Document 5Dka64y01qL292NrJLL8bkvB8

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT Bonezzi Switzer Murphy & Polito Co. L.P.A. Attorneys at Law Leader Building, Suite MOO 526 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 441M-1491 (216) 875-2767 Telecopier (216) 875-1570 October 20,2000 William D. Bonezzi Steven J. Hupp Kevin O. Kadlec Douglas G. Leak Patrick J. Murphy John S. Polito Patrick J. Quailich Susan M. Reinker* Beth A. Sebaugh Timothy G. Sweeney Donald H. Switzer Also Registered Nurse Mr. Mark Meyer Goldberg, Persky, Jennings & White, P.C. 1030 Fifth Avenue, Third Floor Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-6295 Re: Gloria Picciuto v. A Best Products Co. Cuyahoga County Case No. 391071 Zum Industries Responses to Plaintiffs Discovery Dear Mark: Enclosed you will find Zum Industries, Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents and Property; and Zum Industries, Inc.'s Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories. As you are aware, Zum Industries is only a Defendant in the Picciuto case. My records show we are not a Defendant in the Marcinko case listed in the caption. Please advise me, if by chance, we are a Defendant in the Marcinko case and I am not aware of it. If you have any questions regarding these Answers to Interrogatories, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, KOK/sev Enclosures Users/Kadlec/Meyer ]0-20-00.1tr Kevin O. Kadlec IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO JOHN MARCINKO, EXECUTOR For the ESTATE OF GENEVIEVE MARCINKO, and JOHN MARCINKO in his own right GLORIA PICCIUTO, EXECUTRIX For the ESTATE OF MIKE PICCIUTO Plaintiffs, vs. A-BEST PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants. CASE NUMBER 362681 CASE NUMBER 391071 JUDGE HARRY HANNA ZURN INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES COMES NOW, ZURN INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED (hereinafter referred to as "Zum"), Defendant in the above-entitled causes ofaction, and serves this its Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. Zum Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J^generalYZum lndustrics\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovety\fmalrogsoli.wpd Page 1 Respectfully submitted. RONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY '& POLITO CO. L.P.A. KEVIN O. KADLEC State Bar No. Leader Building, Suite 1400 526 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1491 Telephone: 216-875-2767 Facsimile: 216-875-1570 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT ZURN INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent to counsel for Plaintiffs by certified mail, return receipt requested, and a copy of the cover page only to all other known counsel of record by regular mail, on thisday of August, 2000. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum IndustricsXCuyahoga County, OH'discoveryVfinalrogsoh.wpd Page 2 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Zum objects to these discovery requests on the grounds that they are overly broad and beyond the scope ofproduct identification in this litigation. 2. Zum also objects to the form, as well as the ambiguous and compound nature ofmany ofthe discovery requests, in addition to the false predicates contained herein. 3. Many of the questions call for expert opinion and narrative answers not proper for these discovery requests. Zum asserts that the expert opinions and the basis of the opinions are known to Plaintiffs attorneys from disclosure of such opinions in this case and others. These discovery requests are therefore calculated to be duplicative and harassing. 4. Zum objects on the ground these discovery requests are vague and/or ambiguous. 5. Zum objects on the grounds these discovery requests are unduly burdensome. 6. Zum objects to any discovery request which implies or assumes that plaintiffs actually have an asbestos-related injury. The burden ofproof is on the plaintiffs to prove that they have an asbestos-related disease, and Zum has a constitutional right to deny the same. 7. Zum objects to any discovery request which requests information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8. Zum objects to the "Definitions" preceding these discovery requests to the extent they attempt to redefine the meaning ofthe terms listed as found in the Rules of Civil Procedure or commonly accepted English usage. Zum has responded to this discovery on the assumption that the terms used therein are to be given their usual and customarymeaning and objects to any attempt to force the use of some other standard. 9. Zum objects to Plaintiffs' discovery requests for the reason that they, and their subparts, exceed the maximum number allowable under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding these objections and in the spirit ofcooperation, Zum will provide answers to these interrogatories subject to said without waiving said objection. 10. Zum objects to Plaintiffs' discovery requests to the extent they seek information from its present or former attorneys that is privileged work product. Defendant specifically objects to the extent these discovery seek disclosure ofany information or material that is subject to the attomey/client privilege, work-product privilege, investigative privilege, consulting expert privilege, party communications privilege, joint defense privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum IndustriesNCuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 3 11. Zum objects to the extent Plaintiffs' discovery requests seek information or material pertaining to alleged injuries or damages other than of the character allegedly suffered by plaintiffin this specific case on the: ground that such information is not relevant to any issue in these cases and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 12. Zum objects to the extent these discovery requests seek information prior or subsequent to the date ofplaintiffs alleged exposure to Defendant's product(s), as such information is not relevant to any issue in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 13. Zum objects to the extent that these discovery requests seek information that includes proprietary information and trade secrets. Information that identifies trade secrets will be redacted from any documents produced. 14. Zum objects to the extent that these discovery requests seek information or documents which, due to the passage of time or other reasons, are not in the possession, custody or control of Zum. Such requests call for documents or information outside the scope of permissible discovery. 15. Zum objects to the extent that these discovery requests require Zum to provide information which is equally available to Plaintiffs as it is to Zum or seeks information in the public domain or in published medical or scientific literature. 16. Zum objects to the extent that these discovery requests are not limited to a specified Zum product to which a Plaintiff herein claims exposure in a specified time frame at a specified job site. 17. Zum objects to any definition within these requests that purports to require response on behalfof any entity other than the corporation on which process in this action was served or to require the provision ofinformation and documents regarding predecessors and divisions that are not relevant to this litigation. All of these objections are incorporated by reference and adopted as to each and every discovery request contained herein, and tire specifically alleged as set forth in the responses to Plaintiffs' individual Interrogatories and Requests for Production. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requ ests for Production, hereinafter referred to as "discovery requests", concern events which occurred years ago. Because much of the information relates to events of many years ago, it is difficult, if not impossible, for this Defendant to retrieve or reconstruct much of the requested infomiation. Many of the individuals who might have had Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OHViiscoveryVfmalrogsoh.wpd Page 4 personal knowledge of the matters to which Plaintiffs' discoveiy relate are deceased or otherwise unavailable to Defendant, and investigations to date indicate that at least some information and documents that might relate to matters inquired into by Plaintiffs' discovery many have been destroyed pursuant to normal document retention policy or are otherwise unable to be found. Defendant is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate or confirm the absence of such information or documents and is in a continuing investigation with respect to the matters inquired into by Plaintiffs' discovery. The responses are believed to be accurate as of the date of filing, but Zum's investigation of the underlying facts is continuing. If further discovery of additional facts adds meaning to the known facts or establishes new factual conclusions or legal contentions, these responses will be supplemented ifrequired by applicable law. Thus, the following responses are made without prejudice to Zum's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts Zum may later recall. Zum accordingly reserves the right to amend or supplement any and all responses herein, if permitted or required by applicable law, as additional facts are ascertained, or as the contentions of the plaintiffs herein may be discovered or amended. Furthermore, these Responses are given "without prejudice to this Defendant's right to rely at trial on subsequently discovered information or on information inadvertently omitted from these Responses as a result of mistake, error or oversight. To the extent information contained herein differs in any material respect from any piior responses to this or other discovery, these responses shall be deemed to update and supersede su ch prior responses to the extent they may be inconsistent. Zum was a manufacturer of industrial steam generating equipment that is primarily sold to knowledgeable and sophisticated commercial customers. Zum does not concede that its boilers were "asbestos-containing products." Neither Zum, nor any company it controlled, purchased or acquired, ever mined, milled or sold raw asbestos. Neither Zum, nor any company it controlled, purchased or acquired, ever made or manufactured asbestos-containing thermal insulation products. Certain Zum boilers may have had components that contained asbestos-containing thermal insulation products. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs claim exposure to asbestos-containing components of boilers formerly manufactured and sold by Zum or its predecessor entities. As such, Zum's Responses apply only within that scope and context. Zum's responses are limited to those divisions and predecessors which manufactured or supplied products believed to be at issue herein which may have contained component parts that had some asbestos content. Plaintiffs' discovery requests are addressed to a corporation which has no independent knowledge ofmuch of the information supplied in these responses. Zum Industries, Inc. refers to and is limited to the officers and directors ofZum Industries, Inc. located in Dallas, Texas and those Zum Industries, Inc. employees or agents who the Company believes are responsible for and who are in possession of corporate documents or information that is responsive to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. The information supplied in these responses is based on the knowledge of Zum's employees and authorized agents regarding the products believed to be at issue in this litigation and the individual attesting to the responses may not have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum IndustriesVCuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 5 The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as is currently available, but in no way should prejudice Zum in relation to further discovery, research, or analysis. Zum incorporates by reference this preliminary statement into each answer to each Interrogatory and/or Request for Production replied to herein. Zum Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovcry\finalrogsob.wpd Page 6 ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Did defendant at any time take any action to inform users and/or those exposed to asbestos-containing products of the existence of a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for asbestos. ANSWER: Zurn objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is unlimited in time and is not limited to information regarding or relevant to any product, if any, at issue in this litigation. Moreover, the Interrogatory is argumentative and harassing to the extent that it assumes without evidence that Defendant had a duty to review or inform anyone of the existence or contents of any particular TLV. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that were utilized "as is" without material change in certain of its boiler products during certain time frames. Defendant presently has no information to indicate whether it made or received any communications concerning threshold limit values for asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 1 is affirmative, answer the following: (a) When did defendant first take such action: (b) What did defendant do; (c) How often, and on what occasions did defendant do this? (d) What witnesses have knowledge ofthis and can prove this? (e) What written material exists concerning this? ANSWER: See Objection and Response to Interrogatory No. 1. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Did defendant at any time take any action to inform users and/or those exposed to asbestos-containing products of the recommendations of the 1946 Fleischer Drinker Study in Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 7 Conclusion 2 from that study that "the operations ofhand saw cutting, grinding, cement mixing and installation . . . should be equipped with exhaust ventilation to keep the total dust concentration low1." ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatoj*y on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. It is not limited to a relevant time frame, product and job site. Moreover, the Interrogatory is argumentative and harassing to the extent that it assumes without evidence that Defendant had a duty to review or iinform anyone of the contents of any particular study or article. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Zurn has no present information to indicate that it ever received a copy of said study or article. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 3 is affirmative, answer the following: (a) When did defendant first take such action; (b) What did defendant do; (c) How often, and on what occasions did defendant do this? (d) What witnesses have knowledge of this and can prove this? (e) What written material exists concerning this? ANSWER: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Did defendant at any time take any action to inform users and/or those exposed to asbestos-containing products ofthe recommendations ofthe 1946 Fleischer Drinker Study on Page 15 ofthat study that "the suggestions made relative to exhaust ventilation and respiratory protection are ... of value in maintaining ... low incidence of asbestos." ANSWER: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 3. 'As used herein, the 1946 Fleischer Drinker Study refers to "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels" by Walter E. Fleischer, Frederick J. Viles, Jr., Robert L. Gade and Philip Drinker which appeared in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene & Toxicology in January 1946. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finaIrogsoh.wpd Page 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 5 is affirmative, answer the following: (a) When did defendant first take such action; (b) What did defendant do; (c) How often, and on what occasions did defendant do this? (d) What witnesses have knowledge of this and can prove this? (e) What written material exists concerning this? ANSWER: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 5. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Describe in full any actions; defendant took at anytime to inform users and/or those exposed to asbestos-containing products c f either: (a) Suggestions regarding exhaust ventilation when using asbestos products and/or; (b) Suggestions regarding respiratory protection when using asbestos products. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame or product at issue in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Zurn states that it presently lacks documents or other information to indicate whether such suggestions were made. However, Zurn did not manufacture any ofthe asbestos-containing components utilized "as is" without substantial change in certain of its boiler products at certain times and, on information and belief, it had no information to indicate that its boiler products posed any asbestos hazards. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: In regard to your Answer to Interrogatory 7(a) and 7(b), state the following for each: (a) When did defendan t first take such action; (b) What did defendant do; (c) How often, and on what occasions did defendant do this? (d) What witnesses have knowledge of this and can prove this? (e) What written material exists concerning this? Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 9 ANSWER: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify each and every asbestos-containing product manufactured, and/or sold, and/or distributed, and/or marketed and/or supplied by this defendant at anytime between 1930 and the present, and for each such product provide the following: (a) The date such activity began; (b) The years during which such activity took place; (c) The date when such activity was terminated; (d) If such activity was terminated, the reason(s) why; (e) The geographical area into which you claim the asbestos-containing product(s) were sold; (f) Identify the organizational unit ofdefendant so engaged; (g) The site(s) at which each such product was manufactured; (h) The material components/ingredients of each such product, giving specific or approximate percentage both by weight and by volume of each material component/ingredient (This interrogatory is not limited to the asbestos component ofthe product but seeks information as to the nature, weight and volume ofnon-asbestos ingredients, as well) of each such product; (i) The specific type ofasbestos fiber, i.e., chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, used as a component of each asbestos-containing product; (j) The temperature ranges for which each product(s) was intended to be used; (k) The product's generic name; (l) The product's trade or brand name; (m) The container in which the product was shipped, (i.e., paper bags, cardboard boxes) including the size and amount of the container; (n) A description of any logos, writing impressions or identifying markings which appeared on the product, as well as a description ofthe package used, the dates that type of package was used, and any logos, product names, trademarks, etc. which appeared in the package; (o) Whether the word `"asbestos" was used on the package; (p) A detailed description ofthe intended method ofpreparation and application of the product; (q) A description of the physical appearance of the product, including size, shape, color and texture. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 10 ANSWER: Zurn objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and requests information which is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site involved in this litigation. Defendant objects to providing information concerning products to which Plaintiffs do not claim exposure at job sites and times at issue in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Zurn responds as follows: (A)-(Q) Zurn and it's predecessor, Erie City Ironworks, manufactured, marketed and sold industrial steam generating equipment Such equipment was manufactured in Erie,PA The trade or brand names of these products were E rie City or Zurn. Some of the package boilers may also have been termed Keystone Boilers. Some boilers may have been designated Waste Heat Defendant was a manufacturer ofindustrial steam generating equipment that was primarily sold to knowledgeable and sophisticated commercial customers. Because of the temperature demands inherent in a steam generating system, certain boilers may have incorporated asbestos-containing thermal insulation and sealing components atsome points in time. Defendant did notmanufacture such asbestos-containing components, but utilized them "as is" without material change. On information and belief, such products were located under the metal lagging or otherwise encapsulated. Erie City began manufacturing and selling steam generating systems as early as 1840, but it is unknown when asbestos components were first incorporated. Zurn first manufactured and sold steam generating systems, some of which may have contained asbestos-containing thermal insulation or sealing components, in 1966. Since Defendant did not manufacture the asbestos containing components which may have been incorporated "as is" without material change into certain ofits boiler products during certain time frames, Defendant has no knowledge as to the composition or asbestos content, percentage or type of asbestos which may have been present in the thermal insulation and sealing products which were incorporated into its products. On information and belief, many of such products presumably contained chrysotile asbestos.. Defendant's steam generating systems were generally designed to the customer's specifications. Therefore, the amount of insulation used varied depending on the size and temperature requirements. On information and belief, Zurn became generally aware that asbestos in some forms and under some circumstances of use might pose health hazards at approximately the same time as did the general public in the early 1970s. On information and belief, asbestos was removed from block Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industrics\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 11 by the manufacturers of such products, in 1972. It is currently believed that Zurn discontinued using asbestos-containing thermal insulation materials in approximately this time frame. Other asbestos-containing components, such as gaskets and rope, were also eliminated as their manufacturers offered suitable alternatives. Defendant manufactured steam generating systems designed for extremely high steam temperatures. As such, they were not sold in packages as that term in used in this Interrogatory. The size of such equipment precluded packaging it as that term in used and implied in this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Did Defendant ever market or distribute any asbestos-containing product manufactured in whole or in part by someone else? If so, please state the following for each such product: (a) The name and address ofthe manufacturer; (b) The product's trade and brand name; (c) The organizational unit ofDefendant who did so; (d) Date(s) beginning, ending and during which the marketing or distributing took place; (e) Whetherthe product was distributed through the same channels as those used for products manufactured by Defendant, and if not, please explain the exact channels ofdistribution; and, (f) Identify all documents relating to the marketing or distribution. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site at issue in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, not to present knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Did Defendant ever sell or purchase any asbestos-containing product and rebrand the product, or allow or cause it to be rebranded. Ifso, please state the following as to each such rebranded product: (a) The original brand name, trade name and manufacturer ofthe product; (b) Who performed the physical rebranding and where was it accomplished; (c) Brand name and trade name used after the rebranding; (d) User or seller ofthe product after rebranding; Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\gencral\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovery\fin alrogsoh.wpd Page 12 (e) Dates beginning, ending and during which the rebranding of the product took place; (f) Identify all documents reflecting any terms or conditions incident to the rebranding of a product; and, (g) Summarize the financial consideration (including amounts) between the participants in the rebranding arrangement. ANSWER; Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site at issue in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, not to present knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 12; For each and every asbestos-containing product required to be identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 9 above, state as to each product file date and quantity sold, supplied or shipped to each ofthe locations as attached on Exhibit "A" and, ifsupplied to that location by any entity other than yourself, identify that entity: ANSWER; Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant time frame and product at issue in this litigation. Moreover, it is argumentative and assumes without evidence that Defendant's products were sold tojob sites at issue in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, existing Zurn records relating to its steam generating equipment are maintained by boiler number. Therefore, only if a boiler number is provided, can Defendant search its records to determine whether any responsive documents exist Without this information, itwill be difficult, ifnot impossible, to determine whether any responsive documents exist INTERROGATORY NO. 13; Please state whether you sold or distributed asbestos-containing products to any wholesaler, distributor, hardware store or other merchant in the State ofOhio. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovety\finalrogsoh.wpcf Page 13 ANSWER; Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site at issue in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Zurn did not have distributors; it sold directly to its customers. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Ifyour answer was affirmative to Interrogatory No. 13 above, please state the following: (a) The name of the business or person to which you distributed or sold products; (b) Their address; (c) The type and quantity ofproducts sold or distributed. ANSWER: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 13. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Have you ever owned or operated a business or portion thereof which engaged in construction, erection or tear out offurnaces, pipes, boilers, turbines, vessels or other structures present within steel mills or other commercial and industrial job sites? Ifso, please state: (a) The name of said business; (b) The date ofcommencing business and cessation ofbusiness, if applicable; (c) Type of construction or tear out performed; (d) Statewhethersaidbusiness installed or supplied asbestos-containing products on the furnaces, pipes, boilers, turbines, levers, etc., i.e. gaskets, pipecovering, block, cement, rope, cloth, clothes, etc., containing asbestos, asbestos pipe, board, etc.; (e) State whether said business performed construction, installation, or tear out of asbestos-containing products at any site listed on Attachment "A"; (f) State the trade name and/or manufacturer of any asbestos-containing product which you installed or supplied to any site on Attachment "A"; (g) Provide the dates for the applicable construction, installation or tear-out project. ANSWER: (A)-(G) Zurn objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and requests information which is irrelevant and not reasonably Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\dtscovery\finaIrogsoh.wpd Page 14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. On information and belief, Zurn has been sued in this litigation because Plaintiffs claim exposure to boilers manufactured and sold by Zurn. Plaintiffs should limit their discovery to the products, job sites and time frames allegedly at issue. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Have any ofyour officers, employees or representatives visited any of the locations identified in Exhibit "A" to Interrogatory No. 12 in the course of his/her employment for the purpose, among others, ofpromoting, selling, or discussing the use ofasbestos-containing products or for the purpose, among others, of discussing, inspecting or reviewing the use of asbestoscontaining products or for the purpose ofdiscussing, inspecting or reviewing the health and safety aspects of a workplace where asbestos-containing products were used or were to be used? If so, describe: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) ANSWER: the name, address and title of each individual who visited said plant; the date of each visit; the purpose of each visit; who at employer's plant he or she saw or spoke to on each occasion; any documents relating, referring or pertaining thereto. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. The Interrogator}' is not limited to a relevant product and time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections, although there were no visits specifically for the purpose of promoting, selling or discussing the use of asbestos, Defendant contracted to install a two drum boiler at Bowling Green University in Bowling Green, Ohio in 1964. Defendant contracted to modify the same boiler in 1974. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify all managers and sales personnel responsible for your sales of any asbestos containing or industrial insulation products in Ohio and the Ohio RiverValley in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky from 1930 to the present and state their position, last known address and the local or regional office through which they were employed. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogator on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum IndustriesVCuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finalrogsah.wpd Page 15 evidence. The Interrogatory is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant and its relevant predecessor, Erie City, employed many persons over many decades. It does not maintain historical lists of managers and sales personnel for the broad areas and time frames listed. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Before marketing and/or selling and/or using any asbestos-containing and/or industrial insulation products, did you or anyone on your behalfconduct any pre-marketing or pre-sale or pre use tests concerning the safety of such products? If your answer is in the affirmative, please state: (a) the particular products upon which such tests were performed; (b) when such tests were performed; (c) by whom such tests were performed; (d) where such tests were performed; (e) what test or tests were performed; () the results of any such tests. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product or time frame, nor is it limited to tests relating to asbestos. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Zurn states that it presently lacks documents or other information that would enable it to answer this question, but based upon information known or reasonably available to Zurn, there was no reason to conduct any studies, tests, or analysis regarding asbestos because Zurn did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that were utilized "as is" without material change in certain of its boiler products during ceitain time frames and had no information to indicate that any asbestos health hazards were posed by its boiler products. Pressure vessels manufactured by Zurn were inspected before shipment by an authorized insurance inspector. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Before marketing and/or selling and/or using asbestos-containing and/or industrial insulation products, did you or anyone on your behalfconduct a search or review ofthe medical and scientific literature concerning potential he alth hazards associated with such product or any product component, including but not limited to asbestos and fiber glass? If your answer is in the affirmative, please state: (a) the particular activities performed; (b) when such activities were performed; Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum IndustriesNCuyahoga County, OH\discovety\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 16 (c) by whom such activities were performed; (d) to whom the results of such activities were reported or communicated. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is argumentative, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product or time frame. On information and belief, fiberglass is not at issue in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Zurn states that it presently lacks documents or other information that would enable it to answer this question, but based upon information known or reasonably available to Zurn, there was no reason to conduct any such searches or reviews because Zurn did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that were utilized "as is" without material change in certain of its boiler products during certain time frames and it had no information to indicate that tiny asbestos health hazards were posed by its boiler products. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: When did you first become aware of the relationship between exposure to asbestos and the development of the following medical conditions in any individual so exposed: (a) asbestosis; (b) lung cancer; (c) mesothelioma. This interrogatory is specifically not limited with respect to the nature of an individual's exposure to asbestos or occupation and is directed towards the recognition ofsuch associations with respect to any asbestos exposed individual, regardless of whether such exposure occurred in a mining, milling, manufacturing, construction, repair or other setting. ANSWER: Zurn objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is duplicative, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, lacks foundation, is overbroad in scope, and seeks information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, it seeks expert medical opinion which this Defendant is not qualified to render. Defendant defers to the judgment and opinion of its medical expert witnesses on such questions of human diseases, their causes, and diagnoses. Further, the Interrogatory does not specify what level or type of exposure is claimed to be at issue. The interrogatory fails to Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum IndustriesNCuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finlrogsoh.wpd Page 17 distinguish between different fiber types and ignores important factors such as differences in the friability of asbestos fibers in different products, different uses of asbestos-containing products, different exposures ofindividuals at different work sites, engaged in different crafts and the frequency, proximity, regularity and duration of particular exposures. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Zurn is a corporation, which has employed numerous persons throughout the course of its business, any one ofwhom may have obtained varying degrees of knowledge regarding asbestos and asbestos-related diseases at varying points in time. When it, as a corporation, obtained any particular knowledge cannot be determined. Defendant is generally aware that, depending on the frequency, regularity, proximity and duration of particular exposures to certain levels of certain types of friable asbestos fibers, and assuming an appropriate latency period exists and other causes have been excluded, there may be a possible connection between asbestos exposure and asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. When Zurn first obtained such awareness as a corporate entity cannot be presently determined. At present, it is believed that Zurn became generally aware that certain asbestos exposures might be harmful in the same time frame as did the general public, in the early 1970s. Defendant is not currently nor has it ever been aware of any clinical, epidemiological, toxicological, industrial hygiene, medical and/or scientific literature orstudy demonstrating that its products caused asbestos-related adverse health consequences. On information and belief, the Zurn boiler products allegedly at issue did not release harmful levels of respirable asbestos fibers. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: State whether this defendant at anytime caused to be performed any air samples, tests or other activities to determine the amount of asbestos fiber released into the air, if any, during the handling, fabrication, application, installation, tear-out or any other activity involving the use, as distinguished from the manufacture, of any asbestos-containing products. If you answer is in the affirmative, please state: (a) the date of any such air samples, tests, or activities; (b) by whom such activities were performed; (c) where such activities were performed; (d) the results of any such activities. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogator}- on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product or time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Zurn states that it presently lacks documents or other information that would enable it to answer this question, but based upon information known or reasonably available to Zurn, there was no reason to conduct any such tests because Zurn Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\gencral\Zum IndustriesXCuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 18 did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that were utilized "as is" without material change in certain of its boiler products during certain time frames and had no information to indicate that any asbestos health hazards were posed by its boiler products. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: State whether this defendant at any time caused to be conducted on anyjob site, any air sampling, dust counts, tests or other activities for the purpose of determining the amount of asbestos fiber, if any, which is or was released through the manufacture, handling, fabrication, application, installation, removal or other activities involving any asbestos-containing products. If your answer is in the affirmative, please indicate: (a) the date of any such air samples, tests, or activities; (b) by whom such activities were performed; (c) where such activities were performed; (d) the results of any such activities. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame or job site. It is also argumentative to the extent that it assumes without evidence that Zurn had any access to the premises of others for the conduct of testing or any duty or obligation to conduct such tests. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Zurn states that it presently lacks documents or other information that would enable it to answer this question, but based upon information known or reasonably available to Zurn, there was no reason to conduct any such tests because Zurn did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that were utilized "as is" without material change in certain of its boiler products during certain time frames and had no information to indicate that any asbestos health hazards were posed by its boiler products. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: State when, if at all, this defendant became aware ofthe following publications and for each such publication identify who or whom received such knowledge and all documents relating to such acquisition of information: (a) Murray, H.M. Department Committee on Compensation for Industrial Disease Minutes of Evidence. Appendices and Index. London: Wyman and Sons, 1907, pp. 127-128. (1906 Montague Murray report of fatal asbestosis case) Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\discoveiy\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 19 (b) Merewether, E.R.A. "The Occurrence of Pulmonary Fibrosis and Other Pulmonary Affections in Asbestos Workers", J. Indust. Hyg. 12:198-222, 239-257 (1930). (c) Merewether, E.R.A. and C.W. Price. Report on Effects ofAsbestos Dust on the Lungs and Dust Suppression in the Asbestos Industry. H.M. Stationary Ofc. (1930) (d) Lanza, A.J. WJ. McConnell, and J.W. Fehnel. "Effects ofthe Inhalation of Asbestos Dust on the Lungs of Asbestos Workers", Publ. Health Rep. 50:1 12 (1935) (e) Dreesen, W.C., etaL A Study ofAsbestosis in the Asbestos Textile Industry, Public Health Bull. No. 241, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Public Health Service, (1938). (f) Fleischer, W.E., etal. "A SurveyofPipecovering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels", J. Indust. Hyg. Tox. 28:9-16 (1946). (g) "Asbestosis and Cancer ofthe Lung", J.A.M.A. 140:1219-1220 (1949) (h) Isselbacher, J.J., H.. Klaus and H.L. Hardy, "Asbestosis and Bronchogenic Carcinoma", Amer. J. Med. 15:721-732 (1953) (i) Doll, R., "Mortality from Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers", Brit. J. Indust. Med. 12:81-86 (1955) (j) Wagner, J.C., C.A. Sleggs, and P. Marchand, "Diffuse Pleural Mesothelioma and Asbestos Exposure in the North Western Cape Province", Brit. J. Indust. Med. 17:260-271 (I960). ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. It is not limited to a relevant time frame. Moreover, the Interrogatory is argumentative and harassing to the extent that it assumes without evidence that Defendant had a duty to review or inform anyone of the contents ofany particular study or article. Defendant further objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorneyclient or work product privilege. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Zurn has no present information to indicate that it ever received a copy of any listed study or article. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State what action, if any, you have ever taken since 1930 to minimize or eliminate any risk ofoccupational disease or pneumoconiosis to those at any time engaged in the manufacture or production of asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Zurn objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum IndustriesXCuyahoga County, OH'discoveryNfinalrogsoh.wpd Page 20 not limited to a relevant product, time frame or job site. Moreover, conditions in Defendant's plants, unrelated to its finished end products, are irrelevant to this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant states that it presently lacks documents or other information that would enable it to answer this question. However, Zurn did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that were utilized "as is" without material change in certain of its boilers during certain time frames. On information and belief, such components were located under metal lagging or otherwise encapsulated. When Zurn learned of the potential dangers of asbestos in the early 1970s, it discontinued the incorporation of asbestoscontaining thermal insulation components in its products thereafter. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: State what action, if any, you have ever taken since 1930 to minimize or eliminate any risk of occupational disease or pneumoconiosis to those at any time engaged in the use, as distinguished from the manufacture, or exposed to the use ofasbestos-containing and/or industrial insulation products or who were otherwise exposed to asbestos-containing and/or industrial insulation products. (a) Describe such action; (b) State when such action was taken; (c) State what written material exists related to such action; (d) State the names, job titles and last known address of the individuals who undertook such actions. ANSWER: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 24. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: With respect to the period from 1930 to 1980, state the name, address and company title or position of any managers or personnel who at any time during that period had responsibility over or were in charge of the following activities with regard to each of the asbestos-containing products and/or industrial insulation products identified in answer to Interrogatories 9 and 39: (a) production; (b) marketing; (c) labeling; (d) advertising; (e) product evaluation; (f) research and development; (g) distribution; (h) use; Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\genera1\Zurn IndustriesVCuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 21 (i) safety and precautions; (j) education of workers; (k) sales. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. The Interrogatory is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant and its relevant predecessor, Erie City, employed many persons over many decades. It does not maintain historical lists of personnel for the broad areas and time frames listed. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Have you ever hired or employed on a part-time basis or as a consultant anyphysician for the purpose of obtaining advice or information concerning potential health effects of any asbestos-containing product and/or industrial insulation product which you at any time manufactured, distributed or sold? Ifyour iinswer is in the affirmative, please provide the following: (a) the name of each such physician; (b) his or her current or last known address; (c) the date on which such physician was hired or consulted; (d) the reason for hiring or consulting such physician; (e) the date on which such employment or consultation terminated; (f) the current or last known address of each such individual. ANSWER: Zurn objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and requests information which is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited in time or to any relevant product. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant responds that Zurn did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that were utilized "as is" without material change in certain of its boiler products during certain time frames. Neither Zurn nor its predecessor had a Medical Department or employed a corporate medical officer. A medical doctor was available on-call, but not for the purposes inquired about in this Interrogatory. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum IndustriesVCuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Have you ever employed on a full-time or part-time basis or as a consultant an industrial hygienist? If so, please: (1) identify each such individual by name; (2) include the dates of any such employment or consultation and the reasons therefore, (3) identify each such person's current or last known address, and; (4) state when such position was first filled by this defendant. ANSWER: Zurn objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and requests information which is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited in time or to any relevant product. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant responds that Zurn did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that were utilized "as is" without material change in certain of its boiler products during certain time frames. Neither Zurn nor its predecessor employed an industrial hygienist or had an industrial hygiene department INTERROGATORY NO. 29: State the names and addresses of any inter-company or industrial organizations or groups to which you belong or at anytime since 1930 belonged, including but not limited to: (a) Asbestos Textile Institute; (b) National Insulation Manufacturers Association; (c) Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association; (d) Quebec Asbestos Mining Association; (e) Asbestos Information Association; (f) Industrial Health Foundation; (g) Industrial Hygiene Foundation; (h) Iron and Steel Institute; (i) National Safety Counsel; (j) Refractories Institute; and (k) Any other inner-company or industrial organizations or groups; For each such membership provide the following: (a) dates of membership; (b) requirements ofmembership as to each; (c) amount ofmoney you contributed annually as to each organization; (d) person(s) who attended meetings of each such organization and/or acted as liaison with each organization. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovery\fin.ilrogsoh.wpd Page 23 ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant is a large, decentralized company and it and its predecessor, Erie City, employed numerous persons over the course of many decades. Defendant's employees may have held memberships in various organizations from time to time, but Defendant has no central repository for information of this type. As such, it is impossible for it to identify all organizations to which its employees may have belonged in the past, whether any of its employees attended meetings or received publications from organizations and whether any publications that may have been received by individual employees still exist today. At present, Defendant is able to state only that it has no information to indicate that it held memberships in any of the listed organizations. From time to time, Defendant has held memberships in other organizations and groups, including ASME and the ABMA. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Ifyou contend that asbestos-containing products which you manufactured, sold, or distributed and/or used were not dangerous to the health ofpersons coming into contact with same, state all facts, opinions, conclusions, supporting such contention and identify each such product, and as to such product identify all documents and any other information upon which you rely and identify all individuals who have knowledge ofsuch facts, opinions, conclusions and other information, and identify the applicable documents. ANSWER: Zurn objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and requests information which is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, calls for a legal conclusion and requires this Defendant to address issues of law which are not appropriate pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the interrogatory seeks expert medical opinion, which this Defendant is not qualified to render. The Interrogatory is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Zurn defers to experts as to the conditions and circumstances under which asbestos fibers may be released. However, the asbestos-containing components utilized "as is" without material change in certain ofDefendant's boilers during certain time frames were located under metal lagging or otherwise encapsulated. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 24 INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Describe what action or actions, ifany, this defendant took at any time prior to 1965 to specifically advise or inform purchasers or users of asbestos-containing products of the existence of a threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum allowable concentration (MAC) for asbestos dust or asbestoscontaining dust. ANSWER: Zurn objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site. Defendant further objects to the extent this Interrogatory may invade the attorney-client or work product protections. Subject to and without waiving such objections, on information and belief, Zurn first learned that asbestos might be harmful in the same general time frame as did the general public in the early 1970s. Zurn has no information to indicate when, ifever, it received any information regarding threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of asbestos dust or asbestos-containing dust Since Zurn did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that were utilized "as is" without material change in certain of its boiler products during certain time frames and had no information to indicate that asbestos hazards were posed by its boiler products, it had no reason to advise any one ofthreshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations for asbestos dust or asbestos-containing dust INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Describe what action or actions, ifany, this defendant took at any time prior to 1970 to specifically advise or inform purchasers or users of asbestos-containing products ofthe existence of a threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum allowable concentration (MAC) for asbestos dust or asbestoscontaining dust. ANSWER: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 31. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Describe what action or actions, if any, this defendant took at any time prior to 1975 to specifically advise or inform purchasers or users of asbestos-containing products of the existence of a threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum allowable concentration (MAC) for asbestos dust or asbestoscontaining dust. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum bidustriesVCuyahoga County, OH\discovery\fin.ilnogsoh.wpd Page 25 ANSWER: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 31. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: For each and eveiy asbestos- containing product describe any and all statements, labels, instructions, information or visual depiction ofany sort which you contend appeared at any time on any such product or product package for the purpose of alerting, advising or informing any user, purchaser ordistributor ofany suchproducts with respect to: (1) potential or alleged hazards associated or allegedly associated with use ofsuch products, and/or (2) safe usage of such products. For each response provide as follows: (a) the product or package on which such information allegedly appeared; (b) the time period during which such information allegedly appeared; (c) the precise language of any such statement or information; (d) the size ofany such statement or information intoto and as to individual letters; (e) the size of any package or container upon which any such statement or information allegedly appeared; (f) the location on such product orpackage onwhich such statement or information allegedly appeared. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product and time frame, nor is it limited to asbestos health hazards. Subject to and without waiving such objections, since Zurn did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components utilized "as is" without material change in certain of its boiler products during certain time frames and had no information to indicate that asbestos health hazards were posed by its boiler products, it did not place warnings on its steam generating systems or equipment concerning asbestos. Since Defendant sold large, steam generating systems, its products were not "packaged" as that term is used and understood in this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Describe the method bywhichyouhavemaintainedrecords concerningthemanufacturer, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery and/or installation or tear-out of each of asbestoscontaining products. For each description provide the following: (a) each present and former company or corporate department, division or subdivision responsible for maintaining such records; Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\generalVZum Industrics\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finaIrogsoh.wpd Page 26 (b) the manner in which the records are kept (e.g., boxes, computer tape, microfilm, etc.); (c) the inclusive dates of any such manufacturer, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, deliver)', and/or installation or tear-out which such record keeping system covers; (d) the present location at which all such records are maintained; (e) the identify ofeach person employed by you at anytime from 1930 to the present who is or was responsible for the collection and maintenance of such records. ANSWER; Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site. Subject to and without waiving such objections, existing Zurn records relating to its steam generating equipment are maintained by boiler number. Many documents, such as sales cards, relating to Zurn steam generating equipment have been purged due to inactivity or were otherwise destroyed pursuant to normal document retention policies or were transferred to the purchaser when Zurn's Energy Division was sold to Aalborg Keystone, Inc. in 1997. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: State whether any records concerning the manufacturer, sale, supply, distribution, advertising, delivery, use or installation or tear-out ofasbestos-containing products have been destroyed or discarded and if so, indicate: (a) the date and location ofsuch destruction or discard; (b) the custodian and location ofsuch recordsprior to their destruction or discard and the identity of each employee, representative, official or agent who ordered, authorized or supervised such destruction or discard. ANSWER; See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 35. INTERROGATORY NO. 37; State whether, prior to 1975. any ofyour employees has ever made a claim for, or was provided benefits voluntarily for, occupational disease including pulmonary disease or injury, pneumoconiosis ofany sort, silicosis, asbestosis, lung cancer or mesotheliomaunder any state or federal compensation statute, includingbutnot limitedto, the Longshoreman andHarborWorkers Compensation Act. Ifyour answer is in the affirmative, provide as follows: Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finaIrogsoh.wpd Page 27 (a) the date on which you first received notice ofany such claim for asbestosis lung cancer or mesothelioma under any state or federal occupational disease or compensation statute; (b) the date on which you first voluntarily provided benefits under any state or federal occupational disease or compensation statute to any employee for asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma; (c) on a year-by-year basis, through 1975, state the total number ofyour employees or your predecessors-in-interests employees who filed claims for occupational lung disease and in so doing state the number ofclaims or cases of asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma for each year and for each such year state the number ofemployees who actually received benefits under any state or federal occupational disease or compensation statutes for asbestosis, silicosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma for the period of 1930 until 1975. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to asbestos claims, ifany, related to any product ofthis Defendant at issue in this litigation, but presumably inquires into claims arising out of conditions in Defendant's plants totally unrelated to Defendant's boiler products.. On information and belief, silica is not at issue in this litigation. Moreover, theInterrogatory improperly seeks confidential, privileged information that may impact employee privacy rights. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant is presently aware of no workers' compensation claims involving asbestos prior to 1975. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: State whether you have been named as a defendant in any lawsuit previous to 1975 by users or person who actually or allegedly were exposed to any asbestos or asbestos-containing products for alleged injury or disease. Ifyour answer is in the affirmative, provide the date on which each such lawsuit was filed against you, the forum in which said suit was filed, the style of such action and the docket designation ofeach such suit. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product and time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections. Defendant is presently aware of no asbestos lawsuits in which it was named as a Defendant prior to 1975. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum Industries\Cuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finatrogsoh.wpd Page 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Identify each and every asbestos-containing product manufactured, and/or sold, and/or distributed, and/or marketed and/or supplied by this defendant at anytime between 1950 and the present, and for each such product provide the following: (a) The date such activity began; (b) The years during wltich such activity took place; (c) The date when such activity was terminated; (d) Ifsuch activity was terminated, the reason(s) why; (e) The geographical area into which you claim the asbestos-containing produces) were sold; (f) Identify the organizational unit ofdefendant so engaged; (g) The site(s) at which each such product was manufactured; (h) The material components/ingredients of each such product, giving specific or approximate percentage both by weight and by volume of each material component/ingredient (This interrogatory is not limited to the asbestos component of the product but seeks information as to the nature, weight and volume ofnon-asbestos ingredients, as well) ofeach such product; (i) The temperature ranges for which each produces) was intended to be used; (j) The product's generic name; (k) The product's trade or brand name; (l) The container in which the product was shipped, (i.e., paper bags, cardboard boxes) including the size and amount ofthe container; (m) A description of any logos, writing impressions or identifying markings which appeared on the product, as well as a description ofthe package used, the dates that type ofpackage was used, and any logos, product names, trademarks, etc. which appeared in die package; (n) Whether the word "zisbestos" was used on the package; (o) A detailed description ofthe intended method ofpreparation and application of the product; (p) A description ofthe physical appearance ofthe product, including size, shape, color and texture. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is duplicative. See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 9. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\general\Zum IndustricsNCuyahoga County, OH'discoveryVfinalrogsoh.wpd Page 29 INTERROGATORY NO. 4Q: For each and every asbestos-containing product required to be identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 39 above, state as to each product the date and quantity sold, supplied or shipped to each ofthe locations as attached on Exhibit "A" and, ifsupplied to that location by any entity other than yourself, identify that entity. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is duplicative. See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 12. Zurn Industries Incorporated's Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories J:\gcneral\Zum IndustriesXCuyahoga County, OH\discovery\finalrogsoh.wpd Page 30 VERIFICATION STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DALLAS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared WAYNE AARON, to me well known to be an authorized representative for the Defendant, ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC., in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and being by me duly sworn, stated upon oath that he is duly qualified and authorized to make the attached Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories pursuant to the laws ofthe State ofOhio, that he has read the answers, and SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this hit _, 2000, to certify which witness my hand and official seal. day of