Document EqZ3j99EmE4dEv5R8ZgMM7owx

FILE NAME: Early Asbestos Damage Suits (EADS) DATE: 1980 DOC#: EADS002 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Deposition of William Brach IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE 1 EARL THOMAS HAROLD WAYNE BLALOCK, ET UX, 2 JAMES M. BOLINGER, ET UX LOGAN JARRTT CHUNN, ET UX 3 WILLIAM WALTER CH1TTUM, ET UX CECIL ALAN CLARK, ET UX 4 HAROLD LLOYD COLSTON, ET UX RALPH G. CRIGGER, ET UX 5 JOE A. WALLACE , ET UX ROBERT WARREN MILLER, ET UX 6 LAWRENCE EDWARD REDMON, ET UX OSCAR L, WILLIAMS, ET UX 7 AVERY E. BUCKNER, ET UX FRANK HARRISON, ET UX 8 ROBERT LEE CLAY, ET UX TOM T. TREADWAY, ET UX 9 GEORGE DANIEL SMALLWOOD CARL W. REIORDAN, ET UX 10 ROY G. CAMPBELL, ET UX CONNIE G. BAWGUS, ET UX 11 DAVID L, BEARD, ET UX 12 CHARLES ALBERT PATRICK, JR,, N T UX EARL H, ERWIN, ET UX 13 WILLIAM D. KETCHUM, ET UX JOHN A, GUNTER, ET UX 14 LUTHER CLINTON,REESE, ET UX CHARLES DAN CATHEY, ET UX WALTER EDGAR PATTERSON, ET UX 15 DAVE HICKSON, ET UX 16 GARY LYNN HEADRICK, BT UX ROBERT JERRELL MYERS, ET UX 17 KENNETH RUDOLPH HARRISON, ET UX MICHAEL LEE TREADWAY NO. 3-128-77 NO, 1-365-77 NO. l-4b2-77 NO, 2-463-77 NO. 3-494-78 NO. 2-713-79 NO. 1-74-79 NO, 2-346-78 NO. 3-116-78 NO. 1-117-78 NO. 3-117-78 NO. 1-118-78 NO, 2-118-78 NO, 3-118-78 NO. 1-119-78 NO. 2-119-78 NO, 3-119-78 NO, 2-120-78 NO. 2-- 151--78 NO, 2-152-78 NO. 3-152-78 NO. 1-153-78 No. 2-153-78 No, 3-153-78 No. 1-154-78 No. 3-154-78 No. 2-115-78 No. 2-302-78 NO. 1-328-78 No. 1--330--78 No. 2-330-78 No. 3-330-78 No, 1-331-78 18 T R A N S C R I P T of the above-entitled matter 19 taken by and before NANCY TARNQWSKI-MI8ARTI, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New 20 Jersey at the office of Franklin Swersky, Esquire, 500 Morris Avenue, Springfield, New Jersey, on Monday, December 21 22, 1980, commencing at 1)00 p.m* 22 Reporting Servians Arranged Through* ROSENBERG AND ASSOCIATES 23 Certified shorthand Reporters 769 Northfleld Av(m 24 West Orange, N, J, 07052 (201) 678-5650 25 i 't t >: -*> 1 GEORGE WILLIAM HEADRICK, ET UX JOHN STEWART, ET UX 2 JERRY LYNN HARRISON, ET UX BENNY DALE TREADWAY, ET UX 3 RALPH EUGENE KOONTZ, ET UX \ TIMMONS OOE HEADRICK, ET UX 4 EVELYN J. REECE, ET VJR THOMAS L, GANN 5 HAROLD THOMAS WHALEY GARY LYNN COLE, ET UX 6 BUSTER EDWARD GREER, ET UX VERNON GILBERT WHALEY, ET UX 7 JAMES E. MeINTURF, ET UX BOB STEPHENS WINSTEAD, ET UX 8 HAROLD L, TREADWAY, ET UX IVA LOU BAWGUS, ET VIR 9 ALLEN STARNES, ET UX JAMES THOMAS REEL, ET UX 10 ONEDA ANN HOLTON, ET VIR MARVIN A, SAYNE, ET UX 11 WILLIAM DAVID HEADRICK LONNIE L. COLEMAN, ET UX 12 WILLARD A, DUGGER GEORGE E. LINDSEY, ET UX 13 LOIS ANN STARNES COLE, ET VIR EMORY R. MILLER, ET UX 14 BOBBY RAY DUGGER, ET UX CARROLL STARNES, ET UX 15 IVA LEE LOUDY, Individually and for the benefit of next-of-kin 16 of Jack Loudy, Deceased CHARLES DAVID NAVE 17 BARBARA G. STARNES, ET VIR JAMES A. PROFITT, ET UX 18 JOHN RODNEY STARNES KAYE MESCE, Individually and for the 19 use and benefit of the next-of-kin of Ruel Meece, deceased 20 BILL JOPLIN, ET UX JOHN W. ALVIS, ET UX 21 CHARLES D. ARNOLD, ET UX ROBERTA WOODY, ET VIR 22 DANNY F. MORRISETTE, ET UX BEN HRLEW 23 PAUL W. HALL, ET UX THOMAS J. CALBAUGH, JR,, ET UX 24 ARTHUR CLAY COLLINS, ET UX JAMILS E, MASON, ET UX 25 LAWRENCE D. KENNEDY, ET UX NO. $-331-78 NO. $-331-78 NO. $-332-78 NO. $-333-78 NO. $-333-78 NO. 1-334-78 NO, 2-334-78 NO, 3-334-78 NO. 1-335-78 NO. $-335-78 NO. 3-335-78 NO. 1-336-78 NO. 2-336-78 NO. 3-336-78 NO. 1-337-78 NO. 3-337-78 NO, 1-338-78 NO, 2-338-78 NO. 3-338-78 NO. 2-339-78 NO, 1-345-78 NO, 2-345-78 NO. 3-345-78 NO, 1-346-78 NO. 3-346-78 NO, 1-347-78 NO. 2-347-78 NO, 3-347-78 NO. 1-348-78 NO. 2-348-78 NO. 3-348-78 NO. 2-349-78 NO. 3-349-78 NO, 2-61-79 NO. 3-432-79 NO. 1-433-79 NO. 1-540-79 NO. 2-449-79 NO. 3-549-79 NO, 1-550-79 NO. 2-550-79 NO. 3-550-79 NO. 3-619-79 NO. 1-656-79 NO. 2-659-79 i :?