Document Exq1B9B4ER4MmdkL0m5rwvXqR

FILE NAME: RT Vanderbilt (RTV) DATE: 2016 Sept 16 DOC#: RTV321 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Defendant Vanderbilt Mineral's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatories [Set One] t5!c? 1 tTbHurOchM@AdSehWav. .BcoUmRCH III (SBN 257917) 2 JitEliFavFeRrE@YdeTh.aTv.HcoAmYER (SBN 215911) 3 D11E1H1 ABYro&adwELayL,ISSuTiOteN19L5L0P 4 TOealkelpahnodn, eC:A(591406)20785-0750 5 Facsimile: (510) 285-0740 6 AVtAtoNrnDeEyRs BfoIrLDTeMfeInNdaEnRtALS, LLC 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 ' COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 11 SSHucIcReWssoOrL-iDn-iFnOteSrTesEtRto, RInOdiDvNidEuaYllCy .aFndOSasTER, CASE NO.: RG15764371 12 deceased; and RAQUEL FOSTER, 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 ICnYdiPvRidUuSallAyManAdXasMSIuNcEceRsAsoLr-ICnO-IMntPerAesNtYto, 16 PAUL W. WOOD COMPANY, et. al., DMEINFEENRDAALSN,TLVLACN'SDSEURPBPILLETMENTAL RSPEESCPOIANLSIENSTTEORRPLOAGIANTTOIFRFISE'S (SET ONE) 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 ASKING PARTY: Plaintiff SHIRWOLD FOSTER, et al. 21 ANSWERING PARTY: Defendant VANDERBILT MINERALS, LLC 22 SET NUMBER: ONE 23 INTRODUCTION 24 Defendant VANDERBILT MINERALS, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Vanderbilt" or 25 "Defendant") supplements and responds to Plaintiffs' Shirwold Foster, et al. (hereinafter 26 "Plaintiffs") Special Interrogatories (Set One) propounded upon Defendant Vanderbilt Minerals, 27 LLC, as follows: 28 ill DEFENDANT VANDERBILT MINERALS, LLC'S SUPPLEMEN TAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 43: 2 Did YOU warn YOUR EMPLOYEES at any time of the potential health hazards of 3 exposure to the TALC that YOU MARKETED? 4 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 99: 5 Vanderbilt objects to the definitions of the terms "YOU" and "YOUR" to the extent to 6 the extent the definition include entities that do not share a predecessor-in-interest/successor-in- 7 interest relationship with Vanderbilt and to the extent that it conflates the issues surrounding these 8 various entities, and wrongly assumes that it has already been established that Vanderbilt is the 9 successor-in-interest to other pertinent entities. 10 Vanderbilt objects to this Special Interrogatory to the extent that the use of the undefined 11 term "health hazards" renders the Special Interrogatory vague, ambiguous and overbroad as 12 phrased. 13 Vanderbilt objects to this Special Interrogatory to the extent that the use of the undefined 14 term "exposure" renders the Special Interrogatory vague, ambiguous and overbroad as phrased. 15 Vanderbilt objects to the definition of "TALC" as overbroad to the extent'that it is not 16 limited to the product(s) allegedly at issue or the time period allegedly at issue and as being 17 vague, ambiguous, overbroad, misleading and assuming facts. 18 Vanderbilt objects to the term "YOUR EMPLOYEES" as overly broad, unduly 19 burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, unlimited in time and scope, assumes facts not in 20 evidence and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 21 Vanderbilt objects to the definition of "MARKET," "MARKETED" and/or 22 "MARKETING" to the extent that it is not limited to the product(s) allegedly at issue or the time 23 period allegedly at issue. 24 Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Vanderbilt states: Yes. The 25 accepted hazards associated with excessive exposures to talc include pneumoconiosis. Vanderbilt 26 did warn its employees that hazards of excessive exposures to talc included pneumoconiosis. 27 Vanderbilt controlled exposures in its mines and mills so as to prevent talcosis including tire use 28 of respirators and wet down procedures since 1948. ________________________________________ __ 42_________________________________________________ DEFENDANT VANDERBILT MINERALS. LLC'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL INI ERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 to dust, including without limitation respiratory protection, ventilation or wetting down methods. 2 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 105: 3 Vanderbilt objects to the definitions of the terms "YOU" and "YOUR" to the extent to 4 the extent the definition include entities that do not share a predecessor-in-interest/successor-in- 5 interest relationship with Vanderbilt and to the extent that it conflates the issues surrounding these 6 various entities, and wrongly assumes that it has already been established that Vanderbilt is the 7 successor-in-interest to other pertinent entities. 8 Vanderbilt objects to the term "YOUR EMPLOYEES" as overly broad, unduly 9 burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, unlimited in time and scope, assumes facts not in 10 evidence and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 11 Vanderbilt objects to this Special Interrogatory to the extent that the use ofthe undefined 12 term "health hazards" renders the Special Interrogatory vague, ambiguous and overbroad as 13 phrased. 14 Vanderbilt objects to this Special Interrogatory to the extent that the use of the undefined 15 term "exposure" renders the Special Interrogatory vague, ambiguous and overbroad as phrased. 16 Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Vanderbilt states: Yes. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 47: 18 If YOU employed and/or implemented any MEASURES to protect YOUR own 19 EMPLOYEES from the potential health hazards of exposure to the TALC, DESCRIBE each 20 MEASURE taken. 21 As used in these Interrogatories, "DESCRIBE," in relation to MEASURES taken to 22 protect YOUR own EMPLOYEES, means to state what MEASURES were taken, what trade or 23 job classification of worker(s) were protected by each MEASURE, why the MEASURES were 24 taken, and the inclusive date(s) such MEASURES were taken. 