dated: January 27, 1997
LYNCH, GILARDI & GRUMMER
18
19 20 21 22 23 ASB\GC212\P\RES. FI
By ____________
Maureen McTagi4e
Attorneys for Defendant
A.P. GREEN SERVICES, INC.
f/k/a
Bigelow-Liptak
Corporation
24
25
26
27
28
3
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I certify that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to
3 the within action; that my business address is 50 Francisco Street,
4 Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94133; and that on this date I served
5 a true copy of the document(s) entitled: A. P. Green Services,
6 Inc.'s RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES in the matter of Barringer,
7 Tamofl (PR: Thomas) v. Ravbestos-Manhattan (SF-971279) on the
8 following parties:
9 Harry F. Wartnick, Esq. 101 California Street, 26th Fl.
10 San Francisco, CA 94111 Fax: (415)391-5845
11
Berry & Berry 1300 Clay Street, 9th Fl. Station D - P.O. Box 70250 Oakland CA 94612-1428 Fax: (510) 835-5117
12 Service was effectuated by forwarding the above noted document to Berry & Berry by Regular Mail and to the firm representing
13 Plaintiff(s) in the following manner:
X By Regular Mail in a sealed envelope, addressed as noted above, with postage fully prepaid and placing it for collection and mailing following the ordinary business, practices of Lynch, Loofbourrow, Gilardi & Grummer.
16 ____ By Hand Delivery in a sealed envelope, addressed as noted above, through services provided by Lightning Messenger and
17 billed to Lynch, Loofbourrow, Gilardi & Grummer.
By Facsimile to the numbers as noted above by placing it for facsimile transmittal following the ordinary business practices of Lynch, Loofbourrow, Gilardi & Grummer.
By Overnight Courier in a sealed envelope, addressed as noted above, through services provided by Federal Express and billed to Lynch, Loofbourrow, Gilardi & Grummer.
22 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
23 and correct.
24 Executed on
_, at. San Francisco, California.
25
26 \USRVASB\gc212\P\POS-A&A
27
28
1