Document 65pwQ4rXp0vQe04zVkGELJEpE

jUfl-27-97 10:29 Froa:PnL?S DUftBAR STEVE EVANS, Plaintiffs, vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL Defendants. 7136260956 '-584 3 18/43 ;oe-784 NO. 96-62699 $ I i $ $ $ a -PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT RR-438c IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF HARRIS COUNTY. TEXAS 334TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO RLAlNTIFgS SECOND SET OP TNTgRROGATORTF.S TO: Plaintiff Steve Evans, by and through Us attorneys of record, Kimberly Castles, Baroa ft Budd, The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. Pursuant ro Rules 166b and 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Union Pacific Railroad Company (Improperly named as Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. d/b/a Union Pacific Railroad Co.. Individually and as Successor-in-interest to Texas ft Pacific Railroad), Defendant herein, hereby submits its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories. 1. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they request information protected from disclosure by the aoorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. Any information subject to any such privilege inadvertently provided by Defendant m response to the Interrogatories shall not constitute or be deemed to constitute a waiver of any such privilege. 2 Defendam objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they request information that is oeither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3 Defendant object* to the lacevrogatoriM the extent that they eaotsd the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 Defendam objects to the latenogacoriee to the extent that they purport to require Defendant to provide information that is available to Plaintiff where the burden of deriving or wretraining such information is substantially the same as for Plaintiff as for Defendant. remits, t 1 RECEIVED TIMEJUN 10:27AM juH-iT-5i rroe;?.?$ uuh&A* m$SZ6Q65$ T-544 ? i3/4j ;oo*'3i 5 Defendant Objects to the Iftterrogatoriea to the extant that they purport to require Defendant to provide information pertaining to any time period other than the relevant time period which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. 6. Defendant reserves the right to supplement or amend its responses as appropriate. 4 PDS:72lll.l 2 vuH--ir-ir i ojo "roffl'.rnttPS vuttSAR f136260656 7-584 3 20/43 joc-:84 IttTCKROfiiMQBZES interrogatory no \: At any time prior to 1980 did Defendant or anyone at the direction of Defendant conduct an investigation, survey or other process to identify the primary emission sources of airborne asbestoa fibers and/or to assess and/or sample for the detection of, the quantity of, or threshold limit value of airborne asbestos fibers in relation to Defendant's railroad? if so, please identify with particularity the entity and/or persons conducting such mvestigauon(s), survey(s), or test(s), the dates conducted and the results. ANSWER: Defendant is aware of current permissible exposure limits for exposure to aabesros fibers and its predecessors promulgated by the OSHA. Investigation with regard to TLVs and the dare upon which Defendant first became aware of this "concept" has not been established. INTERROGATORY NOJl: Did Defendant ever arrange for any labor agency, insurance company, government agency, inspectors or anyone from your company to go into any of Defendant's railway car(s) and/or engine(s) and/or locoraotive(s) and/or roundhouses and/or shops to take dust level counts related to asbestos dust? If so, identify with particularity the party(ies) conducting such procedure(s), the dues conducted, the purpose of such procedure(s), and all results of such (s). ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the dieoovecy of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor is it limited to the job site or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by fee attorney-client privilege and fee work product doctrine. INTERROGATORY NtQ v. Did Defendant obtain facts, knowledge or Information from any industry, insurance company, governmental agency, union, and/or any other entity regarding fee potential health effects and/or health hazards created for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust? If so, please Use all sources of such information and fee dates received. answer.- Objection. This Interrogatory is overly bread, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to fee time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information if any exists, which is protected by fee anorecy<tient privilege and fee work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of fee foregoing (Ejections. Defendant has not located any documents from fee time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant which are responsive to this Interrogatory. interrogatory no. : Usi each person who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to. physicians (including those physicians who would have been responsible for conducting physicals, evaluations or screenings of Defendant's employees) and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job tide of each of those individuals who has had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of airborne asbestos dust. ANSWER: Objection. This lotenogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to fee discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to fee time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Ernest T. Rouse, 710 Hanley, St. Louis. MO 63105, was Medical Director for Missouri Pacific Railroad Company from approximately 1969 until approximately 1986. Detail Ridding is Union Pacific Company's current medical director. He began at the fee railroad in 1986. His business address is 1416 Dodge, Omaha. Nebraska 68179. Dr. L.C. Bevilacqua was wife fee Union Pacific from 1978 to 1989. Dr. Bevilacqua lives in fee Omaha area.Dr. R. D. Sellers was a contract physician wife fee Union Pacific pD*mu.i 3 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 11 !0:27AM .Uh-27-37 1C:30 Froa:PHEiPS OUNSAR 7136260656 T-504 3 27/43 .8C--84 Railroad from approximately 1974 to 1978. It is believed that Dr. Seilers is in the Council Bluffs. Iowa area. INTERROGATORY NO. S: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so. state: A. The name of each such publication; B. The date of publication and the names of the author and publisher (if any); C. The date received by Defendant; D. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. ANSWER- Objection. 17111 Interrogatory is overly brood, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the attorneys:iiem privilege and chs work product doctriae. INTERROGATORY NO.6: Has Defendant at any time been a member of soy trade organization or association thar published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of airborne asbestos? If so. state: A. The name and address of each such association or organization; B. The dates during which Defendant member (Sic); C. The names and dates of any publications, minuses, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations; D. whether any of those publications are still la your possession, and if so: 1 .A description of (he publications, including (be date; 2.Tbe current location of such publications; 3 .The custodian of such publications; 4.The method or manner in which such publications are mamamed. ANSWER Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is oot limited to the time period in which Plaintiff wu allegedly employed by Defendant Subject to and without waiver of (he foregoing objections, Defendant has been a member of the Association of American Railroads since 1934. Prior to 1934, Defendant was a member of the American Railway Association. Defendant does not currently have m its possession any records which indicate whether it had representatives at the Medical and Surgical Section of the Association of American Railroad for the yean listed. Counsel for Defendant has obtained mrmxw of the proceedings of (he Medical and Surgical Section of the American Railway Association and the American Association of Railroads for certain years through the course of ocber asbestos litigation. These records indicate that the following individual were in attendance at die following meetings. Defendant has no records which indicate that these individuals were employed by Defendant. 1921 1922 P.F. Vasteriing P.F. Vasteriing, J. 0. Graves. A. Isom, G. M. Spellings 1926 W.B.Buna, J. B. Caharton. W. P. Coyle. T.B.M. Craig. H.W. Cummings. J.N. Greene, C.C. Hawke, S C. Murray. E.B. Parsons. L.L. Purefoy, E.H. Skinner 1929 O.B. Zeinert 1930 O.B. Zeinert 1931 O.B.Zeinert 1932 O.B. Zeinert 1933 O.B. Zeinert 1934 O.B. Zeinert jyC* TTysiTiw y 10:2'7AM JUN-27-3T 10:30 Froa:PHL?$ 0UN8AR 713S2S06S6 T--534 ? 