25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 106: 26 Vanderbilt objects to the definitions of the terms "YOU" and "YOUR" to the extent to 27 the extent the definition include entities that do not share a predecessor-in-interest/successor-in- 28 interest relationship with Vanderbilt and to the extent that it conflates the issues surrounding these __________________________________________________ 45_______________________________ ____________ _ DEFENDANT! VANDERBILT MINERALS, LLC'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 various entities, and wrongly assumes that it has already been established that Vanderbilt is the 2 successor-in-interest to other pertinent entities. 3 Vanderbilt objects to the term "YOUR EMPLOYEES" as overly broad, unduly 4 burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, unlimited in time and scope, assumes facts not in 5 evidence and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6 Vanderbilt objects to this Special Interrogatory to the extent that the use of the undefined 7 term "health hazards" renders the Special Interrogatory vague, ambiguous and overbroad as 8 phrased. 9 Vanderbilt objects to this Special Interrogatory to the extent that the use of the undefined 10 term "exposure" renders the Special Interrogatory vague, ambiguous and overbroad as phrased. 11 Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Vanderbilt states: The 12 accepted hazards associated with excessive exposures to talc include pneumoconiosis. Vanderbilt 13 did warn its employees that hazards of excessive exposures to talc included pneumoconiosis and 14 took measures to control these exposure. Vanderbilt controlled exposures in its mines and mills 15 so as to prevent talcosis including the use of respirators and wet down procedures since 1948. 16 Dry drilling was prohibited by 1972. Vanderbilt used dust collection systems and installed 17 control rooms in its mines and mills and updated and replaced these systems over time. 18 Vanderbilt developed a black topping program in about 1965. Vanderbilt refers Plaintiffs to 19 supplemental response to Request for Production Nos. 54 and 56 served herewith. 20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 48: 21 Did you receive any WARNINGS about the potential health hazards of exposure to TALC 22 from any person or entity prior to 1981? 23 As used in these Interrogatories, "WARNING" or "WARNINGS," in relation to any 24 product that YOU MARKETED, mean any warning and/or caution about the health hazards of 25 exposure to the product and/or instructions on how to safely use the product, including without 26 limitation iabel(s) on the product, instructions on the product, MSDS sheets or correspondence 27 with the customer. 28 I l l __________________________________________________46_________ ______________________________________ DEFENDANT VANDERBILT MINERALS, LLC'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 109: 2 Vanderbilt objects to this Special Interrogatory to the extent that the use of the undefined 3 term "health hazards" renders the Special Interrogatory vague, ambiguous and overbroad as 4 phrased. 5 Vanderbilt objects to this Special Interrogatory to the extent that the use of the undefined 6 term "exposure" renders the Special Interrogatory vague, ambiguous and overbroad as phrased. 7 Vanderbilt objects to the definition of "TALC" as overbroad to the extent that it is not 8 limited to the product(s) allegedly at issue or the time period allegedly at issue and as being 9 vague, ambiguous, overbroad, misleading and assuming facts. 10 Vanderbilt objects to the term "WARNINGS" as overly broad, unduly burdensome, 11 vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, unlimited in time and scope, assumes facts not in evidence and is 12 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 13 Vanderbilt objects to the definition of the term "YOU" to the extent to the extent the 14 definition include entities that do not share a predecessor-in-interest/successor-in-interest 15 relationship with Vanderbilt and to the extent that it conflates the issues surrounding these various 16 entities, and wrongly assumes that it has already been established that Vanderbilt is the successor- 17 in-interest to other pertinent entities. 18 Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Vanderbilt states: Vanderbilt 19 understood that the accepted hazards associated with excessive exposures to talc include 20 pneumoconiosis since it started mining talc in 1948. Vanderbilt kept abreast of information in the 21 industry regarding hazards associated with talc. Vanderbilt further received information from 22 NIOSH, OSHA, MSHA and other government entities regarding potential hazards associated 23 with its mining activities and its products. Vanderbilt cannot state whether information received 24 about potential health hazards associated with talc constituted warnings. Vanderbilt did have 25 correspondence with government agencies, trade associations and customers regarding potential 26 health hazards involving talc and asbestos and alleged health hazards of talc. Vanderbilt refers 27 Plaintiffs to supplemental responses to Requests for Production Nos. 34, 39, 40 and 64 served 28 herewith. ________________________ _ __________________________________41_____________ _________________________________________________ DEFENDANT VANDERBILT MINERALS, LLC'S SUPPLEMEN 1AL RESPONSFS TO PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 3 4 RFOOSDTNEERY, C. FOSTER and SHIRWOLD CASE NO,: RG15764371 5 Plaintiff, VSUAPNPDLEERMBEILNTTAMLINREERSAPOLSNSLELSCT'SO 6 V, PINLTAEINRRTIOFGFAS'OSTPOECRIIAESL, SET ONE 7 ALLIED PACKING & SUPPLY, INC., et, al,, 8 9 Defendants. IO 11 12 13 VERIFICATION 14 I have read the foregoing VANDERBILT MINTERALS LLC'S SUPPLEMENTAL 15 RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, and know its 16 contents, 17 I am the President of Vanderbilt Minerals LLC, and am authorized to make this 18 verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. 19 The matters stated in the foregoing document are true ofmy own knowledge except as to 20 those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters Tbelieve them to 21 be true, 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 23 foregoing is true and correct. 24 Executed on September f , 2016, at Norwalk, Connecticut. 25 26 27 RANDALL L. JOHNSON 28 VANDERBILT MINERALS LLC'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE