Document 8VxY9bQxOy9vbZ3ng4E4rpxjd

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT CAUSE NO. 01-02816-D RAFORD EARL GRESHAM, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS U.S. GYPSUM COMPANY, ET AL. 95TM JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF DAN WILKES' REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE UNDER RULE 194 SUBJECT TO MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO: PlaintiffDan Wilkes, by and through his attorney ofrecord, Elizabeth Schick and Scott Frost, Baron & Budd, The Centrum, Suite 1100, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219. Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 194, Defendant Pharmacia Corporation, formerlyknown as Monsanto Company ("Monsanto") (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Defendant"), subject to its Motion to Transfer Venue serves this Response to Plaintiff Dan Wilkes' Request for Disclosure. (a) The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit. Answer: Defendant's correct name is Pharmacia Corporation. Pharmacia Corporation was formerly known as Monsanto Company. Defendant has no personal knowledge regarding the correct names of other parties to this suit. (b) The name, address and telephone number of any potential parties. Answer: Unknown at this time. (c) The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases ofthe responding party's claims or defenses. Answer: Discovery is not complete at this time and Defendant is still in the process ofdeveloping the facts in the case as well as its legal theories. However, at this time, Defendant's defense is based upon the following legal theories: Respectfully submitted, ELLIS, CARSTARPHEN, DOUGHERTY State Bar No. 06575050 Douglas B. Dougherty State Bar No. 06031650 Lawrence E. Goldenthal State Bar No. 08089508 720 N. Post Oak, Ste. 330 Houston, Texas 77024 Telephone: (713) 647-6800 Facsimile: (713)647-6884 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PHARMACIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the day ofNovember, 2001, a copy ofthe foregoing was sent by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, to counsel for PlaintiffDan Wilkes, by and through his attorneys ofrecord, Scott Frost and Elizabeth R. Schick, Baron & Budd, The Centrum, Suite 1100, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219, and was sent by regular United States mail to all other known counsel of record. Lawrence E. Goldenthal 31 a. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to damages because they do not suffer from an asbestos-related disease. b. Defendant is not responsible for any alleged asbestos-related injury claimed by the Plaintiffs because, to the extent the Plaintiffs were ever on a premises owned by Monsanto, they were not exposed to asbestos fibers in sufficient concentration and for sufficient duration to have caused or contributed to the development ofany asbestos-related disease. Therefore, exposure to asbestos on a premises owned by Monsanto was neither a cause in fact nor a proximate cause ofthe Plaintiffs' alleged injuries. c. Defendant was never an employer ofthe Plaintiff. Asbestos manufacturers or insulation contractors, not Defendant, supplied the asbestos-containing products used on Monsanto's premises. Monsanto's premises were simply one ofmany job sites at which Plaintiffs worked. As such, Defendant owed no legal duty toward Plaintiffs and cannot be liable under a theory of negligence or gross negligence. d. Because Defendant did not manufacture or supply the asbestos-containing products to which Plaintiffs claim exposure, Defendant cannot be liable under a theory of strict products liability. e. Based on the state of knowledge existing during the relevant time period. Defendant reasonably believed that workers on its premises were not exposed to unsafe levels ofasbestos fibers. Furthenuore, at all relevant times Monsanto acted ? reasonably, met or exceeded the appropriate standard of care for the circumstances and, therefore, was not negligent. f. To the extent Plaintiffs have suffered damages, such damages were caused by the acts, conduct or omissions ofpersons or entities other than Defendant and over whom Defendant has/had no control. g. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of laches and by the statute of limitations. (d) The amount and any method of calculating economic damages. Answer: N/A. (e) The name, address and telephone number ofpersons having knowledge ofrelevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the case. Answer: Based on the pleadings and discovery served by Plaintiffs, at this time Defendant responds as follows, but reserve the right to amend the following as discovery progresses and the facts ofthe case develop: Dr. R. Emmet Kelly (now deceased) By prior deposition and/or trial testimony in: Schmidt, etal. v. AC&S, etal.] No. D-145,280; 136th Judicial District Court ofJefferson County, Texas Major, et al. v. ALCO Standard Corp., et al.] No. 93-CV-315; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Bush, et al. v. Appalachian Power Co., et al.] No. 91-C-157, Putnam County, Texas Smith, etal. v. Monsanto Company, et al.]C.A. No. 2 91-0524; U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston Corporate medical doctor 1946-1974 Dr. George Roush (now deceased) 10 Babler Lane St. Louis, MO 63124 (314)997-2234 Corporate medical doctor 1975-1988 Dr. Barry R. D. Friedlander Exxon BioMedical Sciences Mettlers Road CN 2350 East Milstone, NJ 08875 Corporate medical doctor 1988-1994 Messrs. Kelly, Roush and Friedlander were corporate medical doctors and are expected to have knowledge ofDefendant's corporate medical practices, procedures, and policies, as well as the general knowledge of corporate medical directors. Dr. Jay W. O'Bryant Beeler-Manske Clinic 818 5th Street North Texas City, Texas 77590 (409) 948-8521 Dr. O'Bryant is a physician who was engaged and consulted by Defendant relating to medical matters at Monsanto's Texas City plant from 1946 until 1986. Dr. James Rau 1203 South Hill Alvin, Texas 77511 (713) 331-3591 Dr. William McDaniel 400 Hillje Street Alvin, Texas 77511 (713)331-3591 Drs. Rau and McDaniel are physicians who were engaged and consulted by Defendant's Chocolate Bayou plant in Alvin, Texas relating to medical matters at the Chocolate Bayou plant from 1962 until 1988. Dr. William Gaffey 11269 Pineside Drive St. Louis, Missouri 63146 Dr. Gaffey was corporate epidemiology director from 1979 until 1989 at Defendant's headquarters in St. Louis, MO. 4 Elmer Wheeler (deceased) Jack T. Garrett (deceased) By prior deposition testimony in: Schmidt, etal. v. AC&S, etal.',No. D-145,280; 136th Judicial District Court ofJefferson County, Texas Carl Bohl 455 Wildewood Parkway Ballwin, Missouri 63011 Bruce W. Eley Solutia Inc. 575 Maryville Centre Drive, 6 North St. Louis, Missouri 63141 John L. Henshaw Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Washington, D.C. Paul Easterday c/o Pharmacia Corporation 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167 Messrs. Wheeler, Garrett, and Henshaw are former directors ofDefendant's corporate industrial hygiene department in St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Wheeler served in that capacity from 1947 until 1974; he is now deceased. Mr. Garrett served in that capacity from 1974 until 1985. Mr. Henshaw served in that capacity from 1985 until 1991. Mr. Easterday has served as the director in charge of Defendant's corporate industrial hygiene department from 1991 until the present date. Mr. Eley served as a senior industrial hygienist and a manager ofindustrial hygiene in Defendant's corporate headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri from 1971 until 1987. Mr. Bohl served as an industrial hygienist in Defendant's corporate headquarters from 1966 to 1991 and is believed to have occasionally visited Monsanto's Texas facilities. Messrs. Wheeler, Garrett, Henshaw, Easterday, Bohl and Eley are expected to have knowledge ofDefendant's corporate-wide industrial hygiene practices and policies. 5 John E. Fox HC64 Box 605 16065 W. U.S. Hwy. 290 Harper, Texas 78631-9407 (210) 669-2744 Dan Campbell Route 1, Box 218 Mt. Enterprise, Texas 75681 (903) 822-3837 Mr. Fox and Mr. Campbell provided industrial hygiene services at Monsanto's Texas City plant. Mr. Fox provided those services from the late 1950's until 1985 and Mr. Campbell served as the plant industrial hygienist from 1985 until August 1986, when the Texas City plant was sold to Sterling Chemicals. Further, Mr. Garrett (see above) provided industrial hygiene services for the Texas City plant from the 1950's until the 1970's or 1980's. Messrs. Fox, Garrett and Campbell are expected to have knowledge of the industrial hygiene policies and practices at the Texas City plant. Donald L. Meade c/o Solutia Inc. FM Road 2917 (Mortenson Road) Alvin, Texas 77512 James C. Edwards 2418 Bay Crest Houston, Texas 77058 (713) 333-5134 Jacqueline Gaul Peterson c/o Pharmacia Corporation 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167 Frank J. Bryant c/o Solutia Inc. FM Road 2917 (Mortensen Road) Alvin, Texas 77512 Mr. Meade, Mr. Edwards and Ms. Peterson were industrial hygienists at Defendant's Chocolate Bayou plant in Alvin, Texas. Mr. Bryant is the current industrial hygienist in the plant. Mr. Meade served in that capacity from 1977 until 1979. Mr. Edwards served in that capacity from 1980 until 1981. Ms. Peterson served in that capacity from 1982 until 1986. Mr. Bryant has served in that capacity since 1986. Prior 6 to 1977, industrial hygiene services at the Chocolate Bayou Plant were provided by Mr. Garrett (see above) and Mr. Fox (see above). Mr. Meade, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Peterson, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Bryant are expected to have knowledge ofthe industrial hygiene practices and policies at Defendant's Chocolate Bayou Plant. Harry Lundin (address and telephone number unknown) George Gorbell 456 Hill Trail St. Louis, Missouri 63011 (314)256-0585 Russell Miller 17 Taylor Woods St. Louis, Missouri 63122 (314) 821-6747 Ray Witter 12746 Spruce Pond Road St. Louis, Missouri 63131 (314) 567-4124 Vincent Boyen 14592 White Birch Valley Lane St. Louis, Missouri 63017 Messrs. Lundin, Gorbell, Miller, Witter and Boyen are former corporate safety department directors of Defendant. Mr. Lundin served in that capacity from 1942 until 1946. Mr. Gorbell served in that capacity from 1947 until 1965. Mr. Miller served in that capacity from 1965 until 1978. Mr. Witter served in that capacity from 1978 until 1986. Mr. Boyen served in that capacity from 1986 until 1991. These gentlemen are expected to have knowledge of Defendant's corporate safety practices, policies and procedures W. B. Stallings (address and telephone number unknown) Safety Director 1947-1956 Charles Gilmore 3409 Nottingham Drive College Station, Texas 77845 (409)696-1905 Safety Director 1956-1975 7 John Arnold Glass 1908 16th Street North Texas City, Texas 77590 (409) 945-2986 Safety Director 1975-1984 Robert Hammann 816 24th Avenue North Texas City, Texas 77590 Safety Director 1984-1985 John Wilbeck Route 4, 249 Pecan Estates Angleton, Texas 77515 Safety Director 1985 Jacqueline Gaul Peterson c/o Pharmacia Corporation 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167 Safety Director 1985-1986 These individuals are former safety department and/or loss prevention department personnel at Monsanto's Texas City plant in Texas City, Texas. They are expected to have knowledge ofthe safety practices, policies and procedures in place at the Texas City Plant. Albert James Fiske (address and telephone number unknown) Safety Department 1961-1963 George F. Korkmas 405 Riverside Drive Alvin, Texas 77511 Safety Department 1963-1966 James L. Kilby 239 Heather Cress Dr. Chesterfield, Missouri 63017 314-469-3164 Safety Department 1966-1968 8 Willard W. Vamado 3711 Canary Grass Lane Houston, Texas 77059 Safety Department 1968-1969 Francis H. Dupre 15 Spring Lake Court St. Charles, Missouri 63303 636-922-0786 Safety Department 1969-1970 and 1975-1978 Douglas K. Stephens 1116 Deats Road Dickinson, Texas 77536 281-337-2330 Safety Department 1970-1971 Charles H. McComb 412 Carriage Creek Lane Friendswood, Texas 77546 281-992-1695 Safety Department 1971-1973 James C. Edwards 2418 Bay Crest Houston, Texas 77058 Safety Department 1973-1975 Stephen L. Nevarez (Address and telephone number unknown) Safety Department 1978-1979 Donald A. McKee Route 1, Box 150 Manvel, Texas 77578 Safety Department 1979-1980 John C. Usrey 403 Riverside Dr. Alvin, Texas 7751 1 Safety Department 1980-1984 9 G. John Wilbeck Route 4, 249 Pecan Estates Angleton, Texas 77515 Safety Department 1984-1994 These individuals are former or current safety department personnel and directors for Defendant's Chocolate Bayou Plant in Alvin, Texas. They are expected to have knowledge ofthe policies, safety practices and procedures in place at Defendant's Chocolate Bayou Plant. John Tissue Route 1, Box 366 Somerville, TX 77879 Mr. Tissue worked in the purchasing departments ofDefendant's Texas City Plant, Chocolate Bayou Plant, and a former subsidiary, Lion Oil Company from the late 1950's until the late 1980's. As such, Mr. Tissue is expected to have knowledge concerning Defendant's purchasing practices and policies, including the purchase ofasbestos-containing materials, relating to Defendant's Texas City Plant, Chocolate Bayou Plant and the former Lion Oil Company facilities in El Dorado, Arkansas. Vernon Mapes 4280 Lakewood Livingston, Texas 77351 (409) 967-0030 Sherman M. Jones 4114 South Acres Drive Houston, Texas 77047 Bill Bums (believed to be deceased) (address and telephone number unknown) J. B. Thrash P. O. Box 151 Apple Springs, Texas 75926 (409) 831-2950 John Elliott 3814 South Fairview Orange, Texas 77630 (409) 886-8302 10 A. J. Bourgeois 1025 24th Avenue North Texas City, Texas 77590 (409) 945-2489 L. W. Bryant Address Unknown E. M. Wheeler Address Unknown D. H. Chapman Address Unknown W. R. Merrill Address Unknown B. L. Vines Address Unknown William Bean 2214 21st Avenue N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Doyle Beard 2221 23rd Street N. Santa Fe, Texas 77517 409/327-7854 Clarence J. Cyr 2022 Evergreen Lane La Marque, Texas 77568 Glenn O. Eirdman Address Unknown Robert F. Frankavich P.O. Box 1024 Texas City, Texas 77592 Raymond F. Guidry, Jr. P.O. Box Drawer 3489 Texas City, Texas 77592 Daniel J. Hogan, HI 2707 22nd Avenue N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Billy Joe Howard c/o Shirley Howard, P.O.A. P.O. Box 666 Santa Fe, Texas 77510 Robert Lee 7211 Mallard Texas City, TX 77590 Robert R. Long 421 24th Ave. N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Donald E. Lonsford Address Unknown Joe Don Lowe 14108 German Road Bucyrus, MO 65444 Albert Allen McClintock Address Unknown Jimmy C. Overturf 4010 Avenue E. Santa Fe, Texas 77510 409/925-1110 Joe H. Skipper 118 20th Avenue, N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Edward L. Smith 510 21st Avenue N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Timothy P. Spencer Box 289 Arcadia, Texas 77517 409/925-6160 Clarence W. Trahan 2709 19th Avenue N. Texas City, Texas 77590 These gentlemen were, or are believed to have been, insulation installers and/or foremen at Monsanto's Texas City plant. As such, they are believed to have knowledge ofthe insulation products used, as well as the installation practices, procedures, and policies ofMonsanto regarding the installation ofinsulation, and the use and availability ofsafety equipment and the safety practices ofemployees who may have installed insulation products at the Texas City Plant. Gordon Dillon 2718 Fairfield Ave. Texas City, Texas 77590 (409) 948-3750 Mr. Dillon was a safety inspector at Monsanto's Texas City plant. Defendant will continue to supplement in accordance with the Tex. R. Civ. P. Also, Defendant presumes that Plaintiffs and other persons listed or named by Plaintiffs in response to discovery may have knowledge of facts relevant to Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants. (f) Testifying expert witness information. Answer: Defendant hereby designates the following persons who maybe called as expert witnesses and (1) who have been retained by Defendant and/or other Defendants in this cause, or (2) who may provide testimony in the nature ofexpert or opinion type testimony despite the fact that they are not "detained experts". 1. Dr. John Craighead Department of Pathology University of Vermont College of Medicine Burlington, Vermont 05405 (802)425-3480 13 Dr. Craighead is a medical doctor and pathologist and may testify concerning the state of medical knowledge, at relevant points in time, regarding the effects of exposure to asbestos. 2. Mr. John A. Pendergrass 6700 Milkhouse Court Mobile, Alabama 36695 Mr. Pendergrass is an industrial hygienist and may testify concerning industry practice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times, and may testify concerning the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels ofexposure to asbestos. 3. J. LeRoy Balzer, Ph.D. 408 Horse Trail Ct. Alamo, California 94556 Dr. Balzer is an industrial hygienist and may testify concerning industry practice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times, and may testify concerning the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels ofexposure to asbestos. 4. B. K. Kwon, M.S.P.H. 601 Montrose Rd., Suite 509 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Kwon is an industrial hygienist and may testify concerning industry practice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times, and may testify concerning the reasonableness of reliance upon established acceptable and safe levels ofexposure to asbestos. 5. Mr. Lawrence R. Birkner, CIH, CSP 2026 El Monte Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 (805)494-8173 Mr. Birkner is an industrial hygienist and may testify concerning industry practice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times, and may testi fy concerning the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels of exposure to asbestos. 14 6. James T. Knorpp, PE, CSP 2149 Misty's Run Keller, TX (817) 379-0840 Mr. Knorpp is a safety professional and professional engineer and may testily concerning his education, training and experience, as well as his factual observations and mental impressions and opinions and the basis for them, in the following areas: the creation, role and significance of OSHA, and relevant rules and regulations, concerning asbestos products in the work place; the process of establishing, historical development, and significance ofmaximum allowable concentrations, permissible exposure limits, threshold limit values, regulatory standards, and similar concepts, in general and specifically with regard to asbestos at relevant times and the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels of exposure to asbestos; employer's responsibility for employee/worker work site conditions and safety, including the employer's role in connection with OSHA. Mr. Knorpp may also testify regarding matters in response to testimony of Plaintiffs' experts. 7. Dr. Mark R. Wick, M.D., FCAP University of Virginia Health System Department of Pathology Box 214 O.M.S. Building, Room 2882 Charlottesville, VA 22908 (804) 924-9038 Dr. Wick is a medical doctor and pathologist and may testify concerning his education, training and experience, as well as his factual observations and mental impressions and opinions and the basis therefor, in the following areas: historical developments regarding asbestos utilization; medical aspects of asbestos-related diseases; state of the art in medicine and state ofmedical knowledge, at relevant points in time, concerning asbestos and asbestos exposure and the effects thereof; relevant medical and scientific literature; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; the relative risk, as well as reasonably perceived risk during relevant periods oftime, from various levels o fpotential exposure to asbestos, as well as particular type ofasbestos fiber involved; existence ofa dose-response relationship and the concept of threshold levels for asbestos-related diseases; and the rate ofoccurrence or incidence ofcertain diseases in given populations. Dr. Wick may also review Plaintiffs' medical records and may also review, examine and/or analyze pathology material, including tissue samples and/or blocks and/or slides, and may opine as to the appropriate diagnosis of Plaintiffs' alleged diseases as well as their etiology. Dr. Wick may also testify regarding matters in response to testimony ofPlaintiffs' experts. 