Document 6bE6Yy0gdX9QYo2Z0VLee01xd

CAUSE NO. 2000-05-1962-C JAN 1 8 2001 DlSTRia^^^M^^NTy TEXAS ----------------------------------------- ROBERT HENRY VILLARREAL, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of JOHN HENRY VILLARREAL Plaintiffs, vs. GAF CORPORATION HOLDINGS, INC.), ET AL. Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS 197TM JUDICIAL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY TO EXCLUDE ALL POST-SALE EVIDENCE AND ALL EVIDENCE RELATING TO PRODUCTS NOT AT ISSUE Defendant U.S. Gypsum Company ("U.S. Gypsum") respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion in limine to exclude all post-sale evidence and all evidence relating to products not at issue. I. INTRODUCTION At the trial of this case, plaintiff may attempt to introduce evidence concerning U.S. Gypsum's post-sale conduct or knowledge and evidence relating to products not at issue in this litigation. Plaintiff may attempt to offer this evidence to show that the products at issue were defective, or that U.S. Gypsum was negligent. This evidence may include evidence regarding (1) U.S. Gypsum's actions or conduct after the alleged exposure to the asbestos-containing U.S. Gypsum product at issue, (2) knowledge acquired by U.S. Gypsum post-sale regarding the alleged health nsks associated with asbestos (post-sale evidence), or (3) products not at issue in this litigation (other-product evidence). Exhibits for: Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion In Limine of Defendant United States Gypsum Company to Exclude All Post-Sale Evidence and All Evidence Relating to Products Not at Issue Exhibit A ----- A?R 13, 1994 KCNCaU JAME5 Z SATT, Retiree, juco= UU "I . A DESPOL DEPUTf CtERX MCNCMBLS -t:C3c PRO T2U ? REES _1 / aauiza-xrxs I a SOTTILS r*ax/SRu (Pxnai anc caurm) eacteg H [wig C j 72a ais a snyber c/w WEC co, etc. 13? 326 (Trans to Central) Csunsa4 Raima! tor MCREN0-PURCELL-5CEINDLER by GILBERT L PURCELL u-*1'* * * S PATRICE A DeSLAES w"" CAREY CANALA, INC., ETC., T AL Caro* tor BREIDEN3ACH-SWAINSTQN-WAY PILED: 6-26-89 Datmuam by THOMAS C CORLSSS -v--- ~ TYPE: PD/0THZR/AS3EST3S MORGAN LEWIS BOCEIUS AT-ISSUE: 07-22-92/30-40 days by RAYMOND T CULLEN KEVIN M DONOVAN NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS. CIVIL TRIAL/JURY ' PD/0/AS3ESTOS Cause rtaunea from APR 17/ 1994/ vith all counsel present as heretofore. Also present is JEREOMS SNYDER and MICHAEL WISE representying J H SNYDER CO. . OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OP THE ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR: and counsel further confer regarding possible settleaent. finds that there is ho possibility of settleaent. The Court The Court -IN THE PRESENCE OP THE ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR: are argued and ruled upon as follows: i Motions in limine _ : Plaintiff's notion 10, -previously- partially argued, is further argued * ' and DENIED; 11) To exclude all Evidence that jurors are breathing asbestos fibers i is argued and GRANTED as prayed for; 12) To exclude all evidence concerning other potential cheaicals or Hazardous substances in plaintiff's buildings is GRANTED except : the final subdivision public report, if used for impeachment; 13) To exclude all evidence which differentiates asbestos by fiber : type is DENIED -- under 352 Evidence Code the probative value cut - weighs the prejudicial; ' ' 14) To exclude references to treshold limit values or any equivalent 'term is argued and DENIED -- under352 Evidence Code the probative 'value outweighs the prejudicial; 15) To exclude evidence concerning comparative and/or quantitative risk assessment evidence and limiting defendant expert KENNETH S CRUM? testimony GRANTED. ' Defendants^-motions in limine are argued and ruled upon as follows':' ' ' A) - To exclude all post-sale evidence-Rn'd