Document D5qdexnV5pnjOVpxeQ7jG7RM

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CLAYTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA CLYDE STANLEY PHILLIPS, ) individually and in his capacity as ) Executor of the Estate of CHRISTINNA ) PHILLIPS, Deceased, ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, et al., ) .) Defendants. ) ) ____________________________________ _) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 2012CV00804-5 DEFENDANT HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.'S RESPONSES TO. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO EACH NAMED DEFENDANT INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT In 1983, Allied Corporation purchased The Bendix Corporation and on April 1, 1985, The Bendix Corporation was merged into Allied Corporation and ceased to exist as a legal entity. On September 30, 1987, Allied Corporation was merged into Allied Signal Inc. and ceased to exist as a legal entity. In 1989, Allied Signal Inc. was renamed Allied-Signal Inc. In 1993, Allied-Signal Inc. was renamed AlliedSignal Inc. On December 4, 1999, AlliedSignal Inc. merged with Honeywell Inc. and Honeywell Inc. ceased to exist as a legal entity. On December 4, 1999, AlliedSignal Inc. changed its name to Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell"). The Bendix Corporation was incorporated in the State of Delaware and maintained its principal place of business in the State of Michigan. Allied Corporation was incorporated in the State of New York and maintained its principal place of business in the State of New Jersey. AlliedSignal Inc. was incorporated in the State of Delaware and maintained its principal place of business in the State of New Jersey. Honeywell is incorporated in the State of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in the State of New Jersey. Honeywell is the successor-in-interest to AlliedSignal Inc. which, in turn, was the successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation. Friction Materials LLC is the Honeywell subsidiary that continues the "Bendix" line of automotive friction products. Honeywell did not manufacture any asbestos-containing friction products in the United States after 2001. In 2009, Honeywell ceased manufacturing automotive friction products in the United States. The Interrogatories herein seek information from at least 1939 to the present. Individuals who may have had knowledge responsive to some of the Interrogatories are, due to the passage of time, deceased, or have faded memories, or are otherwise no longer available to Honeywell. Consequently, and notwithstanding the best efforts of Honeywell, potentially responsive information may have been lost before the time litigation commenced. Honeywell has endeavored to obtain and record information from former employees of Honeywell, or its predecessors, if they were available to Honeywell through direct interviews and/or review of relevant deposition or trial testimony. In addition, Honeywell has searched its files for written or otherwise recorded materials that may contain information responsive to these Interrogatories. The responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories, therefore, are based upon: (a) information supplied by employees of The Bendix Corporation or documents in the possession of The Bendix Corporation through March 31, 1985; (b) information or documents acquired by or known to employees of the Automotive Sector of Allied Corporation from April 1, 1985, through September 29, 1987; (c) information or documents acquired by or known to employees of the Automotive Sector of AlliedSignal Inc. from September 30, 1987 to December 3, 1999; (d) information or documents acquired by or known to employees of Honeywell since December 4, -2- 1999; and (e) deposition testimony of Mr. Joel Charm, Mr. Edward ICoss and Mr. Eugene Rogers, former Bendix employees or Honeywell employees with knowledge of many of the issues raised by Plaintiffs Interrogatories. Mr. Eugene Rogers is now deceased. In these responses, "Honeywell" refers to: (a) The Bendix Corporation prior to April 1, 1985; (b) the Automotive Sector of Allied Corporation from April 1, 1985 to September 29, 1987; (c) the Automotive Sector of AlliedSignal Inc. from September 30, 1987 through December 4, 1999; and (d) the automotive friction materials business of Honeywell from December 4, 1999. As the context of particular questions may require, the automotive friction products manufactured by Honeywell and its predecessors will be described by reference to their registered trademark, "Bendix." Questions directed to matters of corporate identity (e.g., state of incorporation, principal place of business, etc.) are answered as they apply to Honeywell. INTERROGATORY RESPONSES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify each person who has supplied any information or assisted in locating any documents or tangible things used in answering or responding to all Asbestos discovery in this case, and provide a year-by-year list of all positions or job titles held by each person. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks work-product and/or information subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine. Furthermore, any requirement that Honeywell identify each document and paper reviewed in the context of this litigation is overly burdensome, expensive, oppressive and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and limited by these objections, Honeywell, a corporation, as described and defined in the Introductory Statement, answers these Interrogatories. Ms. Jennifer Contegiacomo verifies these answers on behalf of Honeywell as its custodian of records. The information used in answering these Interrogatories was assembled by authorized employees and counsel for Honeywell and was derived primarily from an ongoing review of Honeywell's friction materials records and information located to date upon a reasonably diligent search. Since some of the information was gathered in a cumulative fashion over a period of many years for the overall purposes of litigation rather than on an individual question-by-question basis for this particular set of Interrogatories, it is not possible to identify by name each person who could be said to have supplied the information used in answering these Interrogatories. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: In regard to each product, type of product, or product category identified by Plaintiff in her Sworn Information Form, subsequent testimony by Plaintiff, or any product identification witness, discovery response, or document production from any entity, as a source of asbestos exposure attributed to this Defendant, please identify each such asbestos-containing product that you mined, manufactured, marketed, produced, researched, sold, distributed, or patented at any time. For the purpose of this question the term "asbestos-containing product" includes products that which used any amount of asbestos as a constituent or component part. For each product identified, please provide the following information: a. whether Defendant ever conducted any testing on the product to determine whether it posed any potential hazard to human or non-human health; b. the plant or facility where the product was mined, manufactured, produced, or researched; c. the foreseeable users and other potentially exposed persons of the product (such as smokers, sheetrock workers, floor tile installers, helpers, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, supervisors, family members, people performing do-ityourself home repairs or remodeling, bystanders, etc.); d. the physical and chemical composition of the product, including the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage or amount of asbestos in each product; e. the date the product was patented (if patented), placed on the market (if marketed), and the inclusive dates of the product's manufacture or sale (if manufactured or sold); f. the date Defendant stopped mining, manufacturing, marketing, producing, researching, selling, and/or distributing the product; g. the date the product was removed from the market (if marketed) and no longer sold or distributed and the reasons therefore; -4- h. the date asbestos was removed from the product, if ever, and the reasons for removing it; i. the seller(s), distributor(s) and/or supplier(s) from whom Defendant purchased the asbestos used in each particular product, and the type (example: crocidolite, amosite, chrysotile) and quantity of asbestos Defendant purchased from the seller(s); j. a description of any warnings that Defendant placed on the product or its packaging, operating manuals, brochures, catalogs, or other related printed material. This description should include the precise language of the warning, the size of the warning, the location on the product or its packaging where the warning was printed, and when the warning was first placed on the product. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: ' Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and seeks information that is neither relevant, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since, among other things, it is not limited to the relevant time period or geographic area. Honeywell also objects to this Interrogatory because the composition of its friction products is a trade secret and, therefore, proprietary information. Subject to and limited by the foregoing objections, the trade names for asbestos- containing brake products manufactured and sold by Honeywell or its predecessor corporations for domestic use during the time period Plaintiff alleges exposure are listed below. These trade names were also used for non asbestos-containing brake products. Brake Linings: "Bendix" "Marshall" "Eclipse" "Master" "EDF" "FK" "Friction King" 1939 to 2001 1939 to 2001 1939 to 1987 1945 to 1987 1946 to 2001 1955 to 2001 1960 to 2001 Disc Brake Pads: "Bendix" "Friction King II" 1963 to 2001 1979 to 1987 (asbestos-free wearing surface) -5- Brake Blocks: "Bendix" 1948 to 1988 Honeywell manufactured asbestos-containing friction products domestically at facilities in Green Island, New York from 1939 to 2001 and at Cleveland, Tennessee from 1965 to 2001. These products were not covered by any patent. Honeywell did not manufacture any asbestos- containing friction products in the United States after 2001. Over the years, motor vehicle manufacturers have made changes in vehicle design (weight, chassis length, engine performance, etc.) and in brake performance criteria (noise, durability and stopping distance limits) which required modifications in product formulations to meet the changed criteria. As a result, the percentage of processed chrysotile asbestos fiber in asbestos-containing brake linings and disc brake pads varied over time and depending upon the composition of a particular item but, on average, was approximately 50% (by weight). The percentage ofprocessed chrysotile asbestos fiber in asbestos-containing brake blocks varied over time and depending upon the composition of a particular item but, on average, was approximately 35% (by weight). Brake linings and disc brake pads also contained a resin binder system and various friction modifiers and fillers that encapsulated the processed chrysotile asbestos fibers. Asbestos-containing brake blocks (manufactured between 1948 and 1988) also contained a resin binder system and various friction modifiers and fillers that encapsulated the processed chrysotile asbestos fibers. The suppliers of raw asbestos for Honeywell in connection with the manufacture of friction products during the time period Plaintiff alleges exposure were as follows: Bell Asbestos Mines Ltd. P.O. Box 99 Thetford Mines, Quebec G6G5S4 1973 to 1983 -6- Canadian Johns-Manville Ltd. or JM Asbestos Sales, Inc. Asbestos, Quebec J1T3N2 Processed chrysotile asbestos fiber 1939 to 2001 LAB Chrysotile, Ltd. P.O. Box 459 Thetford Mines, Quebec G6G5T5 Processed chrysotile asbestos fiber 1986 to 2001 Lake Asbestos (Lac d'Amiante du Quebec L'tee.) 120 Broadway New York, New York 10005 Processed chrysotile asbestos fiber 1960 to 1986 The Ruberoid Co. New York, New York Processed chrysotile asbestos fiber 1939 to 1975 Vermont Asbestos Group Hyde Park, Vermont 05655 Processed chrysotile asbestos fiber 1975 to 2001 The processed chrysotile asbestos fiber in asbestos-containing friction products manufactured by Honeywell and its predecessors was encapsulated in a resin binder matrix and, as a result, did not present a health hazard. The heat generated during the braking process converted the processed chrysotile asbestos fiber in friction materials into a harmless substance known as forsterite or olivine. Prior to the issuance of OSHA asbestos regulations in 1972, published studies indicated that exposure to or the use of friction materials did not present a health risk. Since the issuance of OSHA asbestos regulations, scientific research has consistently demonstrated that time-weighted exposures of brake repair workers to asbestos are below prescribed OSHA limits. -7- HWBUI0006604 From May 1971 to March 1973, The Bendix Corporation, under contract with the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, conducted extensive research into the fate of asbestos during the braking process. The research showed that, on average, more than 99.75% of the wear debris resulting from the braking process was made up of materials other than asbestos, showing that virtually all asbestos in the friction materials was converted to forsterite or olivine. Samples of wear debris resulting from the braking process were analyzed and found to contain, on average, only 0.25% asbestos. To provide a systematic independent check on that analysis, the EPA Project Officer entered into a separate contract with Battelle Columbus Laboratories to analyze the wear debris. Battelle Laboratories found that, on average, the wear debris resulting from the braking process contained only 0.17% asbestos. Additionally, in 2001, Honeywell retained Clayton Group Services and R.J. Lee Group, Inc. to perform certain testing to identify exposures to automobile mechanics during certain brake maintenance and installation activities (blowing out dust from used brakes, installation of new brakes, and brake abrasion activities, such as filing, arc grinding and sanding). The results were that airborne asbestos concentrations from brake-changing operations did not exceed the permissible exposure limits as established by OSHA. The results of this testing are published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Volume 38, 2003, and the authors are Charles L. Blake, Drew R. Van Orden, Marek Banasik, and Raymond D. Harbison. The article is entitled, "Airborne Asbestos Concentration From Brake Changing Does Not Exceed Permissible Exposure Limit." Since at least as early as 1973, Honeywell and its predecessors placed a warning label on all cartons and boxes of asbestos-containing friction products shipped to customers to explicitly make Bendix customers aware of the asbestos component of friction materials, even though there -8- were not then and are not now any epidemiological studies indicating that use of asbestos- containing friction products causes asbestos-related diseases. Subsequently, Honeywell and its predecessors complied with OSHA asbestos warning regulations, even though those regulations did not require a warning on asbestos-containing friction products, and even though exposure to asbestos-containing friction products does not result in an exposure to asbestos fibers equal to or in excess of OSHA exposure limits for asbestos fibers. From at least as early as 1973 to August 1986 the warning label read as follows: CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS AVOID CREATING DUST BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM From September 1986 to 2001 the warning label read as follows: DANGER CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS AVOID CREATING DUST CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD Each warning was consistent with the warning specified by OSHA for asbestos-containing materials. Honeywell also labeled shipments of asbestos-containing friction products sent in bulk in containers or on pallets to original equipment manufacturers with the specific warnings quoted above, during the time periods specified. In June 1973, The Bendix Corporation issued General Bulletin G-73-6 to all rebuilder customers regarding steps necessary to comply with the OSHA regulations, including a statement that "[cjaution labels or lettering should be affixed to any carton or box that may have its contents reground" in conformity with the OSHA language. In 1977, The Bendix Corporation first mailed to its distributors and rebuilder customers copies of the Friction Materials Standards Institute's (FMSI's) Brake Lining and Clutch Facing Automotive Data Book which contained a -9- section entitled "Recommended Procedures For Reducing Asbestos Dust During Brake Servicing." Since 1977, The Bendix Corporation and its successors have distributed subsequent editions of the FMSI Data Book (also containing a section entitled "Recommended Procedures for Reducing Asbestos Dust During Brake Servicing") to customers. In March 1979, The Bendix Corporation mailed to its distributors and rebuilder customers a Friction Materials Standards Institute publication (dated October 1978) entitled "Friction Materials Work Practices Guide." During 1984 and 1985, Allied Corporation's Automotive Sector mailed "Product Fact Sheets" to all customers. Beginning July 30, 1986, consistent with OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard, Honeywell and its predecessors distributed a Material Safety Data Sheet to all customers. Honeywell and its predecessors took these steps, and complied with OSHA asbestos warning regulations, even though those regulations did not require a warning on asbestoscontaining friction products, and even though exposure to asbestos-containing friction products did not, and does not, result in an exposure to asbestos fibers equal to or in excess of OSHA exposure limits for asbestos fibers. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Did this Defendant ever sell asbestos (in any form), or any asbestos-containing products or component parts, to any other Defendant named or added as a party to this action? If so, please identify the type of asbestos or asbestos containing product that this Defendant sold to such other Defendant, the dates of such sales and identify all invoices or other documentation relating to such sales. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since, among other things, it is not limited to the relevant -10- time period or geographic areas, or to the job sites or friction products involved in this litigation. Subject to and limited by these objections, upon Plaintiffs identification of a specific job site or sites at which Plaintiff claims exposure to Bendix asbestos-containing brakes and/or the specific supplier or suppliers of those brakes, Honeywell will search available sales records and customer lists for information and/or documents responsive to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: As to any asbestos-containing product mined, manufactured, marketed, produced, researched, sold, distributed, or patented by Defendant at any time, were such products ever further distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled, or sold by companies or individuals other than Defendant? If so, please identify such companies or individuals, provide the dates those companies or individuals further distributed, marketed, packages, labeled, or sold Defendant's asbestos-containing products, and identify the specific asbestos-containing products involved. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: floneywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since, among other things, it is not limited to the relevant time period or geographic areas, or to the job sites or friction products involved in this litigation. Honeywell further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that as phrased, this Interrogatory should be directed to companies or individuals other than Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: As to each asbestos-containing product mined, manufactured, marketed, produced, researched, sold, distributed, or patented by Defendant at any time, does Defendant contend that any of the products can be generally utilized without liberating asbestos fibers into the air? If so, please identify each such product, generally describe the intended use of the product, and explain how such use would not tend to liberate asbestos fibers into the air. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Honeywell incorporates herein its objections and response to Interrogatory No. 2. Subject to and limited by those objections, yes. The processed chrysotile asbestos fiber in -11 - asbestos-containing friction products manufactured by Honeywell and its predecessors was encapsulated in a resin binder matrix and then baked at a temperature in excess of 350 degrees Fahrenheit and, as a result, did not present a health hazard. The heat generated during the braking process converted the processed chrysotile asbestos fiber in friction materials into a harmless substance known as forsterite or olivine. Prior to the issuance of OSHA asbestos regulations in 1972, published studies indicated that exposure to or the use of friction materials did not present a health risk. Since the issuance of OSHA asbestos regulations, scientific research has consistently demonstrated that time-weighted exposures of brake repair workers to asbestos are below prescribed OSHA limits. INTERROGATORY NO. 6; In regard to each of the asbestos-containing products identified by Defendant in response to any Interrogatory herein above, when did Defendant first remove asbestos or any asbestos-containing component parts from the product? To the extent that asbestos was removed, what did this Defendant replace the asbestos, or asbestos component part with? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6; Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since, among other things, it is not limited to the relevant time period or geographic areas, or to the job sites or friction products involved in this litigation. Subject to and limited by these objections, the Bendix friction product line included asbestos-free products as early as 1966. AlliedSignal began phasing out asbestos-containing friction products beginning in the mid-1980s and Honeywell last manufactured such products in the United States in 2001. -12- INTERROGATORY NO. 7: In regard to each of the asbestos-containing products identified by Defendant in response to any Interrogatory herein above, did this Defendant have knowledge that its asbestos, asbestoscontaining product, or asbestos-containing component parts would deteriorate, require replacement, require periodic maintenance or otherwise need repair as a result of the ordinary and expected use of the product? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Honeywell incorporates herein its objections and response to Interrogatory No. 2, above. Subject to and limited by those objections, Honeywell friction products were intended to be removed and replaced after a period of time to ensure vehicle safety and performance. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Was it foreseeable to Defendant, at the time each asbestos-containing product mined manufactured, marketed, produced, researched, sold, distributed, or patented by Defendant was released for sale and distribution, that the product might be removed, stripped, ripped out, or replaced at some time after installation or first being put to use? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: See Honeywell's objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 9; Did Defendant ever mine, manufacture, market, produce, research, sell, distribute, or patent any product which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for any asbestoscontaining product? If so, please identify such asbestos-free product, and state the date such product was first placed on the market. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9; See Honeywell's objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: As to each asbestos-containing product mined, manufactured, marketed, produced, researched, sold, distributed, or patented by Defendant at any time, when did Defendant become aware of asbestos-free substitutes or alternatives for such product, regardless of Defendant's belief of the viability of such substitutes or alternatives? -13- RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since, among other things, it is not limited to the relevant time period or geographic areas, or to the job sites or friction products involved in this litigation. Subject to and limited by these objections, see Honeywell's Response to Interrogatory No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For each asbestos-containing product identified by Defendant in response to any Interrogatory herein above what warnings, if any, did Defendant provide with said asbestos, asbestoscontaining product, or asbestos-containing component part that referenced any danger associated with breathing asbestos dust? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: See Honeywell's objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 12; Please state the factual and legal basis for any defenses you intend to assert in this case. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 12: Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine. Subject to and limited by these objections. Discovery is ongoing and Honeywell reserves the right to supplement its Response to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify each expert that you expect to call as a witness at trial. For each expert that you identify please state each opinion that the expert will offer at trial as well as the factual basis for each opinion. -14- HWBUI0006611 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13; Witnesses will be disclosed in accordance with the Court's pretrial procedures, rules and requirements. INTERROGATORY NO. 14; Please identify all payments that this Defendant, or its lawyers, have ever made to each expert identified in response to Interrogatory No. 13. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and limited by these objections, see Honeywell's Response to Interrogatory No. 13. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify any and all documents, including but not limited to, invoices, billing records, sales records, contracts, or any other like document that reflect the sale, distribution, or delivery of your asbestos-containing products to any employer, distributor, or job site identified by Plaintiff in their Sworn Information Sheet, any subsequent testimony by Plaintiff or any product identification witness, discovery response, or document production in this action. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since, among other things, it is not limited to the relevant time period or geographic areas, or to the job sites or friction products involved in this litigation. Subject to and limited by these objections, upon Plaintiffs identification of a specific job site or sites at which Plaintiff claims exposure to Bendix asbestos-containing brakes and/or the specific supplier or suppliers of those brakes, Honeywell will search available sales records and customer lists for information and/or documents responsive to this Interrogatory. -15- INTERROGATORY NO. 16s In regard to each asbestos-containing product identified by Defendant in response to any Interrogatory herein above please identify any and all testing of any asbestos, asbestos to, during, or subsequent to, the manufacture, sale or distribution of the item. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since, among other things, it is not limited to the relevant time period or geographic areas, or to the job sites or friction products involved in this litigation. In addition, Honeywell incorporates herein its objections and responses to the Interrogatories identified as part of this Interrogatory. Subject to and limited by those objections, the processed chrysotile asbestos fiber in asbestos-containing friction products manufactured by Honeywell and its predecessors was encapsulated in a resin binder matrix and, as a result, did not present a health hazard. The heat generated during the braking process converted the processed chrysotile asbestos fiber in friction materials into a harmless substance known as forsterite or olivine. Prior to the issuance of OSHA asbestos regulations in 1972, published studies indicated that exposure to or the use of friction materials did not present a health risk. Since the issuance of OSHA asbestos regulations, scientific research has consistently demonstrated that time-weighted exposures of brake repair workers to asbestos are below prescribed OSHA limits. From May 1971 to March 1973, The Bendix Corporation, under contract with the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, conducted extensive research into the fate of asbestos during the braking process. The research showed that, on average, more than 99.75% of the wear debris resulting from the braking process was made up of -16- materials other than asbestos, showing that virtually all asbestos in the friction materials was converted to forsterite. Samples of wear debris resulting from the braking process were analyzed and found to contain, on average, only 0.25% asbestos. To provide a systematic independent check on that analysis, the EPA Project Officer entered into a separate contract with Battelle Columbus Laboratories to analyze the wear debris. Battelle Laboratories found that, on average, the wear debris resulting from the braking process contained only 0.17% asbestos. Additionally, in 2001, Honeywell retained Clayton Group Services and R.J. Lee Group, Inc. to perform certain testing to identify exposures to automobile mechanics during certain brake maintenance and installation activities (blowing out dust from used brakes, installation of new brakes, and brake abrasion activities, such as filing, arc grinding and sanding). The results were that airborne asbestos concentrations from brake-changing operations did not exceed the permissible exposure limits as established by OSHA. The results of this testing are published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Volume 38, 2003, and the authors are Charles L. Blake, Drew R. Van Orden, Marek Banasik, and Raymond D. Harbison. The -article is entitled, "Airborne Asbestos Concentration From Brake Changing Does Not Exceed Permissible Exposure Limit." INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Does this Defendant allege or assert that Plaintiffs asbestos-related injury was caused or contributed to by the acts, omissions, conduct, or products of any non-party to this action under the provisions of O.C.G.A. 51-12-33? If so, please identify by name each non-party that you contend to be at fault, as well as all facts that you rely upon in asserting that the jury should apportion fault to said non-party in this action. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Honeywell's notice of non-parties will be disclosed in accordance with the Court's pretrial procedures, rules and requirements. -17- INTERROGATORY NO. 18: For each non-party that you identified in response to Interrogatory No. 14 above, please identify each document, witness, or other item of evidence that you rely upon in support of your allegation of non-party fault as well as the legal theoiy under which you assert said non-party's fault. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: See Honeywell's Response to Interrogatory No. 17. INTERROGATORY NO. 19; Please describe Defendant's medical, safety, and industrial hygiene programs from the Defendant's inception through the current time. Specifically, please state when Defendant first established each of its medical departments, safety departments, and/or industrial hygiene departments. Please also provide the name or designation of each department. For each department identified in the response to this Interrogatory, please identify each person associated with the department, including, but not limited to, the director, manager, physician, nurse, medical personnel, safety engineer, industrial hygienist, safety personnel, and other employees in such department who were employed by Defendant or contracted with Defendant at any time. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since, among other things, it is not limited to the relevant time period, or to the job sites or friction products involved in this litigation. Honeywell further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks identification of experts obtained or consulted for purposes of litigation. Subject to and limited by the foregoing objections, Honeywell did not have a department dedicated to medical programs. At various times during the relevant period, Honeywell and its predecessors employed or retained physicians from the local communities in which its facilities are/were located to perform routine physical examinations and to administer medical treatment to its employees as and when necessary. Honeywell and/or its predecessors had an Automotive -18- Engineering Friction Material Research group that tested the performance and characteristics of its friction materials to ensure compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and to ensure that Honeywell friction materials brought consumers' vehicles to a stop within appropriate braking distances. The following individuals were industrial hygienists for The Bendix Corporation or the Bendix division during the periods outlined below: Stanford K. Christian Charles C. Clark Sondra Johnson Jenkins Linda Parrish Thomas Rancour James Weber Ben Wong 1974-76 1973-74 1980-86; 1987-89 1982-84 1980-2003 1976-83 1977-78 Other industrial hygienists included: Mr. Craig Larson and Ms. Judy Trew. Honeywell employs the following persons in North America in a medical capacity: Dr. Constance R. Hanna, Director of Health Services; Dr. Elizabeth A. Jennison, Associate Director of Health Services. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Has Defendant ever been investigated or cited by OSHA or any other local, state, or federal governmental agency for any matter related to asbestos or asbestos exposure? If so, please provide the dates of such investigations, the results that were communicated to Defendant, and the remedial measures (if any) which were undertaken by Defendant. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, since, among other things, it is not limited to the job sites, time periods or to the asbestos-containing friction products involved in this litigation. Subject to and limited by these objections, Honeywell has not been investigated or cited regarding Bendix's asbestos-containing friction products. -19- INTERROGATORY NO. 21: When was the first time Defendant became familiar with the concept of a threshold limit value, or TLV, for airborne dust, and how was Defendant first made aware of this concept? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since, among other things, it is not limited to the asbestoscontaining friction material business involved in this litigation. Subject to and limited by these objections, the ACGIH has defined the term "threshold limit value" in different ways at different times. Honeywell is unable to determine the precise date on which it first obtained this information. This 29th day of June, 2012. Attorney for Honeywell International Inc. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street NE, Suite 1700 Atlanta, Georgia 30363 (404) 322-6000 -20- HWBUI0006617 VERIFICATION I, Jennifer Contegiacomo, being duly sworn, depose and state that I am an authorized agent of Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell"), and that I am verifying the foregoing Responses to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories for and on behalf of Honeywell as custodian of records; that I have no personal knowledge of the matters set forth therein; that I supervised the compilation of the information on which these specific Responses are based; and that the facts stated therein are based on and accurately reflect the documents and information assembled on a cumulative basis by authorized employees, agents, and counsel of Honeywell over a period of years. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 26th day of June, 2012. My Commission Expires: 2/(3/ampler YELENA BEKKER NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. 02BE6172079 Qualified In Kings County My Commission Expires August 06. 2015 HWBUI0006618 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CLAYTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA CLYDE STANLEY PHILLIPS, ) individually and in his capacity as ) Executor of the Estate of CHRISTINNA ) PHILLIPS, Deceased, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) 3 CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 2012CV00804-5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the within and foregoing Defendant Honeywell International Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiffs First Interrogatories to Each Named Defendant via electronic mail, with an offer to send by First-Class Mail, to Plaintiffs counsel listed below and to all known defense counsel of record in this matter: Robert C. Buck Buck Law Firm Suite 940 1050 Crown Point Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30338 This 29th day of June, 2012. Attorney for Honeywell International Inc. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street NE, Suite 1700 Atlanta, Georgia 30363 (404) 322-6000 -21 - HWBUI0006619