5 8. Dr. William L. Dyson, Ph.D, CIH Workplace Hygiene, L.L.C. 1022 Jefferson Road P.O. Box 49176 Greensboro, NC 27410-1642 Dr. Dyson is an industrial hygienist and safety professional and may testify concerning his education, training and experience, as well as his factual observations and mental impressions and opinions and the basis for them, in the following areas: properties, use of and historical developments concerning asbestos and asbestos-containing products; industrypractice and standards in general and specifically concerning industrial hygiene and asbestos; state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereof at relevant times; the process ofestablishing, historical development and significance of maximum allowable concentrations, permissible exposure limits, threshold limit values, regulatory standards, and similar concepts, in general and specifically with regard to asbestos at relevant times and the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels ofexposure to asbestos products during relevant periods oftime; how potential exposure levels from various activities compared to then existing threshold limit values at relevant times; employer's responsibility for employee/worker work site conditions and safety, and the reasonableness ofpetrochemical premises owner's conduct during relevant periods oftime. Dr. Dyson may offer opinions relating to the levels of asbestos exposure necessary to attribute the development of mesothelioma to any particular occupational exposure. Dr. Dyson may also testify regarding matters in response to testimony ofPlaintiffs' experts. The basis for Dr. Dyson's mental impressions and opinions are his education, training, and experience, his review ofpertinent literature, and his review of additional information pertinent to Plaintiffs' and/or this case. 9. Dr. Patrick N. Conoley, M.D. Kelsey Seybold Clinic 6624 Fannin, Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77030 Dr. Conoley is an M.D. and a "B" reader, who may testify concerning his review ofofthe radiographs and CT scans ofPlaintiffs in this case and the significance ofvarious x-ray findings on the radiographs of Plaintiffs. 10. Dr. Peter J. Barrett, M.D. 10 Martin's Lane Hingham, MA 24043 (617) 749-5876 16 Dr. Barrett is an M.D., is board certified in diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine and has been a "B" reader from NIOSH since 1984. Dr. Barrett may testify concerning the significance ofasbestos related abnormalities and neoplastic disease based upon his review ofthe radiographs ofPlaintiffs as to the presence or absence ofradiographic abnormalities related to asbestos and the significance of same. 11. Dr. Gail D. Stockman 703 East Marshall Avenue, Suite 4002 Longview, Texas 75601 (903) 753-0787 Dr. Stockman may testify regarding the pulmonary and respiratory diseases and illnesses alleged by Plaintiffs. More specifically. Dr. Stockman may testify regarding specific medical complaints and history ofPlaintiffs ' and whether those alleged diseases or illnesses could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Stockman may address issues regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffs in the future due to Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to materials from the premises ofDefendant and the effects ofthe alleged illnesses and diseases on Plaintiffs in the past and in the future. Dr. Stockman may testify as to all matters pertaining to examination ofPlaintiffs and/or review ofPlaintiffs' medical records, x-rays, and reports and supplemental reports of Plaintiffs' experts; any communications with Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' family members; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; her opinions as to whether Plaintiffs suffer from asbestos-related disease and the basis ofsuch opinions; the Plaintiffs' current medical condition and her prognosis thereof, the anatomy and function ofthe respiratory and circulatory systems; the natures ofasbestos; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis ofasbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; the nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of pulmonary disease with asbestos exposure; the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation of obstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases ofthe respiratory system; methods of diagnosis ofvarious diseases, especially the means ofestablishing the differential diagnosis ofalleged 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 public. She may also testify as to smoking and its relation to cancer ofthe lung and cancers ofother body parts with reference to epidemiology studies and physiologic effect; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy; and the lack of relationship between the presence ofpleural plaques and a later development ofany form ofcancer. Dr. Stockman may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs' experts. 17 12. Kim Bloom, M.D. 6550 Fannin, Suite 2403 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 790-6250 Dr. Bloom is a specialist in pulmonary and respiratory diseases and acertified B-reader. He may testify regarding specific medical complaints and history ofPlaintifFs and whether those complaints could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Bloom may also testify regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffs in the future due to Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant and the effects ofthe alleged illnesses and diseases on Plaintiffs in the past and in the future. Dr. Bloom may testify as to all matters pertaining to examination ofPlaintiffs and/or review ofPlaintiffs' medical records, x-rays, and reports and supplemental reports ofPlaintifFs' experts; any communications with Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs ' family members; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; his opinions as to whether Plaintiffs suffer from 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 systems; the natures ofasbestos; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis ofasbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity, the nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association ofpulmonary disease with asbestos exposure; the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation of obstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases ofthe respiratory system; methods of diagnosis ofvarious diseases, especially the means ofestablishing the differential diagnosis ofalleged 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 public. He may also testify as to smoking and its relation to cancer ofthe lung and cancers ofother body parts with reference to epidemiology studies and physiologic effect; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy; and the lack of relationship between the presence ofpleural plaques and a later development ofany form ofcancer. Dr. Bloom may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs' experts. 13. Robert M. Ross, M.D. 6550 Fannin Street, Suite 2403 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 383-6100 (phone) (713) 383-6103 (fax) Dr. Ross isaspecialist in pulmonary and respiratory diseases and acertified B-reader. He may testify regarding specific medical complaints and history ofPlaintiffs and whether those complaints could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the 18 "smisc . of Defendant. Dr. Ross may also testify regarding alleged medical risks to ! aintiffs in the future due to Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to materials from the premises of .Defendant and the effects ofthe alleged illnesses and diseases on Plaintiffs in the past and in the fiiuire. Dr. Ross may testify as to all matters pertaining to examination ofPlaintiffs and. or review ofPlaintiffs' medical records, x-rays, and reports and supplemental reports ofPlaintiffs' experts; any communications with Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' family members; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; his opinions as to whether Plaintiffs suffer from 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 systems; the natures ofasbestos; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis ofasbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; the nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association ofpulmonary disease with asbestos exposure; the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation of obstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases ofthe respiratoiy system; methods of diagnosis ofvarious diseases, especiallythe means ofestablishing the differential diagnosis ofalleged 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 public. He may also testify as to smoking and its relation to cancer ofthe lung and cancers ofotherbody parts with reference to epidemiology studies and physiologic effect; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy; and the lack ofrelationship between the presence ofpleural plaques and a later development ofany form ofcancer. Dr. Ross may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs' experts 14. Venessa Ann Holland, M.D., MPH, P.A. Environmental Pulmonary Consultants 7515 S. Main Street, Suite 670 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 799-2224 (Telephone) (713) 799-2225 (Facsimile) Dr. Holland may testify regarding the pulmonary and respiratory diseases and i finesses alleged by Plaintiffs. More specifically. Dr. Holland may testify regarding specific medical complaints and history ofPlaintiffs' and whether those alleged diseases or illnesses could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Holland may address issues regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffs in the future due to Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant and the effects ofthe alleged illnesses and diseases on Plaintiffs in the past and in the future. Dr. Holland may testify as to all matters pertaining to examination ofPlaintiffs and/or review ofPlaintiffs' medical records, x-rays, and reports and supplemental reports ofPlaintiffs' experts; any communications with Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' family members; the diagnostic 19 criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; her opinions as to whether Plaintiffs suffer from asbestos-related disease and the basis ofsuch opinions; the Plaintiffs' current medical condition and her prognosis thereof, the anatomy and function ofthe respiratory and circulatory systems; the natures ofasbestos; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis ofasbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity, the nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of pulmonary disease with asbestos exposure; the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation ofobstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases ofthe respiratory system; methods ofdiagnosis of various diseases, especially the means ofestablishing the differential diagnosis ofalleged 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 public. She may also testify as to smoking and its relation to cancer of the lung and cancers of other body parts with reference to epidemiology studies and physiologic effect; the difference between impairment and disability, the effect ofasbestosis on disability and life expectancy; and the lack ofrelationship between the presence of pleural plaques and a later development ofany form ofcancer. Dr. Holland may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs' experts. 15. Scott G. Donaldson, M.D., F.C.C.P Pulmonary/Critical Care 375 Municipal Drive, Suite 218 Richardson, Texas 75080 (972) 680-0666 (972) 680-2499 (fax) Dr. Donaldson is a specialist in pulmonary and respiratory diseases. He may testify regarding specific medical complaints and historyofPlaintiffs and whetherthose complaints could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Donaldson may also testify regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffs in the future due to Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to materials from the premises ofDefendant and the effects ofthe alleged illnesses and diseases on Plaintiffs in the past and in the future. Dr. Donaldson may testify as to all matters pertaining to examination ofPlaintiffs and/or review ofPlaintiffs' medical records, x-rays, and reports and supplemental reports of Plaintiffs' experts; any communications with Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' family members; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; his opinions as to whether Plaintiffs suffer from asbestos-related disease and the basis ofsuch opinions; the Plaintiffs' current medical condition and his prognosis thereof, the anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems; the natures ofasbestos; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis ofasbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, pentoneunr and peritoneal cavity; the nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of pulmonary disease with asbestos exposure; the effect of 20 exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation of obstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases ofthe respiratory system; methods of diagnosis ofvarious diseases, especially the means ofestablishing the differential diagnosis ofalleged asbestos-related diseases with other non-asbestos-related diseases; incideac , oflung cancer among individuals with asbestosis as compared to non-asbestotic asbe tos workers and to the general public. He may also testify as to smoking and its relation to cancer ofthe lung and cancers ofother body parts with reference to epidemiology studies and physiologic effect; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy; and the lack ofrelationship between the presence ofpleural plaques and a later development ofany form ofcancer. Dr. Donaldson may offer testimony in response to anyreports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs' experts. 16. Kathryn A. Hale, M.D. 6550 Fannin Street Smith Tower, Suite 1236 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 790-2076 (Telephone) (713) 790-3648 (Facsimile) Dr. Hale maytestify regarding the pulmonary and respiratory diseases and illnesses alleged by Plaintiffs. More specifically, Dr. Hale may testify regarding specific medical complaints and history ofPlaintiffs' and whether those alleged diseases or illnesses could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Hale may address issues regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffs in the future due to Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to materials from the premises ofDefendant and the effects of the alleged illnesses and diseases on Plaintiffs in the past and in the future. Dr. Hale may testify as to all matters pertaining to examination ofPlaintiffs and/or review ofPlaintiffs' medical records, x-rays, and reports and supplemental reports ofPlaintiffs' experts; any communications with Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' family members; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; her opinions as to whether Plaintiffs suffer from asbestos-related disease and the basis ofsuch opinions; the Plaintiffs' current medical condition and her prognosis thereof, the anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems; the natures ofasbestos; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis ofasbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and pentoneal cavity; the nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of pulmonary disease with asbestos exposure; the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and mani festation ofobstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases of the respiratory system; methods of diagnosis of various diseases, especially the means ofestablishing the differential diagnosis ofalleged asbestos-related diseases with other non-asbestos-related diseases; incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis as compared to non-asbestotic asbestos workers and to the general public. She may also testify as to smoking and its relation to cancer of 21 the lung and cancers of other body parts with reference to epidemiology studies and physiologic effect; the difference between impairment and disability, the effect ofasbestosis on disability and life expectancy; and the lack ofrelationship between the presence of pleural plaques and a later development of any form of cancer. Dr. Hale may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs' experts. 17. John R. Holcomb, M.D. 4410 Memorial Drive, Suite 440 San Antonio, Texas 78229 (210) 692-9400 Dr. Holcomb is a specialist in pulmonary and respiratory diseases. He may testify regarding specific medical complaints and historyofPlaintiflfs and whether those complaints could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Holcomb may also testifyregarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffs in the future due to Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to materials from the premises ofDefendant and the effects ofthe alleged illnesses and diseases on Plaintiffs in the past and in the future. Dr. Holcomb may testify as to all matters pertaining to examination ofPlaintiffs and/or review ofPlaintiffs' medical records, x-rays, and reports and supplemental reports of Plaintiffs' experts; any communications with Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' family members; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; his opinions as to whether Plaintiffs suffer from 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 systems; the natures ofasbestos; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis ofasbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity, the nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge regarding any association ofpulmonary disease with asbestos exposure; the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation of obstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases ofthe respiratory system; methods of diagnosis ofvarious diseases, especially the means ofestablishing the differential diagnosis ofalleged 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 public. He may also testify as to smoking and its relation to cancer ofthe lung and cancers ofother body parts with reference to epidemiology studies and physiologic effect; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect of asbestosis on disability ana life expectancy; and the lack of relationship between the presence ofpleural plaques and a later development ofany form ofcancer. Dr. Holcomb may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs' experts. n 18. I. A. Feingold, M.D. Chief, Division of Pulmonary Medicine South Miami Hospital 6200 Southwest 73rd Street Miami, FL 33143 305-661-4611, Ext. 5229 Dr. Feingold is a specialist in pulmonary medicine and aNIOSH certified "B-reader". Dr. Feingold may testify as to his examination ofa plaintiffand/or decedent and/or review of their medical records and x-rays and may offer opinions regarding whether or not the plaintiff/decedent has an asbestos-related disease. Dr. Feingold may also testify concerning the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases and prognosis regarding any medical conditions. Dr. Feingold may also testi fy about general medical issues and the effects that asbestos and other substances have on human health generally and with respect to plaintiff/decedent specifically. Dr. Feingold will also testify as to the idiopathic nature of mesothelioma in some individuals. He will also testify that certain other cancers are not in reasonable medical probability related to asbestos exposure based upon the scientific evidence. These will include laryngeal and colon rectal cancers, among others. Dr. Feingold may also testify concerning the nature and extent ofmedical and scientific knowledge as it has existed from time to time regarding the association ofpulmonary disease with asbestos exposure based upon the medical and scientific literature, and based on that literature, he will testify as to the population and workers perceived to be at risk ofasbestos disease as literature has developed over time. He will also testify concerning the methods ofdiagnosis, the incidence oflung cancer among individuals with asbestosis as compared to non-asbestotic workers and to the general public. He will also testify to smoking and its relation to cancer ofthe lung and cancer ofother parts ofthe body. He will further testify concerning the lack ofrelationship between the presence ofpleural plaques and later development ofany form ofcancer and the necessity for an underlying diagnosis for pulmonary asbestosis in order to attribute lung cancer to asbestos exposure. Dr. Feingold may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs' experts. Dr. Feingold's C.V. has previously been provided to Plaintiffs' counsel. Ifanother copy is desired, Defendant will, on request, provide one. 19. James D. Crapo, M.D. National Jewish Medical and Research Center 1400 Jackson Street Denver, CO 80206 23 (303) 398-1436 4650 South 4th Street Englewood, CO 80110 (303) 221-6695 Dr. Crapo is a physician specializing in pulmonary medicine. He is Chairman ofthe Department ofMedicine at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver, Colorado. He is a former Professor ofMedicine and Professor ofExperimental Pathology at Duke University Medical Center. Dr. Crapo has carried out extensive research into the mechanisms ofpulmonary disease resulting from the inhalation ofparticulates, including the processes associated with asbestos-related disease. Dr. Crapo will testify concerning the pulmonary aspects ofasbestos exposure, including matters such as dose response, pathogenicity, carcinogenicity and the potential for asbestos-related disease as a result ofexposure to the different types offiber. Dr. Crapo is also expected to testify as to general medical issues and physiology, the effects of asbestos on the human body, and the Plaintiffs' medical conditions and medical causation issues. Dr. Crapo is expected to testify generally about the reactions of the lungs to inhaled particulates and foreign substances in both industrial and non-industrial environments. Dr. Crapo is expected to discuss, in particular, the biological effects ofexposure to asbestos dust, and the etiology of asbestos-related disease. Dr. Crapo is expected to testify concerning the risk ofasbestos-related lung disease and dose, and will provide his opinions regarding the levels of asbestos exposure necessary to produce disease. He may also testify concerning his asbestos-related studies and publications as well as other literature and studies related to asbestos-related diseases. Dr. Crapo may also review the x-rays and other medical records ofPlaintiffs and render opinions regarding the presence or absence ofasbestos-related abnormalities in Plaintiffs' lungs. Dr. Crapo is expected to describe the diagnostic criteria and methods used in the diagnosis of asbestosis and other asbestos-related conditions. Dr. Crapo may render opinions regarding the probable cause or causes of Plaintiffs' conditions. 