Document 65MQ0B2eJ1w5Ln08RKOLG5pN6

CARLO MARTINO IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MORGAN COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA -X LAURA W. BUTLER, Individually and ADMINISTRATRIX of the Estate of Walter C. Butler, JR., Deceased, -vs- Plaintiff, Civil Action File No. 2008CA114 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. X DEPOSITION of CARLO MARTINO, taken pursuant to Notice, held at the COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT, 250 Davidson Avenue, Terrance Room, Somerset, New Jersey, 08873, on Thursday, August 6, 2009, at 9:20 a.m. before JEANNETTE MCCORMICK, a Certified Shorthand Reporter, License No. XI00920, and a Notary Public. Page 1 HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO APPEARANCES: STANLEY, MANDEL & IOLA. LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs 3100 Monticello Avenue, Suite 750 Dallas, Texas 75205 BY: WILLIAM A. GALERSTON, ESQ. (214) 443-4307 (Direct) (214) 443-4300 (Telephone) (214) 443-0358 (Fax) wgalerston@smi-law.com MAYER BROWN, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Union Carbide 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60603 BY: CRAIG WOODS, ESQ. (312) 701-8536 (Telephone) cwoods@raayerbrown.com HAWKINS, PARNELL & THACKSTON, LLP (VIA TELEPHONE) Attorneys for Defendant Retchhold Chemical Corp. 4514 Cole Ave, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75205 BY: ROBERT E. THACKSTON, ESQ. (214)780-5101 (Direct Telephone) (214) 780-5200 (Fax) 444 South Flower St., Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 486-8008 (Direct Telephone) (213) 486-8080 (Fax) rthackston@hplegal.com Also Present: Lee A. Bitman (Videographer) INDEX WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE CARLO MARTINO MR. GALERSTON MR. THACKSTON 7 185 EXHIBITS MARTINO NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE 10 i Notice of Deposition of 11 Carlo Martino 8 12 2 Notice of Deposition of Union Carbide 8 13 3 14 7/6/09 Letter from Hawkins Parnell to Waters Kraus 8 15 4 Union Carbide's Objections 8 16 5 Bakelite Corp. Safety Manual Bates Nos. UCASB03061352 - 4W 13 17 6 Bakelite Review, 18 Bates Nos. UCASB02207918 - 937 17 19 7 Typical Formula Blacks Bates Nos. UCASB01731858 - 859 22 20 8 21 Assumptions for Future Years, Bates Nos. UCASB01731860 - 862 23 22 9 Class of Materials Produced, Bates Nos. UCASB01731980- 981 28 23 10 Phenolic Coating Resins, 24 Bates Nos. UCASB02207525 - 583 33 25 Page 2 1 INDEX 2 (CONTINUED) 3 4 5 EXHIBITS 6 MARTINO NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE 11 8 9 12 10 13 11 12 14 13 15 14 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 21 20 22 21 23 24 22 25 10/3/59 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB02207412 - 422 1/28/70 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB02207428 - 432 38 42 3/26/71 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB01732118- 119 1/3/72 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB01733899 - 900 46 49 3/30/72 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB01733966 6/21/72 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB01732553 - 554 54 58 11/22/72 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB01733763 - 765 12/4/72 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB01733956 60 75 2/7/73 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB01733730 - 731 5/1/73 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB01929159 77 80 7/5/73 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB02207949 - 957 11/30/73 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB02208249 - 263 83 83 Page 3 1 INDEX 2 (CONTINUED) 3 4 5 EXHIBITS 6 MARTINO NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE 8 23 8/22/73 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB02207962 - 974 88 24 10 11 25 12 13 26 14 27 15 16 28 17 29 18 19 30 20 21 31 22 23 32 24 33 25 8/13/73 Correspondence, Bates Nos. UCASB01732390 - 392 Bakelite Phenolic Molding Materials Guide, Bates Nos. UCASB02207862 - 909 Union Carbide's Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories 97 91 93 The Bakelite Story, Bates Nos. UCASB03022933 - 074 Handwritten Notes, (2 pages) 104 102 Tentative Product Formulation, First Page Bates Nos. UCASB01875868 113 3/15/66 Correspondence, First Page Bates Nos. UCASB00954460 173 3/19/68 Correspondence. Bates Nos. UCASB00907140 Documents, First Page Bates Nos. UCASB02401488 174 115 Multipage Document, First Page, Bates Nos. UCASB00000061 130 Page 4 Page 5 2 (Pages 2 to 5) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 6 Page 8 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the 2 video record. Today is August 6,2009, and 3 the time is approximately 9:20 a.m. 4 We are at the location of Courtyard by 5 Marriott, located at 250 Davidson Avenue in 6 Somerset, New Jersey. 7 My name is Lee Bitman, I'm the legal 8 video specialist of Legal Eyes, Inc. of 9 Denton, Texas. 10 This case civil action is File Number 11 2008-CA114 entitled Laura Butler, 12 Administratrix, Individually and for the 13 Estate of Walter C. Butler, Junior, Deceased, 14 versus Union Carbide Corporation, et al. 15 Our deponent today is Carlo Martino. 16 This deposition is being requested by the 17 plaintiffs. The attorney is William A. 18 Galerston of Waters & Kraus. 19 Will all counsel at this point please 20 introduce themselves for the record. 21 MR. GALERSTON: This is Billy Galerston 22 here on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Butler 23 family. 24 MR. WOODS: Craig Woods on behalf of 25 Union Carbide. 1 agreement and understanding that we can use that 2 previous testimony and previous transcripts subject 3 to the appropriate objections that were raised at 4 the time and that are appropriate for the 5 jurisdiction that we are going to use this 6 deposition in which currently will be Georgia. 7 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 8 Exhibits Nos. Martino 1 and 2 were 9 marked for Identification.) 10 BY MR. GALERSTON: 11 Q. In connection with that, we have attached as 12 Exhibit 1 to your deposition a Notice of Deposition 13 for you personally. Exhibit Number 2 is a 30(b)(6) 14 Notice for a Union Carbide Corporation 15 representatives. 16 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 17 Exhibit No. Martino 3 was marked 18 for Identification.) 19 BY MR. GALERSTON: 20 Q. We have attached as Exhibit 3 Elaine 21 Shofner's July 6,2009 correspondence to Ms. Kyla 22 Cole of Waters & Kraus regarding this deposition. 23 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 24 Exhibit No. Martino 4 was marked 25 for Identification.) Page 7 Page 9 1 MR. THACKSTON: Robert Thackston on 2 behalf of Reichhold R-E-I-C-H-O-L-D 3 Corporation. 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: At this point will 5 the court reporter kindly swear in the 6 witness. 7 8 CARLO F. MARTINO, 9 having been first duly sworn, 10 according to law, testified 11 as follows: 12 13 EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. GALERSTON: 15 Q. State your full name for the record. 16 A. Yes. Carlo Francis Martino. 17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Martino. 18 Before we get going, we have a couple of 19 housekeeping matters that we want to address. You 20 and I have met on several occasions before, and you 21 have given numerous depositions. As a result, we 22 have entered into an agreement with Union Carbide's 23 attorneys that we will forego any and all general 24 questions, and any and all questions that have been 25 asked in previous depositions in exchange for the 1 BY MR. GALERSTON: 2 Q. And as Exhibit 4 we have attached Union 3 Carbide's Written Objections to certain areas of the 4 deposition notice. 5 MR. GALERSTON: With that understanding, 6 is that pursuant to your understanding, 7 Mr. Woods? 8 MR. WOODS: Yeah. I just wanted to add 9 that Union Carbide is producing Mr. Martino 10 pursuant to the 30(b)(6) notice only for 11 those topics reflected in the letter from 12 Elaine to Ms. Kyla - or Kyla Cole. 13 MR. GALERSTON: Correct. 14 MR. WOODS: And, other than that, he's 15 here in his personal capacity. So, subject 16 to your representations you just made, we 17 will allow the questioning on those topics. 18 MR. GALERSTON: Very good. 19 BY MR. GALERSTON: 20 Q. Mr. Martino, how are you this morning? 21 A. Fine. Thank you. 22 Q. As I indicated on the record a moment ago, I 23 have deposed you I believe two or three times 24 previously, is that correct? 25 A. That's correct. 3 (Pages 6 to 9) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361-e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 10 Page 12 1 Q. Since last we spoke, which I believe would 2 have been - I think it was November of last year 3 have you given very many depositions? 4 A. I don't recall if the deposition -- there 5 were several other depositions the end of last year, 6 because I don't recall if they were before or after 7 yours. None this year. 8 Q. Okay. So this is the first time that you 9 would be giving testimony in 2009? 10 A. I believe so. 11 Q. All right. Let's talk briefly about what you 12 had done to prepare yourself to give your testimony 13 today. What have you done? 14 A. I read the deposition of Mr. Butler, both 15 volumes. 16 Q. All right. Anything else? 17 A. I went over the sales scrolls as to what was 18 sold to the Waters - Watertown, the Georgia 19 location. 20 Q. Okay. Anything else? 21 A. I reviewed some of the formulations that 22 might be related to sales to Watertown in Georgia. 23 Q. All right. 24 A. And I looked at what correspondence that was 25 in the files in Chicago with regard to Watertown in 1 A. There are some small sales of what could be 2 asbestos-containing material. 3 Q. And when we talk about that, I think we've 4 agreed in the past that when we see references in 5 the scrolls to materials that indicate that it's 6 heat-resistant material, that is indicative of the 7 asbestos-containing, I should say, high 8 asbestos-containing materials. Is that correct? 9 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form of the 10 question. 11 THE WITNESS: Most likely than not, we 12 did -- did have some materials that were -- 13 good heat-resistant materials that did not 14 contain asbestos, but most that were used for 15 heat-resistant application did contain 16 asbestos. 17 BY MR. GALERSTON: 18 Q. And those were the ones that were in the 30 19 to 40 percent, right? 20 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 21 Assumes facts. 22 THE WITNESS: They ranged from anywhere 23 from 10 to 15 percent to 30 percent. 24 BY MR. GALERSTON: 25 Q. And we'll go through that in some more i Page 11 Page 13 1 general. 2 Q. Okay. Anything else? 3 A. I believe that was it. 4 Q. Okay. The sales scrolls I'm familiar with 5 and we'll have a copy of those and we'll attach 6 those and we'll talk about those in some detail. 7 The formulations and correspondence that you 8 reviewed, were those documents that were selected 9 and provided to you by counsel or was that 10 information that you went and found on your own? 11 A. I requested information on the formulations 12 so that I could refresh my memory as to which might 13 contain asbestos and which did not. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. We jointly requested the information on 16 Watertown. 17 Q. Okay. All right. Based upon your review of 18 the materials, is it clear to you that Union Carbide 19 sold phenolic molding materials to the Watertown 20 Georgia facility? 21 A. Now that I have looked at the scrolls, yes. 22 Q. And based upon your review of the scrolls, is 23 there any doubt that Union Carbide sold 24 asbestos-containing phenolic compounds to Watertown 25 Georgia facility? 1 detail. 2 As I indicated to counsel before, I have had 3 an opportunity to go back to the Chicago Union 4 Carbide's document repository, and I have some 5 additional documents, that I believe you and I have 6 not discussed before. If in my questioning if you 7 believe that you and I have discussed these 8 documents before, please indicate so, and I will 9 move on. But I have tried to be careful to make 10 sure that I have only brought information that you 11 and I have not talked about before. 12 Let me mark as Exhibit Number 5 to your 13 deposition the Bakelite Corporation Safety Manual. 14 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 15 Exhibit No. Martino 5 was marked for 16 Identification.) 17 MR. WOODS: Let me just state for the 18 record that this is not one of the topics, 19 presumably not one of the topics that we were 20 offering a 30(b)(6) witness on, but if he has 21 not been questioned on before, you can ask 22 him. I notice the copyright on this document 23 is 1941 and that was before Mr. Martino was 24 employed by Union Carbide. 25 THE WITNESS: Okay. 4 (Pages 10 to 13) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d 1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 14 Page 16 1 BY MR. GALERSTON: 2 Q. All right, sir. Exhibit Number 5 indicates 3 that the Bakelite Corporation Safety Manual. 4 Correct, sir? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. And we were looking - this is Bates 7 number 3061352 through 3061404, correct? Just look 8 at the last page, on the back side, it's a two-sided 9 copy. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Have you had an opportunity to review 12 this document previously? 13 A. I don't recall seeing this before. 14 Q. Okay. As counsel indicated, looking at 15 the -- which would be the third page of this 16 exhibit - Bates number 3061354, this is copyrighted 17 1941 by the Bakelite Corporation, a unit of Union 18 Carbide and Carbon Corporation, correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. Certainly by the time that this 21 document was produced Bakelite Corporation had been 22 acquired by Union Carbide, correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. You started at the company about six years, 25 seven years after this document was published? 1 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 2 Mischaracterizes his testimony. 3 THE WITNESS: I don't recall any 4 information on asbestos at that time. 5 BY MR. GALERSTON: 6 Q. Okay. Sir, if you would look with me at page 7 18 of the safety manual, which is Bates numbered 8 ending in 366, there is a chart. Do you see the 9 chart, sir? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. And there is an indication on the 12 left, there is a column of materials and it says 13 "Poisonous." Do you see that, sir? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. We see Acetic Acid followed by Acetone, 16 Alcohols, Aniline, Arsenic Trioxide, Benzol, Carbon 17 Tetrachloride, Chlorine Gas, Cresol, Dowtherm, Dyes, 18 and Formaldehyde. Correct, sir? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. You will notice an absence of asbestos there. 21 correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Certainly at the time of this document it was 24 not - asbestos was not identified as a poisonous 25 material by Union Carbide? Page 15 Page 17 1 A. Yes. In 1948. 2 Q. Okay. So by the time you started certainly 3 there was a Bakelite Corporation Safety Manual in 4 existence, correct? 5 MR. WOODS: Objection. You may answer. 6 THE WITNESS: I would expect that there 7 would be, yes. 8 BY MR. GALERSTON: 9 Q. Do you remember a safety manual when you went 10 to work there? 11 A. I remember seeing safety manuals, but when I 12 was shown those manuals, I don't recall. 13 Q. Okay. Certainly by the indication one did 14 exist at least in '41 would be indicative to the 15 best of your knowledge that one existed at the time 16 that you started? 17 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. Calls 18 for speculation. 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. 20 BY MR. GALERSTON: 21 Q. I believe you indicated that you are 22 generally not familiar with this document. 23 Do you remember when you started working at 24 Union Carbide what instructions you were given with 25 regards to the hazards associated with asbestos? 1 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 2 Foundation. And calls for speculation. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 BY MR. GALERSTON: 5 Q. You would agree with that statement, sir? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. You can set that one aside, sir. Sir, I am 8 going to hand you what I am marking as Exhibit 9 Number 6, which is a copy of Union Carbide's 10 Bakelite Review dated November 1965, Bates number 11 2207918 through 2207937. 12 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 13 Exhibit No. Martino 6 was marked for 14 Identification.) 15 BY MR. GALERSTON: 16 Q. Bring back some memories, sir? 17 A. I read most of the literature that was 18 circulated at that time. I probably read -- yes. I 19 see an article here that I have seen before. 20 Q. All right, sir. 21 A. Yes, I do recall it. 22 Q. Okay. In 1965 you were working for Union 23 Carbide in the Bakelite Division, correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you know what year Union Carbide started 5 (Pages 14 to 17) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 18 Page 20 1 publishing the Bakelite Review? 2 A. No, I don't. 3 Q. Do you know what the last year was that Union 4 Carbide published the Bakelite Review? 5 A. No, I don't. 6 Q. What was your understanding of the 7 circulation of the Bakelite Review? Was that 8 internal Union Carbide, did this go to customers? 9 What was its circulation? 10 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 11 Foundation. 12 THE WITNESS: It's my understanding it 13 was given to customers, as well as internal 14 circulation. 15 BY MR. GALERSTON: 16 Q. With regards to the Butler case in 1965, if 17 Watertown was a customer, this would be something 18 that would have been circulated to Watertown as a 19 customer of Union Carbide? 20 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. Calls 21 for speculation. 22 THE WITNESS: I don't know how the 23 customers were selected. It was the sales 24 department that would have handled that. 25 Certainly, the large customers would have 1 BY MR. GALERSTON: 2 Q. Okay. Certainly this is not something that 3 you would expect any of Union Carbide's competitors 4 to be publishing, such as General Electric or 5 Reichhold or Westinghouse, correct? 6 A. I would expect that they would have something 7 similar on their own products, but not on ours. 8 Q. And you would not expect them to be sharing 9 their general knowledge with regards to the 10 phenolics and the handling of phenolics, correct? 11 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 12 MR. THACKSTON: Objection. Calls for 13 speculation. 14 THE WITNESS: That, I don't know. I 15 have seen correspondence where there were 16 communications between competitors on 17 handling of asbestos, especially in the 70s. 18 But at what time that started, I don't know. 19 BY MR. GALERSTON: 20 Q. Have you ever seen correspondence between 21 Union Carbide's competitors regarding marketing of 22 their phenolic compounds? 23 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 24 Overbroad. Vague. 25 THE WITNESS: If it was information they Page 19 Page 21 1 gotten copies. 2 BY MR. GALERSTON: 3 Q. Looking at the second page of Exhibit Number 4 6, it says Bakelite Review Contents for October 5 1965. Do you see that, sir? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And then it lists the various articles that 8 are contained in this publication. 9 Do you know, as a general proposition, 10 whether or not these are articles that were written 11 by Union Carbide employees? 12 A. Whether the employees themselves wrote them 13 or not, I don't know. They certainly would have had 14 to contribute to them. 15 Q. Do you know what other type of outside 16 employees would be allowed to prepare articles and 17 submit them for publication in the Bakelite Review? 18 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 19 Foundation. 20 THE WITNESS: We had a department that 21 handled advertising, and I don't know what 22 arrangements they had with outside sources. 23 what they outsourced or what they did 24 in-house. 25 1 distributed to their own customers and the 2 salesperson was able to pick up a copy, they 3 would send it to us. 4 BY MR. GALERSTON: 5 Q. Fair enough. So, if somebody else, if 6 General Electric or Reichhold or whomever had their 7 own similar review the Textolite Review or the 8 Mycarter Review or whatever, you might have been 9 able to get ahold of copies of those? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Specifically, though, have you ever seen 12 correspondence from a competitor directed to Union 13 Carbide regarding the handling or formulations of 14 phenolic compounds? 15 A. I didn't, no. 16 Q. In your review of the repository maintained 17 by Union Carbide with regards to the Bakelite 18 materials, have you seen any Bakelite Reviews that 19 would have instructions to molders such as Watertown 20 as to the safe handling of Union Carbide's phenolic 21 molding compounds? 22 MR. WOODS: Objection. Overbroad. Has 23 he said that he's reviewed them in the 24 repository? 25 THE WITNESS: Not in the Bakelite 6 (Pages 18 to 21) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 22 Page 24 1 Review, no. 2 BY MR. GALERSTON: 3 Q. I am going to hand you a document I have now 4 marked as Exhibit 7 to your deposition. It's a 5 two-page exhibit handwritten. Bates numbers 1731858 6 and 859. 7 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 8 Exhibit No. Martino 7 was marked for 9 Identification.) 10 BY MR. GALERSTON: 11 Q. First off, sir, looking at this document, do 12 you recognize this handwriting? 13 A. No, I do not. 14 Q. Okay. And looking at this document, I do not 15 find anything that gives a date. I wonder if 16 looking at it you can give us an idea of the likely 17 date of this document? 18 MR. WOODS: I will object on foundation 19 grounds, and calls for speculation. 20 THE WITNESS: No. 21 BY MR. GALERSTON: 22 Q. In looking at the prices that are associated 23 with the - excuse me -- not the prices, the amounts 24 that are associated with the production that is 25 reflected on the second page which is RM Purchases 1 A. Well, the handwriting is not the same. So I 2 can't connect the documents. I don't - I don't 3 know if there is a relationship between the two. 4 Q. Okay. And I will represent to you that it's 5 unclear to me that there is a relationship other 6 than that they were found consecutively numbered. 7 You will notice the pages are numbered one right 8 after the other. So my assumption is that the two 9 are related, but I appreciate that your observation 10 that the handwriting is different. I will agree 11 with that. 12 Let me ask you this, sir. Looking at 13 Exhibit 7, it talks about the typical formulations 14 for the blacks, meaning, the black molding 15 compounds, correct? 16 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 17 Foundation. Calls for speculation. 18 Misrepresents what the document says. 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 BY MR. GALERSTON: 21 Q. Looking at the formula that is listed, resin, 22 hexa, lime, nigrosine, coal, carbon black, external 23 lubricators and fillers, you recognize that to be a 24 phenolic compound, correct? 25 A. Yes. Page 23 Page 2 5 1 Thru April, Production, 16 million pounds - do you 2 see that, sir - does that give you an idea of the 3 time frame that this document would have been 4 produced? 5 A. No. 6 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 7 Exhibit No. Martino 8 was marked 8 for Identification.) 9 BY MR. GALERSTON: 10 Q. Let me hand you what I have now marked as 11 Exhibit 8 to your deposition, which is a three-page 12 exhibit, again, handwritten. Bates numbers 1731860 13 through 862. And I would like to you look at that 14 in conjunction with Exhibit Number 7 and see if they 15 appear to be related from the same time frame. 16 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 17 Foundation. Calls for speculation. 18 THE WITNESS: And what was your 19 question? 20 BY MR. GALERSTON: 21 Q. In looking at Exhibit 8 in connection with 22 Exhibit 7, based upon the Assumptions For Future 23 Years and then listing of '72, 73 and 74 on 24 Exhibit 8, does it appear to you that Exhibit 7 25 would have been prepared in, sometime in 71 or 72? 1 Q. And in the listing right below it of the 2 Fillers of the Regular WoodFlour, Asbestos, Hard 3 WoodFlour, Flock, Calcium Carbonate and Sisal, those 4 are you fillers that Union Carbide used to 5 manufacture this and other compounds, correct? 6 A. Those were the largest volume, yes. 7 Q. Okay. And looking at this, we see that 8 according to the ranking of the fillers here it 9 indicates that Regular WoodFlour would be 40 percent 10 of the fillers that were used in making the blacks, 11 correct? 12 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 13 Calls for speculation. Foundation. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. 15 BY MR. GALERSTON: 16 Q. And if I - correct me where I am wrong, we 17 are looking at the top half of the sheet, we see a 18 formulation for a black phenolic compound and 19 fillers take up 40 percent of that compound, 20 correct? 