Document 5kdBo1yBZ0kmoo8ZmY4QnE1Je

18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERVILLE STATE OF LOUISIANA PLAINTIFF'S 1 EXHIBIT EXX 9 1 a. - JOSEPH A. CLEBERT and GLORIA GOMEZ CLEBERT VERSUS MCCARTY CORPORATION, ET AL SUIT MO.: 38,744 DIVISION "B" EXXON CORPORATION'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO CONSOLIDATED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Exxon Corporation ("Exxon"), defendant, hereby amends its original response as follows: 1. ' Exxon's response to Interrogatory No. 1.2(a) is hereby deleted in its entirety and in its place the following response is given: RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 1.2 (a) Exxon objects to part (a) of this interrogatory as ambiguous and insufficiently clear, particularly the phrase "asbestos contained insulation," which has no meaning to this defendant, and also objects to part (a) as vague and ambiguous and overly broad, burdensome, and irrelevant in that no specific location is set forth to restrict the meaning of "present" to those locations where plaintiff alleges to have worked. Without, waiving these objections, Exxon further states that this defendant is unsure what is asked by this question; Exxon has admitted in reponse to Request for Admission 1.1 that asbestos-containing insualtion was present at its Baton Rouge facility during the 1935-1980 time period, which includes the 1950-1952 time period. Without waiving its objections, Exxon does not know and cannot affirm or deny Interrogatory 1.2(a) because Exxon's investigation to date indicates that neither Cat Cracker I or II or any other Cat Cracker was built at Exxon's Baton Rouge refinery in 1950-1952 as described in this interrogatory, but CUiJUlIM/OABC.'Om EM002610 ^/ our search for relevant information continues and Exxon will supplement its responses in accord with applicable rules as necessary. 2. , Exxon deletes its response to Interrogatory No. 2.3 in its entirety and substitutes therefor a new response to Interrogatory No. 2.3 which reads as follows: RESPONSE TO 2.3 INTERROGATORY Exxon objects to this interrogatory by incorporating herein its objections to 2.1 above. Without waiving its objections, Exxon also objects that this interrogatory is. overly broad and vague, and that it would be impossible for this defendant, which employed literally thousands of people- in this time period, to know of every such "recommendation, report or suggestion" ever made, at any place and time, by anyone to anyone within the company, whether written or oral, and to expect this defendant to undertake such an investigation would be unduly burdensome. Without waiving its objections, Exxon states that the "Medico-Safety Survey" by Roy S. Bonsib dared 1S37 sets forth recommendations pertaining to the relationship between certain asbestos exposures and asbestosis, and we believe that these recommendations were communicated and formed the basis for most or all recommendations made by Exxon employees concerning safe handling of asbestos-containing insulation until the advent of the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) regulations governing this area. . 3. In all other respects, Exxon's original responses remain the same. -' Submitted by: CtXlAMIN/OMOCNni t_____________________x------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- Gary A. Bezet (#3036) KEAN, MILLER, HAWTHORNE, D'ARMOND, McCOWAN & JARMAN Post Office Box 3513 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821 Telephone: (504) 387-0999 EM002611 David W. Ledyard STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON & BISSELL 1400 San Jacinto Building 595 Orleans v Beaumont, TX 77701-3255 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel of record. Baton Rouge, Louisi CLXIAMIN/OABOXNT* t EM002612