Document 6RDR8609dBOxNzK1XaN4OoQKo

NO. M-mt BRUCE D. DAVIS and JAMES K. DAVIS, Individual and as Personal Representatives fifth* Heirs and Estate of FRANKIE GENE DAVIS, Deceased, elaL Plaintiffs, VS. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, et aL, Defendants. I IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAWNUMBER 3 EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS' SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY AND SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED DEPOSITION NOTICE FOR DR. SAM CADE, JR. AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT; NOW COME, Defendants Southwestern Beil Telephone Company and SBC Communications Inc. (hereinafter "Defendants"), and file those Objections to Plaintiffs' First Amended Deposition Notice for Dr. Sam Cade, Jr. and Subpoena Duces Tecum: A. Defendants Produced the Materials that Dr. Cade has Retied Upon In Accordance with the Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs issued the attached deposition notice for Dr, Sam Cade, Jr. and Subpoena Duces Tecum on March 19,2001. See Exhibit "A." This deposition was scheduled by agreement of the parties. This Court entered an Order in January 2001, mandating that all parties produce 48 hours in advance ofany expert deposition, all materials that any expert witness has relied upon in forming the opinions he/she will express. See Exhibit "B." On March 14,2001, Defendants DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED DEPOSITION NOTICE FOR DR. SAM CADE. HL.AND SOTPOMADUCEi TECUM - F*f t C*taj3 Willi v 1,4l)J5.0MO< ! produced all pertinent materials to Plaintiffs in compliance with the Scheduling Order. B. Plaintiffs* Deposition Notice Exceeds the Scope of Permissible Discovery Plaintiffs deposition notice and subpoena duces tecum violates Rule 195 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure which limits expert discovery to the disclosure requirements of Rule 194 and to Rule 195 depositions. Rde 195.1, Tex. R, Civ. Pro. By producing the documents that Dr. Cade has relied upon in forming his opinions in this case, Defendants are in compliance with Rule 194 and Rule 195. C. If Rule 199 Does Apply, Plaintiffs' Deposition Notfce Does Not Provide 30 Days' Notice for die Production of Documents. Plaintiffs' deposition notice is issued pursuant to Rule 199.3. Accepting that an expert deposition may be noticed pursuant to Rule 199.3 for the sake of argument, the notice is nevertheless deficient because it fails to provide the notice required by Rule 205.3(a). Rule 205 governs discovery from non-parties and requires that any document request served in connection with a deposition notice be served no later than 30 days before the deposition. Exhibit "A" was faxed to Defendants on March 19,2001 and is not deemed served until March 23,2001, two days after the scheduled deposition. Therefore, Defendants are not obligated to produce any documents responsive to the subpoena duces tecum on March 21,2001, the date of Dr. Cade's deposition. D. Defendants' Objections to the Subpoena Duces Tecura Defendants object to request numbers 2,4,5,6,8,9 and 11 because they are overiy broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, unlimited and time and scope, and seek materials irrelevant to this case. Accordingly, DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTUTS' FIKST AMENDED DEPOSITION NOTICE FOK Pa- 8AM CADE. JR. AND SUBPOENA PUCES TECUM - Ptg* 2 W3 07010 f 1.4IJJJ.MM* these requests arc not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants request that its Objections to the Deposition Notice for Dr, Sam Cade, Jr, and Subpoena Duces Tecum be sustained and for any additional reliefto which Defendants are entitled. Respectfully submitted. Robot E. Thackston State Bar No. 00783487 JENKENS A GILCHRIST a Professional Corporation 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214)855-4500 (214) 855-4300 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Objection to the Deposition Notice and Subpoena Duces Tecum for Dr. Sam Cade, Jr., has been sent via facsimile to counsel for PlamtiQs, HoUy Huart and Stephanie A. Finch, Baron & Budd, The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219 on this the 19ift day ofMarch, 2001. R, Robert Garcia DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FntST AMENDED DEPOSITION NOTICE FOR D*lu} 676113* l.t5.C04 Exhibit "A Baron &Budb A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS Tim centrum jtlK OAK LAWN AVERTS SUITE I00 Dallas. Tbxas 75219--J25 J TELECOPiERPH) 520*1181 To ;Cratg S Wolcott Company Fax number .2149697174 Subject:FW frankie gene davn case Date .03/19/01 Total number of page* ;li From ;lauri# Harris Company tiaron i> Oucid, PC. Llr dated 3/19/01 from Stephanie Fnch Iransmittlng Plaintiffs' Notice of Taking Deposition and SDT for Dr. Morton Corn on 3/28/01 10:00 in Baltimore, Maryland, First Amended Notices of Taking Deposition and SDt for Dr Gail Stockman and Dr. Sam Cade on March 20ih and 21st respectively. --Original Message-- From' Ih fmaitto ih} Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10.51 AM To: lharhsgbaronbudd.corn Subject: frankie gene davit case Pieasa open the attached document This document was sent to you using an HP Digital Sender Sent by: <lh> Number of pages. 10 Document type: BW Document Attachment Fite Format MTtFF For more information on the HP Digital Sender please visit. http //Wvw dipitaisender hp com This message is private and confidential. Notice of Confidentiality TIw mformcnon contained in and transmitted with thn facsimile is either nutted to the Aunmey-Clieni privilege, Attorney work product, III cunfulenfiul end is intended only for tltc individual UI entity designated abuse. Yutl rue ilrtehy notified rli.it any dissemination. distribution. copying. or use of or reliance upon the information contained in find transmitted with thin facsimile by or tv anyone uther then th* recipient denigrated above t>y the sender is tnwtUioriMd and sttidly prohibited If you have received this facsimile m error, please notify Baron &. Budd by telephone fit 2I4-S11440S immedunely Any facsimile erroneously irnramiued u you should be immediately returned to the sender by V S Mail, or it authorization is granted by the sender, destroyed L'Cr-t OW&EU- KG KJ M3 4f3Sfi/' e i i-*. .... AM t**K LM*A A m stUCHM RWSMi ?