21 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 22 Calls for speculation. Foundation. 23 THE WITNESS: It shows a line fillers 40 24 percent, and that appears to be what they say 25 typical. I don't know - that doesn't imply 7 (Pages 22 to 25) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 2 6 Page 28 1 to me that it was average, but it's typical. 2 BY MR. GALERSTON: 3 Q. Okay. And then below that we see a breakdown 4 of what those fillers would be in a typical black 5 formula, which would be 16 percent of the total 6 would be regular woodflour, 7.8 percent would be 7 asbestos, 6.1 percent would be hard woodflour, 4.9 8 flock, 3.2 percent calcium carbonate, and 2 percent 9 Sisal, correct? 10 A. No. 11 MR. WOODS: Objection. Calls for 12 speculation. Form. Foundation. 13 Mr. Martino, wait until I say my objection 14 before you start talking. Thank you. 15 THE WITNESS: Sure. I'm sorry. Okay. 16 MR. WOODS: Thank you. 17 THE WITNESS: This didn't -- this 18 doesn't mean that every formula contained all 19 of these ingredients. This is a total of 20 what was used to make all of the products. 21 You wouldn't combine, for example, carbon 22 black and anything nigrosine in a black. You 23 would use one or the other. The same applies 24 to the other fdler, you wouldn't put Sisal 25 in all of them. So this represents a total 1 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 2 Foundation. Calls for speculation. 3 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know why it 4 would be for a quarter. It would be for the 5 whole year. 6 BY MR. GALERSTON: 7 Q. It says "Purchases Thru April"? 8 A. Oh, okay. 9 MR. WOODS: Same objection. 10 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11 MR. WOODS: Same objection. 12 BY MR. GALERSTON: 13 Q. So you would agree that would be -- 14 A. That would be-15 Q. - indicative of a quarter? 16 A. - yes. 17 MR. WOODS: Excuse me. Objection to the 18 form. Foundation. Calls for speculation. 19 Beyond the scope of the PMK notice. 20 THE WITNESS: That would be more than a 21 quarter. It would be four months. 22 BY MR. GALERSTON: 23 Q. I appreciate that a third of the year. 24 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 25 Exhibit No. Martino 9 was marked for Page 27 Page 29 1 of everything. 2 BY MR. GALERSTON: 3 Q. Okay. So this would be like - it appears 4 that this seems to be something about a calculation 5 for some sort of budgeting or pricing. Agreed? 6 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 7 Foundation. Calls for speculation. And it's 8 outside the scope of the 30(b)(6), for sure. 9 THE WITNESS: I am not sure whether it 10 would be either budgeting or pricing. 11 BY MR. GALERSTON: 12 Q. Fair enough. 13 A. I can't tell from that. That's -- 14 Q. The second page of Exhibit 7 indicates 15 asbestos use of 1,259 million pounds - no - take 16 that back. 1 million 259 thousand pounds. 17 THE WITNESS: Right. 18 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 19 Foundation. Calls for speculation. Go 20 ahead. Sorry. 21 BY MR. GALERSTON: 22 Q. And looking at that, that would be the amount 23 of asbestos used by Union Carbide for the first 24 quarter of whatever year this is related to, 25 correct? 1 Identification.) 2 BY MR. GALERSTON: 3 Q. I'm handing you now what I've now marked as 4 Exhibit Number 9 to your deposition. It's a 5 two-page memo, Bates numbered 1731980 and 81. This 6 is entitled "Class of Materials Produced." 7 Do you see that, sir? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Are you familiar with this document, sir? 10 A. No, I am not. 11 Q. The second page appears to be an agenda for 12 some meetings that were taking place at the Bound 13 Brook, I should say meetings to discuss the Bound 14 Brook Thermosetting Manufacturing Operations. Would 15 you agree? 16 A. Yes. 17 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 18 Foundation. Calls for speculation. 19 BY MR. GALERSTON: 20 Q. Would there be periodic meetings of 21 management to discuss the operations of Bound Brook 22 and handling of materials? 23 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 24 Vague. Overbroad. ,u2..5... THE WITNESS: There would be periodic 8 (Pages 26 to 29) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 3 0 Page 32 1 meetings with their staff. It's not clear 2 from this document who they would have 3 included in this meeting. 4 BY MR. GALERSTON: 5 Q. Okay. Let me ask you, in looking at page 2 6 we see the introduction of the first day in the 7 morning, introduction by R.E. Graebert, correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Who is Mr. Graebert? 10 A. He was the assistant plant manager in charge 11 of that area. 12 Q. Okay. When you say that area, the 13 thermosetting materials? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And then we see that the business section of 16 the meeting was going to be handled by A.R. Grover. 17 Who is Mr. Grover? 18 A. He was the department head. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Now this is a manufacturing document. So it 21 doesn't -- Graebert was not in charge of the entire 22 business, only the manufacturing operation. 23 Q. So he ran the plant? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. He wasn't responsible for the sales and 1 customers, is that correct? 2 A. That is correct. 3 Q. Here it lists that for the General Purpose 4 the primary fdler would be woodflour fdler, 5 correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 8 Foundation. Calls for speculation. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 BY MR. GALERSTON: 11 Q. That's consistent with your understanding of 12 the formulation of General Purpose, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. In addition to the woodflour, though, there 15 was asbestos used as an additional filler, correct? 16 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 17 Excuse me. 18 THE WITNESS: Not at all19 MR. WOODS: I am sorry. Excuse me. 20 Vague and ambiguous. 21 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 22 MR. WOODS: Go ahead. 23 THE WITNESS: No, not all our General 24 Purpose products contained asbestos. The 25 largest volume did not. Page 31 Page 33 1 marketing? 2 A. That's right. 3 Q. Turning back to the first page of the 4 document, we see listings of the Prime Materials 5 under Roman numeral I. Then resins under number II, 6 and then Roman III, the molding materials, which is 7 what you get when you take the resins and you add 8 the fillers and you grind it up and then you get the 9 molding materials which you sell to customers like 10 Watertown, correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And here, this appears to be just a general 13 document, it says there is basically four types of 14 molding materials that Union Carbide was selling at 15 this time, the General Purpose, Impact, 16 Heat-Resistant and Specialties, correct? 17 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 18 Foundation. Calls for speculation. 19 THE WITNESS: That would cover most of 20 it, yes. 21 BY MR. GALERSTON: 22 Q. Okay. Certainly General Purpose, Impact, and 23 Heat-Resistant was the major areas of distinction, 24 and then the Specialties would cover any and all 25 other oddballs that would have been requested by 1 BY MR. GALERSTON: 2 Q. A portion of the General Purpose 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. -- formulations did, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. The same with the Impact, there was a portion 7 of the Impact formulations that would have cotton 8 flock as well as asbestos, correct? 9 A. No, not under that category. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. If it did have asbestos, it would probably be 12 under the Heat-Resistant category. 13 Q. Well, then certainly under the Heat-Resistant 14 category the primary fdler that was used in the 15 Heat-Resistant categories would have been asbestos? 16 A. Yeah, and with cotton flock at that point. 17 Q. Okay. Sir I'm going to handing what I'm 18 marking as Exhibit Number 10 to your deposition, 19 which is a document that you and I have discussed in 20 part before. 21 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 22 Exhibit No. Martino 10 was marked for 23 Identification.) 24 BY MR. GALERSTON: 25 Q. Exhibit Number 10 Bates numbered 2207525 9 (Pages 30 to 33) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 34 Page 36 | 1 through 2207583, and on the cover it says, "Phenolic 2 Coating Resins Raw Materials Specifications, Union 3 Carbide, Bound Brook, New Jersey," correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. I believe in the past you and I have talked 6 about portions of this document, but this is the 7 first time I've found it in its entirety. 8 Are you familiar with this document, sir, 9 Exhibit 10? 10 A. This looks like the raw material code book, 11 but it was issued by the coating resins, which I was 12 not a part of. I did see the code books. 13 Q. All right. Were the code books different for 14 each group? 15 A. No. The code book applied to all the 16 businesses. It's -- you know, different businesses 17 would focus on some raw materials more than others. 18 Q. Right. So, some of the materials that are 19 listed in here would be used by some divisions and 20 not by other divisions? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. Asbestos is treated under - if we 23 look, I believe, on the second page we have an 24 alphabetical index, and if we look at asbestos we 25 find that it is listed on page 18, or I should say 1 Q. And there on page 539 we see 18 dash 2 asbestos. Then we see a listing of about eight 3 different grades of asbestos, correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. The first five are identified as floats, 6 asbestos fibres grades, and there is provided by 7 various asbestos suppliers such as Asbestos Fibre 8 Distributors, Lake Asbestos, Johns-Manville, 9 Asbestos Corporation, correct, sir? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Then we see the last three which are code 12 numbers 18239, 18249, and 18259 which are Union 13 Carbide asbestos, correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. Asbestos RG-101-UCC, are you familiar 16 with that material, sir? 17 A. I do not recall whether that was their 18 Calidria floats or not. I would have to go back in 19 the records to look at RG-101 as to whether that is 20 what it was. 21 Q. Sir, in looking here at this guide, it does 22 not indicate that is Calidria asbestos, does it? 23 A. No. 24 Q. We see that 18249 is Calidria Asbestos 25 Grade-SG-200, correct? Page 35 Page 37 1 section 18. 2 MR. WOODS: What page are you looking at 3 of the document? 4 MR. GALERSTON: The second page of the 5 document. It's page 1, alphabetical index. 6 BY MR. GALERSTON: 7 Q. Do you see asbestos is listed in the second 8 column? 9 MR. WOODS: Carlo, you are not looking 10 on the same page. 11 THE WITNESS: Page 18? 12 MR. WOODS: Well, no. The second page 13 of the document. 14 BY MR. GALERSTON: 15 Q. I'm just looking at the index. 16 A. Oh, okay. 17 Q. Looking at the alphabetical index and we go 18 down to asbestos, we see it's listed under 18? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. 18 is a code number for asbestos, correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. So then we don't necessarily go to 23 page 18 to look at asbestos, we go to section 18 24 which we find on Bates number 539. 25 A. Yes. 1 A. Yes. J 2 Q. Thisis pelletized? 3 A. Yes. j J 4 Q. Andthen we see18259 Calidria Asbestos Grade j 5 SG-200X, pelletized, correct? ' 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Those are the -- that Calidria asbestos, 8 those are the pelletized ones with the type of 9 asbestos that you experimented with in trying to 1 10 revise Union Carbide's asbestos content in its 11 phenolic compounds, correct? j J 12 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. j 13 Mischaracterizes the testimony. | 14 THE WITNESS: Initially, I worked with ` 15 the floats and substitute the nonpelletized 16 asbestos for, substitute what we were buying 17 from Carey Mines with Calidria type, I think 18 that was in '66. And I think from previous 19 testimony I said that I did not approve it. | 20 The pelleted products came later when we were j 21 trying to reduce asbestos exposure in our own I 22 facilities and go to bulk handling of j 23 asbestos. I 24 BY MR. GALERSTON: J 25 Q. Okay. Was there a separate group at Union________ > 10 (Pages 34 to 37) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 3 8 Page 40 1 Carbide that was responsible for keeping this raw 2 material specifications list? 3 A. I don't know if it was a group, but there was 4 a person that was responsible. 5 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 6 Exhibit No. Martino 11 was marked 7 for Identification.) 8 BY MR. GALERSTON: 9 Q. All right, sir. I'm going to hand you what I 10 have marked as Exhibit No. 11 to your deposition. 11 Exhibit 11 is Bates number 2207412 through 2207422, 12 October 3rd, 1969, Union Carbide internal 13 correspondence. 14 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 15 Exhibit No. Martino 11 was marked for 16 Identification.) 17 BY MR. GALERSTON: 18 Q. Sir, are you familiar with this document? 19 A. I am not on the distribution list, so I 20 probably did not see this. 21 Q. All right, sir. In looking at the 22 distribution list, do you see anybody who is on that 23 list who would have been working in Bound Brook in 24 the phenolic molding compounds area? 25 A. Only two people listed for Bound Brook. Ed 1 the organization who he reported to, whether it was 2 manufacturing or some other function. 3 Q. Okay. Looking at the second page of this 4 document, Bates number 2207413, we see after 5 discussion of various areas and issues regarded to 6 labeling we see item number 9. Do you see that, 7 sir? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Item 9 says, "Asbestos is known to cause the 10 disease asbestosis and is believed by some to cause 11 cancer. Thus, all packages must bear the following 12 label. Warning: Breathing dust may be harmful. Do 13 not breathe dust." Do you see that, sir? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. In 1969, were you aware that Union Carbide 16 was aware that asbestos was known to cause 17 asbestosis? 18 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. I note 19 that you have asked him those questions 20 before as well as to when Union Carbide knew 21 about the hazards of asbestos. We are not 22 offering him as a 30(b)(6) witness or a 23 corporate representative on that topic today. 24 You have done it in the past. 25 MR. GALERSTON: Fair enough. I have not Page 3 9 Page 41 1 Haine and Ackart. 2 Q. Who is Mr. Ed Haine? 3 A. What was the question? 4 Q. Who is he? What was his position with Union 5 Carbide? 6 A. He was in management in manufacturing, what 7 his title was at this particular time, I don't know, 8 '69. 9 Q. When you say manufacturing, you meaning 10 manufacturing of phenolic compounds, correct? 11 A. No. He was in the front office. So, he was 12 more, when I first met him he was responsible for 13 new hires. But in '69,1 don't know what his 14 position was. 15 Q. And how about William Ackart? 16 A. I don't know what his title was. 17 Q. Did you work with Mr. Ackart? 18 A. No, I don't recall directly working with him. 19 Q. Okay. Did the phenolic compound division 20 have people who sat on the group labelling committee 21 at any time? 22 A. Don Gould, I see he is secretary of the 23 group. So, he was involved in labeling committee. 24 He was in Bound Brook. He was not -- he was located 25 in the manufacturing area, but I don't know within 1 asked him with regards to this statement or 2 this document previously. 3 BY MR. GALERSTON: 4 Q. So I repeat my question. Were you aware that 5 the group one labelling committee of Union Carbide 6 was discussing the fact that asbestosis was caused 7 by asbestos? 8 A. Not this particular, not that it caused 9 asbestosis. I was aware from other sources that 10 asbestos, raw asbestos could be a problem. 11 Q. Do you recall any correspondence or 12 information that was circulated in the phenolic 13 molding compound group warning of the hazards 14 associated with the asbestos such as it's listed 15 here? 16 A. I saw a document issued by Safety in New York 17 to manufacturing in one of my recent depositions. 18 No. It was in a document written by the department 19 head of manufacturing to his people notifying them 20 that a survey of, an audit of the manufacturing area 21 would be made to determine whether asbestos was a 22 hazard in the plant or not. That would have been 23 around '68, '67. 24 Q. All right, sir. 25 A. But I saw that in a recent deposition. It 11 (Pages 38 to 41) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 42 Page 44 1 was a manufacturing document. 2 Q. I hand you what I am now marking as Exhibit 3 12 to your deposition which is another group one 4 labelling committee activity report. 5 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 6 Exhibit No. Martino 12 was marked for 7 Identification.) 8 BY MR. GALERSTON: 9 Q. It's dated January 28, 1970, Bates number 10 2207428 through 2207432. 11 Are you familiar with this document, sir? 12 A. I am not on the distribution, so I did not 13 see it. And I don't recall seeing it until now. 14 Q. Okay. In looking at this document, we see 15 that the phenolic resins operations team members 16 were included in this meeting, that being 17 Mr. E. Bell, Mr. R. H. Bruce, and Mr. R.E. 18 Nicholson, correct? 19 A. Where do you read that? 20 Q. Right there. 21 A. Okay. I see. 22 Q. Do you see those names, sir? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Are you familiar with those gentlemen? 25 A. Yes. 1 and no freight markings, all of which are legally 2 required." 3 Do you see that, sir? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Do you recall that there was discussions in 6 the early '70s with regard to the marking of the 7 phenolic resins when they are being shipped? 8 A. Yes. 9 MR. WOODS: I am going to object to the 10 form of the question. Just to clarify, 11 Mr. Martino is here to talk about molding 12 compounds. This is resins. And there is a 13 difference. So I just want to object. Go 14 ahead. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is resin. It 16 had no asbestos in it. 17 BY MR. GALERSTON: 18 Q. There was no indication that there was an 19 asbestos issue here, was there? 20 A. No, there was not. 21 Q. On the second page of the Exhibit Number 12, 22 continues to discuss the Calidria bags. Do you see 23 third paragraph, it says "Calidria" asbestos bags? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Calidria Asbestos bags with the new print Page 43 Page 45 1 Q. They were members of the phenolic resins 2 operations team, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. To the best of your knowledge, was this the 5 first time that the phenolic group had somebody 6 meeting with the group on labelling committee? 7 MR. WOODS: Objection. Foundation. 8 Calls for speculation. Beyond the scope. 9 THE WITNESS: That, I don't know. 10 BY MR. GALERSTON: 11 Q. Under area Number 1 the UCC Label Omission or 12 Alterations section, the second paragraph starts 13 off, "Members of Operation Team 60 Phenolic Resins 14 attended this meeting." 15 Do you see that, sir? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you know what Team 60 is? 18 A. No. 19 Q. That sentence goes on to say that the 20 Phenolic Resins Team attended the meeting to further 21 consider continuation of the practice of shipping 22 phenolic resins in unmarked multiwall bags. 23 Shipments are made to Square-D, Fiberite, Cinch and 24 export customers with no warning of potential 25 irritation hazard, no weight markings, no UCC name, 1 format showing the warning, "Breathing dust may be 2 harmful. Do not breathe dust" were shown. This is 3 a direct result of the Group I Label Committee's 4 effort to include all legally required warnings." 5 This is a continuation of that same warning 6 that we saw on Exhibit 11, correct? 7 MR. WOODS: You mean that is the same 8 language? 9 MR. GALERSTON: Yes. 10 THE WITNESS: I am not sure there is 11 that connection. Calidria would have been 12 handling its own labeling and 13 BY MR. GALERSTON: 14 Q. Certainly 19 15 A. You know, I don't see where the labeling 16 committee would have anything to do with what 17 Calidria did. 18 Q. Well, Calidria was a unit of Union Carbide, 19 correct? 20 MR. WOODS: Objection. Foundation. 21 Beyond the scope. 22 THE WITNESS: It was a separate 23 division. 24 BY MR. GALERSTON: 25 Q. Group I Labeling Committee was for the entire 12 (Pages 42 to 45) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 46 1 company, was it not? 2 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 3 Foundation. Calls for speculation. 4 TFfE WITNESS: A lot of locations are 5 included here. I don't know just what the 6 jurisdiction of the labeling committee was, 7 whether it crossed over or not. 8 BY MR. GALERSTON: 9 Q. All right. 10 A. Whether they had their own labeling committee 11 in Calidria. 12 Q. We look at the last page of Exhibit Number 13 12, we see a new name added for Bound Brook. We saw 14 Mr. Ackart, Mr. Haine. Now Mr. E. Bell is included 15 on the distribution list for Bound Brook. Who is 16 Mr. E. Bell? 17 A. I knew him, but I don't know what his title 18 was at that time. 19 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 20 Exhibit No. Martino 13 was marked for 21 Identification.) 22 BY MR. GALERSTON: 23 Q. I hand you what I've marked as Exhibit 13 to 24 your deposition. This is a March 26, 1971 memo 25 Bates numbered 1732118 and 2119 regarding Molding Page 48 | 1 before, which was reported to the - to Congress as 2 being the crocidolite-containing compound, correct? 3 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 4 Mischaracterizes prior testimony. 5 THE WITNESS: No. That - we thought 6 and I thought that it did contain the 7 crocidolite asbestos, but we checked the 8 records several years ago and went back on 9 5250, back to 1950, and could not show that 10 it was crocidolite. It was the long fiber 11 Vermont, I think Lake Asbestos Fibre that had 12 which is chrysosele not crocidolite. 13 BY MR. GALERSTON: 14 Q. Well, the BMZ 5250 is the material that was 15 reported by Union Carbide in the Federal Register as 16 containing crocidolite, correct? 17 A. Yes. I18 MR. WOODS: Objection. 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, but I cannot support 20 that because, you know, the records don't 21 where they got that information, I don't 22 know. 23 BY MR. GALERSTON: 24 Q. Right. No. No. And I recognize that, and 25 we talked about that before that you've investigated * I * f 1 Page 47 Page 4 1 Material Production Improvement Program. Do you see 2 that, sir? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Are you familiar with this document, sir? 5 A. I was on the distribution, so I must have 6 seen it at the time. 7 Q. This is a memo from Mr. Graebert to 8 Mr. Albright, Grover, Martino, Potter, Stringer and 9 Thompson, correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. This was - there is numerous documents like 12 this in the repository about these various group 13 meetings and the memos that were generated by them, 14 correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 MR. WOODS: Objection. Vague. 17 Overbroad. 18 BY MR. GALERSTON: 19 Q. I draw your attention to this document, sir, 20 under Section 4 Asbestos. In 1971, it says, "All 21 standard black products are consolidated. Some 22 additional work will be required to eliminate 23 several special products. We will attempt to 24 discontinue BMZ 5250." 25 BMZ 5250 is the formulation that we discussed 1 and you do not believe that the BMZ 5250 contained 2 chrysotile - I mean crocidolite - excuse me. 3 Do you remember why the BMZ 5250, which I 4 understand was a black phenolic, was not rolled into 5 the other black products which had been consolidated 6 at this time? 7 A. It was - well, it wasn't just black. It 8 could be also natural. But, it was made by an 9 entirely different process. It did not go through 10 the raw mill process that we made most of our 11 products on. It was a bone-milled mixture of 12 asbestos fiber and resin and a very labor-intensive 13 and dusty operation. Manufacturing been trying to 14 get rid of it, you know, for years. It would not be 15 in a pelleted or granulated form. 16 Q. What form would it be in? 17 A. It would be like a fluffy, you know, like 18 insulation. 19 Q. All right, sir. I am going to hand you what 20 I've now marked as Exhibit 14 to your deposition. 21 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 22 Exhibit No. Martino 14 was marked for 23 Identification.) 24 BY MR. GALERSTON: til Q. This is January 3rd, 1972 memo from I l % j 13 (Pages 46 to 49) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 50 Page 52 1 Mr. Albright, Bates numbered 1733899 to 3900. 