Document 5bpekJnQn0nDkOwpvLaX6dox0

No. 96-06239-A 5: ? i * I PLAINTIFF'S i EXHIBIT RR-214c JOSEPH LEE DENNIS, ET AL, Plaintiffs, VS. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL, Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF BENNIE DUNBAR'S REQUEST FORADMISSIONS COMES NOW Southern Pacific Transportation Company, one of the Defendants in the above styled and numbered cause, and in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure files. this its Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Bennie Dunbar's Request for Admissions. DATED: March 10, 1997 Respectfully submitted, John C. Wray Texas Bar No. 00797699 3040 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 900 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (713)626-1386 Facsimile: (713)626-1388 1 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5:64299.l Page 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this /'fi day of March, 1997, a true and correct copy of Defendant Southern Pacific Transportation Company's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Bennie Dunbar's Request for Admissions was served on all known counsel of record via first class mail, certified, return receipt requested. PLAINTIFFS Mr. Russell W. Budd Mr. Peter Kraus Baron & Budd, P.C. The Centrum, Suite 1100 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 Tel: (214) 521-3605 Fax: (214) 520-1181 GARLOCK. INC. Mr. A.B. Conant, Jr. Conant Whittenburg Whittenburg & Schachter 600 Pearl Street, LB 133 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel: (214) 999-5700 Fax: (214) 999-5747 ROCKWOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY Mr. Charles A. Green Cowles & Thompson 4000 Nations Bank Plaza 901 Main Street, Suite 4000 Dallas, Texas 75202 Tel: (214) 672-2000 Fax: (214) 672-2020 FOSTER WHEELER Mr. James M. Riley, Jr. Coats, Rose, Yale, Holm, Ryman & Lee 101 Fannin, Suite 800 First City Tower Houston, Texas 77002 Tel: (713) 651-0111 Fax: (713) 651-0220 CROWN, CORK & SEAL COMPANY. INC. Mr. James T. Foley Foley & Boyd, P.C. 404 First Place Tyler, Texas 75702 Tel: (903) 593-8883 Fax: (903) 593-1099 METROPOLITAN LIFE Mr. John L. Hill, Jr. Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill Sc Laboon 3400 Texas Commerce Tower Houston, Texas 77002 Tel: (713) 226-1200 Fax: (713) 223-3717 W.R. GRACE &JCO.-CONN. Mr. Robert E. Thackston Jenkens & Gilchrist 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75202-2799 Tel: (214) 855-4500 Fax: (214) 855-4300 Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5:64299.1 Page 2 ANCHOR PACKING Mr. A.B. Conant, Jr. Conant Whittenburg Whittenburg & Schachter 600 Pearl Street, LB 133 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel: (214) 999-5700 Fax: (214) 999-5747 GENERAL REFRACTORIES CO. Mr. Neil Rambin Strausburger & Price 901 Main Street, Suite 4300 Dallas, Texas 75202 Tel: (214) 651-4300 or 651-4534 Fax: (214) 651-4330 SYNKOLOID (A Division of Muralo Co., Inc.) Ms. Kathy Hermes DeHay & Elliston, L.L.P. 1500 Maxus Energy Tower 717 N. Harwood Dallas, Texas 75201-1508 Tel: (214) 953-5454 Fax: (214) 953-5455 3M Mr. Stan McMury Locke Purnell Rain Harrell 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel: (214) 740-8585 Fax: (214) 740-8800 NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES Ms. Debra Fitzgerald Crouch & Hallet, L.L.P. 1400 Maxus Energy Building 717 N. Harwood Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel: (214) 953-0053 Fax: (214) 953-3154 PROKO INDUSTRIES. INC. Mr. Tom Dougall Bowers Orr & Robertson 1401 Main Street, Suite 1100 Columbia, SC 29202 Tel: (803) 252-0494 Fax: (803) 252-1068 GEORGIA-PACIFIC Mr. Mel Bailey DeHay & Elliston, L.L.P. 1500 Maxus Energy Tower 717 N. Harwood Street Dallas, Texas 75201-1508 Tel: (214) 953-5454 Fax: (214) 953-5455 U.S. MINERAL PRODUCTS CO. Mr. Mel Bailey DeHay & Elliston, L.L.P. 1500 Maxus Energy Tower 717 N. Harwood Street Dallas, Texas 75201-1508 Tel: (214) 953-5454 Fax: (214) 953-5455 Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5:64299.1 Page 3 THE FLEVTKOTE COMPANY Mr. James M. Harris, Jr. Holmes & Harris, P.C. 550 Fannin Street, Suite 845 Beaumont, Texas 77701 Tel: (409) 832-8382 Fax: (409) 833^240 UNIROYAL. INC. Mr. Richard L. Forman Forman, Perry, Watkins & Krutz One Jackson Place, Suite 1200 188 East Capitol Street P.O. Box 22608 Jackson, MS 39201 Tel: (601) 960-8600 Fax: (601) 960-8613 AOUA-CHEM. INC, (d/b/a CLEAVER-BROOKS DIVISION) Mr. David A. Livingston Livingston & Markle 55 Waugh Drive, Suite 1200 Houston, Texas 77007 Tel: (713) 861-7679 Fax: (713) 861-7679 HARBISON-WALKER CORP. Mr. Mark A. Hendrix Mr. Lewis C. Miltenberger Vial Hamilton Koch & Knox 1717 Main Street, Suite 4400 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel: (214) 712^400 Fax: (214) 712-4402 KELLY-MQORE PAINT CO. Mr. Michael Truncale Orgain, Bell & Tucker, L.L.P. 470 Orleans Street Beaumont, Texas 77701 Tel: (409) 838-6412 Fax: (409) 838-6959 RAPID-AMERICAN CORP. Ms. Susan M. Hull Jenkens & Gilchrist 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75202-2799 Tel: (214) 855^500 Fax: (214) 855-4300 ILLINOIS CENTRAL CORPORATION Mr. David J. Pels Shannon, Gracey, Ratliff & Miller, L.L.P. 1600 Bank One Tower 500 Throckmorton Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Tel: (817) 336-9333 Fax: (817) 336-3735 ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. Mr. David J. Pels Shannon, Gracey, Ratliff & Miller, L.L.P. 1600 Bank One Tower 500 Throckmorton Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Tel: (817) 336-9333 Fax: (817) 336-3735 Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5:64299.1 Page 4 t PITTSBURGH CORNING CORE, Mr. Stephen S. Livingston Thompson & Knight 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel: (713) 217-2800 Fax: (713) 217-2828 David Lee Crawford Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5:64299.1 Page 5 DEFENDANT SOUTHERN PACIFIC'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit or deny that asbestos-containing products were in general use aboard Defendant's railroad during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as overly-broad, unduly-burdensome, and not limited as to location. It is so overly broad and general that it subjects Defendant to undue burden and unnecessary expense in its defense of this matter. It seeks information which is not material or relevant to this litigation and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, in that it inquires into work locations at which Plaintiff did not work. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant admits that asbestos containing materials were in use on Defendant's locomotives during the time period of Plaintiffs employment. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 2: Admit or deny that Defendant transported, ordered, purchased or otherwise acquired asbestoscontaining products, asbestos-containing friction products, and machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as overly-broad, unduly-burdensome, and not limited as to time or location. It is so overly broad and general that it subjects Defendant to undue burden and unnecessary expense in its defense of this matter. It seeks information which is not material or relevant to this litigation and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, in that it inquires into work locations at which Plaintiff did not work and time periods in which he was not employed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant admits that asbestos containing materials were in use on Defendant's locomotives during the time period of Plaintiffs employment. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit or deny that Defendant used or implemented on Defendant's railroad, asbestos-containing products. Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5:64299.1 Page 6 RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as overly-broad, unduly-burdensome, and not limited as to time or location. It is so overly broad and general that it subjects Defendant to undue burden and unnecessary expense in its defense of this matter. It seeks information which is not material or relevant to this litigation and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, in that it inquires into work locations at which Plaintiff did not work and time periods in which he was not employed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant admits that asbestos containing materials were in use on Defendant's locomotives during the time period of Plaintiffs employment. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit or deny that Defendant's cars, engines and/or locomotives which Plaintiff worked on or around were unreasonably dangerous and unfit because of the presence of and/or use of asbestoscontaining products. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit or deny that Plaintiff was a railroad worker, as that term is generally understood, during his employment with Defendant. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUESTOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit or deny that Plaintiff, in the course and scope of his work as a railroad worker and/or employee of Defendant, worked on and/or around Defendant's railroad, railway cars, engines and/or locomotives, shops, roundhouses, and transfer sheds where asbestos containing products were present. RESPONSE: Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request at this time. Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5:64299.1 Page 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit or deny that Defendant was aware during the periods of time Plaintiff worked for Defendant that airborne asbestos dust created a potential health hazard to those who breathed such dust. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that its work rules in effect during the period of Plaintiffs employment required that all employees use respirators in excessively dusty conditions, regardless of the source or composition of the dust. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit or deny that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant or by a predecessor-in-interest of Defendant. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit or deny that Plaintiff worked on and/or around Defendant's railroad in areas where asbestos-containing products were installed, used, prepared for use, replaced or repaired, stored or loaded, unloaded or transported. RESPONSE: Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit or deny that Defendant did not distribute any literature or warnings of any kind to its employees during the period of time Plaintiff worked for Defendant regarding the potential health hazards to those who breathe airborne asbestos dust. RESPONSE: Denied. During the period of Plaintiffs employment, all Southern Pacific employees were subject to safety rules which required that employees use respirators in excessively dusty conditions. Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5:64299.1 Page 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit or deny that asbestos-containing products were placed on or used in the conduct of Defendant's railroad during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant including the following asbestos-containing products: a. any asbestos-containing product and/or m. brake linings machinery requiring the use of asbestos n. clutch linings or asbestos-containing products and/or materials 0. firebrick b. asbestos tiles c. asbestos millboard d. asbestos friction products P- refractories q- turbines e. asbestos gaskets f. asbestos gaskets g- asbestos joint compound h. asbestos cement I. asbestos block j- asbestos packing k. boilers 1. brake shoes Objection. Defendant objects to this request as overly-broad, unduly-burdensome, and not limited as to location. It is so overly broad and general that it subjects Defendant to undue burden and unnecessary expense in its defense of this matter. It seeks information which is not material or relevant to this litigation and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, in that it inquires into work locations at which Plaintiff did not work. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant admits that asbestos containing materials were in use on Defendant's locomotives during the time period of Plaintiffs employment. Due to the age of the records involved as well normal records retention practices. Defendant no longer retains any records indicated the types of products purchased and used during the period of Plaintiffs employment. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit or deny that Defendant engaged in no abatement programs for the removal of asbestos at any time since 1965. Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5:64299.1 Page 9 RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as overiy-broad, unduiy-burdensome, and not limited as to location. It is so overly broad and general that it subjects Defendant to undue burden and unnecessary expense in its defense of this matter. It seeks information which is not material or relevant to this litigation and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, in that it inquires into work locations at which Plaintiff did not work. Furthermore, Defendant objects to providing any information for the time period after Plaintiff's employment with Southern Pacific because such information is irrelevant to this case. REQUEST FOR APMISSION-NO, 13: Admit or deny that Defendant was aware of the presence of and/or use of asbestos-containing products at the Railroad during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as overiy-broad, unduiy-burdensome, and not limited as to location. It is so overly broad and general that it subjects Defendant to undue burden and unnecessary expense in its defense of this matter. It seeks information which is not material or relevant to this litigation and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of. relevant or admissible evidence, in that it inquires into work locations at which Plaintiff did not work. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit or deny that Defendant became aware of the potential health hazards of airborne asbestos during the time periods in which Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Denied. The state-of-the-art knowledge concerning the potential hazards to health from exposure to asbestos containing products has progressed over the years up to the present time. The first study of railroad employees and the associated risks to them was published in approximately 1983. Over the period of time covered by the literature, Southern Pacific has become aware that exposure to excessive amounts of airborne asbestos fibers can be a health hazard. Plaintiff was employed well prior to this time. However, all Southern Pacific employees were subject to work rules at the time of Plaintiffs employment which required employees to use respirators in excessively dusty conditions, regardless of the source or composition of the dust. Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5:64299.1 Page 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 15: Admit or deny that Defendant did not continuously provide face masks to railroad employees working with or around asbestos from 1945 to the present for the purpose of protecting these employees from inhaling asbestos. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as overly-broad, unduly-burdensome, and not limited as to location. It is so overly broad and general that it subjects Defendant to undue burden and unnecessary expense in its defense of this matter. It seeks information which is not material or relevant to this litigation and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, in that it inquires into work locations at which Plaintiff did not work. Furthermore, Defendant objects to providing any information for the time period after Plaintiff's employment with Southern Pacific because such information is irrelevant to this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, denied. All Southern Pacific employees were subject to work rules at the time of Plaintiffs employment which required employees to use respirators in excessively dusty conditions, regardless of the source or composition of the dust. REQUEST EOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit or deny that during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, it was foreseeable that asbestos-containing products on Defendant's railroad would or could be removed, stripped, replaced or repaired at some time after installation. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit or deny that during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Defendant failed to comply with requirements of the Boiler Inspection Act, formerly 45 U.S.C. 23; and restated at 49 U.S.C. 20701 et seq. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant objects to the form of this request in that Plaintiff has not specified the particular manner in which Defendant's locomotives may not have complied with the Boiler Inspection Act. Accordingly, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request at this time Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5-.64299.1 Page 11 because Plaintiff has not specified the particular manner in which Defendant's locomotives may not have complied with the Boiler Inspection Act. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 18: Admit or deny that Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant within three (3) years of the date of discovering his asbestos-related condition or the existence of any asbestos-related causes of action. RESPONSE: Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit or deny that Defendant is liable for Plaintiffs asbestos related illness. RESPONSE: The matter for which this admission is requested presents a genuine issue for trial and is therefore, pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 169(1), denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit or deny that Defendant knew or had reason to know that asbestos was in use on its railroad since the 1930's. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request as overly-broad, unduly-burdensome, and not limited as to time or location. It is so overly broad and general that it subjects Defendant to undue burden and unnecessary expense in its defense of this matter. It seeks information which is not material or relevant to this litigation and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, in that it inquires into work locations at which Plaintiff did not work and time periods in which he was not employed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant admits that asbestos containing materials were in use on Defendant's locomotives during the time period of Plaintiffs employment. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 21: Admit or deny that Defendant consciously decided not to warn its employees of the dangers of asbestos. Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5:64299.l Page 12 RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit or deny that asbestos is still in use and/or in place on Defendant's railroad. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request in that the information it seeks is irrelevant to this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit or deny that Defendant no longer uses asbestos on its railroad. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request in that the information it seeks is irrelevant to this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit or deny that Defendant acquired knowledge, during the 1930's of the Alton Railroad's responses to the Illinois Occupational Diseases Act. RESPONSE: Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit or deny that Defendant was a member of the National Claims Registry which reported information regarding claims of railroad workers. RESPONSE: Denied. Defendant Southern Pacific's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions PD5:64299.1 Page 13