*<W e, WKpy*. IbMft WflUJAtt H. %AM( JV Ms*J& MM MKSt AUttUW9( trfiffiJWHa C JfcM*SW yiartBtwdtft.fcOTm(ntftfMfe t%HsMUT Bahom & Bttdi> a **&rfc*i**fAl K9nrcm*rau $mm9iwt% wo t3ouaaujo*ft ttaa 310* 0*41 UtaFM *W1UK mujm, msjt wi**4*mt IfMl ft*S*30 mC6#iB ItMl feO-ftt March 19,2001 R. Robert Otreia Jtnkcu A Gilchrist, P.C. 1445 Row Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 7S202 VIA FACSIMLEM&M^im Re: Cause No. 96-3062; *fdM,S(Mik*m$mt JW/fa%#oit# Cempmj lb the County Court At LawNo, 3, El Paso County, Texts Dear Mr. Oaraa: Enclosed please find Plaintiffs* Notice ofTaking Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum for Dr, Monon Com on March 2fl, 2001, at 10:00 *.m., and First Amended Notices of Taking Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecumfor Dr, Oail Stocianmand Dr. Sam Cade on Much 20* and 21* respectively with regard to the above-referenced case. Ifyou have any questions, pfes.se do sot hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, $AF:lsh enclosures cc: Scheduling Henjuni Ooucher Reporting Service K.\a*,VjS>O^L<^JWE\.:iia31Vupiu^ma w$i CAUSENO. 96-3062 BRUCE D DAVIS and JAMES ft DAVIS, Individuallyand as Personal Representatives ofthe Heim aod Estate of FRANKIE GENE DAVIS, Deceased; Plaintiffs, VS. OWENS-CORN1NG FIDERGLAS CORPORATION; etai. Defendants. 1 s I 5 5 1 l 1 IN THE COUNTY COURT EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS COUNTY COURT AT LAW # 3 FIRST AMENDED NOriCE_OFJAMlNG_IEPOSrnOM.ANII ;iMPoMAmicr5iE5;i/M TO: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD ia the above-styled and numbered cause ataction. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 199.3, the deposition ofDR. SAM CADE will be taken strangraphicaUyon March 212KU, commencing at 6:30 p.n., and continuing until concluded, at the offices of Jcnkent A GOdrlil, 144$ Ross Avenue, Suite3200, Sabine Conference Rood (37" Floor), Dallas, Texas 75202 (214-855-4506), before a certified court reporter from Henjum Ooucher Reporting Service, 2501 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 435, Dallas, Texas 75219; telephone 214-52t-l 1*8; fax 214-521-1034; and if will be videotaped by Austin Greenberg (972-772-8538). Deponent will testify on behalfofDefendants,. The Deponent is requited to produce for inspection, review and copying the items listed in the attached Subpoena Duces Tecum. AM counsel of record are invited to attend and cross-examine. FIRST AMENDED NOTtCI, <IV TAUINC DEPOSITION AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Jt:Mal.\DAVISKPEL-Pii!AD'JilAfttn4ilc4ijaBtoi*4i8JlS.i*p4 PAflfr: i Mar-19-Ol 00-i36P 3&G 214 BBS 4300 P . 10 Rdpectfully submitted, BARON & HUPDt F.C. 3102 Oik lawn Ave,, Suite 1100 Dillis, Texas 75219-42(1 214/521-3<S05 telephone 214/520-1111 facsimile Texas State BarNo. 10131430 STEPHANIE A. FINCH Texas Stale Bar No. 240071JO ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS :c.ATBOESEKyice Xbeaboveand foregoing has been nmd upon ail counsel ofrecord via facsimile on the 19* day ofMarch, 2001. STEPHANIE A. FINCH TOT AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING DtrOSfTiON' AND SUBKENA DUCES TLCJJM KIEUOAVBFcaFUPiaADMlUraaiMMMtpMlraienit.wprf MOE.J SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM The items to be produced by the deponent at this deposition are as follows: !. Current resume and curriculum vitae. 2. All publications relied upon by deponent in formulating any opinions to be offered in this litigation. 3. A copy of alt publications, books, articles, etc., authored by deponent, alone or in collaboration. Only ifcopies are not available deponent than shall produce a bibliographic listing ofalt such publications, books and articles. 4. Ail reports summaries, forecasts, narratives, charts, tables, video or audio records, photos, etc., prepared by deponent as a result of any teats, investigations, or analyses conducted concerning tire subject matter ofthis lawsuit. 5. All books, guidelines, checklists, articles, publications or other materials consulted by deponent during any such tests, investigations, or analyses or in the preparation of any reports, summaries, forecasts, narrative, charts, tables, video or audio records, etc. 6. Deponent's complete ftle and all documents that you have beat provided, reviewed, received, written or prepared relating to any aspect of this lawsuit, to indude pleadings, depositions, correspondence, time records or time sheets, billing statements, handwritten notes, and telephone call slips. 7. A report by deponent stating the subject matter on which he will testify, all fads known by him, his mental impressions, and all opinions held by deponent in this ease. 8. Ail documents, tangible things used, prepared, referred to, tangiblereports, physical models, compilations of data md other material prepared by the deponent or for the deponent in anticipation ofsuch expert's anticipated trial and/or deposition testimony. 9. Any photographs or video recordings, relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit that deponent has taken, been provided or reviewed. 10. A copy of all documents relied upon or consulted in formulating any opinions to be offered at the trial ofthis cause. 11. All correspondence, bills, memoranda, or other documents sent by deponent to any Defendant in this case or received by deponent from any Defendant in this cause. 