2 Are you familiar with this document, sir? 3 A. I am on the distribution, so I probably ~ I 4 did probably see it at the time. 5 Q. Okay. I believe you and I have previously 6 discussed page 2 of this document. I don't believe 7 I had the full document last time we talked about 8 this. This appears to be a memo discussing the 9 manufacturing of asbestos-containing phenolics on a 10 going-forward basis, and indicating that they should 11 be manufactured on the C line as opposed to A and B 12 because of the dust protection equipment, correct? 13 MR. WOODS: Objection. The document 14 speaks for itself. 15 THE WITNESS: Well, all the lines had 16 good dust protection equipment, but the goal 17 at this time was to put it all on one unit so 18 that that unit could be further upgraded and 19 the use of raw asbestos could be isolated to 20 just one unit. 21 BY MR. GALERSTON: 22 Q. Okay. In looking at the list that is on page 23 2 of Exhibit 14, we see several product lines that 24 are to be manufactured only on unit C, correct? 25 A. Let's see. 1 A. Which is that? 2 Q. 7009 and 7002, in addition to 7000? 3 A. Well, since they were made on A also, they 4 would not contain asbestos, right. 5 Q. Right. 6 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 7 Exhibit No. Martino 15 was marked for 8 Identification.) 9 BY MR. GALERSTON: 10 Q. All right, sir, I hand you what I have marked 11 as 15, a single page memo dated March 30, 1972, 12 Bates No. 1733966, subject matter asbestos. 13 Have you reviewed this document before, sir? 14 A. What was your question? 15 Q. Have you reviewed this document before, sir? 16 A. I am not on the distribution list, and 17 Q. So you were not copied with the document at 18 the time of its creation. Have you had an 19 opportunity to review it since then in connection 20 with litigation? 21 MR. WOODS: Obviously, Mr. Martino has 22 seen a lot of documents. So, I mean if he 23 remembers. 24 THE WITNESS: No, I don't recall seeing 25 this before. Page 51 Page 53 1 Q. Such as BMMC-2035? 2 A. As I read it in the third paragraph, they 3 were putting low concentration asbestos formulas on 4 B, none on A, and the rest on C. 5 Q. So, in looking at Exhibit 2,1 mean page 2 of 6 Exhibit 14, if it was being made on unit A that 7 would indicate that it was non-asbestos, correct? 8 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 9 Foundation. Mischaracterizes his testimony. 10 The document speaks for itself. 11 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 12 BY MR. GALERSTON: 13 Q. Those that are being manufactured on C, on B 14 and C, may contain asbestos, correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. In looking at this list, would you agree with 17 me that the majority of the products that are being 18 manufactured on B and C are asbestos-containing? 19 A. No BMG-5000 and BMM-5000 are large volume 20 woodflour-filled materials, and they are shown on B. 21 BMM-700Q and 7002 are also large volume 22 woodflour-filled materials and they were on B and C. 23 Q. But 7009 and 7002, since they are being 24 manufactured on A as well would be indicative that 25 they are not asbestos-containing? 1 BY MR. GALERSTON: 2 Q. Okay. I will represent to you that you and I 3 have not discussed this document before. Remind me 4 who Mr. Albright is? 5 A. He was the department head for the - of the 6 phenolic molding material manufacturing unit. 7 Q. In 1972, what was your position under 8 Mr. Albright? 9 A. What was? 10 Q. What was your position? 11 A. I was in Research and Development. He was in 12 Manufacturing. I was the group manager of the R&D 13 group. 14 Q. And who did you report to? 15 A. Who did I report to? 16 Q. Yes, sir. 17 A. To an associate director in Research and 18 Development. 19 Q. What was his name? 20 MR. WOODS: What time frame are we 21 talking about here? 22 MR. GALERSTON: 1972. The time of the 23 document. 24 A. I had so many supervisors. 25 Q. Well, let me ask it this way. Did you report 14 (Pages 50 to 53) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 54 Page 56 1 to anybody who was copied on this memo? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Do you recognize the names of the people that 4 this memo was directed to? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Who do you recognize? 7 A. Graebert. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. In 72,1 believe he was in New York in 10 charge of safety. Schillinger I remember also, he 11 used to be in the business. I don't know what his 12 title was at that time. The letter was addressed 13 to - I don't know all of them, but some I recognize 14 as foremen in the manufacturing area. 15 Q. So, to the best of your knowledge, this was a 16 document that was distributed in the phenolic 17 molding compounds manufacturing facility? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And the copies to Mr. Graebert and 20 Schillinger in the safety department? 21 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 22 THE WITNESS: Graebert would have been 23 safety, yes. 24 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 25 Exhibit No. Martino 15 was marked 1 is? 2 A. That would be the phenolic molding material 3 department. 4 Q. So this is a file that is related to the 5 manufacturer of the phenolic compounds that people 6 like you in R&D were developing, correct? 7 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 8 Foundation. He already said he hasn't seen 9 the document before. So, you are asking him 10 to speculate about what the document means. 11 MR. GALERSTON: I believe I was asking 12 about Department 014-4. 13 MR. WOODS: You said these 14 MR. GALERSTON: He said to Department 15 014-4 16 MR. WOODS: I thought you said these 17 would be - referring to the files that were 18 attach, these would be. 19 MR. GALERSTON: No. No. I was talking 20 about his work in R&D in relationship to the 21 individuals that are in 14-4. 22 BY MR. GALERSTON: 23 Q. And if I understand you correctly, R&D would 24 develop the compounds pursuant to either Union 25 Carbide's desires or a customer's requests, and then Page 5 5 Page 57 1 for Identification.) 2 BY MR. GALERSTON: 3 Q. Okay. The memo, the letter, Exhibit Number 4 15, says that, "Attached is my file on asbestos and 5 general dust measurements in Department 014-4." 6 I will represent to you that, of course, in 7 the file there's no attachments to it. 8 Have you ever seen any attachments that have 9 been circulated in Union Carbide communicating the 10 hazards of asbestos and general dust to the phenolic 11 molding manufacturers? 12 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 13 Foundation. Vague and ambiguous. 14 THE WITNESS: I don't know. Circulated 15 to the what? 16 BY MR. GALERSTON: 17 Q. To the individuals here. I am looking at -- 18 have you ever seen attachments that you believe 19 would have been associated with this memo? 20 A. No, I haven't. 21 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 22 Foundation. 23 BY MR. GALERSTON: 24 Q. Okay. And it makes reference here to 25 Department 014-4. Do you know what that department 1 14-4 would then manufacture them and ship them? 2 A. If they became commercial, yes. 3 Q. The second paragraph discusses that reference 4 to the attachment. He says, "These are my only 5 copies. Do not let them out of your sight. Do not 6 show them to the wage people, but thoroughly 7 acquaint yourself with this information so you can 8 intelligently handle questions. Do not schedule 9 group sessions to cover this subject. Do answer 10 questions to the best of your ability on an 11 individual basis." 12 Did I read that correctly, sir? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did anybody ever discuss with you the hazards 15 associated with asbestos in the form that is being 16 described here on a one-to-one basis in 1972? 17 A. I was aware of some of the testing that Dale 18 was doing in the manufacturing department and was 19 aware of some of the results they were getting at 20 different points. I have seen some correspondence 21 with regards to those results in some of the 22 documents in previous depositions. 23 Q. But in 1972, did anybody sit down and discuss 24 with you on a one-on-one basis the hazards of 25 asbestos? 15 (Pages 54 to 57) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 58 Page 60 1 A. Well, by that time we knew what they were. 2 Q. Am I correct in understanding that no one sat 3 down and talked with you about the hazards of 4 asbestos? 5 MR. WOODS: In 1972 or6 MR. GALERSTON: Right. 7 THE WITNESS: It's difficult to give you 8 an answer on that one. That was when we were 9 deciding to put labels on our bags. So, you 10 know, whether anybody - by that time we knew 11 what the hazards were. Whether somebody sat 12 down with me at some point in the past and 13 passed the information on or not, I don't 14 recall. 15 BY MR. GALERSTON: 16 Q. Let me hand you what I have now marked as 17 Exhibit 16 to your deposition. 18 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 19 Exhibit No. Martino 16 was marked for 20 Identification.) 21 BY MR. GALERSTON: 22 Q. This is a two-page exhibit Bates numbered 23 1732553 and 554. The cover memo dated June 21, 24 1972, and a draft letter attached to the cover memo 25 is from Mr. Schillinger. Are you familiar with this 1 A. No. It was a different building. 2 Q. Is this the rolling mill? 3 A. It was the same type of process, yes. 4 Q. Was it the BMZ-5250 manufactured on this 5 unit? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Similar process, but different unit? 8 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 9 THE WITNESS: Different process and 10 different unit. 11 MR. WOODS: Take a break? 12 MR. GALERSTON: Let's take a break. 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's now 10:36. We 14 are going off the video record. This 15 concludes tape number one in the video 16 deposition of Carlo Martino. 17 (Recess from 10:36 to 10:50.) 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the video 19 record. It's now 10:50. This begins tape 20 number two in the videotaped deposition of 21 Carlo Martino. 22 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 23 Exhibit No. Martino 17 was marked 24 for Identification.) 25 Page 59 Page 61 1 document, sir? 2 A. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. 3 Q. Okay. Look at the - I'm sorry. If you 4 would look at the second page, you are talking about 5 a memo that was being sent out to employees earlier 6 about asbestos. This is a draft of a memo that was 7 being sent out to some of the employees with regards 8 to exposure to asbestos while producing BMGA-3700, 9 BMGB-5418. This is not the memo that you recalled 10 earlier? 11 A. This is not what? 12 Q. You talked about a memo that went out to 13 employees earlier about hazards associated with 14 asbestos. Do you recall that? 15 A. This is not it, no. 16 Q. This is not it. Okay. 17 Are you familiar at all with Exhibit 16? 18 A. I am aware that they had problems meeting 19 OSHA limits in that small unit, and was aware that 20 the plan was to shut that unit down. 21 Q. Okay. R-1 is dearly different by 22 designation from units A, B and C, correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And was it housed in the same facility, same 25 building? 1 BY MR. GALERSTON: 2 Q. All right, sir, I have handed you what I have 3 marked as Exhibit 17 to your deposition. This is 4 Bates number 1733763 through 765. December 22, 1972 5 internal memo from Mr. Albright, and I believe it 6 indicates that you are copied on this, and the 7 subject matter is asbestos filler used in the 8 phenolic molding compounds. Correct, sir? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Are you familiar with this exhibit, sir? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. November 22, 1972, this is a - this memo is 13 dated shortly after General Electric had announced 14 that it was going to go to asbestos-free phenolic 15 compounds, correct? 16 A. I don't recall the exact date. It's about 17 that time, yes. 18 Q. Well, we see referenced - in the first 19 paragraph there is a reference that 20 A. Oh, yes. 21 Q. - recent activities by General Electric in 22 the marketplace have directly and indirectly 23 affected our, meaning, Union Carbide's ability to 24 proceed in a timely manner with our bulk handling 25 project. 16 (Pages 58 to 61) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 62 Page 64 1 That's a reference to GE's announcement to 2 going asbestos-free, is it not? 3 A. Yes, it is. 4 Q. Okay. So, this is a time period that I 5 believe that you specifically were tasked with the 6 responsibility of evaluating a new bulk handling 7 process for asbestos in the manufacturing of 8 phenolic compounds, correct? 9 A. I wasn't, but the manufacturing group took on 10 that responsibility. 11 Q. Okay. 12 MR. WOODS: I think you've covered that 13 in prior depositions. 14 BY MR. GALERSTON: 15 Q. Just so I'm clear, the bulk handling was 16 being handled by manufacturing, you were responsible 17 for evaluating the use of Calidria? 18 A. If it was to be used in a product as a 19 substitute, yes. 20 Q. Okay. In looking at this memo, it discussed, 21 as we read in the first part of the paragraph, is 22 that there is changes in the marketplace, and the 23 question as to what effect the General Electric 24 decision was going to have on the bulk handling 25 which we just talked about. Under Background, the 1 Q. Okay. So the, 2 (a) says "Remove asbestos 2 from all low concentration formulas." And that's 3 what I think we talked about before where asbestos 4 was used as a filler in conjunction with other 5 fillers? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And then (b) says, "Discontinue the concept 8 of a commodity heat resistant compound (6935)." 9 What does that mean, sir? 10 MR. WOODS: If you know. 11 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that we had 12 a commodity heat resistant compound. 13 BY MR. GALERSTON: 14 Q. Does "6935" mean anything to you? 15 A. Yes. That was an asbestos-containing 16 product, but I don't recall that we were going to 17 focus on just that one. 18 Q. When you say focus on, you mean focus on 19 discontinuing it? 20 A. No. On the concept. I didn't recall that we 21 ever agreed that we were going to have a commodity 22 heat resistant compound. 23 Q. At the time of this memo, November 22, 1972, 24 Union Carbide had not begun placing warnings with 25 regards to asbestos on its phenolic compound bags, Page 63 Page 65 1 second area it says the "use of asbestos." Do you 2 see that, sir? 3 A. Um-mm. 4 Q. Background number 2? 5 A. Oh, 2." Only the use of asbestos"? 6 Q. Correct. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So, as of November 22, 1972, the plan was for 9 Union Carbide to, quote, only use asbestos in 10 heat-resistant products 2035, 5303 and 5418, and 11 their cross-over numbers, correct, sir? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And when we say the cross-over numbers, that 14 means the different formulations which would be 15 for - I should say the different compounds, if it 16 was for an injection molding versus heat transfer? 17 A. In some cases, there would be a different 18 number as well. That is usually what a cross-over 19 number is. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. I don't, for these specific products, I don't 22 recall what the cross-over numbers were, though. 23 Q. Well 24 A. But, you know, it would be same class of 25 material. 1 correct? 2 A. This date coincides with the time I was asked 3 to determine whether there was any problem with the 4 use of the finish compound. 5 Q. And you did the testing with regards to the 6 drilling and the sanding of the finished product, 7 correct? 8 A. Well, no. This was when I was asked to 9 determine whether the granular product itself was 10 safe, and that's when I had the bags dumped under 11 the extreme conditions. 12 Q. Okay. So, the other testing was done even 13 later? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Where you actually had to cut and drill the 16 phenolic compound? 17 A. Oh that test, that was probably done before. 18 How much before, I don't recall, but it was before 19 this. 20 Q. Okay. I apologize. I had that in my mind 21 backwards. So you did the cutting and drilling of 22 the finished, hardened phenolic compounds first 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. - to determine whether asbestos fibers would 25 be released? 17 (Pages 62 to 65) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 6 6 Page 68 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And then subsequent to that, you studied, if 3 I understand it, for the first time whether or not 4 the molders who were handling the granulated product 5 would be exposed to asbestos? 6 A. Yes. We did run one test, as I recall, prior 7 to that in our own laboratory where we poured a bag 8 of material onto a preformer to determine whether it 9 was safe for our own people in the area, and then it 10 turned out it was. 11 Q. The second page of this memo, number 4, it 12 talks about under Internal Problems, which is in the 13 phenolic molding area, number 4 is with asbestos. 14 Could you read that for us, that paragraph? 15 A. "Asbestos is harmful and the public is aware 16 of it. Even meeting the letter of the law can 17 result in residual emotional problems on the part of 18 the wage people. These problems can become real 19 problems, e.g., our agreement to supply disposable 20 coveralls (at a cost to us) even though by law we 21 don't have to do it." 22 Q. Certainly by this time, by its own admission, 23 Union Carbide's phenolic compound division is aware 24 of the hazards associated with asbestos? 25 A. Yes. 1 correct? 2 A. Yes. Well, some of the heat resistant 3 formulas contained less than 15 percent asbestos, 4 and those I think we eliminated the asbestos 5 altogether, but the higher ones, 5303, that was more 6 difficult. 7 Q. And, sir, I want to ask you to turn to the 8 third page of this exhibit. Mr. Albright is writing 9 this under the section see it says, "some 10 alternatives" on the third page? 11 A. The third page? 12 Q. Yes. See right there it says "some 13 alternatives"? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Like you said Number 1, "Find a substitute 16 for asbestos." 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Ongoing efforts. Then it says Number 2, it 19 says, "Discontinue manufacturing of all products 20 containing asbestos"? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. "(60 percent of current product mix)," 23 correct, sir? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So in 19 - November of 1972, 60 percent of Page 67 Page 69 1 Q. By this time Union Carbide had shifted some 2 of the production to the more advanced ventilation 3 units to prevent exposure to asbestos to its own 4 personnel, correct? 5 A. It had started, but we were also removing 6 asbestos. We started removing asbestos in 1970. 7 So, the quantity of asbestos-containing products 8 that we had in 72 was reduced. So, the original 9 plan to move the material to unit C was changed to a 10 plan to move it to unit B, which made lesser 11 quantities. 12 Q. Well, certainly, even though the process may 13 have started as early as 1970, here in November of 14 1972 we see from the memorandum on the first page 15 that it's still an effort to discontinue all the low 16 concentration formulas, correct? 17 A. Yes. Yes. 18 Q. So it's an ongoing process even still in 19 1972? 20 A. Yes. And the goal also was to eliminate, if 21 possible, the asbestos in the high asbestos 22 products, and we did succeed in reducing the amount 23 in 5303. 24 Q. And when we talk about the high asbestos 25 content, those were the heat resistant formulas, 1 Union Carbide's phenolic resins contained some 2 asbestos, correct? 3 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 4 THE WITNESS: Sixty percent, I don't 5 know how Dale came up with that figure. He 6 probably counted formulations and not pounds. 7 When I come up with a figure, it's the pounds 8 produced. You can count a product that you 9 sell a thousand pounds of as part of that 60 10 percent and then that skews your figures. We 11 were never, in terms of pounds, we were never 12 that high. 13 BY MR. GALERSTON: 14 Q. Okay. I draw your attention back to the 15 second page. At the bottom it talks about External 16 Problems. Do you see that, sir? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Number 1 it says, "Question: Do our 19 customers come under the OSHA regulations?" 20 When Union Carbide is talking about their 21 customers, they are talking about molders, correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you know did Union Carbide ever answer 24 that question? 25 MR. WOODS: I just want to make clear 18 (Pages 66 to 69) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 7 0 Page 72 1 that is beyond what we were offering him for 2 here today with the 30(b)(6) notice. So, if 3 he knows out of his personal capacity. 4 THE WITNESS: I am aware that 5 customers -- the question do they come under 6 the OSHA regulation, I don't know why Dale 7 would ask that question. They certainly do. 8 BY MR. GALERSTON: 9 Q. Okay. Do you believe you felt that way in 10 1972? 11 MR. WOODS: I don't know if he was done 12 answering the last question. 13 Q. Certainly. I apologize if I interrupted you. 14 MR. WOODS: Were you done answering the 15 last question? 16 THE WITNESS: Was I? 17 MR. WOODS: Were you finished answering 18 the last question? You were still umming, 19 so. 20 THE WITNESS: The OSHA regulations 21 introduced before this, and I was getting 22 inquiries from the sales department, you 23 know, as to what the testing that we were 24 doing within our department to meet those 25 regulations. So our customers were aware of 1 We also did not determine whether or not the 2 asbestos was modified by the phenolic resin. We 3 expect it would have been because there is a bonding 4 between phenolic resin and asbestos. So it could 5 still be a bound asbestos even though it was in 6 fiber form. But based on those results the decision 7 was made to put labels on all bags whether it was 8 less than 15 percent or not. 9 Q. Okay. And that's the following question here 10 under External Problems it says, "Must we apply 11 warning labels to containers of finished products?" 12 If I understand you correctly, the answer 13 based upon your response to these types of questions 14 was that products that contained asbestos levels of 15 15 percent or more required labeling? 16 A. Well, that was our initial conclusion, but 17 the decision was made that regardless of whether it 18 contained - if it contained any asbestos at all, it 19 would have a label on it. 20 Q. Were there any attempts by Union Carbide to 21 communicate to its molding customers with regard, 22 advising them to test the adequacy of their 23 ventilation systems? 24 MR. WOODS: I am going to object as it's 25 beyond what we were offering him for as a Page 71 Page 73 1 it and were subject to the same regulations 2 we were. 3 BY MR. GALERSTON: 4 Q. Okay. My follow-up question was, I think you 5 just answered it, that was your feeling in 1972 is 6 is that the OSHA regulations would apply to the 7 molders? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. The second question that is asking 10 there, it says, "Do compounds contain free fibers of 11 asbestos greater than 5 microns in length?" 12 Do you know the answer to that question? 13 A. That was what I was asked to do. 14 Q. And in 1972 you began that investigation? 15 A. The end of the year, yes. 16 Q. And what was the result of that 17 investigation? 18 A. We determined that under conditions of no 19 ventilation, pouring the material from one fiber 20 drum and into another, that - and without taking 21 time-weighted averages -- that under 15 percent 22 asbestos in the product we did not collect any 23 fibers. Over 15 -- that we did not collect fibers 24 that exceeded the OSHA regulation at the time. Over 25 15 percent, we did exceed the regulation. 1 corporate representative, but if he knows 2 from his own personal capacity. Also note I 3 think you have covered those topics before. 4 THE WITNESS: All I'm aware of is that I 5 got questions from the sales department 6 asking how we tested because their customers 7 were interested in doing tests. Who 8 initiated that, whether it was the customer's 9 safety department or whether the salesmen 10 brought up the OSHA test, I don't know. 11 BY MR. GALERSTON: 12 Q. In talking with other phenolic compound 13 manufacturers, I became aware that there was a 14 general dusty nature of phenolic compounds in the 15 1950s and throughout the '60s, correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 18 Vague and ambiguous. 19 BY MR. GALERSTON: 20 Q. There was, I believe, an industry-wide effort 21 to reduce the dustiness of the phenolic compounds in 22 the late '60s, correct? 23 A. I would say we probably started earlier than 24 that. It was probably mid to early '60s. i 25 Q. My understanding is, in large part, the 19 (Pages 70 to 73) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 7 4 Page 76 1 efforts was based upon complaints from customers 2 with regards to their necessity for their 3 housekeeping to clean up the dust that was generated 4 by the compounds, correct? 