evidence "relating to products not at-"issue in this case is argued and GRANTED as more fully re flected in the records of the Electronic Recording Monitor, which are incorporated herein by reference; CONTINUED ON MINUTE ORDER PAGE lA ' ' APR 18, 1994 Exhibit B 1524 1 GSTTSD STATES DISTRICT COORT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA 2 WESLET THEOLOGICAL SEMXHA2T DOCKET HO. 3 0? THE OHITSD METHODIST CHORCH,. CA -85-ISOS A PLAINTIFF WASHIHGTOH, D.C.. MAT 6, 1988 5 VS. 9:30 A.M. 5 OHITED STATES CTPSOH COMPAST, ET At., ' 7 DEEEHDAHTS 8 70LOME Z 9 T2AHSCRZFT 07 T2IAL BEFORE THE HOSOKABOS JOTCS HESS 'GSSSH LO OHITED STATES DZST2ICT J0DG2, AHD A JUST LI APPEA2ABCZS: FOR THE PLAIHTIFF 12 13 H 1! 1< ASHC2A7T i GE2SL ' BT: PETES T. EHSLEIH, ESQ. JAMES M. HAHHT, ESQ. MICHELLE A. PAREITT, WILLIAM C. B0R6T, ESQ., EARL`H. MARSHALL, ESQ. ATTORHET-AT-LAW 2000 L STREET, H.W. WASHIHGTOH, D.C. 2003S MR. SMITH, RSPRSSSHTATljPE 1` TOR DEFEHDAHT O.S..GTPSOM MORGAH, LEWIS 6 BOCKIUS BT: GRACE B. SPEIGHTS, II ATT 0 REST-AT-LAW 1800 M STREET, H.W. | 11 WASHIHGTOH, D.C. 2003 e 2i MORGAH, LEWIS & BOCKIOS BT: THOMAS B. KEHWORTHT, 2 ESQ. ' PETER J. LTHCH 2 2000 OHS LOGAH SQOARE PHILADELPHIA, PA 191P3 2 FREEMAN i HAWKINS 2 BT: JOLIA BENNETT JAGGER, ATTORNET-AT-LAW 2800 FIRST ATLANTA 1525 1 APPEARAHCZS (COHTIHUBD) : 2 FOB OZBBHDAHT HATIOMAL GTPSUM: SCHWALB, DOSMZSPZLD, -. Bsur s subset 3 BTi JOHS M. B2AT, BSQ . 1025 THOMAS JSBBZaSOH . 4 '. STHZZT H.W. ' ` SXSITS 300 BAST 5. HASHIHGTOH, D.C. 20007' 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 OEFXCXAL COURT REPORTER 13 14 hqtlb morris & zzaa BT: SOSAS HZaSCHZB, ATTORHZT-AT-LA JOHH KC SHEA, ES&. OHS LIBZBTT PLAC? SUITE-4900 1650 MAHBBT STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 > 60SJDQH A. SLODTSKO 4806--A O.S. COURTHOUSE WASHXHGTOH, D.C. 20001 (202) 535-3404 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMPUTER-AIDED TRAHSCRIPTIOH 0? STEHOGRAPHIC HOTES a- Betz 4 Strouse. Inc. 1 tell them they can go home. 1554. 2 Honetheless, i wanted to see if we eould 3 do say movement because we have three'days nest week,] 4 that's it. And however much we accomplish, that's 5 all to be given to the cause. HR. 2HSC.2XH: Tour Honor, the only thing 7 that occurs to me is a short deposition o Hz. Clark,) < three or four pages, which is 2 think the only other 9 thing we. have by way of testimony to be pat in. LO HZ. E2SW0RTHX: X would like to address LX Hr. Clark. L2 THE COURT: Can ye have the deposition or 13 a copy or do you have a eopy, Joe? * U HR. EHS&SXH: xt was one of our ' 11 designations. ' 1< THE COORT: Could you tell me what number? 1* HR. EHSC.2XH: Xt was listed as -- one II moment, your Honor -- we filed designations. 1! THE COORT: Thank you', Joe. 2 HR. EHSX.2XH: Xt is our designation number 2: 11, which is I think in our second binder these. THE COORT: Thank you so much. Humber 11. All right. Richard Clark. How, tell me what is being proffered as to Hr. Clark, and then you'll have a chance to speak to it, Mr. Kenworthy, if you 7) Betz 4 Streuse. Inc. 1 believe it is appropriate. 15 5 5 2 MR. SHSL2XS: This deposition is a . 3 deposition of a principal in a company called 4 Mechanical Asbestos Removal, Inc./ which several 5 years ago did some removal of asbestos from an u.S. 6 Gypsam facility outside of Baltimore. ' 7 And oar intentiob of patting this 3 deposition is is to show in part that U.S. Gypsum, 9 even in its own facilities, has removed asbestos. 10 recognizing the fact that -- to show awareness on 11 the part of this defendant of a potential hazard of 12 this material in plaee. . 13 TBS COURT: Its own facility of course is 14 what kind of a facility of U.S. Gypsum, I don't want 15 to guess at it. 16 MR. SRSX.2XH: I believe it is a 17 . manufacturing facility. 18 THS COURT: An industry type, in any event? 