22/43 .iOD-794 1935 1936 1937 1939 1940 1941 1946 1947 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1955 1956 1957 1958 1965 0 8. Zeinen 0.8. Zeinen 0.8. Zeinen. J.A. Lembeck. D.S. Long 0.8. Zeinen 0.8. Zeiaen O.B. Zeinen, A.J. Brown O.B. Zeinen O.B. Zeinen 0.8. Zeinen O.B. Zeinen O.B. Zeinen J.A. Lembeck J.A. Lembeck J.A. Lembeck J.A. Umbeck. G.W. B*U J.A. Lembeck J.A. Lembeck J.M.L. Jensen INTERROGATORY NO. 7: As vo tbe disease asbesiosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant first leaned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. How Defendant became twmc of tbe rxatcpce of the disease; C. Who within the company first discovered, recognised or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease; D. What information was &--**** within Defendant s company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such advene consequences or effects; E. Whether any such information is still matmained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form: F. Who is the custodian of such information; O. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by of asbestos fibers alone or in conjunction with second band smoke. ANSWBy: objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant oor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to tbe time period m which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant and does not reference any condition of which Plaintiff allegedly suffered. Moreover, this Interrogatoty seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the fbreioing objections, it is not Imown what year Defendant first became aware of this issue; however, is poetibilities became more probable baaed on more concrete medical information, Defendant's awareness of these possibilities increased. To the best of our loowledge. k appears that the compeny was reasonbty aware of these issues by approximately 1977. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: As to the disease lung cancer, state: A. The dam on which Defendant first learned feat such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of fee disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure: C. Wbo within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of atbastos exposure; P0S:721tl.| 5 PECHIVSn TIMEJUN 27 10:27AM jUN"27-37 i0:30 Fron:PH6i.P$ QUNfiAfi f136260656 T-534 5 23/43 400-7BA ANSWER: D. What information wa disseminated wiihin Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defondants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form; F. Who is the custodian of such information; G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. See Defendant's Objections and Response to Interrogatory 32. INTERROGATORY NO 9: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: a. The date on which Defendant first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers; C. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos; D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; E. What iaformatioo was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form; G. Who is the custodian of such information; H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cun for mesothelioma. ANSWER: See Defendant's Objections and Response to Interrogatory 32. INTERROGATORY NO. IQ: As to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer and/or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant first learned that such diseases were caused by inhalatioo of asbestos fibers by humans; B. What cancers has the Defendant become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers: C. The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation; D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered (he adverse consequences or effects of aabestos exposure; E. What information was with Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; F. Whether any such information is still by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form; G. Who is tbs custodian of such information. answer: Objection. Hus lattnugaiory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because h is not limited the time period la which PiaindfT was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Itaerrogatocy seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by (be attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. interrogatory no. it: DM Defendant maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? U so, for each such set of minuses, state: A. The dates of each such meeting; P05:ni.t 6 TIMEJUN. n27AM JUN-27-37 ;0:3i ?roa:Pti.P$ OUNBAR 7136260655 T-584 P 24/43 .08-784 ANSWER: B. The general subject matter discussed at each meeting; C. Who was in attendance at each meeting; D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained: E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format: p. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to ocher individuals, and if . so, the names and job titles of those individuals. Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists; which is protected by the attorneyclient privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant has not located any information responsive to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Does Defendant intend to call a company representative as a witness at the trial of this case? If so, list: A- The name, address, and job title of each company representative who may be called: B- A summary of the testimony expected to be given by each such witness; C- List any and all previous times that the named wtcaesae* have either given depoeitioa or trial testimony in an asbestos-related ease, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the depoeitioa for the Plaintiffs) in that case. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overty broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks mfomarioo. If say exists, which is protected by the oococy-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant does not presently intend to cell e company representative as a witness at the trial of this matter. interrogatory NO. 13: Does Defendant have, or bn it ever had, a Medical Department or Medical Section? If so. state: A. The year such Medical Department or Section was established; B. Whether or set such Medical Department or Section has operated continuously since being established: C. The name of each director, chief, or bead of your Medical Department or Section year by year, beginning with the tint year of Us existence and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State me duties aiti responsibilities of such Medial Department. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the tune period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, see Defendants response to interrogatory No. 29. interrogatory NO. 14: Please state whether written warnings were placed at any locations adjacent to or near asbestos in place on Defendant's nilroadfs), at anytime from 1930 to the present. If so, please describe with specificity such signs, including size, color, wording, etc. Additionally, please state the number of such signs that were installed and indicate the specific location of each such sign and the dates such sign was at that location. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overty broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it does not reference any time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor is it limited to the job site or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. POS:72ltt.t ccr:'7?n Tijjtc.rmj ?? JIW-2M7 10:31 ?ro:P*:.P$ 0UNBAR 7136260656 T-584 5 25/43 Job-^94 INTERROGATORY NO !$: Does Defendant hive, or has it ever had, a Safety Department? If to, jucc: A. The year such Safety Department was established; B. Whether or not such Safety Department ha* operated eondmiously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Safety Department year by year, beginning with the futt year you had a Safety Director or Safety Department, and the last known address and phone aumber of each; D- State the duties and responsibilities of such Safety Department. ANSWER; Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Subject to but without waiver of the foregoing objections, all Railroad Departments are conscious of safety issues interrogatory NO. 16: please sute whether a medical monitoring program, medical examination program or other medical surveillance was provided to your employees and specifically to Plaintiff. If so, please indicate what records of such program, examination or surveillance concerning Plaintiff exist at this one, including but not limited to reports, x-rays and medical notes. answer: Objection. This interrogatory Is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory seeks information which is protected by the anoney<lies privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Defendant has not located any documents which would indicate that medical monitoring and/or surveillance was conducted by Defendant on Plaintiff. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether Defendant has at any time provided safety equipment to the Plaintiff and/or foe railroad workers of Defendant present at any time during Plaintiffs employment by Defendant for protection against the inhalation of airborne asbestos dust, including but not limbed to masks, respirators, or other breathing devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, etc. For each such item of equipment, please indicate when such item was first provided, under what circumstances, and the same, address and telephone number of the person most knowledgeable concerning such provision. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the job site and facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, respiratory protection has been available to Defendant's employees for a number of yean. INTERROGATORY NO. 1R: Please state whether Defendant ever agreed by contract, agreement, negotiation, collective bargaining or otherwise, to provide masks to Plaintiff and ocher crew members and/or employees of Defendant working with or around asbestos pcoducs. If so. please state verbatim the specific agreement or contract ani/or other document by which Defendant agreed to provide such masks. Include foe date the agreement was entered into, the period of dme covered by the agreement and the parties to the agreement. answer: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly bread, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of adasiaaibfe evidence hor-aine it is oot limited to the time period in which Ptatndff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor limited to the job site or facilitiee on which Plaintiff waa allegedly employed by Defendant. 9ubject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant has not located any taformadoo which would indicate that Defendant entered into such an agreement during the yean of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO 19: Please state the precise State and/or Federal regulations, laws, statutes, or other authority pertaining to industrial hygiene or worker safety and health that governed, regulated controlled and/or were applicable to airborne asbestos exposure in your operations and/or in relation to Defendant's railroad. ros,nm.\ 8 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. V. 10:27AM iO:32 rfO:?nuf$ UUhOAK n36260656 T-534 ? 26/43 joo*?84 >-answer: Objection. This Imerrogaiory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence it is not limited to the time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Further the information requested is public record and is equally available to Plaintiff and Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Please describe each and every occasion during the past thirty years when any regulatory agency or other governing body inspected Defendant's railroad to ascertain whether health and safety regulations were being followed or adhered to, including the date of such inspection and/or meeting, the results, and whether a written report was produced. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor it it limited to the job site or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please state whether any asbestos-containing products in place or in use on Defendant s railroad, has been removed or abated at any time from 1063 to the present. If so. please eaawer the following:.. A. List each and every abatement company or other contractor involved with the removal of asbestos, including address end telephone tmrnber, dates of such removal, and whether a contract for such removal exists; B. Indicate the total amount a dollar* epenc by Defendant to abase or remove asbestos from the railroads. C. State whether any `removal plan* or organized written criteria or ocher document related to asbestos removal os the railroadfs) was ever prepared by Defendant; D. State whether corporate document* discussing or relating generally to the removal of asbestos are in existence and, if so. where they are mairnimed: E. State precise dates and locations when and where such removal or abatement took place answer: for each railroad. Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence became it does not reference any tune period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Defendant has been involved in the abatement of asbestos in use on the railroad. interrogatory nq. 22: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant was first advised of such limits or concentrations; B. The name of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice; answer: C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. Objection. This tamrrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information which is protected by the aaorney-cliem privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant is aware of current permissible exposure limits for exposure to asbestos fibers and its predecessors promulgated by the OSHA. Investigation with regard to TLVs and the date upon which Defendant first became aware of this "concept' has not located any doramms which address this issue. Additionally, investigation continues on this issue, sad this answer will be supplemented as appropriate. INTERROGATORY NO 23: Please state whether and when Defendant received a copy of the Fleischer/Drinker Report published in 1945/1946. pos-.mw-i 9 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM jufi-2M7 i0:32 froa:PntPS OiABAft 4 7136260656 T-584 P 27/43 Joo-784 answer: Objection. This Interrogatory U overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of (he foregoing objections, counsel for Defendant has obtained this document through the course of other asbestos litigation. INTRRROOATQRV NO. 24: Please describe all actions taken by Defendant to comply with the Boiler Inspection Act. previously 45 U.S.C. $23 during die past thiny-five (35) years, now designated at 49 U.S.C. $20701 et seq. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence became it u not limited to the time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor is it limited to the job site or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the attorney<iient privilege and the work product doctrine. Finally, this Interrogatory requires Defendant to make a legal conclusion in order to respond to it. Respectfully submitted, PHELPS DUNBAR Text* State Bar No. 01237257-' (/ Maria Ragazzo Tens Ber No. 00783564 3040 Post Oak Boulevard Suite 900 Houston. TX 77056 (713)626-1396 (713) 626-1388 FAX THOMPSON COBURN < Signed by Permission Missouri Sam Bar No. 23983 Tracy J. Cowan Missouri State Bar No. 40229 One Mercantile Center St. Louis, Missouri 63101 314-552-6000 FAX 314-552-7000 Attorneys for Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company ns.mu.i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10 RECEIVED TIMEJUK 27 !0:2-AM JUN-27-97 10:32 Proe:PH6lP$ DUNBAR 4 7136260656 T-584 e 26/43 jod-784 The undersigned bereby certifies that a uue and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories has been sent via Federal Express and Facsimile to Kimberly A. Casties. Baron & Budd. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue. Suite UOp^gHas. Texas 75219-4281 and via First Class Mad to all parties of record on attached service list and this 22Lday of June. 1997. PD*;721M.l n ;crstvsri TjMEJUN ^ V JUL-03-97 13;0B Fro:P*lPS DUNBAR H 0 7136261988 T-740 P.05710 Job-199 i STEVE EVANS. Plaintiff*. vs. OWENS-CORNTNG PQERCLAS CORPORATION. pT AL Defendants. NO. 96-62699 i $ 8 $ * $ 4 IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF Harris county, texas i 334TK JUDICIAL DISTRICT YERinCATTQiy i STATE OP NEBRASKA ) ) COUNTY OF DOUGLAS 3 Comes ROW A.L. Schraeder, Manager of Discovery for Union P^eifie Railroad Company, being first duty sworn on her oath, and states that she is authorized on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad Company to make the foregoing Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Scsotid Set of interrogatories Directed to Defendant, and Out while Che. does not have personal knowledge of all hots cited therein, the information has been collected and the iRtwere made after a reasonable search of'ail available records and that she has read the foregoing Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Sit of Interrogatories, and that the information contained therein is true and accurate based os her best knowledge, information and belief. Therefore, the foregoing responses are verified on bthaif of Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. . A. L. Sehroeder Subscribe and sworn to before me this day of June. 1W. My commission expires: A SUtQUl NOTlft-Sut of tefcub _n_. jamcs h. usoieAmt 4H6> %urn.bemitm ros:niM.i RECEIVED TIMEJUL. 3. !:09P!K .ii Jlff-27-87 10:24 FraitPHElPS MWBAR 7136260656 T-584 P-02 Job-784 tao **.** - * i* kTVKCT new -awiCTSB. vOUOMHA *l 1*0*1 Mfgii T*Mi?fc*.6l*o**l<6*66W-U00*n0OAM*OA3IInOM* <S*w6iB--OQ7 Cable *0*rHrcnea *o< >* BAN* BUUBIM6 > O. BOS MIC BATON AOUCC. kOviBtAMA >Q6fl--J |BO*l X 6ti TA06MILC (60*1 TBI-B1B7 MAfUA RAGAZZO Houston Office (713)877-5513 Phelps Dunbar, llp, COUNSELLORS AT L. A.W surrc 900 jooo post oak souwcvako HOUSTON. TCXAS 77009 iit -taee facsimile <t3) t>iao* June 27. 1997 bvtc 600 - mtcl ec>>c 300 w****A ST*CCT TACE6CM. A66nM> j-j*3*-iOB* WOx >12-1X0 'ACfcMMkK *on 3BO.BT>r BCWCNTm TVQQW - On( I- O 60s 1330 TV*CL. N6Jl*fitA*l 3BB0SM330 **OH 6**<TOOT FACBMUkC HtOll (-> SWlVC 731 ' ittL 7 I .( 6TOCCT LONDON CUM (INMM >Ucnie( on >mi i>3p-*7B6 B6*X'TAC3*iwC OS N>r^B>iaa0 teles VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Charles Bacarisse Harris County District Clerk 301 Fannin Houston, TX 77002 1174041*2 Re: Cause No. 96*62699; Steve Evans vs. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, cc al; In the 334th Judicial District Court of Harris County. Texas Dear Mr. Bacarisse: Enclosed please find an original and one file stamp copy of the following documents for the above-referenced muter. 1. Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories; 2. Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories; and 3. Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production. Due to die voluminous copying involved, enclosures have been furnished exclusively to Plaintiffs attorney. All other parties have been furnished with this letter only and should they wish to obtain a copy of this pleading, they may contact Barry Hollingshead u (713) 626-1386 axi. 242. Very truly yours, MA/mml Enclosure cc: attached service list PHELPS DUNB>AaRa, Li-..Lt-..Pr. *wMoul>CL, Maria Ragazzo L PDS:725tt.l RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM J1K-27-9T 111:25 Fr:P*lP$ DUNBAR 7136260656 PLAINTIFFS Kimberly A. Cuttles Baron A Budd The Cenmira 7102 Oejdawn Avenue Suite ill# Dallas. TX 75219 Phone No. (214)521-3605 Fax No. (214) 520-1191 OWSNS-CORNING FTBKRGLAS CORPORATION Rick Thamm BEAM & MANNING 5847 San Felipe, Suite 1500 Houston. Texas 77057 Phone No. (713) 783-7070 FwNo. (713)783-7157 PHTSBURCH-CORNTNC Steven S- Livingston Thompson A Knight First City Center 1700 Pacific Avc., Ste. 3300 Dallas. Texas 75201 Phone No. (214) 969-1253 Fax No. (214)969-1751 OARLOCK. INC. ANCHOR packing company At Conant, Jr. CONANT. WHITTENBURG. WHITTENBURG A SCHACHTER 600 North Peart. Suite 2300 Dallas. Texas 75201 Phone No. (214) 999-5700 Fax No. (214)999-5748 CROWN CORK ANp_SEAL COMPANY. INC. Frank Harmon. HI Cain, caton a jambs 3300 Two Houston Center Houston. TX 77010 Phone No. (713) 658-2323 Fax No. (713)658-1031 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY John l. H1U. Jr. Liddell, Sapp. Zivley, Hill A LaBoon 3300 Texas Conwnare* Toi Houston, Texas 77002 Phone No. (713) 226-1200 Fax No. (713) 223-3717 FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY COttPQttATtON Lawrence a. Lynne COATS. ROSE, YALE, HOLM. RYMAN A LEE 800 Pint City Tower 1001 Fannin Houston, Texas 77002-6707 Phone No. (713) 651-0111 Fax No. (713) 651-0220 W-R. GRACE A.CQMPANY-CQNN. Sandra F. Clark MEHAFFY a WEBER 2615 Calder Avc., Ste. 800 Beaumont, TX 77702 Phone No. (409) 835-5011 Fax No. (409) 835-5729 THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY T. John Wart BROWN. MCCARROLL A OAKS, HARTUNE 1300 Wortham Tower 2727 Aden Parkway Houston, Texas 77019-2100 Phone No. (713) 329-3110 Fax No. (713)525-6295 tmm_____ AMERICAN_____ REFRACTORIES CSMfm DebraS. Fiegenld CROUCH A HALLETT. LLP 717 North Ha/wood. Suie 1400 Dallas. Texas 75201 Phone No. (214) 953-0053 Fax No. (214)953-3154 prqko industries Thomas F. Dougall BOWERS ORR A ROBERTSON 1401 Main Street. Suite 1100 Columbia. SC 29201 Phone No.(M8) 252-04*4 Fax No. (803) 252-1068 SVNKOLOroCO THIOKOL CORP. Pt.mntCQ COMPANY CONSOLES Kathiyn Hermes DEHAY A ELUSTON. L.L.P. 1500 Maxus Energy Tower 717 North Harwood Street Dallas. Texas 75201-6508 Phone No. (214) 9S3-54S4 MINNESOTA MINING AND MAN! IFACTURING S&. Stan McMurry LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2000 Dallas, Texas 75201 Pttone No.(Z]4) 7404585 Fax No. (214) 740-8800 SEOMLS^ACmC iLS. MINERAL PRODUCTS COMPANY Me) Bailey DEHAY A ELUSION, L-LP. 1500 Maxus Enerfy Tower 717 North Harwood Street Dallas. Texas 75201-6508 Phone No.(2U) 9S3-S4S4 Fax No. (214)953-5455 atmcTE James M. Harris holmes Harris a Jeffrey 550 Fannin Sl Beaumont, Texas 77704 Phone No.(409) 8324382 Fax No. (409) 833-4240 HAR81SON-WALKKR CORPORATION INDRBSCO INC ROME CABLE CORPORATION (Gamhrell exie) Lewis C. MjJtenberger BOURLAND. KIRKMAN. SEIDLER A EVANS, L.L.P. 201 Main Street, Suite 1400 Fon Worth. Texas 76t02 Phone No.(817) 336-2800 Fax No. (817) 820-0373 PDSr70944.1 RECEIVED TIMEJUS. 27. 10:27AM T-584 P 03/43 Job-764 UNJROYAL- INC. UNIROYAL HOUSING COMPANY Richard L. Forman porman, perry, watkins a krutz Suite 1200. One Jackson Place 188 East CapMil Str*K Jackson. Mississippi 39225-2608 Phone No. (601)960-8600 Fax No. (601) 9604613 KELLEY MOORE PAINT Michael J. Ttuncale OROAIN BELL A TUCKER 470 Orleans Street Beaumont. Texas 7770) Pham No.(400) Fax No. (409)838-6959 CLEAVER BROOKS. ADivison nr Auua-Ottni David Livingston LIVINGSTON A MILLER Pangorv Ceneet One 450 Gears Rd., suite 625 Houston, Texas 77067-4529 Phone Nfl.081) 876-33M Fax No. (280 876-3599 SAflP AMERICAN Tom Taylor ANDREWS A KURTH. L.L.P. 600 Travis Street, Suite 421k) Houston, Texas 77002 Phone No. 013) 2204200 Fax No. (70) 2204285 RAYMARK CORPORATION RAYMAR* INDUSTRIES William J. Skepnek skepnek a maddox Mercantile Bank Tower 900 Massachusetts. Suite 601 Lawrence. Kansas 66044 Phot* No. (913) 331-0300 Fax No. (913) 331-0303 HARR1SON-WALKER CORPORATION mPRESCOlNC. ROME.CABLE CORPORATION (GamKreH .*> Lewis C. Miltenbetger BOURLAND. KIRKMAN. SEIDLER A EVANS. L.L.P. 201 Main Street. Suite 1400 For Worth. Texas 76102 Phone No.(R17) 336-2800 Fu No. (817) 830-0373