Document DMveGp4KXQp9ZL4N3DLRD9OMM

CAUSE NO 94-C-2110-2 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBr RS-I32. JOHNNY B AARON, ET AL. VS .ABEX CORPORATION, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS 23RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO: PLAINTIFFS, JOHNNY B. AARON, ET AL., BY AND THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD, MARK LANIER, 1313 LAMAR, SUITE 675, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77010. COMES NCW, RILEY STOKER CORPORATION, a Defendant in the above-styled cause, and pursuant to Rules 167 and 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and makes the following objections and responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request For Production to Defendant, RILEY STOKER CORPORATION: INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1 Please identify this defendant by giving its full legal name, state of incorporation or organization, principal place of business, type of entity (e g., corporation, partnership, sold proprietorship, individual, etc. ..), and description of its business. ANSWER: Please see the attached Corporate History of Riley Stoker, marked Exhibit A. INTERROGATORY NO. 2 For every non-individual, (e.g., corporation, partnership, company, etc.) having an ownership interest in the aforesaid location of the accident site, please identify them by name, address, citizenship and domicile of each director, officer and/or partner; specific state, country, and/or place of incorporation and registration, specific address and location of their principal place of business. DEFENDANT RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUES T FOR PRODUCTION h.-aaron discover'answcrs.int PACK 1 ANSWER Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waning these objections. Riley Stoker states please see attached Corporate History marked as Exhibit "A " INTERROGATOR'S' NO. 3 Please state the name, address, current employer, employer at the time of Plaintiff s alleged exposure, and telephone number of all persons who have knowledge of facts relevant to the Plaintiff s alleged exposure or injuries or to any other issue in this case, with respect to each such person, provide a brief summary of their knowledge. ANSWER. Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discover)' of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Riley Stoker states that at present it does not know of any sucn individual but reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this answer. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto INTERROGATORY NO. 4 If you know of any photographs, drawings, movies or other similar depictions that relate to the exposure site, the product involved in the Plaintiff s exposure, or the physical condition of the Plaintiffs at any time after the exposure made the basis of this suit, please describe the number of such items that exist, what they depict, and the name, address and telephone number of the custodian of such items. ANSWER. Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Riley Stoker states that at present it does not know of any photographs, drawings, movies or other similar depictions but reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this answer INTERROGATORY NO. 5 Please give the name, address and telephone number of every expert who has been informally consulted or who has been retained or specially employed by you in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial or who may testify in this case and, for such experts, state the subject matter on which each is expected to testify, the mental impressions and opinions held by the expert and the facts known to the expert (regardless of when the factual information was acquired) which relate to or from the basis of the mental impressions and opinions held by the expert. Please provide the same information for experts used for consultation and who are not expected to testify at trial but whose opinions or impressions have been reviewed by a testifying expert DEFENDANT RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PIA.INTIKFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION h \aarormiiscC'cr jnsucrx ml PACK 2 -~Y ANSWER Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery' of admissible evidence. Riley Stoker further objects that this interrogatory requests information protected by the attorney-work product, attorney-client and consulting expert privileges Without waiving these objections, Rilev Stoker states that it will designate expert witnesses pursuant to applicable discovery and scheduling orders INTERROGATORY NO. 6 If you contend that the Plaintiffs were not injured at the time, at the place, in the manner, or to the extent that they allege and state in their pleadings and depositions, please state the reasons for your contentions, the facts on which you rely for your contentions, and the persons with knowledge of facts relevant to your contentions ANSWER: Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving these objections, Riley Stoker states that discovery' is ongoing Riley Stoker will supplement this answer when and if it comes into such evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 7 If you contend that the Plaintiffs were contributorily negligent and that such negligence was a cause of their exposure, please state the reasons for your contention, every' fact which supports your contention, and those persons with knowledge relevant to such contention. ANSWER. Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory' as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving these objections, Riley Stoker states that discovery' is ongoing, Riley Stoker will supplement this answer when and if it comes into such evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 8 Please describe the full extent of your liability insurance coverage applicable to the exposures made the basis of this suit. ANSWER: Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving these objections, Riley Stoker states that it anticipates it has sufficient insurance coverage with which to satisfy reasonable judgments in these cases. DEFENDANT RILEV STOKER CORPORATION'S OIUECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AN!) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION h uaron4iscovcraAs\scrs.ini pack j INTERROGATORY NO. 9 Please describe by time, location, persons who know of the statement, person or persons to whom statement was made, and exact (or as close as possible) content every written or verbal statement of the Plaintiffs that relates in any way to their exposure, the cause of their exposure, their injuries or any other aspect of this suit. Your answer need not include references to their depositions taken in this case or their answers to interrogatories. ANSWER: Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states none but discovery is ongoing and Riley Stoker reserves the right to supplement or amend this answer. INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Please identify all products that have ever been designed, manufactured, and/or distributed by this defendant which have asbestos as a component part. For purposes of this interrogatory, identify means state the years during which such design, manufacture, or distribution occurred, the type of product, the name of the product, a physical description of the product, and the extent of the asbestos within the product. ANSWER: Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states that it is a manufacturer of boilers and steam-generating equipment. Neither Riley Stoker nor any company it controlled, purchased, or acquired any interest in it has ever made, manufactured, sold, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker understands these terms, any asbestoscontaining products such as pipecovering, block insulation or insulation cement. This interrogatory appears to be directed at manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. Accordingly, this interrogatory is not applicable to Riley Stoker. INTERROGATORY NO. 11 Please identify the knowledge that Riley Stoker Corporation had about asbestos during the 1930's through the 1970's. For purposes of this interrogatory', please identify the specific date when specific knowledge was obtained by either this Defendant, Borden, Inc., or any other affiliated or predecessor or successor corporation. ANSWER. Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states that it is a manufacturer of boilers and steam-generating equipment. Neither Riley Stoker nor any company it controlled, purchased, or acquired any interest in it has ever made, manufactured, sold, DEFENDANT RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION h. aaronMdiscovcr\jLASwcn.ini PAGE 4 distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker understands these terms, any asbestoscontaining products such as pipecovering, block insulation or insulation cement This interrogatory appears to be directed at manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. Accordingly, this interrogatory is not applicable to Riley Stoker. INTERROGATORY NO. 12 Please identify all warnings that had been provided with products manufactured, designed, or sold by this defendant and which products had some component pan made of asbestos For purposes of this interrogatory, identify means state the date that the warnings were initially placed on such products and the contents of those warnings, and the placement of the warnings (i .e , on the product, on the product wrapper, with accompanying literature, etc ) ANSWER: Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory' as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states that it did not itself manufacture asbestos-containing insulation products, but rather purchased such prod cts when called for under a particular contract from manufacturers or distributors of these products, Riley Stoker did not place warnings on the asbestos-containing products that were used as a component of some of the boilers designed. Riley Stoker never packaged such products itself, so Riley Stoker did not place warnings on the containers of asbestos-containing products that w'ere used as a component of some of the boilers it designed. INTERROGATOR'Sr NO. 13 Please state in detail why the health program referenced in the minutes of the National Insulation Manufacturers' Associate (NIMA) in 1960 was dropped. ANSWER: Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states that it is a manufacturer of boilers and steam-generating equipment Neither Riley Stoker nor any company it controlled, purchased, or acquired any interest in it has ever made, manufactured, sold, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker understands these terms, any asbestoscontaining products such as pipecovering, block insulation or insulation cement. This interrogatory appears to be directed at manufacturers of asbestos-containing products Accordingly, this interrogatory is not applicable to Riley Stoker. In further response, Riley Stoker states it had no such health program. DEFENDANT RILE\ STOKER CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION h .aaron'discovcr'-ansuervml PACE 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 14 If vou contend that any of the Plaintiffs have symptoms or injuries to their lungs or airways that are not due to asbestos exposure, please identify the Plaintiff by name and describe the injury and cause of injury for such contention. ANSWER Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving these objections, Riley Stoker states that discovery is ongoing. Riley Stoker will supplement this answer when and if it comes into such evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 15 If you contend that Riley Stoker Corporation cannot legally be held responsible under the theory of product liability for asbestos products generated by itself, please state the basis for such contention, the facts which support such contention, and the person with knowledge of relevant facts of such contention. ANSWER Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory' as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request further seeks information protected by the attorney client and attorney work product privileges. Without waiving these objections, Riley Stoker states that discovery is ongoing. Riley Stoker will supplement this answer pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 16 If Riley Stoker