Document 8VqDj8dNbBpMGxkpvz8j8d6K5

DOUGLAS E. CHAVES* RUDY GONZALES, JR. ROBIN HOBUT* OMAR S. RIVERO HARVEY FERGUSON. JR. STEPHEN R. DARLING "Bow* CwtMad in PxflMJ lnfuor Tnxl Law Tmas Boafd of Lagal SeaaaJuaaon alib.0C.96* 4,791 CHAVES, GONZALES & HOBLIT, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FROST BANK PLAZA 802 NORTH CARANCAHUA CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78470 (512) 888-9392 FAX: (512) 888-9187 August 6, 1996 OF COUNSEL HON. PAUL W. NYE Rat CM June*- 13>l Court at Appaala JOEL CRUZ RESENDEZ Mr. Oscar Soliz District Clerk Nueces County Courthouse 901 Leopard St. Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 VIA HAND DELIVERY PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT PMC-470____ EL FILE COURTNEY JONES ALVAREZ CHRISTOPHER A. BANDAS TROY S. GILREATH CECILE FOY GSANGER MOISES R. HERNANDEZ DEBRA IRWIN R. GARY LAWS DONNA H. MCKINNEY STEPHEN J. NAYLOR GARY E. RAMIREZ AUDREY MULLERT VICKNAIR MCALLEN OFFICE (210) 630-1919 FAX: (210) 630-1927 Re: Cause No. 94-03884-B; Leona Tiner, Ind. vs. Reynolds Metals Company, 117th District Court, Nueces County, Texas; CGH File 4479.76 Dear Mr. Soliz: Enclosed please find the following documents to be filed in the above-referenced matter: 1. Defendant Reynolds Metals Company's Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories; and 2. Defendant Reynolds Metals Company's First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. Please file stamp the enclosed copies and return them to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. By copy of this letter and its enclosures, opposing counsel is being provided with same. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Cordially, RCH/tmk Enclosures R. Clay Hoblit cc: VIA REGULAR MAIL Mr. Russell W. Budd Mr. Patrick N. Haines BARON & BUDD 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 Mr. David Craig Landin Ms. Lori M. Elliott HUNTON & WILLIAMS Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 E. Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219 96.iiJG.CS. * .. .792 Cause No. 94-03884-B LEONA TINER, Individually and as $ Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Robert D. Tiner, $ $ Deceased, Plaintiff, $ v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY and GILMAN INSULATION COMPANY, $ Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 117th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO PLA] 'S SECOND SET OF ^ROGATORIES TO: PLAINTIFF, LEONA TINER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs of Robert D. Tiner, Deceased, by and through their attorney of record, C. Andrew Waters, Baron & Budd, A Professional Corporation, The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219. Pursuant to the provisions of Rules 167 and 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, by counsel, hereby serves the following for its Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories. Respectfully submitted, CHAVES, GONZALES & HOBLTT, L.L.P. HUNTON & WILLIAMS Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 788-8200 (804) 788-8218 (facsimile)n *111^ Company'i Retpomc To PliifT Second Set of Imetrogitorie*- Pw 1 R. Clay Hoblit State Bar No. 09743100 R. Gary Laws State Bar No. 00786045 2000 Frost Bank Plaza 802 N. Carancahua Corpus Christi, Texas 78470 (512) 888-9392 (512) 888-9187 (facsimile) Attorneys for Reynolds Metals Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been served via certified mail, return receipt requested and by overnight mail, on this the 29th day of July, 1996, on the following counsel of record in this proceeding: Russell W. Budd, Esq. Patrick N. Haines, Esq. BARON & BUDD 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 William Abemethy, Esq. Clay Coalson, Esq. MEREDITH, DONNEL & ABERNETHY 1500 One Shoreline Post Office Box 2624 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403-2624 Reynold! Meuli Company'* Renxmae To Plainliffa Second Set of Interrogatories- Page 2 GENERAL OBJECTIONS Reynolds objects to these interrogatories for the reason that they seek to require Reynolds to set out in detail, and at its peril the relevant knowledge of its witnesses, which is properly the subject of deposition. Reynolds objects to this interrogatory as it is impossible in the context of this case to list each and every fact, in narrative form, which supports Reynolds' position. Further, there is no provision in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a party to state "each and every fact" or anything in detail, and such request is merely an attempt to limit trial testimony. Reynolds objects to these interrogatories for the reason that they exceed the permissible number of interrogatories as provided in Rule 168(5) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Reynolds objects to these interrogatories as calling for trial strategy and attorney work product which are privileged from discovery pursuant to Rule 166b(3)(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Reynolds further objects to these interrogatories as they attempt to invade the attorney-client privilege. icvva SROGATORY NO. 1: For each person identified in response to Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 22, contained in Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, please describe, with reasonable particularity, the relevant facts to which each person could be expected to testify and each and every fact upon which you intend to rely. Reynold! Meuli Cocnctnv't Reioonec To PUintifTi Second Set of Intettogitoriei- Pigc 3 ANSWER; Reynolds incorporates its General Objections herein. Reynolds objects that Plaintiffs First Interrogatory No. 22 did not request the names of individuals Reynolds expected to testify at trial. Instead, Plaintiffs First Interrogatory No. 22 requested the name of "each and every person . . . having knowledge of facts relevant to this case." Consequently, Reynolds does not expect that each person listed in response to Plaintiffs First Interrogatory No. 22 will testify at trial. Reynolds specifically states that any response to this interrogatory does not indicate that the individuals listed will, or will not, be called to testify on Reynolds' behalf at trial. Subject to and without waiving any of its prior objections, Reynolds states the following: 1. Dr. Charles D. Dixon - Deceased. 