Document 85VdmQp8o05q86vpbD67pyEmm

CAUSE NO. 01-00055-J JESSE CORTEZ, ET AL 'VS. U.S. GYPSUM COMPANY, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 191st JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF FILING This is to certify that on July 25, 2001, Defendant served the following to Plaintiff: EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION'S RESPONSE DISCLOSURE Respectfully submitted, STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON, BISSELL & LEDYARD, L.L.P. David W. Ledyard State Bar No. 12109400 14th Floor, San Jacinto Building 595 Orleans Street Beaumont, Texas 77701-3255 (409) 981-1000 (409) 981-1010 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This will verify that atrue and correct copy of Exxon Mobil Corporation's Notice of Filing has been furnished to counsel for plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, and to all other known counsel of record by regular U.S. Mail on the 25lh day of July, 2001. Li'S David W. Ledyard CAUSE NO. 01-00055-.T JESSE CORTEZ, ET AL VS. U.S. GYPSUM COMPANY, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 191st JUDICIAL DISTRICT EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION. AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO: Plaintiffs, ARTHUR HERD, JR., et al by and through his attorney of record, Stephanie Finch, BARON & BUDD, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. COMES NOW EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, one ofthe Defendants in the above styled cause, and makes and files its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Request for Admissions Propounded to Premises Defendants. Respectfully submitted, STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON, BISSELL & LEDYARD, L.L.P. (/ David W. Ledyard State Bar No. 12109400 14th Floor, San Jacinto Building Beaumont, Texas 77701-3255 (409)981-1000 (409)981-1010 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This will verify that a true and correct copy of ExxonMobil Corporation's Response to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Request for Production has been forwarded to counsel for plaintiff, by certified mail, return receipt requested, and to all other known counsel ofrecord by regular U.S. Mail, on this day 25th day of July, 2001. 2 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DEFINITIONS 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "Defendant", "you", "your", and "your company". To the extent the terms can be read to refer to Defendant's attorneys, any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any ofthese terms necessarily invades the work product privilege in violation of Rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 503 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. To the extent the terms are defined to include predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates, as well as present and former officers, directors, agents, employees and other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of the corporate defendant, any interrogatory or request for production utilizing these terms is so overly broad, and over burdensome as to make any request or interrogatory utilizing the term virtually impossible to answer. Further, to the extent the definition is defined to include any merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries ofpredecessors, and/or affiliates, any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any^f these terms is necessarily overly broad, over burdensome, and calls for material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs apparent attempt to place upon Defendant the burden to seek information from former officers, directors, agents and employees over whom Defendant no longer has dominion or control. Any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any of these terms is a "fishing expedition" in violation of Texas law as concerns discovery. 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "document", "documents", "written materials", or "printed matter" as the definition of those terms renders any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any of these terms overly broad, over burdensome, harassing, and reduces any such interrogatory or request for production to a "fishing expedition" in violation of Texas law concerning discovery. Defendant further objects to the definition of these terms as calling for the production ofmaterial or information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the definition of these terms to the extent it purports to include an obligation to locate and produce information or documentation which is no longer in the possession or control ofthis Defendant or from entities who are not parties to this cause of action. 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiff s definition ofthe words "meeting" or "meetings" as any interrogatory or request for production utilizing those terms is overly broad, and over burdensome in that it purports to require documentation or information concerning any casual or coincidental meeting. 4. Defendant objects to Plaintiff s definition of the term "years at issue" as the definition assumes that Plaintiffworked on the premises ofDefendant for the entire period reflected in the definition, which is denied. Any request for admission or production utilizing this term is overly broad, burdensome and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Defendant objects to the stated definition of the terms "products containing asbestos fiber", "asbestos containing products" and "asbestos products" on the grounds it is overly broad, vague and not limited to the matters made the basis of this lawsuit and therefore, seeks disclosure of information and/or the production of documentation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3 ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. I: For each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories, or who assisted in identifying, locating or retrieving documents responsive to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, identify such person and include the length of time employed by Defendant or other employer, and a year-by-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: These responses were prepared based on information gathered by defense counsel along with assistance of in house counsel and other legal staff. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: As to each ofthe following, please state the first year you first became aware, what you learned, and how Defendant learned that humans who inhale asbestos fibers can contract a. asbestosis b. lung cancer c. mesothelioma ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant answers that it is impossible to know in an organization the size of this Defendant exactly what year it would have obtained this kind of information. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please list all trade organizations, trade associations and any other industry-wide groups to which you belong(ed) (specifically including but not limited to the following groups: American Hygiene Foundation, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Chemical Manufacturer's Association, American Chemical Council, American Petroleum Institute, Texas Chemical Council, Ohio Safety Congress, National Safety Council, Asbestos Information Association, Industrial Medical Association) in which information or documents relating to asbestos was discussed, disseminated, or published (including, but not limited to, the effects of exposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations at risk). As to each such group, please state: a. the inclusive dates of your membership and b. identify Defendant's employees or former employees or representatives who attended any of the meetings held by each organization, and c. the meetings they attended, and d. if any individuals employed by Defendant or representing Defendant were members of committees or subcommittees of any such organizations, (such as, e.g., a medical advisory committee or legal committee), identify the committee or subcommittee on which such individual served and the position occupied on the committee, if applicable. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been a member of the National Safety Council since 1944, American Chemistry Council (f/k/a MCA and CMA) since 1938 and the American Petroleum Institute since 1949. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify Defendant's employees or former employees or representatives who attended any proceedings, symposia, or conferences of a scientific or medical or technical nature at which information or documents relating to asbestos was discussed, disseminated, orpublished, (including, by way of example, the effects of exposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations at risk) and specifically including but not limited to the Seventh Saranac Symposium, 1952, and/or New York Academy of Sciences, October 1964, and for each such individual, state the proceedings, symposia, or conferences attended and to whom within your 5 corporate organization information concerning attendance at such proceedings, symposia, or conferences were reported, either verbally or in documentary form. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant answers that it is impossible to know in an organization the size of this Defendant exactly which employees attended which meetings of this sort. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify each company from which you acquired asbestos-containing products used at Defendant's Premises at Issue during the years Plaintiff has indicated he worked at Defendants Premises at Issue and include in your response a. a description of each asbestos-containing product acquired and b. the dates each asbestos-containing product was acquired. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If any asbestos-containing materials located or formerly located at Defendant's Premises at issue have been removed, encapsulated, or otherwise abated at any time, a. Identify each person or company that performed such abatement services; b. State the dates and locations within Defendant's Premises At Issue of each abatement procedure; and 6 c. Describe what asbestos-containing materials were abated d. State how such asbestos-containing waste was stored at Defendant's Premises At Issue prior to disposal and how it was disposed of. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and state the experience and qualify, ations, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge of facts relevant to this case concerning Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to the identification or location in your premises of asbestos-containing products to which Plaintiff was exposed or facts disputing the identification or location of such product or type of products. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: With respect to Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as being employed by you or having been employed by you whose duties and/or responsibilities included interface or liaison with Plaintiffs employer or other contractors who installed, removed, maintained, repaired or replaced asbestos-containing products (including foremen or supervisors or Plaintiff) on Defendant's Premises At Issue (regardless of job title, including but not limited to "plant engineers", "project engineers"," company engineers", "project superintendents", "purchasing agents"orjob descriptions ofa similar nature) and specifically include those whose duties and responsibilities included the following: 7 a. entering into contracts or purchase orders (including specifications) with such contractors b. allowing such contractors access to Defendant's Premises At Issue, c. overseeing or supervising or observing or monitoring such contractor activities or addressing any contractor questions or concerns relating to the work being performed d. providing or approving asbestos-containing materials to be used by such contractors e. inspecting or approving work done by such contractors or authorizing payment for work done by such contractors. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: If you have or have had an industrial hygiene or safety or medical department, please a. b. ANSWER: state the year such department was established, and whether it was established on the corporate level or at Defendant's Premises at Issue or both and with respect to Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as being or having acted in a medical, safety, or industrial hygiene advisory capacity (regardless ofjob title), specifically including, but not limited to, physicians, medical directors, medical personnel, nurses, safety engineers or managers and industrial hygienists. (You should include in your answer those persons on a corporate level, regardless of whether they worked directly on Defendants' Premises if they had such responsibilities for workers on Defendant's Premises At Issue, and identify such individuals as affiliated with the corporate headquarters of Defendant.) Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly Lroad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 8 Without waiving the foregoing objections: Corporate Medical Directors Robert Collier Page (deceased) Ralph Schneider, M.D. (deceased) Norbert Roberts, M.D. (deceased) Thomas McDonaugh, M.D. (deceased) Chief Industrial Hygienists James Hammond (retired) Roger Florky (deceased) Defendant, or its predecessor, has had a medical department since 1918. Defendant, or its predecessor, has had a safety program since the late 1920's. Defendant, or its predecessor, has had an industrial hygiene program since 1947. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify all warnings given by Defendant, ifany, to anyone at Defendant's Premises At Issue (including the Plaintiff) regarding the hazards of asbestos and the dangers inherent in the inhalation of asbestos fibers, and please include in your response: a. to whom these warnings were given (and specifically state if Plaintiff was among them). b. when they were given, if ever, and c. in what manner they were given (e.g. written pamphlets, signs posted, oral/group meeting, individual discussions, etc.) and d. state whether you have ever published, written, edited, or distributed any other printed materials, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging, advertising, signs, statements, or other materials containing any warnings of the possibility of injury from the use or exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, and e. state whether any ofthe foregoing warnings were in Spanish or any other language besides English. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Defendant further objects to the terms "hazards of asbestos" and "dangers inherent inhalation" as vague and ambiguous and response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of these terms. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: IfDefendant has or had or maintained 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, please identify a. the individuals who received, maintained, reviewed, and disseminated the information contained in such written materials, b. identify the written materials received, and c. state how and why these materials came into Defendant's possession. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please describe in detail your manufacturing or industrial use ofany asbestos or asbestos-containing products at Defendant's Premises At Issue. Please include in your response a. the type of asbestos fiber used, b. from whom you purchased the asbestos fiber used, c. a description of the process in which the asbestos was used. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify by name and location each plant, facility, location, or premises owned, operated, or controlled by you in which asbestos-containing products were assembled, stored, used, prepared for 10 use, installed, or fabricated during the Time Period At Issue. For each plant, facility, location, or premises listed as responsive to the above request, specify a. the functional dates for each plant, facility, location, or premises and b. the period during which asbestos-containing materials were stored, used, prepared for use, installed or fabricated. ANSWER; Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This*interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: For any of Defendant's Premises At Issue, during the Time Period At Issue, if you, your affiliates, subsidiaries, or predecessors), arranged for any of your employees, labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors, industrial hygienists, or any other party, whether directly employed by you or otherwise, to count or measure quantity, quality or threshold limit values or concentrations of asbestos dust or particles or other dust at any ofyour plants, facilities, locations, or premises where asbestos or asbestos-containing products were used, assembled, installed, or removed, please describe such tests and indicate a. the results obtained, b. by whom such tests were performed and c. identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofevery person known to you, your agents, or contractors as the person most knowledgeable concerning such tests and their results. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: For the Time Period At Issue, if you provided or caused to be provided any safety equipment or medical programs (including, but not limited to, masks, respirators, other breathing devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, area air filtration systems, and area exhaust systems or barriers or enclosures or medical monitoring program, medical examination program, or other medical or safety program) to employees, contractors, or invitees at any of your plants, facilities, locations, or premises where asbestos and asbestos-containing products were manufactured, used, assembled, installed, or removed, please indicate a. when such was first provided to your employees, contractors, and/or invitees and to whom, b. under what circumstances such were provided, and c. state whether you conducted safety meetings discussing the hazards of asbestos with employees, contractors, or invitees at any ofDefendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, and if so, when and what was discussed, and d. identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofevery person known to you, your agents, or contractors as the person most knowledgeable concerning such equipment and programs and their provision. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Defendant further objects to the term "hazards of asbestos" as vague and ambiguous and response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this term. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: See "Dust Producing Operations in the Production of Petroleum Products and Associated Activities" by Rob Bonsib (1937), the transcript of Hammond from Allen vs. American Petrofina, and Exxon's Procedures Concerning Safeguarding Workers from Asbestos Health Hazards before OSHA. See also the transcript of Clyde Berry from Allen vs. American Petrofina. This material has been provided to Plaintiffs Counsel in prior litigation. Defendant has no records of when respirators were first used at any of its facilities but Roy Bonsib, prior Chief Safety Inspector of Standard Oil Company (NJ) reports the use of respirators in 1937. The respirators provided included the M.S.A "Comfo" or Wilson dust respirator, which was approved by the Bureau of Mines. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state for each of Defendant's Premises At Issue, all relevant State and Federal regulations, laws, statutes, mandates, or other authority pertaining to industrial hygiene, safety, and health of 12 which you were aware during the Time Period At Issue that governed, controlled, or applied to exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, abatement or removal ofasbestos-containing products, and transportation ofasbestos containing waste from such removal or abatement activities. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: For any of Defendant's Premises At Issue, detail every occasion during the Time Period At Issue when any State, Federal, or local regulatory agency, commission, or other examiner inspected or visited any ofyour plants, facilities, locations, or premises where asbestos and asbestos-containing products were used, manufactured, assembled, installed, or removed to ascertain whether you were in compliance with relevant State, Federal, or local health and safety regulations. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: If, before 1980, you had received notice that any individual or individuals had claimed for alleged injury against you resulting from exposure to asbestos, state for each: a. The name and address of the claimant b. A description of the claim. c. The name and address of the attorney representing such claimant. 13 ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: If you contend that you did not own or operate or control the Defendants' Premises during the Time Period At Issue, or if you contend you are not liable in the capacity alleged in the most recent petition, describe in detail the facts supporting your contention and include a detailed corporate history of Defendant and its ownership, sale, acquisition, or divestiture or any of Defendant's Premises At Issue and any relevant mergers, acquisitions, consolidation, or other events of similar nature that you believe bear on the issue of ownership, control, or assumption of liabilities for acts occurring on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue and identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge of facts relevant to this issue. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Ifyou contend that venue is not proper, identify by municipality and county the location you contend is your principal place ofbusiness within this state for purposes of venue, as well as your next three most significant business locations within this state. Ifyou do not contend that any ofyour locations are a principal place of business, identify up to four of your places of business where your highest level decision makers within this state work. 14 ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. 15 RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all ordering, sales, and shipping documents pertaining to the purchase or acquisition of asbestos-containing products for use at Defendant's Premises At Issue at any time. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents that relate to abatement of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue and transportation of asbestos-containing waste. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all records identifying contractors and/or the employees ofcontractors who were on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to gate records, sign-in-logs, visitor's logs, identification badge or "brassing" procedures, fingerprinting, or other documents of a similar nature. 16 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all records pertaining to the methods and manner of identification of individuals entering and/or leaving Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce the contract and work progress documents pertaining to the contractors who performed services at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including, but not limited to, invitations to bid, requests for proposals, bids, proposals, statements ofscope ofwork, workorders, specifications, blueprints, plans, acceptances, contracts, amendments, addenda, change orders, inspection reports, work logs or contractor logs, including but not limited to all of the contractor documents referring to work to be done, underway, or completed by Plaintiffs employer at Defendant's-Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request 17 is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents reflecting payments made to Plaintiff s employer for work contracted to do at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to authorizations for payment, invoices, bills, check requests, requisitions, canceled checks, or other documents of a similar nature reflecting payment for services rendered by Plaintiffs employer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broatfin that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all photographs or videographic depictions or films depicting the use of any safety precautions (such as containment areas, warning signs, etc.) taken to protect bystanders from the hazards of airborne asbestos resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents containing any warnings concerning the possibility ofinjury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos. 18 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all photographs of warning signs or warning statements which are or have been in place at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents that relate to any inspections by any regulatory agency for the purpose ofascertaining whether health or safety regulations were being followed or adhered to at any ofyour plants. This request specifically seeks any and all such documentation referring to dust hazards, including but not limited to asbestos in your plants. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has no such documents. 19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: In the event that Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts or measurements of any of its plants or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, please produce any documents, memoranda, or other writings that in any way reflect the results of such studies or counts and actions taken as a result of such counts or studies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, see documents produced to Plaintiffs counsel in other prior litigation. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents relating to inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company or hired by your company, that included the taking or measuring of "dust counts". RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, see documents produced to Plaintiffs counsel in other prior litigation. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents that indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings. 20 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents supporting the legal theories and factual bases of your defenses set forth in your response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194:27 subparagraph (c). RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant does not yet have enough information to finalize its possible defenses, and is unable to respond at this time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: If you contend that Plaintiff was not exposed to asbestos dust at Defendant's Premises At Issue, please produce the documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents used, referred to or relied upon in answering any Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is relying on Plaintiffs Petition at this timdT' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce any and all documents and other tangible things which refer to the document retention (and/or destruction) policy of Defendant, including the following: a. Any document retention and/or destruction policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. b. Any record retention and/or destruction, dumping, or purging policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records created, maintained or stored by electronic and/or magnetic means, including but not limited to records that have been microfilmed, microfiched, imaged, scanned, or stored on tapes, disks, diskettes, CD-rom, databases, etc. or on or within any computer hardware, backup system, download system, file dumping or other system of information management, whether on-site or off-site, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request 22 is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Please produce all documents, including but not limited to lists, inventories, indices, databases or printouts thereof, archives, storage inventories, logs, or other search aids that refer or relate to the existence, extent, type, organization, filing system, method of access or retrieval, and/or location of Defendant's documents (maintained or stored on-site or off-site) pertaining to any of the subject matter areas of Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises wh..re Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce all books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials ofany kind or character that that (sic) were received by you and that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, see documents produced to Plaintiffs counsel in other prior litigation. 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Please produce all documents that reflect, indicate or in any way relate to communications between you and any manufacturer of asbestos-containing products concerning or related to the asbestos contained in such products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please produce all documents in your possession disseminated or published by any trade association that contain information relating to the hazards of asbestos and all documents which refer to such documents and any documents pertaining to meetings of such trade associations that were attended by any of your employees or representatives. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Defendant further objects to the term "hazards of asbestos" as vague and ambiguous and response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this term. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that the information requested is in the public domain and equally accessible to Plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce all of Defendant's safety meeting minutes that refer to the dangers of asbestos. 24 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Please produce all documents related to the installation of asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, t ague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Please produce all documents related to the medical condition of Plaintiff at any time during his work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. This request specifically includes any and all x-rays, x-ray reports, medical notes and/or medical records of any kind, annual physical forms, and any records relating to Plaintiffs health. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 25 Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant answers that it is does not have any information on Plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents related to Plaintiff, including but not limited to Plaintiffs work performance and/or personnel records at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the 4Tea(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant answers that it is does not have any information on Plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Please produce all documents that reflect or depict in any way the layout of Defendant's Premises At Issue, including the location and dimensions of all buildings and the location and placement of asbestos-containing products, and specifically including all photographs, plats, maps, diagrams, blueprints, drawings, specifications or other architectural renderings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Please produce all demonstrative aids Defendant plans to use at trial in this matter. 26 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will supplement this response. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Plea'S? produce all photographs ofasbestos products in place or asbestos-containing materials being installed, maintained, removed, replaced, repaired, or manipulated in any way at Defendant's Premises at Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Please produce all documents relating to any individuals' claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos at any facility ofDefendant, including, but not limited to, workers' compensation claims and any documentation going to or received from any insurance carrier pertaining to such claims, and any documentation pertaining to the disposition of such claims. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know 27 Plaintiffs allegations. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities at which Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Please produce all documents that in any way reflect corporate minutes, corporate records, departmental meetings or discussio"5, or meetings with agents or contractors that in any way discuss, note, or table a discussion of the hazards of asbestos or potential health hazards of asbestos. The documents sought in this request include those produced and/or maintained at a corporate level by those responsible for supervising or advising personnel at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE** Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Defendant further objects to the term "hazards of asbestos" and "health hazards" as vague and ambiguous and response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of these terms. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31; Please produce all documents of corporate, board of directors, Defendant Premises representatives, departmental persons, task force, or other meetings of members of Defendant from 1940 until the last year of the Time Period At Issue that contain discussion or information concerning asbestos, asbestos-related health hazards, or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Defendant further objects to the term "health hazards" as vague and ambiguous and response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Please produce all documents which will be used at the time of trial, including all potential exhibits and those documents which may be used to cross-examine other witnesses or in rebuttal, and which you contend are relevant to any of Defendant's enumerated defenses m Defendant's most recently filed Answer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will identify witnesses and trial exhibits at such time as the court may require. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Please produce documents between Defendant and any of its worker's compensation insurance carriers or any other insurance carriers regarding the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Defendant further objects to the term "hazards of asbestos" as vague and ambiguous and response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this term. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Please produce documents between Defendant and any of its insurance carriers relating to any inspections carried out by the insurance carrier in which asbestos or dust in general was mentioned. 29 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Please produce a copy ofall regulations, orders, ru;es and/or policies which have been used relating to the safety of the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that the information requested is in the public domain and equally accessible to Plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Please produce all documents which contain complaints by employees of Defendant at the Defendant's Premises At Issue regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. 30 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce all documents which contain complaints by Union representatives of Defendant's Premises At Issue regarding safety conditions and workplace conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce all documents, organizational charts or rosters which identify the members of the management at the Defendant's Premises At Issue and their areas of responsibility during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Please produce all documents which evidence Defendant's net worth, including, but not limited to, all "10-K" forms filed for the last five (5) years. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor 31 the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Please produce all documents which evidence Defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale, or transfer of ownership or of liabilities relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: If you contend that you are not liable for any dangerous condition or activity taking place at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please produce all title documents supporting this contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Ifyou contend that you did not own or control the facility(ies) during any portion of the Time Period At Issue, please produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment ofcorporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of the facility(ies); such documentation to include, by way of example and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 10K 32 reports or other state or federal agency filings, or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits of your corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: If you contend that you have not been sued in the proper capacity as set forth in Plaintiffs latest petition, produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the history of Defendant and any relevant purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of the facility(ies); such documentation to include, byway of example and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 10K reports or other state or federal agency filings, or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits of your corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Please produce all indemnity agreements, assignments ofliability, subrogation agreements and other similar documents relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue and liabilities arising from said ownership. 33 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: If you contend Defendant's Premises At Issue was asbestos-free during the Time Period At Issue, please produce all documents which support your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: If you contend that some or all of Defendant's Premises At Issue are asbestos-free, please produce all documents, including but not limited to, specifications, blue prints and drawings supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 34 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Please produce all documents relating to your manufacturing of any asbestos or asbestos-containing products, or products to which any amount of asbestos was added, for use at any of Defendant's facilities or for sale to others. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that it knows of no such products or documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Please produce all documents relating to your use of any asbestos containing materials, asbestos containing products or tools with which asbestos is used, for any process taking place at any of Defendant's facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Please produce all documents relating to your use, manipulation or handling of asbestos in any industrial processes at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor 35 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: Please produce all marketing and advertising materials related in any way to your manufacturing of asbestos or asbestos containing materials or your use of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials in your industrial processes. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Please produce all documents relating to boilers at Defendant's Premises At Issue. This request includes owner manuals, maintenance manuals, purchase orders, and invoices. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Please produce all documents relating to any audits you conducted or caused to be conducted at Defendant's Premises At Issue in order to review some aspect of Defendant's safety program. 36 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: Please produce all documents provided by you to other plants or facilities relating to safety in the industry, audit procedures or means to eliminate dust exposure, including, but not limited to asbestos dusCSt industrial facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has no such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Please produce depositions and trial transcripts of your current or former employees or other corporate representatives taken in any matter involving an alleged inj ury or claimed property damage due to asbestos or insurance coverage for claims related to asbestos injury or property damage. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 37 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Please produce exhibit lists produced to you by any other counsel for plaintiff in other cases involving claim of injury or property damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Please produce all correspondence from you to Plaintiffs employer and from Plaintiffs employer to you during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in anyway any decision or discussion related to the cessation of the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products in any of your facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request 38 is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, see documents produced to Plaintiffs counsel in other prior litigation. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in any way any the catalog or index or subscriptions or holdings of any library or other research repository of Defendant containing magazines, journals, books, publications or other documents relating to asbestos (including, but not limited to, the effects ofexposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations at risk, etc.). RESPONSE** Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has no such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Please produce all inventory, stock-on-hand, warehouse or other documents pertaining to asbestoscontaining products that were stored, maintained, stockpiled, or kept by Defendant for use at any facility of Defendant, including Defendant's Premises At Issue, at any time. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 39 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Please produce any letters, affidavits, or stipulations concerning authenticity of any of Defendant's documents provided by you in any other case involving claim of injury or property damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. 40 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, and/or machinery requiring the use ofasbestos or asbestos-containing products were utilized on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit", produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial of the 41 foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that you have no air monitoring for asbestos taken on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs aUegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62: Admit that results of air monitoring for asbestos taken on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue indicate Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue: RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor 42 the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit", produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial of the foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that Defendant's employees were working with asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. 43 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that contractors were working with asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Defendant was aware of the presence of asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Defendant was aware ofthe use ofasbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. 44 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that you did not post a warning, caution or hazard signs concerning asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that you did not post a warning, caution or hazard signs in Spanish concerning asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request 45 is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that you specified the use of asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue prior to or during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasffiiably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1950s. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. 46 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1960s. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1970s. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1980s. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked 47 on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1990s. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to whidr to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that you did not provide to contractors working at Defendant's Premises At Issue health and safety procedures relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. 48 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that you did not provide to contractors working at Defendant's Premises At Issue health and safety procedures in Spanish relating to the use ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that you did not conduct with contractors health and safety meetings relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that you did not conduct with contractors health and safety meetings in Spanish relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. 49 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that you did not take any steps to protect contractor employees from exposure to asbestos on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit", produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial of the foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked 50 on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that asbestos is still in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that asbestos is still in place at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that the United States government has contracted with Defendant for work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. 51 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that the United States government paid Defendant more than $10,000 for the work it contracted with Defendant for work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that Defendant owned Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request 52 is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that Defendant operated Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly brodTT in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admit that you did not conduct air monitoring for the presence of asbestos dust during the time period in question. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. 53 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, you did not conduct air monitoring tests for levels of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit that you were aware that business invitees at Defendant's Premises At Issue did not understand English. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where PlaintifT allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that you did not take any steps to ascertain whether business invitees at Defendant's Premises At Issue understood English. 54 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff' allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that you did not to provide safety orientations to contractor employees prior to their commencing work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that you did not to provide safety orientations in Spanish to contractor employees prior to their commencing work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request 55 is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiff's employer to remove asbestos-containing materials from Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reagQhably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiff s employer to replace asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. 56 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to install asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Witfl&ut waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to maintain asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to do new construction work at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. 57 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Admit that you hired Plaintiffs employer to do "turnaround" work at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admit that you communicated with Plaintiffs employer concerning the work to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request 58 is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admit that you instructed Plaintiffs employer concerning the work to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: Admit that you instructed Plaintiffs employer concerning how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. 59 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that you showed Plaintiffs employer how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: Admit that your specifications indicated to Plaintiff s employer how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit", produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial of the foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. 60 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admit that your specifications indicated to Plaintiffs employer what materials were to be used in performing the work on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: Ifyour response to the foregoing request is anything other than"admit", produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request 61 is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer or supervisor when to start work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is o^CHy broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer or supervisor when to stop work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer what materials to use when doing the work 62 RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer in what order the work should be done. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: Admit that you told Plaintiff s employer the deadline by which the work on Defendant's Premises At Issue was to be completed. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request 63 is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admit that you hqd the power to correct the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: Admit that you had the power to require that the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue be redone to your satisfaction. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. 64 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52; Admit that you had the power to stop the work performed by the employees ofPlaintiff s employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. WitlWut waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: Admit that you observed the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: Admit that you inspected the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. 65 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: Admit that you approved the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: Admit that you retained the power to control all phases of the work being performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad, vague and burdensome to which to respond, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request 66 is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided a work history and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. 67 CAUSE NO. 01-00055-J JESSE CORTEZ, ET AL VS. U.S. GYPSUM COMPANY, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 191ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT EXXON CORPORATION'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO: Plaintiff, ARTHUR HERD, JR., et al by and through their attorney of record, Stephanie Finch, BARON & BUDD, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. COMES NOW, EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, one ofthe Defendants in the above styled cause, and pursuant^ Rule 194.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, files the following Response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure. Respectfully submitted, STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON, BISSELL & LEDYARD, L.L.P. David W. Ledyard State Bar No. 12109400 14th Floor, San Jacinto Building Beaumont, Texas 77701-3255 (409)981-1000 (409)981-1010 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This will verify that a true and correct copy of Exxon Mobil Corporation's Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Disclosure has been furnished to counsel for plaintiff, by certified mail, return receipt requested, and to all other known counsel of record by regular U.S. Mail, on this 25th day of July, 2001. David W. Ledyard REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE 194.2(a) The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit. RESPONSE: Exxon Mobil Corporation 194.2(b) The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties. RESPONSE: We know of no other potential parties that defendant may call at this time. 194.2(c) The legal theories and, in general, the factual basis of the responding parties claims or defenses. RESPONSE: Generally, this Defendant denies the allegations as to liability and damages. The Defendant denies that it was negligent and may assert a state-of-the-art defense. Other possible defenses include statue of limitations, contributory negligence, and the fault of third parties over whom this Defendant has no control. As discovery progresses, Defendant will supplement this response as required by the rules. Defendant denies that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos containing product on any premises owned or operated by this Defendant or to any product which emanated from any premises owned or operated by this Defendant. Defendant denies that any dangerous condition existed at its facilities at any time Plaintiff1 may have been present as a business invitee. Defendant denies that it was negligent or grossly negligent or that its actions were a proximate cause of any injury or illness to Plaintiff. Defendant did not breach any duty owed to Plaintiff, given the applicable state of the art, nor did Defendant proceed with conscious indifference to the safety ofPlaintiffwith subjective awareness of any extreme degree of risk considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Plaintiff. Defendant denies that the Plaintiff has been damaged as alleged and denies that Plaintiff's illness was caused by asbestos exposure. Defendant denies having supplied material or products which were defective. In the alternative, Defendant contends that any illness of Plaintiff was the result of exposure to products or actions of companies over whom this Defendant has no control, including asbestos product manufacturers, cigarette manufacturers, and contractors. Defendant denies participation in any civil conspiracy to withhold knowledge ofeffects of asbestos exposure from workers. Defendant denies that it acted in any way to aide, abet, encourage or induce any other Defendant to commit any negligent or fraudulent act. Please refer also to Defendant's pleadings on file which are incorporated herein. Defendant reserves the right to amend, supplement or modify its theories as warranted by future discovery. 194.2(e) The name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified persons connection with the case. 25608/205950 2 RESPONSE: Fact witnesses have not been identified. 194.2(0 For any testifying expert: 1. the experts name, address, and telephone number; 2. the subject matter on which the expert will testify; 3. the general substance of the experts mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the bases for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party, documents reflecting such information; and 4. if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party; (A) all documents, tangible things, reports, models or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert's testimony; and (B) the expert's current resume and bibliography. RESPONSE: Refer to Defendant's Designation of Expert Witnesses attached to this response. 194.2(g) Any discoverable indemnity and insuring agreements. RESPONSE: If any indemnity agreements are located, they will be provided. Defendant has sufficient coverage for the purpose of this litigation. 194.2(1) Any discoverable witness statements. RESPONSE: None to our knowledge. 194.2(k) In a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills obtained by the responding party by virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party. RESPONSE: None at this time. 25608/205950 3 Defendants are not aware ofall ofthe areas oftestimony orproofthat plaintiffintends to produce at trial and, therefore, defendants cannot proffer all expected testimony until they have had the benefit of reviewing all ofplaintiffs ' experts ' reports and opinions. To the extent that a witness expresses an opinion at trial or in discovery that has not been divulged prior to the time that this statement was servedon counsel, and which creates a needfor additional areas ofrebuttal testimony orproof, defendants reserve the right to supplement this statement. Any expert designated herein may also testify as to any issues raised by plaintiffs experts within the area(s) ofexpertise ofthe designated expert. The words and language used in this statement are the words and language of counsel who prepared the statement, and not the witness. Ifany expert designated herein produces a report, a copy ofthe report will be produced to plaintiff's counsel. Dr. R. C. Austin Faculty of Laws University College London Bentham House Endsleigh Gardens London WC1H OE6 England Dr. Austin will testify about the procedures by which industrial regulations have been drafted and implemented in the United Kingdom. He will testify about the role of consultation among government, industry and labor in the creation of such regulations. Robert J. Awe, M.D. Baylor College of Medicine Ben Taub General Hospital 1504 Taub Loop Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 793-2467 Dr. Awe is expected to testify either live or by deposition concerning plaintiffs' medical condition, cigarette smoking and lung disease, and generally about the pulmonary system and its functions as well as conditions and diseases of the pulmonary system. Dr. Awe may also testify about asbestos and its effect on the pulmonary system, including the diagnosis and prognosis of asbestos-related markers and diseases, and the risks associated with developing cancers. Dr. Awe is also expected to testify about any matter raised by experts called by the Plaintiffs or Co-Defendants including, but not limited to, plaintiffs medical condition, the state of medical knowledge concerning asbestos, asbestos-related disease and other occupational diseases. Howard E. Ayer, C.I.H. 2812 Linwood Avenue Cincinnati, OH Mr. Ayer is a Certified Industrial Hygienist and a Certified Safety Professional. He is Emeritus Professor of Environment Health, Division of Environmental Hygiene and Safety, University of Cincinnati. Mr. Ayer received his Bachelor degree in Chemical Engineering in 1948 from the 171845 University ofMinnesota. He received a Masters ofScience in Industrial Hygiene Engineering from Harvard University in 1955. Mr. Ayer was employed by the United States Public Health Service ("USPHS") from 1948 to 1972. During that time period he served with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and its predecessor organizations (Division of Occupational Health, Occupational Health Program and Bureau of Occupational Safety Health). He was assigned by the USPHS to the Kansas State Board of Health, the Occupational Health Field Station in Salt Lake City, Utah, and the Occupational Health Field Headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. Mr. Ayer was Assistant Chief of the Engineering Section from 1961 to 1964, Chieffrom 1964 to 1967 and Assistant Director ofthe Division of Field Studies from 1967 to 1972. Mr. Ayer has been with the University of Cincinnati, Institute of Environmental Health (Kettering Laboratory) as a Professor and Emeritus Professor since 1972. From 1982 to 1983, Mr. Ayer took a sabbatical year in safety engineering at Texas A&M. Mr. Ayer has served on numerous committees in the field ofindustrial hygiene. As a member ofthe ACGIH, Mr. Ayer served on the Air Sampling Instruments Committee, the Energy Committee, the Ventilation Committee, and the Committee on Environmental Factors in the Pneumoconioses (which he chaired for three years). Mr. Ayer also chaired the ad hoc joint AIHA-ACGIH Committee on Uniform Methods in Impinger Counting. Mr. Ayer has authored over 40 published papers on matters of industrial hygiene. Mr. Ayer's testimony will be based on his knowledge, training and experience in the field of industrial hygiene as it relates to asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Mr. Ayer will also testify as to the state of industrial hygiene at various point in time. Mr. Ayer may also testify as to the asbestos exposures which Plaintiff would have had at various times during this employment history. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this information based on documents or testimony concerning exposure levels which to date have not been discovered. Mr. Ayer will base his testimony on the available medical and scientific literature, applicable statutes and regulations, his own training and experience, the opinions and reports of other experts named or to be named by Defendant or any other party, whether live or by deposition, the testimony of all other witnesses named or to be named by Defendant or any other party, whether live or by deposition, and any documents introduced into evidence or otherwise used by any party at the time of trial. Stephen M. Ayers, M.D. Medical College of Virginia Box 565 MCV Station Richmond, VA 23298 Dr. Ayers may be expected to testify live or by deposition concerning the state of the available medical knowledge regarding asbestos-related disease at the relevant historical periods of time. Dr. Ayers may also testify concerning current medical knowledge regarding plaintiffs' condition and asbestos-related disease. 171845 -2- Dr. Ayes may testify on state-of-the-art and the Saranac papers, to the effect that Defendants could not have known end users were at risk until approximately the late 1960's . He may also testify as to any matter raised by experts called by plaintiffs or any co-defendants. J. Leroy Balzer, Ph.D 408 Horse Trail Court Alamo, CA 94595 Dr. Balzer has a B.S. Degree in Public Health Microbiology and M.S. Degree in Preventive Medicine/Public Health which were awarded by the University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles in 1962 and 1963 respectively. Dr. Balzer earned the Doctor ofPhilosophy Degree in Environmental Health and Science/Industrial Hygiene from the University of California at Berkeley in 1971. From 1963 to 1965, he was employed as an environmental health scientist at the University of California at Berkeley. From 1966 to 1971, Dr. Balzer was employed by the University of California School of Public Health as a research associate and research fellow. In 1966, he became involved in a coordinated research program of occupational medicine, industrial hygiene and education of insulation contractors. This intense study ofthe construction industry was sponsored through grants from the United States Public Health Service and involved observing the work environment of insulators. Dr. Balzer was a Certified Industrial Hygienist from 1973 until 1987 when he became an Assistant Vice Chancellor at the University of California Health Sciences Campus in San Francisco. He has lectured on occupational/environmental health issues in the United States and internationally. In 1993, Dr Balzer became a full time consulting industrial hygienist and was appointed an Assistant Clinical Professor, School of Medicine, University of California Health Sciences. Dr. Balzer is a member of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (Affiliate), American Industrial Hygiene Association and other professional organizations. Dr. Balzer may also testify to any and all other matters, within his knowledge and expertise, which are relevant to this particular case. Dr. Balzer is an environmental consultant. He may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, if any, from gasket and packing products or other products in the occupational setting. He may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and governmental agencies. He may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and fiber drift. He may testify as to work practices regarding various types of occupations using products that contained asbestos. He may testify as to the applicability of the OSHA and Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate to various types ofproducts including gaskets and packings. He may testify as to exposure that may result from the use of other types of asbestos products. Dr. Balzer has personal knowledge ofrelevant facts but is also an expert based upon his specialized knowledge, skills, and training. Dr. Balzer may testify about the size, construction, layout and working environment of facilities such as where the plaintiffs worked. He may testify about the nature of the working environment in such locations. He may testify about his knowledge of the composition and asbestos content, if any, of the products and may testify concerning the ability of such products to emit asbestos fiber under certain conditions. He may testify generally as to the -3- industrial hygiene state-of-the-art. He may testify to the dust levels produced by particular insulation operations and products, including pipe and block insulation. He may also address insulator union knowledge of asbestos hazards, the historical development of the use of respirators in association with the use of asbestos-containing products. He may testify about whether the some products identified are capable of emitting respirable asbestos fibers of type or quantity which could have substantially contributed to the plaintiffs' alleged asbestos-related condition. He may testify about applicable governmental standards and regulations. His testimony will be based, in part, on the results of testing which he has performed or reviewed for products which are the same or substantially similar to those of which the plaintiffs complain. Dr. Balzer may testify as to the industrial hygiene state-of-the-art. He may also testify to the dust levels produced by particular insulation operations and products, including pipe and block insulation. He may also address insulator union knowledge of asbestos hazards, the historical development of the use of respirators in association with the use of asbestos-containing materials. He may also testify as to any matter raised by experts called by plaintiffs or any co-defendants. Balzer may testi fy regarding an individual's risks or exposure to asbestos from different media, including, but not limited to, aijibient air, industrial products and occupational settings. Balzer may testify concerning: (1) circumstances in occupational settings that may result in direct exposure for persons having contact with asbestos-containing products or equipment with asbestos insulations, and (2) circumstances that may result in bystander exposure for those nearby others having contact with asbestos containing products or equipment with asbestos insulation. Balzer may testify about industrial hygiene principles and methodologies used to determine potential hazards due to asbestos exposure. Finally Dr. Balzer may render various opinions relevant to a Daubert/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Dr. Peter Barrett Chief of Radiology Quincy City Hospital 300 Boyleson Street, Suite 714 Boston, MA 02116 (617) 426-2110 Dr. Barrett is currently a Staff Radiologist and former Chairman of Radiology Department and President of the medical staff at Quincy City Hospital, Quincy, Massachusetts. He is also Director ofRadiologic Services at the Massachusetts Respiratory Hospital in Braintree. He is board certified in diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine and has been a "B" reader from NIOSH since 1984. He is a fellow of the American Thoracic Society, and the Massachusetts Radiological Society in which he has held several offices including the president 1977-1978. He has been a consultant to the U.S. government regarding asbestos concerns and a consultant to the Department ofLabor Black Lung Program. Dr. Barrett is an M.D. and a "B" reader who may testify concerning his review of the radiographs, CT scans and other records of the Plaintiffs and the significance of various x-ray findings on the radiographs of the Plaintiffs and whether those radiographs contain abnormalities consistent with an asbestos disease. Dr. Barrett is expected to provide testimony concerning the anatomic structure and functioning of the lung, the defense mechanisms and functioning of the lung, the responses of the lung to various -4- stimuli, and the role ofvarious components ofthe respiratory system in the proper functioning ofthe lung. Dr. Barrett is expected to describe and distinguish various types ofasbestos fibers; to describe the things which affect the ability ofasbestos fibers to affect various structures within the respiratory system; and to describe the body's specific responses to fibers of asbestos that are inhaled, whether or not they are retained. Dr. Barrett will define and distinguish various conditions, such as asbestosis, pleural changes and other nonmalignant changes that my be attributable in some persons to the results of long term inhalation and retention of some forms of asbestos fiber. Dr. Barrett is further expected to testify concerning the type of asbestos and their association with disease. Dr. Barrett is further expected to offer testimony concerning the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors on the occurrence of disease in populations who are also alleged to be exposed to asbestos products, and how the effects oftobacco smoke can confound the apparent results ofcertain epidemiologic studies. Dr. Barrett may testify as to the general medical aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of asbestosrelated disease and may also testify as to the relationship of asbestos exposure and the incidence of certain type^of cancer and that certain types of cancer such as colon cancer are not established as being related to asbestos exposure in the valid medical and scientific literature. He will also testify concerning the significance of asbestos related abnormalities and neoplastic disease, that asbestos related pleural plaques and pleural thickening are not asbestosis and do not in ordinary have an effect on a person's lung function and have no relationship to any type of neoplasm. Dr. Barrett will also testify as to the likelihood ofwhether a plaintiffwill develop an asbestos related malignancy based on the valid medical and scientific literature. Dr. Barrett is expected to testify concerning the anatomy and function ofthe respiratory and circulatory systems and the diagnosis and treatment ofdisease affecting such systems; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and certain cancers associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and perioneal cavity; the nature and extent of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation of obstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases of the respiratory system, and other causes of obstructive and restrictive disease or defects of the respiratory system; methods of diagnosis ofvarious diseases, particularly means ofestablishing the differential diagnosis ofalleged asbestos-related diseases with other non-asbestos related diseases; incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis or asbestos exposure without asbestosis, compared with non-asbestotic asbestos workers, non-asbestos exposed workers, and with the general population; the relationship of cigarette smoking to cancer of the lung and cancer of the other sites with reference to epidemiological studies and physiological effect; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect of asbestosis, or asbestos exposure without asbestosis; on disability and life expectancy; and the effect of pleural plaques or other pleural manifestations of asbestos exposure on lung function or life expectancy; cancer incidence in the general population and among asbestos workers and its potential causes. Dr. Peter W.J. Bartrip Centre for Socio-Legal Studies Wolfson College Linton Road Oxford 0X2 6UD United Kingdom -5- Dr. Bartrip has a Ph.D. in history. He is expected to testify generally about the development ofthe 1931 Asbestos Industry Regulations in the United Kingdom. He is expected to testify about the consultations among officials from the Factory Inspectorate, representatives of manufacturers and representatives of organized labor prior to the promulgation of the Regulations. Mr. Lawrence R. Birkner McIntyre, Birkner & Associates, Inc. 2026 El Monte Drive Thousand Oaks, California 91362-1822 Larry Birkner is a certified Industrial Hygienist trained in the measurement of dust and related matters. He is prepared to testify regarding the history of industrial hygiene, industrial hygiene methods, exposure levels which trigger disease associated with dust exposure, good housekeeping measures, and other related matters. He is prepared to testify about respirator history, what constitutes good hygiene practice, and the periods of time from an industrial hygiene standpoint when people and companies became aware of associated health risks. He may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, ifany, from gasket, packing or other products in the occupational setting. He may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and governmental agencies. He may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and fiber drift. He may testify as to work practices regarding various types of occupations using products that contained asbestos. He may testify as to the applicability of the OSHA and Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate various types of products including gaskets and packings. He may testify as to exposure that may result from the use ofother types of asbestos products. Mr. Birkner has personal knowledge ofrelevant facts but is also an expert based upon his specialized knowledge, skills, and training. Mr. Birkner may testify about the size, construction, layout and working environment of facilities such as where the plaintiffs worked. He may testify about the nature of the working environment in such locations. He may testify about his knowledge of the composition and asbestos content, if any, of the products and may testify concerning the ability of such products to emit asbestos fiber under certain conditions. He may testify generally as to the industrial hygiene state-of-the-art. He may testify to the dust levels produced by particular insulation operations and products, including pipe and block insulation. He may also address insulator union knowledge of asbestos hazards, the historical development of the use of respirators in association with the use of asbestos-containing products. He may testify about whether the some products identified are capable of emitting respirable asbestos fibers of type or quantity which could have substantially contributed to the plaintiffs alleged asbestos-related condition. He may testify about applicable governmental standards and regulations. He may also testify as to any matter raised by experts called by the plaintiff or any co-defendants. Birkner may testify regarding an individual's risks or exposure to asbestos from different media, including, but not limited to, ambient air, industrial products and occupational settings. Birkner may testify concerning: (1) circumstances in occupational settings that may result in direct exposure for persons having contact with asbestoscontaining products or equipment with asbestos insulation, and (2) circumstances that may result in bystander exposure for those nearby others having contact with asbestos containing products or equipment with asbestos insulation. Birkner may testify about industrial hygiene principles and methodologies used to determine potential hazards due to asbestos exposure. -6- Ben Branscomb, M.D. Professor of Medicine University of Alabama School of Medicine Birmingham, Alabama Dr. Branscomb is expected to testify either live or by deposition concerning plaintiffs' medical condition, cigarette smoking and lung disease, and generally about the pulmonary system and its functions as well as conditions and diseases of the pulmonary system. Dr. Branscomb may also testify about asbestos and its effect on the pulmonary system, including the diagnosis and prognosis of asbestos-related markers and diseases, and the risks associated with developing cancers. Dr. Branscomb is expected to testify about any matter raised by experts called by the Plaintiffs and Co Defendants including, but not limited to, plaintiffs' medical condition, the state of medical knowledge concerning asbestos-related diseases and other occupational diseases. Leonard J.JBristol, M.D. Hull Road ~ Rainbow Lake, NY Dr. Bristol received his M.D. in 1944 from the Long Island College of Medicine. From 1944 to 1945 he had a general rotating internship at St. Catherine's Hospital in Brooklyn, New York and from July 1945 to April 1946, was a resident in radiology at the Long Island College Hospital. From 1946 to 1948, Dr. Bristol was a radiologist at the United States Naval Hospital, National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda Maryland. During that period of time he also served as a full-time fellow in the Department of Radiology at the Johns-Hopkins University Medical School. He was certified by the American College ofRadiologists in 1949. In 1949, he assumed a full-time position as a radiologist at the Trudeau Sanitorium and the Saranac Lake Laboratory where he remained through the end of 1978. Dr. Bristol has been engaged in the practice of radiology at the General Hospital in Saranac Lake, the Placid Memorial Hospital in Lake Placid, the Alice Hyde Hospital in Malone, New York and was a member of the Department of Radiology at the Edward L. Trudeau Foundation through 1978. Since 1949, approximately 50 percent of Dr. Bristol's practice involved chest diseases and 25 to 30 percent ofhis overall practice involved occupational lung disease. He has reviewed several hundred thousand films of workers with occupational lung disease. Dr. Bristol was instrumental in the development of the ILO/UICC classifications for asbestos-related diseases. On the basis of Dr. Bristol's knowledge, training and experience as a radiologist and his personal knowledge of the research and experiments conducted by the Trudeau Foundation and Saranac Laboratories. Dr. Bristol may testify by deposition or videotape as to the general radiological characteristics and diagnosis of asbestos-related diseases. Robert Brown 1169 Pointview Road Chapin, South Carolina -7- Mr. Brown received his Bachelor of Science in chemical engineering from the University of South Carolina in 1935. In or about 1948 or 1949, he obtained a Master of Public Health Degree from Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health. Mr. Brown began his career in 1936 as a chemical engineer with the Division of Industrial Hygiene ofSouth Carolina State Board ofHealth where he worked with an industrial hygiene physician. Mr. Brown was responsible for performing a complete survey on a large sampling basis, including dust studies, of South Carolina industries and to develop information of any existing or suspected industrial hygiene problems. In January 1942, Mr. Brown was employed as the ChiefofIndustrial Hygiene Services for the Health Division of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. In 1949, he accepted a position on the faculty of the School ofPublic Health at Yale University where he taught public and occupational health. In 1951, Mr. Brown joined the Maryland State Department of Health to facilitate the development of the Maryland Bureau ofIndustrial Hygiene. Mr. Brown accepted a position with the National Sanitation Foundation in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1965. In 1967, le became the president of the National Sanitation Foundation and remained in the capacity until his retirement in 1980. Mr. Brown was a charter member and organizer of the National Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists ("NCGIH"), established in or around 1938. This organization later changed its name to the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists ("ACGIH"). Mr. Brown served as a member of this organization's Executive Committee, Constitutional Review Committee and Industrial Hygiene Codes Committee. The latter committee was responsible for establishing maximum allowable concentrations ("MAC") and threshold limit values ("TLV"). In 1946, the Subcommittee on Threshold Limits of the ACGIH recommended a MAC for asbestos of 6 million particles per cubic foot of air. Mr. Brown was also a member of the American Industrial Hygiene ("AIHA"). This organization also proposed TLV's and MAC'S which were published as Hygiene Standards in the April 1958 issue American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal and recommended maximum atmospheric concentrations for asbestos over 8 hours of5 million particles per cubic foot ofair. This publication also listed potential hazards of asbestos which noted that in addition to asbestosis there had been reports of an increased risk of lung cancer. On the basis of Mr. Brown's personal knowledge of the facts surrounding the adoption of asbestos exposure standards, his training and experience in the areas of industrial hygiene and his review of the literature, Mr. Brown will testify by videotape or deposition, with regard to the composition of the membership ofthe ACGIH and its predecessor, the NCGIH and the AIHA. Mr. Brown will also testify by videotape or deposition, with regard to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposal and adoption ofthe asbestos standards and his involvement in these processes. In addition, Mr. Brown may testify by videotape or deposition, with regard to the state of industrial hygiene knowledge during the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's. Mr. Brown will further base his testimony on the available medical and scientific literature, applicable statutes and regulations, his own training and experience, the opinions and reports ofother experts named or to be named by Defendant or any other party, whether live or by deposition, the testimony of all other witnesses named or to be named by Defendant or any other party, whether live -8- or by deposition, and any documents introduced into evidence or otherwise used by any party a the time of trial. Mr. Dohrman Byers, 12060 Lawnview Avenue - #6 Cincinnati, Ohio Mr. Byers' testimony may be presented by way ofdeposition taken on October 21,1985, in Brandt v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Case No 605-147, Milwaukee Circuit Court, Wisconsin Mr. Byers testified as to the interpretation and application ofthe Threshold Limit Value by the U.S. Public Health Service. Sam Cade, M.D. Texas Diagnostic Imaging 3535 Worth Street #110 Dallas, Texas 75246 (214) 820-3219 Dr. Cade is a "B" reader and may testify regarding the radiographs of the Plaintiff. Dr. Cade will testify to all matters pertaining to his examination of the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs medical records; any communication with the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs family; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestosis; his opinion regarding whether Plaintiff suffers from an asbestos-related disease and the basis of such opinions; the Plaintiffs current medical condition and his prognosis thereof. Phillip Cagle, M.D. Baylor School of Medicine Dept, of Pathology One Baylor Plaza Houston, Texas 77030 -3498 (713) 790-5219 The words and language used in this statement are the words and language of counsel who prepared the statement, and not of the witness. Dr. Cagle has not as yet prepared a report; if he does, a copy will be provided to Plaintiffs. Dr. Cagle will be offered by theses defendants as an expert physician, with particular expertise in pathology, in the process ofcarcinogenesis, as a researcher in the field ofasbestos related conditions and their etiology, in the pathologic diagnosis and grading of non-malignant conditions associated with exposure of certain populations to asbestos-containing products and/or materials, and in the epidemiologic and etiologic aspects ofcertain cancers that are alleged to be causally associated with exposure of certain populations to asbestos containing products and/or materials. Dr. Cagle is expected to provide testimony concerning the anatomic structure and functioning of the -9- lung from a pathologic perspective, the defense mechanisms and functioning of the lung in health and otherwise, the responses of the lung to various stimuli, and the role of various components of the respiratory system in the proper functioning of the lung. Dr. Cagle is expected to describe and distinguish various types ofasbestos fibers; to describe the things which affect the ability ofasbestos fibers to affect various structures within the respiratory system; and to describe the body's specific responses to fibers of asbestos that are inhaled, whether or not they are retained. It is further believed that Dr. Cagle will define and distinguish various conditions, such as asbestosis, pleural changes and other non-malignant changes that may be attributable in some persons to the results of long term inhalation and retention of some forms of asbestos fiber. Dr. Cagle is further expected to be able to testify concerning the circumstances under which exposure to certain forms and types ofasbestos maybe associated with the incidence ofsome forms of mesothelioma in some persons, and will testify concerning the results of his own experiences, the medical and scientific literature, and existing epidemiologic studies concerning associations that are alleged to exist epidemiologically between exposure to asbestos in some populations and the mortality and/or incidence of some forms of cancer. Dr. Cagle is further expected to offer testimony concerning the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors on the occurrence of disease in populations who are also alleged to be exposed to asbestos containing products, and additionally concerning how the effects ofinhaled tobacco smoke and other factors can confound the apparent results of certain epidemiologic studies. Dr. Cagle is also expected to testify that it cannot be said, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that any hypothetical person's alleged "exposure" to products that may have contained asbestos was ofimportance to that individual, without reference to that specific person's individual work history, medical history, findings on physical examination and pathological examination of tissue, ifany, information concerning the individual's use ofprotective equipment, specific types of asbestos containing product(s) used and/or handled, resolution of questions regarding exposures to substances other than asbestos-containing products, and other known etiologies for whatever conditions are found to exist. It is further expected that Dr. Cagle's testimony will generally respond to the pathologic, scientific and epidemiologic testimony which may be offered by plaintiffs' experts, and in that sense his testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony ofsuch experts and cannot be speci fically predicted. In expressing his opinions, Dr. Cagle will rely on his own training, education, experience, research and publications, as well as the published medical and scientific literature that has been available to him over his career. Dr. Cagle may testify as to the general medical aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of asbestosrelated disease and the pathological effect of asbestos on the lung. He may also testify as to the relationship of asbestos exposure and the incidence of cancer. Dr. Cagle is expected to provide testimony in the following areas: 1. Anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems and the diagnosis and treatment of disease affecting such systems; -10- 2. The nature of asbestos and asbestosis; 3. The symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; 4. The nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of obstructive pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure; 5. The effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation ofobstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases ofthe respiratory system and other causes of obstructive and restrictive disease or defects of the respiratory system; 6. Methods of diagnosis of various diseases, particularly means of establishing the differential diagnosis of alleged asbestos-related diseases with other non-asbestos related diseases; 7. Incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis or asbestos exposure without asbestosis, compared with non-asbestotic asbestos workers, non-asbestos exposed workers, and with the general population; 8. The import of any exhibit (including without limitation, corporate documents of defendants) introduced as evidence, or any items prepared for use or used for demonstrative purposes by any witness; 9. Cigarette smoking and its effect on the lung and other organs; 10. The relative danger of theses defendants' asbestos-containing products; 11. The relationship of cigarette smoking to cancer of the lung and cancers of the other sites with reference to epidemiological studies and physiologic effect; 12. Difference between impairment and disability; 13. Effect of asbestosis, or asbestos exposure without asbestosis, on disability and life expectancy; effect of pleural plaques or other pleural manifestations of asbestos exposure on lung function or life expectancy; 14. The lack ofrelationship between presence ofpleural plaques and a later development of any form of cancer; 15. Cancer incidence in the general population and among asbestos workers and its potential causes; 16. The history of evolution and knowledge of asbestos-related diseases; 17. The fiber types and exposure levels considered to be substantial in causing asbestosrelated disease, specifically mesothelioma. -11- Additionally, Dr. Cagle maytestify concerning the diagnosis ofplaintiffs. Dr. Cagle may also testify as to his findings and diagnosis after examination and analysis of tissue, slides or other pathologic materials, medical records, reports, radiographs and plaintiffs' work history. He may give testimony concerning his review ofany report purported to be diagnostic ofany oncological condition and the methods of and procedures for conducting fiber counts. He may give testimony regarding malignancies associated with asbestos exposure or cigarette abuse and other malignancies from which they must be differentiated, the appropriate protocols for the diagnosis of those conditions, prognosis and information relating to the known cause of those malignancies. He may testify concerning the text and other literature relevant to any malignancy purported to be asbestos-related and any other malignancy from which it must be distinguished, including data relevant to contentions of increased risk of asbestos-related disease or cancer, prognosis, the relevant standards ofcare and considerations relating to medical monitoring. His testimony may include discussions of any relevant epidemiology, anatomy and physiology. Finally Dr. Cagle may render various opinions relevant to a Daubert/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Dr. Darryl Carter Yale University Department of Pathology 310 Cedar Street New Have, CN 06510 The words and language used in this statement are the words and language ofcounsel who prepared the statement, and not ofthe witness. Dr. Carter has not prepared a report as yet; if he does, a copy will be provided to plaintiffs. Dr. Carter is expected to be able to testify concerning the circumstances under which exposure to certain forms and types of asbestos may be associated with the incidence of some forms of mesothelioma in some persons, and will testify concerning the results of his own experiences, the medical and scientific literature, and existing epidemiologic studies concerning associations that are alleged to exist epidemiologically between exposure to asbestos in some populations and the mortality and/or incidence of some forms of cancer. Dr. Carter is further expected to offer testimony concerning the effects ofinhaled tobacco smoke and other factors on the occurrence of disease in populations who are also alleged to be exposed to asbestos containing products, and additionally concerning how the effects ofinhaled tobacco smoke and other factors can confound the apparent results of certain epidemiologic studies. Dr. Carter is expected to testify that it cannot be said, to a reasonable degree ofmedical probability, that any hypothetical person's alleged "exposure" to products that may have contained asbestos was of importance to that individual, without reference to that specific person's individual work history, medical history, findings on physical examination and pathological examination oftissue, if any, of asbestos containing product(s) used and/or handled, resolution of questions regarding exposures to substances other than asbestos-containing products, and other known etiologies for whatever conditions are found to exist. -12- It is further expected that Dr. Carter's testimony will generally respond to the pathologic, scientific and epidemiologic testimony which may be offered by plaintiffs' experts, and in that sense his testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony ofsuch experts and cannot be specifically predicted. In expressing his opinions, Dr. Carter will rely on his own training, education, experience, research and publications, as well as the published medical and scientific literature that has been available to him over his career. Dr. Carter may testify as to the general medical aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of asbestosrelated disease and the pathological effect of asbestos on the lung. He may also testify as to the relationship of asbestos exposure and the incidences of cancer. Dr. Carter is expected to provide testimony in the following areas: 1. Anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems and the diagnosis and treatment of disease affecting such systems; 2. The nature of asbestos and asbestosis; 3. The symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; 4. The nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of obstructive pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure; 5. The effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation of obstructive and restrictive disease or defects of the respiratory system; 6. Methods of diagnosis of various diseases, particularly means of establishing the differential diagnosis of alleged asbestos-related diseases with other non-asbestosrelated diseases; 7. Incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis or asbestos exposure without asbestosis, compared with non-asbestotic asbestos workers, non-asbestos exposed workers, and with the general population; 8. The importance ofany exhibit (including without limitation, corporate documents of defendants) introduced as evidence, or any items prepared for use or used for demonstrative purposes by any witnesses; 9. Cigarette smoking and its effect on the lung and other organs; 10. The relative danger of this defendant's asbestos-containing products; 11. The relationship ofcigarette smoking to cancer of the lung and cancers of other sites with references to epidemiological studies and physiologic effect; -13- 12. Difference between impairment and disability; 13. Effect of asbestosis, or asbestos exposure without asbestosis, on disability and life expectancy; effect of pleural plaques or other pleural manifestations of asbestos exposure on lung functions