5 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 6 Foundation. 7 THE WITNESS: Well, we had a dust - all 8 our bags are labeled with regard to dust that 9 it was -- it could be hazardous, and I have 10 the exact wording on this page. 11 But, in addition to that, we tried to 12 find ways of reducing dust in general, first 13 by eliminating the fines, taking more fines 14 out and by putting additives on just to 15 suppress the dust. But the problem we ran 16 into was that that made the preforms weaker, 17 and then the customers started complaining 18 that their preforms were falling apart. 19 BY MR. GALERSTON: 20 Q. Right. Correct me if I'm wrong, you 21 experimented with waxes like camauba and stuff like 22 that that were added to the granulars? 23 A. Not waxes. We were adding and hemostatic 24 agents. Thallite was one of the ones that I recall 25 thallite. There were others that we tried, not 1 dust-free molding compounds. We have received 2 several customer complaints on dustiness of our 3 products versus competitive products. These are in 4 addition to general feedback along similar lines. 5 It appears that we must respond to this problem if 6 we are to retain our current market share." 7 Do you recall this being an issue in late 8 1972? 9 A. I was on the distribution list, so I got this 10 letter. I don't recall it being quite this bad. 11 Q. Okay. In 1972, Union Carbide's major 12 competitors were Durez, General Electric, Reichhold 13 and 14 A. Plenco. 15 Q. And Plenco. Based upon your recollection, 16 which of the other products had less dusty products? 17 A. Though I read this, I did not - I mean at 18 this point didn't recall this being such an issue, 19 that we were this noncompetitive. 20 Q. Do you have a feeling for whose products were 21 less dusty? 22 A. No. No. We were promoting the injection 23 molding process for making phenolic molding 24 materials where preforming was not an issue. 25 Q. Right. You just poured it in the hopper and Page 75 Page 77 1 waxes because that would make it even worse. But 2 those efforts were not successful because that led 3 to the BMM designation. The BMM materials means 4 that they are less fines, and BMG is the regular 5 granulation. 6 Q. Okay. I don't believe I was aware of that. 7 Okay. 8 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 9 Exhibit No. Martino 18 was marked for 10 Identification.) 11 BY MR. GALERSTON: 12 Q. So, let me hand you Exhibit Number 18, which 13 is a one-page memo, Bates number 1733956, dated 14 December 4, 1972, subject matter was Dustiness of 15 Phenolic Compounds. This is from Mr. Albright, 16 correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. According to this letter he says -- 19 Mr. Albright is writing to the addressees which 20 include yourself, Mr. Grover, Mr. Madestau, 21 Mr. Potter and Thomas, he says, "The addressees of 22 this letter are requested to attend a meeting at 23 9 a.m. on Thursday, December 21, 1972 in the 24 Building 4 Conference Room to discuss what might be 25 done about the lack of competitiveness of our 1 it takes care of itself? 2 A. Right. Then you can go to a courser 3 granulation. We did introduce the BMRS granulation 4 which was courser and had less fines and was less 5 dusty. But the particular incident that caused this 6 letter to be written, I don't recall. 7 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 8 Exhibit No. Martino 19 was marked for 9 Identification.) 10 MR. THACKSTON: Bill? 11 MR. GALERSTON: Yes. 12 MR. THACKSTON: Can I get a running 13 objection to your use of the term dusty as 14 vague so I don't have to object each time you 15 use that term? 16 MR. GALERSTON: You may. 17 BY MR. GALERSTON: 18 Q. I am handing you what I've marked as 19 Exhibit 19 to your deposition. This is a two-page 20 memo from Mr. Albright dated February 7, 1973, Bates 21 number 1733730 and 731. 22 Are you familiar with this document, sir? 23 A. I am not on the distribution list, so I 24 didn't see it at the time it was written. Q. All right, sir. 20 (Pages 74 to 77) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 78 Page 80 j 1 A. I'm just looking it over to see if it did 2 come up in any previous deposition. I don't recall 3 seeing it. 4 Q. Okay. This is a document dated February 7, 5 1973. It's a January Technical Report for 6 Department 014? 7 A. Did you say '72 or '73? 8 Q. '73. I am sorry if I misspoke. Exhibit 19 9 is a February 7, 1973 memo, January Technical Report 10 for Department 014, talking about the formulations 11 and adjusting them to reduce the dependence on 12 asbestos, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. We see here that it lists here formulations 15 for 0425, 2035, and 5000 and their cross-over 16 designations as being the ones that are being worked 17 on to reduce the asbestos content, correct? 18 A. No. Some of these did not have asbestos in. 19 The 0425/2798 did not. The 5000 did not. 5498 did 2 0 have a little and we removed it earlier. And the 21 last group were all woodflour filled. 2 2 Now, we were going through a program that I 2 3 was responsible for of reducing the number of 2 4 formulations that we made in manufacturing and our 2 5 goal was to take, to have roughly 15, 12 to 15 basic 1 asbestos, you were talking about the phenolic 2 compound that was manufactured using the pelleted 3 asbestos? 4 A. Well, we would first - the first step was to 5 make up the compound with the pelleted asbestos in 6 the laboratory and compare it to the original 7 version which was not pelleted and from a different 8 supplier. 9 We had previously found we had to 10 reformulate -- if we used the Calidria asbestos, we 11 ran into an additional problem with the pelleted 12 asbestos, that it was very difficult to disperse. 13 It wouldn't break up. You would end up with clumps 14 of asbestos showing up in the finished product. 15 Q. All right. 16 MR. GALERSTON: Craig, I am sorry. I do 17 not have an extra copy of this next exhibit. 18 MR. WOODS: Okay. Could you just show 19 it to me and I will give it back to you. 2 0 Okay. I've seen that before and you have 21 used this one before too. 2 2 MR. GALERSTON: Are you sure? It seems 23 to me that I haven't, but you may be right. 2 4 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 2 5 Exhibit No. Martino 20 was marked Page 7 9 Page 81 j 1 compounds that we would offer, and that's it. And 2 this was part of that consolidation. Our goal was 3 to have one formula for each of those, that would be 4 the same for all those products, you know, each 5 category listed. 6 Q. When we look down under, a couple of 7 paragraphs down it says, "The status of the four 8 bulk handling jobs." 9 Do you see that, sir? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. The first one is for woodflour, the second 12 one is for CBS recycles, and the third one is for 13 buck handling of asbestos. "Testing was begun to 14 determine system requirements and feasibility for 15 bulk handling UCC pelleted asbestos with our 16 existing equipment. The pelleted asbestos offers an 17 attractive alternative solution to the Flo-Rig bulk 18 livebottom hopper truck for eliminating safety 19 hazards in manually handling asbestos." 2 0 Is that the project that was being handled by 21 manufacturing that you were not involved in? 22 A. We were not involved in the bulk handling 2 3 planning. We were involved in testing the pelleted 2 4 asbestos. 2 5 Q. When you say you were testing the pelleted 1 for Identification.) 2 BY MR. GALERSTON: 3 Q. Mr. Martino, I am handing you now what I have 4 marked as Exhibit 20. Counsel indicates that he 5 believes that you and I discussed this document 6 before 7 MR. WOODS: Wecertainly discussed that 8 topic before. 9 MR. GALERSTON: Certainly we discussed 10 the topic. 11 BY MR. GALERSTON: 12 Q. Exhibit Number 20 is Bates number 1929159, 13 May 1st, 1973, Union Carbide internal correspondence 14 regarding asbestos warning statement, correct, sir? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. This is from Mr. J.F. Kantz to 17 Mr. W.T. Buttel, correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. This is coming out of the Group I 2 0 distribution operation regarding the asbestos 21 warning statement to be printed on labels for 2 2 phenolic molding compounds, correct? 2 3 A. Yes. 2 4 Q. When we look at this document, it appears [ 2 5 that Mr. Kantz is instructing that the precautionary 21 (Pages 78 to 81) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 82 Page 84 1 statement, "Caution! Contains asbestos fibers. 2 Avoid creating dust. Breathing asbestos dust may 3 cause serious bodily harm" be printed on the labels 4 for all of the products that are then listed in the 5 next paragraph, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. All those products BMMC, BMRS, 2035, 8 et cetera, are all asbestos-containing phenolic 9 compounds being manufactured by Union Carbide in May 10 of 1973, correct? 11 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 12 Foundation. Calls for speculation. 13 THE WITNESS: They were being 14 manufactured at that time, but a number 15 were - and I see there were, we were trying 16 to consolidate to reduce the number, but that 17 is - that's what were on the books at that 18 time. 19 BY MR. GALERSTON: 20 Q. Okay. And they are on the books as being 21 asbestos-containing compounds at that time? 22 A. Yes. Let's see. '73, the 5440 and the 5441 23 and 5442, we were developing an asbestos-free 24 version, and that was being tested about that time. 25 So, this was - I guess they were going to be 1 I am sorry. You're right. I misspoke, sir. 2 A. That was Lou Fishberg who wrote this. 3 Q. Mr. Fishberg wrote this and it was directed 4 to you, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And this is just a continuation of Union 7 Carbide's efforts to remove the asbestos content 8 from its formulations, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. This is specifically with regards to 11 BMRS-5314 which, correct me if I'm wrong, was a high 12 temperature heat resistant phenolic? 13 A. 5314,1 don't recall whether that was 14 let's see the formulation here. 15 Q. Table one? 16 A. Here it is in the back. 17 Q. The third page I believe there's a 18 A. I think this was 19 MR. WOODS: Look at page 3. 20 BY MR. GALERSTON: 21 Q. You see under sample number one asbestos 22 content 10 percent? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Does that appear to be -25 A. No. That is a heat resistant - well, it has ; ? Page 83 Page 85 1 labeling the bags until we were sure that the 2 asbestos-free version was acceptable to our 3 customer. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. But shortly after that the 5440, 5441 and 42 6 I think were introduced with no asbestos. 7 Q. Okay. 8 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 9 Exhibits Nos. Martino 21 and 22 10 were marked for identification.) 11 BY MR. GALERSTON: 12 Q. All right, sir. I'm going to hand you two 13 documents that I've marked as Exhibits 21 and 22 to 14 your deposition, which are documents that you 15 authored in 1973. The first is Exhibit 21, Bates 16 numbers 2207949 through 957, subject matter Phenolic 17 Compound Reformulation Program, Part IIBMRS-5314. 18 Do you see that, sir? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you recall this document, sir? 21 MR. WOODS: Before he answers that, you 22 represented that he authored this document. 23 I don't think that is correct. 24 BY MR. GALERSTON: 25 Q. I mean - I'm sorry. It was directed to you. 1 heat resistance. It's one of the lower 2 concentration formulas that I referred to earlier. 3 Q. Okay. And4 A. I'm trying to recall. 5 Q. Okay. All right. So when we look at the 6 third page and we see the formulations, we see 7 samples one, two and three with the are different 8 formulations of 5314. The first one, it appears to 9 me, and correct me if I am wrong, appears to be the 10 asbestos-containing formulation that had been in 11 production up until then? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And then samples two and three were 14 asbestos-free formulations that were being 15 recommended to you for being sent out for field 16 testing by a customer, correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. When we look at - if we read on the second 19 page of this, apparently 5314 was being evaluated 20 for Square-D as we see in that last paragraph, is 21 that right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. All right. So, as of July 5, we still have 24 10 percent asbestos content compounds that are in 25 production that are still looking at the 22 (Pages 82 to 85) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 86 Page 88 1 reformulation before it makes it to the next step to 2 be asbestos free, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 MR. WOODS: Objection. Beyond the 5 scope. 6 BY MR. GALERSTON: 7 Q. Do you recall how long it was before 5314 was 8 approved for marketing as an asbestos-free compound? 9 MR. WOODS: Same objection. 10 Foundation. 11 THE WETNESS: I don't know. Judging 12 from the statement in the last paragraph that 13 the customer's union requested that asbestos 14 be removed from all products, it would have 15 moved fairly quickly after this. 16 BY MR. GALERSTON: 17 Q. All right. 18 A. As I recall Square-D requested we expedite 19 our program. 20 Q. Well, it does indicate there that Square-D 21 had requested that it be asbestos-free, so - and 22 they were talking about their union issues. So that 23 would be consistent where with your recollection, 24 right? 25 A. Yes. 1 phenolic? 2 A. That's general purpose. 3 Q. It also discusses BMMC, BMMS-5333. Would 4 that be a general purpose or a high impact phenolic? 5 A. I don't know what the impact, I don't recall 6 what the impact, the 5333 is. I think it was 7 similar to 5303 which did have some flock in it. It 8 was higher impact, but it would not -- it would be 9 under the category heat resistant. 10 5440 also had better heat resistance than the 11 regular general purpose material, but it was not 12 considered a heat resistant material, nor an impact 13 material either. 14 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 15 Exhibit No. Martino 23 was marked for 16 Identification.) 17 BY MR. GALERSTON: 18 Q. All right, sir. At the same time I am going 19 to hand you what I've marked as Exhibit 23 to your 20 deposition, which is another status report in the 21 R&D department. This one is with regard to the use 22 of the Carey Canadian asbestos. This being Bates 23 number 2207962 through 974, dated August 22, 1973. 24 You are familiar with this, are you not, sir? 25 A. Yes. Page 87 Page 89 1 Q. I want to draw your attention to Exhibit 22, 2 which also appears to relate to 5314, which is, I 3 guess, a similar type of report by Mr. Fishberg to 4 you with regards to the general efforts to replace 5 asbestos in the general purpose and high phenolic 6 compounds, correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. And 9 vague and ambiguous. 10 BY MR. GALERSTON: 11 Q. Sorry. Exhibit 22 is Bates numbered 2208249 12 through 2208263. This is, again, similar to the 13 previous memo, a memo by Mr. Fishberg to you, 14 correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Here on November 30, 1973, Mr. Fishberg 17 states in the summary that it efforts are to remove 18 the asbestos from all compounds with 12 percent or 19 less, correct? 20 A. Yes. It also says that BMRS-5314 has been 21 approved by Square-D, the major customer. So that 22 was November. So that confirmed what I said that we 23 moved fairly quickly. 24 Q. It also talks about BMRS-5440. Would that be 25 considered a general purpose or high impact 1 Q. If I understand it correctly, looking at this 2 document, up until this time Union Carbide had been 3 using - I guess it's not a combination -- I guess 4 it was using just Carey Canadian 7RF9 floats in the 5 manufacture of BMM-5303, which is a general purpose. 6 correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And that this was going to be an evaluation 9 of a blend of the pelletized Calidria SG-200 with 10 calcium carbonate, correct, sir? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. 5303, its asbestos content was approximately 13 what percentage? Do you know, sir? 14 A. It was approximately 30 percent, I believe. 15 MR. WOODS: Let me object to the 16 question as being overbroad and vague and 17 ambiguous since there is no designation as to 18 time frame. 19 BY MR. GALERSTON: 20 Q. At the time of this evaluation. 21 A. Here it is. 18.5 percent. 22 Q. Where are you looking, sir? 23 A. Page 12. It's 7973. It shows Carey asbestos 24 18.5. Now, that's a BMRS-5303. 25 Q. Okay. 23 (Pages 86 to 89) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 90 Page 92 j 1 A. And made for injection molding. That had 2 18.5 percent Carey and he substituted 15.4 of the 3 Calidria in combination with 6.6 of the calcium 4 carbonate. 5 Q. And Mr. - is it Ealer? 6 A. Ealer. 7 Q. Mr. Ealer was recommending this formulation 8 for evaluation on a trial basis? 9 A. He was recommending that we make a production 10 run when they were able to solve the dispersing 11 problem they had with the pellets. The target date 12 was September '73. 13 Q. Do you recall that we talked about it, you 14 said that the dispersal problem it really was 15 overcome, correct? 16 A. It was not. 17 Q. Right. So, do you know whether or not any 18 test batches of any 5303 or other products were ever 19 run using the Calidria? 20 A. With the Calidria, I think they did a trial 21 on one of the lines to see if in the manufacturing 22 department they could get better dispersion than we 23 got in the lab. And as I recall, that also failed. 24 It was not with the particles of undispersed 25 asbestos showing it would not be a commercial 1 Union Carbide's phenolic molding compounds 2 department in 1973, correct, sir? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And, correct me where I am wrong, the 5 indications are that all the products with asterisks 6 to the left of the designation were 7 asbestos-containing and required the asbestos 8 warning, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. Consistent with what you said before 11 we see that the 5000 series of products were 12 asbestos-free by this time, correct? 13 A. Yes. They were always asbestos-free, the 14 5000 and 5020 and the 7000. We never did put 15 asbestos in those. And the 5440, as you saw in the 16 previous document, that - the asbestos-free version 17 was being introduced about this time. 18 Q. I think that that would be a couple of months 19 after this. So we see that the 5303 the general 20 purpose was still asbestos-containing at this time, 21 as well as 5310, 5353, 5333, 5440, 5441, and then 22 7950, correct, sir? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. The next page indicates that a couple of 25 other formulations still contained asbestos, the I | j j | j Page 91 Page 93 1 1 product or even saleable for that matter. It does 2 say here, "A cooperative program with the Production 3 personnel is underway to determine how to improve 4 dispersion of the pellets via screen changes in the 5 resin and/or raw mix grinders." 6 Q. Your recollection that was never really 7 overcome, was it? 8 A. I don't think they were successful, no. 9 Q. Let me hand you Exhibit 24 to your 10 deposition. 11 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 12 Exhibit No. Martino 24 was marked for 13 Identification.) 14 BY MR. GALERSTON: 15 Q. It's another internal memo dated August 13, 16 '73. This appears to be out of production from an 17 R.A. Ream with regards to packaging requirements, 18 correct, sir? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. The cover memo says, "The appropriate 21 products are being packaged with asbestos warning 22 codes." And it talks about the different labels 23 that are being used. On the following page, which 24 is Exhibits 2 and 3 -- pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 24, 25 have a listing of the products being manufactured by 1 BMMC-2035 contained asbestos, correct? 2 A. Yes. Wasn't that on the original list? 3 Q. I don't believe so. It's not listed here. 4 A. No, it's not. 5 Q. That is why I believe it's included on this 6 secondary list. So 2035, and then we see 6935 is 7 included as well, correct, sir? 8 A. Yes. Yes. 9 Q. And that's consistent with your recollection 10 that those were still asbestos-containing in August 11 of 1973? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. All right, sir, I am handing you what I've 14 marked as Exhibit 25 to your deposition. 15 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 16 Exhibit No. Martino 25 was marked for 17 Identification.) 18 BY MR. GALERSTON: 19 Q. And I wonder if you recall Exhibit Number 25, 20 sir? 21 A. Yes, I do. 22 Q. Okay. Exhibit 25 was your personal Bakelite 23 Phenolic Molding Materials Guide, correct, sir? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And if I understand it correctly, this is a______ 24 (Pages 90 to 93) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 94 Page 96 1 little three-ring notebook that you would exchange 2 the pages for when they are updated, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And so each page would be updated 5 periodically, like, when we look at the second page 6 of this exhibit, we see that that page is December 7 of 1973. And as we flip through here, we will 8 others, other pages that are dated 71, and 9 et cetera, et cetera? 10 A. What page are you looking at? 11 Q. The second page, that is December 1973? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And that is the section index. Is that 14 probably the last time this document was updated? 15 A. I'm not sure because it was so easy to 16 replace pages. For example, if we introduced the 17 asbestos-free version of 5440 and 5441, there would 18 have to be a new sheet inserted. Whether it was 19 done or not, I don't know. 20 Q. Okay. I will represent to you that the most 21 recent date that I find in going through here comes 22 towards the end, which is July of 1974, which is 23 under the General Information area Bates number 902. 24 A. What was that page again? 25 Q. 902, Bates number 902. It says, "General 1 continues onto the next page which 2 A. Oh, I see here now. No, that is not 3 consistent either. Those are BMMs. No. I don't 4 know why they would be checked. 5 Q. Okay. In looking at this listing that goes 6 onto the next page, is this your recollection of 7 the, generally, the line of phenolic molding 8 materials that Union Carbide was offering to sell to 9 the general public? 10 A. Yes. This was our goal, that we would supply 11 only these products and nothing else. That doesn't 12 mean that some of the products that were being 13 obsoleted might still - were being sold, but our 14 goal was to eliminate those. 15 Q. Unless it was a significant customer who was 16 ordering such quantities like the 5314 for Square-D? 17 A. Yes. 18 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 19 Foundation. Calls for speculation. Vague 20 and overbroad. 21 BY MR. GALERSTON: 22 Q. Sir, I am going to hand you a copy of Union 23 Carbide's Answers to Interrogatories that have been 24 filed in this case, the Butler case. I want to ask 25 you what information, if any - Page 95 Page 97 1 Information." 2 A. Oh, okay. Yes. 3 Q. Was this a document that you would work with 4 on a daily basis, or is this something that was more 5 of a reference material that was kept on the shelf? 6 A. Well, it was not only for us, but our 7 customers had copies of this as well. 8 Q. So you would send it to them so they could 9 update their information, right? 10 A. Pardon? 11 Q. You would send it to the customers so they 12 could keep track of what was being manufactured and 13 what the strengths and weaknesses were of the 14 different products, correct? 15 A. Yes. Yes. 16 Q. Looking at the second page, which is Bates 17 number 863, that is the back of that first page? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. There we go. Where it says "Section Index," 20 in looking at this, I see that several of the 21 products have checkmarks next to them. 22 Do you recall why those products would be 23 checked? 24 A. No, I don't. 25 Q. In looking at this list, it appears to be - 1 MR. GALERSTON: I don't have an extra 2 copy of this, Craig. I am sorry. 3 Interrogatory answers? 4 MR. WOODS: Okay. 5 MR. GALERSTON: Do you want to see? I 6 am going to give him my marked copy so to 7 facilitate asking him questions. 8 MR. WOODS: All right. Okay. 9 BY MR. GALERSTON: 10 Q. I will mark this as Exhibit 26 to your 11 deposition. You have not reviewed Union Carbide's 12 answers to interrogatories in this case, correct? 13 A. No. 14 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 15 Exhibit No. Martino 26 was marked for 16 Identification.) 