20. Morton Com, Ph.D. Department of Environmental Health Sciences The Johns Hopkins University 615 North Wolfe Street, Room 6010 Baltimore, MD 21205 (410)955-3602 Dr. Morton Com is a professor emeritus with The Johns Hopkins University's Department of Environmental Health Sciences m Baltimore. He is currently Director, National Institute 24 of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Educational Resource Center in Occupational Safety and Health for Training Physicians, Nurses, Hygienists and Safety Professionals, and Director, Division of Environmental Health Engineering. Dr. Com is an industrial hygienist with long-standing experience in addressing asbestosrelated issues from the perspective ofan industrial hygienist and government regulator. He received his Ph.D. degree in Industrial Hygiene and Sanitary Engineering from Harvard University's Division ofEngineering and Applied Physics in 1961. He served as Assistant Secretary ofLabor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") from 1975 to 1977 during the Ford Administration. Dr. Com may testify concerning the following subjects: (a) the uses and characteristics of asbestos and asbestos-containing products; (b) the development ofindustrial hygiene and occupational safety and health in the United States; (c) the evolution ofknowledge in the industrial hygiene community concerning the potential health hazards associated with exposure to dust and asbestos; (d) the characteristics of asbestos dust and fibers and measurements of airborne concentrations of asbestos dust and fibers; (e) standards, guidelines, procedures and practices relating to the control ofpotential exposure to dust and asbestos dust; and (f) exposure assessment and associated exposures for non asbestos workers and the general public. 21. Dr. Mario Saldana Cedar Medial Center Pathology Department 1400 N. W. 12th Avenue Miami, Florida 33136 Dr. Saldana is a medical doctor and pathologist and may testify regarding the state of medical knowledge, at relevant points in time regarding the effects ofexposure to asbestos. Dr. Saldana may also offer testimony regarding issues concerning pathology in general. Dr. Saldana may also review Plaintiffs' medical records and may review, examine and/or analyze pathology material, including tissue samples and/or blocks and/or slides, and may opine as to the appropriate diagnosis ofPlaintiffs' alleged diseases as well as their etiology. Dr. Saldana may also testify regarding matters in response to testimony and/or reports of Plaintiffs' experts. 22. Phillip Cagle, M.D. Baylor School of Medicine Dept, of Pathology 1200 Moursund Street Room 286A Houston. Texas 25 Dr. Cagle will be offered by these defendants as . ert physician, with particular expertise in pathology, in the process ofcarcir/: is a researcher in the field of asbestos related conditions and their etiology, yamologic diagnosis and grading of non-malignant conditions associated with exposure ofcertain populations to asbestos- containing products and/or materials, and in the epidemiologic and etiologic aspects of certain 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 lung from a pathologic perspective, the defense mechanisms and functioning ofthe lung in health and otherwise, the responses ofthe lung to various stimuli, and the role ofvarious components ofthe respirator/ system in the proper functioning of the lung. Dr. Cagle is expected to describe and distinguish various types of asbestos fibers; to describe the things which affect the ability ofasbestos fibers to affect various structures within the respiratory system; and to desert be 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 maybe attributable in some persons to the results oflong term inhalation and retention ofsome forms ofasbestos fiber. Dr. Cagle is further expected to be able to testify concerning the circumstances under which exposure to certain forms and types o fasbestos 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. Cagle is further expected to offer testimony concerning the effects ofinhaled tobacco smoke and other factors on the occurrence ofdisease 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 ofcertain 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 oftissue, ifany, information concerning the individual's use of protective equipment, specific types ofasbestos containing product(s) used and/or handled, resolution ofquestions regarding exposures to substances other than asbestoscontaining products, and other known etiologies for whatever conditions are found to exist. 26 It is further expected that Dr. Cagle's testimony will generally respond to the pathologic, scientific and epidemiologic testimony which maybe offered byplaintiffs' 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. 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 ofthe diagnosis and treatment of asbestos-related disease and the pathological effect ofasbestos on the lung. He may also testify as to the relationship ofasbestos exposure and the incidence ofcancer. Dr. Cagle is expected to provide testimony in the following areas: 1. Anatomy and function ofthe 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 ofasbestosis and cancer associated with the respiratory system peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; 4. The nature and extent of medical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of obstructive pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure; 5. The effect ofexposure 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; 6. Methods ofdiagnosis ofvarious diseases, particularly means ofestablishing the differential diagnosis ofalleged asbestos-related diseases with other non-asbestos related diseases; 7. Incidence oflung 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 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 witness; 27 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 ofcigarette smoking to cancer ofthe lung and cancers ofthe other sites with reference to epidemiological studies and physiologic effect; 12. Difference between impairment and disability; 13. Effect ofasbestosis, or asbestos exposure without asbestosis, on disability and life expectancy; effect ofpleural plaques or other pleural manifestations ofasbestos exposure on lung function or life expectancy; 14. The lack of 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 asbestos-related disease, specifically mesothelioma. Additionally, Dr. Cagle may testify concerning the diagnosis ofplaintiffs. Dr. Cagle may also testify as to his findings and diagnosis after examination and analysis oftissue, 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 ofany oncological condition and the methods ofand 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 ofthose conditions, prognosis and information relating to the known cause ofthose 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 nsk ofasbestos-related disease or cancer, prognosis, the relevant standards of care and considerations relating to medical monitoring. His testimony may include discussions of any relevant epidemiology, anatomy and physiology. Defendant also designates the followi ng witnesses to testi fy through their deposition and/or trial testimony from other cases: 28 1. Dr. Emmett Kelly testified by deposition, and at trial, in the case ofRita Mae Schmidt, et al. v. A.C. &S., et al.;No. D-145,280; In the District Court ofJefferson County, Texas; 136th Judicial District. Dr. Kelly's testimony, both at trial, and on deposition, is designated here only to the extent that he gave expert or opinion type testimony in that deposition. 2. Mr. Jack T. Garrett in the case ofRita Mae Schmidt, et al. v. A.C. & S., et al.; No. D145,280; In the District Court ofJefferson County, Texas; 136th Judicial District. Mr. Garrett's deposition testimony is designated here only to the extent that he gave expert or opinion type testimony in that deposition. 3. Joe Shrode in the case of Claude J. Tomplait v. Combustion Engineering, et al.; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofTexas', Beaumont Division; and/or in Samuel R. Porter v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al., also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofTexas, Beaumont Division, and/or Mr. Shrode's deposition testimony in the Clarence Borel trial, also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 4. Dr. Corwin Hinshaw, expert regarding state ofthe medical art, in the cases ofJimmie L. Vaughan v. Johns-Manville, CA-3-01 -0070-F, USDA, N.D. Tex; Antonio Mendoza, et al v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al., CA.-2-80-006, USDC, N.D. Tex; In Re: Related Asbestos Cases, C-83-6251-RFP, USDC, N.D. Calif. Defendant also designates any and all expert witnesses designated herein by Plaintiffs. Defendant also designates any and all expert witnesses designated herein by other Defendants. Each of Defendants' experts may offer testimony in response to testimony and/or reports of Plaintiffs' experts. Defendant would also refer to and incorporate herein by reference each ofthe reports submitted, or to be submitted by Defendant's experts, copies ofwhich have been or will be provided to Plaintiffs' counsel by Defendant or other Defendants herein. (g) Any discoverable indemnity and insuring agreements. Answer: Defendant's insuring agreements are voluminous and are contained in approximately 31 three-ring notebook binders located at the headquarters offices ofDefendant in St. Louis, Missouri. Those binders will be made available to Plaintiffs in the St. Louis, Missouri area at a mutually agreed upon time. Other responsive agreements will be made available to Plaintiffs at the offices ofcounsel for Defendant at a mutually agreed upon time. Please contact Defendant's counsel to arrange an agreeable date and time. (h) Any discoverable settlement agreements. 29 Answer: None that this Defendant has been made aware of at this time. (i) Any discoverable witness statements. Answer: Defendant will make available to Plaintiffs copies ofstatements and testimony relevant to the subject matter of the case from persons with knowledge of relevant facts. This production will occur at counsel for Defendant' s office at a mutually agreed-upon time and date. Please contact Defendant's counsel to arrange an agreeable date and time. (j) Medical records and bills relating to the injuries and damages asserted by Plaintiff. Answer: See Answer to subpart (k) below. (k) Medical records and bills obtained by Defendants by virtue ofan authorization furnished by the requesting party. Answer: These records are fairlyvoluminous and, therefore, they will be made available to Plaintiffs for inspection and copying at the offices ofcounsel for Defendant at a mutually agreeable time. Please contact counsel for Defendant to arrange a date and time to inspect and copy such records. 30 Respectfully submitted, ELLIS, CARSTARPHEN, DOUGHERTY State Bar No. 06575050 Douglas B. Dougherty State Bar No. 06031650 Lawrence E. Goldenthal State Bar No. 08089508 720 N. Post Oak, Ste. 330 Houston, Texas 77024 Telephone: (713)647-6800 Facsimile: (713)647-6884 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PHARMACIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the day ofNovember, 2001, a copy ofthe foregoing was sent by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, to counsel for PlaintiffDan Wilkes, by and through his attorneys ofrecord, Scott Frost and Elizabeth R. Schick, Baron & Budd, The Centrum, Suite 1100, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219, and was sent by regular United States mail to all other known counsel of record. 31 CAUSE NO. 01-02816-D RAFORD EARL GRESHAM, ET AL. VS. U.S. GYPSUM COMPANY, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 95th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF DAN WILKES' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SUBJECT TO MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO: PlaintiffDan Wilkes, by and through his attorneys ofrecord, Elizabeth Schick and Scott Frost, Baron & Budd, The Centrum, Suite 1100, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219. Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and subject to its motion to transfer venue, attached as Exhibit 1 are Defendant Pharmacia Corporation's, formerly known as Monsanto Company, objections and responses to PlaintiffDan Wilkes' First Set oflnterrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission Propounded on Premises Defendant Monsanto Company. Respectfully submitted, ELLIS, CARSTARPHEN, DOUGHERTY & GOLDENTHAL P.C. G. Joe Ellis State-Bar No. 06575050 Douglas B. Dougherty State Bar No. 06031560 Lawrence E. Goldenthal State Bar No. 08089508 720 N. Post Oak, Suite 330 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 647-6800 (713) 647-6884 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE T^ I hereby certify that on the U day of November, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was sent by United States certified mail/retum receipt requested to counsel for Plaintiffs as follows and to all other known counsel of record by regular United States mail: Scott Frost Elizabeth Schick Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 Lawrence E. Goldenthal Exhibit "1" I. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS, AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS 1. Defendant objects to Instruction No. 1 seekingto require a particular manner of production ofresponsive documents on the grounds that it incorrectly states what is require by the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and improperly seeks to impose an obligation beyond, or more restrictive than that allowed under those rules. Defendant will comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in responding. 2. Defendant objects to Definition No. 1, attempting to define "Defendant", "you", "your" and "your company" to include legally separate and distinct corporate entities who are not parties to this case on the grounds that such is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and goes beyond the scope ofdiscovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Defendant objects to Definition No. 2, attempting to define "document", "written materials" and "printed matters" to include matters outside the scope ofdiscovery under the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure, specifically attempting to require production ofmaterials that are not within the Defendant's possession, custody or control, on the grounds that such is beyond the scope ofdiscovery and the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure, overlybroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Defendant objects to DefinitionNo. 16 attemptingto define the term "identify" with regard to a document to the extent such definition seeks to limit Defendant's right to identify a document by simply producing it, on the grounds that such seeks to impose obligations beyond the scope ofdiscovery, amounts to multiple interrogatories and subparts, is unduly burdensome and harassing. 5. Defendant objects to Definition No. 21 with respect to Plaintiffs term "Time Period at Issue" to the extent it applies to the totality ofthe period 1945 until 1989 on the grounds that such is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, not relevant to Plaintiffs claims and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6. Defendant objects to Plaintiff s Interrogatories, specifically enumerated interrogatories nos. 1 through 20, including all subparts, in their entirety on the grounds that the number ofinterrogatories, counting discrete subparts, exceeds the allowable number under Rule 190.3(b)(3), Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. -D- II. GENERAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS REGARDING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS In response to Plaintiffs requests fordocuments and Plaintiffs interrogatories in response to which Defendant has referred to documents which may contain responsive information, subject to and without waiving the objections stated herein. Defendant further responds that documents responsive to Plaintiff s requests were previously copied and provided to Plaintiff s counsel at their request in a prior separate action. Still subject to and without waiving Defendant's objections, additional documents which maybe responsive to some ofPlaintiffs discovery requests are available for inspection and will be made available at the offices ofDefendant ' s counsel at a mutually agreeable time upon reasonable request. Furthermore, subject to and without waiving Defendant's objections, as further documents that may be responsive to Plaintiffs discovery requests are obtained, if any, such will likewise be made available for inspection. III. ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.3, Plaintiffis hereby advised that material or information which may be responsive to Plaintiff s discovery requests is privileged, and has been withheld from this response on that basis. The privileged materials and information covered by this Assertion ofPrivileged Documents relate to each and every request for production and applicable interrogatory and request for admission in this litigation. The material and informationwithheld pursuant to this Assertion ofPrivileged Documents includes: (a) confidential communications made for the purpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services for the client between the client or a representative ofthe client and the client's lawyers or representatives of the lawyers; (b) confidential communications made for the purpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services for the client between the client's lawyers or lawyers' representatives; (c) confidential communications made for the purpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services for the client by the client or a representative ofthe client, or the client's lawyers or the lawyers ' representatives, to a lawyer or a representative ofa lawyer representing another party in an action that was pending at that time, and concerning a matter of common interest therein; -4- (d) confidential communications made for the purpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services for the client between representatives ofthe client or between the client and a representative of the client; (e) confidential communications made for the purpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services for the client among lawyers and their representatives representing the same client; (f) returns or reports required by law to be made; (g) trade secrets owned by the client or other information ofa confidential and/or proprietary nature or which otherwise may be the proper subject of a request for confidentiality and/or protective order; (h) privileged communications to or from lawyers or lawyers ' representatives which were created or made from the point at which the client consulted a lawyer in the defense of claims that one or more individuals were injured as the result ofexposure to asbestos fibers on a premises owned by Monsanto, other than in this particular lawsuit, and which communications concern litigation and claims other than the claims in this particular lawsuit; (i) privileged documents oflawyers or lawyers' representatives which were created or made from the point at which the client consulted a lawyer in the defense of claims that one or more individuals were injured as the result ofexposure to asbestos fibers on a premises owned by Monsanto, other than in this particular lawsuit, and which documents concern litigation and claims other than the claims in this particular lawsuit; (j) material prepared, or mental impressions developed, in anticipation oflitigation, including other litigation as described above, or for trial (including other trials besides this case) by or for the client or the client's representatives, including the client's attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, employees, or agents; (k) communications made in anticipation oflitigation, including other litigation as described above, or for trial (including other trials besides this case) between a client and the client's representatives, or among the client's representatives, including the client's attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, employees, or agents; (l) work product ofan attomeyor an attorney's representatives that contain the attorney's or the attorney's representative's mental impressions, opinions, conclusions or legal theories in this lawsuit, and in other lawsuits, both pending and resolved, in which it has been alleged that one or more individuals were injured as the result of exposure to asbestos fibers on a premises owned by Monsanto. For a description ofthe material and infonnation withheld pursuant to this Assertion of Privileged Documents, a list ofprivileged documents is available upon appropriate request from Defendant's counsel of record. -0- Finally, depending on the resolution ofthe General and Specific Objections made in this response, additional documents may also be withheld from discovery based upon this Assertion ofPrivileged Documents. In such event, Defendant will supplement the list of privileged documents. IV. DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories, or who assisted in identifying, locating or retrieving documents responsive to Plaintiff s Requests for Production, identify such person and include the length oftime employed by Defendant or other employer, and a yearby-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held. ANSWER: Responses to these interrogatories are based upon Defendant's corporate knowledge. As such, information responsive to some or all ofthese interrogatories has been accumulated over a period oftime and specific sources ofparticular information cannot be determined. These responses were prepared based upon available information by both outside legal counsel and in-house 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 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and overly broad. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant states that it has always di ligently attempted to keep abreast ofthe published medical literature pertaining to asbestos-related diseases. This type of in formation, and knowledge thereof, was developed gradually over time and is -6- c siantly evolving. Additionally, it is difficult, ifnot impossible, for any corporate entityto pinpoint when it ` `became aware" ofany particular issue, and Defendant is presently unable to state when it first became aware ofany suspected link between asbestos exposure and any physical ailments. Moreover, Monsanto cannot agree with the premise that there is a causal connection between asbestos exposure and physical ailments without first knowing the details regarding the specific ailment involved, the nature, duration and intensity ofany alleged exposure, as well as the medical and work history ofany specific individual in whom a causal connection between asbestos exposure and such ailments is alleged. More detailed information concerning when and by what means Monsanto may have become aware ofasbestos-related diseases is not within the personal knowledge ofcurrent employees ofMonsanto, but some ofthis information may be obtained from a review ofthe documents which have previously been produced to Plaintiff s counsel and which will be made available for inspection again upon request. 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. ifany individuals employed by Defendant or representing Defendant were members of committees or subcommittees ofany 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 on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is not reasonably limited in scope to any relevant time frame, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing. Defendant states that Monsanto has had a policy of -7- paying for association memberships for its professional employees. Gathering information on these individual memberships, committee memberships and specific meetings attended over the last 50+ years is impossible. However, Defendant has found that individuals within Monsanto's organization maintained the followingmemberships, but is unable to state at this time whether the following organizations and/or associations actually published or disseminated documents or information relating to asbestos: Industrial Hygiene Foundation, member 1937-1954 American Chemistry Council (formerly Chemical Manufacturers Association and Manufacturing Chemists Association), member since 1910 American Petroleum Institute, member 1955-1986 Texas Chemical Council, member 1960's-198 5 Industrial Medical Association, member, dates unknown National Safety Council, member since 1916 American Industrial Hygiene Association, member since 1957 American Congress ofGovernmental and Industrial Hygienists, member, dates unknown GulfCoast Section ofAmerican Industrial Hygiene Association, member, dates unknown Texas Safety Association, member, dates unknown Texas Public Health Association, member, dates unknown American Academy of Occupational Medicine, member, dates unknown American Academy of Occupational Hygiene, member, dates unknown American Medical Association, member, dates unknown INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify Defendant's employees or former employees or representatives who attended any proceedings, symposia, or conferences ofa scientific or medical or technical nature at which information or documents relating to asbestos was discussed, disseminated, orpublished (including, by way ofexample, 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 ofSciences, October 1964, and for each such individual, state the proceedings, symposia, or conferences attended and to whom within your 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 on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is not reasonably limited in scope as to any relevant time frame, locations or persons. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that gathering information on individual 8- conferences attended by employees over the last 50+ years is impossible; however, information responsive to this interrogatory may be contained within the documents which have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request, and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify each company from which you acquired asbestos-containing products used at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the years Plaintiffhas indicated he worked at Defendant's 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 on the grounds and to t' j extent that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, seeks information that is not relevant or material :o the parties or issues in this case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited in time, is not limited to the asbestos-containing products used in units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked, and is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plaintiff allegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing obj ections. Defendant states that, based upon the information available to it at this time, asbestos was present in anumber ofmaterials used in and around its Texas facilities, including gaskets, packing, floor tiles, transit board, roofing materials, siding, and pipe and vessel insulation. Inasmuch as insulation containing asbestos was the only available insulating material for use in certain applications at industrial plants such as Defendant's Texas facilities prior to the 1970's, Defendant generally used asbestos-containing insulation products in units where pipes and vessels required such insulation materials. Defendant believes that asbestos-containing insulation materials may have been used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. More detailed information concerning the dates when and locations where asbestos-containing products were used or installed in Defendant's Texas facilities is not known at the present time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifother responsive infonnation becomes available. However, some of this information may be contained within the documents which have previously been produced to Plaintiff s counsel and will be made available again upon request and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiffas it is for Defendant. Detailed information concerning trade or common names of asbestos-containing products present in the Defendant's Texas facilities is either unavailable at this time or may be ascertained from the answer below or from documents referenced above or from testimony of former employees or workers who worked at Defendant's Texas facilities. -9- Furthermore, and without waiving the foregoing, and based upon the information which is available to it at this time, however. Defendantbelieves that Johns Manville and Owens-Coming were manufacturers ofsome ofthe insulation products that were present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. Defendant believes that the following were makers or distributors ofasbestos-containing materials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities: J. T. Thorpe (insulation materials); Lion Oil (Nokorode, a water proofing mastic); GulfSupply (gaskets); Lamons (gaskets); Marine Petro (gaskets); John Crane (gaskets); Texas Marine (gaskets); Triplex (gaskets); and Flexitallic (gaskets). Defendant does not know, and is unable at this time to identify with any reasonable degree ofaccuracy, the distributors ofother possible asbestos-containing materials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. More detailed information concerning the product names, what such products were used for, sellers and/or manufacturers, locations where installed, when purchased and persons and entities who may have installed asbestos-containing products present in Defendant's Texas facilities is unavailable at this time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure if other responsive information becomes available. However, some ofthis information maybe contained within the documents which have previously been produced to Plaintiffs' counsel and which will be made available again to Plaintiffupon request and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiffas it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Ifany 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 ofeach abatement procedure; and 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 on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the claims in this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not limited in time, is not reasonably limited to the asbestos-containing products used in units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked, is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plaintiff allegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. -10- Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant states that, in line with Defendant's corporate policy, its plants began the systematic removal ofasbestos-containing material in the 1970s. Removal was accomplished as asbestos-containing insulation materials had to be replaced on each pipe or vessel in each unit ofDefendant' s facilities. Where removal was inappropriate. Defendant encapsulated those materials and such were maintained in this encapsulated condition eitherby steel piping, paint orduct tape and, as such, were in a non-friable state. Further, information responsive to this request maybe contained within the documents that have previously been made available to Plaintiffs counsel for inspection and copying and which will be produced again upon request and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofevery person known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge offacts 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 ofasbestos-containing products to which Plaintiffwas exposed or facts disputing the identification or location of such product or type of products. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory and the phrase "known to you, your agents, or contractors" to the extent it requires a response as to matters not specific to this particular Defendant but as to other separate entities and would require this Defendant to speculate as to the matters inquired of. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is the subject ofa Request for Disclosure. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that discovery and investigation offacts is ongoing. Defendant does not know that Plaintiffwas ever present at or worked on its premises, the work he may have performed, at what location, area or unit within Defendant' s facility at which he may have performed anywork, or the exact details existing at the time Plaintiffwas allegedly on Defendant's premises at issue. For further response, Defendant refers Plaintiffto Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure. 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, ifapplicable, ofevery 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 ofjob title, including but not limited to "plant -11- engineers," "proj ect engineers," "company engineers," "project superintendents," "purchasing agents" or job descriptions ofa similar nature) and specifically include those whose duties and responsibilities included the following: a. entering into contracts orpurchase 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 authorizingpayment for work done by such contractors. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory and the phrase "known to you, your agents, or contractors" to the extent it requires a response as to matters not specific to this particular Defendant but as to other separate entities and would require this Defendant to speculate as to the matters inquired of. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the claims in this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence; it is not limited or specific enough as to time, or units or areas within a facility where Plaintiff allegedly worked, is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plaintiffallegedlyworked and/or to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant responds that some ofthis information maybe obtained from the documents which have or will be produced to Plaintiffs' counsel and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: If you have or have had an industrial hygiene or safety or medical department, please a. 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 b. with respect to Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofevery 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 ofwhether they worked directly on Defendants' Premises if -12- they had such responsibilities for workers on Defendant's Premises At Issue, and identify such individuals as affiliate'1 h the corporate headquarters of Defendant.) ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppresswe and onerous. Defendant further objects to the phrase "known to you, your agents, or contractors" to the extent it requires a response as to matters not specific to this Defendant but as to other separate entities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: a. Defendant has operated a corporate medical department, which included industrial hygiene, since at least i946. b. Elmer Wheeler (deceased) Corporate industrial hygiene director 1947-1974 Jack T. Garrett (deceased) Corporate industrial hygiene director 1974-1985 Provided industrial hygiene services to Texas City plant from 1950s-1970s or 1980s Carl Bohl 455 Wildewood Parkway Baldwin, MO 63011 Corporate industrial hygienist 1966-1991 Bruce Eley c/o Solutia Inc. 575 Maryville Centre Drive St. Louis, MO 63141 Corporate industrial hygiene manager 1971-1987 John E. Fox HC 64 Box 605 Harper, TX 78631 (210) 669-2744 Texas City industrial hygiene supervisor late 1950s -1985 Chocolate Bayou industrial hygiene supervisor 1960-1977 -13- Donald C. Meade c/o Solutia Inc. FM 2917, Mortensen Road Alvin, TX 77512 Chocolate Bayou industrial hygiene supervisor 1977-1979 James C. Edwards 2418 Baycrest Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-5134 Chocolate Bayou industrial hygiene supervisor 1980-1981 Jacqueline Gail Peterson c/o Pharmacia Corporation 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63167 Chocolate Bayou industrial hygiene supervisor 1982-1985 Dr. R. Emmet Kelly (deceased) Corporate medical director (1946-1974) Dr. George Roush (deceased) Corporate medical director (1975-1986) Dr. Barry Friedlander Corporate medical director (1988-1994) For further response, Defendant refers to an incorporates herein by reference responsive information contained within Defendant's response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure. 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 ofasbestos 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 -14- 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 anywarnings ofthe possibility ofinjury from the use or exposure to 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility or anyreasonable time period and is not limited to the specific units or areas within Defendant's facility at which Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant does not know that Plaintiff was ever present at or worked on its premises, the work he may have performed, what location he performed any work, or the exact details existing at the time Plaintiffwas allegedly on Defendant's premises. However, although Defendant has no record ofany communications directly with Plaintiff, Defendant states that it provided a safe workplace and appropriate safety information to workers on its premises at all relevant times. It is Defendant's position that Plaintiff, and all other persons at Defendant's facility, were not exposed to asbestos at levels then thought to be hazardous. The existence, nature and extent of the safety information known by and available to, and the precautions taken for and by, Monsanto's employees and its contractors would have depended on the year when the work was performed, the type ofwork done, the location ofthe work performed, the particular contractor involved, the particular employee involved, the anticipated level of airborne particles, the terms ofthe contract between Monsanto and the contractor, and other factors. Generally, Monsanto's policies and safety measures evolved over the years along with the increase in knowledge of the risks associated with exposures to dust and asbestos and Monsanto always attempted to stay abreast ofpertinent information and comply with or exceed the minimum requirements for safety for all workers on its premises. Monsanto held regular impromptu safety meetings where appropriate safe work practices and the potential hazards of many products and processes were discussed. However, it is not possible to state the first time a warning was given about the hazards of asbestos exposure. Further, responsive information may be contained within documents which have previously been produced to Plaintiff's counsel and which will be produced again upon request and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiffas it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If Defendant 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 -15- 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 obj ects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, overly broad, and not reasonably limited to any relevant time frame or location. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive information maybe obtained from documents which have previouslybeen produced to Plaintiffs counsel and which will be made available again upon request, and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiffas it is for Defendant. Additionally, due to the passage oftime and the passing offormer employees who may have knowledge relevant to this interrogatory, it is virtually impossible to know the individuals who received, maintained, reviewed or disseminated the information contained in such written materials or when, how and why these materials came into Defendant's possession. 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 on the grounds and to the extent that this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the parties or issues in this case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited in time, is not limited to the asbestos-containing products used in units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked, and is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plainti ffallegedly worked and/or to which Plainti ffwas allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that, based upon the information available to it at this time, asbestos was present in a number ofmaterials used in and around its Texas facilities, including gaskets, packing, floor tiles, transit board, roofing materials, siding, and pipe and vessel insulation. Inasmuch as insulation containing asbestos was the only available insulating material -16- for use '"' ^ ; a;ions at industrial plants such as Defendant's Texas facilities prior to the 1970's, D-D ................... used asbestos-containing insulation products in units where pipes and vessels required such .nsuianon marenals. Defendant believes that asbestos-containing insulation materials mayhavebeen used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets mayhavebeen used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. More detailed information concerning the dates when and locations where asbestos-containing products were used or installed in Defendant's Texas facilities is not known at the present time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifother responsive informationbecomes available. However, some o fthis information maybe derived or ascertained from an examination ofthe documents ofthis Defendant, which have oreviouslybeen made available to Plaintiff s counsel and which will be made available again upon request. Detailed information concerning trade or common names ofasbestos-containing products present in the Defendant's Texas facilities is either unavailable at this time or maybe ascertained from the answer below or from documents referred to above or from testimony offormer employees or workers who wonted on Defendant's Premises in Texas. Based upon the information which is available to it at this time, however, Defendant believes that Johns Manville and Owens-Coming were manufacturers ofsome ofthe insulation products that were present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. Defendantbelieves that the following were makers or distributors ofasbestos-containing materials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities: J. T. Thorpe (insulation materials); Lion Oil (Nokorode, a water-proofing mastic); GulfSupply (gaskets); Lamons (gaskets); Marine Petro (gaskets); John Crane (gaskets); Texas Marine (gaskets); Triplex (gaskets); and Flexitallic (gaskets). Defendant does not know, and is unable at this time to identify with any reasonable degree ofaccuracy, the distributors ofother possible asbestos-containing materials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. More detailed information concerning the product names, what such products were used for, sellers and/or manufacturers, locations where installed, when purchased, how used and persons and entities who may have installed asbestos-containing products present in Defendant's Texas facilities is unavailable at this time and Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifother responsive information becomes available. However, some ofthis information may be ascertained from an examination ofthe documents referred to above and the burden of such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Defendant. 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 use, installed, or fabricated dunng 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 -17- b. the period during which asbestos-containing materials were stored, used, prepared for use, installed or fabricated. ANSWER: Defendant obj ects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant ormaterial to the claims or parties or issues in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed and is not limited to areas or units where Plaintiffallegedly worked and to the extent that it is not limited to the specific time period Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, with regard to Defendant's Texas facilities, Defendant responds that it purchased its former Texas City facility located at 201 Bay Street South, Texas City, from the U.S. Government in 1946 and sold it to Sterling Chemicals, Inc. on August 1,1996 and that Defendant built its former Chocolate Bayou facility located at FM 2917 (Mortensen Road), Alvin, Texas and owned and operated it from 1962 until 1997 at which time it was transferred to Solutia Inc. Fur further response, please see responses to Interrogatories 5 and 12. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: For any ofDefendant's Premises At Issue, during the Time Period At Issue, ifyou, your affiliates, subsidiaries, or predecessors), arranged for any ofyour 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 ofasbestos 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited or specific as to the relevant time, areas or units where Plainti ffallegedly worked or to any particular types of products claimed to be relevant to Plaintiff s claims and therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the -18- foregoing objections, Defendant responds that dust monitoring and air sampling were conducted at Monsanto 's Texas facilities and laboratory analyses ofair samples were performed. Industrial hygienists at Monsanto's Texas facilities and Monsanto corporate industrial hygienists would have collected the dust samples prior to the early 1970s. Monsanto purchased a Bausch & Lomb dust counter in 1947 for the purposes ofair sampling to determine working conditions at its facilities. Some samples would have been sent to outside laboratories for analysis using particle counting methods. In later years, a phase contrast microscope and an electron microscope were purchased and similar analyses were done. Starting in the early 1970s when asbestos fibers would be counted using phase-contrast light microscopy, samples were sent to Monsanto's physical science center or its John F. Queeny plant for analysis. Air sampling, monitoring, and industrial hygiene programs increased in the later years along with the increased indications in the published literature regarding the potential health risks from long-term exposure to given levels of airborne particles, including asbestos, and the publication ofgovernmental guidelines regarding airborne particles, including asbestos. The results ofthe monitoring and sampling performed always revealed then safe and acceptable levels of airborne particles at Monsanto's Texas facilities. Further, responsive information maybe obtained from documents which have previouslybeen produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be produced again upon request, and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: For the Time Period At Issue, ifyou 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 ofyour 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. -19- ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, is overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is not limited to Defendant's premises where Plaintiffalleges to have worked, or to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant can state that based upon information available at this time, since before Monsanto acquired its first plant in Texas from the United States Government in 1946, it recommended dust masks and made them available to workers on its premises who worked in dusty conditions. Byno later that 1950, Monsanto provided respirators approved by the U.S. Bureau ofMines, and later NIOSH, to persons working in dusty conditions at all ofits facilities. Later, Defendant further increased its safety and industrial hygiene programs and personnel along with increased emphasis and warnings concerning dust and asbestos-containing materials. Further, to the extent such are considered responsive, Defendant further states that during relevant times it required periodic medical exams and chest x-rays for its workers, and also, in the 1960's, Dr. Emmett Kelly, corporate medical director, surveyed for the incidence ofcertain illnesses in its employees in connection with potential exposures to asbestos. Additionally, Monsanto provided a safe workplace and appropriate safety information to workers on its premises at all relevant times. The existence, nature and extent of the safety information known by and available to, and the precautions taken for and by, Monsanto's employees and its contractors would have depended on the year when the work was performed, the type ofwork done, the location ofthe work performed, the particular contractor involved, the particular employee involved, the anticipated level ofairborne particles, the terms ofthe contract between Monsanto and the contractor, and other factors. Generally, Monsanto 's policies and safety measures evolved over the years along with the increase in knowledge ofthe risks associated with exposures to dust and asbestos and Monsanto always attempted to stay abreast of pertinent information and comply with or exceed the minimum requirements for safety for all workers on its premises. Monsanto held regular impromptu safetymeetings where appropriate safe work practices and the potential hazards of many products and processes were discussed. The contractors hired by Defendant held themselves out to be experienced and competent contractors familiar with the work involved, the risks attendant thereto, the safety equipment necessary for the work to be performed, and the regulations and standards governing the performance of their work. Defendant's contractors also were required by contract to comply with all applicable laws and regulations relating to dust and airborne asbestos. As such, Defendant relied on those contractors to provide the requisite and appropriate guidance, safety measure and safety equipment when working with and around asbestos-containing materials. For further response, responsive information maybe obtained from documents which have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request, and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. -20- INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state for each ofDefendant's Premises At Issue, all relevant State and Federal regulations, laws, statute, mandates, or other authoritypertaining to industrial hygiene, safety, and health ofwhich 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 of asbestos containing waste from such removal or abatement activities. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not limited to the specific areas or units at Defendant's facility where Plaintiffallegedlyworked or any reasonable scope oflocations and to the extent that it is not limited to the specific time period Plaintiff allegedly worked at Defendant's facility. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive information maybe obtained from documents which have previouslybeen produced to PlaintifFs counsel and which will be made available again upon request and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: For any ofDefendant' 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 obj ects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not limited to the specific units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked or any reasonable scope of locations and to the extent that it is not limited to the specific time period Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive information may be obtained from documents which have previouslybeen produced to Plaintiffs counsel and which will be made available again upon request and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. -21- 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. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law. Additionally, Defendant objects on the grounds that such interrogatory is not reasonably limited or specific as to any relevant time, facility, or unit where Plaintiffallegedly worked or any other relevant location. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that to the best ofits current knowledge, the first claim ofthis type inquired ofwas a worker's compensation claim filed by an employee in its Springfield, Massachusetts plant alleging some type of asbestos-related injury on August 15, 1979. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Ifyou contend that you did not own or operate or control the Defendants' Premises during the Time Period At Issue, or ifyou 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 ofDefendant and its ownership, sale, acquisition, or divestiture or any ofDefendant's Premises At Issue and any relevant mergers, acquisitions, consolidation, or other events ofsimilar nature that you believe bear on the issue of ownership, control, assumption ofliabilities for acts occurring on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue and identity and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofevery person known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge of facts relevant to this issue. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Defendant further objects to the defined "Time Period At Issue" as overly broad and vague. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, with regard to ownership and operation ofthe facility at issue, with regard to the Time Period At Issue i.e. 19451989, Defendant states that it purchased its formerTexas City Plant from the U.S. Government in 1946 and sold it to Sterling Chemicals, Inc. on August 1,1986. With regard to the issue of"control," Defendant acknowledges that it had the right in general terms to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant, to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines, order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports, but denies that it had the right to control the means, methods, and details ofindependent contractors' work. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Ifyou contend that venue is not proper, identifybymunicipality and county the location you contend is your principal place ofbusiness within this state for purposes ofvenue, 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 ofbusiness, identify up to four ofyour places ofbusiness where your highest level decision makers within this state work. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as to that portion of this interrogatory inquiring of Defendant's "next three most significant business locations" on the grounds that it is overly broad, seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or mat t ri a: in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and goes oeyc nd the permissible scope ofdiscovery under the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Monsanto responds that it has filed a motion to transfer venue denying the county ofsuit is a proper county for venue purposes and it is Plaintiff s burden to establish proper venue. Discovery is ongoing and Defendant will supplement this response as may be appropriate. V. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and because it is not reasonably limited to the relevant time period when Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility, is not limited to the units or areas within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked or to the specific materials to which Plaintiffalleges he was exposed. Subject to and withoutwaiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have previously beenproducedto Plaintiff s counsel and will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents that relate to abatement ofasbestos or asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue and transportation of asbestos-containing waste. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the claims made by Plaintiff, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited to the relevant time period when Plaintiffallegedlyworked atDefendant's facility, is not limited to the units or areas within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked, or to the specific materials to which Plaintiffalleges he was exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have previouslybeen produced to Plaintiff's counsel and will be made available again upon request. 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks infonnation that is not relevant or material to the claims made by Plaintiff, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited to the relevant time period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility, is not limited to the units or areas within Defendant's plant where Plaintiff allegedly worked, orto the speci fic materials to which Plainti ffalleges he was exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. -24- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all records pertaining to the methods and manner ofidentification ofindividuals entering and/or leaving Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility, or any reasonable time period, and is not limited to any reasonable scope oflocations. Subject to the foregoing objections, no such records are known to exist. 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, work orders, specifications, blueprints, plans, acceptances, contracts, amendments, addenda, change orders, inspection reports, work logs or contractor logs, including but not limited to all ofthe contractor documents referring to work to be done, underway, or completed by Plaintiff's employer at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks information that is not relevant or material to Plaintiff's claims, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is not limited to any reasonable scope of locations or the specific units or areas within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked or any reasonable scope oftype ofcontractor or type ofwork being performed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have previouslybeen produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents reflecting payments made to Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiff s employer. -25- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, onerous, not limited to the specific time period Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility or any reasonable time frame, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, concerns contracts for work which Plaintiffis not alleging could expose him to asbestos and for areas or units of Monsanto ' s facility where Plaintiffdoes not allege to have worked and is not reasonably limited to any relevant time frame or scope of locations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all photographs or videographic depictions or films depicting the use ofany safety precautions (such as containment areas, warning signs, etc.) taken to protect bystanders from the hazards ofairborne asbestos resulting from the use ofasbestos-containing products at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility, or any reasonable time period, and is not limited to any reasonable scope oflocations. Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have previously been produced to Plaintiff's counsel and will be made available again upon request. 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and because it is not limited to any reasonable time frame or to documents that may have been posted at, issued by or at, circulated by or at, or maintained by or at Defendant's Texas faci lities or Defendant's corporate -26- headquarters for workers at Defendant's Texas facilities. Defendant further objects to any requirement, as a result ofthe a lity attendant to the term "warnings" in this request, to review the entire company filesandemp ,es and library ofpublications it has for documents responsive to this request on the grounds that such a request is onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden on Defendant to search for, gather and produce the requested documents is far greater than any reasonable probative value those documents would possess for Plaintiffin this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all photographs ofwarning 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiffin this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types of materials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have previouslybeen produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. 