> MILLARD J. ROGERS, ET UX SAMUEL DAVID DISNEY, ST UX RAYMOND D. WEBB, ET UX ISABELLE W. SLUDER, ET VIR HERSHEL J. GOFORTH, ET UX C. L, MURPHY, ET UX JACK W. STILES, JR., Single STEDFORD JAMES ISABELL, ET UX LUCILLE F. HELMECKI, Executrix of the Estate of NARCISSUS A. HELMECKI, deceased, and Lucille F. Helmecki, individually and for the use and benefit of the next-of-kin of Narcissus A. Helmecki, deceased CURTIS G. DREWRY, ET UX WILLIAM E. BRANDON, ET UX CHARLES D. BROWDER, ET UX R. L. MCKINNEY, ET UX LEWIS ROSS SCHLICHER, ET UX LENA W. EARLS, ET VIR, WALLIE EARLS WALLACE CEATHKR VAUGHN, ET UX ISAAC HARRIS, ET UX WILLIAM EDGAR BLUE, ET UX BYRON LOUIS STANDIFER, ET UX ROBERT F. SOLOMON, ET UX CHARLES LEE WRIGHT, ET UX RICHARD GILLIAM, ET UX JAMES W. TIPTON, ET UX NO. NO. NO. NO. . NO. NO. NO, , NO, 3-696-79 3-73-79 1-714-79 2-56-80 3-77-80 1-77-80 1-78-80 3-76-80 NO, 2-77-80 NO, 2-200-80 NO. 1-387-BQ NO. 2-387-80 NO. 2-74-79 NO. 3-436-80 NO. 2-425-80 NO. 1-595-80 NO, 2-609-80 NO. 1-632-80 NO. 3-631-80 NO. 3-640-80 NO. 2-369-80 NO. 1-683-80 NO. 3-682-80 Plaintiffs. vs. JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, et al, Defendants. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENURES#E 1 NORTHERN DIVISION 2 ARTHUR R. MELTON, ET UX, RICHARD HARKLEROAD, ET HOC, 3 EMANUEL G. LAWSON, ET UX, 4 CHARLES E. MURPHY, ST UX, 5 plaintiffs 6 vs. NO, 3-80-361 NO. 3-80-490 NO. 3-80-491 NO. 3-80-466 7 JOHNS-MANVILJ.E SALES CORPORATION, ET AL, 8 Defendants. 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 11 NASHVILLE DIVISION 12 ELMER B. PUGH, ET UX, ESMOND H. HARDING, 13 plaintiffs, 14 vs. NO. 79-3510 NO. 80-3050 15 JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES 16 CORPORATION, ET AL, 17 Defendants, i 18 19 20 21 V i .. 22 23 24 25 IN THS CIRCUIT COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE FLOYD ALEXANDER ERWIN, ET UX CHARLES D, MACKIE, ET UX JOSEPH L, DAVIS, ET UX MILTON BOYD, ET UX ROBERT L. BULLOCK, ET UX ELMER LEE CATHEY, ET UX JAMES V, MACKIE, ET UX DON EDWARD CHILDRESS, ET UX HORACE K. OLIVER, ET UX ROBERT WESLEY OVERTON, ET UX CLAUDE E. MURPHY, ET UX WILLIAM D. FERRELL, ET UX ROGERT D, JENNETTE, ET UX WILLIAM MORTON ADKISSON, ET UX GRANVILLE CHILDRESS, ET UX WILLIAM TRAVIS RING, ET UX JAMES W, SMITH, ET UX SILAS E. CHILDRESS, ET UX THOMAS F, HOOVER, ET UX CLYDE E. HARRIS, ET UX ROBERT E. DAVIS BILLY D. KEMP JERRY WAYNE CANTRELL, ET UX LIVELY E. NEELY, ET UX WILLIAM M. CHUNN, BT UX CLARENCE MILTON TAYLOR, ET UX RUBEN C. BILLINGTON, BT UX ROBERT W. BILLINGTON, ET UX WILLIAM ALBERT HARPER, JR., ET UX HERMAN S. RING, ET UX GENE M. TAYLOR, ET UX THOMAS E. ERWIN FRANK J. WARD, ET UX RICHARD A. STEPHENSON, ET UX JAMES W. ADKISSON, BT UX WILLIAM ROBERT WALL, ET UX WILLIAM W, ERWIN, ET UX DANNY WILBURN BERLIN, BT UX DONALD 0, CUNDIFF, BT UX WILLIAM T, GOOCH, ET UX MILDRED RIMLINGER, Individually and for the benefit of next-of-kin of Charlee Harlan Rimlinger, Deceased JESSIE L. CARROLL, Individually and for the benefit of next-of-kin of j. c. Carroll, Deceased LOUIS CHARLES WINKLER FRANK, ET UX NO. C-3533 NO. 0 3 5 3 4 NO. C-3533 NO. C-3536 NO. C-3537 NO. 0 3 5 3 8 NO. C-3539 NO. C-3540 NO. C-3541 NO. C-3542 NO. C-3543 NO. C-3563 NO. C-3564 NO. 0 3 5 6 5 NO. C-3566 NO. C-3567 NO. 0 3 5 6 8 NO. C-3569 NO. C-3570 NO. C-357 NO. C-3572 NO. C-3573 NO, C-3574 NO. C-3575 NO, C-3576 NO, C-5991 NO. C-6234 NO. 0 6 2 3 5 NO. 0 6 2 3 6 NO. C-6237 NO. 0 6 2 3 8 NO. C-6278 NO, C-6279 NO, C-6281 NO, 0 6 2 8 2 NO, 0 6 2 8 3 NO. C-6284 NO. C-6285 NO, 0 6 2 8 6 NO. 0 6 2 8 7 NO. 0 6 3 4 0 NO, 0 6 3 4 1 NO. 0 6 3 4 2 1 WALTER M. KING, JR., ET X H, B. PORTER, BT X 2 WILLIAM B, SMITH, BT X JOEL C. NICHOLSON, BT UX 3 JAMES RONALD SMITH, BT X JOHN WESLEY PENNINGTON, ET X 4 WILLIAM TEDPORD BOWERS, BT X RAYMOND T. ROLAND 5 ROBERT G. OGLESBY, JR., ET X PAUL H. D. ROSE, ET X 6 JAMES W, DAVIS, ET UX DANIEL PATTERSON, BT UX 7 JOHN P. BORN, ET X JABS S, NOWLIN, III, ET X 8 WILL FLEMING BILLINGTON, ET X JAMES BRYCE NICHOLSON, BT X 9 JAMES ARON BILLINGTON WILLIAM BOYD HOOVER, ET X 10 HAROLD B. SIRCY, JR., ET X JOHN KELLY GAPPORD, ET UX 11 CHARLES MARTIN CUNDIFF, ET X LESTER E. PATTERSON, ET UX 12 MARSHALL WAYNE KING, ET X JOHN MICHAEL CURRAN, ET X 13 WILLIAM R. DAVIS, ET X VEGIE LAWSON TIDWELL, ET X 14 RICHARD DOUGLAS HURT, JR., BT UX 15 Plaintiff, 16 V8 17 JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, et al 18 Defendant, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 y NO, C-6343 NO, C-6344 NO. C-9698 NO, C-9699 NO, C-9700 NO. C-9701 NO, C-9702 NO. C-9703 NO. 0*10077 NO, C-10111 NO, C-10112 NO. E-1339 NO, E-1340 NO. B-1337 NO, E-1338 NO. E-1403 NO, E-1479 NO, E-1854 NO. E-1889 NO. E-2284 NO. E-2286 NO. E-2285 NO, E-2314 NO. E-2737 NO. E-2748 NO. E-2749 NO. E-2829 MESSRS. GILLENWATER, WHELCHEL & ROBERTS BYi PAUL T. GILLENWATER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs. MESSRS. DWYER, CONNELL & LISBONA, BY: DENNIS F. CAREY III, ESQUIRE Attorney for Unarco Industrie MESSRS. MORGAN, MELHUISH, MONAGHAN, BY: NAN BERNARDO, ESQUIRE Attorney for Raybeato# Manhattan & SPIELVOGEL MESSRS. HASKINS, ROBOTTOM, HACK, PIRQ & 0 1DAY BY: SUSAN M. CLAPP, ESQUIRE Attorney for Combustion Engineering MESSRS. BUDD, LARKBR, KENT, GROSS, PICILLO & ROSENBAUM BY: DAVID J. NOVACK, ESQUIRE Attorney for Johna-Manvills MESSRS. HODGES, DOUGHTY & CARSON BY: WILLIAM ALLEY, ESQUIRE Attorney for Owen, Corning fiberglas, Keene Corp., Bagle-Ficher, Forty-eight Insulation Co., Armstrong World Indus tries, and for all other Defendants other than Johns-Manville, Raybestoe Manhattan, unarco Industries and Combustion Engineering. I M mNmt D E X P * jM p 1 s g a s ai DIRECT 2 William L. Brach By s Paul T. Gillenwater 8 3 David J. Novack 4 5 6 EXHIBIT 7 B-l 8 9 B-2 10 B--3 B -4 11 12 B-5 13 B-6 14 B-7 B-8 15 16 B-9 17 B-1Q 18 B-- 11 19 B-12 20 B-13 21 B-14 22 ix h m i DESCRIPTION Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Summons Answer Interrogatories Order Answers to interrogatories Interrogatories Answers to interrogatories Order Order of Dismissal Stipulation and Order Order Civil No. 741-57 Summary Judgement Civil No. 741-57 Order Civil No. 741-57 23 24 25 CROSS RED, RISC. 24 IDBNT. EVID. 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 26 27 27 ', ' 3 MR, GILLENWATERs The deposition of Mr. William L. Brach is taken pursuant to Mfefcioo in the cases that are captioned# It is agreed end stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties that all objections except objections as to form of the question are reserved. (Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial ret Frederick LeGrande marked B-l for Identification! Summons marked B-2 for Identification} Answer marked B-3 for Identification! Interrogatories marked B-4 for identification} Order marked B-5 for Identification Answers to Interrogatories marked B-6 for Identifies"* tion; interrogatories marked B-7 for Identification j Answers to Interrogatories marked B-8 for Identifica tion} Order marked B-9 for Identification} Order of Dismissal marked B-10 for Identification; stipu lation and Order marked B-ll for Identification,} W I L L I A M L. B R A C H , Esquire 33 Evergreen Place East Orange, New Jersey Duly Sworn DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, GILLENWATER: q would you please state your full name, ypur age, and your place of residence. A My name is William L. Brach B-r-a-c-h, My age is ijrach - diract 1 fifty five, and my residence is in the town of Montclair* 2 Q The Town of Montclair? 3A Hew Jersey* 4 Q Mr* Brach, what is your profession? 5A Attorney, 6 Q How long have you been an attorney, Mr* Brach? 7A 8 since 1950, thirtyyears. Q Are you licensed to practice law in the State 9 of New Jersey? 10 A 11 12 A 13 Yes, I am. Q How long have you been so licensed? Thirty years. Q Are you a member of a firm actively engaged 14 in the practice of law at this time, air? 15 A 16 Yea, I am. Q What is the name of your firm? 17 A Brach, Bichler, Rosenberg, Silver, Bernstein & 18 Hammer. 19 Q Where are they located? 20 A At 33 Evergreen Place in Bast Orange, New Jersey* 21 q Mr, Brach, after commencing in the practice 22 of law in 1950 at some point in time did you have occasion 23 to represent a man named Frederick LeGrande? 24 A 25 Yes, q I did. would you please tell us when your first Brach - direct X U 1 contact was with Mr* LeGrande, if you know or the circum 2 stances about which you undertook his representation. 3A I may be somewhat imprecise in giving the exact 4 date, but it was to my recollection approximately 1956 or 5 1957. l represented him both in terms of a claim, workmen*s 6 compensation claim against his employer, H. W. Porter & 7 Company, and also in a third-party action against Johns- 8 Manville Products Corporation. 9 Q What claim was it, Mr. Brack, against EE. W. 10 Porter Company and Johns-Manville? What did it involve? 11 MR. NOV^CKi Objection to the form of the 12 question. 13 q what did the claim against those two companies 14 involve? 15 A Well, breaking it down, the claim against H. W. 16 Porter is in terms of workmen1s Compensation claim for 17 occupational disease, which he had contracted known as 18 asbestosis; and the claim against Johns-Manville was a 19 third-party action framed in negligence and originally also 20 in terms of breach of warranty. 