17 BY MR. GALERSTON: 18 Q. I have tabbed and turned to page 9 of these 19 answers to interrogatories which is a response to a 20 question with regards to asbestos products that 21 Union Carbide sold specifically with regards to 22 Calidria. Union Carbide lists various Calidria 23 products that it sold and its application/markets. 24 Do you see that, sir, on page 8 going onto 25 page 9? 25 (Pages 94 to 97) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 98 Page 100 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. RG-144, do you see that, sir? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. We see that it is marketed for a variety of 5 areas, epoxy-maintenance coatings, there's a long 6 list. The last one is phenolic adhesives. Do you 7 see that, sir? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you know of any efforts of your research 10 and development department of the phenolic molding 11 compounds to evaluate RG-144 for use in phenolic 12 compounds? 13 A. Well, this would be the adhesives business 14 which was not associated with the molding business. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. And so if any work had been done, it would 17 have been an evaluation in one of the adhesive 18 groups. We did not add asbestos to our phenolic 19 resins. So I would - my conclusion would be that 20 it would be only the service, you know, to Calidria 21 that they would even do it. 22 MR. WOODS: Carlo, I think he asked you 23 about whether the molding department, your 24 department, whether you knew whether your 25 department did anything on evaluating. Maybe 1 Q. That is what we saw Mr. Ealing -- 2 A. Ealer. 3 Q. Ealer, excuse me, writing to you. In answers 4 to interrogatories, we see that - pass that to me 5 for a second. I want to turn your attention to some 6 additional information that is in this answer to 7 interrogatory. The question is asked, "Has Union 8 Carbide at any time published and distributed any 9 printed material including brochures, pamphlets, 10 catalogues, packaging, or other written material of 11 any kind or character containing any warnings 12 concerning the possibility of injury resulting from 13 the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing 14 products?" 15 In response on page 16 we see Union Carbide 16 indicates that in 1964 Union Carbide prepared an 17 asbestos toxicology report which provided 18 comprehensive information about the potential health 19 risks of asbestos. They go on to say that this 20 asbestos toxicology report was updated with a 1969 21 asbestos toxicology report. 22 When you were evaluating Calidria for use in 23 Union Carbide's phenolic molding compounds, were you 24 provided with the 1964 or the 1969 asbestos 25 toxicology reports? Page 99 Page 101 1 we could have that question read back. 2 (Whereupon, the question was read 3 back as follows:) 4 "QUESTION: Do you know of any efforts 5 of your research and development department 6 of the phenolic molding compounds to evaluate 7 RG-144 for use in phenolic compounds?" 8 THE WITNESS: I don't recall whether 9 what I evaluated in 1966 was RG-144 or not. 10 It was a Calidria asbestos, and as far as I 11 know, that and the work with the pelleted 12 asbestos is the only work we ever did with 13 Calidria. 14 BY MR. GALERSTON: 15 Q. So with regards to RG-244, which is another 16 grade of Calidria which is also listed as being 17 marketed in the phenolics area, you are not aware of 18 any efforts or usage of RG-244 by Union Carbide's 19 phenolic molding compound group? 20 A. No, I'm not. 21 Q. All right, sir. Well, if I understand it 22 correctly, you did evaluate the use of Calidria in 23 its pelletized form for use in molding compounds in 24 the mid '70s? 25 A. Yes. 1 A. No. 2 Q. Did anyone at Union Carbide provide you with 3 any of their internal investigation with regards to 4 the hazards associated with asbestos when you were 5 evaluating Calidria for use in Union Carbide's 6 phenolic molding compounds? 7 A. No. 8 MR. WOODS: Let me make clear that when 9 you are using the term "you," there you are 10 talking about Carlo in his personal capacity 11 because we are not offering him as a 12 corporate rep on these topics. 13 MR. GALERSTON: Absolutely. That is 14 correct. 15 BY MR. GALERSTON: 16 Q. This is you as a personal, as an employee of 17 Union Carbide who is evaluating Calidria for use in 18 Union Carbide's phenolic molding compounds. 19 Were you provided with Union Carbide's 20 investigation and research with regards to the 21 hazards associated with asbestos? 22 A. No. 23 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 24 BY MR. GALERSTON: 25 Q. Sir, if I can see your copy one more time? 26 (Pages 98 to 101) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 102 Page 104 1 A. Sure. 2 Q. Okay. That is all we have for that. Let's 3 do this real quick. You got a - take a copy. 4 I'm going to hand you what I've marked as 5 Exhibit 27 to your deposition, which is the Bakelite 6 Story as prepared by Mr. Frank Cozzarelli, 1998. 7 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 8 Exhibit No. Martino 27 was marked for 9 Identification.) 10 BY MR. GALERSTON: 11 Q. Have you reviewed the document that we marked 12 as Exhibit 27 before? 13 A. Have I what? 14 Q. Reviewed it. In the back I will represent to 15 you is copies of a lot of patents. 16 A. Um-mm. There is no distribution list on 17 this, was there? 18 Q. No. There was not. That was one of my 19 questions for you, sir. 20 A. I don't recall seeing this. 21 Q. It's not something you recall reviewing at 22 the time it was published in 1998 or in preparation 23 of litigation? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Okay. Therefore, you don't know why it was 1 file. If you would be so kind, just pass me your 2 file, your manila folder. 3 A. Oh, this one? 4 Q. Yes sir. I think it will probably be easier 5 for us just to just go ahead and mark pages 6 separately. 7 I am going to mark your handwritten notes as 8 Exhibit 28 to your deposition. 9 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 10 Exhibit No. Martino 28 was marked for 11 Identification.) 12 BY MR. GALERSTON: 13 Q. Please confirm for me Exhibit 28, who 14 prepared that? 15 A. Is that a what? 16 Q. Who prepared Exhibit 28? 17 A. Who prepared this? 18 Q. Yes, sir. 19 A. I did. 20 Q. Okay. And it appears that these are notes 21 that you made in reviewing his deposition testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And what is that first item "worked for" 24 something? 25 A. Lucent Technology 23 years. Page 103 Page 105 1 prepared or what uses it has been put to? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Okay. And, therefore, you don't have any 4 comments or thoughts on the accuracy of any of the 5 statements made in this by Mr. Cozzarelli, do you? 6 MR. WOODS: Well, I am going to object 7 to the question. He hasn't even reviewed the 8 document. He may have comments on it if you 9 read something to him, but I mean if you are 10 asking him does he have any comments without 11 reviewing it, then I guess that's fine. 12 BY MR. GALERSTON: 13 Q. That's fine. As a general proposition, you 14 don't have any - you don't know what it says, 15 therefore, it's not possible for you to comment on 16 it's accuracy or inaccuracy? 17 A. No. I would like to read a copy and see. 18 Q. If we attach it to your deposition, sir, and 19 counsel has got an extra copy. I am sure if you 20 need a little light reading, you can make use of it. 21 A. It's always interesting. You always pick up 22 something new. 23 Q. Well, that's the purpose. We definitely want 24 to do something new and different each time we meet. 25 All right, sir. I want to talk to you about your 1 Q. Okay. Then May 2006 he was diagnosed with 2 mesothelioma? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. 1965 Watertown? 5 A. Started in Watertown and worked there eight 6 years. 7 Q. He was a preformer, correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And my understanding is that the preformer is 10 the person who takes the granular phenolic molding 11 compound, and in order for it to mold more readily, 12 takes it and puts it into a preformer which takes 13 the powder and compresses it -- I should say takes 14 the granular form and compresses it into various 15 different shapes based upon what the ultimate form 16 is going to be, correct? 17 A. Well, the shape is usually a pill. You know, 18 that doesn't vary, like a hockey puck, different 19 diameters, different thicknesses. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. And that's then put in a pre-heater, which is | 22 like a microwave oven, and then heated up, and then I 23 once it's heated up it's put in the press and it's 24 formed into a shape. 25 Q. And that is because they found that using the 27 (Pages 102 to 105) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 106 Page 108 j 1 powder in the form took a lot longer and more 2 there was more voids and more problems with it, so 3 they found that this pre-forming process made for a 4 lot better end product, correct? 5 A. Well, it enabled them - one of the 6 break-throughs in the industry was the discovery, 7 the development of the pre-heating the - the radio 8 frequency pre-heating the phenolics. It eliminated 9 the step of heating the material. You could 10 pre-heat it separately and then stick it in the 11 mold. Whereas, when they first started molding, 12 they just scooped material and put it in the 13 cavities, and it was time-consuming and quality 14 wasn't as good. 15 Q. Okay. So, your understanding is that it was 16 Mr. Butler's responsibility to take the, either the 17 bag or the drum 18 A. Um-mm. 19 Q. - in which the phenolic resin compound was 20 in and he had to put it into the preformer? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And it was responsible for him to take the 23 pill or the puck or whatever and transfer it to the 24 pre-heater? 25 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 1 them 2 Q. Into a wastebasket? 3 A. Yes. 4 MR. WOODS: Let me just object to the 5 question. His testimony speaks for itself. 6 Mr. Martino is not an expert witness 7 commenting on other activities, but he's 8 certainly reviewed the deposition, so. 9 If Mr. Martino recalls testimony to that 10 effect, that's fine, but the deposition 11 speaks for itself as to what Mr. Butler 12 testified that he did. 13 BY MR. GALERSTON: 14 Q. In looking at Exhibit 28, next after it says 15 preformer it says - what appears to be an 16 abbreviation for American Cyanamid and DuPont? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. "Didn't" what the? 19 A. Did not make - didn't make phenolic molding. 20 What I meant there is did not make phenolic molding 21 materials. 22 Q. Monsanto not in the business in 1967? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. 15 to 20 times a day? 25 A. He mentioned American Cyanamid in his list of j j j J j I 1 j | 1 j I j j j | | j 1 j 1 j 1 I j Page 107 Page 109 | 1 Foundation. Are you talking about at every 2 facility? 3 BY MR. GALERSTON: 4 Q. No. We are talking about Mr. Butler. 5 A. The - most of the preformers were set up so 6 that they automatically discharged into a container. 7 So, I don't - I don't recall the exact description, 8 but he prepared the preforms for several different 9 shifts. So he would have had to just put it in 10 containers, and then they would have to take it from 11 there. 12 Q. Okay. Fie was responsible for disposing of 13 the empty containers or transferring weight from 14 them? 15 A. That wasn't clear to me that he was 16 responsible for disposing of the product. He did 17 mention broken preforms that were disposed of, but I 18 don't recall whether it was his job to do that or 19 somebody else's. 20 Q. And my point is that with regards to the 21 bags, he would be the one responsible for dumping 22 the bag, therefore, he would be responsible for 23 getting rid of the bag? 24 A. I think there was a reference that somebody 25 else picked up the bags afterwards. He would put 1 companies that he got product from, that the 2 preformed, and he referred to all the products as 3 phenolic molding compounds. They were not all 4 phenolic molding compounds. 5 Q. Okay. Right below that it says 15 to 20 6 times a day, what do you have there? 7 A. He said that he loaded the preformers, two 8 machines, 15 to 20 times a day, and anywhere from 5 9 to 15 bags at a time. He also said that he would 10 dump drams of material into the preformers hopper. 11 Q. Okay. What does it say below that, sir? 12 A. Reichhold, he also said that the Reichhold 13 and Durez materials is what he used the most. 14 Q. Off to the left there is a note 2 hrs. Two 15 hours? 16 A. Two hours. That was for me. That is how 17 much time I had spent. 18 Q. Okay. Then it says, "Used Dow product?" 19 A. I saw that there was somebody representing 20 Dow and, of course, Dow owns Union Carbide now. I'm 21 not aware of any phenolic holding material that Dow 22 made prior to the purchase of Union Carbide. 23 Q. Okay. Off to the right see some notations 24 401, 162 and 522, are those times? 25 A. Those are times, yes. Then there was -__________ 28 (Pages 106 to 109) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 110 Page 112 | 1 Q. There appears to be a listing of the products 2 he recognized? 3 A. Well, that was a listing in his deposition of 4 the various companies that he recalled supplying 5 phenolic molding compounds to. And, as I said 6 before, American Cyanamid did not make a phenolic 7 compound, and Monsanto made phenolic resins, but 8 they were not in the molding material business 9 during that period of time. DuPont, they were not 10 in the phenolic molding material business. Neither 11 was Koppers. Plaskon did not make phenolic molding 12 compound, but they did make alkide molding 13 compounds. Hercules, I don't know them being in the 14 phenolic molding material business or resinoid. The 15 others did. 16 Q. All right. Below there is some calculations. 17 What do those calculations represent? 18 A. I tried to determine how much -- what volume 19 the location was using, and I used those estimates 20 he gave on how much he was adding to the machines. 21 The first one was taking 15 times a day at two 22 machines, five bags at a time, and I came up with 23 little over two million pounds. If I took the 20 24 times a day, 15 bags as a time, two machines I come 25 up with nine million pounds. So, my conclusion was 1 A. That's - I haven't had any reason to believe 2 that they weren't complete. 3 Q. There is nothing in there for 1973, is there? 4 A. '73, my understanding if there were no sales 5 there wouldn't be any sheet. 6 Q. All right, sir. And then what do we see on 7 the second page of your notes? 8 A. That I put down - I always forget what the 9 labels, what the warning labels were, and that's 10 what - I looked it up. We had dust labels on our 11 bags in the '60s. It said avoid prolonged or 12 repeated contact. Use with adequate ventilation. I 13 think it also said it may cause skin 14 Q. Irritation? 15 A. - irritation, yeah. And the other was the 16 asbestos label that you've already shown me. 17 Q. Right. Which we discussed from the Group I 18 Labeling Committee notes? 19 A. Yes. I will put this where I won't forget 20 it. I always have to look it up. 21 MR. WOODS: I think that is an exhibit 22 to the deposition. 23 THE WITNESS: What is that? 24 MR. WOODS: Mr. Martino, that has been 25 marked as an exhibit to the deposition. So | j j 1 f 1 1 } f I | | | | 1 | 1 | f 1 1 f | j j Page 111 Page 113 j 1 that they were buying millions of pounds of product, 2 but the exact amount, you know, it's hard to 3 determine from that estimate. 4 Q. Sure. And then what's the calculations to 5 the right of that? 6 A. To the right, I added up the various amounts 7 of product that were listed in the sales scrolls. 8 And this is over the period of '68 to '74. And the 9 first column is the amounts of heat-resistant 10 product that was purchased over that period of time, 11 and each of those represents a different year. And 12 the total was 28,500 pounds of heat-resistant 13 product. 14 The second column is the general purpose 15 product that was purchased, and that's for each 16 year, and that totals to about 100,000 pounds of 17 product. 18 And then there was -- there were 600 pounds 19 of 2080 which was - had no asbestos in it. 20 And 2,150 pounds of color molding material 21 one year. So the amount that was purchased was very 22 small, very small percentage of the total that was 23 being consumed. 24 Q. That is assuming that you have full and 25 complete records from 1968 to 1974, correct? 1 we can make another copy for you. But you 2 need to keep that with the deposition. Don't 3 put that in your pocket yet. 4 MR. GALERSTON: The indication is that 5 we have run out of time. Let's go ahead and 6 take a break. 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video 8 record. The time is 12:09. This concludes 9 tape number two in the videotaped deposition. 10 THE WITNESS: Is it time to take lunch? 11 MR. GALERSTON: That's fine with me. 12 (Recess from 12:09 to 1:17.) 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the 14 video record. The time is 1:17. This begins 15 tape three in the videotaped deposition of 16 Carlo Martino. 17 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 18 Exhibit No. Martino 29 was marked 19 for Identification.) 20 BY MR. GALERSTON: 21 Q. Sir, I've just handed you what has been 22 marked as Exhibit 29, which are pages from your 23 personal file which are formula sheets or other 24 formula rated documents for the products that you 25 identified that Union Carbide sold to Watertown. j | % | I t 1 { | | 1 1 j f 1 f J f 1 f | f ! 1 29 (Pages 110 to 113) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 114 Page 116 1 correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 MR. WOODS: Let me just make an 4 objection to form as to vagueness. If this 5 is the sales records you are talking about. 6 I'm sorry. 7 MR. GALERSTON: 29 is the formula cards. 8 MR. WOODS: When you said Watertown, I 9 believe those relate to Watertown, Georgia. 10 I just want to make that clear. 11 BY MR. GALERSTON: 12 Q. Exhibit 29 are formula -- 13 A. I just wanted to clarify. 14 Q. Sure. 15 A. These were documents that came up when a 16 search was done of Watertown. That search didn't 17 separate what went to Georgia and what went to 18 Connecticut. 19 BY MR. GALERSTON: 20 Q. Okay. Well, let me hand you what has been 21 marked as Exhibit 34 to your deposition. This is a 22 sales scroll, is it not? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. This is a scales scroll that you used in 25 identifying the products that Union Carbide sold to 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And then right below it there's looks like 3 4225? The numbers are eroded, you can't -4 A. What are you looking at? 5 Q. The second line of numbers, you see it says 6 "Watertown Manufacturing"? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Right below it says, "Molded material heat 9 resistant"? 10 A. Right. 11 Q. And then right below that? 12 A. Yeah, that would be the price. 13 Q. So that is point 225 per pound? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. Okay. And then we see 341 -- is that 3410? 16 A. No. That is 341GM, and I'm not -- I don't 17 know what that is. 18 Q. Okay. So we are not clear what that whole 19 line is referring to there to, correct? 20 A. Well, it's price because you take the point 21 225 times the pounds on the upper - the line just 22 before it, and you will come up with the 1654 in 23 dollars. Take point 225 times 7,350, you should 24 come up with 1656 or 54. 25 Q. Okay. Got you. Page 115 Page 117 1 Watertown, correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 MR. WOODS: I will object to the form. 4 Again, it doesn't specify between Watertown 5 Connecticut and Watertown Georgia. 6 BY MR. GALERSTON: 7 Q. Sir, will you hand that one back to me? My 8 mistake. I am handing you what has marked as 9 Exhibit 32 to your deposition, which is your copy of 10 the sales scrolls for Watertown Manufacturing 11 Company, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And this is a document that Union Carbide 14 prepared which shows the sales of materials to 15 Union - I mean Watertown's Connecticut and Georgia 16 facilities, correct? 17 A. This shows details on the Georgetown - I 18 mean the Georgia facility. It does show the total 19 for Watertown Connecticut, but it doesn't show the 20 details. 21 Q. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, 22 Exhibit 32 when we look at the second page, Bates 23 number 2401489, we see at the top it says Watertown 24 Manufacturing," it says, "Molded material heat 25 resistant," correct? 1 Now, looking at this, we don't know where 2 that was shipped, do we? 3 A. That was the - that was the Georgia 4 location. 5 Q. Okay. So the next line down when it says 6 "Madison, Georgia"? 7 A. Right. 8 Q. And then there is some more numbers there. 9 That refers back to the product above it being sold 10 to the Madison, Georgia facility? 11 A. Well, the product above it, that was a 12 credit. So, apparently, Georgia must have returned 13 some material and got credit for it. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. Now, the next line is the total that they 16 purchased each month, in other words, the 22 in 17 January was 22,000 pounds. February is 59,000 18 pounds. March was five. And then at the very end 19 year-to-date year is 87,000 pounds. 20 Q. Okay. And Watertown Manufacturing Company in 21 total about 299 pounds? 22 A. Yes. 23 MR. WOODS: Object to form. 24 THE WITNESS: That would be the 1 25 Connecticut facility. 30 (Pages 114 to 117) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 118 Page 120 1 BY MR. GALERSTON: 2 Q. It says it's a total? 3 A. Total -- urn - that - okay. I'm not sure 4 whether that, you know, whether it was a total or 5 whether the sales to Georgia were included in that 6 or not. 7 Q. Okay. So, turn with me -- and that was for 8 December of 1968, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. If you would go ahead and turn to the next 11 page, and let's talk about that. This is Bates 12 number 139. This is December '69? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And it's your understanding that these are 15 sales just to the Georgia facility, correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. In looking at the first, we have 18 molded material regular? 19 A. Right. 2 0 Q. There is not a code for that, is there, a 21 product code? 22 A. No. This document doesn't - it shows some 2 3 numbers later on, but it doesn't show in every 2 4 entry. 2 5 Q. Okay. 1 Q. Okay. Without a product code there for the 2 specialty colors material, is it possible to say 3 whether or not it's asbestos-containing or not? 4 A. That's why I asked for the Watertown search 5 to see if I could find out what that was. And as 6 best as I could determine, it was the, you know, 7 mostprobably the 2000 8 Q. The 2010 or the 2080? 9 A. The 2010. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. 2010 brown was one that was made for 12 Watertown. That has no asbestos. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. So the 2010 series, if it was other colors it 15 probably had no asbestos either. This shows 16 Watertown in Connecticut. Whether Georgia bought 17 exactly the same color or not, I don't know. 18 Q. So we don't know for sure one way or the 19 other if that is 2010. It could be some other 2 0 product that based upon the research that you did 21 you found that there were product formulations for 2 2 Watertown for 2010 that would not be 2 3 asbestos-containing? 24 A. Right. I can be specific one - whether that 2 5 was it, I don't know. Page 119 Page 121 1 A. And there is a blank there, so that means 2 there was no sales for that product. 3 Q. Following that we have a heat resistant 4 molded material, correct? 5 A. Yes. Yes. 6 Q. And we discussed it before, the majority of 7 the heat resistant phenolic compounds sold by Union 8 Carbide in 1969 were asbestos-containing, correct? 9 A. Was what? Asbestos-containing, yes. 10 Q. And that is 15 to 30 percentile depending on 11 which product it is? 12 A. Right. 13 Q. We see what the sales of -- in July there was 14 10,000 pounds? 15 A. Yes. And August 3,500. 16 Q. And then what would the number below the 17 10,000, it says 2350? 18 A. That would be price. 19 Q. That is the price? 2 0 A. 23 - that you have the point 235 over on the 21 left which is the price times the 10,000 comes out 22 to 2350, $2,350. 23 Q. Okay. And next you have the specialty colors 2 4 material? 2 5 A. Right. 1 Q. There could have been others, we just don't 2 know? 3 A. Yeah. Right. Maybe this other document you 4 have may show the number. 5 Q. Then we go to the next page, and the next 6 page we just see a reference to Watertown 7 Manufacturing, there is no products listed there, 8 correct? 9 A. Well, that continues on the next page. 10 Q. And it appears that would be the Watertown 11 Connecticut sales that are excluded from this sheet 12 on the top page, correct? 13 A. What is that again? 