or life expectancy; 14. The lack of a relationship between presence of pleural plaques and a later development of any form of cancer; 15. Cancer incidence in the general population and among asbestos workers and its potential causes; 16. The history of evolution and knowledge of asbestos-related diseases; 17. The fiber types and exposure levels considered to be substantial in causing asbestosrelated disease, specifically mesothelioma. Additionally, Dr. Carter may testify concerning the diagnosis of the plaintiffs. _ Dr. Carter may also testify as to his findings and diagnosis after examination and analysis of tissue, slides or other pathologic materials, medical records, reports, radiographs and plaintiffs' work history. He may give testimony concerning his review of any report purported to be diagnostic of any oncological conditions and the methods of and procedures for conducting fiber counts. He may give testimony regarding malignancies associated with asbestos exposure or cigarette abuse and other malignancies from which they must be differentiated, the appropriate protocols for diagnosis ofthose conditions, prognosis and information relating to the known causes of those malignancies. He may testify concerning the texts and other literature relevant to any malignancy purported to be asbestos-related and any other malignancy from which it must be distinguished, including data relevant to contentions of increased risk of asbestos-related disease or cancer, prognosis, the relevant standards ofcare and considerations relating to medical monitoring. His testimony may include discussion ofany relevant epidemiology, anatomy and physiology. Bruce Case Department of Pathology Faculty of Medicine McGill University 3775 University Street Room 203 Montreal, Canada H3A2B4 (514) 398-7192 ext. 7466 The words and language used in this statement are the words and language ofcounsel who prepared the statement, and not of the witness. Dr. Case has not as yet prepared a report; if he does, a copy will be provided to Plaintiffs. -14- Dr. Case is expected to provide testimony concerning the anatomic structure and functioning ofthe lung from a pathologic perspective, the defense mechanisms and functioning of the lung in health and otherwise, the responses of the lung to various stimuli, and the role of various components of the respiratory system in the proper functioning of the lung. Dr. Case is expected to describe and distinguish various types ofasbestos fibers; to describe the things which affect the ability ofasbestos fibers to affect various structures within the respiratory system; and to describe the body's specific responses to fibers of asbestos that are inhaled, whether or not they are retained. It is further believed that Dr. Case will define and distinguish various conditions, such as asbestosis, pleural changes and other non-malignant changes that may be attributable in some persons to the results of long term inhalation and retention of some forms of asbestos fiber. Dr. Case is further expected to be able to testify concerning the circumstances under which exposure to certain forms and types of asbestos maybe associated with the incidence ofsome forms ofmesothelioma in some persons, and will testify concerning the results of his own experiences, the medical and scientific literature, and existing epidemiologic studies concerning associations that are alleged to exist epidemiologically between exposure to asbestos in some populations and the mortality and/or incidence of some forms of cancer. Dr. Case is further expected to offer testimony concerning the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors on the occurrence of disease in populations who are also alleged to be exposed to asbestos containing products, and additionally concerning how the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors can confound the apparent results of certain epidemiologic studies. Dr. Case is also expected to testify that it cannot be said, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that any hypothetical person's alleged "exposure" to products that may have contained asbestos was of importance to that individual, without reference to that specific person's individual work history, medical history, findings on physical examination and pathological examination of tissue, ifany, information concerning the individual's use ofprotective equipment, specific types of asbestos containing product(s) used and/or handled, resolution of questions regarding exposures to substances other than asbestos-containing products, and other known etiologies for whatever conditions are found to exist. Dr. Andrew Churg Associate Professor Chief, Laboratory of Anatomic Pathology University of British Columbia Health Sciences Center Hospital 2211 Westbrook Mall Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T1W5 The words and language used in this statement are the words and language of counsel who prepared the statement, and not ofthe witness. Dr. Churg has not as yet prepared a report; if he does, a copy will be provided to Plaintiffs. Dr. Churg will testify about the pathology of asbestos related diseases, his research into asbestos -15- related diseases, the carcinogenicity of various fiber types, and the relationship, if any, between asbestos and various disease. Dr. Churg is a specialist in the pathology of occupational lung disease. He is also expected to testify that some asbestos-containing products do not create a health hazard and that any asbestos exposure from these products played no role in the genesis ofplaintiffs' lung diseases, if any. Dr. Churg may testify, either live or by deposition, regarding general pathology and the pathology of plaintiffs. He may also testify as to any matter raised by experts called by plaintiffs or any co defendants. In addition, Dr. Churg may testify regarding general medical issues, including but not limited to the following: 1. The anatomy and function of the 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 affecting such systems; 2. The nature of asbestos and asbestos-related disease; 3. The symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; 4. The nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of obstructive pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure; 5. The effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation ofobstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases ofthe respiratory system and other causes of obstructive and restrictive disease or defects of the respiratory system; 6. Methods of diagnosis of various diseases with other non-asbestos-related diseases; 7. Incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis or asbestos exposure as compared to non-asbestotic 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 ofcigarette smoking to cancer ofthe lung and cancers ofother body parts with reference to epidemiology studies and physiologic effect; 10. The difference between impairments and disability; -16- 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 of relationship between the presence of pleural 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 purposes 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 of various fiber types and the cause of mesothelioma 17. ""'To the extent not covered above, asbestos medicine in general. Dr. Churg will express his opinion that the only established association concerning lung cancers and asbestos exposure is the association of asbestosis ana lung cancers; that the association of occupational asbestos exposure and lung cancers is really the association of the specific disease, asbestosis and lung cancers; that only the confirmed presence of asbestosis potentially establishes asbestos as a contributing cause of lung cancer in a person with a significant smoking history; that absent asbestosis, asbestos does not cause an increased risk of lung cancers. Dr. Churg may testify that occupational exposure to asbestos without a confirmed diagnosis of asbestosis, provides no information about the cause of lung cancers and is not information supporting a conclusion that asbestos was a contributing factor in lung cancer. Dr. Churg may testify that pleural plaques, fiber burden counts and asbestos bodies also provide no information about the cause of lung cancers. Dr. Churg may testify as to what is asbestosis, whether there is an asbestos exposure threshold for asbestosis, what constitutes that threshold for asbestosis. In addition. Dr. Churg may testify about issues relevant to a Daubert/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Patrick M. Conoley, M.D. Kelsey Seybold Clinic 6624 Fannin, Suite 1800 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 791-8787 Dr. Conoley is a medical doctor and "B" reader who will testify concerning his review ofradiographs and CT scans of Plaintiff or Decedent. -17- Dr. John E. Craighead Department of Pathology University of Vermont Burlington, Vermont 0540S (802) 425-3480 Dr. Craighead is a pathologist at the University of Vermont. He will testify generally about the evolution of asbestos disease; the pathology of asbestos-related diseases including those named as "Non-Routine"; the "state-of-the-art" ofasbestos-related diseases; and, will testify about other areas ofpulmonary pathology including, but not limited to, emphysema, carcinomas, and related matters. Dr. Craighead will testify regarding the diagnosis and cause ofplaintiffs' condition. He will discuss the differing physical, chemical and biological properties ofvarious types ofasbestos fibers, and will explain to the jury that chrysotile fibers are incapable of causing, or unlikely to have caused, plaintiffs' alleged condition. Dr. Craighead is expected to provide testimony in the following areas: 1. Anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems and the diagnosis and treatment of disease affecting such systems; 2. The nature of asbestos and asbestosis; 3. The symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; 4. The nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of obstructive pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure; 5. The effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation ofobstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases ofthe respiratory system and other causes of obstructive and restrictive disease or defects of the respiratoiy system; 6. Methods of diagnosis of various diseases, particularly means of establishing the differential diagnosis of alleged asbestos-related diseases with other non-asbestosrelated diseases; 7. Incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis or asbestos exposure without asbestosis, compared with non-asbestotic asbestos workers, non-asbestos exposed workers, and with the general population; 8. The import of any exhibit (including without limitation, corporate documents of defendants) introduced as evidence, or any items prepared for use or used for demonstrative purposes by any witness; 9. Cigarette smoking and its effect on the lung and other organs; 10. The relative danger of these defendants' asbestos-containing products; 11. The relationship ofcigarette smoking to cancer ofthe lung and cancers ofother sites with reference to epidemiological studies and physiologic effect; -18- 12. Difference between impairment and disability; 13. Effect of asbestosis, or asbestos exposure without asbestos, on disability and life expectancy; 14. Effect ofpleural plaques or other pleural manifestations o fasbestos exposure on I ung function or life expectancy. 15. The lack of a relationship between pleural plaques and the development of any cancer. In addition, Dr. Craighead may testify about issues relevant to a Daubert/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Dr. James Crapo 4650 South 4th Street EnglewoodTtToIorado 80110 (303)221-6695 The words and language used in this statement are the words and language ofcounsel who prepared the statement, and not of the witness. Dr Crapo has not as yet prepared a report in this case; if he does, a copy will be provided to Plaintiffs. Dr. Crapo is board certified in internal medicine with a subspecialty certification in pulmonary diseases. Dr. Crapo practices medicine at the National Jewish Medical Center in Denver, Colorado. Dr. Crapo is expected to testify about the pulmonary aspects ofasbestos exposure, including matters such as dose response, pathogenicity, carcinogenicity, and the potential for asbestos-related disease as a result ofexposures to the different types of fibers. Dr. Crapo is expected to testify as to general medical issues and physiology. Dr. Crapo is expected to testify about alleged occupational exposure- as described by plaintiffs' witnesses-and whether such exposure could be considered a substantial contributing factor to plaintiff's alleged disease. Dr. Crapo is expected to testify about the principles of epidemiology and what is involved in an epidemiology study. He is expected to testify that studies of particular groups or occupations of people are not necessarily applicable to other groups or occupations. Dr. Crapo is expected to testify as to the information necessary to determine the risks for a group of people or persons contracting an asbestos-related disease, and if it is scientifically possible to attribute a disease to a particular exposure. Dr. Crapo is expected to discuss epidemiological analysis of asbestos and how such analysis may be applied to the facts of a specific individual. Dr. Crapo is expected to testify either live or by deposition concerning plaintiffs' medical condition, cigarette smoking and lung disease, and generally about the pulmonary system and its functions as -19- well as conditions and diseases ofthe pulmonary system. Dr. Crapo may also testify about asbestos and its effect on the pulmonary system, including the diagnosis and prognosis of asbestos-related markers and diseases, and the risks associated with developing cancers. Dr. Crapo is also expected to testify about any matter raised by experts called by Plaintiffs or Co-Defendants including, but not limited to, plaintiffs' medical condition, the state of medical knowledge concerning asbestos, asbestos-related disease and other occupational diseases. In addition, Dr. Crapo may testify about issues relevant to a Daubert/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Harry B. Demopoulos, M.D. N.Y.U. Medical Center Department of Pathology 550 First Avenue New York, NY 10016 Dr. Demopoulos is a professor of pathology at New York University and Medical Center. Dr. Demopoulo?may be expected to testify live or by deposition concerning the state of the available medical knowledge regarding asbestos-related disease at the relevant historical periods oftime. Dr. Demopoulos may also testify concerning current medical knowledge regarding plaintiffs' condition and asbestos-related disease. Dr. Scott G. Donaldson North.-Texas Pulmonary Associates 375 Municipal Drive, Suite 140 Richardson, Texas 75080 (972) 680-0666 Dr. Donaldson is a specialists in the area of respiratory diseases. Dr. Donaldson may testify as to all matters pertaining to his examination ofplaintiffand/or review ofplaintiffs medical records, xrays, and reports and supplemental reports ofplaintiffs' experts; any communications with plaintiff or plaintiffs family members; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; his opinions as to whether plaintiffsuffers from asbestos-related disease and the basis of such opinions; the Plaintiffs current medical condition and his prognosis thereof; the anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems; the natures ofasbestos; the symptomology, disease process and diagnosis ofasbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; the nature and extent of medical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of pulmonary disease with asbestos exposure; the affect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation of obstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases of the respiratory system; methods of diagnosis of various diseases, especially the means of establishing the differential diagnosis of alleged asbestos-related diseases with other non-asbestos-related diseases; incidence oflung cancer among individuals with asbestosis as compared to non-asbestotic asbestos workers and to the general smoking to cancer of the lung and cancers of other body parts with reference to epidemiology studies and physiologic affect; the difference between impairment -20- and disability; the effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy; and the lack of relationship between the presence of pleural plaques and a later development of any form of cancer. Sharon M. D'Orsie, Ph.D Eagle Environmental Health, Inc. 2600 Southwest Freeway, Suite 810 Houston, Texas 77098-4614 (713) 523-2453 Dr. D.'Orsie will testify in the field of industrial hygiene and the state of knowledge as it existed from time to time relating to the health effects of asbestos exposure. William L. Dyson, PhD, CIH Workplace Hygiene, LLC 1022 Jefferson Road P.O. Box: 45176 Greensboro, NC 27410 (336) 297-1642 Dr. Dyson is an industrial hygienist who will testify concerning the state of the knowledge concerning industrial hygiene practices concerning asbestos as it has existed from time to time. Dr. Dyson's C.V. is attached. The above designated witnesses may also give testimony about the historical "state-of-the-art", the development of medical knowledge about asbestos, and presence or absence of medical consequences relating to low dose exposure to asbestos emanating from asbestos containing products. They may offer general testimony relating to the development ofasbestos related disease, cigarette smoking, cancer of various organs, pneumonia, chronic obstructive lung disease, the pathology of cigarettes and asbestos, the pathogenesis of cigarette related diseases, and the pathogenesis ofasbestos related diseases. These witnesses may also testify generally about specific abnormalities that might be in the medical records ofthe decedent. These witnesses may also testify about the presence or absence ofhealth disease or health risks associated with exposure to low levels of asbestos emanating from asbestos containing products. They may also testify specifically about diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, even though they may not have seen decedent, or reviewed decedent's medical records. Defendant reserves the right to amend and supplement this response as additional information is located. Defendant reserves the right to call any person designated by any other party in this case as an expert witness, whether or not such party is still a party at the time of trial as well as all expert witnesses listed by Plaintiffs, custodians of records of any and all physicians, health care facilities, hospitals, clinics and health care providers who have treated or examined the Plaintiff in this case who may -21- have records concerning the plaintiff, and any physician who has examined and/or treated Plaintiff not identified. Brooks Emory, M.D. Jefferson Hospital New Orleans, LA Dr. Emory is expected to testify either live or by deposition concerning plaintiffs' medical condition, cigarette smoking and lung disease, and generally about the pulmonary system and its functions as well as conditions and diseases ofthe pulmonary system. Dr. Emory may also testify about asbestos and its effect on the pulmonary system, including the diagnosis and prognosis of asbestos-related markers and diseases, and the risks associated with developing cancers. Dr. Emory is expected to testify about any matter raised by experts called by the Plaintiffs and Co-Defendants including, but not limited to, plaintiffs' medical condition, the state of medical knowledge concerning asbestosrelated diseases and other occupational diseases. I. Allen Feingold, M.D. South Miami Hospital 7400 Southwest 62nd Avenue Miami, Florida Dr. Feingold is the Chief of the Division ofPulmonary Medicine at South Miami Hospital. He will testify as a state-of-the-art witness generally and with respect to asbestos-containing products. He may also testify concerning the physiological and radiological aspects of asbestos-related lung disease, including etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and epidemiology; the causes of lung cancer; the history of the medical science concerning our knowledge and understanding of asbestos and asbestos-related disease; fiber types, dose/response and threshold levels needed to produce disease; the relationship of asbestos exposure to other environmental factors and their comparative risks. Dr. Feingold will also testify that work with some asbestos-containing products does not result in dangerous asbestos fiber exposure and that any asbestos exposure from these products played no role in the genesis of Plaintiffs' lung disease, if any. In addition, Dr. Feingold is expected to test about the various fiber release studies, performed at industrial hygiene laboratories, on the use of asbestos containing products. Dr. Feingold may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects ofexposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer -22- issues and whether a particular Plaintiffhas a reasonable fear ofcancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. Gregory H. Foster, M.D., P.C.C.F. North Texas Pulmonary Associates 375 Municipal Drive, Suite 214 Richardson, Texas 75080 (972) 680-0666 Dr. Foster is a specialist in the area of respiratory diseases. Dr. Foster may testify as to all matters pertaining to his examination of plaintiff and/or review of plaintiffs medical records, x-rays, and reports and supplemental reports ofplaintiffs' experts' any communications with plaintiffs family members; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; his opinions as to whether plaintiffsuffers form asbestos-related disease and the basis ofsuch opinions; the Plaintiffs current medical condition and his prognosis thereof; the anatomy and function ofthe respiratory and circulatory s^gtems; the natures of asbestos; the symptomology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; the nature and extent of medical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of pulmonary disease with asbestos exposure; the affect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation of obstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases of the respiratory system; methods of diagnosis of various diseases, especially the means of establishing the differential diagnosis of alleged asbestos-related diseases with other non-asbestos-related diseases; incidence oflung cancer among individuals with asbestosis as compared to non-asbestotic asbestos workers and to the general smoking to cancer of the lung and cancers of other body parts with reference to epidemiology studies and physiologic affect; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy; and the lack ofrelationship between the presence of pleural plaques and a later development of any form of cancer. Douglas Fowler, Ph.D. 643 Blair Island Road, Number 305 Redwood City, California 94863 Dr. Fowler is an industrial hygienist who may testify live or by deposition concerning issues relating to plaintiffs theories of"fiber drift," issues relating to the threshold limit value, protective measures, plaintiffs' level of exposure to asbestos, and other industrial hygiene-related issues. Dr. Richard Fraser Montreal Chest Hospital Center Department of Pathology 3650 St Urbain Montreal, Quebec H2X2P4 -23- Dr. Fraser is a pulmonary pathologist. He has written extensively on the pathology ofchest diseases. He is expected to testify generally about pathologic concepts of disease, the etiology and course of disease processes both related to asbestos and non-asbestos causes. He will also testify case specifically on his analysis of tissue samples and medical records. Dr. Edward A. Gaensler 63 Eucalyptus Knoll Road Mill Valley, CA 94941 Dr. Gaensler will testify about the pathology of asbestos related diseases, his research into asbestos related diseases, the carcinogenicity of various fiber types, and the relationship, if any, between asbestos and various diseases. Dr. Gaensler will testify about the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases, his statistical research, latency, state-of-the-art, and other related matters. Dr. Gaensler wi 11 testify about case specific testimony, where applicable. He will testify about the evolution of asbestos disease, cigarette related diseases, and other respiratory or systemic conditions, specifically carcinomas. tseen either independently or in connection with either of the foregoing. Robert Gay, Ph.D. Dr. Gay is an environmental consultant and chemist. He may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, if any, from gasket and packing products in the occupational setting. He may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and governmental agencies. He may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and fiber drift. He may testify as to work practices regarding various types ofoccupations using products that contained asbestos. He may testify as to the applicability of the Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate to various types ofproducts including gaskets and packings. He may testify as to exposure that may result from the use of other types of asbestos products. Allen R. Gibbs, M.D. Department of Pathology, Llandough Hospital South Glamorgan, Penarth CF 61XX United Kingdom Dr. Gibbs is a pulmonary pathologist who received his medical degree from Newcastle Upon Tyne. He is a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologist. He is a consultant pathologist to South Glamorgan Health Authority and is an honorary clinical teacher to the University of Wales College of Medicine. Dr. Gibbs is also an honorary consultant to the MRC external staff team on occupational lung diseases at Llandough Hospital. He was a senior lecturer in pathology at the University of Wales College of Medicine. He has special expertise in the diagnosis of asbestosrelated diseases and the pathogenicity of the various forms of asbestos for pulmonary and pleural diseases and has reviewed over 1,000 lung samples involving asbestos-related changes. Additionally, Dr. Gibbs has authored or co-authored over 45 articles, papers and chapters in the field of pathology, many of which relate to asbestos-related disease. -24- Dr. Gibbs may review the pathological evidence in this case and testify concerning whether it is diagnostic of asbestos-related disease. On the basis of Dr. Gibbs' personal research into issues concerning asbestos-related disease, his knowledge of the medical literature and knowledge of the facts of this case as they are known to date, Dr. Gibbs may testify generally as to the dangers posed by the inhalation ofasbestos fibers, the relative risks associated with exposure to low levels of airborne asbestos dust in the general environment, and the risks posed to Plaintiff from his alleged exposure to airborne asbestos dust. Dr. Gibbs will base his testimony on the available medical and scientific literature, applicable statutes and regulations, his own training and experience, the opinions and reports of other experts named or to be named by Defendant or any other party, whether live or by deposition, the testimony ofall other witnesses named by Defendant or any other party, whether live or by deposition, and any documents introduced into evidence or otherwise used by any party at the time of trial. Elizabeth EjGreen, PE. Eagle Environmental Health, Inc. 2600 Southwest Freeway, Suite 810 Houston, Texas 77098-4614 (713) 523-2453 Dr. Green will testify in the field of industrial hygiene and the state of knowledge as it existed from time to time relating to the health effects of asbestos exposure. Kathryn A. Hale, M.D. Assistant Professor of Medicine Baylor College of Medicine and the Methodist Hospital 6550 Fannin Smith Tower #1236 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 790-2076 Dr. Hale is a specialist in the area of respiratory diseases. Dr. Hale may testify as to all matters pertaining to her examination of plaintiff and/or review of plaintiffs medical records, x-rays and reports and supplemental reports of plaintiffs' experts; any communications with plaintiff or plaintiffs family members; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; her opinions as to whether plaintiffsuffers from asbestos-related diseases and the basis ofsuch opinions; plaintiffs medical conditions. Dr. Hale may also testify regarding the anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis ofasbestosis and cancer of the respiratory systems, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; the nature and extent of medical and scientific knowledge regarding any association ofpulmonary disease with asbestos fiber and the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos in the development and manifestation of diseases of the respiratory system; the methods of diagnosis and means of establishing the differential diagnosis of asbestos-related diseases with non asbestos-related disease; the incidence -25- oflung cancer in the general population and those individuals exposed to asbestos; cigarette smoking and its effect on the lungs; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect ofasbestosis on disability and life expectancy; the lack ofrelationship between pleural plaques and development ofany cancer; the history of evolution and knowledge ofasbestos-related diseases; the evolution of the medical community's awareness of the increased risks for an asbestos-related disease in cases of prolonged exposure. In addition. Dr. Hale may also offer various opinions relevant to a Daubert/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Dr. Russell Harley MUSC-Pathology Charleston, SC 29425 Dr. Harley is expected to provide testimony concerning the anatomic structure and functioning of the lung from a pathologic perspective, the defense mechanisms and functioning ofthe lung in health and otherwise, the responses of the lung to various stimuli, and the role of various components of the respiratory system in the proper functioning of the lung. Dr. Harley is expected to describe and distinguish various types ofasbestos fibers; to describe the things which affect the ability ofasbestos fibers to affect various structures within the respiratory system; and to describe the body's specific responses to fibers of asbestos that are inhaled, whether or not they are retained. It is further believed that Dr. Harley will define and distinguish various conditions, such as asbestosis, pleural changes and other non-malignant changes that may be attributable in some persons to the results of long tern inhalation and retention of some forms of asbestos fiber. Dr. Harley is further expected to be able to testify concerning the circumstances under which exposure to certain forms and types of asbestos may be associated with the incidence of some forms of mesothelioma in some persons, and will testify concerning the results of his own experiences, the medical and scientific literature, and existing epidemiologic studies concerning associations that are alleged to exist epidemiologically between exposure to asbestos in some populations and the mortality and/or incidence of some forms of cancer. Dr. Harley is further expected to offer testimony concerning the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors on the occurrence of disease in populations who are also alleged to be exposed to asbestos containing products, and additionally concerning how the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors can confound the apparent results of certain epidemiologic studies. Dr. Harley is also expected to testify that it cannot be said, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that any hypothetical person's alleged "exposure" to products that may have contained asbestos was of importance to that individual, without reference to that specific person's individual work history, medical history, findings on physical examination and pathological examination of tissue, ifany, information concerning the individual's use ofprotective equipment, specific types of asbestos containing product(s) used and/or handled, resolution of questions regarding exposure to substances other than asbestos-containing products, and other known etiologies for whatever conditions are found to exist. It is further expected that Dr. Harley's testimony will generally respond to the pathologic, scientific -26- and epidemiologic testimony which may be offered by plaintiffs' experts, and in that sense his testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony ofsuch experts and cannot be specifically predicted. In expressing his opinions, Dr. Harley will rely on his own training, education, experience, research and publications, as well as the published medical and scientific literature that has been available to him over his career. Dr. Harley may testify as to the general medical aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of asbestosrelated disease and the pathological effect of asbestos on the lung. He may also testify as to the relationship of asbestos exposure and the incidence of cancer. Dr. Michael Henderson 330 Rittiman Road San Antonio, TX 78209-2861 Dr. Henderson is a board certified oncologist. He will testify to general concepts regarding carcinogenesis, specifically in relation to asbestos and its alleged association with different forms of cancer. Dr. Elliott Hinkes 301 N. Prairie #311 Englewood, California 9030 (310) 674-0050 Dr. Hinkes will testify in the field of pulmonary medicine and oncology and the state of knowledge as it existed from time to time relating to health effects ofasbestos exposure. Dr. Hinkes may testify as to all matters pertaining to study and research concerning exposure to asbestos and its effect on the human body; as to exposure to asbestos in regard to the development of lung cancer, mesothelioma and other respiratory diseases; as to his examination and review ofPlaintiff s medical records, history, x-rays, and pathology material; his expert opinion as to whether Plaintiff suffers from a respiratory disease and cause of such disease, including but not limited to asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma and the basis for such opinion; and all other matters concerning Plaintiffs medical condition. Dr. John R. Holcomb 4410 Medical Drive, Suite 440 San Antonio, TX 78229 (210) 692-9400 Dr. Holcomb will testify about asbestos and the diseases caused by asbestos generally. He may testify as to his review ofthe literature and the opinions and conclusions contained in that literature. He may testify regarding exposure levels of asbestos, at what level asbestos may cause disease, and -27- as to when this was known in the medical and scientific literature. He may also testify as to his review ofthe documents entered into evidence into this case pertaining to the parties. In addition, the above listed expert may testify live, or by deposition, concerning his examination ofthe Plaintiffand his review ofthe Plaintiffs medical records, x-rays, and bills for medical services and their diagnosis ofinjuries, if any. He may testify concerning asbestos, the effects ofasbestos on the body and any other topics related thereto. Additionally, he may testify concerning Plaintiffs increased risk, if any, of mesothelioma and other malignancies as a consequence ofhis exposure to asbestos. He may also testify that Plaintiffs injuries, ifany, and their relation, if any, to asbestos or to other factors. Dr. Holcomb may also testify as to his review of chest x-rays. Additionally, he may testify concerning occupational diseases, generally, and asbestos-related disease, specifically. He may testify concerning Plaintiffs increased risk, if any, of developing an asbestos-related cancer as a consequence of his exposure to asbestos. Dr. HolcomiLmay testify about the pulmonology aspects of asbestos exposure, criteria relating to diagnosis, including such matters as dose response, progression, and risk ofcancer. He will testify about cancer risk in relation to asbestos exposure, dose response principals, etiologic aspects of asbestos and malignancy, attribution and apportionment of causation. He will testify about various studies and cancer risk including refinery, shipyard, and others. Dr. Holcomb further is expected to offer testimony concerning the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors on the appearance of chest radiographs in populations who also are alleged to be exposed to asbestos-containing products and, additionally, concerning how the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors can confound the appearance and/or result of radiographic studies. He will also testify about the etiology of fibrotic lung disease, pulmonary aspects of asbestos caused or related disease processes and phenomenon, and the diagnosis, prognosis, measurement of impairment and causation oflung diseases from the pulmonologist perspective. He will testi fy about related disease and progression. Beyond these matters, Dr. Holcomb is a witness appearing after the testimony of Plaintiffs expert at trial, in some measure his testimony may be responsive to evidence presented by the Plaintiff and cannot therefore be specifically predicted. Venessa Holland, M.D., MPH, P.A. Environmental Pulmonary Consultants 7515 South Main Street, Suite 670 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 799-2224 Dr. Holland is a specialist in the area of respiratory diseases. Dr. Holland may testify as to all matters pertaining to her examination ofplaintiffand/or review ofplaintiffs medical records, x-rays, -28- and reports and supplemental reports of plaintiffs' experts; any communications with plaintiff or plaintiffs family members; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; her opinions as to the existence of asbestos-related disease and the basis of such opinions; plaintiff s medical conditions; her prognosis with regard to such medical conditions; and, if applicable, her opinions as to the cause of death. Dr. Holland may also testify about general medical issues with emphasis on the respiratory system and the effect that asbestos and other substances have on human health generally and with respect to plaintiff specifically. Dr. Holland may testify concerning her examination and diagnosis of the physical condition ofplaintiff and the relationship, if any, of such condition to plaintiffs exposure, if any, to asbestos. Dr. Holland may also testify regarding the anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and cancer of the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; the nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber and the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos in the development and manifestation of disease of the respiratory system; the methods of diagnosis and means of establishing the differential diagnosis of asbestos-related disease with non asbestos-related diseases; the incidence of lung cancer in the general population and those individuals exposed to asbestos; cigarette smoking and its effects on the lungs; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect ofasbestosis on disability and life expectancy; the lack ofrelationship between pleural plaques and development ofany cancer; the history of evolution and knowledge of asbestos-related diseases; and the evolution of the medical community's awareness of the increased risks for an asbestos-related disease in cases of prolonged exposure. Also, Dr. Holland May testify as to any issues raised by plaintiffs' experts within her field of expertise. Dr. William G. Hughson UCSD Center for Occupational & Environmental Medicine 3500 Fifth Ave., Ste., 102 San Diego, California 92103-5020 The words and language used in this statement are the words and language ofcounsel who prepared the statement, and not of the witness. Dr. Hughson has not prepared a report in this case. If a report is prepared, it will be provided to plaintiffs counsel. Dr. Hughson is board certified in pulmonology, internal medicine, and occupational medicine. Dr. Hughson also is an epidemiologist. Dr. Hughson practices medicine at the University ofCalifornia, San Diego. Dr. Hughson is expected to testify about certain encapsulated products (where the asbestos fibers are throughly blended and mixed with the encapsulating binder which prevents a significant release of fibers) in that he has reviewed information and studies regarding exposure levels experienced with -29- certain work practices used with encapsulated products, and is familiar with the literature concerning low level exposures. Dr. Hughson is expected to testify, based upon his review of the literature and of evidence of exposure, that exposure to certain encapsulated products was not a substantial contributing factor to plaintiffs' alleged asbestos-related disease. Dr. Hughson is expected to testify that the literature does not support a causal relationship between exposure to certain encapsulated products and the development of an asbestos-related disease. Dr. Hughson is expected to testify as to the ability of various types of fibers to cause disease and the properties of fibers that are believed to be necessary in order to cause disease. Dr. Hughson is expected to testify generally about the pulmonary aspects of asbestos exposure, including matters such as dose response. Dr. Hughson is expected to testify about alleged occupational exposure and whether such exposure could be considered a substantial contributing factor to plaintiffs' alleged diseases. Dr. HughsooJs expected to testify about the principles of epidemiology and what is involved in an epidemiologic study. He is expected to testify that studies of particular groups or occupations of people are not necessarily applicable to other groups or occupations. Dr. Hughson is expected to testify as to the information necessary to determine the risks for a group of people or persons contracting an asbestos-related disease, and if it is scientifically possible to attribute a disease to a particular exposure. Dr. Hughson is expected to discuss epidemiological analysis of asbestos and how such analysis may be applied to the facts of a specific individual. In addition, Dr. Hughson may testify about issues relevant to a Daubert/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Dr. Robert Jones Tulane University Medical Center 2430 Tulane Avenue New Orleans, LA Dr. Jones is a specialist in pulmonary medicine. Dr. Jones is a pulmonologist who is currently a staff physician at Tulane Medical Center Hospital and a Professor of Medicine at Tulane University School of Medicine in New Orleans, Louisiana. Dr. Jones is expected to testify either live or by deposition concerning plaintiffs' medical condition, cigarette smoking and lung disease, and generally about the pulmonary system and its functions as well as conditions and diseases of the pulmonary system. Dr. Jones may also testify about asbestos and its effect on the pulmonary system, including the diagnosis and prognosis of asbestos-related markers and diseases, and the risks associated with developing cancers. Dr. Jones is also expected to testify about any matter raised by experts called by the Plaintiffs or Co-Defendants including, but not limited to, plaintiffs' medical condition, the state of medical knowledge concerning asbestos, asbestos-related disease and other occupational diseases. -30- Dr. Gerald R. Kerby Kansas University Medical Center Pulmonary Division Kansas City, Kansas 66103 Dr. Kerby is a pulmonologist at Kansas University Medical Center. He will testify regarding general pulmonary physiology and medicine, including lung cancer and mesothelioma. It is his opinion that, although asbestos may be found in the lung tissue, mesothelioma may not be caused by that asbestos. Dr. Marvin Kuschner Dean, Medical School Health Sciences Center SUNY, Stony Brook Stony Brook, N.Y. 11794 Dr. Kuschngj is a pathologist. He will testify about the evolution of the pathology regarding asbestos, the evolution of the pathology regarding lung cancer, potential explanations for the development ofcancer, and other questions. Dr. Kuschner may also testify about "State-of-the-Art" matters as they relate to asbestos associated diseases. Arthur Langer, Ph.D. Institute of Applied Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University New York, New York (718) 951-4793 Dr. Langer is a mineralogist with a Ph.D. from Columbia University. He is a Professor of mineralogy at City University, New York, New York and Director of the Environmental Sciences Laboratory of the Institute of Applied Sciences a Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. Dr. Langer is expected to identify and describe the various methods by which inorganic material from aerosols, bulk samples or tissue may be analyzed chemically, crystallographically and structurally. Dr. Langer is expected to testify about the various types of asbestos fiber, the geographic locations where the fibers can be found, the potential biologic activity of the various fibers in the human lung (including inorganic toxicity), the physical and chemical characteristics of the various asbestos fibers, and the identification and characterization of asbestos fibers. Dr. Langer is expected to testify as to the types of inorganic minerals found in the lung tissue of persons with malignant mesothelioma and which are associated with the incidence of malignant mesothelioma in humans. He is expected to identify the types of fibers that have been shown to -31- create an increased risk for malignant mesothelioma. Dr. Langer is expected to testify as to the physical and chemical characteristics of the fibers that have been shown to create an increased risk of malignant mesothelioma. Dr. Langer is expected to testify as to the potential for certain finished asbestos containing products to be contaminated with inorganic minerals and the amounts of the types of trace contaminants that may be found in the products. Dr. Langer is expected to offer testimony as to the amount of contaminants that are found in finished asbestos-contaminated products, if any, and the chemical, crystallographic and structural composition ofthe contaminants that can be generated from a finished product, if any. Dr. Langer is expected to testify, based upon his review ofthe literature and ofevidence ofexposure, that exposure to certain encapsulated products did not result in a release of any contaminants sufficient to cause disease in persons such as plaintiffs decedent. Dr. Langer is expected to testify that his work and the literature, do not establish that certain encapsulated products are contaminated with tremolite asbestos. Dr. Langer may review the pathology, slides and other records available in this case and perform a fiber burden analysis. Dr. Langer will report on his findings as to whether there could have been an occupational exposure to asbestos. In addition. Dr. Langer may testify about issues relevant to a Daubert/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Richard J. Lee, Ph.D. R.J. Lee Group, Inc. 350 Hochberg Road Monroeville, PA 15146 Dr. Lee is expected to testify about the development of scientific knowledge and techniques regarding the measurement of levels ofasbestos in the air and in lung tissue. Dr. Lee may comment upon techniques used by plaintiffs' experts to generate and analyze air, dust and lung tissue samples and conclusions drawn therefrom. Dr. Lee may also testify concerning the propensity of gasketing materials to release fibers and the specific fiber levels generated therefrom during normal use. Daniel Lehane, M.D. 6550 Fannin, Suite 2225 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 790-0257 Dr. Lehane is a oncologist who may have reviewed applicable pathology, x-rays, and/or records on Plaintiff. Dr. Lehane may also have performed various studies, including staining, digestion, etc... to the extent that he will be used on any individual plaintiff, he has or will have issued a report and/or supplemental reports stating his findings and conclusions. He is expected to testify regarding -32- his stated findings and conclusions. Additionally, he may testify about oncology, general asbestos medicine (including asbestos medical literature), and medicine in general. Larry R, Liukonen, CIH,, CSP 5990 Scandia Lane Burleson, X 76028 (817) 453-0382 Mr. Liukonen is a certified industrial hygienist. He will offer opinions based on information provided, his education, knowledge ofasbestos and asbestos related diseases, industrial hygiene and experience as a practicing industrial hygienist. In addition, he may offer opinions that exposure to asbestos fibers resulting from the use or removal of gasket or packing material is none or alternatively insufficient to cause or contribute to any asbestos related disease. James E. Lockey, M.D., M.S. Institute ofTnvironmental Health University of Cincinnati Medical Center Clinical Studies Division 5251 Medical Science Bldg., M.L. 182 231 Bethesda Ave. Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0182 Dr. Lockey is a pulmonologist who is expected to testify either live or by deposition concerning plaintiffs' medical condition, cigarette smoking and lung disease, and generally about the pulmonary system and its functions as well as conditions and diseases, and the risks associated with developing cancers. Dr. Lockey is also expected to testify about any matter raised by experts called by the Plaintiffs and Co-Defendants including, but not limited to, plaintiffs' medical condition, the state ofmedical knowledge concerning asbestos, asbestos-related disease and other occupational diseases. Dr. Lockey may also be expected to testify concerning the state ofthe available medical knowledge regarding asbestos related disease at the relevant historical periods oftime. Included in his testimony will be discussion of the respiratory system, asbestos-related disease, and the effect of other substances on the respiratory system. Dr. Lockey will give factual testimony concerning his knowledge of relevant facts, as well as, an express opinions within his field of knowledge. He may also provide opinions on the probably time period(s) of asbestos exposure with relation to the causation ofthe disease mesothelioma. In doing so, he will also provide percentages ofprobability of causation for exposure to asbestos from first exposure to last exposure. As a basis for opinion, he will rely in part upon scientific papers published by Peto, Seidman and Selikoff, Morgan and Lampshear, among others. Jeremiah Lynch, C.LH. 25 Waterman Avenue Rumson, New Jersey -33- Mr. Lynch is a Certified Industrial Hygienist. Mr. Lynch will testify generally as to his background, training, and experience. Mr. Lynch will testify as to the methods and procedures involved in industrial hygiene, the methods and procedures utilized in the collection of airborne asbestos samples, including fiber measurements and counting techniques, and the use of industrial hygiene methods to control worker exposure to airborne asbestos dust. Mr. Lynch will further testify concerning threshold limit values, the various threshold limit values for asbestos exposure, the basis for the original threshold limit value and its subsequent changes. Mr. Lynch will further testify concerning the setting and implementation ofasbestos exposure limits by OSHA, and the subsequent changes to those limits, and OSHA regulations pertaining to Plaintiffs workplace at various times. Mr. Lynch may also testify concerning the industrial hygiene programs implemented by Plaintiffs employer at various times, and how those programs compared to the industrial hygiene standards at various times. Mr. Lynch will further testify with regard to the effectiveness of the industrial hygiene program at Defendant as compared to the various standards applicable at different times. Mr. Lynch may also testify as to the asbestos exposures which Plaintiff would have had at various times during his employment history. Mr. Lynch will also testify with regard to environmental exposures to airborne asbestos experienced by millions of Americans for which there is no epidemiological evidence of disease. Mr. Lynch may offer such other opinions as may become necessary to rebut the opinions of Plaintiffs experts. Mr. Lynch will base his testimony on the available medical and scientific literature, applicable statues and regulations, his own training and experience, the opinions and reports of other experts named or to be named by Defendant or any other party, whether live or by deposition, the testimony of all other witnesses named or to be named by Defendant or any other party, whether live or by deposition, and any documents introduced into evidence or otherwise used by any party at the time of trial. Ernest Mastromatteo, M.D. 19 Carey Road Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4S1N9 Dr. Ernest Mastromatteo is a medical doctor specializing in occupational and environmental health. He is currently Professor Emertis, Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Toronto and self-employed as a consultant in Occupational and Environmental Health. Dr. Mastromatteo received his Doctor of Medicine degree from the University of Toronto in 1947. He received a Diploma in Public Health from the University ofToronto in 1590 and a Diploma in Industrial Health from the University of Toronto in 1958. In 1958, Dr. Mastromatteo was certified in Occupational Medicine by the American Board ofPreventive Medicine. In 1981, Dr. Mastromatteo was certified in Occupational Medicine by the Canadian Board of Occupational Medicine. From 1949 to 1952, Dr. Mastromatteo served as the Medical Director of the Virden Local Health Unit, Virden, Manitoba. In 1952, Dr. Mastromatteo commenced employment as a physician and consultant with the Ontario Ministry of Health. In 1968, he became the Director of the Division of Occupational and Environmental Health of the Ontario Ministry of Health. He remained in that position until 1974. From 1966 to 1974, Dr. Mastromatteo also served as Consultant in Occupational Diseases to the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board. From 1968 to 1974, Dr. -34- Mastromatteo was a part-time professor at the University ofToronto and from 1972 to 1974, he was Professor and the Head of the Department of Occupational and Environmental Health of the University of Toronto. In 1974, Dr. Mastromatteo became Chief of the Occupational Health and Safety Branch of the International Labour Office ("ILO") in Geneva, Switzerland. He remained in that position until 1976. From 1976 to 1985, Dr. Mastromatteo was employed as Director ofOccupational Health for Inco Limited, Toronto, Canada. From 1985 to 1994, Dr. Mastromatteo was employed as the Program Director, Occupational and Environmental Health, ofORC Canada Inc., Toronto, Canada. During that period, from 1985 to 1990, Dr. Mastromatteo also served as a consultant to the Occupational Health Policy Branch of the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board. From 1976 to present, Dr. Mastromatteo has served as an Honorary Consultant to the Occupational Health Clinic of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada. Dr. Mastromatteo is a member of the Ontario Medical Association and Chaired the Section on Occupational Health and the Committee on Public Health. He is a member ofthe Canadian Medial Association^Dr. Mastromatteo was elected to the Ramazzini Medical Society in 1968 and has been a member of the International Commission on Occupational Health since 1968. Dr. Mastromatteo is an Honorary Lifetime Member ofthe American Conference ofGovernmental Industrial Hygienists ("ACGIH"). Dr. Mastromatteo has served as a member of the ACGIH Threshold Limit Value ("TLV") Committee since 1964. He was Chair of the TLV Committee from 1985 to 1990 and President ofthe ACGIH for the 1969-1970 term. Dr. Mastromatteo has received numerous honors and awards in the field ofoccupational medicine. Among his other awards, in 1981, he received the Stokinger Award for Scientific Contributions to Occupational Toxicology in the United States. In 1986, he received the Yant Award for Scientific Contributions to Industrial Hygiene in the United States. In 1987, Dr. Matromatteo received the Knudsen Award for his contributions to Occupational Medicine in the United States. In 1987 he was also inducted into the Safety and Health Hall ofFame International. Dr. Mastromatteo will further testify that as a long-standing member of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Value Committee, he is familiar with that organization's criteria for establishing threshold limit values. In setting those thresholds, the ACGIH examines all of the available evidence and bases its decision on the weight of evidence. As such, the ACGIH examines the studies and evaluates those studies based on their methodology and scientific reasoning. Based on its review of the best medical evidence, the ACGIH set its first threshold limit value for asbestos in 1946 and has changed it from time to time where the medical evidence has warranted such a change. Dr. Mastromatteo will testify as to the threshold limit value at different points in time and the medical knowledge that was available to the ACGIH concerning the health effects of asbestos. Dr. Mastromatteo will further testify that Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") does not rely on the weight ofevidence but sets its PEL based on a different control strategy. OSHA determines a safe level then sets the permissible exposure limit ("PEL") by adding factors ofbetween ten (10) and one hundred (100) times. OSHA has set the PEL for all types of asbestos at 0.1 Fee. That level of exposure is many times below the level of exposure which one would expect to cause disease in the average worker. -35- Dr. Mastromatteo will base his testimony on the available medical and scientific literature, applicable statutes and regulations, his own training and experience, the opinions and reports ofother experts named or to be named by Defendant or any other party, whether live or by deposition, the testimony ofall other witnesses named or to be named by Defendant or any other party, whether live or by deposition, and any documents introduced into evidence or otherwise used by any party at the time of trial. Wallace T. Miller, M.D. 3400 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA Dr. Miller is board certified in radiology. Dr. Miller is also a NIOSH certified B Reader. Dr. Miller will testify generally as to his background, training and experience. Dr. Miller will testify as to his knowledge of radiology and its application in assisting the diagnoses of asbestos-related diseases. He will further testify as to the general medical issues concerning the development, cause, and diagnosis ofasbestos-related disease and/or other diseases that may mimic asbestos-related diseases radiographically. Dr. Miller will testify as to his review of Plaintiff s medical and radiological records, reports and/or films. He will testify concerning whether they are diagnostic of asbestosrelated disease, including asbestosis or other asbestos-related pleural conditions. Dr. Miller may base his testimony on the available medical and scientific literature, his own training and experience, the opinions and reports ofother experts named or to be named by Defendant or any other party, whether live or by deposition, the testimony ofall other witnesses named or to be named by Defendant or any other party, whether live or by deposition, and any documents introduced into evidence or otherwise used by any party at the time of trial. Defendant reserves the right to seek leave ofcourt to call experts who are substituted for experts on this list who become unavailable. Defendant further reserves the right to call additional expert witnesses for the purpose of rebuttal or impeachment, if necessary at the time of trial. Stacy Mills University of Virginia Health Systems Department of Pathology Box 214 OMS-Bldg. Charlottesville, Virginia 22908 The words and language used in this statement are the words and language ofcounsel who prepared the statement, and not of the witness. Dr. Mills has not as yet prepared a report; if she does, a copy will be provided to Plaintiffs. Dr. Mills is expected to provide testimony concerning the anatomic structure and functioning of the lung from a pathologic perspective, the defense mechanisms and functioning of the lung in health -36- and otherwise, the response ofthe lung to various stimuli, and the role ofvarious components ofthe respiratory system in the proper functioning of the lungs. Dr. Mills is expected to describe and distinguish various types of asbestos fibers; to describe the tings which affect the ability of asbestos fibers to affect various structures within the respiratory system; and to describe the body's specific responses to fibers of asbestos that are inhaled, whether or not they are retained. It is further believed that Dr. Mills will define and distinguish various conditions, such as asbestosis, pleural changes and other non-malignant changes that may be attributable in some persons to the results of long term inhalation and retention of some forms of asbestos fiber. Dr. Mills is further expected to be able to testify concerning the circumstances under which exposure to certain forms and types ofasbestos may be associated with the incidence of some forms ofmesothelioma in some persons, and will testify concerning the results of his own experiences, the medical and scientific literature, and existing epidemiologic studies concerning associations that are alleged to exist epidemiologically between exposure to asbestos in some population and the mortality and/or incidence of some forms of cancer. Dr. Mills is further expected to offer testimony concerning the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors on the occurrence of disease in populations who are also alleged to be exposed to asbestos containing products, and additionally concerning how the effects ofinhaled tobacco smoke and other factors can confound the apparent results of certain epidemiologic studies. Dr. Mills is also expected to testify that it cannot be said, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that any hypothetical person's alleged "exposure" to products that may have contained asbestos was of importance to that individual without reference to that specific person's individual work history, medical history, findings on physical examination and pathological examination of tissue, if any, information concerning the individual's use ofprotective equipment, specific types of asbestos containing product(s) used and/or handled, resolution of questions regarding exposures to substances other than asbestos-containing products, and other known etiologies for whatever condition are found to exist. It is further expected that Dr. Mills' testimony will generally respond to the pathologic scientific and epidemiologic testimony which maybe offered by plaintiffs' experts, and in that sense his testimony is dependant upon the prior testimony of such experts and cannot be specifically predicted. In addition, Dr. Mills may testify about issues relevant to a Daubert/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Dr. W.K.C. Morgan Chest Disease Unit University Hospital 339 Windermere Road P.O. Box 5339, Postal Station A London, Ontario N6A 5A5 Dr. Morgan is a pulmonologist. He will testify about the evolution of asbestos disease, the diseases involving cigarette smoking, and other diseases which are often seen in association with either of the foregoing. -37- Dr. Morgan is a professor of medicine and director of chest diseases services at the University of Western Ontario. He was educated in England and Scotland, and among other appointments is a member of the Advisory Board for Occupational Health and Safety Resource Centre at the University of Western Ontario. Dr. Morgan may testify live or by deposition concerning the state of the available knowledge regarding asbestos-related disease at the relevant historical periods of time. Dr. Morgan may also testify concerning current medical knowledge regarding plaintiffs condition and asbestos-related disease. Dr. Brooke T. Mossman Pathology Department Medical Alumni Building Room A151, University of Vermont Burlington^yermont 05405 Dr. Mossman is a Ph.D. who engages in research in Burlington, Vermont, where she is associated with the university of Vermont. She has performed substantial research into questions relating to the interaction between human lung tissue and asbestos. Specifically, she has performed in vitro studies on human lung tissue and asbestos both within and without the presence of cigarette carcinogens. She will testify about that research and her conclusions and opinions related thereto. John A Pendergrass, CIH, CSP, PE 6700 Milkhouse Court Mobile, AL 36695 (334) 607-0946 Mr. Pendergrass is a certified industrial hygienist who will testify from an industrial hygiene point of view, the state ofthe medical and scientific knowledge regarding asbestos particularly in regard to the time period involved during which the Plaintiff was allegedly on the premises of Defendant. The subject matter will also include the use of asbestos during this time period, its importance, the lack of substitute products, the employer's responsibility pre and post OSHA. He will also testify as to the role of manufacturers as suppliers of asbestos products and their responsibility to provide premises owners with knowledge of the known hazards of the products they were selling and installing to the end users, the premises owners. He will also testify that based on the state of the knowledge and judgment as it has developed over the time that premises owners acted appropriately in the circumstances. Mr. Pendergrass will also testify based on certain Defendant's industrial hygiene monitoring results concerning the expected levels of exposure to be experienced at those facilities. -38- Jack E. Peterson, P.E. Peterson Associates 2830 Via Viejas Oeste Alpine, California 91901 (619) 445-9668 Dr. Peterson will testify in the field of industrial hygiene and the state of knowledge as it existed from time to time relating to the health effects of asbestos exposure. Dr. Peterson will testify concerning industrial hygiene issues including threshold limit values, historical review and state of the art ofpulmonary medicine and asbestos-related conditions. He may also provide opinions on the probable time period(s) of asbestos exposure with relation to the causation of the disease mesothelioma. In doing so, he will also provide percentages ofprobability ofcausation for exposure to asbestos from first exposure to last exposure. As a basis for his opinion, he will rely in part upon scientific papers published by Peto, Seidman and Selikoff, Morgan and Lampshear, among others. Sheldon Rabinovitz Sandler Occupational Associates 966 Hungerford Dr., Suite 20 Rockville, MD 20852 The following statement of expected testimony has been prepared by counsel to comply with the expert witness disclosure requirements under Georgia Law. The words and language used in this statement are the words and language ofcounsel who prepared the statement, and not ofthe witness. Dr. Rabinovitz has not prepared a report for this case. Defendant is not aware of all of the areas of testimony or proof that plaintiff intends to produce at trial and, therefore, defendant cannot proffer all expected testimony until it has had the benefit of reviewing all ofplaintiffs expert's reports and opinions. To the extent that a witness expresses an opinion at trial or in discovery that has not been divulged prior to the time that this statement was served on counsel, and which creates a need for additional areas of rebuttal testimony or proof, defendant reserves the right to supplement this statement. Dr. Rabinovitz is a certified industrial hygientist and toxicologist. He is employed at SOMA, and is a past employee of EPA and NIOSH. A copy of his C.V. will be provided. Dr. Rabinovitz is expected to testify about the principles of industrial hygiene and the factors that are important to industrial hygiene studies both currently and historically. He is expected to testify as to the manner in which experts can use current and historical industrial hygiene data and how the data should be interpreted in specific cases. Dr. Rabinovitz has reviewed available documents, depositions, and exhibits with respect to Armstrong World Industries, Inc., and is expected to testify as to thereasonablesness ofthe industrial hygiene practices employed by AWI in the past to protect its workers. Dr. Rabinovitz is familiar with the historical state ofthe art practices and the information available in the medical and scientific literature. Dr. Rabinovitz is expected to testify as to the reasonableness of the industrial hygiene -39- practices employed by AWI in relation to the historical knowledge of the scientific and medical communities. Dr. Rabinovitz is expected to testify that in the past AWI acted reasonable in the manufacture and sale of its products. James Rasmuson Chemistry and Hygiene, Inc. 4251 Kipling Suite 110 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Mr. Rasmuson is expected to testify in the areas of industrial hygiene and toxicology, including without limitation, retrospective exposure assessment, health risk assessment, substantial exposure factors, the relative and absolute exposure potentials of various asbestos products to produce dust, industrial hygiene and environmental standards and their basis, control technology and process specific aspects of exposure, analytical chemistry, chemistry, asbestos related measurement techniques, general industrial hygiene issues including the effects of ventilation and distance on exposure, and. related subjects. He may also testify on the siate of the art in the fields of industrial hygiene and toxicology concerning occupational and non-occupational asbestos exposures in earlier years. He may also calculate the possible percentage ranges of asbestos exposure from products. He may calculate the probability that any plaintiff would have contracted disease in the absence of exposure to various products. He may also perform other appropriate risk calculations and compare a plaintiffs alleged exposure to the industrial hygiene standards ofthe alleged time period. He may render various opinions relevant to Daubert/Havner/Robinson analysis. Dr. Joseph J. Renn Internal Medicine Associates, Inc. 99 J.D. Anderson Drive Morgantown, WV 26003 Dr. Renn is a pulmonologist. In addition to case specific testimony where applicable, he will testify generally about medical matters related to the chest, asbestos-related diseases, diseases which are related to cigarette smoking, and other pulmonary problems which are often seen either independently or in association with any of the foregoing. Dr. Renn may also testify about the medical literature and its related matters. Dr. Nathaniel F. Rodman West Virginia University School of Medicin Office of the Chairman Department of Pathology, Room 2187 Morgantown, West Virginia 26506 Dr. Rodman is a pathologist. He will testify about the evolution ofasbestos disease, diseases related to cigarette smoking, and diseases which were seen often, but not necessarily, in relation to the foregoing. ^to- Victor L. Roggli, M. D. Department of Pathology Duke University, Medical Center Durham, North Carolina 27710 (919)286-0411 Dr. Roggli is a specialist in pulmonary pathology. He will testify as to all matters pertaining to the plaintiffs medical records; his examination of the plaintiff if he has made such an examination; if he has personal knowledge of such and any communication with the plaintiff or plaintiffs family; his review of x-rays of the plaintiff; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose an asbestos related disease; his opinion as to whether plaintiff suffers from asbestos related diseases and the basis for such opinion; plaintiffs current medical condition and prognosis; and he may testify that asbestos exposure does not cause stomach or small bowel cancer. It is further expected that Dr. Roggli's testimony will generally respond to the pathologic, scientific and epidemiologic testimony which may be offered by plaintiffs' experts, and in that sense his testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony ofsuch experts and cannot be specifically predicted. In expressing his opinions, Dr. Roggli will rely on his own training, education, experience, research and publications, as well as the published medical and scientific literature that has been available to him over his career. Robert M. Ross, M.D., FCCP 6550 Fannin Street, Suite 