Document G6vrR3YMJ4BLq3vX3nq41o3EN

> SIDNEY RIVERS, JR., et al., vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP., etal. IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 160th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM ADAMS' FIRST AND SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION TO: SIDNEY RIVERS, by and through his counsel ofrecord, Peter A. Kraus, Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. Pursuant to Rules 120a, 166b and 169 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company ("ICRC") hereby files its Responses and Objections to Plaintiff William Adams' First and Second Set of Interrogatories, Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting to Jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted. By A Thomas R. Peters GUNDLACH, LEE, EGGMANN, BOYLE & ROESSLER 5000 West Main Street, P.O. Box 23560 Belleville, IL 62223-0560 Telephone: (618)277-9000 Scott P. Hazen BROWN McCARROLL & OAKS HARTLINE 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75201-6929 (214) 999-6100 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ILLINOIS CENTRAL CORPORATION and ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY I. PREL I3IU ARY STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS Subject to and without waiving its current or any future special appearances, ICRC makes this preliminary statement and these objections: ICRC currently has special appearance motions pending in various cases in Dallas Comity, Texas. Each ofthese cases involve numerous Plaintiffs who are residents ofstates other than Texas. Each and every objection, response or matter contained in these responses and answers is made strictly subject to and without waiving any pending special appearance motion. To the extent that ICRC is named and served as a party in future cases in Dallas County, these responses shall also be subject to and without waiving any future special appearance motions. ICRC expressly objects to each and every discovery request to the extent that it seeks any information in those cases wherein a special appearance is pending for the reason that such discovery requests are not related to any special appearance motion or likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in a special appearance hearing. ICRC does not own or control any railroad track in Texas. ICRC will provide substantive responses to those requests related tojurisdictional issues as they relate to those Plaintiffs who have sued ICRC. However, ICRC objects to each and every discovery request and/or interrogatory to the extent that it is unrestricted as to subject, time and geography on the grounds that such requests/interrogatories are unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably related to the discovery ofjurisdictional evidence related to such claims. 2 II. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. ICRC further objects to each and every discovery request, interrogatory and request for admission to the extent that they require ICRC to search through all corporate documents on the ground that such requests are clearly overly board, unduly burdensome, exceptionally expensive, and not reasonably related to the discovery ofevidence relevant to the claims ofPlaintiffs claiming injury arising out of alleged exposure while employed by ICRC in Texas. 2. ICRC further objects to those requests as a whole, since they seek matters which are privileged under the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and Texas Rules ofCivil Evidence, including, but not limited to, information and matters precluded by the attomey/client privilege, attomey/work product exemption and the party communications privilege. 3. ICRC further objects to the definitions set forth at the beginning ofPlaintiffs' requests as an improper attempt to give meanings to ordinary English words that are contrary to their accepted meanings and which render the requests ambiguous, overly broad and/or unduly burdensome to answer. 4. ICRC further objects to Plaintiffs' requests as vague since they are not limited to the time and location when and where Plaintiffs were allegedly employed by ICRC. 5. ICRC expressly incorporates each and every general objection and preliminary statement into its response to each interrogatory, subject to and without waiving its special appearance motion objecting to jurisdiction. 6. ICRC objects to any request relating to any topic other than jurisdiction, as it has a special appearance on file in this matter and inquiries beyond the issue ofjurisdiction are unduly burdensome on defendant in that it has insufficient contacts with Texas. 3 RESPONSESTO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, job title, length oftime employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of all positions, titles, orjobs held while working for Defendant ofeach person who supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: Charles Garrett, Risk Manager Illinois Central Railroad Co. 2921 Horn Lake Road Memphis, Tennessee 38109 Employment Tenure: In excess of20 years See plaintiffs personnel file referred to in defendant's response to plaintiffs request to produce. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State the full and proper business name and address of the Defendant. State whether or not you are a corporation. Ifso, state your corporate name, the state ofyour incorporation, the address of your principal place ofbusiness, the name and address ofthe person or entity authorized to accept service ofprocess on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas, maintained a registered agent in Texas, engaged in business in Texas or recruited or hired employees in Texas. ANSWER: Subjectto defendant's special appearance and preliminary and general objections, and without waiving same: Illinois Central Railroad Company is a corporation incorporated in the State of Illinois. Its principal place of business is 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Chicago, IL 606115504. It has no person or entity authorized to accept service ofprocess in Texas and is not required to do so. It has never held a Certificate of Authority to do business in Texas and is not required to do so. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: With regard to each policy of liability insurance intended to provide coverage to Defendant, its agents and/or employees for the liability in connection with the allegations such as those delineated in Plaintiffs Original and Amended Petitions including, but not limited to, all primary and excess policies covering the Defendant for such liability, state the name and address of each carrier. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, 4 therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that it cannot answer this interrogatory in that the phrase "intended to provide coverage" is not limited in time or to any individual or entity. Defendant does state that it does not have any insurance policies in its possession regarding Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railway Company. With respect to Illinois Central Railroad Company, Defendant has in its possession and will provide for inspection by Plaintiff approximately 54 binders of policies relating to the years 1957 through 1985, reflecting in excess of 165 insurance companies. Illinois Central Railroad Company initiated litigation against these companies which resulted in a settlement See Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al. Civ. Action No. 91 L 91 WLB (Asbestos). INTERROGATORYJ4Q. 4: State whether you contend that the Plaintiffhas done anything or failed to do anything that constitutes contributory negligence. If so, please describe the basis of your contention and what evidence exists to support that contention. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because ofits breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that Plaintiff smoked. Plaintiff has yet to be provided for deposition regarding this or other factors which may be considered as contributory negligence. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State whether you contend that the Plaintiffhas done or failed to do anything that constitutes a failure to mitigate damages. If so, please describe the basis of your contention and what evidence exists to support that contention. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. 5 Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant is currently unaware of anything Plaintiff has failed to do to mitigate damages. See response to previous interrogatory. Investigation continues. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: List each and every place of work and job assignment of the Plaintiff which he held during his employment with Defendant and describe in detail the duties involved in each ofthe job assignments. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states see personnel file referred to in response to plaintiffs request for production. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Describe in detail how asbestos containing products were used by railroad workers on Defendant's raiiroad(s) during the period of Plaintiffs employment by Defendant. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. 6 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that it currently has no information that plaintiffused asbestos-containing products. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe in detail where asbestos containing products were used by railroad workers on Defendant's railroad(s) during the period ofPlaintiffs employment by Defendant ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, see response to Interrogatory #7. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: If you have alleged in your answer that Plaintiffs injuries and/or damages were caused by some other injury, disease or condition, either pre-existing or unrelated to and arising after or in conjunction with the Plaintiffs exposure to asbestos-containing products, please describe in detail such pre-existing or subsequent disease, injury or condition. For each alleged other injury, disease or condition, identify all evidence upon which you base this contention. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xb); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. 7 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant asserts that it contests whether plaintiff suffered an injury or damage related to asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please state the name of each and every person having knowledge of facts relevant to this action including most recent address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeach and every person, known to Defendant's agents, including, but not limited to:> A. Identification of asbestos-containing products or type of products to which Plaintiff was exposed or facts disputing the identification of these products; B. Plaintiffs damages, injuries and/or facts disputing Plaintiffs damages and/or injuries; C. The negligence of any person or entity, other than Defendant, which Defendant contends was a cause of Plaintiffs injuries and/or damages; and D. Each ofdefendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed answer. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, and with Defendant stating that persons with facts "relevant to this action" is so broad so as to render this interrogatory meaningless, Defendant states as follows: Defendant incorporates its previously filed witness list and information contained therein. In addition, Defendant states: 8 Plaintiffs co-workers, as more particularly known by plaintiff, but including, to Defendant's knowledge: George Whisenhant, (address previously disclosed) Burt Clark, Mobile, Alabama, former employee in the Purchasing & Material Department ofthe Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railway Company and later Illinois Central Railroad Company. He began his employment in 1950. Jim McClure, Master Mechanic at Friscati beginning 1969, retired and believed to be living in or around Mobile, Alabama. F.T. McMeans, address unknown W. C. Gray, Master Mechanic at Friscati shops until 1969, address unknown. See also plaintiffs personnel file referred to in Defendant's response to plaintiffs request for production for names ofpersons as well as the release executed by plaintiff with respect to this action. Defendant also identifies its experts and witnesses as disclosed in this and previous cases, as well as an as yet unidentified physician who is expected to examine plaintiff. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify documents or things, including x-rays, MCI's, CT-scans or other materials, which will be used at time of trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant refers Plaintiff to its exhibit list, and further to the medical records from the sources identified by plaintiff in his answers to interrogatories. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify the names and addresses of all individuals Defendant may call as an expert witnesses) at trial, and for each individual, please state: 9 A. The subject matter on which the witness is expected to testify, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, the substance of the facts and opinions to which the witness intends to testify on the Defendant's behalf and a summary of the grounds for each opinion, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case; B. All factual observations, test results, supporting data, learned treatise (books, general articles, texts or other publications) and opinions which the witness has generated, been provided, intends to use, and/or may use to support his/her opinions and conclusions relative to the case whereupon which the witness has or will base his/her testimony in this matter, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case. The identity, address andjob classification of each consulting expert whose opinions or data have been referred to and/or relied upon by the expert witness, and the complete title and author of each learned treatise referred to and/or relied upon by the witness for information and/or corroborating his/her opinions regarding the subject matter ofthis lawsuit; C. Whether any person identified in subparagraph B above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and ifso, identify each such document or report, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group; D. Identify all documents or other materials, including but not limited to x-rays, pathology, CT-scans, you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph B above, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group; . Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph B above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant incorporates its witness list in response to this interrogatory. At this early date, defendant expects to call one or more of the experts identified in Bethel as well as an examining physician as yet unidentified. 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify all persons, entities, agencies or others, whether governmental (state or federal) or private, who participated in any investigation ofthe claims made the basis ofthis lawsuit ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states that the only "investigation" ofPlaintiff's claims were made by Defendant and/or counsel, which "investigation" is privileged pursuant to the work product and attomey/client privileges. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state whether Defendant or any successor or predecessor was ever a member ofthe Railroad Claims Registry, and ifso, please state the years Defendant was a member, the years of attendance at and involvement in die Railroad Claims Registry Meetings; the name, job classification, address and telephone number ofeach and every agent and/orrepresentative and/or employee ofDefendant attending each and every Railroad Claims Registry Meeting and the year that agent and/or representative and/or employee ofDefendant attended the meeting; and the location of the Railroad Claims Registry Meeting for each year attended by Defendant ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that, without further information, it cannot determine what the "Railroad Claims Registry" is such that further answer to this interrogatory can be made. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please state whether Defendant or any successor or predecessor ever attended or sent an agent on its behalf to any of the Association of American Railroads and American Railway Association meetings from 1930 to the present, and if so, please state the years of attendance; the location of the meeting; the name, address, job classification and telephone number ofeach and every agent and/or employee and/or representative ofDefendant attending each and every Association ofAmerican Railroads and American Railway Association meeting and the exact year of attendance. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. I66b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. I66b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states it has no knowledge regarding whether the GulfMobile & Ohio Railway Co. was a member ofor attended meetings of the AAR or ARA other than that information disclosed in plaintiffs identified exhibits regarding the AAR or ARA. Illinois Central Railroad Co. joined the ARA in 1934. Between that time and 1984 when Adams left its employ, Illinois Central Railroad Co. has no information regarding attendance ofmeetings other than that contained in Plaintiff's identified exhibits regarding the AAR or ARA. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Before 1980, did Defendant receive notice that any individual who at any time was employed by the Defendant claimed injury as a result ofexposure to asbestos? If so, state: A. The name and address of each claimant; B. The date of notice of each claim; C. A description of the claim; D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained by each claimant; E. The name and address of each attorney who represented each individual making a claim; F. The style and court number of each claim; G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment; 12 H. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. I66b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states no. INTERRQGATQRY_NQ. 17; Before 1980, did Defendant receive notice that any individual who at any time was employed by any Railroad claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, state: A. The name and address of each claimant; B. The date of notice of each claim; C. A description ofthe claim; D. The type ofinjuries allegedly sustained by each claimant; E. The name and address of each attorney who represented each individual making a claim; F. The style and court number of each claim; G. The disposition ofeach claim that has been settled or taken to judgment; H. The name, address and title of the person having custody ofthe records pertaining to each such claim. 13 ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for die reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Has Defendant at any time published, distributed or displayed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, warning signs or statements, packaging or other written material of any kind or character containing any warning concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products and/or exposure to airborne asbestos? If so, state: A. The exact wording ofeach warning statement and a description of the material upon which the warning was printed; B. The method(s) used to distribute the materials to persons likely to use the asbestoscontaining products or likely to be exposed to airborne asbestos; C. The date each warning was first issued or distributed; D. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning statements and/or written materials; E. The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof; F. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, i.e., the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. 