Document 5D4eVvMao9KVm2rzq14D9Zxbz

TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 - 2 Growth of sales from new products .................................................................. 3 Growth of profits from new products ................................. ........................... 4 Sales growth of 1/2" and 5/8" Firestop ...................................................... 5 12 months market performance of new products ............ ,.......................... 6 6 months market performance of new products ........................................... 7 Budgeted distribution of 1968 research expenditures ........................ 8 New product section ................................................................................................... 9 - 11 Product improvement section ................................................................................ 12 - 14 Sales service section ............................................................................................... 15 - 16 Gypsum Association - ASTM section .................................................................. 17 Patent section 18 Some of the events which may be relevant to the matters inquired into by these Interrogatories occurred more than thirty (30) years ago. In addition, effective April 28, 1965, Georgia-Pacific acquired the Bestwall Gypsum Company ("Bestwall"), which manufactured, among other things, a limited number of asbestos-containing products and Georgia-Pacific continued the manufacture, sale and/or distribution of such products through its Gypsum Division until the cessation of the same at various times thereafter. Prior to its merger with Bestwall, Georgia-Pacific did not manufacture any asbestos-containing products. After its merger with Bestwall, Georgia-Pacific manufactured and/or distributed these asbestos-containing products through its Gypsum Division. Unless otherwise stated, each response and statement contained herein, which specifically relates to Georgia-Pacific, relates to the relevant time periods during which and the asbestos-containing products that Georgia-Pacific manufactured and/or distributed through its Gypsum Division. In 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. It does not now nor has it since 1977 manufactured any asbestoscontaining products. Many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which these Interrogatories relate are deceased or are otherwise unavailable to Georgia-Pacific, and investigations to date indicate that at least some information and documents which might relate to matters inquired into by these Interrogatories may have been destroyed pursuant to GeorgiaPacific's or Bestwall's normal record retention policy or are otherwise unable to be found. Georgia-Pacific is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate or confirm the absence of such information and Georgia Pacific also is engaged in a continuing investigation with respect to the matters inquired into by these Interrogatories. Unless otherwise specifically stated, each Response set out hereinafter is limited to the relevant products and time period during which Bestwall Gypsum Company and the Georgia-Pacific Gypsum Division manufactured asbestos-containing products and to the facilities related to that business. The Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0188791.WP 2- - following is a part of and is incorporated by reference into every Response provided herein after: This Response is based on reasonable investigation and is believed to be accurate as of the date made. However, Georgia-Pacific's investigation of matters that may be relevant to its Response is continuing, and Georgia-Pacific cannot exclude the possibility that it may be able to obtain more complete information or even information which indicates that the Response being supplied is incorrect. Georgia-Pacific objects to responding to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories in regard to any period of time other than the period during which its Gypsum Division engaged in the manufacture of the asbestos-containing product(s), if any, allegedly involved in this litigation, which ended no later than 1977, or concerning any facility not related to that business, on the basis that any such Response would be irrelevant to the subject matter of this litigation, would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence, and would be burdensome and oppressive. Unless otherwise specifically stated, this Response refers solely to the products that plaintiff contends are at issue. CORPORATE NAME 1. For each Interrogatory below, please state the name and last known address of each person answering it, including whether he/she is employed by Defendant and if employed by Defendant include job title, length of time employed by Defendant and a year by year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific Corporation objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states the answers to these Interrogatories were prepared after consultation and review of documents and information in Georgia-Pacific's possession which has been drawn from various individuals and sources within the company. It is no possible to list each and every individual who has contributed to the compilation of information. Document: C:\ATL1UBA\0188791.WP 3- - 2. Please state whether or not Defendant is a corporation. If so, please state: (a) Your correct corporate name; (b) The state of your incorporation; (c) The address of your principal place of business; (d) Your registered agent for service in the State of Ohio. ANSWER: (a) Georgia-Pacific Corporation; (b) Georgia; (c) 133 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303; (d) CT Corporation. 3. Please describe Defendant's corporate history including any: (a) Mergers; (b) Consolidations (c) Asset purchases; (d) Acquisitions; or (e) Spinoffs. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific answers that it has had the following prior names: Date Name . Current Georgia-Pacific Corporation 04-28-65 Georgia-Pacific Corporation merged with Bestwall Gypsum Company 04-27-56 Georgia-Pacific Corporation 04-02-51 Georgia-Pacific Plywood Company Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0188791.WP 4- - 03-26-48 Georgia-Pacific Plywood & Lumber Company 01 -04-45 Georgia Hardwood Lumber Company 09-22-27 Georgia Hardwood Lumber Company, Inc. 4. Please state whether or not the Defendant has purchased, assumed, or in any other manner acquired any of the assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity (such corporations or entities being limited to those engaged in the mining, selling, manufacturing, marketing, or distribution of asbestos-containing products). If so, please state the following: (a) The name of each such corporation or entity; (b) Date of acquisition; (c) The nature of the company as it relates to asbestos. ~ ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. Georgia-Pacific further answers that, during the past ten years, Georgia-Pacific has purchased in excess of 100 companies. If the plaintiff will identify what companies' products he was exposed to, Georgia-Pacific will attempt to see if it ever owned the company. Bestwall Gypsum Company, with whom Georgia-Pacific merged in 1965, began manufacturing asbestos- containing products in 1956. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of all asbestos-containing products. EVER-SELL ASBESTOS 5. Has Defendant ever engaged in the mining, manufacturing, selling, marketing, installation or distribution of asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the following: (a) The name of the company engaged in the activity (whether it is Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary); (b) As to each product mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed, please state the following: 1. The trade or brand name. 2. Its identification number (model, serial number, etc.). Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0188791.WP 5- - products will be made available for inspection by Plaintiffs' counsel at Georgia-Pacific headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, at a time mutually convenient to both parties. 7. Have any of the products listed above in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 been altered in chemical composition since first being marketed? If so, please state the following: ANSWER: (a) (b) (c) (d) The trade name of each such product; The date each such product was altered; The nature of the alteration; The reason for the alteration. Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Georgia-Pacific further objects on the basis that the information sought by this Interrogatory is proprietary in nature and involves privileged trade secrets. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that minor formula changes may have been made from time to time in the product lines for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, improvements in product workability and availability of raw materials. 8. Have any of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 ever been marketed, distributed, packaged, labeled, and/or sold by any other company or business? If so, please state the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) ANSWER: The name and address of each such company. The names and address of Defendant's distributors in Ohio and Illinois since 1940. The date of each sale. The name of the person at each location with whom you primarily dealt. A list of all asbestos-containing products that you sold to each location from 1945 to 1980. The among of each asbestos product sold to each location during this period. . .. Please identify all documents relating to this distributor for the particular location. Georgia-Pacific to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that it sold a small amount Document C:\ATL1UBA\018879I.WP 7- - 8.4 Does Defendant have records and/or any knowledge that reflects sales of their asbestos-containing products to ARMCO/A.K. Steel Middletown Plant and/or ARMCO/A.K. Steel Hamilton Plant? If so, please state: (a) The names and last known addresses of those people with such knowledge. (b) The location of such records. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly in the absence of any evidence of plaintiffs identification of and exposure to an asbestos-containing product manufactured, sold, or distributed by Georgia- Pacific. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that, based upon a reasonable inquiry, it has no records or any knowledge that reflects sales of its asbestos- containing products to the locations listed in Interrogatory 8.4. 9. Did Defendant or any of Defendant's distributors, as listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 8.1, 8.2, and/or 8.3 have sales representatives who specifically called on ARMCO/A.K. Steel Middletown Plant and/or ARMCO/A.K. Steel Hamilton Plant, from 1945 to 1975? If your response is yes, as to each facility, please state the following: ANSWER: (a) (b) (c) (d) The name and last known address of each such representative and whether they are still employed by Defendant; The period of time they acted as your representative; Their general responsibility as to each facility; and Whether that person is still alive. Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. 10. Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying asbestos-containing products? If so, please state: (a) The name of each subdivision; (b) The full address of the home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business; and Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0188791.WP 9- - Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly in light of the fact that the plaintiff has not alleged exposure to any specific Georgia- Pacific products. 17. Do any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character now exist relating to the design and preparation of the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please: (a) List each such material or document; ~ (b) Identify the person or persons presently in possession of each such document; (c) State where each such document is located. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly in light of the fact that the plaintiff has not alleged exposure to any specific GeorgiaPacific products. 18. Prior to releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 for sale and usage, were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said products to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state: ANSWER: (a) (b) (c) The name of the products tested and the date of each test. The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; The results of such tests. To the best of Defendant's knowledge, Georgia-Pacific had no information prior to selling asbestos-containing products to indicate that the appropriate use of any asbestos-containing products presented a potential health hazard. When Georgia-Pacific received information to indicate that a potential health hazard might exist, with respect to the appropriate use of like products used in the building construction industry, Georgia-Pacific began immediately to eliminate asbestos from its products and/or placed caution labels on such products. As of 1977, Document. C:\ATLIUBA\0188791.WP -12- 27. Please identify all physicians, industrial hygienists, and other employees (including their names and addresses) who were employed, retained or otherwise engaged by Defendant for research, investigation or study concerning asbestos-related diseases. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific has never employed a full-time or part-time physician, at any of its facilities, as part of its corporate or divisional staff. Georgia-Pacific has hired three industrial hygienists. Donald Olsen was hired in January of 1979 and was replaced by Steven Tochilin in October of 1982. Mr. Tochilin was replaced by Rudi Fillingin in April of 1988. All were assigned to corporate headquarters. None of these individuals were hired specifically for asbestos. 28. As to each person who acted in a medical advisory capacity (as it relates in any way to asbestos) to Defendant, please list their name, the date individual acted in this capacity, and that person's current address and job title. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the phrase "medical advisory capacity" is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery od admissible evidence, particularly in the absence of any specific or verified evidence of the plaintiffs identification or and exposure to an asebestos-containing product manufactured, sold, or distributed by Georgia-Pacific. 29. Please state if any medical officer or industrial hygienists or medical consultant ever made at any time any recommendations and/or suggestions to Defendant pertaining to risks or hazards to persons involved in the manufacture or use of asbestos products and, if so, please state when, by whom or to whom such recommendations and/or suggestions were made and the substance of each recommendation. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that, to the best of its knowledge, no. Georgia- Pacific never employed a "medical officer." Any recommendations or suggestions made by any Document: C:\ATL1UBA\0188791.WP -17- of Georgia-Pacific's industrial hygienist would have been since 1979, long after Georgia-Pacific ceased manufacturing asbestos-containing products. 30. Please state the scientific and/or medical periodicals to which Defendant, its medical department, research department, industrial hygiene divisions, engineering department or consulting physicians subscribed between 1945 and 1975. ANSWER; Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this Interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and oppressive. It would be impossible to identify each such subscription because Georgia-Pacific has not kept records concerning periodical subscriptions from 1945-1975. 31. State in detail what test, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust, fibers or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with and/or around, installing and/or applying your asbestos- containing products. . ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant in that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Georgia-Pacific further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that the Interrogatory calls for medical and scientific opinions of an expert nature. Without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific answers that it relied upon the standards set by the U.S. Government through OSHA, but was aware of ongoing controversy in the medical and scientific community as to what regulations and standards were necessary or appropriate. 32. For each test described in Interrogatory No. 31, please give the name of the person conducting the test, the date of the test, and attach true copies of any documents, including but not limited to, reports, findings or memoranda concerning such tests or studies. ANSWER: See Georgia-Pacific's Response to Interrogatory 31. Document; C:\ATL1\JBA\018879I.WP -18- Not applicable. Based upon reasonable inquiry, Georgia-Pacific sold no asbestos- containing products to Armco Steel plants. 45. Does Defendant contend that asbestos-containing products can be manufactured so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or around, installing or applying same? If so, please state the following: (a) The date that Defendant first determined that another product could be . used in place of asbestos; (b) The chemical of the substitute; (c) Whether the substitute is suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used; , (d) Whether Defendant used the substitute for asbestos to 1971; - (e) Whether Defendant ever used the substitute for asbestos for high or low heat insulation. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that no one product was ever identified which could be used in place of asbestos in the asbestos-containing products manufactured by Georgia-Pacific. In 1970, when Georgia-Pacific received information which suggested a potential health hazard associated with the use of products used in the building construction industry, Georgia-Pacific immediately began an effort to eliminate asbestos from its products. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific replaced asbestos in its products and ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and since that time it has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. ' 46. Did Defendant give any warnings to ARMCO/A.K. Steel Middletown Plant and/or ARMCO A.K. Steel Hamilton Plant regarding the potential health hazards of any product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5. If yes, please state: (a) (b) ANSWER: (c) (d) Name of person most knowledgeable about this communication. Name of person at ARMCO/A.K. Steel Middletown Plant and/or ARMCO/A.K. Steel Hamilton Plant most knowledgeable about this communication. Dates of each communication. Contents of each communication. Document C:\ATU\JBA\0188791.WP -24- Georgia-Pacific has not yet determined which non-expert witnesses may have knowledge of relevant facts regarding claims and defenses in this lawsuit. This Interrogatory will be supplemented at the appropriate time. 58. State the last date that this Defendant sold, distributed, manufactured, installed, and/or otherwise placed asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this Interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the Interrogatory is vague, ambitious, ambiguous, overly broad, and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that as of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and since that time has not engaged in the manufacture of such products. PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR One South Main Street P. O. Box 1805 Dayton, Ohio 45402-2028 DAYTON/73717.01 Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0188791.WP -29-