12. All copies ofany reports created by the deponent concerning this case. first amendko notice or taking DCFosrrtoN and subpoena duces tecum i SAEUDAVUrtNU..rifAJ>1 itimndidaiiffqiotteKdiSJ If.wjwS RACE} Exhibit "B" NO,M4N2 rauce d. davis mi James udavis, *f lie Sells mi Estate #f CTAMI31 GENE DAVBb>nMd^ataL ' nhtjat . v. owiNwrcwNWG nsBioLAs COKPOIIATIOrLcKaL, Defeiiinits. no. county court at law $ | '1 | 'i | f $ f I s |: i .; $OF IL FASO COUNTY, .TEXAS . tk* Court atm the following Order iu eennuclicra wbthb}Seo>Vffy toi the rtfMtuMl nttten 1. By Jiauaiy 30,200L|DefiiidaBrSottthwesteRiBdlTd^ioae Oniony t ("SWBT*) will difie * corporate wpwscniaijye to ttfUfy about matters A through K orPhintiffe* diposluen notice. By Frtamy S, 2D01. plainti/fo wiM depose (his individual by said date, lb addition, SBC or SWBT must depute a s corporate icpraacnbttive to digests the corporate structura m it relates to!the > relationships omoof Mountain Stater Ben Onfwny, SWBT, SBC nil A?AT, by Jammy 30,2001. z Ob F*bmaiy 6,2001SBC, Inc, win pipdy a aqiocaw'npiniaibitive to # the coipanue teemsm m it relates iy die relaiioutiipc aaiflf Mouaism .Stator * Bell Company, SWBfr, SBC and AT&Tt 3. On February 19, Z001, Plaintiff* will produce Dr. JUebarjl Lenten for deposition. 0 M 4 Ora Fttnvy m 200i; Plata win podueo pr. S. OftFAtwy 2#t20Q1 > PUhtoffi wfW prateDr. WiUufc Lmjo% ta 0aUaa. Tcu ; ; 1 tlx of81* Asposiileti, lepcmi pfifiav$ by aotf haiMi ftlfd psejiCfiy aarvad 7. WitiwlOdajfciwfaimhyQftetwfa.fWiii in Mi ail ouktdiii|4iscvtty previously pfaMnded dn Plata by, iMfindacas SWOT M SBC, beWia$inicmcMM. pqnetfa fa aimiM 1 rnd nqueatt fapoivdieit. f. Pdtodii*toStJ!lim#te?iiIW^ wiwaxsoi on fails teas*. : A*Dr. Marcus Bond ax Fetmmy % 2001 in OoMut, CoioiKl. t B BadDtiliywiUitafeallQiradtoiaitUyFtdcpDffaidaiKi f*du4# Bud Ditey fbcdapeaittarby Faiirotzy 21.2001. .v G GM&* H*er m FAtm# 6,300! in S**i Antonio. Twos. 9. The Plata will jxMtwe fa following fat wtaasKc ctfast dataa: A Pt* A^idcraon m Inluny 39,2001 at t :Ki pj. to 1 Ptoft, Tom. ft. FaUx Bwavidcf on F*bmry4f. 2001 *19:00 ua. in t El pafo, Texas. IumI Stuckey m January 2% 2001 at 9:00 a.m. to El Pm*, Taxi*. -2. 0. IMmZiMaraFelf^ 14,2001 *tOpm.id El Ftto, Twtt. !9 lt I^f* T#U. i j 10. The Defendant* will identify tfcefe f*pwwitBw Match 2i# 2001. Signal and entered thi* ,, day of : i. 2001. AMOVID A3 TO FORM: Mp ; i i Attorney foe FiaMIR CARLOS RINCON Attorney &* Southwestern Bell Telephone Owpaay and SBC Cmmammitmi, im. ! I NO. 96-3062 BRUCE D. DAVIS and JAMES K. DAVTS, Individually and m Personal Representatives ofthe Heirs and Estate of FRANKIE GENE DAVIS, Deceased, ef al. Plaintiffs, VS. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, ct aL, Defendants. 1 2 i as IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NUMBER 3 EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FQU RTH AMENT>Efl^ESPQNSff>JCtIELAlNI!IEBILBEQ12ESr&QB-BlSCL^MSIBE COMES NOW, Defendant Southwestern Bell Telephone Company C'SWBT') and pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. PRO. 193,194, and 195, files these Fourth Amended Responses to Plaintiffs1 Requests for Disclosure as follows; (a) the correct names ofthe parties to the lawsuit; ANSWER: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (b) the name, address, and telephone number ofany potential parties; AHSgEfr Based on developing evidence in this case, Plaintiffs perhaps should have sued Mountain States Bell or AT&T. (c) Hie legal theories and, in general, the factual basis ofthe responding party's claims or defense; ANSWER: Based on discovery conducted to date, SWBT stales that it may assert the following legal theories or defenses: SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO PLAJtCTgESlgEOWESTB FOR DISCLOSURE P*e l WmJ 7US v i.-miiOQOCJ 1) Lack of medical causation. SWBT states that until it has had sufficient opportunity to examine and/or evaluate through additional physicians) Plaintiffs Decedent's alleged asbestos-related disease, SWBT contends that Decedent's injuries were either not caused by asbestos or caused by asbestos to which he was exposed while not working for toe Defendant. 2) Lack of exposure to asbestos while employed by SWBT Decedent was not exposed to asbestos in sufficient quantities, ifhe was exposed at all, during his employment with SWBT. Decedent's position as a repair technician caused him to work on customer premises that SWBT had no right or opportunity to control and where he had little or no exposure to asbestos. SWBTs safety practices established for its employees complied with applicable OSHA regulations and any other applicable laws, SWBT acted in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and safety practices with regard to Mr. Davis and his work for SWBT, SWBT was not grossly negligent and is not otherwise liable to the Plaintiffs. 3) This Defendant is not responsible for the conduct alleged against Mr. Davis'employer between 1956 and 1978. (d) the amount and any method of calculating economic damages; ANSWER: Not applicable to SWBT. (e) the name, address, and telephone number ofpersons having knowledge ofrelevant facts, and a briefstatement ofeach identified person's connection with the case; MSWER: 1. William J. Edens Southwestern Ball Telephone 2308 Jim Dent Rd. El Paso, Texas 79936 915-591-4630 Mr. Edens, a retired Manager installation & Repair, worked for SWBT and before that, SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO gfeHSiBBrjmaM - *i* * DtlMl d74U9i 1,41333 DOOM Mountain States Bell, for 35 years. He will testify regarding the nature ofwork performed by Frankie Davis during his career and working conditions at various residential, commercial and industrial job sites. Additionally, he will testify to work and safety practices employed by the telephone company and premises owners ofvarious commercial and industrialjob sites between 1965 and 1990. Also, he will testify regarding the layout ofvarious commercial and industrial job sites and identify where a telephone company employee might provide telephone service. Additionally, he will testify regarding Frankie Davis' alleged exposure to and use of asbestoscontainmg products as a telephone company employee. Further, he may testify regarding the corporate relationship and dealings among SWBT, Mountain States Bell, AT&T and any other former Bell System entity. See his deposition taken in this case. 2. Jose