14 Q. The part that is blacked out after we see 15 Watertown Manufacturing on Bates number 5389 we see 16 that it's whited out on the bottom of that page than 17 at the top of the next page indicated that would be 18 the Connecticut sales? 19 A. Yes. 2 0 Q. Then we pick up in the middle of the page 21 where we have a portion, that would be again the 2 2 sales to Georgia, correct? 23 A. Yes. 2 4 Q. Now, we are looking at December of 1970, and 2 5 we see BMG-27988, correct? 31 (Pages 118 to 121) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 346K361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 122 Page 124 1 A. That's right. 2 Q. And did you have a formula sheets for 2988? 3 A. I believe so. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Bates number 172. BMG-2798 black 15, and 7 this is asbestos-containing we can tell because -- 8 A. No, it is not. 9 Q. The 16G - I'm sorry. It's 18. 10 A. It's 18. No. This is 11 nonasbestos-containing. 12 Q. The-13 A. And I suspect that the general purpose 14 material that Georgia was buying was this one, for 15 several reasons. The black 15 is carbon black. You 16 would not use that for an electrical application. 17 You use - you'd probably use it for pot handles 18 where you don't want the color to be extracted, and 19 it's a one-step resin. The two indicates one step. 20 And that is what is good for wet/dry applications, 21 and it doesn't crack as easily as a two-step would, 22 and that would fit the application as well. So, I 23 suspect that that is the general purpose material. 24 But - oh, wait. It doesn't - that's - show up 25 where it, you know, has a number under molded 1 formulas? 2 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. Calls 3 for speculation. 4 THE WITNESS: That, I don't know. I 5 don't - I don't think so, but the only way I 6 could prove it is to go back and ask for more 7 sheets. 8 BY MR. GALERSTON: 9 Q. And my understanding is that that 1970, 71 10 time period is critical when Union Carbide 11 recognized the hazards associated with asbestos, 12 recognized its customers didn't want the asbestos if 13 they didn't need it, and, therefore, Union Carbide 14 was attempting to get the lower percentage 15 formulations to be asbestos-free? 16 A. Yes. 17 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. Compound 18 question. Calls for speculation. 19 THE WITNESS: Whether this was one of 20 I don't think this was one of them. But I 21 would, you know - the only way to prove it 22 is to go back to the records. 23 BY MR. GALERSTON: 24 Q. Okay. The next material that is listed here 25 on Bates number 5390 is BMMD-5303, correct? Page 123 Page 125 1 material regular later on, but it makes sense that 2 that would be good for pot handles. 3 Q. Okay. Now, the formulation that we are 4 looking here is dated April 22, 1971, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. So that would have been -- the formulation 7 that we are looking at is a subsequent formulation 8 it could not apply specifically to these sales, is 9 that correct? 10 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 11 THE WITNESS: Well, we would have to go 12 back and see if there is another formulation 13 sheet that precedes this one. 14 BY MR. GALERSTON: 15 Q. Sure. 16 A. This one says 71 supersedes 70. Probably 17 on the 70 sheet it will say what it superceded. So 18 we would have to work our way back. 19 Q. And we would need to do that particularly in 20 the 70/71 time frame period because this is when 21 Union Carbide is attempting to get the asbestos out 22 of its formulas, correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. So certainly this 1970 or predecessor 25 formulations could have been asbestos-containing 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. We talked about 5303 before. 1970s, in early 3 1970 it still contained asbestos, correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Then it goes on to the next material. It 6 just says mold material regular. Again, we don't 7 know what that is, right? 8 A. Well, that is what I say. I think that is 9 2798 black 15. 10 Q. We see 2798 black 15 listed separately above. 11 A. That's right. 12 Q. And then why would it be listed differently 13 right below, two lines lower when it says mold 14 material regular? 15 A. I don't know why. On these sheets, they 16 don't identify the category, and the only way -- it 17 makes sense that it might be that material, but, you 18 know, maybe this other scroll you have will identify 19 it better. 20 Q. Okay. The next line we then see the mold 21 material heat resistant and we see the purchases 22 there, and that we understand to be an 23 asbestos-containing or more likely than not an 24 asbestos-containing 25 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 32 (Pages 122 to 125) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 126 Page 128 1 Mischaracterizes his testimony. Foundation. 2 Calls for speculation. 3 THE WITNESS: There again, I suspect it 4 was the BMMD-5303. 5 BY MR. GALERSTON: 6 Q. And then we have the specialty colors listed 7 again, the same type of specialty colors that you 8 believe we saw in the previous reference, correct? 9 A. Yes. Yes. 10 Q. So then we go to the next page and we see 11 again December 1971, we see Watertown, we see parts 12 of it that are blocked off, indicating like those 13 are the Connecticut sales, correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. We pick up just like last time we pick up 16 with 27? 17 A. 2798. 18 Q. 2798, which is the material that we would 19 we saw it's in Exhibit 29? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. We got 5303 again? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And then we got the exact same thing, the 24 heat-resistant materials and the specialty colors, 25 correct? 1 Q. And we see reference to BMG-2080, correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. That is the first time we seen that listed, 4 correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. You had some formula sheets for 2080, 7 correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. So we look at Exhibit 29 - about the fifth 10 page I guess it is, yes - okay. Are you at 2080. 11 BMG-2080BK 25 from October of 72? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. When we look at this formula sheet, this 14 sheet doesn't tell us one way or the other whether 15 or not it contains asbestos, does it? 16 A. It shows it does not contain asbestos. There 17 is no 18 - no raw material designated 18 in the 18 product. 19 Q. Okay. Let's see. 20 A. That would be just cotton flock, and this is 21 an impact grade. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. And 161 think is woodflour, so some 24 woodflour. This is what would what we would call 25 impact compound. Page 127 Page 129 1 A. That's right. 2 Q. The next page we have - it picks up - it 3 doesn't say Watertown except at the bottom of the 4 page, but it appears that this is 1972, December 5 1972, Watertown Georgia sales on 2780, correct? 6 A. 2798, yes. 7 Q. Well, on page 5780, the Bates number 5780? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. And then we see again 2798, 5303. 10 Then it says mold material substandard, what does 11 that mean? 12 A. That would be an offgrade material supposedly 13 selling at a lower price, although that price is not 14 that much lower. 15 Q. It's point 335. It's more expensive than the 16 2798? 17 A. Yeah, but that is the only interpretation I 18 can make is that it's offgrade material. 19 Q. Then we go to the next page and we jump from 20 1973 - skip over '73 and we go to 74, correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And here we see reference to Siemon Madison 23 Manufacturing Company, and you understand that to be 24 the Watertown Manufacturing Company? 25 A. Yes. 1 Q. All right. Then we see 2798 again? 2 A. Right. 3 Q. Which we discussed. Then we have BM-425? 4 A. 0425. 5 Q. Do you have a formula sheet for 0425? 6 A. No. 7 Q. I don't believe you did? 8 A. No. But this was listed - this did not 9 contain asbestos in the list that you showed of what 10 was labeled and what was not labeled. 11 Q. Okay. And then we have BMM-5303, which we 12 discussed? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. All right. All the sales that you identified 15 and used in doing your calculations were based off 16 of Exhibit 32, correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. When we go back to your calculations and look 19 at them on Exhibit 28, which column did you put 5303 20 in? 21 A. Heat-resistant. The second - the first 22 column. 23 Q. Okay. I guess now is just as good a time as 24 any. Let's go ahead and talk about Exhibit 33. I 25 am handing you what I have marked as Exhibit 33 to 33 (Pages 126 to 129) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 130 Page 132 1 your deposition which is a sales scroll. 2 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 3 Exhibit No. Martino 33 was marked for 4 Identification.) 5 MR. WOODS: Let me just state for the 6 record that we are offering Mr. Martino as 7 corporate rep on sales in Georgia. Exhibit 8 33,1 believe, reflects sales of -- and let 9 me step back one -- for just a second. We 10 offering him as a 30(b)(6) witness or a 11 corporate representative to talk about sales 12 of phenolic molding compounds to Madison, 13 Georgia. Exhibit 33 includes information on 14 sales of products other than phenolic molding 15 compounds to Watertown, as well as sales to 16 other Watertown facilities other than 17 Madison, Georgia. He's not being offered as 18 a corporate representative on those topics 19 and he wasn't prepared to address those 20 topics today. So he's looked at your 21 document. I am not going to instruct him not 22 to answer those questions about the document, 23 but I just want to make that clear for the 24 record. 25 BY MR. GALERSTON: 1 Q. Okay. And in looking at this, when we 2 looked - let's go to the first page, okay, which is 3 Bates number 61? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. This is a December 31, 1970 page, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. This is coming out of the Boston region, 8 correct? 9 A. Out of the what region? Oh, Boston, yes. 10 Q. Boston? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Sales records were kept by region, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Look at the second page of this exhibit we 15 can see there is report from the Atlanta region with 16 the same date? 17 A. Yes. That helps. 18 Q. When we look at the first page, which is the 19 December 31st, 1970 Boston region sales, we see 20 customer number 93140 which is Watertown 21 Manufacturing, correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether 24 customer 93140 refers to Watertown Connecticut, 25 Watertown Georgia, or both combined? Page 131 Page 133 1 Q. All right, sir. Exhibit 33 is - you had not 2 seen it prior to today, correct? 3 A. I had not seen what? 4 Q. Exhibit 33. 5 A. No. 6 Q. I gave you a copy of Exhibit 33 so you could 7 review it over the lunch hour, correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Based upon what counsel has said, do you have 10 a general familiarity with the information that is 11 contained in Exhibit 33? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. Is it your understanding that 14 Exhibit 33 refers to sales of products other than 15 phenolic molding compounds to Watertown 16 manufacturing company? 17 A. Not on the first page, but on later pages 18 there are - that you highlighted, that there are 19 sales of thermoplastic resins. 20 Q. What else -- do you see anything other than 21 phenolic moldings and thermoplastics? 22 A. Of course, they are the combined sales. So 23 to try to figure out what went to Georgia, we would 24 have to separate out one from the, you know, what 25 went to one location and what went to the other. 1 A. The Atlanta sheet shows 93140 also. Let's 2 see. There is P-105, P-358. So there is a 3 difference with the P number between the two, but 4 the third line of numbers is the same. So I assume, 5 you know, what I have to do is see if that is 6 consistent that Atlanta is P-358 and Connecticut is 7 P-105. 8 Q. Let's make it more complicated and we'll go 9 to the third page which is December 31, 1971, Bound 10 Brook, and we see Watertown Manufacturing and we see 11 A-168? 12 A. No. That is Bound Brook. That is 50 pounds. 13 That is a sample quantity. That is a Watertown 14 number. No, I can't explain that except that it's a 15 small quantity. It would be a sample quantity. 16 Q. Let's go to the fourth page and look at that. 17 A. That is Boston. 18 Q. December 31, 1970, we have another Boston 19 report? 20 A. Um-mm. 21 Q. Which appears to be the same type of report. 22 Watertown 93140, but now it's for E-102? 23 A. No. These materials are thermoplastics. 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. Whether that E number has anything to do to 34 (Pages 130 to 133) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461f361-e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 134 Page 136 1 the type of material or not, I don't know, as well 2 as the P. I have to do a lot of speculating here 3 which I am not supposed to do, maybe P is 4 phenolic -- A, I don't know what that would refer 5 to. E -- 6 MR. WOODS: And I will object that the 7 question as calls for speculation. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can't tell. 9 MR. WOODS: At least the witness is 10 speculating. 11 THE WITNESS: The only consistent thing 12 is the 93140 for Watertown regardless of 13 location. 14 BY MR. GALERSTON: 15 Q. And let me go to the next page and just make 16 it one more level confusing. Again, December 31, 17 1970. It doesn't have a region, but we have molding 18 and extrusion and we have Watertown, and we have it 19 referred to now as P-7791? 20 A. Yes. And those are vinyls with 21 thermoplastics. I can't say what the number means 22 there. I can't explain it. 23 Q. All right. All right, sir, if you would I am 24 going to look at Exhibit 32 Bates number 5390, which 25 is the December 1970 sales scroll for phenolics to 1 A. Right. 2 Q. Okay. Then we see a 4,000 and 2,000 pound 3 sales of the heat-resistant material? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. In May and in August, which would correspond 6 with the second line there BMMD-5303? 7 A. Right. 8 Q. Okay. For the total of 6,000 pounds? 9 A. 8,000. Well, 6,000 for the 5303. 8,000 10 total. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. 8,000 shows up on the Madison, Georgia line. 13 Q. Okay. So the second page we believe would be 14 reflective of the sales to Madison, Georgia? 15 A. Right. 16 Q. The sales that are reflected on page 61 we 17 see the 2798 and we see 5303, but we see very 18 different pounds, like, for 5303 we see a total of a 19 hundred pounds? 20 A. On one. 21 Q. Yes, on page one. 22 A. Yeah. That's why I think that is all sales 23 to Watertown in Connecticut. Now, it would take me 24 time to try to rationalize that with the Watertown 25 number that is on that sheet of 44,000 pounds. That Page 135 Page 137 1 Madison, Georgia. I want to compare that with what 2 we see on page one of Exhibit 33. Okay? 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. See if we can walk through this and see if 5 it's reflecting the same thing. 6 A. You can go to the third page, you can come up 7 with the 8,000 pounds - the second page, down at 8 the bottom. There is 2,000 pounds of 2798 and 6,000 9 pounds of 5303. And you go over to this and you get 10 2,000 pounds of molding material regular, which is 11 the 2798, and you get 6,000 pounds of BMMD-5303, 12 which is molding material heat-resistant. You come 13 up with 8,000 and 8,000. 14 MR. WOODS: So Carlo was right. 15 BY MR. GALERSTON: 16 Q. Okay. So, looking at the second page Bates 17 number 91, that first line says BMG-2798 which is 18 2,000 pounds for $500? 19 A. Right. 20 Q. That corresponds with the mold material 21 regular? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. Which shows $2,000 sales in April - I a mean 24 two thousand pounds sales - excuse me - in April 25 and July, correct? 1 shows 23,760 pounds in December. Yet the total for 2 Watertown on the Exhibit 32 is 44,000. So I'd have 3 to look for another 20,000 pounds someplace, which I 4 hadn't haven't done yet. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. Because everything else was thermoplastics up 7 to that. 8 Q. So page 309, we look at that we are looking 9 at thermoplastic? 10 A. Page 3? 11 Q. The third page. 12 A. Three. 13 Q. Bound Brook, this is that sample? 14 A. That, I can't tell because that has no 15 designation. All I can see is that it's a small 16 quantity. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. And it is expensive material. 19 Q. It's over a dollar a pound. 20 A. Yes. So it could be a specialty 21 thermoplastic. 22 Q. Okay. All right. And the fourth page we 23 look and we see 24 A. Those are thermoplastics. These are vinyls 25 and, as I recall, the RMDA was a styrene 35 (Pages 134 to 137) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 138 Page 140 1 acrylonitrile copolymer, but I would have to check 2 back to be certain of that. It's not very much 3 anyway. Whether this shows up in this total of 4 44,000 pounds or not, I don't know. I haven't had a 5 chance to try to add that all up. I added up the 6 vinyls on the two pages, came out to 24,000 pounds. 7 That's more than I needed to come up with the 44. 8 It doesn't quite fit. 9 Q. Okay. If you could turn to with me now to 10 page Bates number 1395, it's about 7 or 8 pages in 11 there is a change in the format. 1395. They are 12 not consecutively numbered. They are in order, but 13 not consecutively. It's only about maybe 10 pages 14 in. 15 A. Got it. 16 Q. This is a sales report March 31, 1971 for the 17 thermoresins and comp or 18 A. Thermosetting resins and compositions. 19 Q. And compositions? 20 A. And composites, I'm sorry. 21 Q. And composites. Okay. And here we see 22 Watertown listed for 23 A. It just shows a credit. 24 Q. BMG-5833? 25 A. Yes. BMGF-8335. 1 A. Yes, but for the Watertown it shows I gave 2 them a credit of $470, and that's all. No pounds or 3 anything. It says sales control report, 4 thermosetting resins and composites. And I am 5 trying to determine - the first pages look like the 6 sales department's reports. This one looks a little 7 different. This looks like a business team report. 8 Q. All right. Let's go ahead and look at the 9 next page. 10 A. A lot of this I would have to really juggle 11 around to try to come up with some - to make sense 12 out of all of it. 13 Q. Okay. We will do what we can today, so you 14 have a better chance of making sense of it than I 15 do. Okay. The next page is a continuation it 16 appears. We see Watertown. I have highlighted it 17 for you on your copy, see customer 93140 Watertown 18 Manufacturing 1G, which is 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. - sales report for BMMA-5138BK 25, right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And what type of material is that 5138? 23 A. That was a low asbestos-containing, 24 heat-resistant product, somewhere around 10 to 15 25 percent as I recall. Page 139 Page 141 1 Q. Oh, BMGF? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. 8335. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What material is that? 6 A. That was heat resistant material, and that 7 was on the first page also, BMGF-8335. They got 8 8,000 pounds. No. That was in '70. This is'71. 9 Q. This shows 65 - 6,550 pounds. 10 MR. WOODS: Is that a question? 11 BY MR. GALERSTON: 12 Q. Is that correct? Am I reading this 13 correctly? 14 A. That looks like a total for that line. That 15 is a total for the line. 16 Q. Let me ask you: Do you know what kind of a 17 report this is? 18 A. What kind of a what? 19 Q. Report. 20 A. Report? 21 Q. This is different from what we saw. This is 22 broken down by customer. This is broken down by 23 product it appears, correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Correct? 1 Q. And this shows a sale of a thousand pounds of 2 BMMA-5138, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. Looking at this, we can't tell where 5 it was shipped? 6 A. No. I'm looking at the front. They 7 bought - again, that is '70. And this is '71. 8 Q. You haven't seen a summary for '70? 9 A. Maybe the summary for '71 would make -10 Q. More sense. Okay. Of course, you don't know 11 one way or the other how material was handled by 12 Watertown, if it was shipped between the two 13 facilities for whatever reason? 14 A. No. It wouldn't make sense to have it go 15 there and have it shipped down to Georgia unless 16 it's a specialty material that they, you know, it's 17 a small quantity, but I don't know what their 18 internal arrangements were. 19 Q. Okay. Now, let's go ahead and turn to the 20 next page, which, correct me if I'm wrong, appears 21 to be a continuation of the same report except now 22 we are under polysulfonates? 23 A. Polysulfones. Thermoplastics. 24 Q. So halfway down the page we see 93140, 25 Watertown Manufacturing, we see 50 pounds of 36 (Pages 138 to 141) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 142 Page 144 1 1700BK 1615, right? 2 A. Right. 3 Q. Do you know anything about that material? 4 A. That would be a polysulfone. 5 Q. Which is used for what? 6 A. It's usually a high melting point 7 thermoplastic. 8 Q. Do you know anything about its asbestos 9 composition? 10 A. It would not have asbestos in it. 11 Q. Next page we go back to June 30th of 1970. 12 This is a sales report for the molding extrusion 13 group and we see Watertown Manufacturing 93140. We 14 see 600 pounds of RMDA-4400-CS, correct? 15 A. That is a thermoplastic also. And I think 16 that is a styrene acrylonitrile copolymer. 17 Q. All right. Let's go to the next page still 18 June 30th, 1970 sales report now we're into 19 thermoresins and compositions. We see Watertown 20 listed twice. 21 A. Um-mm. 22 Q. Both under the 93140 designation. One is 1G 23 G and one is 7A, correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And these are - 1G bought 1,500 pounds of 1 A. That must be the April sales, that thousand 2 pound year-to-date. 3 Q. Which we understand to be 7A, which would 4 appear to be Watertown, Georgia, correct? 5 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. Calls 6 for speculation. 7 THE WITNESS: And the thousand pounds in 8 July would then show up on a later sheet say 9 a July 30 sheet, if there is one. 10 BY MR. GALERSTON: 11 Q. We will keep plowing along and see what we 12 find. 13 On the next page we see a sale to Watertown 14 Manufacturing 1G 500 pounds of BMG 5000BK 25, and we 15 don't have -- 16 A. 500 pounds? 17 Q. 500 pounds. Do you see that, sir? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And we don't see that reflected on our 1970 20 sales chart for Georgia, do we? 21 A. Let's see. 5000, not on Georgia. 22 Q. Right. We also notice that is for 1G? 23 A. Now, the Connecticut location did buy 500 24 pounds of BMG 5000. That is on the first page in 25 1970. That jives with that. Page 143 Page 145 1 BMG 2798BK 15 and 7A bought 1,000 pounds of BMG 2 2798BK 15, is that correct? 3 A. Let's see how that is here. And that is 4 June. So 2798, 1,000 pounds would fit with this 5 one. 6 Q. So 1,000, which is Watertown Manufacturing 7 7A 8 A. Would be Georgia, and it shows up on this 9 sheet 1,000 pounds, it shows up in July. 10 Q. It shows that they bought a thousand pounds 11 in both April and July, correct, on Exhibit 32? 12 A. Yes. Yes. 13 Q. So the way it would have been settled up 14 until that date if this is a year-to-date calendar, 15 the thousand pounds that was bought in April would 16 be reflected in this June report, correct? 17 A. Well, this doesn't show that it's 18 year-to-date. Some of these -- 19 Q. It says year-to-date? 20 A. Where? 21 Q. Up in the top. 22 A. Oh, here. Okay. 23 Q. It says year-to-date. It doesn't show a 24 current sale in the dollars or pounds. It appears 25 that - 1 Q. We don't know -- it appears that we were 2 starting to get an idea that 1G is Connecticut? 3 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 4 Calls for speculation. 5 THE WITNESS: 1G, that lines up so far. 6 We will see if we have an exception. 7 BY MR. GALERSTON: 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. But that is accounted for on that first page 10 Connecticut. 11 Q. Right. And we see next to it it's got the 1G 12 reference on page one as well? 13 A. Yes. Um-mm. 14 Q. So it appears that that column might be 15 referring to locations, the various locations? 16 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. It 17 calls for speculation. 18 THE WITNESS: It appears, but we will 19 have to see whether it works out that way. 20 BY MR. GALERSTON: 21 Q. Next page we have a Watertown 1G reference to 22 9,000 pounds of BMMA 5138BK 25? 23 A. What page is that? 24 Q. Bates number 1821, right in the middle, BM 25 BMMA 5138? 