2. Dr. Draper - Deceased. 3. Dr. Harrv R. Bratt - Dr. Bratt was the Sherwin Alumina Plant Medical Director from 1971 through 1975. 4. Dr. Robert Dale Gamble - Dr. Gamble was the Sherwin Alumina Plant Medical Director from 1975 through 1989. 5. Dr. John Frandolig - Dr. Frandolig was the Sherwin Alumina Plant Medical Director from 1989 through 1991. 6. Dr. Guy Racette - Dr. Racette was the Sherwin Alumina Plant Medical Director from 1991 through 1993. 7. Dr. Wendell Roberts - Dr. Roberts is the Sherwin Alumina Plant physician and was Mr. Tiner's personal physician. Reynold* Mettle Cowwar'i Regxxnc To PUintifTi Second Set of lmerrogitoriet- Pgc 4 .8 Dr, James MacMillan - Dr. MacMillan was the Corporate Medical Director for Reynolds from 1956-77. 9. Dr. E. Claiborne Irbv - Dr. Irby was the Associate Medical Director for Reynolds from 1959-77 and the Corporate Medical Director from 1977-92. 10. Dr. David Warren - Dr. Warren was the acting Corporate Medical Director for Reynolds from 1992-93. 11. Dr. Woolson W. Doane - Dr. Doane is the Corporate Medical Director for Reynolds. 12. Homer M. Cole - Mr. Cole is the Corporate Director of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology for Reynolds. 13. Ronald Benton 14. Linda Maillet - Mr. Benton was a member of the Industrial Hygiene Department at the Corporate Headquarters of Reynolds fron 1974 to 1995, and he is currently the Director of the Safety Department. Ms. Maillet is a Regional Industrial Hygienist at the Corporate Headquarters of Reynolds who is responsible for the Eastern Region. 15. Laurie Shelbv - Ms. Shelby is the Manager of Industrial Hygiene Programs at the Corporate Headquarters of Reynolds. 16. James D. Davidson - Mr. Davidson was a Staff Industrial Hygienist at the Corporate Headquarters of Reynolds. n. Ms. Hansen was a Staff Industrial Hygienist at the Corporate Headquarters of Reynolds. 18. Deborah R. Hudgins - Ms. Hudgins was a Staff Industrial Hygienist at the Corporate Headquarters of Reynolds. Rjvnokli Mflllf rv><npnv'i Rtpooe To PUintifft Second Stl of Imerrognorie*- Pge 5 19. Edward J. Lament - Mr. Largent was a member of the Industrial Hygiene Department at the Corporate Headquarters of Reynolds. 20. Richard Mansur - Mr. Mansur was the Manager of the Industrial Hygiene Department at the Corporate Headquarters of Reynolds. 21. Dale Prokopchak - Mr. Prokopchak was a Staff Industrial Hygienist at the Corporate Headquarters of Reynolds. 22. H.L. Skalskv - Mr. Skalsky was a Medical Advisor, Physician, or member of the Industrial Hygiene Department at the Corporate Headquarters of Reynolds. 23. Karen Kestle - Ms. Kestle is the Senior Insurance Administrator at the Corporate Headquarters of Reynolds. 24. Bobby J. Sasser - Mr. Sasser was the Corporate Safety Director for Reynolds from 1973 to 1995. 25. C. Arlon Boatman - Mr. Boatman is the Health & Safety Manager for Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. He may also have knowledge concerning Mr. Tiner's work habits, assignments, and medical condition. 26. Terrv N. Roubidoux - Mr. Roubidoux is the Safety Coordinator for Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 27. Danis CIkmcy - Ms. Cheaney is a Workers' Compensation Clerk at Sherwin. RfTPotd* Mcttli ComMav'i Reone To PUintifTt Second Set of lntcrrogtoric- Piw 6 28. William E. Hamblin - Mr. Hamblin is the Senior Maintenance Engineer at Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 29. Delons Ulke - Ms. Ulke is the Head Nurse at Sherwin. SfiS Ms. Ulke's deposition transcript. 30. Tim-Wgods - Mr. Woods is the Plant Controller at Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 31. C.R. Marsh - Mr. Marsh is a Purchasing Agent at Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 32. Dorothy Withers - Ms. Withers is the Secretary to the Purchasing Manager for Sherwin. 33. Frank Strickland - Mr. Strickland is the Purchasing Manager for Sherwin. 34. D.T. Greeson - Mr. Greeson is a Purchasing Agent for Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 35. Jim Tiffany - Mr. Tiffany was the Plant Engineer at Sherwin from approximately 1973-1976 and was a general Engineer, Maintenance Superintendent, and Senior Engineer for various periods from 1964-73 and 1985 to the present. & Mr. Tiffany's deposition transcript. KcmoM Mettl Company' Rmpomb To PltinlifTi Second S of Inlerrogitorict- Pigt 7 36. Jack C. Oates - Mr. Oates was the Plant Engineer at Sherwin from 1980-84 and was a Maintenance Engineer, Project Engineer, and Project Manager for various periods from 1967-74 and 1977-91. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 37. Howard Lee Grote - Mr. Grote is the Maintenance Engineer at Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 38. Jesse Castillo - Mr. Castillo is a Draftsman in the Engineering Department of Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 39. Edward S. Peterson. Jr. - Mr. Peterson is a Senior Project Engineer at Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 40. T.J. Mueller. Jr. - Mr. Mueller is a Senior Electrical Engineer at Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 41. Paul Manila - Mr. Matula is a Designer in the Engineering Department of Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 42. George D. DeAlcala - Mr. DeAlcala is an Electrical Engineer at Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. Rtvnoto Mculi Compnv'* Rcwowe To PUimifTt Second Set of Imerrogiloritt- Pge 8 43. Charles D. Tavlor - Mr. Taylor is the Corrosion Control Supervisor at Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and the abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 44. Audelia T. Rodriguez - Ms. Rodriquez is the secretary to the Plant Engineer at Sherwin. She may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures and the use of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. 