Document 8R1zkmb2n1x1w0nz7B41yeReB
FILE NAME: Mannington Mills (MM)
DATE: 2001 Aug 13
DOC#: MM006
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Defendant Tarkett, Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories (Set One)
1 Edward R. Hugo, Esq. [CSB No. 124839] Donna L. Maul, Esq. [CSB No. 191119]
2 POND, NORTH & HUGO, P.C. 459 Fulton Street, Suite 102
3 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 551-0511
4 Facsimile: (415)487-1721
5 Attorneys for Defendant TARKETT, INC.
6
7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
9- TYSON BIRON and PAULA BIRON
)
)
10
Plaintiffs,
)
)
11
vs.
)
)
12 OWENS CORNING, et al.,
)
)
13
Defendants.
)
---------------------------------------------------- )
14
CASE NO. 815610-1 (CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 822323-6)
DEFENDANT TARKETT, IN C 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
15 PROPOUNDING PARTY:
PLAINTIFFS TYSON BIRON and PAULA BIRON
16 RESPONDING PARTY:
DEFENDANT TARKETT, INC.
17 SET NUMBER:
ONE
18
TARKETT, INC. ("TARKETT") hereby responds to Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant
19 ("the Interrogatories") only pursuant to, under the protection of and to the extent that such requests
20 comply with the California Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:
21
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is subject to
the provisions of the County of Alameda General Orders and all appropriate objections (including,
but not limited to, objections as to confidentiality, relevancy, propriety and admissibility) which
require the exclusion of any statement contained herein if the Interrogatory were answered by a
witness present and testifying in court. All such objections and grounds are reserved and may be
interposed at the time o f the trial.
TARKETT's discovery and investigation of this matter are incomplete. Medical and other
TARKETT INC.'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
2 Subject to the preliminary statement, Tarkett objects to these interrogatories in their entirety
3 and this interrogatory specifically on the grounds that the defined term "DEFENDANT" is overly
4 broad, vague, ambiguous, confusing, argumentative and factually and legally erroneous, and that such
5 definition seeks to exceed the scope of permissible discovery. Tarkett further objects to these
6 interrogatories in their entirety and this interrogatory specifically on the grounds that the defined
7
8 terms "MANUFACTUR(ED)," "ASBESTOS-CONTAINING," and "FLOORING PRODUCTS" are
vague, ambiguous, confusing, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead 9
to the discovery of relevant evidence. Subject to and without waiver of these and its general 10
objections and its preliminary statement, Tarkett responds as follows: From September 28,1981 until 11
December 1982, Tarkett manufactured felt materials that contained asbestos, which were sold to
12
Mannington Mills. This felt was also used in the manufacturing process for certain sheet vinyl 13
products from September 28,1981 until,approximately February 1982. The sheet vinyl product was 14
manufactured under the brand name Gafstar. Tarkett also manufactured non-asbestos sheet vinyl 15
which sold under the Gafstar brand name. 16
17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
18 Subject to the preliminary statement, Tarkett objects to these interrogatories in their entirety
19 and this interrogatory specifically on the grounds that the defined term "DEFENDANT" is overly
20 broad, vague, ambiguous, confusing, argumentative and factually and legally erroneous, and that such
21 definition seeks to exceed the scope o f permissible discovery. Further, Tarkett objects to this
22 Interrogatory by and through its request to "DESCRIBE" "DOCUMENTS" as overly broad and
23 unduly burdensome and beyond the permissible scope o f discovery. In addition, Tarkett objects to
24 this interrogatory as contrary to C.C.P. section 2031. Tarkett further objects to these interrogatories
25 in their entirety and this interrogatory specifically on the grounds that the defined terms
26 "MANUFACTUR(ED)," "ASBESTOS-CONTAINING," and "FLOORING PRODUCTS" are vague,
27 ambiguous, confusing, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
28
16
TARKETT INC.'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
1 permissible scope of discovery. In addition, Tarkett objects to this interrogatory as contrary to C.C.P.
2 section 2031. Subject to and without waiving these and its general objections and preliminary
3 statement, Tarkett responds as follows: None.
4
3 5
6 DATED: August -< 2001
HUGO, P.C.
7
8
award R. Hugo
ionna L. Maul
9
Attorneys for Defendant TARKETT, INC.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
57
TARKETT INC.'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
Re: Tyson Birvn andPaula Rirott v& Owens Corning, et ai
1
Case No.; 815610-1 (Coasolidftted with Case No. 822323-6)
2
3
VERIFICATION
4
I, J. Michael McGorry, declare:
5
I am the Vice-President, Finance and Administration o f TARKETT, INC., a corporation
6 organized and existing under the laws o f d ie State o f Delaware, which is a defendant in the
7 shove-entitled action, and 1 have been authorized to make this verification on its behalf.
8
I have read the foregoing TA RK ETT, INC.' Responses to P la in tiffs Interrogatori=a
9 (Set O ne) and know the contents thereof. 1 am informed and believe that the m atters stated therein
are true and on that ground 1 allege that the m atters stated therein are true. 10
11 Executed on the fd day o f August 2001, at _ Q '.& Tfth.
12 I declare under penalty o f perjury th at the foregoing is true and correct
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27