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 of your 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plainti ff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to Defendant's Texas facility at which Plaintiffalleges to have worked, is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked, 27- and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period. Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing obj ections, documents responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products and Monsanto's Texas facilities, have previouslybeen produced to Plaintiff s counsel and will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. If: In the event that Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts or measurements ofany ofits plant or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, please produce any documents, memoranda, or other writings that in any way reflect the results ofsuch studies or counts and actions taken as a result of such counts or studies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made bythe Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to Defendant's Texas facilities or the relevant time period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility, is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's facility where Plaintiffallegedly worked or to the specific materials to which Plaintiffalleges he was exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and subject to the stated limitations, documents responsive to this request relating to Monsanto's Texas facilities have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to Defendant's Texas facility at which Plaintiffalleges to have worked, is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked, and/or to the types of materials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products and Monsanto's Texas facilities, have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. -28- 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to any requirement, as a result ofthis request, to review all of its files and employee's files and the library ofpublications it has and its employees mayhave for documents responsive to this request on the grounds that such a request in onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden on Defendant to search for, locate and produce responsive documents would be undulyburdensome, onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden would far outweigh any reasonable probative value that any responsive documents mayprovide to the Plaintiffin this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents from Defendant's corporate offices and Texas facilities have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents supporting the legal theories and factual bases ofyour defenses set forth in your response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure underTexas Rules ofCivil Procedure 194.2, subparagraph (c). RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, global, lacks the specificity required for a proper document request, and seeks to require the marshaling of evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Ifyou contend that Plaintiffwas not exposed to asbestos dust at Defendant's Premises At Issue, please produce the documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity, and seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence. Subject to and without waving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that discovery and investigation of facts is ongoing and Defendant will supplement this response should more information be discovered. Defendant does not know -29- that Plaintiff was ever present at or worked on its premises, the work he may have performed, what location he performed any work, or the exact details existing at the time Plaintiff was allegedly on Defendant's premises. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request may be contained within the documents which have previously been produced to Plaintiff s counsel and will be made available again upon request. 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 on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, overacting and lacks the specificity required ofaproper document request. Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing obj ection, Defendant is unable to specifically identify such documents. However, documents containing information used to develop information contained within Defendant's discoveryresponses have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. 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. Anyrecord 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. -30- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited to any reasonable orrelevant time frame or locations, is overlybroad, onerous and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have previouslybeen produced to Plaintiff1s counsel and will be made available again upon request. 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 ofthe subject matter areas of Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, overreaching, not limited to any reasonable time period or subj ect matter, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce all books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials ofany kind or character that 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 on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, overly broad, not reasonably limited to any relevant time frame or location and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents ofthe type requested from Defendant's corporate offices and Texas facilities have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. -31- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Please produce all documents that reflect, indicate or in any way relate to communications between you and any manufacturer ofasbestos-containing products concerning or related to the asbestos contained in such products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific-facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to the and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents from Defendant's corporate offices and Texas facilities have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. 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 ofasbestos and all documents which refer to such documents and any documents pertaining to meetings ofsuch trade associations that were attended by any of your employees or representatives. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, overly broad, not reasonably limited to any relevant time frame or location and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents ofthe type requested from Defendant's corporate offices andTexas facilities have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce all of Defendant's safety meeting minutes that refer to the dangers of asbestos. -32- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, overly broad, not reasonably limited to any relevant time frame or location and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing obj ections, responsive documents ofthe type requested from Defendant's corporate offices and Texas facilities have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiffin this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types of materials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Please produce all documents related to the medical condition ofPlaintiffat anytime 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 ofany kind, annual physical forms, and any records relating to Plaintiffs health. RESPONSE: No responsive documents are known to exist. 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that no responsive documents are known to exist other than those documents obtained by Defendant during discovery in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Please produce all documents that reflect or depict in any way the layout ofDefendant's Premises At Issue, including the location and dimensions ofall buildings and the location and placement ofasbestoscontaining products, and specifically including all photographs, plats, maps, diagrams, blueprints, drawings, specifications or other architectural renderings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents that are not relevant or material to the claims made by Plaintiffin this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked, to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Please produce all demonstrative aids Defendant plans to use at trial in this matter. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence. Furthermore, this request is premature at this time; Defendant has not yet determined which, if any, demonstrative aids it will use at the time of trial. -34- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28. Please 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents that are not relevant or material to the claims made by Plaintiffin this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked, to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Please produce all documents relating to any individuals' claimed injury as a result ofexposure 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity, is unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiffin this case, is not reasonably limited as to time or location, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Please produce all documents that in any way reflect corporate minutes, corporate records, departmental meetings or discussions, or meetings with agents or contractors that in any way discuss, note, or table a discussion ofthe hazards ofasbestos or potential hazards ofasbestos. 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. -35- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to leadto the discovery ofadmissible evidence, lacks the requisite specificity for aproper request, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked, the types of materials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Please produce all documents of corporate, board of directors, Defendant Premises representatives, departmental persons, task force, or other meetings ofmembers ofDefendant from 1940 until the last year ofthe 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, lacks the requisite specificity for aproperrequest, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to Defendant's facility at which Plaintiffallegedlyworked, the areas or units within Defendant' s plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked, to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Please produce all documents which will be used at the time oftrial, including all potential exhibits and those documents which maybe used to cross-examine other witnesses or in rebuttal, and which you contend are relevant to any ofDefendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's most recently filed Answer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity, and seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence. Furthermore, this request is premature at this time; Defendant has not yet determined which, if any, documents it will use at the time of trial. -36- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Please produce documents between Defendant and any ofits worker's compensation insurance carriers or any other insurance carriers regarding the hazards ofasbestos and asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents that are not relevant or material to the claims made by Plaintiffin this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked, to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is not aware at this time of any responsive documents relating to its Texas facilities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Please produce documents between Defendant and any ofits insurance carriers relating to any inspections carried out by the insurance carrier in which asbestos or dust in general was mentioned RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents that are not relevant or material to the claims made by Plaintiffin this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the areas or units within Defendant' s plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked, to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant is not aware at this time of any responsive documents relating to its Texas facilities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Please produce a copy ofall regulations, orders, rules and/or policies which have been used relating to the safety of the Defendant's Premises'At Issue. -37- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made bythe Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the relevant time period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility, is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's facilitywhere Plaintiffallegedly worked or to the specific materials to which Plaintiffalleges he was exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. 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 workplace conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the relevant time period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility, is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's facility where Plaintiffallegedly worked or to the specific materials to which Plaintiffalleges he was exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents which maybe responsive to this request, insofar as it relates to asbestos, maybe contained within the documents that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and which will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce all documents which contain complaints by Union representatives ofDefendant's Premises At Issue regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and because it is not -38- reasonably limited in scope to the relevant time period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility, is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's facility where Plaintiffallegedlyworked orto the specific materials to which Plaintiffalleges he was exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing obj ections, documents which maybe responsive to this request, insofar as it relates to asbestos, may be contained within the documents that have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and which will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce all documents, organizational charts or rosters which identify the members ofthe management at the Defendant's Premises At Issue and their areas ofresponsibility during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiffand is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents have previouslybeen produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, overreaching and because Defendant is a publicly traded company and the documents requested are public records and available to the general public. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that documents other than Defendant's 10-K forms and/or annual report for the current year would be duplicative, redundant, cumulative, overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, onerous, oppressive and harassing. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce its Annual Reports for the requested years and its most current Form 10-K. -39- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Please produce all documents which evidence Defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale, or transfer of ownership or liabilities relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is an impermissible fishing expedition and seeks privileged and confidential documents. 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 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity and seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence. Defendant further objects to this request and the phrase "all title documents" on the grounds that such is vague and fails to identify the documents sought. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Ifyou contend that you did not own or control the facilities) during any portion ofthe Time Period At Issue, please produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the purchase, sale, acquisitions, 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, 1 OK reports or other state or federal agency filings or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits ofyour corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. -40 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, lacks the requisite specificity and seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, based upon the Time Period At Issue i.e. 1945-1989, Defendant responds that it purchased the Texas City facility from the U.S. Government in 1946 and sold it to Sterling Chemicals on August 1,1986 and unless Plaintiffalleges he was present and exposed at such facilityprior to or after that time, then this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Ifyou contend that you have not been sued in the proper capacity as set forth in Plaintiff s latest petition, produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the history ofDefendant and any relevant purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment ofcorporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment ofthe facility(ies); such documentation to include, byway ofexample and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 1 OK reports or other state or federal agency filings, or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits ofyour corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and lacks the requisite specificity. Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing obj ections, Defendant states that this request is not applicable to it. 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law and seeks privileged and confidential documents. -41- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Ifyou 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 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and lacks the requisite specificity. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant states that based upon Plaintiffs definition of the time period at issue, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Ifyou contend that some or all ofDefendant'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 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and lacks the requisite specificity. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant states that based upon Plaintiffs definition of the time period at issue, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 47: Please produce all documents relating to your manufacturing ofany asbestos or asbestos-containing products, or products to which any amount ofasbestos was added, for use at any ofDefendant's facilities or for sale to others. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility at which Plaintiffalleges he worked, and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plainti ffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, certain responsive documents relating to this request have been located and have previously been produced to Plaintiff s counsel and will be made available again upon request. -42- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Please produce all documents relating to your use ofany asbestos containing materials, asbestos containing products or tools with which asbestos is used, for anyprocess taking place at any ofDefendant's facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the specific facility at which Plaintiffalleges he worked, and / or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents relating to Defendant's Texas facilities have previouslybeen produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Please produce all documents relating to your use, manipulation or handling ofasbestos in any industrial processes at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: Please produce all marketing and advertising materials related in any way to your manufacturing ofasbestos or asbestos-containing materials or your use ofasbestos or asbestos-containing materials in your industrial processes. -43- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the specific facility at which Plaintiffalleges he worked, and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiff allegedly worked. 