45. Hector Pe La Garza - Mr. De La Garza has been in the Environmental Department at Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures, the use of asbestos, and the abatement of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant. 46. Adan J. Villarreal - Mr. Villarreal is the Cost Accountant at Sherwin. 47. Lester Charles Homan - Mr. Homan is a Senior Accountant at Sherwin. 48. Nelda Salinas - Ms. Salinas is the Accounts Payable Clerk at Sherwin. 49. Stan Millsan - Mr. Millsap was the Safety Director at Sherwin. He may have knowledge of Reynolds' safety procedures and the use of asbestos at the Sherwin Plant, as well as other information. He may also have knowledge of Mr. Tiner's work habits and assignments. 50. Joseph Nichols - Mr. Nichols was the Corporate Safety Director for Reynolds from 1945-73. 51. Service Environmental Co. This company performed insulation and/or asbestos abatement work at the Sherwin plant. 52. Industrial Specialist Inc. - This company performed insulation and/or asbestos abatement work at the Sherwin plant. Reynold* MffflT Reawiue To PUintifTt Second Set of Inerroitoric- Piee 9 53. Estes Refractory & Insulation - This company performed insulation and/or asbestos abatement work at the Sherwin plant. 54. TGI Stephens - This company performed insulation and/or asbestos abatement work at the Sherwin plant. 55. Thermo Tech Inc. - This company performed insulation and/or asbestos abatement work at the Sherwin plant. 56. Gilman Insulation Co. - This company performed insulation and/or asbestos abatement work at the Sherwin plant. 57. Falcon Associates - This company performed insulation and/or asbestos abatement work at the Sherwin plant. 58. Brand Remediation Services. Inc. - This company performed insulation and/or asbestos abatement work at the Sherwin plant. 59. Northwinds Abatement. Inc. - This company performed insulation and/or asbestos abatement work at the Sherwin plant. 60. Casanova industrial Insulation - This company performed insulation and/or asbestos abatement work at the Sherwin plant. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Do you contend that Plaintiffs Decedent's injuries and damages, as alleged in this law suit, were the result of Decedent's own actions and/or alleged negligence? If the answer is anything otter than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. Reynold* Mtuli CompuT'i Kewoonat To P1iintiff* Second Set of IwcfTOlorie- Pire 10 ANSWER: Reynolds incorporates its General Objections herein. Discovery is ongoing. Subject to and without waiving any of its prior objections, Reynolds states that is continuing its investigation of this matter. Reynolds states further that Mr. Tiner's supervisors at Sherwin specifically warned him, and others, about the hazards associated with, and the safety procedures required when, working with asbestos. Answering further, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the depositions taken in this case. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Do you contend that Plaintiffs Decedent's injuries and damages, as alleged in this law suit, were solely the result of the actions of other entities, over whom Defendant had no right of control? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: Reynolds incorporates its General Objections herein. Discovery is ongoing. Subject to and without waiving any of its prior objections, Reynolds states that is continuing its investigation of this matter. Reynolds states further that Mr. Tiner was not exposed to harmful levels of asbestos while employed by Reynolds. icvia ^ROGATORY NO 1: Do you contend that Defendant specifically warned Robert Tiner about the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products prior to 1972? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. Rfvnohb MeOl Cowpmy'i Rtaon* To Plaintiff** Second Si of Imerrogaloriet- Pge 11 ANSWER: Reynolds incorporates its General Objections herein. Discovery is ongoing. Subject to and without waiving any of its prior objections, Reynolds states that Mr. Tiner's supervisors at / Sherwin specifically warned him, and others, about the hazards associated with, and the safety procedures required when, working with asbestos both before and after 1972. Answering further, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the depositions taken and the documents produced by Reynolds in this case. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Do you contend that Defendant specifically warned Robert Tiner about the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products prior to 1984? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: See Answer to Interrogatory No. 4. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Do you contend that Defendant specifically warned Robert Tiner about the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products prior to 1993? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: See Answer to Interrogatory No. 4. RtTPofcU Meui Company** Rmpomb To Plaintiff*i Second Sl of lnterrogtorie- Pe 12 INTERROGATORY HO.?: Do you contend that Robert Tiner was not exposed to asbestos while employed by Defendant? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER; Reynolds incorporates its General Objections herein. Reynolds objects to this interrogatory for the reason that the term "exposed" in the context of this litigation is vague, and without further explanation, cannot be meaningfully answered. Moreover, discovery is ongoing. Subject to and without waiving any of its prior objections, Reynolds states that Mr. Tiner was not exposed to harmful levels of asbestos while employed by Reynolds. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do you contend that Robert Tiner's injuries and damages, as alleged in this law suit, were the result of exposure to asbestos at jobsites and/or locations other than Defendant's Sherwin facility? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER; See Answer to Interrogatory No. 7. In addition, Robert Tiner has claimed that he was exposed to asbestos at Southwest Refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, including Combustion Engineering and Riley Stokes boilers, and that the exposure to asbestos products at that site caused his mesothelioma. toYnoto Mcttto Company'* Rcpone To Plaintiff* Second Set of Imerrognoriei- Pire 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do you contend that Defendant performed measurements and/or studies prior to 1970 to determine the quantity of asbestos fibers in the air at the Sherwin facility? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. AHSWERl Reynolds incorporates its General Objections herein. Discovery is ongoing. Subject to and without waiving any of its prior objections, Reynolds states that it is continuing its investigation of this matter. At this time, Reynolds believes that any asbestos fibers in the air at the Sherwin facility were not harmful because of the nature of the plant, the safety practices and procedures in place for handling asbestos, and the availability of protective equipment. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Do you contend that Defendant's representatives, insurance carriers and/or agents performed measurements and/or studies prior to 1970 to determine the quantity of asbestos fibers in the air at the Sherwin facility? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER; See Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Do you contend that Defendant provided dust masks and/or respirators to Robert Tiner, specifically for the purpose of protection from the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, prior to 1970? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. McttU Corouv'i Rcwonee To PUintifT. Second Set of Imerrogitories- Pge 14 ANSWER: Reynolds incorporates its General Objections herein. Discovery is ongoing. Subject to and without waiving any of its prior objections, Reynolds states that, prior to 1970, it provided Mr. Tiner with dust masks and/or respirators, and instructions how to use them, for the purpose of protecting Mr. Tiner from asbestos fibers and other dust. Answering further, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the depositions taken and the documents produced by Reynolds in this case. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Do you contend that Robert Tiner did not suffer from mesothelioma? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: Reynolds incorporates its General Objections herein. Discovery is ongoing. Subject to and without waiving any of its prior objections, Reynolds states that it is continuing its investigation of this matter. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Do you contend that Robert Tiner's mesothelioma was not caused by exposure to asbestos? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: See Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 12. RcYBOfcto Menu Compinv't Rcaxxue To PUimifTi Second Set of Intem>gioriet- Pte 13 Telia ^ROGATORY NO. 14: Do you contend that Robert Tiner's mesothelioma was not caused by exposure to asbestos while employed at Reynolds Metals Company? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: See Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 12. iciia iROGATORY NO. IS: Did Defendant enter into any contracts with the Federal Government or any of its agencies between 1960 and 1972, wherein the amount of said contract exceeded $10,000? ANSWER: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 15 is "yes", did any of the materials, supplies, articles or equipment manufactured or furnished under said contracts originate from the Sherwin facility? ANSWER: No. I?U3 ^ROGATORY NO. 17: For each individual Reynolds Metals employee or former employee listed below, please identify all trade and/or professional organizations to which said individual belonged at any time. Metili Company1! Kewoate To PUintifTi Second Set of Inierrogttoriet- (*i*e 16 ANSWER: (a) E.C. Irby, M.D. Certified by American Board of Preventive Medicine In Occupational Medicine Virginia Occupational Medical Association Virginia Medical Society Richmond Academy of Medicine American College of Physicians American College of Preventive Medicine Governor's Advisory Committee for Toxic Substance Information Act Advisory Committee, Virginia Industrial Commission American Aluminum Association Health Committee Steering Committee Health Careers, Virginia Council of Health and Medical Care Advisory Committee NIOSH Educational Resource Center, North Carolina Governor's Advisory Board-Health and Safety Codes American Occupational Medicine Association American Academy of Occupational Medicine American College of Occupational Medicine American Medical Association (b) Homer Cole Aluminum Association Health Committee Aluminum Association Task Group on Welding Aluminum Association Task Group on Trace Metals International Primary Aluminum Institute Health Committee MCV Affiliated Associate Professor University of North Carolina School of Public Health American Industrial Hygiene Association Central Virginia Industrial Hygiene Association Academy of Industrial Hygiene American College of Toxicology (c) Edward Largent The New York Academy of Sciences American Industrial Hygiene Association American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists American Chemical Society Kgvnokb Mul Compuv'i Rctpomc To PUintifTi Second Set of Intcrrogatonc*- Pigc 17 (d) Richard Mansur American Industrial Hygiene Association American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygiene (e) J.M. MacMillan, M.D. American College of Physicians Southern Medical Association American Medical Association Occupational Medical Association (f) B.J. Sasser American Society of Testing and Materials American Society of Safety Engineers National Fire Protection Association Virginia Manufacturing Association Safety Committee Certified Safety Professional (Safety and Health Codes Board, Virginia) Aluminum