A. Marquez Southwestern Bell Telephone 821 Southwestern El Paso, Texas 79912 915-585-5822 Mr. Marquez, Manager Installation & Repair, has worked for SWBT and before that. Mountain States Bell for 29 years. He will testify regarding the nature of work performed by Frankie Davis during his career and working conditions at various residential, commercial and industrial job sites. Additionally, he will testify to work and safety practices employed by the telephone company and premises owners ofvarious commercial and industrialjob sites between 1971 and 1990. Also, he will testify regarding the layout of various commercial and industrial job sites and identify where a telephone company employee might provide telephone service. Additionally, he will testify regarding Frankie Davis' alleged exposure to and use of asbestos* containing products as a telephone company employee. Further, he may testify regarding die corporate relationship and dealings among SWBT, Mountain Slates Bell, AT&T and any other former Bell System entity. He may testify regarding the corporate conduct of SWBT and any other provider of telephone services. See his deposition taken in this case. 3. David Garcia Southwestern Bell Telephone 500 Texas Rm. 330 El Paso, Texas 79901 915-521-6640 Mr. Garcia, Area Manager Installation & Repair, has worked for SWBT and before that, Mountain States Bell for 24 years. He will testify regarding the nature of work performed by Frankie Davis during his career and working conditions at various residential, commercial and industrial job sites, Additionally, he will testify to work and safety practices employed by the telephone company and premises owners of various commercial and industrial job sites between 1976 and 1990. Also, he will testify regarding the layout ofvarious commercial and industrial job SOUTJrWT.STF.RN DELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO mnffgw requests for disclosure - pm s tltUS y t. 4I3M 0B0M sites and identify where a telephone company employee might provide telephone servioe. Additionally, he will testify regarding Frankie Davis' alleged exposure to mid use ofasbestoscontaining products as a telephone company employee. Further, he may testify regarding the corporate relationship and dealings among SWBT, Mountain States Bell, AT&T and any other former Bell System entity. See his deposition taken in tliis case, 4. Marcus Bond, M.D. 1711 Arbutus Street Golden, Colorado 80401 303-232-7832 The witness is expected to offer opinions regarding the merits of Plaintiffs' claims and flic defenses offered by SWBT, including opinions on liability, damages, and causation issues. The witness is expected to testify that any asbestos exposure of Davis allegedly occurring as an employee of SWBT was not the came, nor did it contribute to cause Davis' alleged injuries. The witness may testify that some other exposures to asbestos, was the cause ofthe mesothelioma, injuries, damages and death alleged herein. The witness may testify as to the "state of the art," and medical & scientific literature availability and content. Dr. Bond has worked for both AT&T, former parent of SWBT, and Mountain States Bell, and will offer opinions on their policies, procedures and conduct. He may also offer opinions on the Davis'jobs, his alleged exposure to asbestos, phone company work, the spectrum ofhazards and occupational concerns relevant to the telephone company. He may compare the developing knowledge regarding asbestos hazards, such as textile mill studies m the 1930s and shipyard studies in the mid I960* and how the products, doses, diseases and jobs studied compare or contrast with Plaintiffs claims in this case. He may fbrther testify about occupational medicine, medical & scientific literature, "state ofthe art," disease and causation, further, he may testify regarding the corporate relationship and dealings among SWBT, Mountain States Bell, AT&T and any other fanner Bell System entity. He may testify as to any other matter raised by experts called by Plaintiffs or any other matter which he may be so qualified to testify. See his deposition taken in tins case. 5. Morton Com, M.D. The Johns Hopkins University 3208 Bennett Point Road Queenstown, Maryland 21658-1126 The witness may testify concerning regulatory requirements for the health and safety of workers exposed to asbestos, including OSHA, EPA and other state and federal requirements pertaining to asbestos. He may be asked to testify concerning the actions ofSWBT, or any other entity at issue in this case or any others similarly situated under the same or similar circumstances existing at all times material to this case. He may testify about his knowledge ofthe processes involved in construction and federal and state standards applicable to employers, contractors and premises owners. The witness may testify concerning the potential hazards of different types of SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO PLAJMlFr81REQBESTS.EQRjaSCLOSSBE - Vage 4 MkO 7USri,41235 0B0M asbestos, when such hazards were known or knowable by different segments oftrade and industry. He may testify about industrial hygiene publications and literature from the 1940s to the present. He may also testify generally about the concept ofdose-response, the evolution and use of threshold limit values and the knowledge that the telephone industry, contractors and premises owners had available to them during certain time periods. He may also testify regarding relative risk and OSHA risk models. He may testify about the nature of the working environments and the control and use of substances in such locations. He may testify about his knowledge of the composition and asbestos content, ifany, of the products alleged to have been used by or around telephone company employees while performing telephone repair and installation, tire ability of such products to emit asbestos fibers under certain conditions and the likelihood that Davis inhaled these fibers. Tire witness may also testify regarding the reasonableness ofthe corporate