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request bn the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plainti ffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiff allegedly worked. -44- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: Please produce all documents provided by you to otherplants or facilities relating to safety in the industry, audit procedures or means to eliminate dust exposure, including, but not limited to asbestos dust, at industrial facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, undulyburdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Please produce depositions and trial transcripts ofyour current or former employees or other corporate representatives taken in any matter involving an alleged injury 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 on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, undulyburdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Please produce exhibit lists produced to you by any other counsel for plaintiff in other cases involved claim of injury or property damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law. -45- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Please produce all correspondence from you to Plaintiffs employer and from Plaintiff's employer to you during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague since Plaintiffs employer has not been identified, overly broad, undulyburdensome, and not reasonably limited to any reasonable scope of time, location, subject matter or a specific location or the specific time period Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in any way any decision or discussion related to the cessation of the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products in any of your facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, vague and not reasonably limited in scope as to time, location, type ofproduct, or type ofwork. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request is not limited to Defendant's facility at which Plaintiffalleges to have worked or to the type ofmaterials to which Plaintiffalleges exposure. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant responds that documents responsive to this request may be included in the documents which have previously been produced to Plaintiffs counsel and which will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in any way any catalog or index or subscriptions or holdings ofany library or other research repository ofDefendant containing magazines, journals, books, publications or other documents relating to asbestos (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, etc.) RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not limited to any reasonable time period or subject matter. Defendant objects to any requirement, as a result of this request, to review all of its files and employee's files and the library of -46- publications it has and its employees may have for documents responsive to this request on the grounds that such a request in onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden on Defendant to search for, locate and produce responsive documents would be unduly burdensome, onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden would far outweigh any reasonable probative value that any responsive documents mayprovide to the PlaintifFin this case. Suoject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents from Defendant's corporat o dices and Texas facilities have previouslybeen produced to Plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Please produce all inventory, stock-on-hand, warehouse or other documents pertaining to asbestos-containing products that w ere 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the specific facility at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and/or the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's facility where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Please produce any letters, affidavits, or stipulations concerning authenticity ofany ofDefendant's documents provided by you in any other case involving claim ofinj ury or property damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law. -47- VI. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND FURTHER REQUESTS FOR 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 admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e. 1945-1989. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever present on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e. 1945-1989. To the extent any other portion ofthis request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: 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 -48- 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 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, lacks the requisite specificity, and seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that you have no air monitoring for asbestos taken onDefendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not limited to any unit or area within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked or was allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62 (sick Admit that results ofair monitoring for asbestos taken on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue indicate Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever present on Defendant's premises. Subject to the foregoing, the remainder of this request is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: 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. -49- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, lacks the requisite specificity, and seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. 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 admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue,'' i.e. 1945-1989. To the extent any other portion ofthis request has not been addressed, same is denied. 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 admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant' s Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e. 1945-1989. To the extent any other portion ofthis request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Defendant was aware ofthe presence ofasbestos-contai ning products on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. -50- RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant admits that it was aware ofthe presence ofand/or the use ofcertain asbestos products during certain portions ofPlaintiff s defined "time period at issue". Defendant denies that asbestos-containingproducts were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e. 1945-1989. To the extent any portion of the request has not been addressed, then same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Defendant was aware of the use of asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant admits that it was aware ofthe presence ofand/or the use ofcertain asbestos products during certain portions ofPlaintiff s defined "time period at issue". Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e. 1945-1989. To the extent any portion of the request has not been addressed, then same is denied. 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 on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or speci fic enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. -51- 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 obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that you specified the use ofasbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue prior to or during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e. 1945-1989. To the extent any other portion ofthis request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1950s. RESPONSE: Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1960s. -52- RESPONSE: Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1970s. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art guidelines and principles, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos containing materials in place in a non-friable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was most likely some amount of asbestos containing material still present at Defendant's Premises. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1980s. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art guidelines and principles, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos containing materials in place in a non-friable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was most likely some amount of asbestos containing material still present at Defendant's Premises. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1990s. -53- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, beyond the specific time frame when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility, and beyond the Plaintiffs own defined "time period at issue" i.e. 1945-1989. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any asbestos-containing products are still being specified, installed or applied at Defendant's Premises and admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Although Defendant sold the facility inquired about to Sterling Chemicals in 1986, Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art guidelines and principles, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos-containing materials in place in a non-friable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was probably some amount ofasbestos-containing material still physically present at such facility. 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 ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. 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 on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. -54- 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 on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subj ect to these objections, this request is denied. 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 obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor involved, areas or units where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: 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. -55- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity, and seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request maybe contained within the documents which have previouslybeen produced to Plaintiffs counsel, and which will be made available again upon request, and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that asbestos is still in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, beyond the specific time frame when Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility, and beyond the Plaintiffs own defined "time period at issue" i.e. 1945-1989. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant denies that any asbestos-containing products are still being specified, installed or applied at Defendant's premises and admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Although Defendant sold the facility inquired about to Sterling Chemicals in 1986, Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art guidelines and principles, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos-containing materials in place in a non-friable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired of there was probably some amount of asbestoscontaining material still physically present at such facility. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that asbestos is still in place at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, beyond the specific time frame when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility, and beyond the Plaintiff s own defined "time period at issue" i.e. 1945-1989. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies that any asbestos-containing products are still being specified, installed or applied at Defendant's premises and admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Although Defendant sold the facility inquired about to Sterling Chemicals in 1986, Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art -56- guidelines and principles, all r^v. _n;zing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos-containing materials in piace in a non-friable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was probably some amount ofasbestos-containing material still physically present at such facility. REQUEST FOR ADMISS NO. 23: Admit that the United States government has contracted with Defendant for work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and is not reasonably limited in scope as to time, or type ofactivity. Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant 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 on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and is not reasonably limited in scope as to time, or type ofactivity. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant 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 admits that it purchased the Texas City facility from the U.S. Government in 1946 and sold it to Sterling Chemicals on August 1, 1986. Defendant denies that it owned its Texas City faci lity during the entire period defined as the Time Period At Issue, i.e. 1945-1989. -57- 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 on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant admits that it purchased the Texas City facility from theU.S. Government in 1946 and sold it to Sterling Chemicals on August 1,1986. Defendant denies that it owned its Texas City facility during the entire period defined as the Time Period At Issue, i.e. 1945-1989. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admit that you did not conduct air monitoring for the presence ofasbestos dust during the time period in question. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad, not limited or specific enough as to time, facility, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiffor any other reasonable scope oftime and location. Subject to the foregoing objections, this request is denied. 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 on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or speci fic enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to the foregoing objections, this request is denied. -58- 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 on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, persons inquired of, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to the foregoing objections, this request is denied. 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, persons inquired of, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to the foregoing objections, this request is denied. 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 obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to the foregoing objections, this request is denied. 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. -59- RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to the foregoing objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to remove asbestos-containing materials from Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiffor to the time period Plaintiffwas allegedly working at Defendant's premises. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to replace asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiffor to the time period Plaintiff was allegedly working at Defendant's premises. Subject to the foregoing objections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiff s employer to install asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. -60- RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiffor to the time period Plaintiffwas allegedly working at Defendant's premises. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant 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. : ASPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiffor to the time period Plaintiffwas allegedly working at Defendant's premises. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plainti ffallegedly worked and the type o fwork al legedly done by Plainti ffor to the time period Plaintiffwas allegedly working at Defendant's premises. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Admit that you hired Plaintiff s employer to do "turnaround" work at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. -61- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiffor to the time period Plaintiffwas allegedly working at Defendant's premises. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant 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 on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, ambiguous and not limited or specific enough as to the time Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's Premises, or the units or areas within the facility at which Plaintiffallegedly worked or to the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to the foregoing objections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on Defendant's Premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admit that you instructed Plaintiff s employer concerning the work to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, ambiguous and not limited or specific enough as to the time Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's Premises, or the -62- units or areas within the facility at which Plaintiffallegedly worked or to the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant s* :es that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to ac nit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on Defendant's Premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. 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 on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, ambiguous and not limited or specific enough as to the time Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's Premises, or the units or areas within the facility at which Plaintiffallegedly worked or to the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subj ect to the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on Defendant's Premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that you showed Plaintiff s employer how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. -63 RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, ambiguous and not limited or specific enough as to the time Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's Premises, or the units or areas within the facility at which Plaintiffallegedly worked or to the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on Defendant's Premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: Admit that your specifications indicated to Plaintiffs employer how the work was to performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, ambiguous and not limited or specific enough as to the time Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant' s Premises, or the units or areas within the facility at which Plaintiffallegedly worked or to the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to the foregoing objections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on Defendant's Premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. -64- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: 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 document showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, lacks the requisite specificity, and seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence. Defendant further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited in time to the specific period in time when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant' s facility or any other reasonable time frame, or a specific facility or area within the facility Plaintiffallegedly worked or any other reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing obj ections, Defendant responds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admit that your specifications indicated to Plaintiff s employer what materials were to be used in performing the work on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, ambiguous and not limited or specific enough as to the time Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's Premises, or the units or areas within the facility at which Plaintiffallegedly worked or to the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's Premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: Ifyour response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support your response, including anydocuments 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 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, lacks the requisite specificity, and seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited in time to the specific period in time when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility or any other reasonable time frame, or a specific facility or area within the facility Plaintiffallegedly worked or any other reasonable scope oflocations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer or supervisor when to start work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and not limited or speci fie enough as to the time period during which Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's Premises, the areas or units at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer or supervisor when to stop work. -66- RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to the time period during which Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's Premises, the areas or units at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to a art or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the pow eneral terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had it to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and genera. jty guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 47: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer what materials to use when doing the work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to the time period during which Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's Premises, the areas or units at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer in what order the work should be done. -67- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to the time period during which Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's premises, the areas or units at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subj ect to these obj ections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's Premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. 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 on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to the time period during which Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant' s Premises, the areas or units at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subj ect to these obj ections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admit that you had the power to correct the work performed by the employees of Plaintiff s employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. -68- RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to the time period during which Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant' s Premises, the areas or units at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: Admit that you had the power to require that the work performed by the employees ofPlaintiff s employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue be redone to your satisfaction. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to the time period during which Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's Premises, the areas or units at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: Admit that you had the power to stop the work performed by the employees ofPlainti ff s employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. -69- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to the time period during which Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant' s Premises, the areas or units at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subj ect to these obj ections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: Admit that you observed the work performed by the employees of Plaintiff s employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to the time period during which Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's Premises, the areas or units at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: Admit that you inspected the work performed by the employees of Plaintiff s employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. -70- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to the time period during which Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's Premises, the areas or units at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55. Admit that you approved the work performed by the employees of Plaintiff s employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to the time period during which Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's Premises, the areas or units at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subj ect to these obj ections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: Admit that you retained the power to control all phases ofwork being performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. -71- RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to the time period during which Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant' s Premises, the areas or units at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subj ect to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractors' work. -72- CORPORATE VERIFICATION STATE OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS Karen L. Knopf, being duly sworn, deposes and states that she is Assistant Secretary of Solutia Inc., that she verifies the foregoing answers to interrogatories contained within "DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF DAN WILKES' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION" (in Cause No. 01-028I6-D, Rayford Earl Gresham, et al. v. U.S. Gypsum Company, et al.; in the 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas) for and on behalf of Pharmacia Corporation, formerly known as Monsanto Company, and is duly authorized to do so; that some or all of the facts and matters set forth therein are not within the personal knowledge of the deponent; that the facts and matters set forth therein have been assembled by authorized agents of Pharmacia Corporation, formerly known as Monsanto Company; and that deponent is informed that the facts and matters set forth therein are true. Karen L. Knopf u Assistant Secretary, Solutia Inc. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this <=*MLday of 1. 54 3 EXHIBIT 1 _A_ 3M - Minneapolis, MN Datachem - Salt Lake City, UT Environmental Health Laboratories - Hartford, CT; Macon, Clayton - Novi, MI University Hygiene Laboratory - Iowa City, IA Terradex, Radon Detection Products - IL Thermedics, Inc. - Boston, MA BCM - Mobile, AL Mound Laboratories - Dayton, OH Midwest Research Institute - Kansas City, MO Ergotech - Bloomington, MN Advanced Ergonomics - Dallas, TX Texas Research Institute - Austin, TX Storms Health & Safety Management, Inc. - St. Louis, MO Miller Nelson Research, Inc. - Monterey, CA GA cT.OoXnIaCuOiSLOtmGsY.g_used: (past 6 proaont) Webstar JeQ E.J o# Flaherty H.S. Christian Claude Benezra Robert Bridges M.B-. Abou-Donia DD. Bigner Max Costa liOUis A. cox J Cywerraan Craig Fernando Arias Jeff Everitt David Faasott T Franz Ralph I Freudenthal Carl L. Hake R.D. Harbison R.L. Roudabush HF. Qrayth, Jr. Heryl H. Karol m.l. Keplinger Barry K. Lowry H.I. Maibach E Eugene McConnell Charles F. Cheaney Ward Ri Richter Colin Roberts George N. Rowland Lionel F. Rubin J.L. Hughec Win. J. Scott Peter S. Spencer T.R. Torkelson Gary K. Williams Maurice H. Weeks l TOXICOLOGY LABORATORIES USED (.PAST AND PRESENT) : KSssgggsaassasiaassssgfisssBssgassagsssgesgBsssRKSBs ABC Labs .AD LittU Albert Einstein Collage o Medicine * Anaricaa Health Foundation Anatox Labs (St. Louis) Bioassay Systems British Biological Res- A*sa. (B1BRA) 8io/dynxmtc* Bcookhavea Bionomics Bio-IUssacch Consolt*nca OB Chemical Bioteetiny Center (Japon) Canxagls-Kslloa last. Daytoa Labs BA Sophia Antipolis (France -- Saarle) $P Springbarn Life Sciences > Duis Daivsrsity Experimental Pathology Labs SW Southeast Research NA ..Korea last. o Environmental Toxicolagy-Japan E.V.8. Consultant* Food Sr Drug Research Labs Hanleton Eill Top Research. Huntingdon Research Industrial Health. Foundation Inveresk Rsearch. Intern*tienal Llnited International Research & Development Litton Bioaetics Life Science Labor*to ry-tJK Dr. Hovard Maibach Monsanto Environment*! Haalth Laboratory Honsaato-athcr Kicrobiological Ascociattt tJniv. o Kisaouri (Calumbit) Midwest Research. Institute Pharaakoa Labs Springboru laatitnta for Bio-Research' ShalaaafcL (Product Investigation*) St- Louis Dniy. Medical School SRI Tegeri* Labs (formerly PR-*Phamacopathics) Toxiganica Trualow Farts* tfniv- of Texaa Univ- of California tJaiv.. of Michigan Daiv. o Washington (Tom Frana) Veteran* Admin". Medical Center Webb Bono Finishers WTL Research Labs Wildlife International Other labs, unknovn YO Youagsr Labs PI Ptricuiry Research Institute HO NOTOX (Kcthfltlands) SP Safe Phflrc Chaolcals (U.K.) TEXAS CITY CONTRACT NO. 7827 7818 7884 7913 7920 7936 7988 8003 8008 TYPE DATE CONTRACTOR C. P. 3/12/79 Sauer Indus. Serv. Agr. 2/20/79 Manpower, Inc. C. P. C. P. C. P. L. S. L. S. 10/1/79 1/25/80 2/29/80 4/22/80 Crescent Elec. Crescent Instr. S. I. P., Inc. Nunez Constr. 1/14/81 Nunez Constr. L. S. L. S. 3/10/81 4/6/81 Nunez Constr. DeJean Comtr. DESCRIPTION Mechanical Office Field Personnel Electrical Instrumental ** h Mechanical Civil & u.G. Fire Mains Control Bid & Warehouse Demolition Mechanical 8024 8032 8037 8186 L. S. L. S. L.S. L. S. 8215^ /.v<r> 8244 8245 L*s* C.P. L.S. 8252 8253 8256 8264 8273 83C6 -- L.S . C.P . L.S. L.S. C.P. L.S. 1Q 6/25/81 Crescent Elec. Elec. & Ins 9/3/81 9/22/81 5/13/83 11/11/83 S/18/84 5/21/84 6/6/84 6/15/84 6/26/84 8/3/84 8/16/84 11/7/84 7/18/85 Sargent El-c. DeJean Constr. Elec.' & Ins General Brooks Erection & Constr. Co. Koch Engineering Universal Corp. Continental Slip Form Builders Gen/Mech. Mechanical Constr. Acti' Piling Work Scientific Design General Crescent Electric E & I Work S. I.P. , Inc. General Pruitt Construction Genera 1 Standard Construction Supply of C Don Tarpey Constr. Geo-Con Earthwork Slurry Wa 1 TEXAS CITY CONTRACT NO. 7590 7601 7606 7608 7613 7618 7629 7648 7661 7667 7669 767 3 7684 7688 7690 7696 7R1 S TYPE DATE CONTRACTOR description Lump Sum 5/14/76 Texas Gulf Construc tion Company Containmen Wall Work' Lump Sum 7/7/76 S.X.P. Inc. AN Raw Mat Dock & Sto Lump Sum 7/28/76 Epic Instruments Instrument Work LUmp Sum 8/4/76 Crescent Electric Electrical Lump Sum 8/9/76 S.I.P., Inc. Tank Shro' Work Lump Sum 9/17/76 Morrison Engineers & Constructors Cost Plus 10/29/76 Bellco Industrial Piping Co. Lump-sum Short Form Cost Plus 1/17/77 3/1/77 DeJean Constr. Co. J. A. Jones Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum 3/15/77 Tellepsen Constr. 3/21/77. 3/29/77 Don Tarpey Natkin & Co. 4/18/77 Triple H Constr. 5/19/77 Sargent Electric Steel Ere Piping, E CEA 3168 Mechanics General Site Pre Work Construe Work Sheet Pi Civil Wc Mechanic Civil W E & Iw Lump Sum 6/1/77 Morrison Engr. & Constructors Mech. Lump Sum 6/28/77 Don Tarpey Constr. Company Earthw Lump Sum 1/19/79 Nunez ronct-r- rn . CONTRACT NO. 7503 TYPE Lump Sura 7507 Lump Sum 7519 Lump Sum 7527 7531 Short Form Lump Sum 7544 Lump Sum 7547 Lump Sum "7553 Lump Sum 7554 Lump Sum 7556 Lump Sum 7564 Lump Sum 7 569 757 3 Lump Sum Lump Sum TEXAS CITY DATE 3/31/75 CONTRACTOR Grinnell Fire Systems, Co. DESCRIPTION Fire Protect Work 4/2/75 5/7/75 Crescent Electric Electrical Co., Inc. Instrument Union Eng. & Constr. Co. Earthwork Foundation Installati 6/27/75 Spinoza, Inc. Railroad Constr. Wc 7/18/75 Don Tarpey Constr. Company AN Raw Mat Dock & Sto Work 9/10/75 Bellco Indus. Piping Co. 9/15/75 Brand Insulation Inc. Steel Eret & Equipme. Setting Si Piping Wo Piping & Insulatio 10/8/75 Courtney & Co., Inc. Tank Pair 10/8/75 10/22/75 12/19/75 2/3/76 3/3/76 Automatic Sprinkler Fire Corp. of America Protect Crescent Elec. Co. Inc. Fisk Electric Co Elec. & Instrurr. Install Electri WorV A & B Construction Nunez Construction Company Undergr Pipir No. 4 Extens TEXAS CITY CONTRACTOR NO. TYPE DATE CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTTnM 6879 6888 7079 7150 7215 7220 7246 7255 7268 7271 7274 7359 7380 7381 7433 7452 Cost Plus Cost Plus Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum 4/1/70 Tellepsen Construction General Company 5/28/70 Crescent Electrical Co., Inc. Electrical 3/15/72 10/17/72 5/25/73 Fisk Electric Co. Electrifcal All State Erectors,Inc. Equipment Loading Don Tarpey Constr.Co. Foundations 6/8/73 8/7/73 Don Tarpey Constr.Co. Westheimer Snore Tanx Foundation Site Work Setting of Reactor Vesse 8/31/73 Betco Constructors Install Equip. Steel & Pipinc 10/2/73 B & B Insulation Insul. of Equ: & Piping 10/5/73 10/10/73 Fisk Electric Co. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America Install, of Elec. & Instr. Work Install, of Fire Protecti System 6/4/74 Serbo Erectors & . Contractors Demoliton Wor Lump Sum Cost Plus Lump Sum Lump Sum 7/22/74 1/1/74 11/5/74 9/1/74 Char. R. Haile Assoc. Surveying Wo Crescent Elec. Co. Don Tarpey Constr. Electrical W Concrete Wor Nunez Constr. Co. Piling Work 7500 Lump Sum 3/12/75 Betco Constructors Steel Erecti Equip- Sett tract No. 8262 8291 8301 8316 8343 8478 8490 8491 8592 CHOC. BAYOU Type L.S. L.S. L.S. S.L. C.P. C.P. C. P. C. P. T&M Date Contractor Description 7/11/84 Brown & Root, Inc. Dismantling Work 9/28/84 LEM Construction Co. Repair l Modification Work 10/23/84 01/10/85 3/18/85 2/6/87 3/18/87 3/23/87 11/8/88 . Enserch Eng. & Constructors OeJean Construction Sargent Elec. Co. Freeport, 6CI, Inc. Gen. & Mech. Work Civil/Structural/ Mechanical Work Electrical Work Mechanical The Mundy Companies Asbestos Removal The Mundy Companies Insulation & Pain Gulf States, Inc. Construction (Gen CHOC. BAYOU CONTRACT NO. 8150 8151 8152 8153 8164 8166 8168 8170 8172 8173 8174 8179 8180 8182 8184 8185 8187 8190 8191 8196 8198 8199 8208 8210 82 A1 TYPE DATE CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTION T &M 1/14/83 Lump Sura 1/27/83 L.S. 1/27/83 L.S. 1/28/83 L.S. 3/3/83 L.S. 3/11/83 L.S. 3/14/83 L.S. 3/23/83 L.S. 3/30/83 L.S. 3/30/83 L.S. 4/6/83 L.S. 4/13/83 C.P. 4/18/83 L.S. 4/26/83 L.S. 5/9/83 L.S. 5/12/83 L.S. 5/24/83 L.S. C.P. L.S. 5/18/83 6/1/83. 6/7/83 Don Love, Inc. General Work Sargent Electric E & I Work DeJean Construe. Don Love, Inc. Civil/Structural Foundation Work Spinoza, Inc. Railroad Work Voss Internt'l. Mech. & Piping Voss Internt*1 Civil/Concrete Group Construe. Flare Header Crescent Elect. E & I Work Crescent Elect. E & I Work Group Constr. Gen/Mech. No. : Skrla, Inc. Civil/Strue. ` Ken E. Daivs Deep Well Inst Automatic Sprinkl . Fire Protectio Texas Automatic Fire Protectio Group Construe. General Work Texas Ind. Paint Painting Group Construe, Mundy Ind. DeJean Constr. Civil/Str./Me & Painting General General Work L.S. L.S. L.S . L.S. 6/22/83 6/28/83 9/13/83 10/5/83 Industrial Spec. Skrla, Inc. Don Love, Inc. T. D . W . Service s Insulation Roads & Gror Cover Work Pioina , Inst Painting & ( Structural Hot Stopple L.S. 5/1/SA DeJean Constr. Co. Destqn ^ Ccrs CONTRACT NO. 8046 8059 8068 8073 8091 8100 8104 8107 8112 8114 3116 8118 8121 8134 8135 8136 8139 8141 8143 8146 8147 8148 3149 CHOCOLATE BAYOU type DATE CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTION Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum 11/11/81 RAM Engineers Mech./Civil/St 12/30/81 2/9/82 Johnston Intern'1. Column Replac- Skrla, Inc. Civil Earthwo; 3/1/82 5/6/82 5/27/82 Payne & Keller Voss Internat'l.' Hollico General Work Ci**vil/-Stru ctr Casing of Pip- Lump Sum Lump Sum 7/2/82 7/14/82 Champions HydroLavm UMC, Inc. Grass Seedinc Underground Fire V7ater S: Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum 7/23/82 8/13/82 8/23/82 9/10/82 9/23/82 The Prepakt Concr,. Company Don Love, Inc. Augered Pile: Control Ctr. Building Voss Intern'1. General/t'.ech Group Construct. Civil/Mech. Voss Intern'1. Civil/Struc Lump Sum Lump Sum 10/28/82 10/29/82 Sargent Electric Voss International E S, I Work Civil/Unde ground Pip Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum T&M T &M Lump Sum Lump Sum 11/9/82 11/18/82 11/22/82 12/3/82 1/1/83 1/1/83 1/5/83 1/6/8 3 Yellow Jacket Cons. Piping Woi RAM Engineers Gulf States, Inc Don Love, Inc. Mechanica] E & I Wor- General Voss International General Group Constructors Vanderbilt Contr. Piling, Inc. Misc. Gen/Mech. Piling CHOCOLATE BAYOU CONTRACT NO. 7692 7698 7700 7701 7722 7741 7743 7750 7780 7788 - 7810 7826 7911 7919 7982 8044 TYPE DATE CONTRACTOR description Lump Sum Lump Sum 4/11/77 6/24/77 The Ortloff Corp. Civil Work Roads S & B Constructors Civil Work Lump Sum 6/24/77 Mark III, Inc. Mech. Work 41 4 Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum 6/28/77 Crescent Elec. Elec. - Instr. Calibration & Checkout 11/7/77 Helm Constructors Mechanical 1/27/78 S & B Constructors Mechanical Cost Plus 2/9/78 Riley Stoker Lump Sum 3/13/78 Sargent Elec. Co. Boiler Fuel Conversion E & I Work Cost Plus 7/14/78 Caspan Corporation General Cost Plus 8/9/78 Sargent Elec. Co. of Texas Elec. . Line work Lump Sum 12/18/78 General Coatings Insulation Lump Sum. Lump Sum C- P. 3/7/79 1/25/80 2/22/80 Johnston Crane & Rigging Inc. Ike Hall, Inc. Voss International Column Repla Incinerator Road Work Multi-Craft L. S . L. S . 12/23/80 Freeport Constructors Modificat. Work 10/30/81 Sargent Electric Co. Electrical I ns t rum CHOCOLATE BAYOU CONTRACT NO. 7530 TYPE Lump Sum DATE 7/16/75 CONTRACTOR Service Boiler Works DESCRIPTION Demolition Work 7532 7535 7536 7561 LUmp Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum 7/31/75 . U. S. Contractors, Steel Erection, Inc. Equip. Setting 8/4/75 8/5/75 12/10/75 Lord Electric Company of Texas Electrical & Instrumentatio Work Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. Solar Insulators, Inc. Piping & Equip Insulation Wor Insulation Work 7602 Lump Sum 74. L. 7620 Lump Sum (Stratton Ridge) 7/12/76 '* /' /-> 10/5/76 7621 Lump Sum 10/6/76 Don Tarpey Constr Company Mark III An Waste Heat Recovery AM h/ Civil, Mech/ i Electrical CEA 2885 Hudson Engineering Mechanical W} CEA 2966 7631 Sh.Form 11/4/76 Diamond Refractories Erosion Protection \ 7639 7642 7643 7656 7665 7670 7671 7674 7680 7681 Lump sum Lump-sum Lump-sum Lump-sum 11/30/76 12/9/76 12/10/76 2/9/77 Lump Sum Lump Sum 3/11/77 3/22/77 Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum 3/22/77 3/28/77 4/7/77 4/13/77 Triple B Corp. Insulation Davis Electric Eletrical Davis Electric E&I Work Don Tarpey Constr. Civil Work Gulf States. Ortloff Corp. S & B Constr. Mark III, Inc. Econotherm Gulf States,Inc E I Work Civil & C&H & Distributic Mechanical Mechanical Insulation E& I CHOCOLATE BAYOU CONTRACT NO. TYPE DATE CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTION 6879 6888 7130 7137 7155 7341 7350 7356 7363 7380 7 4 5 5_ 7478 7486 7499 7504 Cost Plus Cost Plus 4/1/70 Tellepsen Construction Company 5/28/70 Crescent Electrical Co., Inc. General & Mechanical Electrica] Lump Sum 8/23/72 Spinoza, Inc. General Unit Price 9/11/72 Southwestern Labora tories Lump Sum 11/1/72 Cardinal Constr.Co. Soil Testing Constr. Lump Sum 4/18/74 U.S. Contractors,Inc. Gen. Const Lump Sum 5/14/74 U.S. Contractors,Inc. Struc. St! & Equip. S< Lump Sum 5/29/74 Sargent Elec. Co. of Texas Elec. & Instr. In Lump Sum 6/5/74 Grinnell Fire Protec. Systems Co., Inc. Fire Prot Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum 7/22/74 Char. R. Haile Assoc. 12/10/74 U.S. Contractors 1/22/75. Crescent Elec. Co. 2/10/75 Bigelow-Liptak 3/12/75 Betco Constructors 3/20/75 Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Surveying Work Foundatio Work Elec, Uti & Instr. Installat Insta1. Refrac. L' Concrete, Sewer & Earthwork Fire Prots Work CAUSE NO. 0i-02816-D RAFORD EARL GRESHAM, ET AL. VS. U.S. GYPSUM COMPANY, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 95TM JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, CERTIFICATE OF FILING CERTAIN DISCOVERY TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Defendant Pharmacia Corporation, formerly known as Monsanto Company, and files this Certificate ofFiling ofCertain Discovery in the captioned case and would show the Court that the following discovery has been served upon the attorney for the Plaintiffs on November _j^_, 2001 1. Defendant Pharmacia Corporation's, formerly known as Monsanto Company, Response to PlaintiffDan Wilkes' Request for Disclosure Under Rule 194 Subject to Motion to Transfer Venue; and, 2. Defendant Pharmacia Corporation's, formerly known as Monsanto Company, Objections and Responses to PlaintiffDan Wilkes' First Set ofInterrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission Subject to Motion to Transfer Venue. Respectfully submitted, ELLIS, CARSTARPHEN, DOUGHERTY & GOLDENTHAL P.C. G. Joe Ellis State Bar No. 06575050 Douglas B. Dougherty State Bar No. 06031560 Lawrence E. Goldenthal State Bar No. 08089508 720 N. Post Oak., Ste. 330 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 647-6800 (Telephone) (713) 647-6884 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certi fy that a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing was served upon Plaintiff s counsel ofrecord by certified mail, return receipt requested and on all other known counsel by regular mail as follows on this ^^^day of November, 2001: Scott L. Frost Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 Lawrence E. Goldenthal .9.