Association (ad hoc safety committee) (g) Ron Benton American Industrial Hygiene Association National Safety Council American Society of Safety Engineers American Academy of Industrial Hygiene The Society of Sigma Xi American National Standards Institute Certified Industrial Hygienist Certified Safety Professional Registered Occupational Hygienist in Canada INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Does Defendant have a Corporate Safety and Health Committee? If so, please identify all members of said committee and state whether minutes of the meetings of said committee are and/or have been maintained. Rcvnoldi Meul Conaunv'i Reocm To PUintifTt Second Set of Imerrognonet- Page 18 ANSWER: Reynolds incorporates its General Objections herein. Reynolds objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in time, place, and subject matter. The requested information is irrelevant in this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving any of its prior objections, Reynolds states that it does not have a "Corporate Safety and Health Committee," but has other committees which address safety and health issues. the documents produced in this litigation. Reynold* fn-'MT'i Rcxxuc To PUintifTt Second Set of Interrogaione*- Page 19 REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY By.--lArl/TW Bnfilm a* ARLON BOATMAN c Manager, Health and Safety STATE OF TEXAS S COUNTY BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared ARLON BOATMAN, Manager, Health and Safety, for REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, who being by me duly sworn under oaib and deposed and said that he is the representative of Defendant REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY in the above entitled and numbered cause; be is charged with collecting information gathered by REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY'S officers, agents and/or employees; has compiled this information as a result of the investigation of REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY'S officers, agents and/or employees; that he has read the questions contained in the foregoing instrument and that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements contained therein are true and correct and ate based upon the information that is available ana has been _ gathered by REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY'S officers, agents and/or employees. Artcm/ Kiatman ARLON BOATMAN SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, by the said ARLON BOATMAN on this the ^Qriltidav of July, 1996, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. L. a HOMAN MY COMMSSItMBtfWeS % AUQUR2A. 1907 the State of Texas L.C.14 Print or type name My commission expires: 5?-->A ~7 Cause No. 94-03884-B LEONA TINER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Robert D. Tiner, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY and GILMAN INSULATION COMPANY, Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 117th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO: PLAINTIFF, LEONA TINER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs of Robert D. Tiner, Deceased, by and through their attorney of record, C. Andrew Waters, Baron & Budd, A Professional Corporation, The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219. Pursuant to the provisions of Rules 167 and 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, by counsel, hereby serves the following for its First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories. Respectfully submitted, CHAVES, GONZALES & HOBUT, L.L.P. By: State Bar of Texas No. 11863720 HUNTON & WILLIAMS Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 788-8200 (804) 788-8218 (facsimile)n tevnoldi Meuli Concenv'e Supolamenul Regonee To PliiniifTa Fim Set of Interrogitoriee- Page 1 R. Clay Hoi State Bar No. 09743100 R. Gary Laws State Bar No. 00786045 2000 Frost Bank Plaza 802 N. Carancahua Corpus Christi, Texas 78470 (512) 888-9392 (512) 888-9187 (facsimile) Attorneys for Reynolds Metals Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been served via certified mail, return receipt requested and by overnight mail, on this the 29th day of July, 1996, on the following counsel of record in this proceeding: Russell W. Budd, Esq. Patrick N. Haines, Esq. BARON &BUDD 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 William Abemethy, Esq. Clay Coalson. Esq. MEREDITH, DONNEL & ABERNETHY 1500 One Shoreline Post Office Box 2624 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403-2624 David Craig Landin Reynold* MetiU Cornpinv'i Supplement! Reon*c To PliintifTi First Set of Interrogatories- Page 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so, state: A. The name of each such publication. B. The date of publication and the names of the author and publisher (if any). C. The date received by Defendant, if known. D. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the documents produced in this case which may have been found, in addition to sources already named, in the files of Reynolds' Corporate Research & Development Department and/or Risk Management Department. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of asbestos? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such association or organization. B. The dates during which Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors were members. C. The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations related in any way to the hazards of asbestos. D. Whether any of those publications are still in your possession, and if so: 1. A description of the publications, including the date. 2. The current locations of such publications. 