response of SWBT and others similarly situated concerning the potential hazards ofasbestos usage and safety of workers under the same or similar circumstances. He may testify about the size, construction, layout and working environment of facilities where Davis worked. The witness may testify about the appropriateness of any telephone company's policies, procedures or actions with respect to health and safety and die significance ofasbestos to those health and safety concerns. He may testify that telephone company actions with respect to any asbestos hazards posed to their workers were appropriate, not negligent or grossly negligent. He may also testify about epidemiology ofasbestos-related disease, and the general scientific and medical literature on the topic. He will testify about the cohorts structured and that, between the late 1950s and the late 1970s, there were no epidemiological studies ofany cohort similar to telephone company workers that showed any increased risk of asbestos-related disease. The witness may do research, gather facts, inspect the premises in question, and review relevant scientific and medical literature. He will testify regarding toxicology, engineering and industrial hygiene generally and particularly as they relate to alleged asbestos fiber exposure under different conditions, including the facts of this case. He may respond to testimony given by Plaintiffs' experts regarding any industrial hygiene issue including product testing and levels of asbestos that may be present in any given industrial, commercial or residential environment He may testify as to any matter raised by experts called by Plaintiffs or any other matter which he may be qualified to testify. 6. Carlton "Bud" Dailey 10035 South Marlene Affton, Missouri 63123 Mr. Dailey, a retired General Plant Iteming Supervisor, worked for SWBT and before that. Mountain States Bell for over 30 years. He is knowledgeable of SWBTs practices and procedures and safety rules and regulations. He may testify as to the many safety and health concerns that confronted telephone company employees and interaction between AT&T and regional operating telephone companies. Further, he may testify regarding the corporate relationship and dealings among SWBT, Mountain States Bell, AT&T and any other former Bell System entity. He may testify regarding any other matter relevant to phone company work that arises in this case. See his deposition taken in this case. (SOUTHWESTERN ftELb TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO PLAiNTirry requests FORiagcMgag - N* s Mho mi r i.4imoooos Mar^- 19-01 04 : 39P J&G 214. 855 4-300 P.21 7. Herman Dean Goolsby 5329 Temple El paso, Texas 915-779-5068 He may testify about work practices and procedures and the customary practices among contractors and construction trades in the El Paso area in the 1960s and 1970s. See his deposition taken in this case. 8. Patrick Anderson 1000 Worsham II Paso, Texas 79927 915-851-3244 He may testify about work practices and procedures and safety rules and regulations among telephone company employees in the 1960s and 1970s. Further, he may testify regarding the corporate relationship and dealings among SWBT, Mountain Stales Bell, AT&T and any other former Bell System entity. See his deposition taken in this case. 9. James Stuckey 8612 Grover Drive El Paso, Texas 79925 915-778-9022 He may testify about work practices and procedures and safety rules and regulations among telephone company employees in the 1960s and 1970s, Further, he may testify regarding the corporate relationship and dealings among SWBT, Mountain States Bell, AT&T and any other former Bell System entity. See his deposition taken in this case. 10. Waites* Schade 9800 Album El Paso, Texas 79925 915-598-0072 He may testify about work practices and procedures and safety rules and regulations among telephone company employees in (he 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Further, he may testify regarding the corporate relationship and dealings among SWBT, Mountain States Bell, AT&T and any other former Bell System entity. See liis deposition taken in this case. SOUTHWESTERN DELL TZXEPKONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO ELaammr MomigxgRBgCLsaME (7414$ T (, 4IJ14.0W3M * RECEIVED TIMEMAE. 19. 4:41PM PRINT TIMEMAR. 19. 4:53PM 11. Albeit Lopez 1008 Magoffin El Paso, Texas 79945 915-328-5(551 12. Antonio Zubia 10929 Rye Lane El Paso, Texas 79927 915-859-1676 13. Felix Benevides 2124 Deciember El Paso, Texas 79935 915-592-7075 Mr. Lopez, Mr. Zubia and Mr. Benevides may testify regarding the layout ofvarious commercial and industrialjob sites, use ofproducts at those sites, location of telephone company equipment and any other matter discussed in their deposition taken in this case. 14. Debra Schmulbach Southwestern Bell Telephone Dallas, Texas 75201 Mrs. Schmulbach may testify about SWBT practices, procedures including installation and repair, work practices, health and safety rules, union contracts, medical and health care and any issues raised by plaintiffs regarding the defendant in this case. 15. Roger Wolhert 10 Remington San Antonio, Texas Mr. Wolhert may testify regarding the corporate relationship am dealings among SWBT, Mountain States Bell, AT&T and any other former Bed System entity and any other matter raised in his deposition taken in this case. 16. Gladys Haecker 8205 Traner Hale Converse, Texas 78109 Ms. Haecker may testify regarding the corporate relationship and dealings among SWBT, Mountain States Bell, AT&T and any other former Bell System entity and any other matter raised in her deposition taken in this case. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO FIAIMHoIS'MRQWE&3&.I.0R_DIS534MtIKE. - Pgc 7 Mm3 lilatlB v I, *)}335.000M All witnesses identified by Plaintiffs, live or by deposition, that have knowledge ofrelevant facts. All witnesses deposed in this lawsuit. We will supplement this answer according to tile Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Scheduling Order. (f) for any testifying expert (1) the expert's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the subject matter on wliich the expert will testify; (3) the general substance ofthe expert's mental impressions and opinions and a briefsummary of tile basis for them, or ifthe expert is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control ofthe responding party, documents reflecting such information; (4) ifthe expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to foe control of foe responding party: (A) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for foe expert in anticipation offoe expert's testimony, and (B) foe experts current resume and bibliography. MSHEK: 1. Marcus Bond, M.D. 1711 Arbutus Street Golden, Colorado 80401 303-232-7832 The witness is expected to offer opinions regarding the malls ofPlaintiffs' claims and foe defenses offered by SWBT, including opinions on liability, damages, and causation issues. The witness is expected to testify that any asbestos exposure of Davis allegedly occurring as an employee of SWBT was not foe cause, nor did it contribute to cause Davis' alleged ir\jurics. The witness may testify that some other exposures to asbestos, was the cause oftlie mesothelioma, injuries, damages and death alleged herein. The witness may testify as to the "slate offoe art," and medical & scientific literature availability and content. Dr. Bond has worked for both AT&T, former parent of SWBT, and Mountain States Bell, and will offer opinions on their policies, procedures and conduct. He may also offer opinions on foe Davis'jobs, his alleged exposure to asbestos, phone company work, foe spectrum ofhazards and occupational concerns relevant to the telephone company, He may compare the developing knowledge regarding asbestos hazards, SOUTHWESTERN ML!. TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS. FOR PMCLOSUBE - S CMHul v |, 413U.000Q< such as textile mill studies in the 1930s and shipyard studies in die mid 1960s and how the products, doses, diseases and jobs studied compare or contrast with Plaintiffs claims in this case, He may further testify about occupational medicine, medical & scientific literature, "state ofthe art," disease, fiber type, causation and epidemiology. He may testify as to any other matter raised by experts called by Plaintiffs or any other matter which he may be so qualified to testify. Further, he may testify regarding the corporate relationsiup and dealings among SWBT, Mountain States Bell, AT&T and any other former Bell System entity. See his deposition taken in this case. 2. Morton Com, M.D. The Johns Hopkins University 3208 Bennett Point Road Queenstown, Maryland 21658-1126 The witness may testify concerning regulatory requirements for the health and safety of workers exposed to asbestos, including OSHA, EPA and other state and federal requirements pertaining to asbestos. He may be asked to testify concerning the actions of SWBT, or any other entity at issue in this case or any others similarly situated under the same or similar circumstances existing at all times material to this case. He may testify about his knowledge ofthe processes involved in construction and federal and state standards applicable to employers, contractors and premises owners. The witness may testify concerning the potential hazards of different types of asbestos, when such hazards were known or knowable by different segments oftrade and industry. He may testify about industrial hygiene publications and literature from the 1940s to the present, He may also testify generally about the concept of dose-response, the evolution and use of threshold limit values and the knowledge that the telephone industry, contractors and premises owners had available to them during certain time periods. He may also testify regarding relative risk and OSHA risk models. He may testify about the nature ofthe working environments and the control and use ofsubstances in such locations. He may testify about his knowledge ofthe composition and asbestos content, ifany, of flic products alleged to have been used by or around telephone company employees while performing telephone repair and installation, the ability of such products to emit asbestos fibers under certain conditions and the likelihood that Davis inhaled these fibers. He may further testify about fiber type and causation. The witness may also testify regarding the reasonableness ofthe corporate response of SWBT and Others similarly situated concerning the potential hazards of asbestos usage and safety ofworkers under the same or similar circumstances. He may testify about the size, construction, layout and working environment of facilities where Davis worked. The witness may testify about the appropriateness ofany telephone company's policies, procedures or actions with respect to health and safety and the significance ofasbestos to those health and safety concerns. Ha may testify that telephone company actions with respect to any asbestos hazards posed to their workers were appropriate, not negligent or grossly negligent He may also testify about epidemiology ofasbestos-related disease, and the general scientific and medical literature on the topic. He will testify about the cohorts structured and that, between the late 1950s and the late 1970s, there were no epidemiological studies of any cohort similar to telephone company workers that showed any SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO M.A1MT1PW REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - P*e i, <132$ 90004 increased risk of asbestos-related disease. The witness may do research, gather frets, inspect the premises in question, and review relevant scientific and medical literature. He will testify regarding toxicology, engineering and industrial hygiene generally and particularly as they relate to alleged asbestos fiber exposure under different conditions, including the fiicts of this case. He may respond to testimony given by Plaintiffs' experts regarding any industrial hygiene issue including product testing and levels of asbestos That may be present in any given industrial, commercial or residential environment He may testify as to any matter raised by experts called by Plaintiffs or any other matter which he may be qualified to testify. 3. Dr. Mark Robert Wick 301 Peacock Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903-9716 804-245-9613 804-245-9643 Dr. Wick is a pathologist. He may testify, live or by deposition, concerning his review of Hie medical records, pathology and/or work history of Plaintiffand Plaintiffs medical condition, and the cause of Plaintiffs medical condition. His testimony may also include discussion of asbestos and its effect on human health generally and Plaintiffs specifically, and tire effect that other substances have on human health generally and Plaintiffs condition specifically. Dr. Wick may also testify regarding the medical conditions of Plaintiffbased on review ofmedical records, x-rays. Plaintiffs experts' reports and supplemental reports and his tunning, experience and other special expertise. Dr. Wick may also testify concerning the increased risk, ifany, of cancer freed by asbestos exposed workers and the prognosis of such individuals. He may ftirther testify dial Plaintiff suffered from a variety of critical medical problems that may have caused his death. In addition, ifcalled to testify, either live or by deposition. Dr. Wick is expected to provide testimony regarding the areas stated below: (1) the anatomy and function ofthe respiratory and circulatory systems, including the protective systems of the body with regards to the inhalation and retention of dust, and the diagnosis and treatment of disease effecting such systems; (2) file nature ofasbestos and asbestos-related diseases; (3) the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; (4) file nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association ofobstructive pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure; SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFgRgO-maTS FOR PIBCI OSUIUS - Pgt I# DiteO ttMi r 1.413UOOOOS (5) the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation ofobstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases of the respiratory system and other causes ofobstructive and restrictive disease or defects ofthe respiratory system; (6) methods of diagnosis ofvarious diseases, especially the means ofestablishing the differential diagnosis of alleged asbestos-related diseases with other non-asbestosrelated diseases; (7) incidence oflung cancer among individuals with asbestosis or asbestos exposure as compared to non-asbestotie asbestos workers, non-asbestos exposed workers and to the general population; (8) cigarette smoking and its effects on the lungs and other organs; (9) the relationship of cigarette smoking to cancer of the hmg and cancers of other body parts with reference to epidemiology studies and physiologic effect; (10) the difference between impairment and disability; (11) the effect of asbestosis or other asbestos-related disease, or asbestos exposure without asbestosis or other asbestos-related disease, on disability and life expectancy; (12) the lack ofrelationship between die presence ofpleural plaques and a later development of any form of cancer, (13) the history of evolution and knowledge of asbestos related diseases; (14) the import of any exhibit introduced as evidence, or any items prepared for use or used for demonstrative purposed by any witness; (15) cancer incidence in the general population and among asbestos workers and its potential causes; (16) the incidence ofmesothelioma among various kinds ofworkers exposed to asbestos, and the relative importance ofvarious fiber types and the cause of mesothelioma; and (17) to the extent not covered above, asbestos medicine in general. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO Aagireg*gpmsTg. KaUMBCEoanae - tm u tna37il(T |,41)3Q00a 4. Gail Diane Stockman, M.D., Ph.D. 701 E. Marshall, Suite 4002 Longview, Texas 75601 903-753*0787 Dr. Stockman may testify concerning her review and analysis of Davis' medical records and her assessment of Daws' physical condition and the relationship ofthat condition, ifany, to Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to asbestos. She may also testify regarding the matters set forth in her report dated December 4,2000, including but not limited to the other critical medical problems Davis suffered from that may have caused his death. Dr. Stockman is a pulmonologist. She may testify about general medical issues relating to that specialty. She may also testify about fiber type, causation and epidemiology. Dr. Stockman may ftnlher testify concerning the anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory system; tire nature of asbestos; the disease process of asbestos-related conditions; and the diagnosis ofasbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. She may also testify regarding the nature, extent and development ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding the association of pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure. She may testify about the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development or manifestation of obstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases. Dr. Stockman may testify concerning the effects ofsmoking on lung function and the incidence ofsmoking-related lung diseases, including lung cancer. She may testify concerning the incidence oflung cancer and mesothelioma among individuals with asbestosis compared with non-asbestos exposed individuals. She may also testify as to any other matter raised by experts called, by the Plaintiff; 5. Sam H. Cade, Jr., M.D. Radiology Department Baylor University Medical Center 3500 Gaston Avenue Dallas, Texas 75242 214-820-3219 Dr. Cade is a B-reader and may testify regarding the radiographs ofPlaintiffs, 6. David Garcia Southwestern Bell Telephone 500 Texas Rm. 330 El Paso, Texas 79901 915-521-6640 Mr. Garcia, Area Manager Installation & Repair, has worked for SWBT and before that, Mountain