37 (Pages 142 to 145) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 146 Page 148 1 A. You skipped one. 2 MR. WOODS: I don't think he's there 3 yet. 4 BY MR. GALERSTON: 5 Q. I skipped one? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. The BMM 7002? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. Sale to Watertown 1G 3,500 pounds. We see 10 that reflected there on the first page? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. Go to the next page 1821? 13 A. If you are right about the 1G, then Georgia 14 would be 7A. 15 Q. Right. And so for - let's see -- we have a 16 7A sale on Bates number 1822? 17 A. What page are you on now? 18 Q. 1822. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. We have 4,000 pounds of 5303. We look at our 21 1970 summary on Exhibit 32 and we see 4,000 pounds 22 being sold in May of heat-resistant molding 23 material? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So, it does appear that 1G refers to the 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. We see there that there are sales to 1G and 3 then we also see a sale to 7A. 1G being Connecticut 4 and 7A being Georgia, correct? 5 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. Calls 6 for speculation. 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 BY MR. GALERSTON: 9 Q. That is BMG 5498, and if we follow it over it 10 shows that there's 2,000 pounds of that being sold 11 to Georgia, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You did not include any 1968 numbers in your 14 calculations? 15 MR. WOODS: You misspoke. 16 THE WITNESS: This is'67. 17 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 18 BY MR. GALERSTON: . 19 Q. Correct. I am sorry. You didn't include any 20 1967 sales in your - 21 A. No. I didn't have any sheet for '67. 22 Q. Okay. So if we were to add those 2,000 23 pounds from 1967 for BMG 5498, which column would 24 that go into? 25 A. Well, that is general purpose, but that did Page 147 Page 149 1 Connecticut facility and the 7A refers to the 2 Georgia facility, correct? 3 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 4 Calls for speculation. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 BY MR. GALERSTON: 7 Q. Okay. I think the next numerous pages are 8 going to be self-explanatory. They are following in 9 similar reports. 10 All right, sir. If you could, let me see -- 11 let me - I want to ask you a question. I want to 12 jump forward to December '67 summary report, but it 13 might be easier if I could turn to the page for you, 14 so we can -- 32137. Okay. There you go. Okay. 15 I've turned your attention to Bates number 32137, 16 which is a sales control report for December 31, 17 1967, correct, sir? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. We go down to the bottom, I've 20 highlighted it for you, we see the Watertown sales. 21 Starting on the -- at the bottom of the page -- and 22 I guess next page is unrelated. Okay. We see 23 customer 93140 Watertown Manufacturing. And then we 24 see product BMG 0425, 2010, 2080, 2798, 5498, 8052, 25 5138 and 2080, correct? 1 contain some asbestos, so, as I recall, so I would 2 start another column. That it's 2,000 pounds. It 3 would be GP with asbestos. It had a small amount, 4 less than 10 percent I think. 5 Q. The next page appears to be another sales 6 report, but this one apparently broken down by 7 product, and we see that Watertown Manufacturing 1G 8 about 5,300 pounds of it. Looking here, we can't 9 tell what product that was, can we? 10 A. No. 11 Q. When we look at the following it says DYHN3 12 and then next section is DYNH4. Do you know what 13 those type of products are? 14 A. Wait a minute. Where is the previous 15 Q. The previous page is not here. It wasn't 16 produced. But do you know what the DYNH3 is? 17 A. That's a polyethylene. 18 Q. So, if it followed in pattern, it would be 19 DYNH2 which would not be a phenolic molding 20 compound, would it? 21 A. No, it would not. Anything that starts with 22 a D is a polyethylene. 23 Q. Okay. If you go ahead and turn forward a 24 couple pages to 33579? 25 A. I'm on that. 38 (Pages 146 to 149) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 150 j Page 152 1 Q. Again, we are now looking at the December '66 2 sales report for thermosetting. We see the 3 Watertown Manufacturing facilities, and we see 4 customer 93140 and then we see sales to both 1G and 5 to 7A, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. 7A was buying - what do we got here - it's 8 hard to tell. I can't get this lined up 9 A. That's the BMG 5000 was sold there. 10 Q. And 50 pounds? 11 A. 50 pounds, yeah, and that is no asbestos. 12 Q. Okay. And then we got 6950 BMGA 6950, a 13 hundred pounds? 14 A. Yes. That, I don't recall. I would have to 15 look at the sheet to see whether it had asbestos in 16 it or not. 17 Q. Okay. And BMM 7017? 18 A. Yes, that is 50 pounds also. It I'd have to 19 look. 20 Q. Is it 50 pounds -- okay. Yes. 21 A. I would have to look a the sheet. 22 Q. Those are sample quantities, very low? 23 A. Yes. I am surprised you were even charged 24 for it. Maybe you weren't. It doesn't show 25 dollars. 1 I don't know. 2 BY MR. GALERSTON: 3 Q. Does the fact that this is now labeled a 4 different type of report, this is a sample control 5 report? 6 A. Oh, okay. 7 Q. What does that mean? 8 A. That means that these were probably free 9 shipments. Samples that were sent out. 10 Q. So when we look at the following page, we see 11 a sample of, who knows, 1700? 12 A. That is new polymers. That looks like a 13 polysulfone number. 14 Q. Okay. So 50 pounds is being sent out? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. So if we look at these sample control 17 reports, these are merely samples that are being 18 sent to the customers for evaluation? 19 MR. WOODS: Objection. Foundation. 20 Calls for speculation. 21 THE WITNESS: And there are no charges, 22 so they were sent free. So that may be the 23 reason they don't show up on here because 24 there is no cost associated with them, or no 25 billing that is associated with them. Page 151 Page 153 1 Q. Regardless, these aren't included on your 2 calculations because you didn't have this 3 information? 4 A. No. No. 5 Q. We have October '68 on Bates number 36445 6 several pages forward. Towards the back. 36445. I 7 suspect you are -- 8 A. Maybe I went too far. 9 Q. I don't think so. Why don't you - I will 10 see what I can do. Okay. Here we are. All right. 11 We are now looking at Exhibit 33 Bates 36445. 12 October 31, 1968, we had '68 sales in your 13 Exhibit 32, correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Here we have Watertown Manufacturing, we have 16 7A buying BMM 7002 a hundred pounds? 17 A. Yes. Let's see. December '68. 18 Q. December '68 is the first page and the second 19 page - I don't see a hundred pounds? 20 A. No. That shows a total, and I had sales in 21 October - I don't see any sales in October either. 22 Q. It's possible it's just not reflected? 23 MR. WOODS: Objection. Calls for 24 speculation. 25 THE WITNESS: It's a hundred pounds, so 1 BY MR. GALERSTON: 2 Q. Just turn a couple more pages forward to 3 3 A. 732? 4 Q. 732. 37732. It should have a large section. 5 This is all Watertown right above my thumb, 37732. 6 A. That is 36. 7 Q. We are back to sales control reports. Those 8 small ones, those are all samples. 9 A. Heres 752. 715 to 752. 10 Q. We are going to 37732? 11 A. 73212 Q. 37732. Keep going a couple more. 13 A. Yeah, got it. 14 Q. All right. Okay. This is December 31, 1969 15 year-to-date sales control report for customer 93140 16 Watertown Manufacturing, correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. So, this should match up with out 19 this indicates our sales by locations. We have 1G 20 and 7A, correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. So if we go to the third page of Exhibit 32, 23 we have the '69 sales records, correct, third page 24 of 72 25 MR. WOODS: 32. 39 (Pages 150 to 153) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 154 Page 156 1 BY MR. GALERSTON: 2 Q. Third page of 32? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. When we look over here, we see the first 5 listing for location 7A is BMG 8052, 2,150 pounds, 6 right? 7 A. I show 5,000 pounds. 8 Q. I think you are off a line? 9 A. 7A okay. 2,150. 10 Q. And if we look over at Exhibit 32, we see 11 under the specialty colors 2,150 pounds of the 12 unspecified product which we now would know to be 13 8052, correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. When we looked at the formula sheets, I do 16 not believe we had formula sheets for 8052, correct? 17 A. That is correct. 18 Q. Are you familiar with 8052? 19 A. I don't know -- I don't recall what the 20 composition is. 21 Q. So, we now know from correlating these two 22 that this is not 2010 or 2080, those brown that we 23 talked about before? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So possibly it's somewhere in the materials 1 Q. Looking at that same page, page 37732 we see 2 that these materials, these phenolic molding 3 compounds are being reported under the bonding and 4 laminating group as opposed to the phenolic 5 compounds group. In '69 was there not a separate 6 phenolic molding compounds group? 7 MR. WOODS: Objection. Well, go ahead. 8 I'm going to object to the form. There's a 9 lot of unnecessary commentary, but you can 10 answer the question. 11 THE WITNESS: At some point, the sales 12 of molding materials and the sales of the 13 phenolic resins were combined, and I don't 14 recall exactly when that occurred. It could 15 have been about this time: Why they didn't 16 change the name, I don't know. 17 BY MR. GALERSTON: 18 Q. Okay. All right. 19 A. They took over us, so maybe that is the 20 reason. 21 Q. Now, if you would go ahead and turn forward 22 two pages to 429344 Bates number. Go ahead and skip 23 that page. All right. This page. We have a new 24 report. This one is for December 1972. This is a 25 profit center thermosetting composites report, Page 155 Page 157 1 that are in the repository or materials that I have 2 already seen we might be able to determine what 8052 3 is, but as we sit here now we don't know if it's 4 asbestos-containing or not? 5 A. That's right. We could have to request a 6 formulation sheet. 7 Q. Okay. Going further down, we get to the very 8 last entry we see BMD 5303 for 7A, which we 9 discussed before and that is asbestos-containing 10 heat-resistant compound, correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And it's 13,500 pounds, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And we look over here and we see molded 15 material, heat-resistant we see 10,000 pounds in 16 July and 3,500 pounds in September, which would give 17 us 13,000 500 pounds, correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. So, as we work through this, it becomes 20 pretty clear that 1G refers to the Connecticut 21 facility and 7A refers to Georgia? 22 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 23 Calls for speculation. Foundation. 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 BY MR. GALERSTON: 1 correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. We see a listing of what appears - I don't 4 know what we have. Can you tell me what we have 5 here? 6 A. This looks like a planning, a planning for 7 future sales. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. Profit center detail. Yearly, latest yearly 10 forecast, last year forecast, deviation per plan, 11 year-to-date, year-to-date deviation. So it looks 12 like comparing the plan to the actual sales. 13 Q. Okay. So, if I understand correctly, looking 14 at the far left, this is for BMG 2798BK 15, correct, 15 top left under Description. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And so, in addition to these other customers, 18 such as the United States Navy, Watertown 19 Manufacturing Company was identified as a potential 20 customer for BMG 2798BK 15 in December 2007 - I 21 mean 1997 -- excuse me. 22 MR. WOODS: Excuse me. Objection to 23 form. 24 THE WITNESS: 1972. 25 BY MR. GALERSTON: 40 (Pages 154 to 157) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 158 Page 160 1 Q. What date did I use? 2 MR. WOODS: 1997. 3 BY MR. GALERSTON: 4 Q. Let me - in looking at this page Bates 5 number 429344, this appears to be an identification 6 of potential customers for BMG 2798BK 15, correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Watertown is identified, actually, I guess 9 specifically the Watertown Manufacturing Company the 10 Madison, Georgia location is specifically identified 11 and in addition to Westinghouse, Washington Molding, 12 United States Navy, UC Chemical Division, 13 Cartersville, Georgia, Tech Art Plastics, TRW Inc., 14 and Small Business Machines and Designs, correct? 15 A. Yes. This is correct, that usage of 1,000 16 pounds should show up on the '71 page. 17 Q. So that -- and that was reporting what the 18 71 usage was? 19 A. Yes. And that is right. Usage in 71 was 20 1,000 pounds of 2798. 21 Q. Got you. 22 A. And that shows 1,000, and they were 23 forecasting the same amount for 72 year-to-date was 24 one. So in 72 they should have sold another 25 thousand pounds. 1 A. Yes, 2,000 pounds. I just rounded it off. 2 Q. I come up with 2,250 I mean twenty-two five. 3 A. Yeah. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. Now why they changed from 15 to 25,1 don't 6 know. I assume it's because we no longer made the 7 carbon black version. 8 Q. Then the next page we see BMG 2080BK 25? 9 A. Um-mm. 10 Q. We see the Georgia facility being projected 11 for a thousand pounds usage. Next we have 12 BMGE 8335BK 35? 13 A. That is Watertown Connecticut. 14 Q. And they didn't have any previous usage and 15 did not predict for any future usage. The next page 16 is for -- 17 A. That is Connecticut also. 18 Q. And then the next page we have 5303 BK 25 19 which we have Madison, Georgia reporting 9,000 20 pounds used in 72? 21 A. And that fits. 22 Q. That matches right up? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And they are projecting that same usage going 25 forward, correct? Page 159 Page 161 1 Q. So explain to me - let's go to the next 2 page. It still is the profit center thermosetting 3 composite December 72 report. We still see BMG 4 2798BK and we have another listing for Watertown, 5 Madison, and there we have different reporting. 6 A. Well, that is because 7 MR. WOODS: Objection. Is that a 8 question? 9 BY MR. GALERSTON: 10 Q. What is the difference? 11 A. Black 25 versus black 15. 12 Q. Okay. Got you. Different product? 13 A. Different color. 14 Q. Right. So they used 3,000 pounds the 15 previous year, and they are projecting usage of 16 2,000 pounds next year? 17 A. Yes. It's - this is 72. Yes. And in 72 18 they did buy black 25. 750, 1,200 and 500, total of 19 2,000 pounds they bought in 72 of the black 25. 20 That lines up with the 2,000 pounds here. You will 21 see black 15 column. Nothing there and then there 22 is a black 25. 23 Q. 75, 1,200, 500? 24 A. And then year-to-date is 2. 25 Q. Meaning 2,000 pounds? 1 A. Yes. Lor 73 I think they are predicting -- 2 Q. 9,000? 3 A. - 9,000 pounds which apparently they didn't 4 get. 5 Q. Well, we don't know. We don't have a 73 6 summary. 7 MR. WOODS: I objection to the form. 8 Asked and answered. I think Carlo has 9 already answered that question. 10 THE WITNESS: It could be that there was 11 no sales - there were no sales in 73, but I 12 don't see a 73 here either. 13 BY MR. GALERSTON: 14 Q. 72 time period, we were talking about the 15 5303 that is an asbestos-containing, heat-resisting 16 compound, correct? 17 A. What page? 18 Q. 5303BK 25 that is asbestos-containing, 19 heat-resisting 20 A. Right. That's the Georgia. The 9,000 21 pounds* I think we counted for that. 22 Q. Yes, we did. The next page is the 23 substandard molding material where 2,000 pounds have 24 been used by Georgia the year previous and they are 25 projecting the use of 2,000 pounds. But we don't 41 (Pages 158 to 161) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 162 Page 164 1 know anything about that, correct? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Okay. If you could go ahead and go to the 4 next page 442626. It's small print -- the other 5 way. There you go. This is a regional managers 6 detailed report dated December 1970 for thermoset 7 resins and compositions, correct? 8 A. Composites. 9 Q. Composites? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. And looking here we see Watertown 12 Manufacturing Company, Watertown Connecticut is 13 listed, do you know what this is for, what material 14 this is? 15 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 16 Foundation. 17 THE WITNESS: December'70. Last year 18 was 19,000 pounds. 6,000 pounds. I can't 19 tell. 20 BY MR. GALERSTON: 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. I don't see the first page -- December '70 23 no. 24 Q. There is no mention there of Watertown 25 Georgia. Go to the next page, we see still it's the 1 back and, Carlo, I think you are looking at 2 something else while he's asking you 3 questions. And we need to focus on the 4 questions. 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 MR. WOODS: Can we have that question 7 read back? 8 (Whereupon, the question was read 9 back as follows:) 10 "QUESTION: Well, it certainly indicates 11 in December of 1970 that Watertown 12 Manufacturing in Madison, Georgia was a 13 customer of Union Carbide? Would you agree? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I would agree that 15 they were. The reason I am hesitating it 16 shows 6,000 pounds, and total sales were 8. 17 It's close, but not a good fit. 18 BY MR. GALERSTON: 19 Q. All right, sir. If you go ahead and flip 20 forward several pages and go ahead we will skip past 21 those, same type of data and information from the 22 same time period. I want to ask you about this next 23 form, the same information, same data? 24 A. December 1970. 25 Q. Same thing. I haven't compared the numbers, Page 163 Page 165 1 regional managers detailed report dated December 2 1970 for the thermoset resins and compositions, we 3 see both Watertown and Watertown Connecticut and the 4 Madison, Georgia facilities listed here, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And we see there's some indications of sales 7 of some type or at least projections of sales? 8 Mil. WOODS: Objection to form. 9 Foundation. Calls for speculation. 10 THE WITNESS: This could be total sales. 11 BY MR. GALERSTON: 12 Q. Here we see it broken down. The first time 13 we saw it, it was just the Watertown Connecticut 14 address. Here we have it broken apart, correct? 15 A. Yes. So this year-to-date at the end of 16 December it shows 17,000 pounds to Connecticut and 17 6,000 pounds to Georgia. 18 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 19 BY MR. GALERSTON: 20 Q. Well, it certainly indicates in December of 21 1970 that Watertown Manufacturing in Madison, 22 Georgia was a customer of Union Carbide? Would you 23 agree? 24 A. Yes. 25 MR. WOODS: Can you read the question 1 but it appears to be the same data. What I'd like 2 to ask you is about page 460090. It's about three 3 forward of that. Go forward several pages to format 4 change. Keep going. Keep going. One more. One 5 more. You haven't got there yet. There we go. I 6 want to ask you about that page. Okay? 7 A. Um-mm. 8 Q. We're looking at Bates number 460090. It's a 9 December '70 profit center thermosetting composites 10 report. Profit center is 363. Do you see that, 11 sir? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And then we see, in the middle we see the 14 Watertown Connecticut sales, and then we see the 15 Watertown Manufacturing Madison, Georgia sales, 16 correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And so, similar to the document that we saw 19 before, we see that looking at the Georgia, it 20 reflects there about 21,000 pounds of material that 21 were bought in 1970, and they were projecting 22 forward what their usage would be? 23 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. Calls 24 for speculation. 25 THE WITNESS: You said Georgia. 42 (Pages 162 to 165) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 166 Page 168 1 BY MR. GALERSTON: 2 Q. Correct. The second one is Georgia. See 3 Watertown Manufacturing Company Connecticut and then 4 Georgia? 5 A. I see 6,000 pounds. Let's see. 14,000. 6 Q. 14,000 followed by 6 by one, I add up that up 7 to get to 21, correct? 8 MR. WOODS: You are asking whether 14 9 plus 6 plus one equals 21? 10 BY MR. GALERSTON: 11 Q. That's what the forecast for 1970 was, 12 correct? 13 A. The one is dollars. The - let's see. There 14 is a code here. LT. 15 Q. I see what you are saying. Those aren't 16 pounds? 17 A. And in dollars and then there is a U. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. So the 14 would -- 20 Q. It would appear to be pounds, would you 21 agree, under July and September, 10 and -- 22 A. 10 and 14 -- 23 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 24 Foundation. Calls for speculation. 25 THE WITNESS: That is '70 - July and 1 MR. GALERSTON: Let's go ahead and take 2 a break. 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the 4 video record. The time is 2:39. This 5 concludes tape number three of the videotaped 6 deposition of Carlo Martino. 7 (Recess from 2:39 to 2:47.) 8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now back on 9 the video record. It's now 2:47. This 10 begins tape number four of the videotaped 11 deposition of Carlo Martino. 12 BY MR. GALERSTON: 13 Q. We are getting towards the end of this 14 exhibit. I have turned you to page 547281. This is 15 a S.A.R phone book dated December 1969. Do you see 16 that, sir? 17 A. Yes. I have - the page you gave me was 18 7957. 19 Q. This one? I gave you the wrong one then. 20 Okay. Let me put you on the right page. I 21 appreciate you keeping me honest there. We are 22 looking at 547281, and I've highlighted all of the 23 Watertown Manufacturing Company references. The 24 last three are specific to the Madison, Georgia, 25 facility, correct? Page 167 Page 169 1 September according to this sheet, it doesn't 2 show any September sales. I don't know what 3 the L stands for. 4 BY MR. GALERSTON: 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. And -- the dollar sign -- again 7 MR. WOODS: Speculation. 8 THE WITNESS: I can't figure it out. 9 That is a code. Sorry. 10 BY MR. GALERSTON: 11 Q. Quite all right. 12 A. Oh, here it is right at the bottom it tells 13 you what the code is. L is last year's pounds. T 14 is this year's pounds. Dollars is this year's 15 dollars. U where shown this year's unit per. 16 Q. That would be the cost? 17 A. So we look at that, 14,000 would have been 18 last year's pounds. That would be '69. 19 Q. And 6 would be this year's pounds? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. Got you. Okay. 22 A. And dollars, and then this unit per, we don't 23 show anything for that. 24 Q. Okay. I wanted to jump forward and see if we 25 can't finish this up. 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Are you familiar with this document, this 3 format of a document? 4 A. No, I'm not. 5 Q. So, when we look at the first line for 6 Madison, Georgia we see molding material dash re we 7 don't know what type. It indicates that in the 8 prior year it was 95,000 pounds of material, 9 correct? 10 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. Compound 11 question. Assumes facts. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. And that fits 13 because in '68 the total of molding material 14 of regular molding material was 95,500. 15 BY MR. GALERSTON: 16 Q. And then we see for the heat-resistant 17 material for the prior year there was a 7,000 pound 18 credit? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And then in '69 there was 14,000 pounds used? 21 A. The credit, that fits also. 22 Q. '69 I believe 14,000? 23 A. 14,000 - let's see - that fits also. 24 14,000 pounds in '69. 25 Q. Actually, it's 13,500, so it appears that 43 (Pages 166 to 169) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 170 Page 172 | 1 they rounded up. We see also this is consistent 2 with the information that we saw before? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. So, again, this indicates to us that 5 while the reports that we looked at here that you 6 had were from 1969 that the relationship between 7 Madison, Georgia and Union Carbide did exist back in 8 1968? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Then we go forward a couple of pages to that 11 page I gave you before 567957? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Then we see the Watertown and then here we 14 look at the Madison, Georgia and we see as of 15 December '68 it's reporting that in 1967 Watertown 16 Georgia was using 15,000 pounds of heat-resistant 17 material and 2,000 pounds of the other material, 18 correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So, according to this, we see evidence that 21 the relationship goes back to 1967? 