Corporation has ever payed a claim in which it was alleged that a person sustained personal injuries due to exposure to asbestos at a U S. Steel facility, please identify such claim by stating the amount of the claim paid, the claimant, the address of the claimant, the phone number of the claimant, the attorney representing the claimant, the court where the claim was pending at the time of settlement, and the product allegedly involved in the exposure. ANSWER: Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Riley Stoker further objects that this interrogatory requests information protected by the attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges. INTERROGATORY NO. 17 If Riley Stoker Corporation has ever payed a claim in which it was alleged that a person sustained personal injuries due to exposure to asbestos, please identify such claim by stating the amount of the claim paid, the claimant, the address of the claimant, the phone number of the claimant. DEFENDANT RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION h \awondiscovcr Answcn.ini PAGE 6 the attorney representing the claimant, the court where the claim was pending at the time of settlement, and the product allegedly involved in the exposure. ANSWER Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Riley Stoker further objects that this interrogatory requests information protected by the attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges REQUESTS REQUEST NO. 5 .All expert reports generated by any of this Defendant's experts. RESPONSE: Rilev Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Riley Stoker further objects that this request requests information protected by the attorney-work product, attomev-client privileges and consulting expert privileges. Without waiving these objections, Riley Stoker states that it will designate exhibits pursuant to applicable discovery and scheduling orders. REQUEST NO. 6 The curriculum vitae of the Defendant's experts. RESPONSE: Riley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Riley Stoker further objects that this request requests information protected by the attorney-work product, attorney-client privileges, and consulting expert privileges. Without waiving these objections, Riley Stoker states that it will designate exhibits pursuant to applicable discovery and scheduling orders. REQUEST NO. 7 Photographs of asbestos containing products that this Defendant has previously manufactured, distributed, or designed. RESPONSE. Riley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states that it is a manufacturer of boilers and steam-generating equipment Neither Riley Stoker nor any company it controlled, purchased, or acquired any interest in it has ever made, manufactured, sold, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker understands these terms, any asbestos- DEFENDANT RILEV STOKER CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION h: Aaron vdiscover'ans wen. mt PAGE 7 containing products such as pipecovering, block insulation or insulation cement. This request appears to be directed at manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. Accordingly, this request is not applicable to Rilev Stoker. REQUEST NO. 8 A product list for all asbestos products that this Defendant has ever produced RESPONSE: Rley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving this objection, Rley Stoker states that it is a manufacturer of boilers and steam-generating equipment. Neither Rley Stoker nor any company it controlled, purchased, or acquired any interest in it has ever made, manufactured, sold, distributed or processed, as Rley Stoker understands these terms, any asbestoscontaining products such as pipecovering, block insulation or insulation cement. This request appears to be directed at manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. Accordingly, this request is not applicable to Rley Stoker REQUEST NO. 9 All warnings that have ever been prepared relative to asbestos, asbestos products, or health hazards associated with asbestos. RESPONSE. Rley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection, Rley Stoker states that it is a manufacturer of boilers and steam-generating equipment. Neither Rley Stoker nor any company it controlled, purchased, or acquired any interest in it has ever made, manufactured, sold, distributed or processed, as Rley Stoker understands these terms, any asbestoscontaining products such as pipecovering, block insulation or insulation cement. This request appears to be directed at manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. Accordingly, this request is not applicable to Rley Stoker. Furthermore, Rley Stoker has no documents responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 10 All documents that have been generated purporting to establish standards for employees of this relating or referring to knowledge of this Defendant in the 193 0's that asbestos posed any type of health risks. RESPONSE Rley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without DEFENDANT RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION h: .aaron discover-ansuervtnl PAGES waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states that it has no documents responsive to this request in its possession RFOI FST NO. 11 All documents relating or referring to knowledge of this Defendant in the 1940's that asbestos posed any type of health risks RESPONSE Riley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving this objection. Rile)' Stoker states that it has no documents responsive to this request in its possession. REQUEST NO. 12 All documents relating or referring to this Defendant's knowledge that asbestos posed health risks in the 1950's. RESPONSE Rilev Stoker objects to tins request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states that it has no documents responsive to this request in its possession. REQUEST NO. 13 All documents relating or referring to this Defendant's knowledge that asbestos posed health risks in the 1960's. RESPONSE: Riley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states that it has not documents responsive to this request in its possession. REQUEST NO. 14 All documents that have ever been generated purporting to establish standards for employees of this Defendant in the handling of asbestos that have ever been generated. RESPONSE Riley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states that it has no documents responsive to this request in its possession DEFENDANT RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS* INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION h: aaron'discoveranswers.tni PAGE 9 REQUEST NO. 15 The insurance policies of this Defendant that may apply to any of the claims in this suit RESPONSE Riley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discover)' of admissible evidence Without waiving these objections, Riley Stoker states that it anticipates it has sufficient insurance coverage with which to satisfy reasonable judgments in these cases REQUEST NO. 16 AJ1 documents produced in any asbestos trials defendants by this Defendant that do not pertain to specific medical records of the individual plaintiffs. (In other words, those documents produced by this Defendant's Company regarding asbestos issues generally ) RESPONSE: Rtiey Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Riley Stoker further objects that this request requests information protected by the attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges Furthermore, this request does not specifically identify any documents and violates the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST NO. 17 All letters from this Defendant regarding this Defendant's and asbestos policies. RESPONSE: Riley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Riley Stoker further objects that this request requests information protected by the attorney-work product, attorney-client privileges and investigative privileges. REQUEST NO. 18 A copy of the form insurance policies underwritten for this Defendant that provided specific asbestos coverage. RESPONSE: Riley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Riley Stoker states that it anticipates it has sufficient insurance coverage with which to satisfy reasonable judgments in these cases. DEPENDANT RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION h: AAron'discover'answers, ml PAGE 10 REQUEST NO. 19 Anv documents within this Defendant's control or custody that reference the commencement or termination of research products involving asbestos related lung diseases. RESPONSE Rilev Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states that it has no documents responsive to this request in its possession. REQUEST NO. 20 All correspondence between this Defendant and their insurance carriers prior to and up to 1973 with all enclosures regarding payments of claims for occupational' disease alleged to be associated with asbestos RESPONSE Riley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Riley Stoker further objects that this request requests information protected by the attorney-work product, attorney-client, investigative, and party communication privileges. REQUEST NO. 21 A copy of the depositions of all this Defendant's employees, agents, representatives, and experts that have testified in asbestos cases. RESPONSE: Riley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Riley Stoker further objects that this request requests information protected by the attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges. REQUEST NO. 22 Ail policies pertaining to this Defendant's screening of its employees for asbestos related disease RESPONSE. Riley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states that it has no documents responsive to this request in its possession. DEKE.NDA.NT RII.EY STOKER CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION h '^ron'discover.amwers.inl PACE 11 REQUEST NO. 23 All correspondence between this Defendant and its customers relating to health risks posed by asbestos RESPONSE Riley Stoker objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving this objection, Riley Stoker states that it has no documents responsive to this request in its possession. Respectfully submitted, DEHAY & ELLISTON, L.L.P. 3500 NationsBank Plaza 901 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75202-3736 Telephone: (214) 210-2400 Telefax: (214) 210-2500 GARY D. ELLISTON State Bar No. 06584700 ERIC D. WEWERS State Bar No. 21236650 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been forwarded to counsel for Plaintiffs via certified mail, return receipt requested, on this theday of September, 1997. ERIC D. WEWERS DEFENDANT RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION h: Aaron discover Answers, ml PAGE 12 EXHIBIT "A" ft I LEY STOKER CORPORATION - CORPORATE HISTORY RIDER 1913 - Sanford Riley Stoker Company incorporated. > 1917 - Murphy Ironworks was purchased by Sanford Riley Stoker Company. 1922 - Underfeed Stoker Company was purchased by Sanford Riley Stoker Company. - Cround Coal Engineering Company was purchased by Sanford Riley Stoker Comparly. - Semite Furnace Appl.iance Company was purchased on or about this time by Sanford Riley Stoker Company. 1924 - United Machine and Manufacturing Company, was purheased. - Underfeed Stoker Company, Murphy Ironworks and United Machine and Manufacturing Compan were merged into Sanford Riley Stoker Company. A.W. Cash Company became a direct subsidiary of Sanford Riley Stoker Company. The name of A.W. Cash Company , was later changed to Cashco, Inc. - Riley Engineering Supply Company, LTD of Canada was acquired. 1927 - 5err.it: Furnace Appliance Company was sold on or about 1927. 1931 - Bace.nhausen Corp. became a subsidiary to Riley Stoker Corp. 1937 Riley Engineering Supply Company LTD of Canada was Bold. 19SS Ca^sh Standard Staccn Company, Inc. was organized on November 30, 1955. 1958 Caah Standard Stacon Company, Inc. was dissolved on December 8, 1558. It was a direct subsidiary of A.W. Cash Company from the time it was organized until thetime it was dissolved. 1960 Union Ironworks became a subsidiary of Riley Stoker Corporation. 195 9 Badenhausen Corporation merged into Riley StokerCorporation. Union Ironworks was merged into Riley Stok Corporation. - Riley Stoker Corporation completed an asse purchase of 3ros Michigan Division of American Hoist and Derrick Company. 1971 - Cashcc, Inc. was disposed of in 1571. 