3. The custodian of such publications. Reynold* Mcttla Company' Supplemental Rex>nie To PUintifTi Fim Set of Interrogatories Page 3 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the documents produced in this case. INTERROGATORY NO. IQ: As to the disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor Erst learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease. C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease and/or of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the documents produced and the depositions taken in this litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: As to the disease lung cancer, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure. Reynold! Mettli Company1! Supplemental Reone To PliiwifTi Fin Se of Inierrogitoriet- Pige 4 C. Who wiL.- the company or its subsidiary or ^ Jecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the documents produced and the depositions taken in this litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. C. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. G. Who is the custodian of such information. H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. RtrooUii Mettb Comcinv'i Sunolemenul Reporat To PUinlifT First St of Inttrrogilorie*- Pigc 5 SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the documents produced and the depositions taken in this litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: At any time, has any person filed a claim against Defendant or Defendant's Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he/she contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers? If so, provide: A. A list of the claims, including each claimant's name, address and the date each claim was filed, and including the caption and jurisdiction of the claim and the plant or industrial facility where the inhalation/exposure took place. B. The disease alleged in each such claim. C. A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim. D. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds withdraws its previous answer in order to correct inaccurate claim dates provided therein and states that it has been able to ascertain the following information concerning claims filed prior to April 1993. Rtvnold* MeUil CoawBv'i Supplemental Rcx>n* To Plaintiffs Fim Set of Interrognorie*- Pe 6 Date of Claim 06/13/86 04/19/91 02/28/86 12/28/88 02/28/86 12/05/90 02/ /88 08/01/78 02/01/80 11/28/90 02/28/86 09/18/91 05/08/87 06/29/89 06/ /85 09/19/90 02/12/91 09/13/90 01/10/91 01/12/91 02/23/91 07/ /88 12/ /88 01/ /89 12/24/87 02/28/86 Location Lister Hill Reduction, Alabama Hurricane Creek Alumina, Arkansas Bellwood Printing, Virginia Bellwood Printing, Virginia Bellwood Reclamation, Virginia Conductor Products, Texas Eskimo Pie Jones Mills Plant Jones Mills Plant Longview Reduction McCook Sheet & Plate Plant McCook Sheet & Plate Plant Patterson Reduction Patterson Reduction RABPCO Sherwin Alumina Sherwin Alumina Sherwin Alumina Sherwin Alumina Sherwin Alumina Sherwin Alumina Torrance Can Plant Torrance Can Plant Torrance Can Plant Troutdale Reduction Troutdale Reduction Disposition Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Pending Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Pending Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Pending Rtvnoldl MeUb Compmv'i Supplement*! ttemrmie To PUifflifTi Fint Set of Interrogitoriet- Pire 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? If so, for each such set of minutes, state: A. The dates of each such meeting. B. The general subject matter discussed at each meeting. C. Who was in attendance at each meeting. D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained. E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format. F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the documents produced in this litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: State whether you or any of your predecessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1960 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies of invoices, shipping receipts, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the purchase or acquisition of asbestos-containing products for use at the Corpus Christi/Nueces County plant. If so, state: A. The location of such documents. B. The name and address of the custodian of the documents. C. The format in which the documents are kept, i.e.. hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. D. In what form the documents can be accessed, L^, by plant, by product type, etc. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the documents produced in this litigation. R*vno4d Mettli Cotronv' Supplemental HcMX>nc To PliintifTi Fir* Set of InlerroBHorie*- Piw 8 INTERROGATORY No. i9: Does your company have, or has it ever had, or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a Safety Department? If so, state: A. The year such Safety Department was established; B. Whether or not such Safety Department has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Safety Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Safety Director or Safety Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Safety Department. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, C. Bobby J. Sasser, 6601 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23230 (1973-1995) Ronald Benton, 6601 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23230 (1995present) INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please state the following with respect to each expert witness that you may call during trial of these cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you will call, including: A. The name, address, and job classification of each such expert witness; B. The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; C. The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion; D. Whether any person identified in subparagraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify each such document or report; E. Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above; Reynold* MT*lll* r''***gnv'i Supplement! Rcioonjc To Plaintiff First Sei of Interrogitoriei- Pe 9 F. Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds states the following: 1. Dr. Woolson W. Doane - Dr. Doane is the Corporate Medical Director (1993present) for Reynolds. If called to testify, it is expected that he will testify as a fact witness and that he will offer testimony concerning both the facts he observed and information to which he had access in that role. To the extent his testimony is deemed to be expert opinions, they will be relied upon as such by Reynolds. As of the date of this supplemental answer, he has not prepared a report, and has been provided no documents or other materials for the purpose of preparing any expert opinions in this case. 2. Dr. Harry R. Bratt 3. Dr. Wendell Roberts - Dr. Bratt was the Sherwin Alumina Plant Medical Director from 1971 to 1975. If called to testify, it is expected that he will testify as a fact witness and that he will offer testimony concerning both the facts he observed and information to which he had access in that role. To the extent his testimony is deemed to be expert opinions, they will be relied upon as such by Reynolds. As of the date of this supplemental answer, he has not prepared a report, and has been provided no documents or other materials for the purpose of preparing any expert opinions in this case. Dr. Roberts is the Sherwin Alumina Plant Medical Director (1993-present). If called to testify, it is expected that he will testify as a fact witness and that he will offer testimony concerning both the facts he observed and information to which he had access in that role. To the extent his testimony is deemed to be expert opinions, they will be relied upon as such by Reynolds. As of the date of this supplemental answer, he has not prepared a report, and has been provided no documents or other materials for the purpose of preparing any expert opinions in this case. RctboM* Meui Company'! Supplemei*l Benofne To P1iimiff* FirW Set of Intcrrogilorici- Pire 10 4. Dr. E. Claiborne Irby - Dr. Irby was the Associate Corporate Medical Director for Reynolds from 1959 to 1977, and the Corporate Medical Director for Reynolds from 1977 to 1992. If called to testify, it is expected that he will testify as a fact witness and that he will offer testimony concerning both the facts he observed and information to which he had access in these roles. To the extent his testimony is deemed to be expert opinions, they will be relied upon as such by Reynolds. As of the date of this supplemental answer, he has not prepared a report, and has been provided no documents or other materials for the purpose of preparing any expert opinions in this case. 5. Dr. James MacMillan - Dr. MacMillan was the Corporate Medical Director for Reynolds from 1956 to 1977. If called to testify, it is expected that he will testify as a fact witness and that he will offer testimony concerning both the facts he observed and information to which he had access in that role. To the extent his testimony is deemed to be expert opinions, they will be relied upon as such by Reynolds. As of the date of this supplemental answer, he has not prepared a report, and has been provided no documents or other materials for the purpose of preparing any expert opinions in this case. 6. Dr. David Warren - Dr. Warren was the Acting Corporate Medical Director for Reynolds from 1992 to 1993. If called to testify, it is expected that he will testify as a fact witness and that he will offer testimony concerning both the facts he observed and information to which he had access in that role. To the extent his testimony is deemed to be expert opinions, they will be relied upon as such by Reynolds. As of the date of this supplemental answer, he has not prepared a report, and has been provided no documents or other materials for the purpose of preparing any expert opinions in this case. Rtynoidi Hf*||| r"fflpav' Supplemental Rex>ne To PliintifTi Fim Si of Interrogator^*- Page 11 7. Bobby J. Sasser 8. C. Arlon Boatman 9. Homer M. Cole 10. Stan Millsap - Mr. Sasser is the Corporate afety Director for Reynolds. If called to testify, it is expected that he will testify as a fact witness and that he will offer testimony concerning both the facts he observed and information to which he had access in that role. To the extent his testimony is deemed to be expert opinions, they will be relied upon as such by Reynolds. As of the date of this supplemental answer, he has not prepared a report, and has been provided no documents or other materials for the purpose of preparing any expert opinions in this case. Mr. Boatman is the Health & Safety Manager for the Sherwin Alumina Plant. If called to testify, it is expected that he will testify as a fact witness and that he will offer testimony concerning both the facts he observed and information to which he had access in that role. To the extent his testimony is deemed to be expert opinions, they will be relied upon as such by Reynolds. As of the date of this supplemental answer, he has not prepared a report, and has been provided no documents or other materials for the purpose of preparing any expert opinions in this case. Mr. Cole is the Corporate Director of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology for Reynolds. If called to testify, it is expected that he will testify as a fact witness and that he will offer testimony concerning both the facts he observed and information to which he had access in that role. To the extent his testimony is deemed to be expert opinions, they will be relied upon as such by Reynolds. As of the date of this supplemental answer, he has not prepared a report, and has been provided no documents or other materials for the purpose of preparing any expert opinions in this case. Mr. Millsap was the Safety Director at Sherwin. If called to testify, it is expected that he will testify as a fact witness and that he will offer testimony concerning both the facts he observed and information to which he had access in that role. To the extent his testimony is deemed to be expert opinions, they will be relied upon as such by Reynolds. As of the date of this supplemental answer, he has not prepared a report, and has been provided no documents or other materials for the purpose of preparing any expert opinions in this case. Reynold* Mettii Compinv't Supplement*! Reponie To PliinlifTi First Set of lnterroglorie- Pge 12 11. Joseph Nichols - G Mr. Nichols was the Corporate Safety Director for Reynolds from 1945 to 1973. If called to testify, it is expected that he will testify as a fact witness and that he will offer testimony concerning both the facts he observed and information to which he had access in that role. To the extent his testimony is deemed to be expert opinions, they will be relied upon as such by Reynolds. As of the date of this supplemental answer, he has not prepared a report, and has been provided no documents or other materials for the purpose of preparing any expert opinions in this case. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge of facts relevant to this case involving, but not limited to: A. identification of asbestos-containing products or type of products to which Decedent was exposed or facts disputing the identification of asbestos-containing products or type of product in this case. B. Plaintiffs damages, injuries and/or facts disputing Plaintiffs alleged damages and/or injuries; C. the negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of each and every individual Plaintiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged injuries and/or damages; D. each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's most recently filed Answer. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the documents produced in this litigation. See also Reynolds Answer to Interrogatory No. 1 of Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories. UtrnoMi MeUli Compinv'i Supplemental Bcx>ne To Pliinlifft Firw Set of Interrogilorio- Piw 13 INTERROGATORY No. 25: Please state whether Defendant has at any time provided safety equipment at the Corpus Chrisd/Nueces County plant for workers' protection against the inhalation of asbestos disease or the dangers of asbestos fibers, including but not limited to masks, respirators, other breathing devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, etc. For each such item of equipment, please indicate when such was first provided to your workers at the Corpus Christi/Nueces County plant, under what circumstances such were provided, and the name, address and telephone number of the person most knowledgeable concerning such provision. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the documents produced and the depositions taken in this litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Please state whether any asbestos products in place or in use at your Corpus Christi/Nueces County plant has been removed or abated at any time from 1965 to the present. If so, please answer the following: A. List each and every abatement company or other contractor involved with the removal of asbestos, including address and telephone number, dates of such removal, and whether a contract for such removal exists. B. Indicate the total amount in dollars spent by Defendant to abate or remove asbestos from your Corpus Christi/ Nueces County facility. C. State whether any "removal plan" or organized written criteria or other document related to asbestos removal at the Corpus Christi/Nueces County plant was ever prepared by Defendant. D. State whether corporate documents discussing or relating generally to the removal of asbestos are in existence and/if so, where they are maintained. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the documents produced in this litigation. Remold* Mcttj* CompMY't Supplement*! Rcremic To PUimifT* Fira Set of Imenwiorie*- Pw U REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce any and all documents, memoranda and/or other writings that reflect, indicate or in any way relate to communications between you and any manufacturer of asbestoscontaining products concerning or related to the asbestos contained in such products. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the documents produced in this litigation. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Produce any and all documents, including invoices, shipping receipts, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature related to the purchase of asbestoscontaining products for use at the Corpus Christi/Nueces County plant at any time from 1960 to the present. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving prior objections, Reynolds refers plaintiff to the documents produced in this litigation. Rivaotd* Mn[ tVgretnv'i Supplemental Reocae To Phintiffi Fir* Set of lnlem>giorie- Piw IS REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY ArltrvBy: V &)fllryLd->l ARLON BOATMAN Manager, Health and Safety STATE OF TEXAS $ COUNTY Oi6^AkJ TarraiCi Q BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on tins day personally appeared ARLON BOATMAN, Manager, Health and Safety, for REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, who being by me duly sworn under oath and deposed and said that he is the representative of Defendant REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY in the above entitled and numbered cause; be is charged with collecting information gathered by REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY'S officers, agents and/or employees; has compiled this information as a result of the investigation of REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY'S officers, agents and/or employees; that he has read the questions contained in the foregoing instrument and that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements contained therein are true and coned and axe based upon the information that is available and has been gathered by REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY'S officers, agents and/or employees. /frfavBiiairr1^7 ARLON BOATMAN SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, by the said ARLON BOATMAN on this the 20^* day of July, 1996, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. L C. HOMAN MY GOMMSSU EXFMS Auqnt2B, 1997 ^-Notary Public in and for the State of Texas L.C.U Prim or type name My commission expires: