Document 5kKgqpe9erj67dVo8GOaYVdYV

INTERROGATORY NO. 78: Did Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time, directly advise the owners or management employees of any worksite m which it sold or apphed any product listed in response to interrogatory Nos 19 and 43, of threshold limit values for exposure to asbestos dust recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist? If so, state the date or dates that you so advised each such owner or - - employees, the manner irnwhickyomadvised suck owner or employee, and the name of each such owner or employee ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 78: Abex objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, unduly burdensome, compound, vague and ambiguous and calls for speculation. Abex also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term "any relate company" is vague and ambiguous and calls for speculation. Abex further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information or materials it purports to seek lack relevance to the issues arising in these cases and are not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence To the extent it purports to seek information or materials regarding the working conditions of Abex employees, this interrogatory is objected to on the grounds that such information or materials lack relevance to the issues arising in these cases and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Abex also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it assumes the truth of matters not established or matters not in evidence. Abex further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is speculative inasmuch as it fails to distinguish among raw asbestos, asbestos contained in building insulation products and/or asbestos-containing automotive friction products, and/or among the different types of asbestos fibers. Because the asbestos fiber -178-