Document Byb5JNEdNLk13jngDbDEOVb0o
REG&VZD
APT; 5 'b
nnn
slFPn3^0R-J
0F THE SIAT'" 0F Washington
DOL'D, 1-0kl ,yi 8KJ:,J,J,tfr$.KISG OOUNIY
i fxhirt
, 7Y
; :a_d l. sjORN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
6 i THE EENDIX QDRP. et al . Defendants.
7
) ) NO. 80-2-09935-3
) ) ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT THE ) EENDIX CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFF'S } FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS
) ) )
3 :! COMES NOW, THE SENDIX CORPORATION, Defendant in the ataove-entitied and
9 ij iiumoeced cause, and having been served with Interrogatories, Requests for
10
T_T. 1 Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission by Plaintiff, files these,
:! its answers thereto:
12
15
16
17
13 >|1li I-N T--ER RO--G..A...TORIE-S| 1.01 Identify each person by name, address and position of
13
each person who prepared answers or was consulted with regard to
20
answering these interrogatories or supplying information used in 21
answering these interrogatories, including experts, and as to each
22
23
1! U'i
interrogatory, .
please
state
either at
the conclusion of
the answer .
24 |thereto or at the conclusion of all the answers the name, addresses
25 and positions of the persons who answered, supplied the information
2S PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 6 !1
1 3 ANSWER:
(j) Identify the custodian of the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of defendant.
See Page 8a
4
5
6j
7I l
8 i!
9 '! 1.03 State in what form, if any, business was conducted by j
10 ;you or your corporate predecessor prior to incorporation.
,! u I ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it
12 ;seeks information that is not relevant to the matters involved in this case and is not
treasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 13 1
ij 14 j
is I:
16 ii
17 ii i;
ii
is 1.04 Identify each director of defendant from date of
19 incorporation by name and last known address and dates of service.
20 ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad
21
and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to
22
the-information (would provide.
sought would far outweigh the Defendant Bendix also objects
benefits, if any, that said information to this interrogatory on the grounds it
'
23
seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
24
,,25 iiii
26 !iPLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 8
ANSWER to Interrogatory 1 .02: a) The Bendix Corporation b) Delaware c) --April 13, 1929 d) Bendix Center, P. 0. Box 5060, Southfield, Michigan 48037 e) Defendant Bendix has been qualified to do business in the State of
Washington since April 30, 1957. f) C. T. Corporation System, 1218 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101 g) No h) To manufacture, buy, sell, lease and deal in aircraft, motor vehicles and
marine craft and in parts thereof and accessories thereto and in devices, apparatus and kindred articles used in connection therewith and generally in any way used in connection with the aviation, motor vehicle and marine transportation industry; and to manufacture, buy, sell, lease and deal in all kinds of machinery, electrical and mechanical devices and appliances.
i) Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the matters involved in this action and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
j) Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant Bendix responds
Andrew B. Samet, Esq. P. 0. Box 400R .Morristown, NJ 07960
- 8a.
1 1.09 Does defendant maintain an organization table of
2
tables? If you have answered this in the affirmative, identify the 3
custodian of each table-
4
ANSWER: Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory since the meaning of 5 j "organization table or tables" is vague, ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being
j intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this 6 j interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters
; involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibl e 7 evidence.
%
9: J
10 -
i REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or 11 [
!produce according to the above instructions a copy of each such 12
; identified table or organization. 13
RESPONSE: 14
Defendant Bendix declines. See answer to Interrogatory 1.0 9.
15 `
16
17
is : is i 1.10 Has defendant or any of its subsidiary companies at
any time engaged in the mining, manufacturing, marketing, 20
21 assembling, rebranding, distributing or sale of any material or
22 product containing asbestos fibers? See instruction 12, page 6,
23
I |!
for
definition of
the
terms
"asbestos
or
asbestos
product".
The
i
24 II scope of this interrogatory includes the manufacture, distribution,
25 ;i assembling, marketing or sale of products into which
2g !1 asbestos-containing products were incorporated. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 11
ANSWER to Interrogatory 1.11 (continued)
(d) All are present!/ on the market except 3endix-woven molded friction material brake linings used in industrial applications (nonvenicular) withdrawn from the market in 1959 due to decreasing market demand and clutch facings sold only to Borg & Beck for use in Borg and Beck service clutch assemblies for light trucks beginning October 1974 and withdrawn from the market in the early part of 1979 due to lack of market penetration.
(e) Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory since the conposition of the friction material bcake linings is a trade secret and
therefore proprietary. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection, the percentage by weight of chrysotile asbestos fibers in the friction material brake lining varies from 25% to 50% depending on the particular ccrposition and in the clutch facings approximately 49-1/2%. The friction material brake linings and clutch facings also contain (or contained) a resin binder system and various friction modifiers and fillers.
(f) The color of friction material brake linings containing chrysotile asbestos fibers varies fran tan to light gray depending on the conposition. The dimensions of Arcuate brake segments vary from 7" to 15" in diameter; 1-1/2" to 7" in width; i/16* to 3/4" in thickness and 57 to 125 in length. The dimensions of disc brake pads vary from 2" to 7" in length; 2" to 3" in width; and 1/4" to 1/2" in thickness.
Since 1939, Defendant Bendix' friction material Drake linings
have reflected the applicable Bendix trademark, part number, date code and color code (if pre-coated with adhesive cement to designate the
latest date bonding by the reouilder customer should occur). Since 1965, the edge of Defendant Bendix' friction material brake linings has also reflected the Bendix name, formula code and friction code as required by state law.
(g) Canadian Johns-Manville Ltd.
`
Asbestos, Quebec J1T3N2 - Chrysotile - 1939 to present
Vermont Asbestos Group Hyde Park, Vermont 06566 - Chrysotile - 1975 to present
The Rubeeoid Co., New York, NY Chrysotile - 1945 to 1975
Lake Asbestos (Laq d'Andante du Quebec Ltee) 120 Broadway, New York NY 10005 Chrysotile - 1967 to present
Bell Asbestos Hines, Ltd. P.O. Box 99, Ihetford Mines, Quebec G6G554 Chrysotile - 1973 to 1983
-13a-
(h) See answer to Interrogatory 1.11(g). (i) Defendant Bendix' facilities in Green Island (Troy) New York and Cleveland, Tennessee. (j) See answer to Interrogatory 1.11(g) . (It) To stop or slow motor vehicles relative to friction material brake linings. To connect and disconnect a driving or a driver's part of a mechanism snoothly relative to clutch facings. (1) - (o) Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection, relative to the manufacture, sale and distribution of brake linings, Defendant Bendix acquired Marshall Asbestos Corpor ation, Troy, New York on approximately May 16, 1933 which was a wholly owned subsidiary until it was converted into an operating division of Defendant Bendix on approximately July 1, 1939.
)
-13b-
)
ij
li
1i . . . ANSWER; Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous,
2 ------------ " -orrdear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection,
3 and interpreting this interrogatory to mean that Defendant Bendix encouraged its customers to purchase its friction material brake linings to be used with the
4 customers1 brake shoes and disc brakes, the answer is: Yes.
5
6
7
8 1.13 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
91 the affirmative, state the location of said promotional materials
10 and the name and address of the custodian.
11 :!ANSWER: Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous,
12 ! unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present Torm. See also :i answer to Interrogatory 1.17.
13
14 ;
13 j
16 !
17 13 1-19 Identify the location, existence and present 19 custodian of any manuals, specifications or instructional materials 20 pertaining to the use, installation or removal of asbestos or
21 asbestos-containing products which were distributed or made
22 available to purchasers of your products during the Relevant Times.
23
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 13
I 1;
2
3
4 1
5 :ii
6
7; !
8
i
91 i
10 ;
ii i
J
l3:
14 'I!II 13 !
16
17
18 ' !
20 |
21
22
23
24
(d) The dates (years) defendant or any of its subsidiary companies purchased or obtained such brake lining(s) or brake pad(s) from each manufacturer, distributor and/or seller, and the amounts expressed in pounds or tons which defendant or any of its subsidiary companies purchased or otherwise obtained;
(e) The type and percentage of asbestos contained in each trade or brand named brake lining or brake pad identified above which you obtained from 1950 through 1978;
f) The physical characteristics of each kind of brake lining, brake pad or brake facing purchased or used by defendant or defendant's subsidiaries for use in vehicles manufactured or sold by you, including size, dimensions, weight, color, identifying tags, stamps or markings on said brake liners, pads or facings;
(g) The name, last known address and telephone address of defendant's or defendant's subsidiaries' purchasing agent(s) responsible for obtaining brake linings and brake pads for use in any motor vehicles manufactured or sold by you from 1950 through 1978;
h) During the time period 1950 through 1978, did you maintain records relating to the purchase, sale and/or use of brake linings, brake pads or disc brake pads, including, but not limited to, records which indicate what brake linings were installed or to be installed on particular types or models of defendant's motor vehicles.
(i) Describe all such records referred to in subsection (h) above;
(j) Identify (by manufacturer, trade name, number and brand name) what brake linings, brake pads or brake facings were installed, assembled, placed in or otherwise used or furnished in each of the motor vehicles you manufactured, sold or distributed for the period 1950 through 1978.
23: II
26 ; i PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 21
1 lining, molded or roll linings, disc brake pads, or adhesives to
any of the following facilities, including their predecessors or
successors: 4
5
6 7' !'l
8
9
10 I i
11 ; I ;l
12 :
13 ; ANSWER:
14 J 13
(a) Western Brake Industries Company, Seattle, Washington?
(b) Western Brake Industries Company, Los Angeles, California;
(c) Western Brake Industries Company, San Francisco, California;
(d) Stewart-Western, Inc., Seattle, Washington;
(e) Stewart-Western, Inc., San Francisco, California;
(f) Stewart-Western, Inc., Los Angeles, California.
See Page 25a
16
17 1.25 If any portion of your answer to the preceding
13 t interrogatory was in the affirmative, state:
i
19 ! i
(a) The name of the agency, or facility identified
i!
2 ]
in Interrogatory No. 1.24 to whom you sold, distributed, delivered, installed or consigned
21 asbestos products;
22
(b) Whether sold by you directly or through an agent manufacturers' representative, dealer or
23 subsidiary;
24 (c) The name and address of the agent manufacturers' representative, dealer and/or subsidiary;
23
ii 26 ii PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 25
11 !
2 I! 3'
4 |
5'
6i 7|
S1
9 'I
10 |
U: :l
1 1Z I1 14 !
i1\ 15 ! ANSWER: IS |
17 j
Specifically state the amount and kind of all asbestos products sold, distributed, delivered, installed or consigned to each facility referred to herein, stating in detail for each facility identified in Interrogatory No. 1.24 for every year during the period 1950 through 1978:
1. The brand or trade name of the asbestos products which were delivered;
2. The date of delivery of the products;
3. the volume of sales for every month during the period 1950 through 1978 for each product and facility expressed in pounds or tons ;
4. The dollar value of sales for every month during the period 1950 through 1978 for each product and facility;
(e} The ultimate purchaser or user of said products;
(f) State the name and present address of the person or persons responsible for providing the answer to this interrogatory.
See Page
Cr4l
13 \ t
19 !
20 i 21
22
23
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 26
1;
i 2
1-26 Identify by name, job title, current or last known
'address, 3
and phone number
the persons
that your
records
show to be
the purchasing agents for the companies or agencies listed in your
|answer to Interrogatory No. 1.24 for each year during the period jjanuary 1, 1950 through December 31, 1978.
rt il.
! ANSWER: Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the 7 | reference to "purchasing agents" is vague, ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being
' intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant 8endix also objects to this 8 .{ interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently bur
l some and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond j this interrogatory with respect to the information sought would, if in fact it exist: j far outweigh the benefit, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant
| Bendix further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information ^ j not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to
j the discovery of admissible evidence.
12 i
I 13
14 : 1.27 During the period 1950 through the present, did you j
15
|lor L.
any .
of
your predecessors
K>
or
subsidiaries
at .
any
time
sell
brake
16 linings or brake lining components to companies engaged in the
17 manufacture and/or sale of motor vehicles?
.
IS
:
ANSWER; Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory information not relevant to the matters involved in this
on the action
grounds and not
that it seeks calculated tc
19 ; lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation j and without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant Bendix responds: Yes.
20 i
21
22 I 1.28 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 23 the affirmative, identify the name and address of the companies
24 engaged in the manufacture and/or sale to whom you sold
25 | asbestos-containing brake linings or brake lining components to and
j
26 i| 'I PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 27
*
the dates_of such sales, and identify by trade and brand name
exactly what product you sold and the quantity of the product you 3
sold to said companies. 4
ANSWER: Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and 5 uniimi ted in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden unon
8endix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with resoect 6 to the information sought would, if it in fact exists, far outweigh the benefit,
if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this 7 interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information not relevant to the matters
involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 3 evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing
objections, the products sold to manufacturers of motor vehicles by Defendant 9 8endix were under the tradename "Bendix".