22 A. Yes. But they must have returned some of 23 that 15,000 pounds to get the credit. They must 24 have returned half of it. They did because it would 25 be 7,000 some pounds that they got a credit for. 1 because that 44 shows up on the 70 sheet. I 2 think. Yes, on the 70 sheet, it shows 3 44,000 pounds for Watertown, and that fits 4 this 44,000 this year-to-date for 5 Watertown -- that is Connecticut, I believe. 6 BY MR. GALERSTON: 7 Q. Let's go ahead and look at the last page of 8 this document Bates 575285 Chemical and Plastics 9 Customer Master Listing as of December 1974. Do you 10 see that, sir? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And looking at this, we see that the first 13 name on this list is the Water Master Company. And 14 then we see Margaret Waterston, Water Associates, 15 Waters Manufacturing, then we see Watertown Supply 16 Company, and then we see Watervliet Paper Company? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Watervliet Arsenal. Watertown Manufacturing 19 is not listed here. Do you know why they would be 20 omitted from this list? 21 A. I don't think there were any sales. 22 Q. If we look at the last page of Exhibit 32, we 23 will see that there were 1974 sales, the last page 24 has sales in 1974? 25 A. Is this for - f ! 1 f J I | f | j | { J | j 1 1 j J f J J | f I Page 171 Page 173 j 1 Q. Again, those would be the '67 and the '68 2 numbers are not included in your calculations, 3 correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 6 Mischaracterizes his testimony. 7 THE WITNESS: The '67 are not included. 8 The '68 are. 9 BY MR. GALERSTON: 10 Q. I apologize. You are right. 11 A. So the '67 would add another, if you take 12 what they returned out, another 10,000 pounds. 13 Q. Okay. If we go to the next page, Bates 14 number 568530 another report dated December 1970. 15 It's a Group I analysis D-5 List III alphabetic list 16 of 100,000 dollar customers, correct, sir? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Is there a listing for Watertown and then 19 there is information with regards to their materials 20 and their pounds and dollars spent and projections, 21 correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 MR. WOODS: Objection. Foundation. 24 Calls for speculation. 25 THE WITNESS: And that is Connecticut 1 Q. Chemicals and plastics customers? 2 A. Depends on whether there was a cut-off in 3 terms of total sales. Madison, Georgia location 4 there were some sales, but very little, 600 pounds 5 of 200 and a thousand pounds of 2798. 6 Q. Looks like some sales to Connecticut because 7 the part above it has been omitted. It's under 8 Siemons. They didn't give me Siemons. You got it? 9 A. What happened? 10 Q. Counsel figured it out. In 1974 the name was 11 changed Siemons. 12 A. Oh, okay. . 13 Q. And so it Siemons Madison is what we were 14 looking at here, and it appears that whoever 15 prepared this document did not pull - they pulled 16 this to show that Watertown wasn't there, but it 17 probably was not included because it was now being 18 included listed under Siemon. 19 A. Okay. 20 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 21 Exhibit No. Martino 30 was marked 22 for Identification.) 23 BY MR. GALERSTON: 24 Q. All right, sir. I marked these before, but ! 25 we haven't talked about them. I show you Exhibit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .. . . . . . . . . . . . II "J J............. ... ' .LI Ji.i11i.iiii.iiiii.ii.ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 j | J | j j ? | j j f j \ f f t j. i j j j 44 (Pages 170 to 173) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 174 Page 176 1 30. This is correspondence from your file which 2 relates to Union Carbide's correspondence with 3 Watertown Manufacturing. If I understand it 4 correctly, all of this relates to BMG 0750, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. BMG 0750, according to your documents that 7 you have, indicates that it was a 8 nonasbestos-containing material, correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. It appears that there was some questions as 11 to the use of a handling of this, and this 12 correspondence that we see here in Exhibit 30 13 reflects that Union Carbide is working with 14 Watertown to make this a usable material, correct? 15 A. That's correct. 16 MR. WOODS: I will object to the form of 17 the question as being ambiguous. I think he 18 testified earlier that the documents relate 19 to Watertown, Connecticut. 20 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Deposition 21 Exhibit No. Martino 31 was marked 22 for Identification.) 23 BY MR. GALERSTON: 24 Q. I am going hand you what I have marked as 25 Exhibit 31 to your deposition. This is a memo dated 1 Q. BMG 549DBK 25, what type of material is that? 2 A. That is woodflour-filled material with a 3 small amount of asbestos in it. 4 Q. Do you know whether or not Neillite was 5 manufactured in Connecticut, Georgia, both or 6 neither? 7 A. I don't know where it was made. 8 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Butler ever worked 9 with Neillite? 10 A. Butler? 11 Q. Mr. Butler. 12 A. Oh, the - your 13 Q. The plaintiff in this case. 14 A. The plaintiff. It doesn't appear as if he 15 did. This was related to Connecticut. I didn't see 16 any, you know, whether he did or not. I wouldn't 17 know whether Connecticut would send some of their 18 molding material to Georgia or not, if they 19 manufactured it only for their use in Connecticut or 20 whether they sent it to their other location as 21 well. 22 Q. All right. Sir, based upon your review of 23 Mr. Butler's testimony and his description of his 24 work that he did, do you have any reason to doubt 25 that Mr. Butler worked with and around phenolic Page 175 Page 177 1 March 19, 1968 regarding a sample of kneel light. 2 Correct sir? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Are you familiar with Neillite? 5 A. I wasn't until I saw this letter. 6 Q. What is Neillite to the best of your 7 knowledge? 8 A. It appears that Watertown was making some of 9 its own molding material. 10 Q. How do you come to that conclusion? 11 A. Well, it says here that it is a two-step, 12 1.45 specific gravity phenolic molding material made 13 by Watertown Manufacturing Company. 14 Q. And how do you know they weren't obtaining it 15 from others? 16 A. What? 17 Q. How did you come to the conclusion they were 18 manufacturing it and not obtaining it from others? 19 A. Because it says here "made by." 20 Q. Okay. Do you understand what the use of 21 Neillite was? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Do you understand what the composition of 24 Neillite is? 25 A. No. 1 molding compounds? 2 A. No, not - I doubted whether all of the 3 materials he worked with were phenolic molding 4 compounds, but he did definitely use phenolic 5 molding compounds. 6 Q. Do you have any reason to doubt that some of 7 the phenolic molding compounds that he worked with 8 were manufactured and sold to Watertown by Union 9 Carbide? 10 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 11 Foundation. Speculation. 12 THE WITNESS: Some that he used were 13 sold to Watertown Connecticut? 14 Q. No. Watertown generally? 15 MR. WOODS: Same objection. 16 BY MR. GALERSTON: 17 Q. To Georgia. Let me be more specific. Do you 18 have any reason to doubt that Mr. Butler worked with 19 phenolic compounds sold by Union Carbide to 20 Watertown's Madison, Georgia facility? 21 MR. WOODS: Objection to form of the 22 question. Foundation. Calls for 23 speculation. Outside the witness' knowledge. 24 THE WITNESS: He worked with the ones 25 that I listed. 45 (Pages 174 to 177) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO -- Page 178 Page 180 1 BY MR. GALERSTON: 2 Q. Okay. You would agree that based upon his 3 job description and the work that he did, he would 4 have handled Union Carbide's phenolic compounds 5 doing his job? 6 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 7 Excuse me. 8 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 9 MR. WOODS: Objection to the form. 10 Foundation. Calls for speculation. Outside 11 the witness' knowledge. 12 THE WITNESS: He would have used the 13 amounts that I came up with and the types I 14 came up with. 15 BY MR. GALERSTON: 16 Q. You would agree with me that the amounts and 17 the types that you have found based upon your review 18 of the records some of which were 19 asbestos-containing? 20 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 21 Foundation. Calls for speculation. 22 THE WITNESS: Some were, yes. Best as I 23 could determine, they were 28,500 pounds that 24 he used over a period of '68 to 74. It 25 could be a little bit more because I don't 1 drums then. Now we don't show any 73 sales. 2 So whether it would have been 74, whether or 3 not there were additional sales, they would 4 have seen the labels then. 5 BY MR. GALERSTON: 6 Q. So at the earliest, based upon the records 7 that we see before us, if you assume that there were 8 no sales in 1973, and based upon the sales pattern 9 and practice up until that point, don't you agree 10 with me that it's unlikely that there were no sales 11 in 1973? 12 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 13 Foundation. Calls for speculation. 14 THE WITNESS: That, I don't know. We 15 had a big, you know, there was a recession in 16 73, a very severe one. What happened, I 17 don't know. But certainly, you know, if it's 18 important, we would have to look again why 19 those 73 scrolls are not available. It 20 would be easy to do. 21 BY MR. GALERSTON: 22 Q. So, assuming there were no sales in 1973, the 23 first time that Union Carbide shipped any products 24 that would have had the asbestos warning would have 25 been in January 1974 based upon the sales records Page 179 Page 181 1 have the figures for '67 or '66 or -- 2 BY MR. GALERSTON: 3 Q. Or 73? 4 A. Or 73. I don't know whether there were 5 sales. We would have to determine why it's missing 6 from all the documents. But to the extent that 7 we've disclosed what we know about what he was using 8 and what we sold there, we -- it was about 30,000 9 pounds were heat-resistant and contained asbestos. 10 The remainder - now, the color, we have to 11 determine. That is 2,000 pounds, whether that 12 contained asbestos or not. The remainder appears to 13 be the 2798, which did not contain asbestos, and 14 that is about 100,000 pounds. And that's a small 15 percentage of what I think they were using, very 16 small. 17 Q. Between 1968 and 1974, at what time period 18 did Union Carbide start to place warnings with 19 regards to the hazards associated with asbestos on 20 the packages that Mr. Butler would have handled? 21 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. I think 22 you've already asked these questions before. 23 THE WITNESS: The labeling began in 1973 24 about May. We were stamping the bags and the 25 Gaylords, and the drums, if we were using 1 that we see on the Exhibit 32? 2 A. Let's see. 74 they bought -- 3 Q. I said January. It appears the first sales 4 were in March of 74. I take that back. 5 A. They would not have seen that in 74 either 6 because they didn't buy any products that had 7 asbestos in them in 74. They bought 2080 and they 8 bought 2798. Those wouldn't have had any labels on 9 them. 10 Q. So, basically, the entire time that - 11 Mr. Butler would have worked with and handled Union 12 Carbide asbestos-containing phenolic compounds, none 13 of them would have been stamped with a warning, 14 correct? 15 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 16 Foundation. Assumes facts not in evidence. 17 Outside of the witness' knowledge. 18 THE WITNESS: None that they received in 19 74, and we have to determine whether there 20 were any sales in 73. 21 BY MR. GALERSTON: 22 Q. And certainly all the once between '67 and 23 72 would not have been marked? 24 A. No. They would have had dust warnings on 25 them, but not asbestos warnings. 46 (Pages 178 to 181) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 346H361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 182 Page 184 1 Q. Do you know if Union Carbide ever offered to 2 go into Watertown's Georgia facility to do asbestos 3 exposure testing for them? 4 A. I was never contacted to do it for them. I 5 know there is some customers that had asked for us, 6 and our policy was to refer them to some 7 organization outside of our organization to do it 8 for them. I don't know what happened in Georgia, 9 ,whether they talked to our salespeople and got -- 10 they were not one of the companies that I was told 11 about. 12 Q. Did you see any communication between Union 13 Carbide and Watertown Manufacturing in the Georgia 14 facility advising them of the hazards associated 15 with asbestos from the handling of Union Carbide's 16 phenolic compounds? 17 A. I didn't see it, but that would have been 18 done by our salespeople. I wouldn't see all the 19 correspondence that they gave their customers. 20 Q. You haven't seen - counsel hasn't provided 21 you with and you are not aware of any that are in 22 the repository indicating communications between 23 Union Carbide and Watertown's Georgia facility 24 warning them of the hazards associated with 25 asbestos? 1 articulate person, so I think he --1 was 2 impressed with how -- with his deposition as 3 to how he clearly spoke. So, it was -- if he 4 was articulate there, I couldn't understand 5 why he wasn't more articulate with his own 6 management. 7 BY MR. GALERSTON: 8 Q. Of course, 40 years' of life experience might 9 change a man a bit, would you agree? 10 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 11 Foundation. Calls for speculation. Vague. 12 THE WITNESS: Well, yes. More 13 self-confident and more experience at 14 asserting yourself. 15 BY MR. GALERSTON: 16 Q. Was there any of his work practices that you 17 found to be inconsistent with your understanding of 18 the handling of Union Carbide's phenolic materials? 19 A. No. That was pretty common practice to put 20 the material into the hopper. Now, a lot of our 21 customers used air handling facilities and aerate 22 the material up into the hoppers so you didn't have 23 to go up on the platform and dump it in. A lot of 24 them used Gaylords to do that and that certainly 25 reduces exposure to the dust. Most of them had very Page 183 Page 185 1 A. I haven't seen anything, no. 2 Q. Based upon his testimony and his work 3 practices, do you believe that Mr. Butler did 4 anything that contributed to his exposure to 5 asbestos that he should not have done? 6 MR. WOODS: Objection to form. 7 Foundation. Calls for speculation. Asking 8 for an expert opinion. 9 THE WITNESS: I think that he should 10 have been more assertive about the dust in 11 his area, if it was as bad as he described 12 it, he should have done more to, you know, 13 with his own management to reduce the dust in 14 his level or at least complain about it. 15 Apparently -- I mean, he did get a mask, but 16 he said the mask didn't work that well. I 17 think he should have gone back to management 18 and told them about it and tried to get some 19 more help. 20 Now, he did imply that management was 21 not too receptive, that they complained and 22 they didn't get much response either. To 23 what point do you push and then lose your 24 job, I don't know, but I think he could have 25 done a little more. He seemed to be a very 1 good ventilating facilities. Square-D was, you 2 know, very clean. 3 I can't speak for Watertown, Georgia. I can 4 only go by what he said. But if it was that dirty, 5 I am surprised he stayed for eight years. 6 Q. You never were in either one of the Watertown 7 facilities, were you? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Well, Mr. Martino, I believe that is all the 10 questions I have. I am going to pass the witness. 11 I may have an few more follow up, sir. 12 MR. WOODS: Anybody on the phone? 13 MR. THACKSTON: I do have a couple of 14 followups, if it's my turn. 15 16 EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. THACKSTON: . 18 Q. Sir, my name Robert Thackston. I represent 19 Reichhold in this. Case can you hear me okay? 20 A. Yes, I can. 21 Q. Do you have any information about the work 22 that Mr. Butler did other than his deposition 23 transcript? 24 MR. WOODS: That is a question to you. 25 THE WITNESS: Me? 47 (Pages 182 to 185) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 186 Page 188 | j 1 MR. WOODS: Yes, you are being deposed. 1 companies like American Cyanamid and Monsanto did | 2 THE WITNESS: Do I have what? 2 not supply phenolic molding materials, they did j 3 BY MR. THACKSTON: 3 supply melamine molding compounds, which were j 4 Q. Do you have any information about the work 4 light-colored, and it is possible that he just j 5 that Mr. Butler did other than the description he 5 assumed that those were phenolic molding materials. j 6 gave in his deposition? 6 Now, a few that I did mention I don't think we even j 7 A. Not - all I know about what he did there was 7 made the melamine. So I don't know where he came up j 8 what he described. I wasn't there to see it. I am 8 with those. j 9 just comparing it to what I have seen at other 9 Q. He mentioned a couple of companies - he j 10 locations. 10 claimed a couple of companies manufactured phenolic j 11 Q. And I believe one -- you consider -- we 11 molding compounds that he worked with that you don't 1 12 didn't go over your background in this deposition, 12 know to be participants in the industry at all, is j 13 but you consider yourself knowledgeable in the field 13 that fair? j 14 of phenolic molding compounds, is that fair? 14 A. Oh, I know them, yes. I know American s 15 A. Well, I worked --1 was the R&D group manager 15 Cyanamid and I know that they made melamine moulding j 16 for the molding material business from 1960 to 1974. 16 materials. I also know that they did not make j 17 Q. And were you generally familiar with the 17 phenolic molding compounds. I know the same about j 18 participants in that industry, the manufacturers of 18 Plaskon. I don't think they -1 don't recall them ! 19 phenolic molding compounds? 19 being in the phenolic molding material business j 2 0 A. Yes, I was. 2 0 either. Hercules, I don't recall them doing any I 21 Q. I believe you noted earlier that Mr. Butler 21 phenolic molding material business, in the business. 1 2 2 claimed that work with some phenolic molding 2 2 Koppers also. j 2 3 compounds made by companies that did not make them 2 3 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. j 24 at all. Didn't you say that? 2 4 A. DuPont, they did not make phenolic molding j 2 5 A. Yes, I did. 2 5 materials. j Page 187 Page 189 j 1 Q. And he also, from the work that he described 2 doing, are you able to say which or what portion of 3 that work would have involved any 4 asbestos-containing compounds, if any? 5 MR. GALERSTON: Objection to form. 6 Calls for speculation. Mischaracterizes 7 previous testimony. 8 THE WITNESS: I can only say that the 9 ones that I identified that we supplied that 10 contained asbestos he probably used. With 11 regard to what our competitors were 12 supplying, I have no information. 13 BY MR. THACKSTON: 14 Q. Even with regard to what your records show 15 about your sales, do I understand correctly that 16 they show that Union Carbide supplied some that 17 contained asbestos and some that did not? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. And with respect to say a percentage of 2 0 Mr. Butler's overall work that may have involved the 21 asbestos-containing compounds, is there any way for 2 2 you to tell that as far as you know? 23 A. No, because I don't know what our competitors 2 4 supplied, and, you know, whether they, how much 2 5 asbestos they contained. And where I said that the 1 Q. So, would your conclusion be based on your 2 education and experience that Mr. Butler was simply 3 mistaken about having worked with those brands of 4 phenolic molding compounds? 5 A. My conclusion was that he considered 6 everything he was handling phenolic molding 7 materials. Where he got the idea that all of these 8 people were suppliers of those materials, I don't 9 know. 10 Q. With respect to the name Reichhold, other 11 than what Mr. Butler recalled, you don't have any 12 information about sales of Reichhold of phenolic 13 resins to that plant, do you, sir? 14 A. No, I don't. The only thing is his statement 15 that Reichhold and Durez were the largest, that he 16 used those the most. But I have no access to any of 17 your sales records or anybody else's sales records. 18 Q. Wre believe that he was mistaken with respect 19 to the identification of a lot of molding compounds, 2 0 don't we? 21 MR. GALERSTON: Objection. Form. 2 2 Argumentative. 23 THE WITNESS: Not molding compounds, 2 4 just the source of the molding compounds. 25 j | ( | j j ! j 1 j j j j j | j j j j j \ j j j | 48 (Pages 186 to 189) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 190 Page 192 1 BY MR. THACKSTON: 2 Q. Are you familiar with Durez as a manufacturer 3 of phenolic molding compounds? 4 A. Yes, I am. 5 Q. Are you aware of the type of asbestos that 6 Durez used in some of its compounds? 7 MR. GALERSTON: Objection. Form. Calls 8 for speculation. 9 THE WITNESS: I don't know where they 10 purchased their asbestos. 11 BY MR. THACKSTON: 12 Q. Are you aware that they used crocidolite 13 asbestos in some of their molding compounds? 14 MR. GALERSTON: Objection. Form. Asked 15 and answered. Calls for speculation. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 17 BY MR. THACKSTON: 18 Q. Has it not been brought to your attention or 19 have you reviewed any materials either while you 20 were working or in the course of litigation that 21 showed that Durez made a type of molding compound 22 that contained crocidolite asbestos? 23 MR. GALERSTON: Objection. Form. Asked 24 and answered. Argumentative. Repetitive. 25 THE WITNESS: No, I am not aware. I 1 question, but the dust labels we had on in the '60s. 2 Q. Let me make sure I get it right this time. 3 Are you aware of any manufacturer of a phenolic 4 molding compound putting an asbestos warning on that 5 compound prior to 1973? 6 A. No, I'm not. 7 Q. Okay. I believe those are the questions I 8 have. Thank you very much. 9 A. You are welcome. 10 MR. WOODS: I don't have any questions. 11 MR. GALERSTON: No further questions for 12 plaintiffs. 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's 3:21. We are 14 now concluded with the videotaped deposition. 15 MR. THACKSTON: Thank you guys. 16 MR. WOODS: The witness is going to read 17 and sign the deposition. 18 (Whereupon, the deposition was 19 concluded at 3:21 p.m.) 20 21 -- 22 23 24 25 Page 191 Page 193 1 don't know the specific formulations that 2 Durez manufactured. 3 BY MR. THACKSTON: 4 Q. Are you aware of a use of molded products 5 during the time that you were working that called 6 for crocidolite asbestos as an ingredient of the 7 phenolic molding compound? 8 A. You mean in anybody's facilities? 9 Q. Yes, sir. 10 A. No, I'm not. 11 Q. And are you aware of anyone putting a 12 warning, any manufacturer of phenolic molding 13 compounds putting any type of warning on those 14 products regarding asbestos prior to 1973? 15 A. We did. 16 Q. With respect to general dust? 17 A. No. With respect to asbestos. 18 Q. I may have misunderstood you. I thought your 19 testimony was that the first asbestos warning that 20 you would have ever put on one of these compounds 21 would have occurred in 1973? 22 A. That was correct. 23 Q. Was I wrong? 24 A. No. You weren't wrong. That was correct. 25 The dust label -- maybe I misunderstood your 1 ERRATA 2 3 4 I wish to make the following changes, for the 5 following reasons: 6 7 PAGE LINE 8 CHANGE: 9 REASON: 10 CHANGE: 11 REASON: 12 CHANGE: 13 REASON: 14 CHANGE: 15 REASON: 16 CHANGE: 17 REASON: 18 CHANGE: 19 REASON: 20 21 22 CARLO MARTINO DATE 23 24 25 49 (Pages 190 to 193) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597 CARLO MARTINO Page 194 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 2 3 4 5 6 I, CARLO MARTINO, the witness herein, 7 having read the foregoing testimony of the pages of 8 this deposition, do hereby certify it to be a true 9 and correct transcript, subject to the corrections. 10 if any, shown on the attached page. 11 12 13 14 CARLO MARTINO 15 16 17 Sworn and subscribed to before 18 me, this day 19 of ,2009. 20 21 2 2 Notary Public 23 24 25 Page 195 1 CERTIFICATE % ] 1 \ i % 3 I, JEANNETTE McCORMICK, a Certified 4 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public, certify that 5 the foregoing is a true and accurate Computerized 6 Transcript of the Deposition within. 7 8 I further certify that I am neither 9 attorney, of counsel for, nor related to or employed 10 by any of the parties to the action in which the 11 Depositions are taken, and further that I am not a 12 relative or employee of any attorney or counsel 13 employed in this case, nor am I financially 14 interested in the action. 15 16 17 18 19 JEANNETTE McCORMICK, C.S.R. My Commission Expires on December 20, 2012 2 0 Certificate No. 920 21 22 23 24 25 l I ! l 1 * ! I 50 (Pages 194 to 195) HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM 3461 f361 -e3ed-4273-9095-5020536d1597