Document GNYrDjk1oeEVk9j05Vq6G1Zm

JUK-27-97 10:25 Proa:PHELPS DUNBAR 7158180656 T-584 P.04/43 Job-784 PLAINTIFF'S NO. 96-42699 STEVE EVANS. Plaintiffs. vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLaS CORPORATION, ET AL Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF $ 5 HARRIS COUNTY. TEXAS $ 334TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO: Plaintiff Steve Evans, by and through his attorneys of record, Kimberly Castles. Baron & Budd, The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100. Dallas. Texas 75219-4281. Pursuant to Rules 166b and 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Union Pacific Railroad Company (Improperly named as Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. d/b/a Union Pacific Railroad Co.. Individually and as Successor-in-interest to Texas Sl Pacific Railroad), Defendant herein, hereby submits its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories. General Ohweriom 1. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extern that (hey request information protected from disclosure by die attorney-client privilege ud/or dm attorney work-product doctrine. Any information subject to any such privilege inadvertently provided by Defendant in response to the Interrogatories shall not constitute or be deemed to constitute a waiver of any such privilege. 2. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they request information that is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, 3. - Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require Defendant to provide information that is available to Plaintiff where the burden of deriving or ascertaining such information is substantially the same as for Plaintiff as for Defendant. PDJ:72iaS.l 1 RECEIVED T1MEJUN. 27. 10:27AM 4UN-27-97 10:25 ProrPHElPS OIKBAR 7136260856 T--584 P.05743 Job-784 5. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that t&ey purport to require Defendant to provide mfoRBetioa pertaining to any time period other than (be relevant time period which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. 6. Defendant reserves the right to supplement or amend its responses as appropriate. PDS:72ltt,l 2 RECEIVED TIMEJUK. 27. 10:27AM -27-97 10:26 FrorPHELPS DUNBAR 7136260656 T-584 P.06743 Job-764 INTERROGATORIES interrogatory NO. i: Sue the name. address, job tide, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by year list of all positions, titles, or jobs beld while working for Defendant of each person who supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome aul seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Arlene Schroeder, Manager of Discovery. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 1416 Dodge Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68179. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the full and proper business name and address of the Defendant. State whether or not you are a corporation. If so. state your corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the addreu of your principal place of business, the name and address of the person or entity authorized to accept service of process 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 is business in Texas or recruited or hired employees in Texas. ANSWER: Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Utah Corporation licensed to do business in the State of Texas. Defendant's home office is in Omaha, Nebraska. It does business in Texas, maintains a registered agent in Texas. Norma Davenport. 808 Travis, Suite 620 Houston, Texas 77002 is authorized to accept service. Defendant engages in business and has employees in Texas. 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: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to die discovery of admissible evidence. INTFRgnGATQPY NO d; Stats whether you contend that the Plaintiff has 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: Defendant anticipates that some of the Plaintiffs social habits may have contributed to his medical condition. INTERROGATORY NO. S: State whether you contend that the Plaintiff has done or failed to do anything thru constitutes a failure to mitigate damages. If so, please describe the basis of your contention and what evidence exists to support that contention. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is premature because Defendant will not know the answer until discovery is completed. 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 foe duties involved in each of the job assignments. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks Information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Defendant has no information responsive to this request. interrogatory no. 7: Describe in detail bow asbestos containing products were used by railroad workers on Defendant's raiiroadfs) during the period of Plaintiffs employment by Defendant. answer: objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3 RECEIVED TIMEJON. 27. 10:27AM 27-37 10:26 Froi:PHELPS DUNBAR 7136260656 T-584 P.07743 Job-784 Further, this Interrogatory is not limited to the job sites and/or facilities at which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. interrogatory so. 8: Describe in detail where asbestos containing products were used by railroad workers on Defendant's railroadfs) during the period of Plaintiffs employment by Defendant. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, this Interrogatory is not limited to the job sites and/or facilities at which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 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: Objection. This Interrogatory is premature. Defendant will not know the answer until discovery is completed and/or more information is obtained or furnished. INTERROGATORY nq 1Q> Please state the name of each and every pereon having knowledge of facts relevant to this action including most recent address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each 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 tha idamitioatioe of these products; B. Plaintiffs damages, injuries and/or facts disputing Plaintiffs damages and/or injuries; and C. The negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of Plaintiffs injuries and/or damages. D. Each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWER: To the extent the requested information is available to Defendant, the following individuals can be named; however, this is not a representation that each person is knowledgeable as to each interrogatory. A-C. Discovery Is continuing, Defendant will supplement. D. Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, this Interrogaioty is outside the scope of knowledge of the persons Identified. INTERROGATORY NQ. li: Please identify document* or things, including x-rays. MRTs. CT-scans or other materials, which will be used at time of trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition list), which axe relevant to each of Defendant's enumerated defenses m Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWgf: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, tins Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the attorney* client privilege and the work product doctrine. INTERROGATORY NQ. 12: Identify the names and addresses of all individuals Defendant may call as an expert witness(es) ax trial, and for each individual, please state: A. The subject matter on which the witness is expected to testify, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, the substance of the tots 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; PDJ:7Zlt8.1 4 RECEIVED TiMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:26 Froi:PtCLP$ DUNBAR 7196250656 T-584 P.06749 Job-784 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. !0:27AM JUN-27-97 10:26 Froa:PKLP$ DUNBAR 7136260656 T--584 P.09743 Job-784 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:27 FrorfflElK DUNBAR 7136260656 T-584 P. 1(1743 Job-784 B. C. D. . ANSWER: Ml 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 nis/ber 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, and job classification of each consulting expert whose opinions or data have been referred to and/or relied upon by the expen witness, and the complete title and author of each leaned treatise referred to and/or relied upon by the witness for information and/or corroborating his/her opinions regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit: Whether any person identified in subparagraph B above has provided a report or other documentation to you. and if so. identify each such document or report, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiff within the group. Identify all documents or other materials, including but not to x-rays, pathology, CT-scana, 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. Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the attorney* client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant answers as follows: A. Expens have not been identified. B. Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without wavier of die foregoing objection, the expert's opinions sad basis of opinion will be included m their reports. If cxpcip prepare reports. Defendant will produce them. C. If experts prepare reports. Defondant will produce them. D. Objection. Ibis Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor Ukely to lead to me discovery of admissible evidence. E. When experts axe identified, a copy of their curriculum vitae will be provided under separate cover. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify all persons, entities, agencies or omen, whether governmental (state or federal) or private, who participated in any investigation of the claims made the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: Objection. Ibis Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which Is neither relevant nor likely to lead to me discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the aoorney- cUem privilege and the work product doctrine. Further, Defendant's tint notice of Plaintiffs claim was when he filed suit. INTERROGATORY NO. U: Please state whether Defendant or any successor or predecessor was ever a member of the Railroad Claims Registry, and if so, please state the years Defendant was a member; the yean of attendance at and involvement in the Railroad Claims Registry Meetings; the name, job classification, address and telephone number of each and evety agent and/or representative and/or employee of Defendant attending each and every Railroad Claims Registry Meeting and the year that agent and/or representative and/or employee of Defendant attended the meeting; and the location of the Railroad Claims Registry Meeting for each year attended by Defendant. POS;72ltt.l 5 RECEIVED TIUEJUN. 27. 10:27AM -27-9? 10:27 FwWSlPS DURBAR 7139280656 T-584 P.11743 Job-784 ANSWER; Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the attorneyclient privilege and the work product doctrine. 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 of each and every agent and/or employee and/or representative of Defendant attending each and every Association of American Railroads and American Railway Association meeting and the exact year of attendance. Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Interrogatory seels information, if any exists, which is protected by the attorney- diem privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant has been a member of the Association of American Railroads since 1934. Prior to 1934, Defendant was a member of die American Railway Association. Defendant does not currently have in its possession any records which indicate whether it had representatives at the Medical and Surgical Section or the Association of American Railroad for the years listed. Counsel for Defendant has obtained minutes of the Medical and Surgical Section from the Association of American Railroads. These records indicate that the following individuals were in attendance as representatives of Defendant at the following meetings. Defendant has no records which indicate that these individuals were employed by Defendant. 1921 P.F. Vasterling 1922 P.F. Vasterling, J. O. Graves, A. Isom. G. M. SoeUings 1926 W.B. Buns, J. B. Cahanon. W. P. Coyle. T.B.M. Craig, H.W Cummings. J.N. Greene, C.C. Hawke, S.C. Murray, E.B. Parsons, 1929 L.L. Purefoy, E.H. Skinner O.B. Zemert 1930 O.B. Zeinert 1931 O.B. Zeinert 1932 1933 O.B. Zeinert O.B. Zeinett 1934 O.B. Zeinert 1935 O.B. Zemert 1936 O.B. Zeinert 1937 O.B. Zeinert, J.A. Lembeck. D.S. Long 1939 O.B. Zeiaeri 1940 O.B. Zeinert 1941 O.B. Zemert, AJ. Brows 1946 O.B. Zeinert 1947 O.B. ZeiaeR 1949 O.B. Zeinert 19SO O.B. Zeiaert 1951 O.B. Zeinert 1952 1953 1955 J.A. Lembeck J.A. Lembeck J.A. Lembeck 1956 1957 J.A. Lembeck. G.W. Bale J.A. Lembeck 1958 J.A. Lembeck PD5:72ISt.i 6 9 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:2?AM -27-97 10:27 FroftPHBLPS DUHBAR 7136260656 7-564 P. 12743 Job-764 1965 J.M.L. Jensen interrogatory no. i6: Before i960, Old Defendant receive notice that any individual who at any time was employed by the Defendant claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, state: a. The name and address of each claimant; B. Hie date of notice of each claim; C. A description of foe claim; D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained by each claimant; . 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, H. The name, address and tide of foe person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduty burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited ro the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor limited to foe job sice or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by foe attorney-cheat privilege end foe work product doctrine. INTERROGATORY NO. 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, sate: 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 eutteiscd by esch claimant; . The name and address of each attorney who represented each individual making a claim; F. The style end ooun number of each claim; G. The disposition of each data that has been settled or taken to judgment; H. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to foe dme period In which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor limited to foe job site or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information. If any exists, which is protected by foe attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. INTERROGATORY NQ. id: Has Defendant at any time published, distributed or displayed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, warning signs or statements, packaging or ocher written material of any kind or character containing any warning concerning the possibility of injury resulting from foe use of asbestos-containing products and/or exposure to airborne asbestos? If so. state: A. The exact wording of each warning statement and a description of foe material upon which foe wanting was printed; B. The method(s) used to distribute foe materials to persons likely to use the asbestos-containing products or likely to be exposed to airborne asbestos; C. The date esch wanting 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; B. The current location of any such printed material and foe custodian thereof; FDS;ftItt.l 7 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:27 FroarPKIPS DUNBAR 7130260556 T-6M P. 13/43 Job-784 F. ANSWER: The form is which such literature or printed material can be accetaed, i-e., the manner tn which such literature is indexed or stored. Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to die time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor limited to the job site or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant has displayed and distributed brochures and warning signs concerning the use of asbestos-containing products. INTERROGATORY NO. IP: Did Defendant install, replace, use, repair, assemble, transport or store, either as an original appurtenance of the railroad or placed in/on the railroad is conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad, any asbestos-containing produets during the time Plaintiff worked fbr Defendant? If so, identify: A. By name and number each of Defendant's railroad(s), Whether operating or in railyards, upon which the asbestos-containing products) 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 ubestoi-cotKainiag products; D. The yean 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 repain or alterations to the railroadfs); and . The daces of any removal or abatement of such asbestos-containing products from Defendant's iailroad(s). ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to Ate discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant does sot maintain purchasing records known to cover the course of Plaintiffs emptoymeu. Purchase orders for ra-ock item* are retained for five years. For stock order materials, purchase orders are maintained for 3 years. Based on information obtained in the course of other Irrigation. Defendant has the following information regarding the use of asbestoxomamittg products in the railroad industry: i. Asbestos-containing mittens - manufacturers include Sager Glove Company. Tb**# mitten* were used for handling hot objects in the course of manufacture. Use of these products was discontinued in the early 1980s. ii. Asbestos tape manufacturers include Amatex. Novatex, Jane's Brand 116, Anchor Rubber Company and Johns-Manvilie. This material was used to wrap steam and hot water pipes on steam locomotives and business cars. This material is not presently maintained in Defendant's store stock. ui. Ground asbestos - manufacturers include Johns-Manville, Product 7M-13. This was used for post curing process for glued Vortax sod Allegbesy insulated joiou. This product was discontinued November 14, 1978. iv. Sealing and glazing compounds - The foUowmg sealing and glaring compounds were In use up until at least the mid 1980s and contained a small percentage of asbestos (usually less than 566): Product Duxseal Sealing Compound Manufacturer Johns-Manville Chalking Glaring Compound Tremco Manufacturing Company M242 Elastic Glueing Compound - Pecora Chemical Company Mastic Overall Paint lac. No. 1-723 U. Cray Anti-Skid Mascote Company, Inc. Dayco Wood Filler Day, James B and Company P05:72188.1 8 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM -27-97 10:26 Froa:PHELP$ DUNBAR 7136260656 T-564 P.14/43 Job-784 Wood Filler Paste Lawreace-McFadden Co. Black Plastic Cemem Medium Black Cement - Johas-Manvilie * No-Ko-Rode Heavy Black Cement No. 169 - Lucan v. Asbestos<oatainmg barriers in dynamic brakesboes - manufacnirers include General Electric, General Motors and Moseback. These barriers were insulation in dynamic brake grids on locomotives. This product was first used in approximately 1937 by General Motors. vi. Firebox linings * manufacturers unknown. A product containing asbestos was used to tine the bottom of fireboxes in steam locomotives. Steam locomotives have not been operated by Defendant since approximately 19SS. vti. Gaskets - Defendant is aware dm some gasket material contained a smell percentage of asbestos - Manufacturers include Oarlock, Chesterton and Johns-Manville Company- These were used in the stack and base gaskets for steam generators. This was also used on some diesel locomotives. The use of asbesm*eoaaming gaskets in diesel locomotives was discontinued by General Motors {Electro Motive Division (*EMD*) ami General Electric in approximately 2984. vii. Asbestos heat shields - These were used in or around cabin stoves or cabooses and used in welding for heat protection. These were first used sometime before 1980. They were no longer placed in cabooses