21 Q Mr. Brach, when you undertook the representa 22 tion of Mr. LeGrande, did you determine what sort of work 23 it was that Mr. LeGrande had been involved in? 24 A 25 Yes. Q What kind of work was it, sir? Brah - direct X4. A Mr, LeGrande was what ia called a mechanic in the field of working with asbestos products in the application of asbestos products in construction work. He was hired through the Union and sent to various jobs which construe** tion was undertaken, particularly types of things such as hospitals, and his job ^specifically was the application of insulated material to heating, refrigerating, refrigeration equipment. q in your investigation concerning your repre sentation of Mr. LeGrande, did you determine what sort of materials it was that Mr. LeGrande worked with? A Yes. Q Did you determine what minerals or what parts were contained or what those products contained that he worked with? A Yes. Q Did you determine whether or not Mr. LeGrande had been exposed to any materials containing asbestos? A Yes. That was the substance of the complaint in both the origin of the occupational diseaae, apd also in terms of the third-party complaint againat Johpa-Manville. Q You mentioned the word "ashestosis." What sort of disease was it that Mr. LeGrande had? MR. NOVACKi Objection to the fopra of the question. 'Ls/ Brach - direct 1 Q What type of die ease did Mr. LsGrande have? 2A Well, it waa diagnosed ultimately ae asbestosis by 3 the attending physician and other physicians with who 4 examined him. 5 Q Did you determine whether or not the asbestosis 6 that Mr. LeGrande had was a result of his exposure to the 4 ,.V.; 7 insulation products that he worked with? 8 MR. NOVACKt Objection to the form of the 9 question. 10 A It was the position of Mr LeGrande as Plaintiff, 11 and myself as Counsel, that there was a causal relationship 12 and which we were in the position to prove by relation -- * 13 by with expert testimony in terms of the physicians who 14 were in attendance who had conducted certain tests and 15 examination. 16 Q You mentioned a moment ago that the represen* 17 tation by you of Mr. LeGrande involved a third-party suit 18 against Johns-Manville Products Corporation. Hid you file 19 lawsuit on behalf of Mr. LeGrande against Johns-Manville 20 Products Corporation? 21 A Yes, I did. 22 Q I hand you a document which has been marked 23 Exhibit B-l, and ask you if you recognise that as being a 24 copy of the original Complaint that you on behalf of Mr. 25 LeGrande filed against Johns-Manville Products Corporation? iJ Brach - direct A Yes, I do recognise it, and particularly recognise my signature on the third page as well as recollecting the substance of the complaint, MR, QILLENWATBRj % will ask that that docu ment be introduced as Exhibit Bo, B-l to Mr, Brack*a testimony. Q Mr. Brach, when you filed this lawsuit I ask you whether or not a summons was issued by the United States District Court for the District of Mew Jersey to Johns- Manville Products Corporation, and hand you a document and ask you if you recognise that? A Yea. This summons bears the pertinent information, and we did issue a summons in concurrence with the Complaint. Q Mr. Brach, I ask you to look down at the bottom left-hand corner of that document, and tell us the date that the summons was Issued in connection with the lawsuit that you filed on Mr. LeGrande*s behalf against Johns-Manville, A July 17, 1957. Q Was that the date that the Complaint was filed that we*ve just introduced as Exhibit B-l? A I would assume that they were approximately the same date or approximately the same time. I have no speci fic recollection of that particular day in 1957 as the date of the Complaint, but the ordinary practice in our practice Brach - direct 14 1 wspuld have been to file a Complaint and Summon a concurrently, J '1 i t 2 Q If you would please, air, and If yon nee# 3 to, look at Exhibit B~1 and tall the member of the Jury 4 what the basis was in the Complaint for" the equipla int 5 against Johns-Manville? 