1972 - Abbott Heat Exchanger Corp., (renamed * Riley Southwest Corp.), was acquired. 1980 - Riley Southwest Corp. was disposed of in 1930. Neither RSC nor any of the above mentioned companies mined, manufactured, produced, processed, compounded, sold, supplied, distributed and/or 2 'otherwise place asbestos-containing thermal insulation products in the stream of commerce, except RSC and Union Ironworks have supplied asbestos-containing products manufactured by others as a component of some of the boilers they have fabricated. r EXHIBIT "B" DEFENDANT RJLEY STOKER CORPORATION'S FACT & EXPERT WITNESS LIST DEFENDANT'S FACT WITNESSES 1 Mr. Harold Riddar, Rilev Stoker Corporation, 5 Neponset Street, Worcester, MA 01606 2. Pitman Owens, U S. Steel, Fairfield, Alabama, 205/783-246S. 3 Harvey Ivy, E C. Gaston Steam Plant, Wilsonville, Alabama, 205/669-4633. 4. Deposition of Clint Shattuck, Colbert Steam Plant, P.0 Drawer 2000, Tuscumbia, .Alabama 35674 taken on Thursday, February IS, 1993, In Re: All Asbestos Personal Injury & Death Cases, Dallas, Tarrant & Travis Counties, State of Alabama, County of Colbert. DEFENDANT'S LIST OF EXPERT WITNESSES 1 Dr. Hans Weill, a Board Certified Pulmonary Specialist at Tulane Medical School, 1700 Perdido Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. 2. Dr. Harry B. Demopoulos, Pathologist, Health Maintenance Programs, Inc., P O. Box 252, Valhalla, New York 10595. 3. Dr. H. Corwin Hinshaw (by deposition), retired Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the University of California School of Medicine, P.O. Box 546, Belvedere, California 94920. 4. Dr. Edward A. Gaensler, Boston University Medical Center, 80 East Concord Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02118. Drs. Weill, Demopoulos, Hinshaw, and Gaensler, if called to testify, are expected to provide testimony in the following areas: a. Anatomy and function ofthe respiratory and circulatory system; b. The nature of asbestos; c. The symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestos and cancer associated with the respiratory' system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; d. The nature and extent of medical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of obstructive pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure, DEFENDANT RILF.Y STOKF.R CORPORATION'S FACT AND EXPERT WITNESS LIST 1 '-uscrs\J.a<l\ionns'Wiincsi.lsi Page 1 e. The effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation of obstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases of the respiratory system, f Methods of diagnosis of various diseases particularly means of establishing the differential diagnosis of alleg i asbestos-related diseases with other non asbestos-related diseases, g Incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis, compared with non-asbestotic asbestos workers and with the general population, h Cigarette smoking and its effect on the lung; I. The relationship of cigarette smoking to cancer of the lung and cancers of other sites with reference to epidemiological studies and physiologic effect; j Difference between impairment and disability, k Effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy, l. The lack of a relationship between presence of pleural plaques and a later development of any form of cancer; and m. The history of evolution and knowledge of asbestos related diseases. It is also expected that Drs. Weill, Demopoulos, Hinshaw, and Gaensler will testify that the medical community became aware that insulators with prolonged intense exposure might be at risk for asbestos related diseases in the late 1960's or early 1970's. Drs. Hinshaw, Weill, Demopoulos, and Gaensler will not testify concerning the diagnosis or physical condition of these particular Plaintiffs. 5, Dr. R. Keith Wilson, Respiratory Consultants of Houston, 6535 Fannin, Fondren Building, Houston, Texas 77030. 6. Dr. Peter Heidbrink, a Board Certified Pulmonary Specialist at Southwest Pulmonary Associates, St. Paul Professional Building #2, 5959 Harry Hines Boulevard, Suite 711, Dallas, Texas 75235. 7 Dr George Delclos, Pulmonary Section F907, Methodist Hospital, 6565 Fannin, Houston, Texas. 8 Dr Gregory Foster, North Texas Pulmonary Associates, 375 Municipal Drive, Suite 140, Richardson, Texas 75080 DEFENDANT RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S FACT AND HXPERT WITNESS LIST f:.uscrs\]ad\Jorms\wttncss Lsl Page 2 9 Dr Scott R Donaldson. North Texas Pulmonary .Associates, 375 Municipal Drive, Suite 140. Richardson, Texas 75080. 10 Dr Paul M Stevens, a Board Certified Pulmonary Disease Specialist and Professor of Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine in Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas 1 1 Drs Stevens, Wilson, Heidbrink, Delclos, Foster, and Donaldson will testify' concerning their examination and diagnosis of the physical condition of the particular Plaintiffs. It is expected that Drs. Wilson, Heidbrink, Stevens, Delclos and Foster will testify- that the Plaintiffs do not have asbestosis and will further testify concerning the overall condition and the relationship of that condition, if any, to Plaintiffs exposure to asbestos. Each doctor will also testify concerning the following areas a. Anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems, b The nature of asbestos, c The symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestos and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity, d The nature and extent of medical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of obstructive pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure, e The effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifestation of obstructive and restrictive conditions and diseases of the respiratory system, f Methods of diagnosis of various diseases particularly means of establishing the differential diagnosis of alleged asbestos-related diseases with other govern ment warnings, smoking, and some areas of state-of-the-art. g. Incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestos, compared with non-asbestotic asbestos workers and with the general population, h. Cigarette smoking and its effect on the lung, I The relationship of cigarette smoking to cancer of the lung and cancers of other sites with reference to epidemiological studies and physiologic effect, j Difference between impairment and disability; k Effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy; DFFF.NDANT Rll.F.Y STOKER CORPORATION'S FACT AND EXPERT WITNESS LIST f usersdjd'iorms'wimcss.l.si Page ? 