19 MR. EHSLEIH: Tes. 20 THS COURT: Manufacturing what in 21 particular? - 22 MR. EHSLEIH: Some form of building 23 product, as I understand it. I am not sure this 24 deposition goes into the specifics of that. 25 THS COURT: Did he address any differences r7^ Betz i Slrausa. Inc. 155$ 1 that there Bight be between that kind of a facility 2 and the facility chat we have at iasne ia this case? 3 M2. 2MSZ.2XH: As I read the deposition, 4 that was aot addressed ia the deposition. xt was 5 nerely a deposition taken to establish that this 6 removal ia fact took place, whieh is wh*y we/ want to 7 offer it. * 8 TH2 C002T: Why don't x just glaa'ee 9 through it. Xt is a very short deposition. Why 10 don't X skim the pages, thea X'-ll hear whatever 11 argument yon have to Bake with a little sore 12 reinforcement of knowledge. 13 (Pause.) 14 THE COC2T: Mr. Enslein, was the entire 15 project there -- X may be just looking at a portion 16 of it. Was the entire project there removing 17 approximately 970'feet of piping insulation? 18 M2. EHSLEXH: X believe that's sight. 19 THE COORT: That was the one project that 20 the witness said he was aware of? 21 M2. EMSI.EXS: les. 22 THE COORT: All right. With that in mind, 23 let me keep looking thro'ugh here. 24 MR. EHSLSIH: Your Honor, I may have 25 misspoken. 7} Betz 4 Strcusa. Inc. 1S57 1 T33 COOBT: The last page, did we just 2 teach the last page at the same time, both of as? . 3 Zebruary 6, 193S, 4 p.m., job canceled'by o.S. 4 Gypsam, no asbestos abatement was done. 5 MS. HSIZZH: Yes. Bat that was not the point I was referring to. .' 7 TBS COOBT: Sorry. 8 . MS. SHSL2IH: page 82, I think they talk 9 about 8 nillion for linear square feet of pipe 10 insolation being removed on page 82 of the 11 deposition. '. 12 TBS COOBT: What Z am looking at is 13 Plaintiff's- Exhibit 820; is that right? 14 MS. ZBSLZZB: Yes. 15 TBZ COOBT: And the pages that Z have - IS oh, yes, Z aa sorry. Yon are talking about 82? 17 MB. ZBSLZZB: Page 82. 18 TBZ COOBT: All right. 870 linear feet of 19 pipe Insolation, main gas line, O.S. Gypsum six-inch 20 gas line $8,400. 21 MB. EHSLZIH: Z think it is a 22 typographical error. I think they put a dollar sign 23 in front of that number. . 24 THE COOBT: It is confusing when was it 25 performed late December 1935 then the last sheet I rTj Betz a Strouse. Inc. 1653 1 just referred to nay have been .talking about a 2 different work order, bat it was 1986 date that 3 indicated tbe Job bad been canceled. . 4 MS. EHSL2XS: Tea, I think it refers to 3 another job. . ' 6 THE COORT: 111 right. Let ae hear now 7 from 70a, Mr. Eenworthy. * 8 HR. K2HW0RTHT: Z still have not seen why 9 Hr. Bnslein suggests that is in any tray relevant to 10 this breach of warranty ease with acoustical plaster. 11 It Is an entirely different product. It was not 12 manufactured by Suited States Gypsum, it has 13 absolutely nothing to do with the issues in this 14 case about this product under these conditions. 15 The deposition wasn't taken in this case, 16 it wasn't taken with reference in aind to being 17 relevant to the product in this ease. It is a 18 situation where, pursuant to law, you are required 19 to separately remove under the HESHAPs regulation 20 this type of aaterial. There is no suggestion even 21 as to that particular product that it is a 22 recognition that under its circumstances is even 23 defective. 24 And even if it were, certainly public 25 policy would never permit that type of action, even Betz i Strouse. Inc. 1653 if it were dene for a safety purpose in 1336 to be used to suggest that there is in fact a defect with an entirely different product that was'sold in 1958. 4 Every court that has addressed this issue of i allowing that has excluded it. . < TS2 COURT: Zt has been asked before? MS. S2SW0RTHT: Sot this particular one, . I but other ones for all of those reasons of prejudice, i it is totally different froa the product in issue 1< and it would be against public policy certainly to 1: allow soaething that, even aight address a safety l: problea that was done in 1936 to be suggestive of a l: defeet in a product that was sold in 1953. 1 ME. EHSL2IB: Tour Honor, it is ay 1 understanding that in the City of Greenville case, 1 siailar testimony was offered and allowed against W. 1 R. Grace where Grace was reaoving asbestos-bearing 1 materials from its own facilities to establish the 1 faet Grace -- in fact, Grace's awareness of the fact 2 that material posed a potential health hazard. 2 That is our intention of offering this 2 testimony to establish an awareness within United 2 States Gypsum Company that asbestos-bearing 2 materials in a building pose a potential health 2 hazard, not to show knowledge -- not to show C7^ Betz & Strcuse. Inc. isso 1 knowledge in the 1950s-of -- that it posed a hazard# 2 bat rather to show that, in fact, contrary to the '' . 3 representstions at length to the jary in the 1 4 witnesses that material once in place does not pose 5 a hazard, an awareness that la fact it does. 6 - MS. K5HWGETHT: Jour Honor, we made no 7 representstions in this case about the hazards of 8 pipe insulation. The case that Mr. Ensleiu - 9 represents is entirely different. United States 10 Gypsum tried the last case tried against United 11 States Gypsum which.is the only other case that has 12 been a pure warranty ease other than this. Xt was 13 tried before the exact same judge that had heard the 14 hnderson -- the City of Greenville City Hall case. 15 He excluded this testimony in a breach of warranty 16 ease, and he particularly distinguished the fact 17 that that was not HESHAPs mandated, and there was 18 some showing of similarity and it was in dose 19 proximity to the installation, those were both in 20 the early 1970s that the sale took place in 21 Greenville City Hall and that the removal took place 22 in Greenville City Hall. 23 We are dealing" here with a period of a 24 30-year difference in an entirely different product 25 in a warranty case. And for the reasons previously CT^ Betz i Slrouse. Inc. 1 stated, it clearly should be excluded. 1SS1 2. THS COORT: All'right. it shall be 3 excluded, and these selected pages- frost the 4 deposition of Hr. Richard Clark will not be nsed in 5 this ease, the relevancy, confusing different type of facility, not one of defendant's prodnetsf 7 Public policy, I will not go that far, Mr. . 8 Kenworthy, but it certainly vosld be confusing and . 9 misleading and inappropriate to develop before this LQ jury. So be it. II Let me tell, the jury that wben I told them 12 that X thought we had abbreviated the testimony v 12 substantially, X didn't know how true that was. H This will be a surprise to them. 1! Why don't you just bring them in here, and 1< they don't have to take their seats. Xt will be 11 10:15 on Monday. And Monday we can go up to just li shy of 4:30. X think there is a 4:30 meeting with 1! lawyers who want to talk about Buie 11. X think you 2( all heard about that subject. So they are getting 2: their little interviews with judges a few at a time. 2: THS COORT: Yes, Mr. Snslein. 2: MR. EHSLSXN: After the jury is excused, i 2* have one more matter. 2! (Jury present.) CZ^ Betz i Strauss. Inc. Exhibit C 1 121 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TEE DISTRICT OF SOOTS CAROLI2iA 2 GREENVILLE DIVISION 3 SPARTANBURG COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SEVER, 4 PLAINTIFF, 5 8 NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY AND 7 UNITED STASES GYPSUM COMPANY, C.A. 83-1744-3 8 DEFENDANTS. ANDERSON, SC APRIL 17, 1387 . 9:55 A. M. 10 TRANSCRIPT OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. ROSS ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 12 APPEARANCES: 13 FOR PLAINTIFF: 14 DANIEL A. SPEIGHTS, ESQ. ?. O. BOX 685 HAMPTON, SC 29924 15 FOR NATIONAL GYPSUM: 16 17 PATRICE MICHAEL DUFFY, ESQ. MORRIS, DUFFY 8 BOONE ' 141 E. BAY STREET CHARLESTON, SC 29401 18 ERIC B. HENSON, ESQ. GAETAN J. ALFANO, ESQ. 19 ' HOYLE, MORRIS & XERR 1424 CHESTNUT STREET 20 PHILADELPHIA, PA . 19102 21 FOR U.S. GYPSUM: 22 23 24 25 EDWIN P. HA?JIN, ESQ. TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM LANSY P. 0. BOX 1473 COLUMBIA, SC 29202 TSCMAS B. XEHWORTHY, ESQ. FRANK L. CORRADO, ESQ. 2000 ONE LOGAN SQUARE PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 COURT REPORTER: GZRI M. DUNS, P. O. BOX 1752, ANDERSON, SC 2 (303) 226-2034 These proceedings taken by machine shorthand, transcribed by 94 1 2 it. T22 C0UH7: Well, you've got to file a copy 0f 3 MR. DC2TY: Judge, does the same' rule apply ^ 4 testimony froa the transcript of the first trial of this case? S Bov do ve handle that? Saaa way? TBS COURT: Saaa ray. 7 MR. XESWORTHT: The only other thing I'd bring to I the Court'* attention, I think ve probably all agree -- we've 9 gotten the exhibit lists, subject to the Court's rulings, and 10 the witnesses. I don't think there's going to be anch n question -- it probably looks like we could be able to be 12 done, even on normal trial days, on Wednesday. I that 13 is a fair -- certainly Thursday morning. 'l just ranted to 14 bring that to the Court's attention and see if you really IS still felt you wanted to schedule the night sessions. 16 TBS COURT: Well, to help you out, I'a going to 17 rule on nuaber sir. I'a ready to rule on that. Mow removal 18 froa their own premises of the unsound product, I'a going to 19 FMclnfle that. The advertising documents have been stipulated. I 20 have got to -- on your'other documents. I'm going to allow, 21 which is the biggest group or so I'a informed, number seven, 22 communication with the defendants and building owners, it is 23 going to eoae in for the limited purpose of showing that the 24 breach -- notice of the breach would have been futile, that 2S they already knew it and that is the limited purpose of It, Exhibit D  r.a. P.S3. 1 1 . IS 22: axinscas CUT ZS 7SS 2 P2SSOOX. XSJBKX CtBi.'UIT C0082 3 BSD HCSG7UL MOSS PQS 1 4 laaasroa cans uxsiMOBs cm 5 8 mart, t <l. . . 7 Plaintiffs caasaumsso 8 TS. m* so. 9 89238704 10 Dafasdaats . ** 11 12 . 13 DOCQHSSrS DXS2HH3 ">TM 8SSUU3IB6 osnxoiaT tmzzao stasis crwox cshpast 14 JL Oocaamt- Biaptrta Baarlaq Mcaxdlng tM 15 Safaadaat Paitod Stataa Syeaoa Cswpany la tM ubcrrm aatitlad aeiion vu Mid oa Hen-day, Jaaaary 27, 15 1392, cnnMinriTig at 9t35 a.a., at Xeea 232, Coarthcua* last, Baltiacro, Maryland 21202, Mfor* TM Icaarabla 17 Marahall 1. Larin, aad raportad by Barbara J. Brans, a Votary Public. 18 19 BOSS KDKOOSK SWV2C8 20 4358 Parfeslds Brira Balt iron, VaryLand 21208 21 (410) 483-2955 /9IGINAL 134 C (- 1. I understand. 2 MS. UC!) K?' who + k.->h *h'- 3 1* sectioned in the first sentence. Mr. Kipp is their 4 insurance sea at U.S. Cypsurn's -- I think ha was 5 called aaaagar of insurance. * 6 MR. Lzaca: Z still don't understand how 7 this docuaant relates to U.S. Oypsua's IsvolTueat os t purported iarelvuaent with tha Asbestos lafoiaatian 9 Coaaittae of Worth tansies which coneeras other 10 dofsadanta, sad if they hast laforaatlca about other 11 dnfnndsats iavolmd in:* tha* eoonifctao or organisation, 12 they should put that in through other docuaanta which 13 concnra thaao other deeussnts, but not U.S. Gypsna. 14 CSS COOKSt Wall, I ererrale tha objection 13 priaarily bnesaso, despite that azguanst, tha paepla 15 at 080 aaaa to find tha AIX Csasdttaa of Worth tearica 17 srmatMng of interest to thaa in tha asbestoa IS picture* ' '' 19 Che tart amber. 20 MW. BXXZ.7: Hart atabas, year Boaer, is 3S0. 