6A Well, the primary basis of the Complaint was that 7 the Plaintiff, Mr. LeGrande, had contracted a disease known 8 as asbestoais; and after he had been to see his physician 9 and had also bean to see other physicians who were expert 10 in lung and heart condition#, and had certain tests made, 11 that he was convinced, and X as Counsel was convinced that 12 the disease was caused by asbestos particles having been 13 assimilated over a period of time, and that in turn was the 14 result of his work that he was engaged for approximatoly 15 thirty years, that our complaint was premised in the fact 16 that he was dealing with a product in his dally work which 17 would expose him to asbestos particles, and that would 18 create a serious risk that he or others like him might con 19 tract asbestoais as a disease which, in fact, was what 20 happened to Mr. LeGrande, that he had no awareness of this, 21 being an average workman of no particular education in the 22 field as to what the risks were, and he handled this as a 23 mechanic and an applicator, that there was no warnings given 24 to him, that he wasn't given any particular training as to 25 what kind of protections he might want to use; and we stated K. is Brach - direct in our Complaint that as a result of the failure to.de ! these things by the manufacturer, in this cast Johns-*Man- ville, that he was exposed to this risk, and the risk did result in his contracting the disease, Q As a result of your filing of this Complaint, did Johns-Manville through its attorney file an Answer to the Complaint? Let me hand you a document that is marked Exhibit B-3. A Yes. To my recollection this is in fact the Answer that was filed in response to the Complaint, MR. GILLENWATERi I don't know whether I asked that Exhibit B-2 be introduced in evidence. If 1 didn't, X now at this time ask that B-2 be admitted into evidence. Q Do you have in front of you a current copy of the Answer that Johns-Manville filed to the Complaint? A The document B-3 is to my recollection a correct copy of the Answer that Johns-Manville filed in response to the Complaint. MR. GILLBNWATER* X ask that that document be marked in evidence as Exhibit B-3. Q Mr. Brach, as time passed and after you filed the lawsuit, did you on behalf of Mr. LeGrande file what are known as interrogatories to Johns-Manville Corporation? it Brach - direct 1 Q I show you a document that1a marked Exhibit 2 B-4, and ask you if that is a copy of fhf .Ipferrugatorlee 3 that you submitted on behalf of Nr. i#6fande tp Johns- 4 Manville Corporation? 5A Yes. I have looked through B-4, and l dp note my 6 signature again at the very end of it, and I do recollect 7 we served Interrogatories, and this appears to me to be a 8 true copy of the interrogatories that we served at that 9 time. 10 MR. GILLENWATERi I ask that that document l* 11 be introduced into evidence, 12 Q Mr. Brach, tinder the rules in Mew Jersey at 13 the time that these Interrogatoriea were submitted, could 14 you tell the members of the Jury first what Interrogatories 15 are, and what the import of the Interrogatories are under 16 the Rules that exist in existence at that time. What it 17 required the Defendant, Johns-Manvilla to do when it re 18 ceived these Interrogatories. 19 MR. MOVACKi I am going to object to the form 20 of this question. I don't see how this witness has 21 a 22 been qualified, and I am certainly not contesting his qualifications, but 1 don't know that he*s here 23 as an expert testifying to the significance of the 24 25 A Federal Court Rules in New Jersey in 1957. well, i wa s admitted to practice before the Federal Brach - direct 17 District; Court in 1957, and J did have occasion to use dis covery procedures in tny profession; and, one of the types of discovery procedures was Interrogatories* Interrogatories in the ease of Frederick LeGrande were of particular importance, because Mr. LeGrande himself being a workman would have no opportunity or reason to be aware of certain facts that were very relevant and important to his case, that would be in, the possession of Johns-Man- ville. The Interrogatory procedure, which is permitted by the Court Rules, enables us to ask guestions that would produce either evidence that would be relevant or facts that might lead to evidence that wogld be relevant to the issues in the case, and,we consequently as his attorney designed this set of Interrogatories that you have provided and is marked as B-4 in order to illicit from Johna-Man- ville in particular facts that they would know about and be aware of, and that we as the Plaintiff would have no other way of knowing about unless we had a procedure of this type. Is that in essense the question that you asked? Q Yes, sir and the answer. Did Johns-Manville file Answers to the Interrogatories or did you have to take steps to cause them to file answers to the Interrogatories? A I recall there was some delay In time, and that Brach - direct 18 1 ultimately we followed another procedure that is outlined 2 in the rules, in which we had to make a motion; that is, 3 an application before the judge, and aak that either they 4 be required to provide the answers that were asked of them 5 on Interrogatories, or that their defenses be striken, and 6 in the words of the Court a default be entered against 7 them, and this did result in an Order from the Court direct 8 ing that answers be provided. 