1 The lack of a relationship between presence of pleural plaques and a later development of any form of cancer 12 Dr Elliott Hinkes. a Board Certified Oncologist and Hematologist at 301 North Prairie Avenue, suite 311, Inglewood, California 90301 Dr Hinkes will testify,' concerning the relationship of asbestos and smoking to the development of cancer Dr Hinkes will also testify concerning the incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis or exposure to asbestos-containing insulation products, 13 Dr Keith Morgan, who will testify on state-of-the-art and the Saranac papers, to the effect that the Defendants could not have known and users were at risk until approximately the late 1960's. 14 Dr. Forde A. Mclver, Pathology Associates, P.A., 135 Rutiedge Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29401 Dr. Mclver will testify' on state-of-the-art and the Saranac papers, to the effect that the Defendants could not have known end users were at risk until approximately the late 1960's. 1 5 Dr. Joseph M. Miller, Box 365, New Hampton, New Hampshire. Dr. Miller will testify on state-of-the-art and the Saranac papers, to the effect that the Defendants could not have known end users were at risk until approximately the late 1960's. 16. Dr. Jesse Steinfield, who will testify' concerning government warnings, smoking, and some areas of state-of-the art. 17 Dr. Stephen Ayres, Sanger Hall Room 1-014, Box 565, MCV Station, Richmond, Virginia 23298. Dr. Ayres will testify on state-of-the-art and the Saranac papers, to the effect that the Defendants could not have known end users were at risk until approximately the late 1960's. 15 Dr. Elvin Adams, General Conference of SDA's, 6840 Eastern Avenue, N.W., Washington, D C 20012 Dr. Adams will testify on asbestos-related diseases' effects, and in particular on smoking's effects. 19 Dr. Thomas Wheeler, The Methodist Hospital, Department of Pathology, 6565 Fannin Street, Mail Station 205, Houston, Texas 77030 Dr. Wheeler w-ill testify regarding general pathology and the pathology of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs decedent 20 Dr Robert O'Neal, Route 1, Box 168, Perkinston, Mississippi 39573 Dr. O'Neal will testify regarding general pathology and the pathology of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs decedent 21 Dr Andrew Churg, The University of British Columbia, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, B C. Canada V6T1W5, phone number 604-228-7111 Dr. Churg will testify regarding general pathology and the pathology of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs decedent. DEFENDANT RIl.EY STOKER CORPORATION'S FACT AND EXPERT WITNESS LIST t AUAcrs'JaJ Jorms'.wuness.lsc Page 4 22 Dr James Robert Shepherd, III, University of Texas Health Center at Tvler, Department of Radiology, P.O. Box 2003, Tyler, Texas 75710. Dr. Shepherd is a B reader and will testify regarding the radiographs of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs decedent Dr Shepherd is a radiologist who will testify concerning the application of radiologic techniques to diseases of the lung and the lining of the lung He will discuss the proper radiographic techniques for the diagnosis of asbestos related diseases and conditions; and the effects asbestos exposure can have on lungs as demonstrated through the use of radiographs Dr Shepherd may be asked to review radiographic material relevant to these cases and to render opinions on the same, emphasis on the presence or absence of asbestos related disease as shown by radiographs. 23 Dr Sam H Cade, Jr., Radiology Department, Baylor University Medical Center, 3500 Gaston Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75242. Dr. Cade is a B reader and will testify regarding the radiographs of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs decedent. 24 Dr Allan Shuikin, Medical City Dallas Hospital, 7777 Forest Lane, Suite 202, Dallas, Texas 75230 25 Dr Bobby F Craft, Industrial Health, Inc., 640 East Wilmington Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah S4106. Dr. Craft will testify that the medical community became aware that insulators with prolonged intense exposure might be at risk for asbestos related diseases in the late 1960's or early 1970's. 26 Dr. Jeffrey S. Lee, Building 512, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah S4112. Dr. Lee will testify that the medical community became aware that insulators with prolonged intense exposure might be at risk for asbestos related diseases in the late 1960's or early 1970's. 27. Dr. Oscar Auerbach, 158 Long Hill Drive, Short Hills, New Jersey 07078. Dr. Auerbach will testify' regarding the pathology of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs decedent. 28. Dr. Donald Greenberg, The Methodist Hospital, Department of Pathology, 6565 Fanning, 2nd Floor, Houston, Texas 77030. Dr. Greenberg will testify regarding the pathology of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs decedent. 29. Dr. Michael D. Henderson, 330 Rittiman Road, San Antonio, Texas 78209. Dr. Henderson will testify concerning the relationship of asbestos and smoking to the development of cancer. Dr. Henderson will also testify concerning the incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis or exposure to asbestos-containing insulation products. 30 All physicians who have seen, examined, and/or treated Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs decedent, 3 1 Dr John E Craighead, Chairman, Department of Pathology, A249 Given Medical Building, University of Vermont College ofMedicine, Burlington, Vermont 05401. 32 A. Mitchell Polinsky, Ph D., Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305. DEFENDANT RILEY STOKF.R CORPORATION'S FACT AMD EXPERT WITNESS LIST I uscrs^ad'donns'wttncss.lst Page 5 33 Louis Calvin Solmon, University of California in Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 34 Charles Henry Drummond, III, Ceramic Engineering, Ohio State University, 2041 College Road. Columbus. Ohio 43210 3 5 Defendants reserve the right to call as expert witnesses all physicians who have seen, examined, or treated plaintiff, reviewed plaintiffs medical records; and/or been designated as a witness by any other party to this action 36 Defendants reserve the right to use any affidavit, deposition, answer to interrogatories, and/or answers to requests for admissions made by any party to this action. 37 Defendants incorporate by reference, the depositions listed in Defendants' Designation of Deposition Testimony. 38 Defendants reserve the right to call any witness who may be necessary for rebuttal testimony 39 James E Lockey, M.D., M S., 3S48 Chimney Hill Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45241 40. Dr. Phillip Cagle, Pathologist, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, Texas 77030, who will testify regarding general pathology and pathology of Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs decedent. A copy of Dr. Cagle's report is attached hereto marked Exhibit "I." 41 All other expert and factual witnesses listed by plaintiffs and defendants in this lawsuit. 42 Dr. H. Corwin Hinshaw, by deposition testimony in "William L. Nicar v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., et al". No. W-81-CA-8. 43 Dr. H. Corwin Hinshaw, be deposition testimony in "In Re: Related Asbestos Cases", No. C-83-6251-RFP. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; "In Re" Related Shipyard and Applicator Cases: Alameda County Asbestos Litigation", in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda, Misc. No 959, "In Re: Shipyard and Applicator Cases" (Clapper & Brayton) Consolidated for Discovery, in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Solano, and "In Re" San Francisco Asbestos Complex Litigation", in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco. 44 Dr. H Corwin Hinshaw, by deposition testimony in "Jimmie L. Vaughan v. Johns-Manville, et al", No CA3-S1-0070-F; "William L. Nicar v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., et al", No WSl-CA-008 " Donald C Lanier v Johns-Manville Sales Corp., et al". No. CA-80-1983, Jesse Cupit v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp, et al", No. CA-81-00S2, "Jerry Lynn Coon v. JohnsManville Sales Corp., et al", No CA-81-0077; "James L Bush v. Johns-Manville Corp , et al". No Ca-81-OOS8, "Charles T Burrow v Johns-Manville Corp., et al", No. CA-80-19S4; DRFr.NDANT R1LLY STOKER CORPORATION'S FACT AND EXPERT WITNESS LIST f:-uscrs\lad\iorms'wtincss 1st Page 6 Ernest E Adams v Johns-Manville Sales Corp , et al". No CA-S0-19S2; "A. E Jacks v Johns-Manville Sales Corp . et al", No CA-SO-1981, "Clinton Wayne Barlow v JohnsManville Sales Corp , et al". No CA-80-19S5, and "Willard Scott, Jr v Johns-Manville Sales Corp , et al", No CA-S 1 -008 1 45 Dr Hans Weill, by deposition testimony in "Ernest Howeli v. Armstrong World Industries. Inc , et al", No M-80-169-CA. 46. John Sartain, Sartain & Co., Inc., 3811 Tunic Creek Centre. Suite 520, Dallas, Texas 75219 John Sartain is an economist consultant and may testify regarding any economic loss incurred. 47 William Lee Eschenbacher. M.D., F98S, Pulmonary Function Laboratory, The Methodist Hospital, 6565 Fannin, Street. Houston, Texas 77030 4S Dr Joseph H. Bates, 5 Glenridge Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72207, 49 Dr Russell D Sherwin, 2011 Zonal Avenue, HJMR-201, Los Angeles, California 90033-1054 50 Dr. Dula R. Jarolint, 12305 S. 14th Street, Jenks, Oklahoma 74037-4903. 51. Thomas Howard, M.D., Osier Medical Center, Suite 300, 930 South Harbor City Blvd., Melbourne, FL 32901. 52 Kathryn A. Hale, M.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine and The Methodist Hospital, 6550 Fannin, Smith Tower #1236, Houston, TX 77030. 53 Robert M. Ross, M.D., Certified American Board of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Diseases, 17030 Nanes Dr., Ste. 3 14, Houston, TX 77090. 54 Gregorio I. Casar, M.D . Respiratory Consultants of Houston, Smith Tower, 6550 Fannin, Ste. 2403, Houston, TX 77030 55. Dr Victor L. Roggli, Duke University Medical Center, Dept, of Pathology, Box 3712, Durham, North Carolina 27710. 56 Dr. John R. Holcomb, Pulmonary Physicians, 4410 Medical Drive, Ste 440, San Antonio, TX 78229. 57 Any prior deposition or trial testimony of any witness called by any other party either live or by deposition 55 Any prior deposition or trial testimony of any physician who has treated, examined, or been consulted regarding the Plaintiff. DEFENDANT R1LFY STOKER CORPORATION'S FACT AMD EXPERT WITNESS LIST f : u.scrs Jad Jorms vvtinesi.ki Page 7 59. Any deposition or custodian of records concerning the Plaintiff. 60 Any prior deposition or trial testimony of any Plaintiff represented by Plaintiffs attorney herein. 61. Amy deposition taken by any party in this case. 62 Dr Jacqueline Coalson, Department of Pathology, University of Texas Health Sciences. San Antonio, TX. Dr Coalson is a pathologist who will testily' concerning the aspects of pathology as it relates to malignant disease, his special histologic techniques for diagnosis of malignant diseases, the morphology of malignancies; the relationship between asbestos exposure and malignancies and the causation of specific types of malignancy with an emphasis on the potential causative role of asbestos exposure. Dr. Coalson may be asked to review pathologic material relevant to these cases and render opinions on same. 63 Dr. Stacey Mills, Department of Surgical Pathology, UVA Health Science Center, Old Medical School, Room 1900, Jefferson Park Avenue, Charlottesville, VA 22902. Dr Mills is a pathologist who will testify concerning all aspects of pathology as it relates to asbestos related diseases: with emphasis on the diagnosis of asbestos related disease through the examination of pathology. He may also testify concerning his review of available pathology material of certain Plaintiffs, and render opinions on whether they demonstrate evidence of an asbestos related disease, and if so, the nature and extent of same. 64. Dr. Michael A. Graham, Division of Forensic & Environmental Pathology, St. Louis St. Louis University School of Medicine, 3566 Caroline Street, St. Louis, MO 63104. Michael A Graham, M.D. of St. Louis University Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, will testify regarding the pathology of lung disease, and the fiber burden imposed upon lung tissue based on varying intensities, duration of exposure to dusts, including asbestos dust. He may give testimony and opinions regarding the diagnosis of the medical condition of certain Plaintiffs and whether the Plaintiffs asbestos-related condition, if any, was proximately caused by exposure to asbestoscontaining products. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos-related disease in certain Plaintiffs, including but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis and lung cancer. He may provide testimony regarding the diagnosis of the medical condition of any Plaintiff. He will further testify as to whether any Plaintiff has or had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may review and provide specific testimony on specific pathology on any given Plaintiff. He may review medical records and x-rays in reaching said opinion. 65 Dr. Louis Burgher, President & CEO, Bishop Clarkson Memorial Hospital, 44th & Dewey Avenue, Omaha, NE 6S105. State of the scientific and medical art in the history and knowledge of asbestos-related diseases and asbestos-related diseases in general, and the medical condition of Plaintiffs Epidemiology and general medicine regarding asbestos DEFENDANT Rtl.FY STOKER CORPORATION'S FACT AND EXPERT WITNESS LIST f vusen\Jjd\iorms'wttncss.lst Page 8 exposure He will also testify concerning his review of any medical records or x-rays available and his opinion concerning whether certain Plaintiffs have an asbestos-related disease or the nature and extent of any disease he believes they may have or may have had 66 Dr Thomas V. Colby, Mayo Clinic. Pathology Department. 1300 East Shea Boulevard, Scottsdale. AZ S5259. Thomas V Colby. M D.. of Mayo Ciinic in Rochester. Minnesota, uill. if cailed. testify in person and/or by deposition ns to asbestos-related diagnostic, prognostic and causative issues of general medicine, pathology issues relevant to these same matters, and on cancer diagnosis and causation as related to asbestos exposure He may also respond to matters raised within his field of expertise by Plaintiffs in the presentation of their case in chief Dr Colby has previously testified in the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk in Strickland v H K Porter Company. Inc., et al.. at Law No LSS-3636. 67 Dr. Claude Tellis, Pulmonologist, Ochsner Clinic at Baton Rouge, 9001 Cumma Avenue Baton Rouge, LA 70809. Dr. Tellis is a pulmonary specialist who will testify with respect to all aspects of asbestos related disease, epidemiology, fear of cancer, as well as asbestos related diseases in the United States. Dr. Tellis may review records for particular Plaintiffs in these cases and render opinions on the health and diseases of such Plaintiffs. 6S Dr Robert A. Wessels, 710 FM 1960 West, Suite C, Houston, Texas 77090. Dr. Wessels is a pathologist who will testify' concerning all aspects of pathology as it relates to asbestos related diseases, with emphasis on the diagnosis of asbestos related disease through the examination of pathology. He may also testify concerning his review of available pathology material of certain Plaintiffs, and render opinions on whether they demonstrate evidence of an asbestos related disease, and if so, the nature and extent of same. 69 Dr. Robert Jones, Pulmonologist, Tulane University Medical Center, 1430 Tulane Avenue New' Orleans, LA 70112. Dr. Jones is a pulmonary specialist w'ho will testify w'ith respect to all aspects of asbestos related disease, epidemiology, fear of cancer, as well as asbestos related diseases in the United States. Dr. Jones may review records for particular Plaintiffs in these cases and render opinions on the health and diseases of such Plaintiffs. 70. Dr. James Crapo, Duke University Medical Center, Bell Building, Room 350, Durham, NC 27705. Dr. Crapo is a board certified pulmonologist who will testify as to the requirements for diagnosis of asbestos related disease, progression, meaning of pleural change, correct reading of x-rays, dose response, cancer etiology relating to asbestos exposure, the effect and meaning of smoking in relation to cancer and asbestos. He will testify as to what is necessary in order for asbestos to play a role in cancer causation as to lung cancer and mesothelioma and to the lack of etiological and epidemiologic connection between asbestos and other cancers. He will also testify' about inhalation of asbestos studies and other asbestos exposure studies he has observed and participated in conducting, their meaning, progression aspects of them, DK1:!-\T)AN'T RIITY STOKER CORPORATION'S FACT AND EXPERT WITNESS 1-1ST ! Misers Jad Jorms'witness Isi Page 9 cellular responses and related matters He will testify about cancer risks, etiology, dose response principals, the effects of cigarette smoking in humans He will testify about various studies relating to cancer risk from asbestos and other substances, and etiology pertaining to lung and other types of malignancies including studies from refineries, shipyards, steel mills, and other places Dr Crapo will testify as to general medical principals pertaining to asbestos exposure and asbestos related disease Dr Crapo will testify' concerning the state of the scientific and medical art in the history and knowledge of asbestos-related diseases and asbestos-related diseases in general, and the medical condition of plaintiffs. Epidemiology and general medicine regarding asbestos exposure This witness may also provide opinions on the probable time period(s) of asbestos exposure with relation to the causation of the disease mesothelioma In doing so, this witness will also provide percentages of probability of causation for exposure to asbestos from first exposure to last exposure As a basis for opinion this witness will rely in party upon scientific papers published by Peto, Seidman, and Selikoff, Morgan and Lampshear, among others. DEFENDANT RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S FACT AND EXPERT WITNESS LIST 1 'uscn'dad'jorms .witness 1st Page 10