2403 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 383-6100 Dr. Ross is a specialist in the area of respiratory diseases. Dr. Ross may testify as to all matters pertaining to his examination of plaintiff and/or review of plaintiffs medical records, x-rays, and reports and supplemental reports of plaintiffs' experts; any communications with plaintiff or plaintiffs family members; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; his opinions as to whether plaintiffsuffers from asbestos-related disease and the basis ofsuch opinions; plaintiffs medical conditions; his prognosis with regard to such medical conditions; and, if applicable, his opinions as to the cause of death. Dr. Ross may also testify about general medical issues with emphasis on the respiratory system and the effect that asbestos and other substances have on human health generally and with respect to plaintiffspecifically. Dr. Ross may testify concerning his examination and diagnosis of the physical condition of plaintiff and the relationship, if any, of such condition of plaintiffs exposure, if any, to asbestos. Dr. Ross may also testify regarding the anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and cancer of the respiratory systems, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; the nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber and the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos in the development and manifestation ofdiseases ofthe -41- respiratory system; the methods ofdiagnosis and means of establishing the differential diagnosis of asbestos-related diseases with non asbestos-related diseases; the incidence of lung cancer in the general population and those individuals exposed to asbestos; cigarette smoking and its effect on the lungs; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect ofasbestosis on disability and li fe expectancy; the lack of relationship between pleural plaques and development of any cancer; the history of evolution and knowledge of asbestos-related diseases; and the evolution of the medical community's awareness of the increased risks for an asbestos-related disease in cases of prolonged exposure. In addition, Dr. Ross may testify about issues relevant to a Dauber/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Dr. Jonathan M. Samet Pulmonary Division Department of Medicine University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 Dr. Samet is an internist and epidemiologist. He is expected to testify generally about the relationship between asbestos, cigarette smoking and lung cancer, and generally about the epidemiology of disease. Dr. Robert Sawyer 149 Prospect Avenue Guilford, CT 06437 Dr. Sawyer is an industrial hygienist who is expected to testify regrading fiber release from various products, threshold limit values, and dose values for disease. Dr. Sawyer may further testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of any asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation ofx-ray films, review and interpretation ofpulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other diseases or conditions are present in plaintiffs. -42- Dr. Sawyer's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education, and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. Dr. Robert Shephard University of Texas Medical Branch at Tyler 11937 U.S. Hwy 271 Tyler, Texas (903) 877-7100 Dr. Shephard is a "B" reader and may testify regarding the radiographs ofthe Plaintiffs. Further, he may also offer opinions and/or rebuttal testimony as necessary to Plaintiffs experts' claims and related topics. Dr. Russell P. Sherwin Departmenijof Pathology USC School of Medicine Los Angeles, California 90033 (323) 224-5253 Dr. Sherwin may also testify in the field of pulmonary medicine and the results of his examination ofthe records and radiographs regarding Plaintiffs. He will testify as to whether the alleged injuries of the Plaintiffs can be attributed to asbestos exposure or not, based on the medical and scientific literature. Upon review ofPlaintiffs' medical records and pathology materials. Dr. Sherwin may testify about Plaintiffs' medical conditions and its causes. His testimony may include a discussion of asbestos and its effects on human health generally and on the Plaintiffs' conditions specifically and the effect of other substances on human health generally and on the Plaintiffs' condition specifically. Dr. Sherwin may testify regarding the increased risk ofcancer faced by individuals who smoke cigarettes or other tobacco products and the link between smoking and cancer. He may testify about the relationship between asbestos exposure and cancer and the methods by which it can be determined whether a particular cancer is related to asbestos exposure. He may apply these principles to Plaintiffs' cases. Sidney Shindell, M.D., LLB Medical College of Wisconsin 8701 Watertown Plank Road Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226 Dr. Shindell is a physician. He will testify generally about the evolution of asbestos disease; the pathology of asbestos-related diseases including those named as "Non-Routine"; the "state-of-theart" of asbestos-related diseases; and, will testify about other areas of pulmonary pathology including, but not limited to, emphysema, carcinomas, and related matters. -43- Dr. Shindell will testify about his personal experience in the development ofthe history of asbestos related medicine and the medical literature and his impressions of 1964 being a "watershed" as it relates to asbestos disease. Dr. Shindell will testify regarding the differing physical, chemical and biological properties of various types of asbestos fibers, and will explain to the jury that chrysotile fibers are incapable of causing, or unlikely to have caused, plaintiffs' alleged condition. Dr. Shindell may provide testimony in the following areas: 1. Anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems and the diagnosis and treatment of disease affecting such systems; 2. The nature of asbestos and asbestosis; 3. The symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and cancer ^ associated with the respiratory system peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; 4. The nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of obstructive pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure; 5. The effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos, such as tobacco, on the development and manifestation ofobstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases of the respiratory system and other causes of obstructive and restrictive disease or defects of the respiratory system; 6. Methods of diagnosis of various diseases, particularly means of establishing the differential diagnosis of alleged asbestos-related diseases with other non-asbestos related diseases; 7. Incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis or asbestos exposure without asbestosis, compared with non-asbestotic asbestos workers, non-asbestos exposed workers, and with the general population; 8. The import of any exhibit (including without limitation, corporate documents of defendants) introduced as evidence, or any items prepared for use or used for demonstrative purposes by any witness; 9. Cigarette smoking and its effect on the lung and other organs; 10. The relative danger of these defendants' asbestos-containing products; 11. The relationship of cigarette smoking to cancer of the lung and cancers of the other sites with reference to epidemiological studies and physiologic effect; 12. Difference between impairment and disability; -44- 13. Effect of asbestos, or asbestos exposure without asbestos, on disability and life expectancy; 14. Effect ofpleural plaques or other pleural manifestations ofasbestos exposure on lung function or life expectancy; 15. The relative carcinogenicity of chrysotile asbestos relative to the other forms of asbestos; Dr. Shindell is expected to testify as to the ability of various types of fibers to cause disease and the properties of fibers that are believed to be necessary in order to cause disease. He is expected to testify that Chrysotile asbestos fibers are not expected to produce an increase risk to mesothelioma Dr. Shindell is expected to testify about certain encapsulated products (where the asbestos fibers are thoroughly blended and mixed with the encapsulating binder which prevents a significant release of fibers) in that he has reviewed information and studies regarding exposure levels experienced with certain worlqaractices used with encapsulated products, and is familiar with the literature concerning low level exposures. Dr. Shindell is expected to testify, based upon his review of the literature and of evidence of exposure, that exposure to certain encapsulated products was not a substantial contributing factor to plaintiffs' alleged asbestos-related disease. Dr. Shindell is expected to testify that the literature does not support a causal relationship between exposure to certain encapsulated products and the development of an asbestos-related disease. Dr. Shindell is expected to testify generally about the pulmonary aspects of asbestos exposure, including matters such as dose response. Dr. Shindell is expected to testify about alleged occupational exposure and whether such exposure could be considered a substantial contributing factor to plaintiffs' alleged diseases. Dr. Shindell is expected to testify that as exposure to asbestos have diminished since the inception of the OSHA standards, the extent and number ofcases of asbestosis have been and are expected to continue to diminish. Dr. Shindell is expected to testify about the principles of epidemiology and what is involved in an epidemiologic study. He is expected to testify that studies of particular groups or occupations of people are not necessarily applicable to other groups of occupations. Dr. Shindell is expected to testify as to the information necessary to determine the risks for a group of people or persons contracting an asbestos-related disease, and if it is scientifically possible to attribute a disease to a particular exposure. Dr. Shindell is expected to discuss epidemiological analysis of asbestos and how such analysis may be applied to the facts of a specific individual. Dr. Shindell is expected to testify that cigarette smoking is the chiefcause of lung cancer, that almost all of the lung cancers in America occur in present or ex-smokers, and that one cannot develop lung cancer related to asbestos exposure unless there is underlying asbestosis. -45- Dr. Shindell is expected to testify that the earlier exposure to asbestos are, ifsufficient, the principal cause of the disease and not later exposures. Dr. Shindell is expected to testify that in at least 33% of mesotheliomas, asbestos exposure cannot be found. Dorsett Smith, M.D. 4310 Colby Avenue Everett, Washington 98203 Dr. Smith is an internal medicine physician with a sub-speciality in pulmonary disease and "B" reader who may testify concerning the review ofthe radiographs and CT scans, ifany, ofthe Plaintiff or Decedent. Dr. Smith may also testify in the field of occupational and pulmonary medicine and the state of knowledge as it existed from time to time relating to the health effects of asbestos exposure. Dr. Smith may also testify based on experience and on knowledge ofapplicable literature, regarding thsJcnown relationship or lack of relationship between asbestos exposures and certain diseases. He may also render various opinions relevant to a Daubert/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Mr. John W. Spencer, CIH, CSP Environment Profiles, Inc. 813 Frederick Baltimore, Maryland 21228 Mr. Spencer will testify in the field of industrial hygiene and the state of knowledge as it existed from time to time relating to the health effects of asbestos exposure. Gail D. Stockman, M.D., Ph.D. Longview Pulmonary Consultants 703 East Marshall, Suite 4002 Longview, Texas 75601 (903) 753-0787 Dr. Stockman is a specialist in the area of respiratory diseases. Dr. Stockman may testify as to all matters pertaining to her examination ofplaintiffand/or review ofplaintiff s medical records, x-rays, and reports and supplemental reports of plaintiffs' experts; any communications with plaintiff or plaintiffs family members; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; her opinions as to whether plaintiffsuffers from asbestos-related disease and the basis of such opinions; plaintiffs medical conditions; her prognosis with regard to such medical conditions; and, if applicable, her opinions as to the cause of death. Dr. Stockman may also testify about general medical issues with emphasis on the respiratory system and the effect that asbestos and other substances have on human health generally and with respect to plaintiff specifically. Dr. Stockman may testify concerning her examination and diagnosis of the physical condition ofplaintiff and the relationship, if any, of such condition of plaintiffs exposure, if any, to asbestos. -46- Dr. Stockman may also testify regarding the anatomy and function ofthe respiratory and circulatory systems; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and cancer of the respiratory systems, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; the nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of pulmonary disease with asbestos fibers and the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos in the development and manifestation ofdiseases of the respiratory system; the methods ofdiagnosis and means of establishing the differential diagnosis of asbestos-related diseases with non asbestos-related diseases; the incidence of lung cancer in the general population and those individuals exposed to asbestos; cigarette smoking and its effect on the lungs; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect ofasbestosis on disability and life expectancy; the history of evolution and knowledge ofasbestos-related diseases; and the evolution of the medical community awareness of the increased risks for asbestos-related disease in cases of prolonged exposure. Dr. Stockman may testify regarding the historical review and state ofthe art ofpulmonary medicine and asbestos-related conditions; the state ofscientific and medical art and the history and knowledge of asbestos-related disease in general; and epidemiology and general medicine regarding asbestos exposure. Stockman may provide opinions on the probable time period(s) ofasbestos exposure with relation to the causation of various disease processes. In doing so, Dr. Stockman may also provide percentages of probability of causation for exposure to asbestos from first exposure to last exposure. In addition. Dr. Stockman may offer opinions relevant to a Daubert/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Hans Weill, M.D. Tulane University - School of Medicine 1700 Perdido Street Second Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Dr. Weill is a pulmonary specialist. Dr. Weill will testify generally about asbestos-related diseases and diseases of the lungs, chest, respiratory system and other organs of the body. He may offer general testimony relating to cigarette smoking, cancer ofvarious organs, cancer risk associated with cigarette smoking, asbestos exposure and other causative factors, and the pathogenesis and diagnosis of disease, including asbestos-related diseases. Dr. Weill may testify as to the various types of asbestos fibers and their role in the causation of disease. He may also testify as to state-of-the-art medical as it relates to knowledge ofhealth hazards associated with exposure to asbestos-containing dust in varying doses and in varying industries, based on his review ofasbestos-related literature, and his own experience. Dr. Weill may testify specifically about plaintiffs' medical condition by relating these general principles to plaintiffs' or plaintiffs' decedents' specific medical history through review of records, x-rays, or by hypothetical. Dr. Hans Weill, may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon person in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including -47- but not limited to pleural plaques, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation ofx-ray films, review and interpretation ofpulmonary function testing, the nature and extent ofany impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Weill's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education, and review ofthe medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. In addition, Ekr. Weill may testify about issues relevant to a Daubert/Havner/Robinson Analysis. Dr. Frank Weir 14334 Schroeder Road Houston, TX 77070-3232 (832) 237-7502 Dr. Weir is expected to testify in the field of pharmacology, toxicology and industrial hygiene, generally, and particularly as they relate to asbestos fiber exposure in various work places. Also may offer testimony that it is improbable, and scientifically unlikely that plaintiff ever received physiologically meaningful exposures to asbestos fibers. He may also testify regarding the knowledge of the toxicology and appreciation for the hazards relating to the use of asbestoscontaining materials at various intervals of time that are of interest in this matter. Dr. Weir may also respond to testimony ofcertain witnesses offered at the time oftrial. He therefore reserves the right to supplement, amend or to otherwise modify the opinions to be offered accordingly. He will continue to review material which may come to his attention regarding this material. Dr. Weir may utilize this material to develop additional opinions and conclusions or modify his opinions and conclusions if such further evidence of information so warrants. Dr. Weir may testify as to state-of-the-art of the hazards of asbestos insulation products and the conduct of various industries and companies based on that knowledge. Dr. Weir's opinions will be based upon his education, experience and professional training, his review of relevant medical, epidemiological, scientific and technical literature, and his review and analysis of the case specific materials provided to him concerning this matter. He may also render various opinions relevant to a Dauber/Havner/Robinson Analysis. -48- Dr. William Weiss 3912 Netherfield Road Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19129 Dr. William Weiss is expected to testify about the evolution of asbestos disease, his knowledge of pulmonary lung disease of all varieties, the "state-of-the-art" of the development of knowledge regarding cigarettes and disease, the relationship between cigarette smoking and pulmonary fibrosis, the nature and evolution ofx-ray work, his knowledge of x-rays as a "b" reader and related matters. Mark Wick University of Virginia Health Systems Department of Pathology Box 214 OMS-Bldg., Room 3882 Charlottesville, Virgina 22908 (804) 924-9038 The words and language used in this statement are the words and language ofcounsel who prepared the statement, and not of the witness. Dr. Wick has not as yet prepared a report; if he does, a copy will be provided to Plaintiffs. Dr. Wick is expected to provide testimony concerning the anatomic structure and functioning of the lung from a pathologic perspective, the defense mechanisms and functioning of the lung in health and otherwise, the responses of the lung to various stimuli, and the role of various components of the respiratory system in the proper functioning of the lung. Dr. Wick is expected to describe and distinguish various types ofasbestos fibers; to describe the things which affect the ability ofasbestos fibers to affect various structures within the respiratory system; and to describe the body's specific responses to fibers of asbestos that are inhaled, whether or not they are retained. Ifis further believed that Dr. Wick will define and distinguish various conditions, such as asbestosis, pleural changes and other non-malignant changes that may be attributable in some persons to the results of long term inhalation and retention of some forms of asbestos fiber. Dr. Wick is further expected to be able to testify concerning the circumstances under which exposure to certain forms and types of asbestos may be associated with the incidence ofsome forms ofmesothelioma in some persons, and will testify concerning the results of his own experiences, the medical and scientific literature, and existing epidemiologic studies concerning associations that are alleged to exist epidemiologically between exposure to asbestos in some populations and the mortality and/or incidence of some forms of cancer. Dr. Wick is further expected to offer testimony concerning the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors on the occurrence of disease in populations who are also alleged to be exposed to asbestos containing products and additionally concerning how the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors can confound the apparent results of certain epidemiologic studies. -49- Dr. Wick is also expected to testify that it cannot be said, to reasonable degree of medical probability, that any hypothetical person's alleged "exposure" to products that may have contained asbestos was of importance to that individual without reference to that specific person's individual work history, medical history, findings on physical examination and pathological examination of tissue, ifany, information concerning the individual's use ofprotective equipment, specific types of asbestos containing product(s) used and/or handled, resolution of questions regarding exposures to substances other than asbestos-containing products, and other known etiologies for whatever conditions are found to exist. It is further expected that Dr. Wick's testimony will generally respond to the pathologic, scientific and epidemiologic testimony which may be offered by plaintiffs' experts, and in that sense his testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony ofsuch experts and cannot be specifically predicted. The above designated witnesses may also give testimony about the historical "state-of-the-art", the development of medical knowledge about asbestos, and presence or absence of medical consequences relating to low dose exposure to asbestos emanating from asbestos containing products. They may offer general testimony relating to the development ofasbestos related disease, cigarette smoking, cancer of various organs, pneumonia, chronic obstructive lung disease, the pathology of cigarettes and asbestos, the pathogenesis of cigarette related diseases, and the pathogenesis ofasbestos related diseases. These witnesses may also testify generally about specific abnormalities that might be in the medical records ofthe decedent. These witnesses may also testify about the presence or absence ofhealth disease or health risks associated with exposure to low levels of asbestos emanating from asbestos containing products. They may also testify specifically about diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, even though they may not have seen decedent, or reviewed decedent's medical records. Defendant reserves the right to amend and supplement this response as additional information is located. Defendant reserves the right to call any person designated by any other party in this case as an expert witness, whether or not such party is still a party at the time of trial as well as all expert witnesses listed by Plaintiffs, custodians of records of any and all physicians, health care facilities, hospitals, clinics and health care providers who have treated or examined the Plaintiff in this case who may have records concerning the plaintiff, and any physician who has examined and/or treated Plaintiff not identified. Otto Wong, Sc.D., F.A.C.E. Applied Health Science, Inc. 181 Second Avenue Suite 628 San Mateo, CA 94401 Dr. Wong is a Board-certified epidemiologist and a fellow of the American College of Epidemiology. He is expected to testify regarding the history and development of scientific and medical knowledge about asbestos-related disease, the epidemiology of asbestos diseases, and -50- increased risk of cancer and life-shortening problems not related to asbestos exposure. He is also expected to testify as to the status of epidemiological studies regarding asbestos-related diseases. -51-