after 1984. ix. Composition brake shoes Suppliers for composition brake shoes have included Railroad Friction Products, Westmghouse. Griffin, Abex (predecessor to ABC Rail), Anchor Brake Shoes (predecessor to Standard Car, TrucksAnchor and Cobra). Defendant was advised that Griffin discontinued including asbestos as a component In October 1981, Abex is January 1977, Railroad Friction Products in 1980, Anchor Brake Shoe in 1981 and Cobra in August 1978. x. Arc chutes and wire coverings - Manufacturers unknown. This material was used ro contain contact of fishing when making or breaking contact on locomotives; provide protection covering for high voltage and high current wiring on locomotives. The material ceased to being used in locomotives sometime prior to 1983. xi. Flexible tramline insulation - Manufacturer is Gustm-Bacon. This was used for insulating steam lines on passenger cars. The defendant discontinued purchase of the material on April 18, 1973. xli. Lagging and Packing on steam locomotives 85% Magnesia material was used as insulation on boilers on steam locomotives and for of steam joints. Possible supplies and manufacturers include Johns-Manville, Union Rubber and Asbestos,' Fiberboard ("Pabco"), Owens Coming Fiberglass and Owens Illinois and Philip Carey and Gariock. Use of this material would have ceased when Defendant ceased operating steam locomotives in approximately 1955. In addition, defendant is aware that asbestos millboard was purchased from Insulating and Materials Company, 1020 Central Industrial Drive. St. Louis, Missouri 63110. Asbestos piper was purchased from General Gasket Company, 2322 South Seventh Street. St. Louis, Missouri 63104. Asbestos gloves were purchased from Midwest Safety Equipment. P.O. Box 277, St. Louis, Missouri 63301. Eighteen inch asbestos welding sleeves were purchased from Sager Glove Company, 4030 Nashville Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60634 INTERROGATORY NO 20- Did any entities or persons at Defendant's direction, whether direct or indirect, including but not limited to contractors ami subcontractors install, replace, use, repair, assemble, transport or store, either as an original appurtenance of the railroad or placed in/on the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad, my asbestos-containing products during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant? If so, identify: PD5:72!fl.l 9 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-9? 10:28 Prar.PICI.PS DUNBAR 7135260856 T-584 P.15/43 Job-784 A. E. C. D. E. ANSWER: By same and number each of Defendant's railrotd($), whether operating or in railyards. upon which fee asbestos-containing produces) were installed, repaired, used, scored or transported during the tune plaintiff worked for Defendant: The particular type of asbestos-containing produces); The trade or brand name of each of fee asbestos-containing products; The yean during which each named asbestos product was applied, stored, used, repaired, installed or transported either as an original appurtenance of the railroad or placed oo/in the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroatUs): and The dates of any removal or abatement of such asbestos-containing products, from Defendant's railroad(s). Objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: If the answer to any portion of the preceding imeiTOgatory is in the affirmative and/or if any asbestos-containing products are identified in response to such interrogatory, state tbe following as to each identified product: A. The namefs) of the railroad workers repairing, replacing, or using each asbestos-containing product on Defendant's railroads) during Plaintiff's period of employment by Defendant; E. A description of tbe physical appearance of each of the named asbestos-containing products; C. A detailed description of the uses of the named asbestofeoatamisg products; D. A detailed description of the areas an Defendant's railroad where such asbestos-containing products were installed, replaced or used. ANSWER: The extent of Defendant's knowledge in respect to this Interrogatory is set forth in Defendant's Objections end Response to Interrogatory No. 20. INTERROGATORY no. 22; Has Defendant or any other entity at the direction of Defendant, 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 tbe 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-cootaming products. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, ovtrty broad and unduly burdensome and series information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to tbe discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO 33: If your answer to any portion of die 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. Tbe name(s) of fee company(ies). entityfies), manufacturers from which fee asbestos-containing products were acquired, ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; B. The datefs) each asbestos-containing product was ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; C. A description of the physical appearance of each of fee named asbestos-containing product; D. A detailed description of the uses of fee named asbestot^onuining products; E. Identify the last year feat Defendant ordered, purchased, supplied or distribnted each identified asbestos-containing product. PD3:72M.l 10 RECEIVED TIMEJUN, 27. 10:27AM JWK7-9T 10:29 FroitPfElPS DUNBAR 7136260S56 T-584 P.16/43 Job-7M answer: The extent of Defendant's knowledge in respect to this Interrogatory is set forth in Defendant s Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 19. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State whether Defendant maintained from 1950 through the present or for any portioo thereof, copies of invoices, shipping receipts, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the purchase or acquisition of asbestos-containing products. If so. state: A. The location of such documents; B. The name and address of die custodian of the documents; C. The format m which the documents are kept, i.e.. hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc.; D. In what form (he documents can ba accessed. ANSWER: The extent of Defendant's knowledge in respect to this Interrogatory is set forth in Defendant's Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 29. 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. AftSWEfr Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant aor likely lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. PD5:72U|.l 11 RECEIVED TIMEJUK. 27. 1 0:27AM JUN-27-37 10:29 Proa:PHElP$ WNBAft 113826085$ T-584 P.17/43 Job-764 Signed by Permission Rsspeetfiilly submitted, PHELPS DUNBAR By. Texas State Bar No. 0123 Maria Ragazzo Texas Bar No. 00783564 3040 Post Oak Boulevard Suite 900 Houston. TX 77056 (713) 626-1386 (713) 626-1388 PAX THOMPSON COBURN By. Afian McD. Goodloc, JrV u Missouri State Bar No. 23983 Tracy J. Cowan Missouri State Bar No. 40229 One Mercantile Center St. Louis. Missouri 6310! 314-352-6000 PAX 314.552*7000 Attorneys for Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned betAy certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First See of Interrogatories has been sent via Federal Express and Facsimile to Kimberly A. Cakes. Baron & Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suitejjj Texas 7521&4281 and via First Class Mail to all parties of record on attached service list and this June. 1997. ,s. Maria Ragaxzo PD$:721lt.l 12 RECEIVED TiMEJUK. 27. 10:27AM JUN-2M7 10:29 Fro>:PflP$ DUNBAR 7)96260656 T-584 P.18/43 Job-784 STEVE EVANS, Plaintiffs, vs. OWENS-CORNING PIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL Defendants. NO. 96-62699 6 8 $ $ $ $ ! IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF HARRIS COUNTY. TEXAS 334TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTION&AND RESPONSES TO PLAIMTWS SECOND SET OP INTERROGATORIES TO: Plaintiff Steve Evans, by and through his attorneys of record, Kimberly Castles. Baron A Budd, The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. Pursuant to Rules 166b and 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Union Pacific Railroad Company (Improperly named as Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. d/b/a Union Pacific Railroad Co., Individually and as Successor-in-interest to Texas A Pacific Railroad), Defendant hereto, hereby submits its Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories. General Objections l. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they request information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or fee attorney work-product doctrine. Any information subject to any such privilege inadvertently provided by Defendant in response to the Interrogatories shall not constitute or be deemed u> constitute a waiver of any such privilege. 2 Defendant objects to fee Interrogatories to fee extent feat they request information that is neither relevant nor likely to lead to fee discovery of admissible evidence. 3 Defendant objects to fee Interrogatories to fee extent feat (bey exceed fee scope of permissible discovery under fee Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 Defendant objects to fee Interrogatories to fee extent feat they purport to require Defendant to provide information feat is available to Plaintiff where the burden of deriving or ascertaining such informslion is Substantially fee same as for Plaintiff as for Defendant. PD5:721tt.l 1 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM -27-97 10:29 Proa:P*lP$ DUNBAR 7136260656 T-594 P.19/43 Job-794 5 Defeoda&t objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require Defendant a to provide information pertaining to any time period other dun the relevant thru period which Pieiatiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. 