10
11
! 1.29 Identify each medical director of defendant by name,
12
13 i last known address, duration of service, and all previous and
subsequent employers of each such medical director. L4 ,
ANSWER: Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks 15 ! information not relevant to matters involved in this action and not calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However in the spirit of cooperation IS and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant Bendix has never had a
medical director. 17
18 : i!
19 :
i1
20 !I
21 j
22 j 1.30 Identify by name and address the custodian of the
23 | records of the various medical directors.
I
24 |
25 !
26 i
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 28
1 ANSWER: Not applicable to Defendant Bendix. See answer to Interrogatory 1 .29.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. F: Pursuant to CR 34, attach
or produce according to the above instructions a copy of the most
current curriculum vitae for each and every medical director named
11 )
.] in answer to the preceding interrogatory. 12 I
j RESPONSE: Not applicable to Defendant Bendix. See answer to Interrogatory 1.
14 ,i 15
IS
17
18 1.31 Have you at any time requested and/or received
19 I i information from medical officers, hygienists, or other employees
20 I! of your company pertaining to the possible existence of a
21 relationship between asbestos exposure and disease, or to the risks
22 23 or hazards to persons involved in the manufacture, installation, or
24 | use of products containing asbestos? I
25 I
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC.
29
ANSWER: Defendant 8endix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous
unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form.
'
Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks
information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated
1 !|
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However in the spirit of coopera tion and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant Bendix responds as folic
i 2
.1 3'
^Interpreting "hygienist" as an industrial hygienist who performs
~
engineering and health studies to identify and evaluate potential occupational
health hazards and suggest methods of dealing with same, Defendant Bendix has
since 1973 employed industrial hygienists to assist Defendant Bendix in complying
'
4: i
with OSHA regulations and to monitor and evaluate manufacturing facilities of Defendant Bendix relative to industrial hygiene matters.
5
S
7| 1.32 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
a; the affirmative:
9:
(a) Identify the person(s) involved;
12 1
(b) State the dates relevant to the collection or receipt of such information described *bove;
i
13 !
(c) Describe in detail the nature of the study or information;
i 14 ; (d) Identify all documents related to the study or
15 information described above;
18
(e) Identify the custodian of the documents identified in subpart (d} by name and address.
17 j ANSWER: Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous,
IS ' unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scop-
19 so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought
20 would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defen dant Bendix further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information
21 not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However in the spirit of cooperation and without
22 waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant Bendix has employed the following indivi
duals in the capacity of industrial hygienist:
23 Charles C. Clarke (1973-74)
Stanford K. Christian (1974-76)
24
James R. Weber (1976-1983) Sondra Johnson (1980-present)
i 23 !
Linda Parrish (1982-present)
Ben Wong (1977-78) Tom Rancou rO WO-present)
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC.
30
ll li
)
2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION G; Pursuant to CR 34, attach or
3 produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents
4
\i identified in your response to the preceding interrogatory.
5 I RESPONSE: Defendant Bendix objects to this Request for Production as being
6 overly "broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this request
7 j with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this request
8 .'11,
on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
9!
10 !
11 1.33 Have you at any time requested, received information
12
from or participated in studies with persons outside your company 13
pertaining to the possible existence of a relationship between 14
asbestos exposure and disease, or to the risks and hazards to 15
persons involved in the manufacture, installation or use of 16
products containing asbestos? 17
ANSWER: Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, 18 unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form.
Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks 19 information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of 20 cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant 8endix has no
knowledge. 21
22
23
24
23
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 31
)
;l 1:
1.34 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 2
the affirmative:
3
(a) 4
(b) State the dates relevant to the collection or 3 receipt of such information described above;
*] 7l
a
(c) information;
(d) Identify all documents related to the study or information described above;
9 (e)
identified in subpart (d) with names and 10 addresses.
11 iANSWER:
;I'
12
Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory 1.33.
i
) 13 ;
14 1
15 i!
16
17
13
19 ! i
20 -
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION H: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or 22 produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents 23 identified in your response to the preceding interrogatory. 24
23
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 32
1i RESPONSE:
2
applicable. See answer to Interrogatory 1.33
3
4
5
6 ' 1.35 Do you have or have you ever had person!s) in your
.7
employ who were charged with responsibility for monitoring the 8
state of domestic knowledge of the safety and health aspects of 9
your industry? 10
ANSWER: Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, 11 lintt'inrr and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form.
Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks 12 i information not relevant to matters involved in this action and not reasonably
j calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However in the spirit 13 i of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections, see answers to
' Interrogatories 1.31 and 1.32. 14 '
15 ! 16 i
17 l
18 ! 1.36 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
i19 the affirmative:
I (a)
20 !
Identify all 3uch person!s) with names and addresses;
21 (b) State the dates of service of each such 22 person!s);
23 (c) State the formal title, if any, of the person!s) described above;
24 (d) Identify all documents relevant to the
25 !j position/person described above.
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 33
1i
2 'ANSWER: `i --............ I
3
`Tee Page 34a.
4
5
6 7 iIl8;
9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION It Pursuant to CR 34, attach or i
10 produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents
11 ; 1
identified
in
subparagraph
(d}
above.
12
: :.]i
RESPONSE:
13 1
I
See Page 34a.
14 ; II
13 :
16
17 1.37 Do you have or have you ever had person(s)
IS I t responsible for monitoring the state of current foreign knowledge
19 of the safety and health aspects of your industry?
20 i ANSWER: See Page 34a. 21
22 t
23
24
23 26 !li
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST 1NTERROGS, ETC. ii
34
ANSWER to Interrogatory 1.36 Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad
and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensane and onerous. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of acknissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing obgections, see answer to Interrogatories 1.31 and 1.32.
RESPONSE to Request for Production I Defendant Bendix objects to this Request for Production as being
overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this request with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of adnissiole evidence.
ANSWER to Interrogatory 1.37 Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague,
ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant Bendix responds: No.
-34a-
1
2 : the
3: .
4
1.38 If your answer to
__ affirmative:
(a) Identify all addresses;
the preceding interrogatory is such person(s) with names and
in
5 6 7 8 9 ANSWER: 10
(b) State the dates of service of each such person(s);
(c) State the formal title, if any, of the person(s) described above;
(d) Identify all documents relevant to the position/person described above.
Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory 1.37.
11
12 | i
13 !
14
15
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION J: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or 17 produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents 18 identified in subparagraph (d) above. 19 RESPONSE; 20 Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory 1.38.
21
22
23
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 35
1
1.39 Describe your record retention program from 1933 to 2
the present date and state:
(a) Where records are kept;
(b) Location and existence of written materials 5 concerning your program and date of adoption
.
7
8
9 ANSWER:
10
(c) Description of the information contained in such records;
(d) The length of time purchase, bid, shipping and/or sale records are maintained by your company.
See Page 36a
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13 1.40 Did the defendant at any time assign, license or
19 otherwise allow any of their asbestos-containing friction products,
20 trademarks or copyrights to be used by any person, firm or
21 corporation?
22 ANSWER:
See Page 36a.
23
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 36
!
ANSWER to Interrogatory 1.39
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and rwnhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evideree. However in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant Bendix has over the years had various sets of guidelines relative to record retention with actual record retention programs to be implemented determined at the divisional level.
ANSWER to Interrogatory 1.4Q
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague,
ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its
present form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in
this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the
foregoing objection. Defendant Bendix has no domestic license relative to
these products.
^
1 1.41 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
2 ithe affirmative:
3I (a) State the name of the product, trademark or
4 copyright so assigned or licensed;
5 (b) The time period of the assignment or license;
e
(c) The nature of the assignment or license (whether exclusive or not);
7
(d) The terms and conditions of each such agreement
a (you may attach said material to these
interrogatory answers).
9 $ee answer to Interrogatory 1 .40.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 1.42 At the time of such assignment or license, was there
17 any agreement between the parties concerning liability in the event
ia of future litigation concerning the product?
19 ANSWER;
20
$ee answep t0 interrogatory I .40.
21
22
23
24 il
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 37
1
.-4-. 43 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 2i
i
the affirmative, state: 31
(a) The nature and substance of such agreement; 41
5 ANSWER:
(b) The location of said agreement and/or copies* Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory 1.42.
6:
7| 3:
9:
10 1.44 State the location of your national and Washington,
11
12 ; California and Oregon State warehouse, warehouse facilities, or
distribution centers for your asbestos-containing products during 13
the Relevant Times. 14
ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks
15 information not relevant to matters involved in this action and not calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However in the spirit of cooperation 16 and without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant Bendix responds as follows:
17 1976-present
1973-76
IS ;i i
1963-73 Prior to 1973
19 j
20 " i
West Coast Distribution Center, Santa Fe Springs, CA Automotive Aftermarket Operations, Jackson, TN Automotive Aftermarket Operations, South Bend, IN Brake 4 Steering Division, South Bend, IN
21
22 .
1.45 Specify the corporate relationship between you and
23 local dealers and/or manufacturer's representatives of asbestos
24 products who sold products containing your corporate identification
23 I or trademark during each year of the Relevant Times.
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 38
1 ANSWER: '^gg pagS 393 .
3
4
5
6 7:
3!
SECTION 2.0 9
10 2.01 Have any of the asbestos-containing products listed
11 in Interrogatory No. 1.11 been altered in chemical composition
12 since first being manufactured, sold or marketed?
13 1 ANSWER:
14 See Page 39a.
is j
16 17
18 !
j19 2.02 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
20 ! the affirmative, please state:
21 ji {a) The trade name of each of those products;
22 ! '
(b) The date each of the named products was altered;
23 jt (c) The nature of the alteration;
24 | (d) The reason for the alteration.
23 |
26 :i PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC.
39
ANSWER to Interrogatory 1.45 ;Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague,
ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant 3endix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of acinissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant Bendix responds: None
SECTION 2.0 ANSWER to Interrogatory 2.01
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, unclear and incapaole of being intelligently answered in its present form. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection, motor vehicle manufacturers make changes in vehicle design (weight, chassis, length, engine performance, etc.) and brake performance criteria (noise, durability and stopping distance limits) which require Defendant Bendix to make changes in its friction material brake linings to meet these changes and criteria.
-39a-
)
ANSWER: 2 :j 3;
.See Page 40a.
4 5!
6 ' 2.03 State the name, address and job title of each person
7
who participated in the design and preparation of manufacturing 8
specifications for each product listed in Interrogatory No. 1.11. 9
ANSWER: 10
See Page 40a.
11
12
13
14
13 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23
24 j
23 I
26 | l PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 40
ANSWER to Interrogatory 2.02 Defendant Bendix oojects to this interrogatory as being overly broad
and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought 'would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections, the tradename is "Bendix". See also answer to Interrogatory 2.01.
answer to Interrogator/ 2.03 Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad
and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and mannours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought vould far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information wuld provide. Defendant 3endix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
-40a-
2.04 Do any documents, including written memoranda. 2i
; specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written 3
materials of any kind or character relating to the design and 4
`preparation of the asbestos products listed in Interrogatory No, 5
1.11 now exist? 9;
ANSWER'S See Page 41a 7i
i 8
9: 2.05 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
10 !the affirmative:
11 (a) List each document;
12 (b) State the name, address and job title of each
13 person who currently has possession of each document, and where the documents are presently
14 located.
15 ANSWER: See Pa9e
IS
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29 ;! PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 41
ANSWER to Interrogatory 2.04
Defendant Bendlx objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant 3endix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant Bendix responds: Yes.
ANSWER to Interrogatory 2.05
' Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terras of cost and mannours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix *i*-> oojects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
1;
-REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION K: Pursuant to CR 34, you are 2;
hereby requested to produce and/or make available for inspection 3
and copying all such correspondence or other material pertaining to 4
:your answer supplied in the previous interrogatory. 5
s ; RESPONSE: See Page 42a.
7; i
8
9
101 No.
1.11
2.06 Before releasing the products listed in Interrogatory to the public, were any tests conducted on them to
determine potential health hazards involved in the use of the
11 I
asbestos materials contained in those products? 12 !
13
[ ANSWER: i
See Page 42a.
14
is ;
15
17
IS 2.07 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
19 the affirmative, state:
20 (a) The names of the products tested;
21 (b) When the products were tested;
22 i!
(c) The name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests;
23 (d) The results of those tests.
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 42
l
)
RESPONSE to Request or Production K Decline. Defendant Bendix objects to this Request foe Production as
being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this request with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if ary, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to tne discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Bendix objects to this request since many documents reflect trade secrets and therefore are proprietary.