9 There was, of course, some motion in which there 10 were objections made by Johna-Manville, and certain rulings 11 by the Court, in which some of the Interrogatories that we 12 were asking were, were themeelves striken, and the Defendant 13 was not required to answer those by Order of the Court. 14 Q I hand you a document that has been marked 15 Exhibit B-5 and ask you if that1s an Order concerning your 16 motion to require Johns-Manville to answer the Interroga 17 tories that you've talked about? 18 A Yes, that's correct 19 MR. GILLENWATERi I ask that Exhibit No. B-5 20 be admitted in evidence. 21 Q After that Order went down, Mr. Brach, did 22 Johns-Manville file answers to those parts of the Interroga 23 tories that you submitted that the Court required them to 24 answer? 25 A Yes, they did. Brach - direct 19 1 Q 1 hand you a document marked Exhibit No, B-6 2 and ask you if that ia a copy of the answers that Johns* 3 Manville filed to the Interrogatories? 4A It also has some answerstoSupplementalInterroga 5 tories attached to this documentyou've handedme, and my 6 recollection is that these are, in fact, copies of the 7 answers in response to the Interrogatories that were served 8 on Johns-Manville. 9 MR, GILLENWATER* I offer that as the next 10 Exhibit in evidence, please. 11 Q Did Johns-Manville submit written Interroga- <r. <* ' V-i * 12 tories to Mr. LeGrande? 13 A Yes. 14 Q I'll show you a document marked Exhibit B-7 15 and as if these are the written Interrogatories or questions 16 that Johns-Manville submitted to Mr. LeGrande for him to 17 answer? 18 A Again, this is to the best of my recollection is a 19 copy of the Interrogatories that were submitted to us by 20 Johns-Manville for Mr. LeGrande to answer. 21 MR. GILLENWATERj I offer Exhibit B-7 in 22 evidence. 23 Q Did Mr. LeGrande answer the interrogatories 24 that Johns-Manville submitted to him? 25 A Yes. r ,i J Brach - direct 2U Q ' I hand you a document parked Exhibit B-8 and ': 4j ask you if that is a true and correct copy of the Answers to the Interrogatories made by Mr* LeGrande? A These Answers were prepared with the assistance of our office who helped, of course, collecting the necessary information, and were reviewed by Mr. LeGrande, and he did in fact submit these under his signature as answers to the Interrogatories prepared by, promulgated by Johna-Manville. Q Was it required by the Federal Buies in existence at the time, 1957*, that the Answers to Interroga tories be under oath, sworn to? A My recollection is yes, at that time it was required, and I think there was a -- Q And, with reference to the Answers to the Interrogatories that Johna-Manville filed, were those answers under oath? A I believe they were. Q Were the answers that Mr. LeGrande provided to the questions that Johns-Manvilled asked likewise under oath? A Yes. 0 Was it the practice in the Federal Court in New Jersey that a pre-trial conference be had in connection with lawsuits that were filed and pending in that Court back in 1957, 58? Brach - direct A Yes. Q Was a pre-trial conference had in connection with the LeGrande case? A Yes. Q Would you briefly tell the members o f t h e j u r y what a pre-trial conference is, what it was at that time, what it consisted of? A Well, a pre-trial conference was a conference between the Judge and the lawyers representing each of the parties in which, according to an established procedure set forth by the District Court and the rules, the ground rules for the trial were set forth, and the issues were reviewed, and they were set forth so everybody would Know exactly what the factual issues were to be and the legal issues, what the number of expert witnesses that might appear, when trial briefs would be filed, that kind of arrangements would be made at the pre-trial in order to set down the order of events in enabling the trial to proceed as expeditiously as possible. Q I had you a document that* a marked Exhibit B-9, and ask you if you recognise this as being a copy