States Bell for 24 years. He will testify regarding telephone company work, operations of phone systems, locations ofphone systems, installation and repair ofphone systems at places where plaintiffworked and SWBT procedures. lie is both a fact witness and an expert on phone SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED kESFONSE TO - p** a MuJ KJIW r l, mu oooof company procedures, worksite layout and the location, installation, usage and repair ofphone company equipment. Further, he may testify regarding the corporate relationship and dealings among SWBT, Mountain States Bell, AT&T and any other former Bell System entity. See his deposition taken in this case, 7. William J. Edens Southwestern BeU Telephone 2308 Jim Dent Rd. El Paso, Texas 79936 915-591*4630 Mr. Edens, a retired Manager Installation & Repair, worked for SWBT and before that, Mountain States Bell for 35 years. He will testify regarding telephone company work, operations ofphone systems, locations of phone systems, installation and repair ofphono systems at places where plaintiffworked and telephone company procedures. He is an expert on these matter? and may also testify as a foot witness. Further, he may testify regarding the corporate relationship and dealings among SWBT, Mountain States Bell, AT&T and any other former BeU System entity. See his deposition token in this case. 8. lose A. Marquez Southwestern Bell Telephone 821 Southwestern El Paso. Texas 79912 915-585-5822 Mr. Marquez, Manager Installation & Repair, has worked for SWBT and before that. Mountain States Bell for 29 years. He will testify regarding telephone company work, operations of phone systems, locations ofphone systems, installation and repair ofphone systems at places where plaintiffworked and telephone company procedures. He is both a fact witness and an expert on phone company procedures, worksite layout and the location, installation, usage and repair of phone company equipment Further, he may testify regarding the corporate relationship and dealings among SWBT, Mountain Stares Bell, AT&T and any other former BeU System entity. See his deposition taken in this case. We will supplement this answer according to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and tills Court's Scheduling Order. (g) any discoverable indemnity surd insuring agreements', m&: SWBT states that it is self-insured and has sufficient excess SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDE!* RESPONSE TO PLAINTirrS' BEQUESTS FOR BlSCLOSgRE - P*g U DthlJ 47(119 v !, 41535 0000* insurance to respond to a judgment in this action if found liable. (h) any discoverable settlement agreements; MSWEE: None. (i) any discoverable witness statements; AME: None. (j) in a suit alleging physical oi mental injuty and damages torn the occurrence drat is the subject ofthe case, all medical records and bills that are reasonably related to die injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof an authorization permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills; .mmM' Not applicable to SWBT. (k) hi a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject ofthe case, all medical records and bills obtained by the responding party by virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party. Mssa These materials win be made available to Plaintiffs upon reasonable notice at the offices ofJenkens & Gilchrist 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200, Dallas, Texas 75202. Plaintiffhas identified physicians and hospitals that treated Decedent and SWBT is currently obtaining same. SWBT will make those records available to Plaintiffs to the extent that Plaintiffs do not already have such records. SOUTHWESTERN Bleu, TELEPHONE COMPANY'S fOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO rxAifemrrjiEEomsTsroRmao.euRE - p*c m *h<3 fMIW* 1.41335 DM* Respectfully submitted. JENKENS & GILCHRIST, a Professional Corporation. 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214)855*4500 Facsimile: (214)855-4300 By. ___________ _ ROBERT E. THACKSTON State Bar No. 0078587 R. ROBERT GARCIA State Bar No. 00796602 ATTORNEYS FOR SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY EMiaCMflF-mVlE 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Ihe above and foregoing instrument has been forwarded to Plaintiffs' attorneys. Holly Huart and Stephanie Finch, Baron & Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219 via facsimile on this thc/f^ay ofMarch, 2001. R. ROBERT GARCIA SOUTHWESTERN HEEL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S FOURTH AMENDED RESPONSE TO PLAlNTIMTS* REQUESTS FOR DWCXpjLUm - P* 15 Dduj07IIWv 1,4133$ CKHW From-not desk of: R. Robert Garcia (214) 855-4767 Tenkens & Gilchrist ** A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1445 Ross AVENUE Sums3200 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214)85)4500 THJECOFIK (214) 853-000 www.jenkcns.com rkoefukt Stephanie Finch Company Baron & Budd Fax No, 214/520-1181 MESSAGE PLEASE DELIVERY IMMEDIATELY TO MS. PINCH. THANK YOU. AUSTIN, TEXAS WOUKTON. TEXAS LOS aNUU*, CALIFORNIA SWN ANTONIO. TEXAS WASHINGTON, D C maun Ofnet CHICAGO. ILLINOIS Phonk No. RECEIVED EL/PR DATE INITIALS 'A NOTICE OF CON! aM'JJhTI AMY 'the information contained in and transmitted with this facsimile is 1. SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENTPRIVILEGE; 2. ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT; OR 3. CONFIDENTIAL. R is intended only for the indivUkitd or entity designated above. You ire hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this facsimile by or to wyone other than the recipient designated above by the sender is unauthorised and strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please notify Jcnkeni & Qilchrid, a professional corporation by telephone at (214) 855-4777 immediately, Any facsimile erroneously transmitted to you should be immediately retumed to the sender by U.5, Mail, or If authorization is granted by the sender, destroyed. March 19,2001 Billing#: 41335-6 Total Pages (+ Cover): 30