ANSWER to Interrogatory 2.06 Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague,
ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the focegoing oogection, abd except tests relative to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act and various State brake lining requirements. Defendant 3endix responds: No.
)
-42a-
)
)
1
ANSWER: 2;
i 3:
Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory 2.06.
4
3 6 7 g! 2.08 Do any documents, including written memoranda,
g j specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written
10 ' materials of any kind or character relating to the testing of the
11 products identified or in Interrogatory No. 1.11 now exist?
19 i ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous
j unci ear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. However,
13 j in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection, if testing
i referred to in this interrogatory is that testing referred to in Interrogatory No. 2.
14 j Defendant Bendix responds "not applicable". If the testing referred to in this
' interrogatory is testing other than that referred to in Interrogatory 2.06,
13 ' Defendant Bendix responds as follows:
{see Page 43a)
16
17 2.09 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
13 the affirmative, state:
19 (a) List each document; II
20 '! (b) State the name, address and job title of each person who currently has possession of each
21 document, and where it is presently located.
22 '| : See answer to Interrogatory 2.08. 23
24
23 26 ,
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 43
] i
ANSWER to Interrogator/ 2.08 (continued) Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it
seeks'Tnforraation not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of adraissiole evidence. Defendant Bendi_x also objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The Durden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this
interrogatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. However, in the spirit of cooperation, and without waiving the foregoing objections, hundreds of tests on Bendix* friction material brake linings containing asbestos are conducted annually to meet federal, state and vehicle manufacturers' requirements relative to effectiveness (friction level), friction stability, durability and noise level. Tests are conducted in high and low tenperature environments, low and high humidity situations on vehicles and under controlled conditions on laboratory dynamometers.
-43a-
.-REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION L: Pursuant to CR 34, you are
i '! hereby requested to produce according to the above instructions a 3
; copy of all documents identified in your response to the preceding 4
1 interrogatory. 5
RESPONSE: See answer to Interrogatory 2.08 6
7 ii
3
9 2.10 Did defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make
10
any design changes as a result of the tests referred to in
11
Interrogatory No. 2.06? 12
ANSWER: 13 j
See answers to Interrogatories 2.01 and 2.08.
14
15
16
17 2.11 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
18 i the affirmative, state:
19 (a) The trade names of the products changed;
20 (b) The nature of the changes made;
21
(c) The name, address and job title of each person responsible for having made a change.
22 j|
23
24
23
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 44
l!
)
;ANSWER: ---See answer to Interrogatory 2.10 2i 3 4 5
i 2.12 After releasing the products listed in Interrogatory 7
a No. 1.11 to the public, were any tests conducted on them or were
any on-site inspections conducted to determine potential health 9 10 ]hazards involved in the use and/or removal of the asbestos
11 materials contained in those products?
ANSWER;
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous,
12 | unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant
13
'
Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information not relevant to matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discover
14
of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant Bendix has no knowledge.
15
16 2.13 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
17 the affirmative, state:
13 (a) The names of the products tested;
19
20
21 ANSWER:
22
(b) The name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests;
(c) The results of those tests.
Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory 2.12.
23
24
23
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 45
il
!
)
2.14 Do any documents, including written memoranda,
specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written
materials of any kind or character relating to the potential health
;hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 1.11 now exist?
5 j Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, [i A-aNiirtmtjuRojus. unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present
6 form^ - Also see answer to Interrogatories 2.06 and 2.08.
7j ]
8:
s: 2.15 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
10 .
the affirmative, state: 11
(a) Name each product; 12 :
(b) List each document; 13
(c) State the name, address and job title of each
u j person who currently has possession of each 1V document and where it is presently located.
13 i
16 I ANSWER:
Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory 2.14.
17 J
13 | i
19 !
20 I li
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION M; Pursuant to CR 34, attach or
22 23 produce according to the above instructions a copy of each such 24 i| document or test.
23
26 i
) I PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 46 l
1 i;
RESPONSE: 2 :r
i 3'
Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory 2.14.
4
1 5
2.16 Did defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make 6
any design changes as a result of those tests? 7 I;
ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague,
8 ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present
form. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing 9 objection, see answers to Interrogatories 2.06, 2.08 and 2.14.
10
11
12
2.17 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 13
the affirmative, state: 14
(a) The names of the products changed; 15
16 17 ANSWER:
(b) The name, address and job title of each person responsible for having made a change.
Mot applicable. See answer to Interrogatory 2.16.
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST IHTERROGS, ETC. - 47
--REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N; Pursuant to CR 34, you are
-hereby requested to produce according to the above instructions a
copy of all documents pertaining to design changes as identified in
your response to the preceding interrogatory. 5
RESPONSE: Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory 2.16.
8
7
8
9
SECTION 3.0
10 i
11 ,
1 12 1
3.01 Did you provide instructions and/or warnings
13 concerning the potential health hazards of asbestos exposure to 14 Iplaintiff's employer Stewart-Western, Inc. or Western Brake Ind. 13 Company at any time?
16 ANSWER:
$ee pagfi
17
18
19
20 3.02 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
21 the affirmative, state the following:
22
23 .
(a) Whether the employer was expected or requested to transfer the instructions and/or warnings to its employees such as plaintiff;
24 ij (b) The date(s) you provided instructions and/or
warnings to plaintiff's employer; 23
28 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 48
SECTION 3.0
AtSWER to Interrogatory 3.01 Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague,
ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present fora. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection, and except tests relative to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act and various State brake lining requirements, Defendant Bendix responds as follows:
Defendant Bendix' records do not reflect Stewart-Western, Inc. or Western Brake Ind. Company as customers, if they were in fact customers of Defendant Bendix, cartons of friction material products containing chrysotile asbestos fibers shipped to customers effective October 1973 reflected the OSHA warning.
Further, in 1977 Defendant Bendix mailed to its rebuilder customers, the Friction Materials Standards Institute Brake Lining & Clutch Facing Automotive Data Book or a Supplement thereto which contained a page entitled "Recommended Procedures for Reducing Asbestos Dust During Brake Servicing" {Attachment E). In March 1979, Defendant Bendix mailed to its distributor and rebuilder customers a Friction Materials Standards Institute, Inc. publication dated October 1978 entitled "Friction Materials Work Practices Guide" {Attachment F) and transmitted Attachment F by means of a General Bulletin (Attachment G).
-48a-
1
(c) Who prepared the instructions and/or warnings; 2 il
(d) To whom the instructions and/or warnings were 3 ' addressed?
4 5 8 7 8 9 !ANSWER: 10
(e) The manner in which the instructions and/or warnings were transmitted to plaintiff's employers (i.e., orally, printed, pamphlets, printed on carton, etc.);
(f) The precise wording used in the instructions and/or warnings, or in lieu thereof, attach an authenticated copy of the instructions and/or warnings.
See answer to Interrogatory 3.01.
11
12
13
14
13
16 17
IS 3.03 Did you, at any time, provide instructions and/or
19 warnings concerning the potential health hazards of asbestos
20 exposure to either (a) plaintiff and/or (b) his co-workers?
21 ANSWER:
Defendant Sendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague,
ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present 22 form. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing
23 objection, see answers to Interrogatories 3.01, 3.07 and 3.08.
24
23
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 49
3*04 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
; the affirmative, state the following: 3
(a) The date(s) you provided instructions and/or 4 warnings to each plaintiff and/or his co-workers
j
5 | (b) Who prepared the instructions and/or warnings;
6 (c) To whom the instructions and/or warnings were addressed;
(d) The manner in which the instructions and/or
3 warnings were transmitted to plaintiff and/or his co-workers (i.e., orally, printed,
9 pamphlets, printed on carton, etc.);
10
11
12
ANSWER: 13 !
{e) The precise wording used in the instructions and/or warnings, or in lieu thereof, attach an authenticated copy of the instructions and/or warnings *
See answers to Interrogatories 3.01, 3.07 and 3.08.
14
13 | L
18 II
17 j f
18 |
19 j
20 I
22 23 24 i 23 26
(PLAINTIFF 1S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. (1
50
)
1
3.05 Did you provide instructions and/or warnings 2I
,,concerning the potential health hazards of asbestos exposure to any 3
persons at plaintiff's work place during the time period during 4
.which plaintiff was employed at Stewart-Western, 3
Brake Ind. Company, Seattle, Washington? 6
Inc.
or Western
ANSWER:
If in fact Stewart-Western, Inc. and Western Brake, Inc.
7 Company, Seattle, Washington were customers of Defendant Bendix, see
answer to Interrogatories 3.01, 3.07 and 3.08. 8
9
10
3.06 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 11
the affirmative, state the following: 12
13
) 14
(a) The date(s) you provided instructions and/or warnings to plaintiff and/or his co-workers;
(b) Who prepared the instructions and/or warnings;
15 (c) To whom the instructions and/or warnings were addressed;
16
17
(d) The manner in which the instructions and/or warnings were transmitted to plaintiff and/or
18
his co-workers (i.e., orally, printed, pamphlets, printed on carton, etc.);
19 (e) The precise wording used in the instructions
20 '
and/or warnings, or in lieu thereof, attach an authenticated copy of the instructions and/or
21 warnings.
22
23
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 51
1
2_ I!A...N..S. .W...E. .R:
:|
I 3:
See answer to Interrogatory 3.05.
4.
5
6
7j ' !:
81 1 3.07 Did you at any time place any kind of an instruction
9:
10 ; or warning label on any container, shipping tag, invoice or product
11 : of any kind which purported to warn a user of your product of the
12 ; danger of using asbestos?
13 : ANSWER; 1
i4:
i 13 j
Yes, the OSHA cautionary warning.
16
17 3.08 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
13 * the affirmative, state:
19! (a) When the warning, notice or instruction first appeared;
20 i (b) On what asbestos-containing products did the
21 j caution, warning, notice or instruction appear, and where were such warnings located on each of
22 the products or packages;
23 (c) For each individual product when did the warning first appear;
24
25 ' I
26 ! PLAINTIFF'S FIRST
INTERROGS,
ETC.
- 52
1
2| 31
4
i
5I
6
71
8
9 10 11 ANSWER:
(d)The exact wording of each such warning, notice or instruction for each individual asbestos-containing product;
(e} The time period each such warning was used for each asbestos-containing product;
(f) Who prepared the instructions or warnings.
(g) Has the warning notice, statement or instruction ever been altered, amended or changed in any manner; if so:
1. For each product warning that was altered or amended, indicate how and when it was amended and the reason for such amendment or change, and the identity of the person responsible for such amendment or change.
See Page 53a.
12
13
14
15
16
17 j
18 ' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or I
19 ; produce according to the above instructions an authenticated copy
20 ' of each warning label or notice used on any asbestos-containing
'i
21 i! product sold, manufactured or incorporated in any product
i
22 I 1
manufactured
or
distributed
by
you.
23 I
I
24 i i
25 '
i
26 i PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 53
ANSWER to Interrogator/ 3.08 (a) October 1973 (b) On a major panel of the carton in which friction material products
containing cnrysotile asbestos fibers were snipped to Defendant Bendix' customers. (c) October 1973 (d)
CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS
AVOID CREATING DUST BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY
CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM (e) October 1973 to present (f) The identity of the author of the instruction or warning is unknown
to Defendant Bendix except that the warning is set forth in the OSHA Regulations. (g) no.
-53a-
RESPONSE; 2 j' 3:
See answer to Interrogatory 3.08.
4:
I 5
3.09 Did you provide respirators to plaintiff, plaintiff
6
employers or persons at plaintiff's job sites during the time 7
period plaintiff was employed at Stuart-Western, Inc. or Western S
Brake Industries, Seattle, Washington? 9
ANSWER:
N`
10
11
12
13 I
ir
14 | 1
15 |j 3.10 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
the affirmative, state the following: 16 i 17 (a) The date(s) respirators were provided;
13 : (b) To whom the respirators were provided;
19 i; (c) The type of respirators provided;
20 I' (d) The instructions and/or warnings provided with respirators, if any.
21; i
\ 22 '
i 23 '
I 24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 54
<13
)
1 ANSWER:
2
I 3
---
Not applicable to Defendant 3endix.
See answer to Interrogatory 3.3
4
i
5'
6 r
a
9 3.11 Did you receive any comments or complaints concerning
10 asbestos dust and/or asbestos health hazards from any persons who
11 were co-employees or employed at plaintiff's place of employment
12 jduring the time period plaintiff was employed at Stuart-Western,
13 ;Inc. or Western Brake Industries, Seattle, Washington?
14
13 i! Defendant Bendix has no knowledge.
16 17
18
19 i| 3.12 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
the affirmative, state the following:
20
21
(a) The name and address of the person commenting or complaining;
22
(b) The precise wording of the comment and/or
23
complaint?
24 (c) The date the comment and/or complaint was received by you;
23 (d) What action, if any, was taken in response to
26 the comment and/or complaint. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 55
)
1
2 ANSWER: __ Not applicable to Defendant Bendix. See answer to Interrogatory 3.1'.
3 i
4|
5
8 7 !,
3
9
10 :
11 3.13 Did you receive notice of any workmen's compensation
12 claims alleging injury as a result of asbestos exposure?
13 ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks
information not relevant to matters involved in this action and not calculated
14 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant Bendix responds:
15 Yes.
-
13
17 IS 3.14 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 19 the affirmative, state the following for each year from the date of 20 your incorporation:
21 (a) The name and address of each claimant;
22 (b) The date you received notice;
23 (c) The state in which the claim was filed;
24
23
28 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC.
56
1i
1
2 i!
31
ANSWER:
(d) The injury alleged
(e) The outcome of the dismissed, etc.).
See Page 57a .and b.
5!
6
7, f
a!
9
10
3.15 State the total number of product liability, third
11
party cases which have been filed naming you as a party defendant 12 j
in which it was alleged in any way that your asbestos-bearing 13 ;j
i product caused harm. 14 |
15 >| ANSWER:
see Page 57b-
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 57
) ANSWER to Interrogatory 3.14
..Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing odjection, Defendant 3endix has been involved in worker's condensation cases beginning in 1978 in which Bendix employees claim exposure to or injury from products containing asbestos, namely:
1. (a) (b)
- (c) (d) (e)
Flora G. Rootes On or about 11/8/78 New York
asbestosis pending
2. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Thcmas J. Walsh On or about 3/23/79 New York asbestosis pending
3. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Charles E. Lewis Filed 3/28/80 New York asbestosis pending
4. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Willis Green Gonterman (pipefitter) Filed on or about 11/22/80 Missouri asbestosis settled
5. (a)
(b) (c) (d) (e)
Daniel L. Sullivan (steam/boiler room engineer)
Filed 1/4/82 Baltimore, Md. mesotheliana pending
6. (a)
equipment) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Melvin E. Donelson (operating engineer/heating-cooling
Filed 10/4/82 Missouri mesothelioma pending
-57a-
)
7. (a) (o) (c) a> (e)
8. (a) (b) (c) Id) (e)
Ann M. (Ryan) Vbn Fricken 6/24/83 New York asbestosis pending
Raymond A. Zehner Filed 2/29/84 Indiana cancer of larynx pending
ANSWER to Interrogatory 3.15
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and ot calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Bendix also oojects to tnis interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant Bendix has been involved in 516 cases beginning in 1975 in which plaintiffs allege exposure to and injury from asbestos exposure, with 347 cases pending and no cases reduced to judgment against Bendix. Some economically induced settlements have been made.
-57b-
1
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION A: Over 10,000 cases described in
2
Interrogatory No. 3.17 are pending or have been filed naming you as
3 a defendant.
4 RESPONSE:
Oenied.
5
6
7j
!i
a
3.16 When were you first served with a summons and
9 complaint in which it was alleged that asbestos-related damages
10
were sustained by a third party as a result of alleged exposure to 11
an asbstos product manufactured, distributed or incorporated into a
12
j product manufactured or distributed by you?
13 j ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
14 ; that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action
! and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However,
15 ' in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection,
l! Defendant Bendix responds as follows:
November 12, 1975
16
17 li
IB 1 19
20
21
22
23 3.17 State the court, cause number, attorney 24 identification, and ultimate resolution of such lawsuit identified 25 above.
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 53
1I
)
1
'ANSWER:
2
See Page 59a.
3
4
5
6
. 3.18 For each and every year from 1930 to present, state '7
the number of such suits which were served upon you.
a
ANSWER; 9
See page 5ga _
10
11
12
13
14 3.19 Identify by name and address the person or persons
15 who act as corporate custodian of documents pertaining to the third
16 17 party litigation in which asbestos-related damage is alleged.
13 ANSW"i
See Page 59a.
19
20
21
22 23
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 59
1
3.20 When was defendant first served with a third party
2
3 summons and complaint in which it was alleged then or later that a
plaintiff or a plaintiff'3 decedent sustained mesothelioma as a 4
result of exposure to asbestos products manufactured, distributed 5
or incorporated into a product manufactured or distributed by you?
6
ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad
7 jrra-mlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden
upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with
a respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that
said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogator 9 on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved
in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
10
11
12
13 3.21 State the court, cause number, attorney .! identification and ultimate resolution of such lawsuit identified
14
15 above.
16 ANSWER:
See answer to Interrogatory 3.20.
17
13 19
20
21 3.22 For each and every year from 1930 until the present, 22 state the number of such suits which were served upon you. 23
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 60
Ii
I I L1
:ANSWER: 2;
See Page 61a.
3
4
5;
6
7
a
:i 3.23 When was defendant first served with a summons and 9i
I complaint in which it was then or later alleged that a plaintiff or
10 i
plaintiff's decedent sustained lung cancer as a result of exposure
n!
to asbestos products manufactured, distributed or incorporated into 12 i
a product manufactured or distributed by you?
13 !i
ANSWER:
See Pa9e 61a-
14 ;
is i
16
17
ia I
J
20 ! 3.24 State the court, cause number, attorney 21 i identification and ultimate resolution of such lawsuit identified 22 : above.
23 :
24 i
i
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERHOGS, ETC.
61
) ANSWER to Interrogatory 3.22
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrrsgatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also oojects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
ANSWER to Interrogatory 3.23 : Defendant Bendix oojects to this interrogatory as being overly broad
and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant 3endix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seexs information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
)
-61a-
)
1
ANSWER:
2
See answer to Interrogatory 3.23.
3
4
5
6
7
3.25 For each and every year from 1930 to the present,
3
state the number of such suits which were served upon you. 9
ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly
10 broad' and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The
burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory 11 with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any,
that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this 12 interrogatory on the pounds that it seeks information not relevant to the
matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of 13 admissible evidence.
14 j 3.26 When was defendant first served with a summons and
15 ij jcomplaint in which it was then or later alleged that a plaintiff or
16
17 plaintiff's decedent sustained asbestosis as a result of exposure
13 |to asbestos products manufactured, distributed or incorporated into
19 products manufactured or distributed by you?
20 ANSWER;
See Page 62a.
21
22 3.27 State in detail the court, cause number, attorney 23 identification and ultimate resolution of such lawsuit identified 24 iabove.
23
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 62
ANSWER to Interrogatory 3.26 Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad
and unlimited in scope so as to oe patently Durdensoroe and onerous, itie burden upon 3endix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrSgatory with respect to the information sought 'would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information 'would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to tne discovery of admissible evidence.
-62a-
]
1
ANSWER:
2
See answer to Interrogatory 3.26.
3
4
5
6
7 3.28 For each and every year since 1930 to the present,
8
|state the number of such suits which were served upon you.
9! i ANSWER:
See Page 63a.
10
11
12
13
14
3.29 Do you retain records of the worker's compensation or
15
16",,
i
\
third
party
claims
described
in
the
foregoing
interrogatories?
i ANSWER:
See page 533 .
17
13 19
20
3.30 Identify with name and address the corporate
21
custodian of records concerning claims of workers.
22
23
24
25 28 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 63
1
ANSWER to Interrogatory 3.27 Defendant 3endix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad
and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous, ihe burden_upon 3endix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant 3endix also objects to this interrogatory on tne grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissiole evidence.
ANSWER to Interr-gatocy 3.28 Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague,
ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form in that Defendant Bendix does not know what "records" are being referred to. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seexs information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in tne spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing oo^ection, Defendant Bendix' Law and Insurance Departments retain some information relative to claims which have been filed against Defendant Bendix as doe3 Defendant Bendix' insurance carrier.
-63a-
)
I
ANSWER:
2
See answer to Interrogatory 3.29.
3
4
5
6
3-31 Identify all documents relating to the information 7
kept on worker's compensation claims.
8
9 See Page 64a.
10
11
12
13 14
15
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P; Pursuant to CR 34, attach or 16
17 i! produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents
13 identified in the preceding interrogatory.
19 ' RESPONSE:
i
20 j| j;
2i;!
See Page 64a.
22
23 !
24
25 26 ) PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 64
ANSWER to Interrogatory 3.31 Defendant Bendlx objects to this interrogatory as being vague,
amoiguous, unclear and incapaole of being intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant 3endix further objects to this interrogatory- on tne grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissiole evidence.
ANSWER to Request for Production P Defendant Bendix objects to this request as being vague, ambiguous,
unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this request as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. Hie Durden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this request with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
-64a-
1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 3; You were aware as early as 1900
2
that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compensation 3
claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to
4 asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities.
5 RESPONSE:
Denied.
S
7
8
9
10
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION C: You
11
!that one or more individuals had filed
12 ! |claims alleging injury or disease as a
13 1 asbestos while employed at one or more
14 RESPONSE:
15
Denied.
were aware as early as workmen's compensation result of exposure to of your facilities.
1910
16
17
13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION D: You were aware as early as 1920
19 !| that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compensation
20
claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to
21
asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities.
22
23
24
25 26 j| PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 65
1 RESPONSE:
2
Denied.
3
4
5
6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION E; You were aware as early as 1930
7 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compensation
3 claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to
9 asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities.
io ; RESPONSE:
n;
Denied,
12
i
13 !
14 ' !
13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION F: You were aware as early as L94Q
13 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compensation
17
claims alleging injury or disease as a 'result of exposure to 13
asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. 19 :
RESPONSE:
20
Denied.
.
21
22
23
24 ;i
23 26 i PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 66
1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION G: You were aware as early as 1950
2
that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compensation
claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to
asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities.
RESPONSE:
6
Oenied.
7
a
9 IiI 10 !
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION Hi You were aware as early as I960 11 !;
12 i that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compensation
claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to 13
' asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities.
RESPONSE: 15
i
16 jj
17 |j ia
Denied.
19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION I; You were aware as early as 1965
20
21 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compensation 22 claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to 23 asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities.
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 67
;jI
1
i RESPONSE:
2
Denied.
3
4
5|
6
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION J: You 7;
i
that one or more individuals had filed 8'
i claims alleging injury or disease as a
9 i\I asbestos while employed at one or more
10 |
j
RESPONSE:
11 : i
Denied.
12 ;
were aware as early as workmen's compensation result of exposure to of your facilities.
1970
i 13 :
14
j
is :i
IIII REQUEST FOR ADMISSION K: You were aware as early as 1975 16 jt
17
i j
that
one
or
more
individuals
had
filed
workmen's
compensation
is
!
a:
claims
alleging
injury
or
disease
as
a result
of
exposure
to
19 i asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities.
20 ' RESPONSE:
i 21 j
Denied.
24
23
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 68
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION L: You were aware as early as 1979 2
that one .or more individuals had filed workmen's compensation
3' *
claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to
4-
asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities.
5; ' RESPONSE:
6i
Admitted.
ai
9 I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION M; You were aware as early as 1980
io ;
_ ! that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compensation
; claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to
12
iasbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. 13
.'RESPONSE: 14 i1
Admitted.
13
!
17 , i REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Q: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or
13
19 ;! produce according to the above instructions annual summaries of
j compensation claims analyzed by nature of claims, lost time. 20 !i
disposition and the like.
'
22 i 23 I
RESPONSE: unlimited Bendix in
Defendant Bendix objects to this Request as being overly broad and in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon terms of cost and manhours to respond to this request with respect to
i the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said
24 1
information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this request on the grounds it seeks information that is not relevant to matters involved
in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC.
69
SECTION 4.0
3
4.01 Does or did defendant provide pulmonary function
4
tests on its asbestos-exposed workers?
-
5
ANSaWweE,R*::
Defendant 8endix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that
6 TTT^eks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the
7 spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant
Bendix responds as follows; Yes.
3
9
4.02 If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in 10 i
the affirmative, state:
(a) The nature of such program(s);
(b) Whether such program was optional or mandatory; if mandatory, when it became so;
i4! (c) The location(s) of such program(s);
.1
15 1II'
(d) The date of service of such program(s);
16 I (e) If any of the program(s) have undergone
I?;
modification, the nature and dates of such modification;
13 ;!
(f) The custodian (by name, address and position) of
19 S records of such pulmonary function test
program(s);
(g) The highest level of management (by -name, address and position) who participated in the decision to institute such program(s).
22
23 |l
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC.
70
ANSWER: 2
3
See Page 71a,
4
5
6
7,
ii-i
3 !
9'!
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION R; Pursuant to CR 34, attach or 10 !
[produce according to the above instructions a copy of the records
11
!pertaining in any way to the implementation of the previously
12 i . ;identified pulmonary function test programs.
13
RESPONSE: 14 i
See Page 71 a.
13 |
15 17
13 :! 4.03 With reference to the pulmonary function testing
19 i
20 ' program described in your answer to Interrogatory No. 4.02, state 21 the frequency (e.g., tests per year or per month) such tests were
22 administered to individual employees (and if frequency varies by
23 categories of employee or if testing policy was modified, indicate
24 when and where the modifications occurred and by what categories).
25
2S PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 71
ANSWER to Interrogatory 4.02
Defendant Sendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant Bendix provides for its employees exposed to chrysotile asbestos fibers, on an optional basis, annual medical examinations (chest x-ray, pulmonary function test (PFI)).
RESPONSE to Request for Production R Defendant 3endix objects to this request as being vague, ambiguous,
unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present fora. Defendant Bendix also objects to this request as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this request with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
-71a-
)
1
ANSWER:
2
See Page 72a
3
4
5
6
4.04 Did you ever institute a program of chest x-rays for 7
asbestos-exposed workers?
8
ANSWER:
See Page 72a
9
10
ll ;
12
4.05 If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in 13
J the affirmative, state: 14
J (a) The nature of such program(s);
is :i
<b) Whether such program was optional or mandatory; 16 if mandatory, when it became so;
17 (c) The location(s) of such program(s);
13 (d) The date of service of such program(s);
19 (e) If any of the program(s) have undergone
modification, the nature and dates of such
20 modification;
-
21 (f) The custodian (by name, address and position) of records of such x-ray test program(s);
22
23
(g) The highest level of management (by name, address and position) who participated in the
24 decision to institute such program(s).
23 26
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 72
ANSWER to Interrogatory 4.03 Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad
and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and mannours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sougnt would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
ANSWER to Interrogatory 4.04 Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that
it seexs information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant Bendix responds as follows: Yes.
-72a-
)
ANSWER: 2^
See answer to Interrogatory 4.02.
3
4
5 'I!i
6
4.06 For each and every such program identified in your 7
answer to the preceding interrogatory, describe in detail the
8
method by which the results of such testing was made available to 9
the employees. 10 |
ANSWER;
Abnormal results of the tests are communicated orally to the
11 : employee with a recommendation that the employee consult his/her physician.
12
13
14 : I
is i
15
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION S: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or 17 [i
S produce according to the above instructions a copy of the records
13 ||
19 j! of the implementation of the afore-identified chest x-ray
20 i programs.
RESPONSE: Defendant Bendix objects to this Request as being overly broad and 21 uni united in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon
Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this request with respect to 22 the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said
23
information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this request on the grounds it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action
24 I! and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
23:
26 jj PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 73
I 1j
1 4.07 Did defendant ever institute a safety Drogram other
2 ' ---
`
: than Dulmonary function tests and x-ray exams for its 3'
asbestos-exposed workers? 4
-
;ANSWER: 5i
See Page 74a.
6 7
8
9
10
I 12 1 4.08 If the answer to the foregoing interrogatories is in
the affirmative, state: 13 |
(a) The nature of such program(s); 44 ;
i 15 |
(b) Whether such program was optional or mandatory; if mandatory, when it became so;
IS (c) The location(s) of such program(s); 17 I
i (d) The date of service-of such program(s);
13 i
19 . ]
20 '
f
21
(e) If any of the program(s) have undergone modification, the nature and dates of such modification;
(f) The custodian (by name, address and. position} of records of such x-ray test program(s);
22 (g) The highest level of management (by name, address and position) who participated in the
23 j decision to institute such program(s).
24
25
2S PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 74
AtSWER to Interrogatory 4.0
Defendant Bendix objects to tnis interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form in that Defendant Bendix does not know -what is intended by the undefined term "safety program". Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation ard without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant Bendix has implemented engineering controls, air sarrpling and respiratory protection programs, housekeeping and facility cleaning standards and employee training and warning signs as well as medical surveillance in its overall approach to enployee protection.
1! ANSWER:
2; '
31
See answer to Interrogatory 4.07.
4
5
3
7
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION T: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or
8
produce according to the above instructions a copy of the records 9
iof the implementation of the afore--identified chest safety program.
10 1 RESPONSE:
see Page 75a.
11
12
13
14
; 4.09 Did defendant ever institute a no-smoking program for 13
!its asbestos-exposed workers? 15
17
ANSWER:
I'
See Page 75a.
.
13
19
20
21 4.10 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 22 the affirmative, state:
23 (a) The nature of such program(s);
24 {b) Whether such program was optional or mandatory; if mandatory, when it became so;
23 `
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 75
) RESPONSE to Request oc Production T
Defendant Bendix also objects to this request as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this request with respect to the information sougnt would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information v*xtld provide. Defendant 3endix further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
ANSWER to Interrogatory 4.09 Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, itowever, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant Bendix responds that Defendant Bendix has designated certain areas, including those areas where friction material products containing chrysotile asbestos fioers are in production, as no smoking areas. Such areas are marked and "no smoking- signs are posted. Defendant Bendix has also offered to its employees and encouraged its arployees to attend smoking cessation clinics.
)
-75a-
)
1
2
3 4 5
6
7;
a
9 ANSWER: LO
(c) The locatian(s) of such program(s);
(d) The date of service of such program!s);
(e) If any of the program{s) have undergone modification, the nature and dates of such modification;
(f) The custodian (by name, address and position) of records of such x-ray test prograo(s);
(g) The highest level of management (by name, address and position) who participated in the decision to institute such program(s).
See answer to Interrogatory 4.10.
11
12 1 i
13 i
14 |
15
13 17
18 4.11 Identify all records which pertain to the
19 ; implementation of the above-described program(s). i
20 . ANSWER;
Defendant Bendlx objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad
i and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden 21 upon Bendlx In terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with
i respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that 22 j said information would provide. Defendant 8endix also objects to this interrogator.
! on the grounds that It seeks information not relevant to matters involved in this 23 i action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
24 ;
25 ;
26 i !| PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 76
1
.--REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION U: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or
2
produce according to the above instructions a copy of the records 3
of the implementation of the above-identified no-smoking programs. 4
RESPONSE: 5;
See Page 77a.
s
7
3
9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION N: Prior to 1900, dust counts, air
10
;sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted
11
I 12 i at one or more of your facilities where products containing
13 | asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or
14 ! asbestos fiber concentrations in the air.
15 i RESPONSE:
Denied.
IS 17
13 19 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION O: Prior to 1910, dust counts, air 21 sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted 22 at one or more of your facilities where products containing 23 asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or
24 ij asbestos fiber concentrations in the air.
25 `
26 , jPLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 77
RSSPOtCE to Request for Production U Defendant Bendix objects to this request as being overly broad and
unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this request with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information vreuld provide. Defendant Bendtx also objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information rust relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
-77a-
I
1
:RESPONSE;
2
I 3
Denied.
4
5
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION P: Prior to 1920, dust counts, air
6
sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted
7; at one or more of your facilities where products containing
a
asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or 9
!asbestos fiber concentrations in the air.
10
RESPONSE: li
Denied.
12 |
i
13 i
14
13 ! 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION Q: Prior to 1930, dust counts, air IT sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted i3 ! at one or more of your facilities where products containing
19 asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or 20 asbestos fiber concentrations in the air. 21 gaSSSE' Denied.
22
23
24 i|
25
26 PLAINTIFF*S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 78
L| i REQUEST FOR ADMISSION R: Prior to 1940, dust counts, air
2|
sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted 3
at one or more of your facilities where products containing 4
: asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or
5I asbestos fiber concentrations in the air.
6
RESPONSE: 7
Denied.
8
9 LO
11
!
12 j
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION S:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to 1950, dust counts, air
! sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted 13 I
! at one or more of your facilities where products containing 14
asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or 13 |i
151 asbestos fiber concentrations in the air.
17 RESPONSE:
13 i
li
19 :
Denied.
20
21
22
23 1|
24
25 :i 26
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 79
1 .-REQUEST FOR ADMISSION T: Prior to 1960, dust counts air
sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted 3
at one or more of your facilities where products containing 4
asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or 5
asbestos fiber concentrations in the air.
6
RESPONSE: 7 :|
Denied.
3j
I 9'
u: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION U: Prior to 1970, dust counts, air
12
sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted 13
at one or more of your facilities where products containing
14
asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or
13i!
asbestos fiber concentrations in the air. 16 l|
17 RESPONSE:
Denied. 18
19
20 !l
21 j REQUEST FOR ADMISSION V; Prior to 1979, dust counts, air
22 i sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted I
23 | at one or more of your facilities where products containing
24 i! asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or
25 :! asbestos fiber concentrations in the air.
26 il
\,
PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST
INTERROGS,
ETC
80
!I
)
1
RESPONSE:
2
Admitted pursuant to OSHA Regulations.
3
4
5
6
4.12 Wag defendant ever involved in a suit or claim by an
7i
individual (or a union on behalf of an individual) instituted to 8!
[gain access to the medical or exposure records of defendant's 9i
employees?
10
__ : ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague,
11 j ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present
form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that
12 | it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and
j not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in
| the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant
) Bendix has no knowledge.
14
15 IS 4.13 If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in 17 the affirmative, state: 13 (a) When such a suit occurred; 19 (b) The attorneys involved in representing each
party, together with the cause number and court 20 :1 where filed;
21 (c) The individual and/or union involved;
22 (d) The nature of the medical records in question;
23 (e) Identify the custodian (by name, address and position) of records relating to the above
24 subject.
23 26
I PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 81
1
ANSWER:
2
3
Not applicable to Defendant 3endix. See answer to Interrogator t
4.12.
'
4
5
6
7
8!
9
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION V; Pursuant to CR 34, attach or
10
produce according to the above instructions a copy of all records
11
relating to the above subject. 12 !
i RESPONSE: 13
Not applicable to Defendant Bendix. See answer to interrogatory 4.12
14 ' i
15 .j
16
17 | 4.14 Does defendant now, or have you in the past, ever
| contributed money or other support toward the research of the
2q jbiological effects of asbestos?
21
ANSWER:
Defendant Bendlx objects to this interrogatory as being vague,
ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present
form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it 22 seeks information not relevant to matters involved in this action and not calculate
23 ;ji
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant Bendix responds
24 li No.
25
26 1 ! PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 32
1 4.15 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
2
the affirmative, state: 3
(a) the date(s) of such contribution: 4
(d) The substance, either monetary amount or other, 3 i of such contribution;
s
1 1 7 i 1
8i
li 9j
1
10 ;
(c) The type of project or projects contributed to;
(d) The recipient of such contribution by name, address and affiLiation for study;
(e) Identify by name, address and title the person or persons in highest responsibility post for such a decision to contribute toward such research;
11 : (f) Identify all documents which pertain to the decision to contribute to such research;
12 ' (g) Identify the name and address of the custodian
13 i of all documents relating to such research.
14 ANSWER:
13 11l
i
16 jj
Hst applicable to Defendant Sendix. See answer to Interrogatory 1 .14.
17
18 j
19 ; :i
20 '! Il
21 i REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION W: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or
22 ,j produce according to the above instructions all documents relating
23 ' to the research identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4.14.
24
23 ; :l
26 1 i PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 83
)
'I
RESPONSE:
Not applicable to Defendant Sendix. See answer to Interrogatory i
3
4
5
S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION X; You conducted or caused to be
7 !conducted no tests before 1900 on your oroducts containing asbestos
8i
j to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be
9 ;harmful to human beings if inhaled.
10 i iRESPONSE:
11 ;
i Admitted.
12 I
! 13
j
14 ! 15 :!
i REQUEST FOR ADMISSION Y: You conducted or caused to be
16
conducted no tests before 1910 on your products containing asbestos
ir
to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be 13
harmful to human beings if inhaled. 19
RESPONSE:
20
Admitted.
21
22
23
24
23 26
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 84
1 j REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2: You conducted or caused to be
2
conducted no tests before 1920 on your products containing asbestos
3 to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be
4 :harmful to human beings if inhaled.
-
5 RESPONSE:
8
Admitted.
7
3
9
10
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AA: You conducted or caused to be
11
conducted no tests before 1930 on your products containing asbestos
12
to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be 13
harmful to human beings if inhaled. 14
RESPONSE: 13
18
Admitted.
17
13
19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION BB: You conducted or caused to be
20
conducted no tests before 1940 on your products containing asbestos
21
to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be
22
23 harmful to human beings if inhaled.
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 35
)
i;
RESPONSE:
2
3
Admitted.
4
5
6
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION CC: You conducted or caused to be
7
conducted no tests before 1950 on your products containing asbestos
3 to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be
9 harmful to human beings if inhaled.
10 ' RESPONSE:
11
12 Admitted. 13 | 14 1
15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION DP: You conducted or caused to be
15 conducted no tests before 1960 on your products containing asbestos
IT to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be
IS harmful to human beings if inhaled.
19
RESPONSE: 20 ;]
21 Admitted.
22
23 jj 24 I
25 ii 26 :j
I! PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 86
I
1 ---REQUEST FOR ADMISSION EE; You conducted or caused to be
conducted no tests before 1970 on your products containing asbestos
to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be
harmful to human beings if inhaled.
j RESPONSE: S i ----"" 7
Admitted.
8
9
10 ! :l 4.16 State in detail when you first became aware of the
existence of articles on the subject of the relationship between
asbestos 12 !ti 14 1
J 15 !j
exposure (a) (b)
and asbestosis; lung cancer;
IS (c) mesothelioma;
17 (d) forms of cancer other than lung cancer.
13 ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it
; seeks information not relevant to matters involved in this action and not calculatec
19 1 to lead to the discovery of actaiissible evidence. However, in the spirit of i cooperation and without waiving the forefrtngobjection, Defendant Bendix
20 ' res ponds as follows: Defendant Bendix recogni as that there are medical theories J that such relationships exists and became aware of such theories in early 1970 thron
21 | published infiormationyWhich theories Oefaidant Bendix believes to be speculative.
23 4.17 For each disease mentioned in subparts a through d of
24
!;ll II
the
preceding
interrogatory,
state in what manner you gained
25
j I II
awareness
of
each.
28 I
I
i
PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST
INTERROGS,
ETC.
-
87
1; ANSWER:
2
See answer to Interrogatory 4.16
3
4
5
6
I 7 ;|
4.13 Identify all documents which pertain in any way to
a
your answer to the preceding interrogatory.
9 ANSWER:
10
S ee Ffe ge 38a.
ul
12
13 14 ;
13 ! Ii: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION X: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or
15 j
17
I
j
produce
according
to
the
above
instructions
a
copy
of
all
documents
identified in response to the preceding interrogatory. IS ;
19 ' RESPONSE:
See answer to Interro gatory 4.18.
20
21
22
23 lj 24 i|
25 26 * V PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 88
i;
ANSWER to Interrogatory 4.18
Defendant Bendix oojects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Also see answer to Interrogatory 4.16.
1 '!
---REQUEST FOR ADMISSION FF: You were aware as early as 13C0
2
of research, studies and/or articles indicating a causal connection 3
between asbestos exposure and 4
! (a) asbestosis; 5'
.
(b) lung cancer; 3
(c) mesothelioma; 7 j|
8
RESPONSE: 9
(d) forms of cancer other than lung cancer. Denied.
10
11
12
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION GG: You were aware as early as 1910 13
of research, studies and/or articles indicating a causal connection 14
between asbestos exposure and 15
16 (a) asbestosis;
17
(b) lung cancer;
.
is : (c) mesothelioma;
J
19 l|
(d) forms of cancer other than lung cancer.
20 RESPONSE:
21
Denied.
22
23 24
23
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 39
I
I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION HH; You were aware as early as 1920
2
of research, studies and/or articles indicating a causal connection
3 between asbestos exposure and
4 j
3j
7
8
RESPONSE: 9
(a) asbestosis; (b) lung cancer; (c) mesothelioma; (d) forms of cancer other than lung cancer.
Denied.
10
11
12
j REQUEST FOR ADMISSION II: You were aware as early as 1930 13
I of research, studies and/or articles indicating a causal connection 14 i
between asbestos exposure and 13 Si
(a) asbestosis; 16
17 (b) lung cancer;
(c) mesothelioma; 18 1
ii
19 '!
(d) forms of cancer other than lung cancer.
RESPONSE:
20
21 Denied.
22 ;] 23 I
i; 24 jj
23 !i
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 90
)
1
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION JJ: You were aware as earl/ as 1940
2
of research, studies and/or articles indicating a causal connection
3 between asbestos exposure and
.
4 (a) asbestosis;
i
5 ; , (b) lung cancer;
i
8
(c) mesothelioma;
7 ;l (d) forms of cancer other than lung cancer.
8
RESPONSE: 9
10 Denied.
11
12
13 jof
14 j
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION KK: You were aware as early as 1950 research, studies and/or articles indicating a causal connection
between asbestos exposure and 13 ii
r (a) asbestosis; is!
! (b) lung cancer; 17 j
I (c) mesothelioma; 18
19 i I RESPONSE:
20 :
(d) forms of cancer other than lung cancer.
21 !; Oenied.
22 !
j
23 :j
24 ;|
25
26 < PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROOS, ETC. - 91
)
1
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION LL; You were aware as early as 1960
2
of research, studies and/or articles indicating a causal connection 3
between asbestos exposure and 4
; (a) asbestosis; 5;
(b) lung cancer;
6
(c) mesothelioma; 7i
! (d) forms of cancer other than lung cancer.
8
RESPONSE: 9'
10 Denied.
11
12
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION MM: You were aware as early as 1970 13
|of research, studies and/or articles indicating a causal connection 14
between asbestos exposure and 15 16 (a) asbestosis; 17 (b) lung cancer;
13 (c) mesothelioma;
19 (d) forms of cancer other than lung cancer.
20 RESPONSE:
21 Denied.
22
23 j.
24
25 :i
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 92
)
1
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NN: You were aware as early as 1975
2
of research, studies and/or articles indicating a causal connection 3
between asbestos exposure and
4 (a) asbestosis;
5 (b) lung cancer;
6
(c) mesothelioma; 7:
(d) forms of cancer other than lung cancer.
a
I RESPONSE;
Defendant Bendix is unable to admit or deny. Defendant Bendix
9 i betieves that breathing excessive concentrations o f asbestos fibers may
io! present health hazards.
l
11
12
4.19 Have you ever lobbied for or participated in the 13 !
i!lobbying for, or in the creation of, governmental/legislative 14 I
remedies for abestos-related lung diseases? 13 ;!
i ANSWER: 15 ]!
17
13 ; MO . I
19
20
21 4.20 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory i3 in
the affirmative, state in detail: 22 j 23 II (a) The form such lobbying took;
:i 24 i (b) All person(s) acting on behalf of defendant;
23 '!
26 : it PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 93
!l
2
3 ANSWER:
4
5i
(c) The amount of monies spent on the above lobbying (d) The intended and actual results of such lobbying
Not applicable to Defendant Sendix. See answer to Interrogatory -t
7;
i a'
9 4.21 Were you involved in any stage of the preparation of
10 the bill H.R. 2740 introduced by Millicent Fenwick, Republican-New
u: ! Jersey, in the House of Representatives?
12 ' ANSWER:
13
14
ft).
15 I
16
17 4.22 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
13 the affirmative, identify:
19 ! I (a) the manner in which defendant was involved;
20 1
i (b) The person{s) so involved;
21
(c) The time spent in contribution to the creation 22 of the Fenwick bill;
23 (d) All documents generated by your involvement in 24 !i the preparation of H.R. 2740.
23 !
26 ,1 II PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 94
ANSWER: 2
3
Not applicable to Defendant Bendix. See answer to I nterro ga tory -1.21
4
5i I
S'
7
8
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Y; Pursuant to CR 34, attach or 9
produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents
10
identified in aubpart (d) of your answer to the preceding
11
jinterrogatory.
12
IRESPONSE; 13
Mjt applicable to Defendant Bendix. See answer to Int erro gi tory 4 . 22. 14
13
16 II
17 4.23 Was defendant involved in any aspect or stage of
ig -'preparation of the Senate bill, S. 2847, introduced by Senator
1
IlHart, Democrat-Colorado, to the Senate of the United States?
20 ANSWER: 21 ;
ft).
22
23
24
23
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 95
)
1; 4.24 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
2
the affirmative, identify and describe in detail:
3 (a) The manner in which defendant was involved;
4 (b) The person(s) so involved;
3
,,i l
(c) The time spent in contribution to the creationof the Hart bill.
7 iANSWER!
8
fo t a pfi icable to Defendant Bendix. See answer to I nterro ga to ry 1 . 21 .
9 10 |
!
12 !
13 > i
4.25 With respect to liability insurance, identify each
1* land every insurance policy actually, potentially or arguably
13 effective for each year after the founding of defendant.
18 !! ANSWER:
Dffendant Pendix objects to this in terro ra to ry o n the
grounds it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved 17 in" th i s action a nd no t cal c ul a ted to 1 ead to th e d i sco v er y o f a dm is s i bl
evidence. However in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving tie foregoing 13 objection, see Rige 96a.
19
20
21
22
23 i
24
23 :!
28
i
, I
PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST
INTERROGS,
ETC.
- 96
i
)
Fidelity tf
4
CasMualty
Of N.Y. *
1/1/39-40 1/1/40-
P216269 XP23SSOO
tf
M tf
10/1>41 10/1/41
XAP1457
m
tf tf
10/1/44 10/1/44
XP20619
*H
10/1/47 10/1/47
XP25711
tf N M II
tf
tf tf
N tf tf tf
10/1/50 10/1/50-53 10/1/53-56
10/1/56-69 10/1/59-62 10/1/62-65 .
XP84943 XP88153 XP22503Q XP323487 XP389303
)
Continental tf
Ins. tf
Co. ,
N.Y.
tf tf N
tf tf tf
10/1/65-67 10/1/67-70 10/1/70-7S
10/1/75
L249509 C8P048567 C8P048568
16348763
tf
NN
12/31/75 12/31/75
16348763
tf tf
it tf M tf tf
10/1/77 10/1/77-78 10/1/78-79 10/1/79-33
16348763 16348763 SRL6348763
-9 6a-
)
4
i! 4^26 For each insurance policy identified in your answer
;to the 3 4 3
6
7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 ' 13 16 17 is; 19 j 20 i 21 I:
aove interrogatory, 3tate:
(a) The name of the insurance company;
(b) The policy number of each;
(c) The name and address of the agent who sold the insurance policy;
(d) The dollar limits of coverage and scope of coverage for liability of each such insurance policy and the deductibles of each such insurance policy;
(e) Effective date and expiration date of each such insurance policy;
(f) The name insured;
(g) The name, address and title of the employee of
the insurance company and/or agent who has supervisory responsibility for plaintiff's claims in this litigation;
(h) Dollar limits of coverage for any medical payment personal injury protecting benefits which are the same as available to the plaintiff and under what condition;
(i) The name of the attorney defending this litigation who represents each such carrier, identifying each;
(j) Subsequent to the issuance of each policy or policies identified in the preceding, interrogatory, was the original policy amended, changed or otherwise modified;
22 00 If so, for each modification, for each such I policy, identify:
23 l
1. The substance of the modification;
24 : ;l 2. The date it became effective.
25
26 ! PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 97
1 'ANSWER:
2
3
See Fci oe 98a.
4
.*i 5|
6 7j
3
9
10 : 4.27 Has a claim or suit involving policy limits, reserved
11
rights or disputed coverage been initiated against any of the 12
insurance companies identified in your answer to the preceding 13
interrogatory? 14;
13 | ANSWER: 16
N).
17
13
19 !! 4.28 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
20 the affirmative, state:
.
21 (a) The insurance company(ies) against whom the claim or lawsuit has been initiated;
22 (b) The date upon which it was initiated;
23
24 | I
23 ;
i1 26 ;
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 98
)
AKSWEa-to Interrogatory 4.26
'
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seexs information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections, see answer to Interrogatory 4.25.
)
-98a-
)
1: 2|
3 4 5! 81ANSWER; 7
(c) The contentions therein;
(d) The clain number, cause number, court, parties to the litigation, attorneys representing the parties in the litigation, and any other identifying information, including but not limited to the disposition of such litigation, claim or contention.
No t a ppl icable to Defendant Bendix. See answer to Interrogatory 1.27.
3
9
10 :I 11
12 |
) 13
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 2; Pursuant to CR 34, attach or
14 produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents
13 which pertain in any way to your answers to the preceding insurance
15 interrogatories.
17 RESPONSE:
IS j
' Not a ppS icable to Defendant Bendix. See answer to I nterro catory 1 . 27.
19 j i
21 4.29 Identify any other disputed matters with respect to
22 | any other insurance policies, including but not limited to:
23 i (a) The name of the insurance company?
24 (b) The policy number;
23 j
)
26 I PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS, ETC. - 99
)
: ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix did not receive Into-rogatories 4.30 to 4.37.
2 In that there is no gap in pagination, Bwdix understands that no such interro^tori
were intended by plaintiff. 3
3
S
4.33 Do you have or have you had liability coverage other 7
than that previously identified, such as umbrella or excess
8
liability policies or secondary policies or self-insurance reserve 9
pools? 10
! ANSWER:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interro ga tory on the grounds that
11 .i i t seeks information that is not relevant to the matters irvolved in this action
and not calculated to lead iD tie discovff-y of admissibl e evidenc e. 12
) 13
14
15 !|
16
17
13 I: 4.39 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
19 i the affirmative, state for each:
20 (a) The name of the insurance company;
21; (b) The policy number and other identification;
22 (c) The name, address, telephone number, job title, or capacity of the agent who sold the insurance;
23 (d) The dollar limits of coverage and scope of coverage for liability;
24 !j
25
26 ;! PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 101
4 5 iI
6 7 ANSWER;
(e) Effective date and expiration;
(f) Dollar limits of coverage and scope of coverage for any medical or personal injury protection or benefits, and whether same is available to plaintiffs and under what conditions;
(g) The name, address, and title of the employee who has supervisory responsibility for the disposition of plaintiff's claims.
fbt applicable to Defendant Sandix. See answer to Interro^tory 4.18
a1 9 LO ;
11 !
12
13
14 i REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AA; Pursuant to CR 34, attach or
13 produce, according to the above instructions, a copy of all
13 documents which pertain in any way to your answer to the foregoing
IT interrogatory.
-
13 -II RESPONSE: 19
N> t appl icable to Defendant Sendlx. See answer to Interroga tory 4 .39
20
21
22 4,40 Identify all trade publications that have been 23 subscribed to by your employers or agents, including all such 24 i| publications for which you have paid employee subscription. 25
28 i| PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 102
li
I
ANSWER to Interrogatory 4.40
-iSetendant Bendix oojects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seess information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of adtiissible evidence. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and. onerous. The burden upon Defendant Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to each trade association periodical that Defendant Bendix suoscriDed to would far outweigh the benefit, if any, that said periodicals vreuld provide. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant 3endix subscribes, for example, to "Automotive Aftermarket News", "Warehouse Distribution Jobber Topics", "Warehouse Distributor News", "Motor Age", and "Brake and Front Ehd".
ANSWER to Interrogatory 4.41
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to oe patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
answer to interrogatory 4.42
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
-103a-
1
_i>43 Identify all organizations connected with the 2
asbestos products industry which your company has belonged to, 3
participated in and/or financial ly supported from 1920to the 4
present 31
!ANSWER:
See Page 104a.
6I
7 il
8
9 10
11
| 4.44 Did your company or any of your employees, agents,
12
^personnel, directors, or officers ever belong to, participate in, 13
ior financially support the Asbestos Textile Institute? 14 i
,! ANSWER: 13 j
See Page 104a.
is
17
13 19
20
21 4.45 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
22 the affirmative, state:
23 (a) The date(s) of such membership, participation, or financial support;
24
23 26
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 104
ANSWER to Interrogatory 4.43 Defendant Bendix objects to this inter rogatory as being vague,
ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Bendix further objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant Bendix has been a member of tne following:
Friction Materials Standards Institute, Inc. Bergen Mall Office Center, Pararaus, NJ 07652 (since 1949) Asbestos Information Association 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 (since 1974)
ANSWER to Interrogatory 4.44 Defendant Bendix has no knowledge.
-104a-
.1II L;
i (b) The nature of your company's relationship with 2 : the Asbestos Textile Institute?
3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 ANSWER:
11
(c) The name(s), addresses), and nature of duties of the person(s) in your company with any responsibilities regarding the Asbestos Textile Institute?
(d) In what committee(s) of the Asbestos Textile Institute your company or persons in your company participate;
(e) Whether any documents pertaining to such membership, participation, or financial support exist, and, if 30, identify the custodian of such documents.
Not applicable to Defendant Bendix. See answer to Interrogatory 4.44.
12
13
14
13
Id 17
13 19
20
21 4.46 State whether any safety precautions are or were 22 needed by workers handling any asbestos product. 23
24
23
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 105
1; 'ANSWER:
See Page 106a.
3
4
5
6
7
4.47 If safety precautions are or were needed, as to each a
asbestos product, state the following: 9
(a) What safety precautions are or were needed;
101
11 I (b) Why these precautions are or were needed; J (c) What safety precautions are or were re~ommended
to workers or others by you;
13 i ti
(d) State the date(s) such recommendations were made;
14 ! (e) State the manner in which such recommendations
13
were made, whether oral or written; (f) Identify the person(s) in your company making
15 such recommendations;
17
18 ANSWER:
19 ;
(g) If in writing, identify the custodian or possessor of such recommendations.
See Page 106a.
20 I
21 ;
22 !! I
23 llili
24 j:
li 23
ii
26 ;j ;t PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 106 i!
ANSWER to Interrogatory 4.46
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague,
ambiguous, unclear and incapaole of being intelligently answered in its
present form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory as
being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome
and onerous. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving
the foregoing objections, Defendant Bendix responsds as follows: See
answer to Interrogatory 3.01.
.
ANSWER to Interrogatory 4.47
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. Hie burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this interrogatory with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant Bendix further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit of cooperation and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant Bendix responds as follows: See answer to Interrogatory 3.01.
-106a-
1
2 4.48 Identify all persons in your company who are
3 delegated to attend asbestos or asbestos product safety hearings or
4 meetings, or be familiar with asbestos or asbestos product safety.
5 'answer:
Defendant Bendix objects to this interrogatory as being vague, anbiguo
S unclear and incapable of being intelligently answered in its present form. Oefenda Bendix also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeksinformation
7 that is not relevant to matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. a
9
10
11
12 4.49 Has any buyer or user of any asbestos product
13 i
imanufactured or distributed by you ever been given instructions by 14
janyone to discontinue using such asbestos product?
13
ANSWER: 16
Defendant Bendix has no knowledge.
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 107
1: 4.50 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
2! the affirmative:
3 (a) Identify the date of such instructions;
4 (b) Identify the buyer or user;
5 I (c) State the reason(s) for such instructions being S given;
7
3
9i
I to ; ANSWER:
(d) Identify the person(s) giving such instructions to the buyer or user;
(e) If written, identify the custodian of such instructions.
11 ! Not applicable to defendant Sendix. See answer to Interrogatory 4.49.
12 j
l
13 iI
14 1
15 ;
16 4.51 Have you ever engaged in any joint venture or
17 ij cooperative arrangement with any company, corporation, or other
;business entity concerning the manufacture or distribution of 19 'I .
asbestos or any asbestos product, including, but not Limited to, 20 any technical ass*istance arrangement, any research regarding 21 ' asbestos or asbestos products or any marketing arrangement?
22 : 23 !
24 i 1
23 '
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 108
1
: ANSWER: -
Defendant Bendix objec`: to this interrogatory as being vague,
j ambiguous, unclear and incapable of ceing intelligently answered in its present
' form. Defendant Bendix also objects to this interrogatory as seeking information
not relevant to the matters involved in this action and not calculated to lead
' to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, in the spirit o f cooperation
i and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant Bendix has no knowledge.
3
7 8 4.52 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 9 the affirmative, state: 10 ! (a) The date(s) of any such joint venture or
cooperative arrangement: 11 1
<b) With what business entity you engaged in any 12 ' such joint venture or cooperative arrangement;
13 (c) Describe in detail the nature of any such joint venture or cooperative arrangement;
14 (d) Whether any documents exist regarding any such
15 joint venture or cooperative arrangement, and, if so, state:
13 1. The date(s) of any such documents;
17 2. The custodian or possessor of any such
13 documents.
19 ANSWER:
20 to t a ppl icabl e to Oef endant 8 eidix. S ee a nswer to I nterro gi tory i . 51 .
21
22
23
24
25
26 j PLAINTIFF S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 109
1: 4.53 When did you first learn in any manner or from any
2 source that asbestos or asbestos products are hazardous or
Z dangerous to the health of persons?
4 ANSWER;
5i QSHA Relations published in THE FEDERAL REGISTER in 19 72.
6
7:
8
9 4.54 From whoa did you learn the information referred to
10 in the answer to the preceding interrogatory?
11 ANSWER:
12 13 QSHA Regulations published in HE FEDERAL REGISTER.
14
13
16
17
15 19 4.55 State what documents reflect the information given in 20 answer to the two preceding interrogatories, their date, and the 21 || present custodian of said records.
22
23
24
25
28 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 110
)
1 ANSWER: -~
1 97 2 Code of Federal Regulations.
4
5
6
7, 8 SECTION 5.0 9 5.01 Do you contend that any other party defendants in 10 this litigation caused or contributed to the damage or damages 11 sustained by plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent?ANSWER:
12
) 13
Unknown to Defendant Bendix at the present time si nc e discovery
14 has not been com ;j e ted and inves ti ga tion con tinues.
13
5.02 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
the affirmative:
19 j (a) Identify each such party?
20 ' (b) State the manner and means of such contribution;
21 22 23 ;
jI 24 it
(c) Indicate the quantification thereof in percentage terms;
(d) Identify each document which supports such a contention, including the custodian thereof;
(e) Identify each person(s) who has/have knowledge concerning such contribution by name, address, phone number, and relationship to defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 111
1
2 ANSWER: 3*
See answer to Interro catory 5.01
4
i 5i
6
7
a REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. AA: Pursuant to CR 34, attach
9 jor produce, according to the above instructions, a copy of all
10 : documents identified in your answer to the foregoing interrogatory.
11 RESPONSE: 12
See answer to Interrogatory 5.01
13
14
15 i !
5.03 Do you contend that any person, business, or entity
17 not a party to this litigation contributed to the damage or damages
13 j to plaintiff?
19 ! ANSWER:
20 Uhknown to Defendant Bendix at the present time since discovery has not been completed and investigation continues. *
21
22
23 i 24 |
25 'I
t
t PLAINTIFF'S FIRST I
INTERROGS. ,
ETC.
-
112
trie af 4 5
3 Q
ANSWER
5.04 If your answer to the nativa:
5
(a) Identify each such parry;
(b) State the manner and means of such contribution
(c) Indicate the quantification thereof in percentage terms;
(d) Identify each document which supports such a contention, including the custodian thereof;
U)
(e) Identify each person; s) who has/have kr.:I .--.i concerning such contribution by name, a cores phone number, and relationship to defendant.
12 See answer to Interrogatory 5.03
15
15 ' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. CC; Pursuant to CR 34, attach
19 or produce, according to the above instructions, a copy of all
documents identified in the preceding interrogatory.
21 ' RESPONSE: I
22
See answer to Interrogatory 5.03.
23
24 5.05 Do you contend that the plaintiff contributed to his
* own harm?
.PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 113
)
1 ANSWER: --
2
3
4 Unknown to Defendant Bendix at the present time since discovery has not been completed and investigation continues.
3
3
7; 5.06 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
8 the affirmative:
9 (a) Specifically indicate the nature of the conduct;
10 (b) Identify each document which in any way bears
11 upon this issue; 12 (c) Identify any eye-witness or other person who has
information of any kind concerning such 13 contention. 14 ANSWER: 13 See answer to rnterrogatory 5.0 5. 16
17
13 jj
19
20
21
22
23
24 )|
23
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 114
)
1 5.07 Do you contend that plaintiff voluntarily and/or
2 "[knowingly assumed the risk of an asbestos-related injury?
31 ANSWER:
4
5
Unknown to Defendant Sendix at the present time since . discovery has not been completed and investigation continues.
8
7
a
9!
5.08 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 10
the affirmative: 11
12
) 13
14 13
16 17 ANSWER: 18
(a) Specifically indicate the nature of the conduct;
(b) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue;
(c) Identify any eye-witness or other person who has information of any kind concerning such contention.
See answer to Interrogatory 5.07.
19
20
21 ' 22
23
24
23
28 PLAINTIFF1S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 115
)
1
i
5.09 Do you contend that the plaintiff's asbestos-related
injuries were caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by
improper and/or negligent actions of any of the respective
iplaintiff's fellow servants?
s ;i
ANSWER: S
7 Unknown to Defendant 8endix at the present time since
3 discovery has not been completed and investigation continues
9
10
11
5.10 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 12
the affirmative: 13
)
14
:| (a) Specifically indicate the nature of the conduct; 15
ll is i|
(b) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue;
17
13 | 19
ANSWER: 20
(c) Specifically identify any eye-witness or other person who has information of any kind concerning such contention.
See answer to Interro atory 5,09
211|
22
23 ;j
24 i
26 ! PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERAOGS., ETC. - 116
)
)
1 ANSWER:
2
3
Unkrown to Defendant Bendi x a t th e jr ss en t ti ire si re e di scov ery
has to t been com pi e ted and inves tiga tio n co nti nu es.
'
4 i 5.14 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
5 'the affirmative:
6 (a) Specifically indicate the nature of the conduct;
7
(b} Identify each document which in any way bears 8 upon this issue;
9 10 11 jANSWER; 12
(c) Specifically identify any eye-witness or other person who has information of any kind concerning such contention.
) 13
Seeanswe- to I nterrogatory 5.13
14
13
18 17
15
19 5.15 Do you contend that the plaintiff or any other person
20 materially altered your asbestos-containing products pr'ior to their
21 use by the plaintiff?
22 ANSWER:
23
Unknown to Defendant 8 end lx at the present time si nc e di scovery has rot been com pi etad and itves tigptio continues.
24
25
28
) PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 118
1!
i ---5.16 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 2
the affirmative: 3
(a) Specifically indicate the nature or the conduct 4
i (b) Identify each document which in any way bears 5 upon this issue;
3
1 7|
i 3 ANSWER:
(c) Specifically identify any eye-witness or other person who has information of any kind concerning such contention.
9
See answer Id I nterro ga Dry 5.1 5 10 ;
11
12
13
J.4 ; 15 [
IS 5.17 Do you contend that the damages sustained by the
17 plaintiff was caused by third parties not named as parties in this
18 action? 19 i!
ANSWER: 20
Unknown b Defendant 8 endl x at the present time si nc e disco very has not been cornel e tad and irv es ti a tion conti rues.
21
22
23
24
25 ii
26 ! PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 119
__5.. L8 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory i3 in affirmative:
(a) Specifically indicate the nature of the conduct;
(b) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue;
6 a ANSWER:
(c) Specifically identify any eye-witness or other person who has information of any kind concerning such contention.
See answer to Interrogatory 5.17 10 '
11 !
12 1
13
14 5.19 Do you contend that plaintiff or any named defendant
13 voluntarily and/or knowingly assumed the risk of an
16 asbestos-related injury?
17 ANSWER:
ia ;
i 19 I
Unknown to Defendant Bendix at the present time since discovery has not bean completed and investigation continues.
20 I 5.20 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
21 the affirmative:
22 (a) Identify who you contend voluntarily and/or
23 knowingly assumed the risk of an asbestos-related injury;
24 (b) Indicate the exact reason(s) why you believe he/they assumed such risk.
23 '! 'I
26 i! I! PLAINTIFF' S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 120
1 ,,2 j'ANSW....E..R. :
See answer to Incerrogatory 5.19
3'
4:
5
6
7.
i
3
5.21 Do you contend that this court lacks jurisdiction
9 1 over you on the grounds that there is an ins u fficiency of process
10 ; or an insufficiency of service of process?
11 ANSWER:
12 ! !
13 |
Unknown to Defendant 3endix at this time since discovery has not been completed and investigation continues.
14 13 5.22 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 16 the affirmative, indicate the exact reason(s) why you believe that 17 process has been insufficient and/or why the service of process was
13 insufficient.
19 ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 5.21
20
;
21
22
23
24 |J 25 :j
23 ;]
j PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 121
If
)
1 ; ~5.23 Do you contend that the plaintiff failed to commence
2
the action herein within the time required by the applicable 3
statute of limitations? 4
ANSWER: 5
6 Unknown to Defendant Bendix at the present time since discovery has not been completed and investigation continues.
7
8 .1 , 5.24 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
*i ^ ithe affirmative, state in detail each and every fact you rely on in
^ raising that defense, and state exactly which statute of
I llimitations you are relying upon for that defense and the date of
13 [commencement of the statute of limitations. 14 ANSWER: 13 See answer to Interrogatory 5.23.
15 17
ia |
19 11
.20 1
J
5.25 Do you contend that the plaintiff's claim against you
22 is barred by any doctrine of laches and/or waiver and/or estoppel?
23
24 :i 25 '!
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 122
)
1: ANSWER:
2, 3 ' Unknown co Defendant Bendix ac the present time since discovery
has not been completed and investigation continues. 4
i
5;
i 5.26 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
6 the affirmative, for each such plaintiff specify the facts,
7 ,i circumstances, documents, or other evidence upon which you rely for
3 that defense.
9 ANSWER:
10 See answer co Interrogatory 5.25.
11
12
13 5.27 Do you contend that the claim of plaintiff has been
14 barred by 3tate and/or federal industrial insurance and/or worker's
13 compensation laws?
15 17 -A--N--S--W-- --ER* Unknown co Defendant Bendix ac the present time since discovery
has not been completed and investigation continues. 13
19
20
21 5.28 Iff your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
22 the affirmative, specify the applicable state and/or federal
23 industrial insurance law and/or worker's compensation law upon
24 which you rely, and specify the facts, circumstances, documents, or
23 other evidence upon which you rely for this defense.
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 123
I
)
ANSWER: 2'i 3 ! See answer to Incerrogacory 5.27.
4
.i
5
3
7
8
9 10 5.29 Do you contend that your sales and distribution of
products containing asbestos was consistent with the 11 12 state-of-the-art, industry practice or custon, general scientific 13 and/or medical knowledge and standards existing at any particular
time pertinent to this lawsuit?
15 ANSWER: Unknown to Defendant Sendlx at this time since discovery has
13 not been completed and investigation continues.
17
13
19
20 5.30 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
21 the affirmative, state:
22 (a) The facts and circumstances upon which you rely;
23 (b) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue;
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 124
(c) Specifically identify any eye-witness who has information of any kind concerning such a contention.
3 ANSWER:
4: See answer to Interrogatory 3.29
s:
6
7i
8
9'
10 : 5.31 Do you contend that the claim of the plaintiff is
11
5
barred
by
improper
venue
and/or
lack
of
jurisdiction?
12 : ANSWER:
13 Unknown to Defendant Bendix at this time since discovery has
14 : not been completed and investigation continues.
13
16 5.32 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in
17 the affirmative, indicate the reason(s) why you assert there is
18 I improper venue and/or lack of jurisdiction,
19 jANSWER:
20 ! See answer to Interrogatory 5.31
21
22
23
24
23
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC.
125
1;
2' 5.33 List any person with knowledge of facts material to
3 this case, including any persons you presently consider may be
4 called as witnesses at trial, including their names, addresses,
occupations, and telephone numbers.
7 j ANSWER:
8 Unknown to Defendant Bendix at this time since discovery has not been completed and investigation continues.
9, 10
11 12 5.34 List the names, addresses, occupations, professional 13 qualifications, and telephone numbers of all expert witnesses whom 14 you will call at trial of this case, and as to each further state: 15 ! (a) The subject matter upon which each such witness
is expected to testify; IS
(b) The substance of the. facts and opinions to which 17 the expert is expected to testify; ia ii (c) A summary of the grounds for each such opinion.
i 19 '
20
21
22
23
24
25 it 11
28 :} PLAINTIFF1S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 126
) )
I
II 1 : __
'ANSWER: 2
Unknown to Defendant 3endix at the present time since ^ discovery has not been completed and investigation continues.
4.
5;
6
7I 81
9
10
11
12 I 5.35 Identify each document reviewed and/or generated by
13 i
each expert identified in your answer to the preceding 14 !
:iii interrogatory in connection with this specific litigation, and 15
IS identify the documents which each expert has reviewed with respect
17 | to this case.
-
ANSWER: 18 ; - --
i 19 ;
Unknown to Defendant Bendix at the present time since discovery has not been completed and investigation continues.
20 !
21 I
i
22
i
23 !
24 ;
25
.1 28 :
!J PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 127
ii >i
Lj
__
' 5.36 Identify each document reviewed and/or generated by 2;
'each expert identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5.34 3:
above in connection with any asbestos claim or lawsuit. 4
'ANSWER: 5
6 See answers to Interrogatories 5.34 and 5.35.
7;
3
9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. DP: Pursuant to CR 34, attach
10 or produce, according to the above instructions, all documents
11
identified in your response to the preceding interrogatory.
12
I RESPONSE: 13 I
14
13 See answer to Interrogatory 5.36.
5.37 With respect to each such expert identified above: 16
17
(a) Indicate the total number of claims or lawsuits for which said expert has been retained;
13 (b) Identify the person(s) responsible for the 19 decision to retain;
20
(c) Identify the trial court, worker's compensation cause number, or other information which
21
identifies where any sworn testimony (including affidavits, depositions, or other testimony) was
22 given;
23 (d) State in detail the nature of such testimony. !
24 l!
23 i!
26 i liPLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS. ,
ETC.
12S
1 ANSWER: _
2i Unknown co Defendant 3endix at the present tine since discovery II has not been completed and investigation continues.
3
4 .1
3
6 5.38 Have you, your attorneys or agents, any written,
7 ;i otherwise recorded, or oral statements from any witnesses or persons who have or claim to have any knowledge of facts relevant
8 to or arising out of this lawsuit? If so, for each such statement: (a) Identify each person, with name and address,
9 making the statement;
10 : (to) Identify each statement;
11 ' (c) Identify each person. with name and address, at whose request such statement was made;
12
(d) Identify each person. wi th name and address, who 13 prepared such statement;
14
13 ANSWER:
IS
17
18
(e) Identify each person. wi th name and address, now in possession of each statement.
Unknown to Defendant Bendix at the present time since discovery has not been completed and investigation continues.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 i PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 129
!l
1
5.39 Have you conducted or caused to be conducted any 2
surveillance or investigation of any of the facats pertaining to 3
this lawsuit? 4
ANSWER: 3
5 No.
7 5.40 If your answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in
8 the affirmative, state:
9 (a) Who was investigated or surveilled;
10
(b) Who conducted such surveillance; 11
(c) The form of the reporting of 3uch investigation 12 or surveillance;
13 14 13 16 17 ANSWER:
{d) Identify all tapes, reports, photos, statements, and the like so generated;
(e) Identify the name and address of the custodian of the tapes, reports, photos, statements, etc., referred to in your answer to subpart (d) hereof.
13 Not applicable to Defendant Bendix. See answer to Interrogatory 5.39.
19
20 ;
21
22
23
24
25
26 ji I1 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 130
1
2
| REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION SO. EE: Pursuant to CR 34, attach 3
or produce, according to the above instructions, all tapes, 4
;reports, photos, statements, or other documents and the like 5
identified or related to Interrogatories No.'s 5.01 through the s;
preceding interrogatory herein. 7
RESPONSE: a Not applicable to Defendant Bendix at the present time since
discovery has not been completed and investigation continues. 9
10 11 !i REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. FF: You are hereby requested,
pursuant to CR 34, to produce for inspection and copying any and 12 13 all sales records pertaining to the sale, delivery, or use of your 14 asbestos-containing products at the facilities identified in answer 15 to Interrogatories No. 1.20 and 1.24 herein. 16 RESPONSE:
Defendant Bendix objects to this Request as being overly broad and 17 unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The
burden upon Bendix in terms of cost and manhours to respond to this ia request with respect to the information sought would far outweigh the
benefits, if any, that said information would provide. Defendant* 19 5.41 State whether or not you have ever made any
20 asbestos-containing canisters or filters for use in respirators or
21 masks. If you have made such filters, state:
22 (a) The brand name and type of filter;
23 (b) The years of production; *Bendix also objects to this request on the grounds it seeks information
24 not relevant to matters involved in this action and not calculated to 25 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 131
4 ANSWER:
5 No
61 7!
8 9 10 : 11 !
12
13
(c} The location of any documents or materia Is pertaining to the production, distribute on, or
advertising information concerning said filters. respirators and/or masks.
13 16 17 18 1 19
20
21 il 22 23 !; 24 25 28
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC.
il
132
il
1
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION SO. GG: Pursuant to CR 34, pcoduc 2
!such study or report for inspection and copying in the office of 3
;t'ne plaintiff's counsel pursuant to the instructions in these 4:
interrogatories. 5
RESPONSE: 6
Defendant Bendix objects to this request as being vague, ambiguous, 7 unclear and incapable of being intelligently responded to in its
present form. 3
INTERROGATORIES SUBMITTED this /? ^ day
9 of
10
U
f .1 , i . ,.1t 1/
/
1984.
DODD, CONEY & BISHOP, P.S.
12
By "Strafe. 13 Mary ^llen Keegan
14
ANSWERS SUBMITTED this
Attorneys for Plaintiff day of , 1984.
13 By. 16 Attorneys for Defendant(s) 17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGS., ETC. - 133
STATE QELINDIANA } ss:
COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH }
I, Robert H. Michaud, being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am Automotive Group Operations Counsel for the Defendant, The Bendix Corporation; that while I do not have personal Knowledge of all the facts recited in the foregoing answers to interrogatories of Plaintiff, the information contained in the answers has been furnished by various personnel and departments of The 3endix Corporation; that I have no personal knowledge of the substance of these answers, but tnat said answers are true to the best of ray knowledge and belief based upon the information made available to me; and that therefore, the foregoing answers are verified on behalf of Hie Bendix Corporation.
, y, Robert H. Micraud
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
In and for the bounty of St. Joseph State of Indiana. My Connisaion Expires: May 2, 1986