of the Order of the U, s. Federal District Judge in New Jorsoy dated October 17, 1958, concerning the pre-trial conference that was had? A Again, this appears to be the pre-trial was held Brach - direct IZ 1 and in accordance with the Court Rule* 2 MR, GILU5MWATER J ask that Exhibit Bi9 3 &4 be admitted in evidence, , Q would you tell us what happened to the lawsuit, 5 how it progressed aftep the pre-trial hearing was had, what 6 your recollection is about the events that transpired free 7 that point forward, 8 A X will give you ray best recollection on that, 9 Q All right, sir. 10 A There may have been some further motion on the ques 11 tion of supplemental interrogatories, lm not quite certain, 12 but I believe there was, that we did 4# fact appear on the 13 day called for trial, ihij^Twaa a settlement reached, My f 14 recollection, I could be possibly wrong on it, was that on 15 the initial day there w^,^$he jury was drawn and that there 16 were some settlement dis^lfsiasne eithtlf late in that day 17 or early the next day, and that we never actually went to 18 trial, but that the matters in difference were resolved in 19 a settlement between my client, Iff, Jsidrande, and Johns* 20 Manville, ' 'h 21 & Q X hand you a document marked Exhibit B-10, 22 and ask you if you recognise that, sir* 23 A Yea, that appears to be the Order of Dismissal in 24 appropriate form which resulted from the settlement agree 25 ment. At Br<*ch - direct 44 MR. GILLENWATER* I offer Exhibit No. B-10 in evidence. Q Lastly, I show you a document marked Exhibit B-- 11, and ask you if you recognize that? A Yesf Again, this appear'to be the final step in completing the arrangements that resulted in the settlement of the dismissal in the case. MR. GILLEHWATERi I offer Exhibit B - U in evidence. Q Mr. Brach, before the case came on for trial, do you recall whether or not Johns-Manyille had Mr. LaGrande examined by any of their doctors? MR. n o v a c k * Objection to the form of the question. A I have no specific recollection. I would think it was so. I would think that they would in fact have had him examined prior to trial* Q What was th# amount that Johna-Manvilla paid in settlement of the'LaGrande case i April of 1959? MR. NOVACKi Objection to the question, A The settlement was in the amount of $35,000 including an agreement that there would be no attempt to recover or place a lien on any of the Workmen*a Compensation Award. m r . GiLLENWATERt You, gentlemen and ladies or ladies and gentlemen may inquire. Brach direct 24 MR. ALLEY; I have no questions. MS. BERNARDO* I have no questions. MR. CAREY; X have no questions. MR. NOVACKt X have a couple of questions, if you just want to five me a couple of minutes. (Off record discussion.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NOVACK* Q Mr. Brach, my name is Dave Movack. X repre sent Johns-Manville in this lawsuit, and X*d just like to ask you a few questions. We*ve marked a number of documents this morning that have submitted by Mr. Gillenwater. Are those documents from your file? A No. Q During the time that you prosecuted this matter, did you maintin a file regarding Mr. LeGrande? A Yes, X did. Q But you don*t have that file here today? A I have been unable to locate the file. I made a conscious search for it, and X have not been able to locate it. Q So that your identification of the documents this morning is based upon your recollection of what was in Brach - croas 25 the file, is that right? A My recollection of what was in the file, my identi fication of my own signature on a good number of the docu ments. Q But with regard to the documents upon which your signature did not appear, you are just basing your identification on what you recall, to he in the file, is that right? A What I recall to be the nature of the documents and the substance of them as X reviewed the documents handed to me, yea, sir. Q All of these documents are in fact over twenty years old, isn't that so? A That's right. Q There was some testimony by yourself this morning concerning the Answers te Interrogatories provided by Johns-Manville. In faat, Interrogatories propounded by you upon the Defendant. Prior to your receiving of those Answers you had discussed o^ftfetion to strike some of those Interrogatories, isn't that correct? A Let me see if I can get the tenor of your question. There was a motion to strike by the Defendant in this action, which resulted in an appearance before Judge wortendyke, and a determination by him that certain ques tions that were objected to should need not be answered. 6 Brach - croas 1 and aertjain questions that were objected to should be answei 2 and he made rulings on a number of such questions, some 3 favorable to our position, tome not favorable to our posi- 4 tion. 5 Q Isn't is a fact that oven * third of the 6 questions were found to be improper and were striken? 7A Well, I think the Judge's Order would speak for 8 itself. 1 didn't make a count or a tabulation of it* 9 There were some questions which he determined were not in 10 his judgement relevant, and some questions which he felt 11 should be answered, 12 Q Mr. Brach, I'd like to show you a document 13 which for lack of marking I would offer as DB-1 for identi- 14 fication, and ask you if you can identify it. 15 MR. GILLENWATERt Excuse me, why don't we 16 make it B-12 and keep them in order. 17 MR. NOVACK* That's satisfactory. 18 A Yes, this is again it appears to me in my best 19 recollection to be the consequence of the motion to hearing 20 and the Judge's determination embodied in this document as 21 the Order. 22 MR. NOVACK* Thank you. May we go off the 23 record for a moment, please. 24 (off record discussion.) 25 (Order Civil No. 741-57 marked B-12 for V .-'W Brach - dross 27 Identification; notid for motion for summary judgement Civil No. 741-57 marked B-13 for Identification; Order Civil No, 741-57 marked B-rl4 for Identification.) Q Mr. Brach, during the course of the prosecu tion of this case, do you recall that there was a motion filed on behalf of the Defendant for summary judgement? A Yes, I think there wae. Q I would like to show you a document which has been marked B-13 for identification, and ask you if that is a copy to the best of your recollection of that motion? A This appears to be a copy of that motion, yes. Q In due course, did you come before Judge (' ' j Wortendyke for argument on that motion? A Yes, Q And was in fact the motion granted as to Count II of the Complaint? A It was denied as to Count I, and granted as to Count II. Q And so the second count of the Plaintiff1s Complaint was in fact dismissed? A The negligence count was the -- it was denied. It went on to trial. That was the one I described at the outset. Brach - cross i d 1 2A Q Mr. Brach, pleas answer the question. 1 am answering the question, And the second count 3 which dealt with warranty^ the Judge granted the summary, 4 motion q dismissal. 5 Q And does this document which has been marked 6 R-14 for identification appear to you to be a copy of the 7 Order which you discussed? 8 A It refers to both aspects of the motion, and the 9 disposition of both aspects of the motion, .10 MR, NQVACK* I would at this point move that 11 B-12, B-13, and B-14 be entered into evidence, and 12 I have no further questions of the witness. 13 m r . GILLENWATKRi is agreed at the con 14 clusion of the deposition of Mr Brach, it is 15 agreed and stipulated by end between the parties 16 that I be permitted to take the videotape of the 17 deposition of Mr. Brach into my possession, and, 18 return it to Knoxville for use in the cases as 19 they*re called. 20 It is further agreed and stipulated that 21 the videotape operator will break the seal on the 22 videotape, and as X understand by doing that you 23 can't tape over it or change it, is that correct? 24 MR. ANTANUCIO* Not one hundred percent 25 correct, but I will just clarify it for you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 wIII: ,r t,W '% ,5. ** 25 \r '-^Ti"g'4--*V. ' 11.yjgf,. 'i Basically, if you put it in you won*t accidentally. Purposely you could. (Whereupon proceedings were adjourned at 11*20 a.m.) certificate I, NANCY TARNOWSKI-MISARTI, C.S.R., R.P.R. a Notary Public and Shorthand Reporter of the State of New Jersey, do hereby certify that prior to the commencement of the examination Willi** h. Brach was duly sworn by me to testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the testimony as taken stenographically by and before me at the time, place and on the date hereinbefore set forth, to the best of my ability. I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of any of the parties to this action, and that l am neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel, and that I am not financially interested in the action. )\/(\ 'V\^--t. J CLa ^/mjv^ Notary Public of the State of New jersey