Document DMEOB2Qd29nEMrNDOwL5yRnXM

:'X. vXAlfonso J. Horesi, Bsq. Laugh! iis\, Falbo, Levy A Mores! 151. Onion Street . Icehouse II . San Francisco, California 9^111-1221. Re* * Kaiser Shipyard 3, et al., WCAB So* OAK 141 300 Claim So* 918 0 31408 / SMBS So, 144.05$_____ i' Dear Mr. ^oresi:^ , '* ' - ' X-` With regard to the declaration of Dennis -Strazulo in support of the order compelling answers to subpoena duces tecum, as I earlier relayed to you, there are several inaccuracies. - ' First of all, at paragraph 5 of his declaration ha indicates that I agreed to provide all records-and documents regarding the use of asbestos at the Emeryville plant* That is simply untrue. Although I am not certain of the dateV'-&V did first speak with Mr, Strazulo in,mid August, 1987. I received a photocopy of the subpoena from our worker*-a compensation ^administrator ? Tony ;Colangelo. In that. both of s were concerhed not only with the subpoena but the nature of inTomation requested, both Tony Colangelo and I 'telephoned;',Mr* ;Strazulo shortly-after receipt of . the subpoena, in our Cleveland office, I.: informed-Mr. Strazulo ;; that. I would like to cooperate in the produot'i<fe--f records which V / .could be, compelled by the.use of a subpoena, however, that-we had several problems with not only the nature; of the documents ,' requested, but :the ; fact that theTaubpobba-was severely overbroad burdensome and.- sought, information "that-/'was not only privileged but also information: that may be trade secret and confidential. ,. 'Furthermore, 1 indicated to him that 1 felt that much of the information was irrelevant-and would not.be discoverable. Be indicated, in response that he agreed that, the subpoena was overbroad and delved into areas that he really dxdn't need to get into and would be happy if we began to search for some of the information requested. The conversation ended with our agreement to review the worker5s compensation records.to determine Whether or not we had records of asbestos related claims/ only. We agreed to notify him aa to whether or not we had such records, not to carte blanche produce the files (which were kept in Cleveland) of any workers identified. Incidentally? I understand that no such workers were identified. 0007-SWP-005803660 CONFIDENTIAL v Kaiser Shipyard, et aX, March 17, T9BF Page 2 REDACTED Furthermore, we agreed to begin to search oar files for records as to asbestos use at the Emeryville plant* , I indicated to Mr. Strazulo/'that 1 had no idea what informatioueduld be readily discovered or how long such a search would take. 1 did, however, indicate that I was fairly confident that most.of the information would be in storage and it would be some time before it would be retrieved. He did not indicate any objection to that and the conversation was ended on a note that we would, keep him Informed as to our progress and he would not take further action on the subpoena. ,. With regard to Strasulo's indication in paragraph 6 of his declaration that 1 indicated that probably all buildings at-, ' Emeryville were insulated with asbestos, I did not tell him that/ was true, rather, in our discussion I indicated that I would pot: ? be surprised that such was the ca3e in that the buildings were <- old and, generally, buildings built early in the century often contained asbestos insulation. Further, with regard to the manufacturing process, 1 did state that there were asbestos components used in the manufacturing process, however, also indicated that, to my knowledge, such use was limited to a specific area of one building in the plant (the plant has more than one 'building). Whether I told him X. .would respond by letter indicating that we were gathering the information, X cannot recall, hut 1 do recall that I did not agree'that I would yet send the recwnfs*. . * ; v v-v With regard to.the allegations in paragraph 7 of the declara tion, again not specifically recalling the dates, I did receive a letter from Major Copy Service that Mr. Strazulo was threatening to file a Motion to Compel Production of the Documents. In response to that letter,-' T spok with a gentleman by the name of Rick at Major Copy Service and told him that we were continuing to search for the records, and that I was-.surprised to receive this type of comauncation from Hr. Strasulo or one of his repres entatives. Rick informed me that he^was equally surprised to receive this request from Mr. Strazulo. Thereafter, I told Kick that if Mr. Strasulo was intent on pursuing this course of action that we would have no choice but to defend the matter in that I not only felt the request ...was improper and- overbroad, but that since most of the,very voluminous "..records wer*e in Cleveland I felt the proper method for Mr.. Strazulo to, obtain discovery of those documents would be to venture to Cleveland and take a records deposition here, He indicated that he agreed with me and that he did not feel Mr. Strasulo wanted to pursue that rout or that Mr. Strazulo wanted to' create a dispute about the discovery of these records, rather. that he siamlv wanted'to h*urv u alorur 0007-SWP-005803661 CONFIDENTIAL Alfonso J. Mores!, Esq. <- ________ v. Kaiser Shipyard, et al March 17, 19dtf Page 3 REDACTED rs- 4V result of several people leaving our department we were very short staffed at the time !tbat we were simply overloaded with information requests and wa4 ", doing our' beat to comply with this along with others. Be oated that be would relay the information to Mr. i that if there was a problem he would let-'me know. "V-* f 'Rot having received i r telephone calls or-letters from Mr. Strazulo or Risk, % assumed that he was content with our efforts as they were being Conducted. It was certainly not an exaggeration on our part that we were having a difficult time in that wd had lost several members of oUr litigation section in that time frame and were scrambling to "put out fires* as it were. It was made extremely clear to Mr. Strazulo during our initial , conversation that Sherwin-Williams had multiple objections to the subpoena. If there wan ^ny, waiver of a right , I believe it rwas Mr. Strfaz^lo*s waiver to compel enforeament df the subpoenal , -- Furthermore, in the follow-up hy Mr. Strazulo1s agent. Major Copy Service, the 3aae conciliatory attitude was^baken by Rick and? when I indicated my inclination to contest" the subpoena, he again agreed that it would not be necessary to do-so and that our continuing search for the records was agreeable1 - -4 v- .,. \ -i ,!4-'S"&' " ' ' ; * ' .'Tty'A? 'IviC * - . - /hi: - */ < In sum, although I will certainly agref that we did not pursue the matter as diligently as we could, 4avef I don't fee that Mr. Strazulo operated, on -a forthright honest basis by prpoeediag to file a Motion w'^ the. court after he had agreed, - and his agent had agreed, a-it `ake any action to enforce the subpoena. Indeed, h* attempts to give credibility to his argument bv alleging that counsel for Sherwib-Billiams was involved,, however, but when h decided to file a motion with thei court'to compel production of the document he did not serve the action''or order on the only lawye. who ho had. communicated with on the case. Had I received notice of the Motion in a timely fashion, we would have immediately retained counsel and vigorously defended the matter. Once you have had a chance to consider this letter, please feel free to give me a call so that we can discuss the ...prepara tion of a Declaration in response to that; of. Mr. Strazulo. Thank you very much for your cooperation.''; ' 1 Very truly yours,. John , King 0007-SWP-005803662 CONFIDENTIAL