14 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for die reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with die State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, and limited to the time period prior to 1981 when plaintiffleft Defendant's physical employ. Defendant states unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Did Defendant install, replace, use, repair, assemble, transport or store, either as an original appurtenance ofthe railroad or placed in/on die railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad, any asbestos-containing products during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant? Ifso, identify: A. By name and number each of Defendant's railroad(s), whether operating or in railyards, upon which the asbestos-containing produces) were installed, repaired, used, stored or transported during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant; B. The particular type of asbestos-containing produces); C. The trade or brand name of each of the asbestos-containing products; D. The years during which each named asbestos product was applied, stored, used, repaired, installed or transported either as an original appurtenance ofthe railroad or placed on/in the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad(s); E. The dates of any removal or abatement of such asbestos-containing products, from Defendant's railroad(s). ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 15 evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, defendant states that it has no information that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos while in defendant's employ. INTERROGATQRY MQ. 20: Did any entities or persons at Defendant's direction, whether direct or indirect, including but not limited to contractors and subcontractors install, replace, use, repair, assemble, transport or store, either as an original appurtenance ofthe railroad or placed in/on the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad, any asbestos-containing products during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant? Ifso, identify: A. By name and number each of Defendant's railroad(s), whether operating or in railyards, upon which the asbestos-containing produces) were installed, repaired, used, stored or transported during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant; B. The particular type ofasbestos-containing product(s); C. The trade or brand name of each ofthe asbestos-containing products; D. The years during which each named asbestos product was applied, stored, used, repaired, installed or transported either as an original appurtenance of the railroad or placed on/in the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad(s); E. The dates of any removal or abatement of such asbestos-containing products, from Defendant's railroad(s). ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, 16 therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, see response to Interrogatory #19. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: If the answer to any portion of the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative and/or if any asbestos-containing products are identified in response to such interrogatory, state the following as to each identified product: A. The name(s) of the railroad workers repairing, replacing or using each asbestoscontaining product on Defendant's railroad(s) during Plaintiffs period of employment by Defendant; B. A description ofthe physical appearance of each ofthe named asbestos-containing products; C. A detailed description of the uses ofthe named asbestos-containing products; D. A detailed description of the areas on Defendant's railroad where such asbestos- containing products were installed, replaced or used. A. By name and number each of Defendant's railroad(s), whether operating or in railyards, upon which the asbestos-containing produces) were installed, repaired, used, stored or transported during the time Plaintiffworked for Defendant; B. The particular type of asbestos-containing produces); C. The trade or brand name of each ofthe asbestos-containing products; D. The years during which each named asbestos product was applied, stored, used, repaired, installed or transported either as an original appurtenance of the railroad or placed on/in the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad(s); E. The dates of any removal or abatement of such asbestos-containing products, from Defendant's railroad(s). ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. I66b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. I66b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. 17 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that h seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope ofpermissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, see responses to Interrogatories #19 and 20. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Has Defendant or any other entity at the direction ofDefendant, contracted with another entity for the acquisition, ordering, purchasing, supplying or distributing of asbestos-containing products, at any time prior to or during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant? If so, identify: A. Each of Defendant's railroad components by name and number for which the asbestos-containing products were ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant; B. The particular type of asbestos-containing products acquired; C. The trade or brand name of each of those asbestos-containing products ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; D. The years such asbestos-containing products were acquired, ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed by Defendant; E. The dates of any removal or abatement of asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, 18 therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that is purchased products which may have contained asbestos consistent with materials purchased by other railroads during the time periods plaintiffwas employed by Illinois Central Railroad Co. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: If your answer to any portion of the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, or if any asbestos-containing products are identified in response to that interrogatory, state the following as to each product: A. The name(s) of the company(ies), entity(ies), manufacturers) from which the asbestos-containing products were acquired, ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; B. The date(s) each asbestos-containing product was ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; C. A description of the physical appearance of each ofthe named asbestos-containing products; D. A detailed description of the uses of the named asbestos-containing products; E. Identify the last year that Defendant ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed each identified asbestos-containing product. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. 19 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, see response to Interrogatory #22. INTERROGATORY N0.24: State whether Defendant maintained from 1950 through the present copies ofinvoices, shipping receipts, bills oflading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the purchase or acquisition ofasbestos-containing products. If so, state: A. The location of such documents; 6. The name and address ofthe custodian of the documents; C. The format in which the documents are kept, i.e., hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc.; D. In what form the documents can be accessed. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that its seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. 20 Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states that it has no such documents in its possession. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Identify all persons, including name, address and telephone number, who provided and/or conducted or were responsible for conducting any type of safety training, during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168, Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that with respect to the Gulf Mobile & Ohio Railway Co., "unknown." Illinois Central Railroad Co. had a safety department which provided training and materials throughout all operation of defendant's railroad. Numerous employees, including its foremen, had responsibility for safety training. RESPONSES TO SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: At any time prior to 1980 did Defendant or anyone at the direction of Defendant conduct an investigation, survey or other process to identify the primary emission sources of airborne asbestos fibers and/or to asses and/or sample for the detection of, the quantity of, or 21 threshold limit value of airborne asbestos fibers in relation to Defendant's railroad? If so, please identify with particularity the entity and/or persons conducting such investigations), survey(s) or test(s) the dates conducted and the results. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states, unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Did Defendant ever arrange for any labor agency, insurance company, government agency, inspectors or anyone from your company to go into any ofDefendant's railway cars) and/or engine(s) and/or locomotive(s) and/or roundhouses and/or shops to take dust level counts related to asbestos dust? If so, identify with particularity the party(ies) conducting such procedure(s), the dates conducted, the purpose of such procedure(s), and all results of such procedure(s). ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. 22 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that limited to plaintiffs physical employment from 1971 to 1981, unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Did Defendant obtain facts, knowledge or information from any industry, insurance company, governmental agency, union, and/or any other entity regarding the potential health effects and/or health hazards created for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust? Ifso, please list all sources of such information and the dates received. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. 23 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, and limited to the time period prior to 1981, Defendant states, "unknown." INTERROGATORY NO. 4: List each person who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians (including those physicians who would have been responsible for conducting physicals, evaluations or screening of Defendant's employees) and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals who has had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of airborne asbestos dust ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this inten-ogatoiy as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states: 24 With respect to the GulfMobile & Ohio Railway Co., "unknown." Illinois Central Railroad Co. employed the following Chief Medical Officers for the years indicated: G. Dondall (1935-48) W.W. Leake (1948-51) Ernest Olsen (1951-69) Harry Hunter (1969-74) Philip L. Campagna (Acting ChiefMedical Officer on at lest May 11,1971) William Hand (1974-77) Thomas Davidson (1977-86) Dennis Ignatz (1986-87) Addresses of the above persons is unknown, it is believed each person was officed in Chicago, Illinois. The position was abolished in 1987. Further, Defendant never hired an individual with the job title "industrial hygienist" INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health ofhuman beings? Ifso, state: A. The name of each such publication; B. The date of publication and the names ofthe author and published (ifany); C. The date received by Defendant; D. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession ofeach publication and it present location. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. 25 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, defendant states "no," other than materials collected in anticipation of litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Has Defendant at any time been a member ofany trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of airborne asbestos? Ifso, state: A. The name and address of each such association or organization; B. The dates during which Defendant was a member; C. The names and dates ofany publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any ofthe named associations or organizations; D. Whether any ofthose publications are still in your possession, and ifso: 1. A description ofthe publications, including the date; 2. The current location of such publications; 3. The custodian of such publication; 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. 26 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason drat it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, defendant states none other than organizations referred to in documents already produced by plaintiff or defendant in this case or in Bethel. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: As to the disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; 6. How Defendant became aware ofthe existence of the disease; C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease; D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form; F. Who is the custodian of such information; G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers alone or in conjunction with second hand smoke. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, 27 therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, "unknown." Defendant further states that first asbestosis claim filed against it occurred in 1982. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: As to the disease lung cancer, state: A. The date on which Defendant first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware ofthe disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure; C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects ofasbestos exposure; D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form; F. Who is the custodian of such information; G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 28 evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states unknown. Defendant further states that the first lung cancer claim filed against it occurred in 1983. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A. The date on which Defendant first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers; C. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware ofthe disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos; D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form; G. Who is the custodian of such information; H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. 29 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that h seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states, ``unknown." Defendant further states that the first mesothelioma claim filed against it occurred in 1982. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: As to gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer and/or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant first learned that such diseases were caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans; B. What cancers has the Defendant become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers; C. The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation; D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form; G. Who is the custodian of such information; ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness 30 statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states that medical science does not yet agree that gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer are caused by inhalation ofasbestos fibers, nor is defendant aware of any other cancer caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Did Defendant maintain written minutes ofcorporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? Ifso, for each such set of minutes, state: A. The dates of each such meeting; B. The general subject matter discussed at each meeting; C. Who was in attendance at each meeting; D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained; E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format; F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness 31 statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states, none known. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Does Defendant intend to call a company representative as a witness at the trial of this case? If so, list: A. The name, address, and job title ofeach company representative who may be called; B. A summary of the testimony expected to be given by each such witness; C. List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs) in that case. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, 32 therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, unknown at this time. Defendant may call Charles Garrett or Ken Novander. See their depositions already taken in this case. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Does your company have, or has it ever had, a Medical Department or Medical Section? Ifso, state: A. the year such Medical Department or Section was established; B. Whether or not such Medical Department or Section has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head ofyour Medical Department or Section year by year, beginning with the first year of its existence and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department or Section. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporated its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. 33 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states, see answer to Interrogatory #4. Defendant further states that it has no written job description related to its Chief Medical Officers. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state whether written warnings were placed at any locations adjacent to or near asbestos in place on Defendant's railroad(s), at anytime from 1930 to the present. If so, please describe with specificity such signs, including size, color, wording, etc. Additionally, please state the number of such signs that were installed and indicate the specific location of each such sign and the dates such sign was at that location. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, unknown. 34 INTERROGATORY NO. 15; Department? Ifso, state: Does your company have, or has it ever had, a Safety A. The year such Safety Department was established; B. Whether or not such Safety Department has operated continuously since being established; C. The name ofeach director, chief, or head of your Safety Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Safety Director or Safety Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Safety Department ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, yes. Further information is currently being investigated, and if uncovered, Defendant will supplement this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state whether a medical monitoring program, medical examination program or other medical surveillance was provided to your employees and specifically to Plaintiff. If so, please indicate what records of such program, examination or surveillance concerning Plaintiffexist at this time, including but not limited to, reports, x-rays and medical notes. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks 35 information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states: Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Co. required pre-employment and return to work physicals for its employees. Gulf Mobile & Ohio Railway Co. policies are unknown. With respect to plaintiff, defendant has no medical information other than that obtained in his lawsuit or contained in his personnel file referred to in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs request to produce. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether Defendant has at any time provided safety equipment to the Plaintiff and/or the railroad workers of Defendant present at any time during Plaintiffs employment by Defendant for protection against the inhalation ofairborne asbestos dust, including but not limited to masks, respirators, other breathing devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, etc. For each such item of equipment, please indicate when such item was first provided, under what circumstances, and the name, address and telephone number ofthe person most knowledgeable concerning such provision. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, 36 therefore, beyond the scope ofpermissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states it has provided employees with hard hats, goggles, gloves, shoes and breathing protective equipment including cloth masks, black rubber respirators with filters fitting the nose and mouth and face masks with filters. Defendant is unaware as to what specific equipment was provided on the Gulf Mobile & Ohio Railway Co., but states that such equipment would most likely be housed in the stores department such that Charles Bethel and/or Burt Clark should have knowledge regarding the information sought in this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please state whether Defendant ever agreed by contract, agreement, negotiation, collective bargaining or otherwise, to provide masks to Plaintiff and other crew members and/or employees of Defendant working with or around asbestos products. If so, please state verbatim the specific agreement or contract and/or other document by which Defendant agreed to provide such masks. Include the date the agreement was entered into, the period oftime covered by the agreement and the parties to the agreement ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. 37 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states none known. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Please state the precise state and/or federal regulations, laws, statutes, or other authority pertaining to industrial hygiene or worker safety and health that governed, regulated, controlled and/or were applicable to airborne asbestos exposure in your operations and/or in relation to Defendant's railroad. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states: Federal Employer's Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. 51 etseq. 38 INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Please describe each and every occasion during the past thirty years when any regulatory agency or other governing body inspected Defendants railroad to ascertain whether health and safety regulations were being followed or adhered to, including the date of such inspection and/or meeting, the results, and whether a written report was produced ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant is unaware of any regulatory agency inspecting plaintiffs place of employment INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please state whether any asbestos-containing products in place or in use on Defendant's railroad, has been removed or abated at any time from 1965 to the present. If so, please answer the following: A. List each and every abatement company or other contractor involved with the removal ofasbestos, including address and telephone number, dates ofsuch removal, and whether a contract for such removal exists; B. Indicate the total amount in dollars spent by Defendant to abate or remove asbestos from the railroads; C. State whether any "removal plan" or organized written criteria or other document related to asbestos removal on the railroad(s) was ever prepared by Defendant; D. State whether corporate documents discussing or relating generally to the removal of asbestos are in existence and, if so, where they are maintained; E. State precise dates and locations when and where such removal or abatement took place for each railroad. 39 ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that while it has abated or removed asbestos-containing materials on its railroad, plaintiffhas yet to be provided such that a determination can be made whether any such procedures occurred at any facility at which plaintiff worked. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant was first advised of such limits or concentrations; B. The name ofthe employee or official of the company receiving such advice; C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 40 evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Please state whether and when Defendant received a copy ofthe Fleischer/Drinker Report published in 1945/1946. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. 41 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Please describe all actions taken by Defendant to comply with the Boiler Inspection Act, previously 45 U.S.C. 23 during the past thirty-five (35) years, now designated at 49 U.S.C. 20701, et seq. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because ofits breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. 2ARS2.RIV 42 SIDNEY RIVERS, JIL, et al.. vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP., et al. NO. 96-02651-H * IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 160th JUDICIAL DISTRICT CERTinCATE QF SERVICE The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy of the foregoing Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs* First and Second Set ofInterrogatories Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting to Jurisdiction was faxed to the below-listed counsel on September 2, 1997, and was also deposited in a mail box located near 5000 West Main Street, Belleville, Illinois, with proper postage prepaid at approximately 5:00 p.m. on September 2,1997, addressed to the following: Ms. Kimberly Shauck (Fax: 214-520-1181) Baron & Budd, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 GUNDLACH, LEE, EGGMANN, BOYLE & ROESSLER 5000 West Main St, Box 23560 Belleville, IL 62223-0560 (618) 277-9000 (618) 277-4594 FAX SIDNEY RIVERS, JR., et al., vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP., et al. NO. 96-02651-H IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 160th JUDICIAL DISTRICT VERIFICATION BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared CHARLES G. GARRETT, who after being sworn, stated upon his oath that he is the Risk Manager of Illinois Central Railroad Company and as such is authorized to verify Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First and Second Set ofInterrogatories Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting to Jurisdiction, and states that he has read and understands the same, and that all statements contained in the aforementioned supplemental responses are within his personal knowledge and are true and correct. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY CHARLES G. GARRETT Risk Manager SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this // to certify which witness may hand and seal of office. day of SepfenL>tZ- . 1997,