21 had yea caa ccasidar it with 3S2 aad that will 21SSb-- p.a* r 135 ( <s-' 1 aouelada this Mt. 2 T8S COU3HJ All right. 3 (?aase.) 4 SSS COtlSJJ What La year objection, sir? 5 MS* U3CR: Tear Bocor, these doctoaets 5 coacsga 0.3. Qypsum'a eoaplianea with KB3SX7S, the 7 Set Ians 1 missions Standards for Basardous Air 3 Pollutants. 9 Zt only sate forth e portion of 0.8. 10 Gypaoa'a policy with raspeet to the removal of pipe 11 insolation end ether aebestae-ouataiaing products 12 daring aay renovation or danelitioa of e facility or & 13 plsntr e 9.3. Qypsua plant. It has no relevance as to 14 whether 9.3. Oypsaa's products era haxardous or 15 defective in any aetara. 16 As a natter of fact, in the Clarksville 17 opinion, year loner, the Court said that the 18 plaintiffs there} to which Xr. Berly would Ills to use 19 in this ease, is frand became the regulations ware 20 enacted after the eoostractioa of the buildings at 21 isaua in the case, and they are set probative of p.as 1S7 1. Tli* esguaant weald be that, if a.$. cypaca 2 was trying as taka esbeetos products oat of their own 3 plants where the exposure Lemls they typically argue 4 are assy time loss than they weald be to eombody who 5 works with it, than certainly the people that worked 6 with it that hart the greater exposure ar eras 7 significantly ears ia danger. 8 . These ara just two of the wary nany 8 doeuaenta wa hava that shew O.S. Cypaua'a intaraal 10 corporate policy of taking tha aabaatsa eat of their 11 own buildings. - ` 12 HR. LX3QSU Tour Honor, thin document 362 ia 13 misleading in that tha, quota, raeaatly developed ' 14 policy, and quota, thora ia that tha products in tha 15 buildings ware to swain in place ualaaa they wars 16 part of renovation or daaolition of the facility. 17 Plaintiffs typically designate the taatiaecy 18 of frank Bay, who is tha parson who asthersd Inhibit ' IP 362, and Hr. May tastifias that tha eeapany'a policy 20 ia that products rsaain ia placa anises they have to 21 be remved baransa of HBSH37S where tha ccapany does las 1. viuitlur Aadicote vhleh vaa at iaaoa, which tha 2 plaintiff plana to praaest evidence in vm eaa* vaa 3 defective, raaaeaahly dangerous. or whether a.S. Sypetas 4 waa reasonably negligent. 5 MR. 322X2: Z offer it for a different 6 raaaoa than what it vaa offered for in CLarkvilla, 7 Clarksville being as aabaataa proparty daaagv, this 3 bain? a personal injury caa*, whore Z think that 9 people will agree that tha azpoanraa thaaa individual 10 plalntiffa aaffarad mold have been higher than that 11 typically faced in a bcilding.' 12 had in thia instance, tha raaaoa for - 13 offaring thaaa doesaaate is, particularly if yea look 14 at 3S2, you will aa U.S. Gypsun had a eorperata ' 13 policy to go in and to raaove aabaataa notarial that IS ia in a datarioratad ecttdlti.cn. 17 Z naan, that ia aoaathlng that they are 13 cadartakiag on their cwn volition. That is net *` 13 anoat hi ng that they are being undated to do by aeaa 20 fadaral ragciraaant aeaawhara, tha KSS3R7S cr what 21 have yea. . 259 ?.37 ( laa 1 reservation er daaolitioa. 2 Sha Lane* concerning H2S2ASS haw so 3 reisvancs at all as to vhathar orsat praducta vtaa 4 thsy vara constructed or iaatallad ia thebuilding ara 5 dangerous. 6 T2S COCKS: Z aa going to sustain objections 7 to 350 and 3*2. 9 2SX COOKS: Okay. * vill taka a brief 9 raeaaa. 10 (A break van takas.) 11 XH2 COOKS: All right, sir. 12 ME. BXKLS:Tear Honor, tha aaact sat that va 13 eaa look at together vary quickly is 255, 269 , 279. 14 That's it. 13 SSS COOKS: Okay. 15 HE. BESOT: Shaaa all tall oaa brief story. 17 And that ia that, in tha 1955 period, O.E. Gypsua 19 experimented vith substituting in part for its * 19 asbestos paper iaits Andloots product, oaa of thsir 20 acoustical plantarproducts. 21 lad they vara able to dsvias aa Indicate