6. Defendant reserves the right to supplement or amend its responses as appropriate. K>J:T2lll.l 2 RECEIVED TiMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:30 FrcrPHEtPS WJHM8 7136260656 T-584 P.20743 Job-764 interroq^torywo. i: At any time prior to 1980 did Defendant or anyone at the djrecoon of Defendant conduct an investigation, survey or other process to identify the primary emission sources of airbora* asbestos fibers and/or to assess and/or sample for the detection of, the quantity of, or 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 investigation^), survey(s), or test(s), the dates conducted and the results. ANSWER: Defendant is aware of current permissible exposure limits for exposure to asbestos fibers and its predecessors promulgated by the OSHA. Investigation with regard to TLVs and the date upon which Defendant first became aware of this "concept" has not been established. 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 of Defendant's railway carfs) and/or enginefs) and/or locomonve(s) and/or roundhouses and/or shops to take dust level counts related to asbestos dust? If so, identify with particularity the panyfies) conducting such procedure(s), the dates conducted, the purpose of such procedure(s), and all results of such (s). ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to tad to tbs dtaoveiy of admissible evidence because it ts not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor is it limited to the job site or facilities oo which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. interrogatory NO. 3: Did Defendant obtain fees, 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 parsons exposad to airborne asbestos dust? If so, please list all sources of such information and the dates received. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to tad to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defcttant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information if any exists, which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant has not located any documens from the time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant which are responsive to this Interrogatory. 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 screenings 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 bad any knowledge regarding the hazards of airborne asbestos dust. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is either relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Ernest T. Rouse, 710 Hanley, St. Louis, MO 63105, was Medical Director for Missouri Pacific Railroad Company from approximately 1969 until approximately 1986. Dennis Richiing is Union Pacific Railroad Company's current medical director. Htbogan at the the railroad in 1986. His address is 1416 Dodge, Omaha. Nebraska 68179. Dr. L.C. Bevilacqua was with the Union Pacific from 1978 to 1989. Dr. BeviUcqua lives in the Omaha area.Dr. R. D. Sellers was a contract physician with fee Union Pacific POJ:72ll#.l 3 RECEIVED T1MEJUS. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:90 FrorPSLPS DUNBAR 7136260656 T-5B4 P.21/43 Job-764 Railroad from approximately 1974 to 1978. It is believed that Dr. Sellers is in the Council Bluffs, fowa area. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicue that asbestos fibers, what inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so. state: A. The name of each such publication; B. The date of publication and the names of the author and publisher (if any); C The due received by Defendant; D. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possesstoo of each publication and its present location. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the attorney-cliem privilege and the work produet doctrios. interrogatory NO.6: Has Defendant at say time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or tnfoRnaiioa Kitting to the hazards of airborne asbestos? If so. state . A. The name and address of each such association or organization; B. The dates during which Defendant member (Sic]; C. The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations; D. Whether any of those publications am still to your possession, and if so: 1.A description of foe publication, including foe date; 2.The current location of such publications; 3.The custodian of such publications; 4.The method or manner m which such publications are mmtamed ANSWgft: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly breed, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to foe discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of foe foregoing objections. Defendant has been a member of foe Association of American Railroads since 1934. Prior to 1934, Defendant was a member of foe American Railway Association. Defendant does not currently have m its possession any records which indicate whether it had representatives at foe Medical and Surgical Section of the Association of American Railroad for foe years listed. Counsel for Defendant has obtained minutes of foe proceedings of foe Medical and Surgical Section of foe- American Railway Association and foe American Association of Railroads for certain yean through the course of other asbestos litigation. These records indicate that foe following individual were in attendance at foe following meetings. Defendant has no records which indicate that these individuals were employed by Defendant. 1921 P.F. Vaneriing 1922 P.F. Vasterling, J. O. Graves, A. Isom, G. M. SneUmgs 1926 W.B. Bures, J. B. Cahanon. W. P. Coyle. T.B.M. Craig. H.W. Cummings. J.N. Greene, C.C. Hawke, S.C. Murray, E.B. Parsons. L.L Purefby, E.H. Skinner 1929 O.B.Zeinen 1930 O.B.Zeinen 1931 O.B.Zeinen 1932 O.B. Zeinen 1933 O.B. Zeinen 1934 O.B. Zeinen PD$:72ltt.l 4 RECEIVED TIMEJON. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:30 FroetPlCLPS DUNBAR 7136260656 T-584 P.2*743 Job-784 1935 1936 1937 1939 1940 1941 1946 1947 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1955 1956 1957 1958 1965 O.B. Zeinert O.B. Zeinen O.B. Zeinen. I.A.. Lembeck. D.S. Long O.B. Zeinen O.B. Zeinen O.B. Zeinen, AJ. Brown O.B. Zeinen O.B. Zeinen O.B. Zeinen O.B. Zeinen O.B. Zeinen J.A. Lembeck J.A. Lembeck J.A. Lembeck J.A. Lembeck. G.W. Bale J.A. Lembeck J.A. Lembeck J.M.L. Jensen INTERROGATORY NO. 7: As to ibe disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant first leaned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. How Defendant became awns of the existence of the disease; C. Who within the company first discovered, recognised or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease; D. What information was within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such advene 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 tbe custodian of such mformanoa; O. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused answer: by inhalation of asbestos fibers atone or in conjunction with second hand smoke. Objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the rise period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant and does not reference any. condition of which Plaintiff allegedly suffered. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks mformarion, if any exists, which is protected by tbe attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of tbe foregoing objections, it is not known what year Defendant first became aware of this issue; however, as possibilities became more probable based on more concrete medical information, Defendant's awareness of these possibilities increased. To the best of our imowledge. it appears that the company was reasonably aware of these issues by approximately 1977. 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 of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure: C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor fira discovered or recognized the advene consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; POS:72lSS.i 5 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-37 10:30 FrwMLK DUNBAR 7136260656 T-5W P.23743 JoWM ANSWER: D. What information was dmemizuted within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such advene 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. See Defendant's Objections and Response to Interrogatoiy 32. 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 Us subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos; D. Who within the company or Us subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure: . Whst information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; P. 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 care for me*othelioma. ANSWER: See Defendant's Objections and Response to Interrogatory 32. INTERRQGATQRY_NO. 10: As to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer and/or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant first leaned 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 otter cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation; D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effeots of asbestos exposure; E. What information was riiisftffriniTftrt with Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; F. Whether any such information is still maimamrd by Defendant or Us subsidiary or predecessor is a written form; answer.; G. Who is the custodian of such information. Objection. This Istenuguory Is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because It is not limited to the time period in which Piainttfr was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatoiy seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. 4 interrogatory no. i it Did Defendant maintain written minuies of corporate 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? if so, for each such set of minutes, state: A. The dates of each such meeting; PD$:72IS8.1 6 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:31 Froa:PlPS DUNBAR 7136260656 T-584 P.24743 Job-784 answer: B. Hie general subject nutter discussed at each meeting; C. Who was in attendance at each meeting; D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maimamed: 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. Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the attorney* client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant has not located any information responsive to this Interrogatory. 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 of each company representative who may be called; B- A summary of (be testimony expected to be given by each such witness; C- List any and all previous times that dw 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: Objection. This Interrogatory is overty broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by me attorney-diem privilege and the work produce doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant does not presently intend to call a company representative as a witness at the trial of this matter. interrogatory no 13-. Does Defendant have, or has it eveT had, a Medical Department or Medical Section? If so, 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 of your 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 sod responsibilities of such Medical Depanmeet. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, see Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 29. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state whether written warnings were placed at any locations adjacent to or near asbestos in place on Defendant's railroadls). 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. AMSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overty broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it does not reference any time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor is it limited to the job site or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. P05:72ISS.| 7 RECEIVED TIMEJUK 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:3! Fro:PHELPS DUNBAR 7136260656 7-584 P.25/43 Job-784 INTERROGATORY NO IS- Does Defendant have, or has it ever had, a Safety Department? If o. state: A. The year such Safety Department was established; B. Whether or not such Safety Department has operated onrinuoualy since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Safety Depanmem 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; Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to but without waiver of die foregoing objections, all Railroad Departments am conscious of safety issues. interrogatory NO. 16: ftcaae 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 Plaintiff exist at this time, Helping but not limited to reports, x-rays and medical notes. answer-. objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This Interrogatory seeks information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant has not located any documents which would indicate that medical monitoring and/or surveillance was conducted by Defendant on Plaintiff. 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 PUixmffs employment by Defendant for protection against the inhalation of airborne asbestos dust, iwehvtmg but not limited to masts, respirators, or other breafoing devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, tic. For each such item of equipment, please indicate when such item was first provided, under wbat circumstances, and the same, address and telephone number of the person most knowledgeable concerning such provision. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to fee job site and facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, respiratory protection has been available to Defendant's employees for a number of yean. INTERROGATORY NO__lft; Please state whether Defendant ever agreed by ooncraet, 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. U 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 of time covered by the agreement and the parties to the agreement. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not lunited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor limited to the job site or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant has not located any information which would indicate that Defendant entered into such an agreement during the years of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant. 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. PD5:721t|.S 8 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:32 froa:PHELPS DUNBAR 7136260656 T-584 P.26/43 Job-784 answer: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Further the information requested is public record and is equally available to Plaintiff and Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. '20: Please describe each and every occasion during the past thirty years when any regulatory agency or other governing body inspected Defendant's 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: Objection, This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limned to the time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor ia it limited to the job site or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. INTERROGATORY N0^2l: 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 1065 to the present. If so. please answer the following:.. A. List each and every abatement company or ocher contractor involved with the removal of asbestos, including address and telephone number, dates of such removal, and whether a contract for such removal exists; B. Indicate the total amount m 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!*) 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. answer-. Objection. This Imerrogatoiy Is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it does not reference any time period during which Plamdff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information, if any exists, which is protected by the anoroey<liem privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Defendant has been involved in the abatement of asbestos is use on the railroad. INTERROGATORY no 72'. 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 of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice; C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. answer: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant is aware of current permissible exposure Units for exposure to asbestos fibers and its predecessors promulgated by the OSHA. Investigation with regard to TLVs and the date upon which Defendant first became aware of this 'concept' has not located any document* which address this issue. Additionally, investigation continues on this issue, and this answer will he supplemented as appropriate. INTERROGATORY NO 23: Please state whether and when Defendant received a copy of the Fleischer/Drinker Report published in 1945/1046. KJs-.mw.'. 9 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. IQ:27AM JUN-27-97 10:32 FwPHELPS DUKBAR 713626065$ T--584 P.27/43 Job-784 answer: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence became it is not limited to the time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of (be foregoing objections, counsel for Defendant has obtained this document through the course of other asbestos litigation. 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) yean, now designated at 49 U.S.C. 820701 ct seq. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor is it limited to the job site or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Interrogatory seeks tnfbnnarioc, if any exisu, which is protected by the anomey-ciiem privilege and the work product doctrine. Finally, this Interrogatory requires Defendant to make a legal conclusion in order to respond to it. Respectfully submitted, PHELPS DUNBAR Signed by Permission . K>5:721tt.l Texas Bar No. 00783564 3040 Post Oak Boulevard Suite 900 Houston. TX 77056 (713) 626-1386 (713) 626-1388 FAX THOMPSON COBURN Allan McD. Goodfoe.Jr^TM^^'^ Missouri Sate Bar No. 23983 Tracy J. Cowan Missouri State Bar No. 40229 One Mercantile Center St. Louis, Missouri 63101 314-552-6000 FAX 314-552-7000 Attorneys for Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:32 Fro:PHElP$ DUKBAR 7136260656 T-564 P.26/43 Jeb-764 The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of tbt foregoing Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories has been sent via Federal Express and Facsimile to Kimberly A. Castles, Baroo & Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue. SuiteUCOJJjlias, Texas 75219*4281 and via First Class Mail to all parties of record on attached service list and this S?7vdav of June. 1997. aria Ragazzo roS:72in.i 11 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 1 0:27AM JUN-37-97 10:33 ProrPHELPS DUNBAR 7138260856 7-594 P.29743 Job-784 STEVE EVANS, Plaintiffs, vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL Defendants. NO. 96-62699 $ $ $ IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF HARRIS COUNTY. TEXAS 334TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT TO. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS-AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Plaintiff Steve Evans, by and through his attorneys of record, Kimberly Castles, Baron St Budd, The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue. Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. Pursuant to Rules 166b and 167 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Union Pacific Railroad Company (Improperly named as Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. d/b/a Union Pacific Railroad Co., individually and as Successor-in-Iwerwi to Texas St Pacific Railroad), Defendant herein, hereby submits its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extent mat they request documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. Any information subject to any such privilege inadvertently provided by Defendant in response to the Requests shall not constitute or be deemed to constitute a waiver of any such privilege. 2. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extern that they request documents that are neither relevant not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extent that they exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extern that they purport to require Defendant to provide documents that are available to Plaintiff where the burden of deriving or ascertaining such information is substantially Uie same for Plaintiff as for Defendant. PCS:72189.1 RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:33 FroisPHELPS DUNBAR 7136260656 T-564 p.30743 Job-764 5. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require Defendant to provide documents pertaining to any time period other than the relevant time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. 6. Defendant reserves the right to supplement or amend its responses as appropriate. 7. This request is duplicitous. All documents responsive to the following requests have been previously produced in John F. Antons vs. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation, ei. al.; Cause No. 95*04* 02145-C; In the 341st Judicial District of Webb County. To avoid unnecessary expense, copies of the actual documents produced in the Amons case are not included herewith however, reference to Bates numbers is provided. PD5272169.1 2- RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM JUN'27-97 10:33 FrorPKLPS DUNBAR 7136260650 T-584 P.31743 Job-784 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION request FQft PRODUCTION NO I: Produce any and all documents, (memoranda and/or other writings, including but not limited to books, pamphlets, or other written materials of any kind or character) in your possession, custody or control which would indicam that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is no: limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney- client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see attached Bates Nos. MPM 000052. MPM 000053, MPM 000072, MPM 000201 - 000204, MPM 001146 - 001197, MPM 001230 001427, MPM 0QIS47, MPM 001636 - 001640, MPM 001781 - 001823. HO 000208 - HO 000383. HO 000820 - HO 001066, HO 001107 - HO 001130, HO 001199 - HO 001228, OM 013273 - OM 013274. OM 013275. OM 013276 - OM 013288, OM 013299 - OM 013316, OM 013361 - OM 013364, OM 013446 - OM 013449, OM 013463 - OM 013471, OM 013474 - OM 013475, OM 013967 - OM 013970, OM 014602. OM 014746 - OM 014748, OM 014750 - OM 014752. OM 014772 - OM 014773, OM 014815, OM 014957. OM 014958. OM 015160 OM 015162. OM 015164 . OM 015167, OM 015170, OM 015173, OM 015176. OM 015206. OM 015211. OM 015224 - OM 015246, OM 015275 - OM 015286, OM 01S289, OM 014534 OM 014537. HOP 000782 HOP 000789, HOP 000836. HOP 000843. HOP 000848 - HOP 000862, HOP 000864- HOP 000871, OM 002472 * OM 013269, OM 013270 - OM 013270A, OM 013315, OM 013316 - OM 013323, OM 013323 - OM 013326, OM 013327 . OM 013328, OM 013329 - OM 013332, and OM 013335 - OM 013336. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce any and all documents, (memoranda and/or other writings) in your possession, custody or control that in any way related to the hazards of asbestos and/or airborne asbestos. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Response to Request for Production No. 1. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce any and all documents in your possession, custody or control which were disseminated or published by any person, trade association or organization of any type and that contain information relating to the hazards of asbestos and/or airborne asbestos. response: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead u> the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject u> and without waiver of the foregoing objection, please see Response to Request for Production No. I, and Bates Nos. MPM 002517, HO 000384 - HO 000426, HO 001067 HO 001077. HO 001229, OM 002147 - OM 002471. OM 013270 OM Q13270A, OM 013316 - OM 013323, and OM 013333 - OM 013334. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce any and all safety meeting minutes or other documents, memoranda and/or writings that refer to the dangers of asbestos and/or safety measures to be taken by crew members or workers or employees in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products and/or machinery requiring foe use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products and/or materials on Defendant's railroad. PCS:72189.1 3- RECEIVED TiMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:33 froi:PHBlPS DIKBAR 7136260656 T-564 P.32/43 Job-784 response: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor iikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorneyclient privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Response to Request for Production No. 1 and Bates Nos. 3284, MPM 001198 - MPM 001214, MPM 001428 - MPM 001545, OM 000759 - OM 001099, OM 013337 - OM 013409, and OM 013430 OM 013434. request FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: produce any and all contracts, memoranda, and/or other writings that in any way reflect arrangements made for the removal of asbestos and/or the installation of asbestos-containing products Ton] Defendant's raiiroad(s). RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor iikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorneyclient privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Response to Request for Production No. 1 and Bates Nos. 3284, MPM 001198 - MPM 001214. MPM 00142* - MPM 001S4S, OM 0007S9 - OM 001099, OM 013337 - OM 013409. and OM 013430 - OM 013434. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce any and all documents that in any way reflect a removal plan or organized written criteria or schedule for the removal of asbestos on Defendant's railroad(s). RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney- client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Response to Request for Production No. 1 and Bates Nos. 3284. MPM 001198 - MPM 001214, MPM 001428 - MPM 001545, OM 000759 - OM 001099, OM 013337 - OM 013409. and OM 013430 - OM 013434. request for PRODUCTION no. 7: Produce any and all documents mat discuss or relate in any way to removal of asbestos from any Defendant's railroad(s). response: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to.lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by die attorney- client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Response to Request for Production No. 1 and Bates Nos. 3284. MPM 001198 - MPM 001214, MPM 001428 - MPM 001545. OM 000759 - OM 001099. OM 013337 OM 013409, and OM 013430 - OM 013434. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce any and all document* related to the medical condition of Plaintiff at any time during his employment with Defendant. This request specifically includes, but is expressly not limited to, any and all x-rays, x-ray reports, medical notes and/or medical records of any kind, including annual physical forms. RESPONSE: See Evan's Personnel file. Bates Nos. SE 000001 - SE 000002. REQUEST EQR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Produce any and all documents that indicate and/or refer to in any way a decision and/or discourse related to ceasing the use of asbestos-containing products on Defendant's raiiroad(s). PDS-.721.t9.1 4- RECEIVED TlMEJm 27. 10:27AM -27-97 Ul`.34 Froa:PHELPS DUNBAR 7136260656 T-584 P.33/43 Job-784 response: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorneyclient privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Response to Request for Production No. 5. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. IQ: Produce any and all specifications, blue prints, documents, memoranda and/or other writings that reflect and/or demonstrate in the form of a map and/or chan the location and dimensions of all car(s) and/or enginefs), locomotives, roundhouses and/or shops upon which and in the vicinity of which Plaintiff worked and specifically including, but not limited to, the location and/or placement, repair, installation and/or use of asbestos-containing products at any time within the last thirty-five <35) years on the railroad(s). RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney- client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant cannot answer this request because it has no knowledge of where Plaintiff worked for Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Produce any photographs of asbestos products in place or asbestos products being used, fabricated and/or utilized cm Defendant's railroad(s). RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to tbs location or time period In which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce any actual warning signs or photographs of warning signs or other statements in place at any time relating to asbestos-containing products [in place] at any time during the last thirty-five years (35) years on Defendant's railroad(s). RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to die location or time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Bases Nos. HO 000429 - HO 000729, HO 001078 - HO 001106. OM 001116 - OM 001918, OM 013271 OM 013314. OM 013324, OM 013335 - OM 013336. and OM 013410 - OM 013429. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce any documents which indicate in any way that individuals claimed injury to their lungs as a result of exposure to asbestos on any of Defendant's railroadfs). response: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor limited to the job sites and/or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney- client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see attached Bates Nos. HO 000764 HO 000819 and MPM 000169 - MPM 000192. *05:72189.1 5 RECEIVED TiMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM 1-27-97 10:34 FrarPKIPS DUNBAR 7136260656 T-S84 P.34743 Job-764 request for-Production no. 14: produce any documents, minutes or other notes or records from any meetings at which the hazards and/or potential hazards of asbestos were discussed by officers, agents, and/or employees of Defendant. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to die time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney- client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please also see Response to Request for Production No. 1. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTtON_NO. 15: produce any and all documents, including invoices, shipping receipts, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature related to the purchase of asbestos- containing products for use on Defendants' railroad(s). RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to die discovery of admissible evidence. Further, h is not limited to the lime period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Response to Request for Production No. 5. REQUEST FOR PROOFIPTTQN vo i*: Produce any and all document* reflecting in any way any inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from Defendant's company or hired by Defendant where asbestos-containing products were being used or installed and that included die taking or measure of "dust counts. * This request specifically includes any and all of Defendant's raitroad(s) and railway car(s) and/or enginefs) and/or iocomotive(s) and/or roundhouM(s) or shops during die tot thirty-five (33 years). RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to tod to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney- diem privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Bates Nos. MPM 001198 MPM 001214, MPM 001428 MPM 001545. OM 000759 - OM 001099. OM 013337 - OM 013409. and OM 013430 - OM 013434. request for produotion NO^ 17: in the event that Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts with respect to asbestos dust on any of its railroads, produce any documents that in any way reflect or discuss the result* of such studies or counts and actions, or potential actions, if any, taken as a result of such counts or studies. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. We are unaware of where and when Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Response to Request for Production No. 16. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Please provide all documents referred to in answering Plaintiffs interrogatories propounded to the Defendant, identifying with specificity which documents were used to answer which interrogatories. RESPONSE: All documents produced herewith are deemed to be responsive. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: (1) Please provide a curriculum vitae for each and every expert witnesses or expert or expert that the Defendant has retained or employed and cannot unequivocally state will not be a witness on its behalf at trial; and (2) with respect to any and all expert wiiness(es) identified in subpart (1), please provide any and all documents or tangible things including, but not limited to, all tangible reports, PD5;721*9.1 -6~ RECEIVED TIMEJUN, 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:34 FrarPHELPS DUNBAR 7136260856 T-584 P.35743 Job-764 drawings, chans, exhibits, physical models, compilations of data, factual observations, tests, calculations, photographs, diagnms, sketches, movies, videotapes and tape recordings, opinions, supporting data and other documents and/or things reviewed and/or relied upon by him or her in formulating his or her opinions and conclusions on this case, including all learned treatises (mats, articles, studies, monographs, etc.) and consultant expert work product which forms the basis, in whole or in pan, of the witness(es)' opinions or which be or she believes substantiates or corroborates his or her conclusions regarding this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it i* not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. We are unaware of where and when Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant will provide under separate cover the curriculum vitae of experts when they are named. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2Q-. As to all such potential legal entities who are not now a party to this lawsuit, but who may be responsible for the incident in question, please provide: A. All documents tending to establish sucb liability; and, B. A list of all tangible items or things that may be reviewed (ending to establish such liability, along with their location and the identity of the person to contact to view such tangible things. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and die work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Provide b copy of each policy of liability Insurance intended to provide coverage to the Defendant, its agents and/or employees for liability on the dare in question for allegations such as those delineated in Plaintiff's Original Complaint <and all amended complaints thereafter) including, but not limited to, all primary and excess policies covering the Defendant on the date in question, indicating the name and address of each carrier. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST.FOR PRODUCTIONLNO. 22: Provide a copy of all invoices, purchase orders, agreements, contracts, correspondences, telefaxes, telexes, and/or documents of any type passing between this Defendant and any other entity regarding die acquisition, ordering, purchasing, supplying, removal or distribution of asbestos- containing products by Defendant during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further. Defendant has no knowledge of when or where Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Response to Request for Production No. 5. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 23: Provide a copy of all documents from which your present net worth may be ascertained. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Provide a copy of all photographs, diagrams, videotapes, slides and/or movie film of Defendant's railroadfs), owned or operated by Defendant including, but specifically j&t limited to the engine room, boiler room, common areas, living quarters, railroads, roundhouses, shops, locomotives, or transport cars. PD5:721fl9,l 7- RECEIVED T1MEJUK 21 10:27AM JUN-27-37 10:35 FrwiPHELPS WJN&AR 7136260616 T-584 P.36743 Job-7W response-. Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor limited to the jobsites and/or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Provide a copy of all medical records obtained by the Defendant relating to the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request seeks information that is available to Plaintiff where the burden of deriving or ascertaining such information is substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant will produce any documents in its possession pertaining to Plaintiff's medical condition under separate cover. REQUEST. FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Provide a copy of all documents including but not limited to invoices, purchase orders, agreements and contracts involving Defendant as a result of the transport, use, installation, repair, replacement, removal and/or applying of asbestos-containing products on tbe railroad. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which a neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Response to Request for Production No. 5- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ 1.1-. Provide a copy of all documents regarding safety, safety training and/or safety meetings provided ro or for the benefit of Plaintiff and other railroad workers to asbestos or asbestos-containing products on the railroad. Include any documents given out at such safety meetings and copies of the minutes of or notes from all safety meetings held for the benefit of the employees or crew members that worked on the railroad in the last thirty-five (35) years. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely ro lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor limited to die jobsites end/or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Finally, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. REQUEST for PRODUCTION NO. 28: provide a copy of all Defendant's safety and policy manuals regarding the use of or exposure to asbestos-containing products from 1930 to the present. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited in time. Further. Defendant has no knowledge of when and where Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79: Provide a copy of all personnel files maintained by Defendant or any agent of Defendant concerning the Plaintiff including but not limited to all earnings files, administrative files, and any files concerning any physical examination conducted by the Defendant or for the benefit of the Defendant regarding Plaintiff either for hiring purposes, screening purposes or otherwise. RESPONSE: See Response to Request No. 8. Bates Nos. SE 000001 - SE 000002. requestjor PRODUCTION NO. 30: Provide a copy of all repons, investigations, transcripts, memoranda, correspondence and/or documents of any type you received from, or sent to any city, county, state, or federal entity, including but not limited to the EPA, NIOSH, NIEHS or OSHA regarding either the potential health hazards or dangers associated with exposure to asbestos-containing products or airborne asbestos, and/or PD&-.72U9.1 8- RECEIVED T1MEJUH. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-37 10:35 Froa:PHELPS DUNSAR 7138260555 T-584 P.37/43 Job-784 regarding any surveys, costing or other actions taken to determine the presence of and concentration of airborne asbestos on such of Defendant's railroadfa). response. Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unlimited in time and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Further, Defendant has no knowledge of when and where Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Provide a copy of all safety inspection or site inspection records referencing in any way asbestos or asbestos-containing products used on Defendant's railraad(s). RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdenaome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Further, Defendant has no knowledge of where Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST POR PRODUCTION NO 39? Provide a copy of all Defendant's safety inspection policies and procedures in effect during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant regarding the handling of, application, use or exposure to asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Further, Defendant has no knowledge of where Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Provide a copy of any and all photographs or video recordings, sketches, drawings, or pictures in Defendant's custody or control or that of your attorney, or of any agent or representative of you or your attorney, whether made as part of the reports of experts or made by you, your attorney, or persons acting as your agents or representatives, and pertaining to any of Defendant's railroad(s), including, but not limited to locomotives, engine rooms, boiler rooms, railyards, roundhouses, shops and common areas, concerning any asbestos-containing products in those areas. Request is hereby made for one print of each photograph or video recording produced in response to this request. response: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to the time period In which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor limited to the job sites and/or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by die attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. REQUEST.FOR PRODUCTION NO 34: Produce a copy of any reports prepared by any person you plan to call as an expert witness at the time of trial which pertain to the incident made the basis of this suit, specifically including all factual observations and opinions of consulting experts, if such consulting expert's opinion forms the basis of any opinions, theories, or conclusions reached by any testifying expens, and any accompanying photographs, drawings, chans, models, video recordings or other visual aids to such reports. If any expert has not prepared a written report, or if the information mentioned above has not been compiled into report form, then request fa hereby made that each expen make a written report containing all said information and that each report be produced for inspection and copying. RESPONSE- Defendant will forward any reports prepared by any persons that Defendant plans to use an expen witness when, and if, said reports are prepared. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Any and all documents prepared by, delivered to, or in the possession of any person you plan to call as an expen witness at the time of the trial, or who won't be called as a witness bur PD5;72119.1 9- RECEIVED TIME3OH. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-S7 10:36 Frcr.PHElW DUNBAR 7136260656 T--504 P.38/43 Job-784 whose work product forms a basts in whole or In part of an expert who will be called to testify, which related to any fact or matter that is the subject of or related to the subject of this suit. rfstqn&r; There are no documents at this time responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: All witness statements or other documents generated or obtained in any investigations into the asbestos exposure made the basis of this lawsuit whether signed or unsigned. If you contend any such document is privileged, please identify specifically each document withheld, along with the specific privilege asserted. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR .PRODUCTION NO. 37: Any models, visual aids, experiments, documents or other writings or any items of demonstrative evidence prepared or preserved by you, your attorney, your experts, or any other person acting on your behalf that wili or may be used in the trial of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which axe protected by die anomey-client privilege and the work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO please provide curriculum vitae for all expen witnesses that Defendanr intends to consult or call as witnesses at the trial of this case. RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, and beyond the scope of discovery. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing. Defendant will produce the curriculum vitae of testify experts under separate cover. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 39: Copies of all depositions of any person previously employed by you specifically including, but not limited to Defendant or Defendant's employees, representatives, or agents, taken in connection with any alleged asbestos exposure at Defendant's railrood(s). RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4p: Provide a copy of each and every document (including all reports, memos, photographs, statements and any material collected or acquired of any investigation, and all correspondence between Defendant and Defendant's insurer, and any notes or any other documents regarding testing, examinations, inspections, or opinions related in any way to asbestos or any other communication from any individual or entity to Defendant, Defendant's insurer or any agent or representative of Defendant or Defendant's insurer concerning this incident or any injuries or disabilities allegedly resulting therefrom) in Defendant's possession or control, or that of Defendant's insurer, health insurer, disability insurer, liability insurer, or other Insurer, relating to Defendant's claim or the investigation of this incident by Defendant, Defendant's insurer, or any individual or entity engaged for such a purpose. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO._41: Provide a copy of all accident, injury or illness reports concerning the Plaintiff prepared by and/or for Plaintiff's employees) and/or agents in the general course of business. RESPONSE- Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible >DSt72U9.1 - 10 - RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:21AM JUN-27-97 19:36 Froa:PHELPS DUKBAR 7136266656 T-564 P.39/43 Job-784 evidence. Subject to and without waiver of die foregoing objections, see Response to Request No, 8, Bates Nos. SE 0000010 - SE 000002. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Provide copies of any and all safety standards, regulations, rules or codes pertaining In any way to asbestos or inhalation of toxic fumes or substances, whether promulgated by government or private industry, or Plaintiffs employer from 1930 to the present. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it it not limited to the time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Provide a copy of any and all contracts and/or agreements of any kind (if oral, reduce the agreement to writing) made by Defendant to supply masks and/or other safety equipment to the Plaintiff or any other employees or railroad workers. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible vidone. Further. it is not limited to the time period in which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant nor limited to the job sites and/or facilities on which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ 44: Provide copies of any and all documentation evidencing Defendant's compliance with the Boiler Inspection Act, formerly U.S.C. $20701, during the last thirty-five (35) yean. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it is not limited to the time period during which Plaintiff was allegedly employed by Defendant. Moreover, (his Request requires Defendant to make a legal conclusion in order to respond to it. Finally, this Request seeks document*, if any exist, which are protected by the anomey- client privilege and the work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Provide copies of any and all documentation which in any way relates to the transport by Defendant's railroad(s) of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request Is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information whioh t neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. request for PRODUCTION nq Provide a copy of all documents, reports and other materials identified in Answer to Interrogatory No. 12. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by (be attorney-client privilege and the work product doevine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, if experts prepare reports. Defendant will produce same. REQUEST FOR production NO 47: Please produce any and all x-rays, MRIs, CT-scans, videotapes, or other electronically or technologically created representations, depictions, picrurizauons, imaging or imagery collected by Defendant in the course of discovery. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this Request seeks documents, if any exist, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. request FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Provide copies of any and all documentation relating to a National Claims Registry and/or any other entity, group, organization or membership which catalogued, reported upon or collected information relating to claims of work related injuries by railroad workers. PD5:721I9.1 - 11 - RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:21AM JUH-27-97 10:37 fror.PHElPS 0UH6W 7136260655 T-584 P.46743 Job-784 response-. Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, this Request seeks documents which may be obtained by Plaintiff. Defendant does not have a superior right to the requested documents. Respectfully submitted. PHELPS DUNBAR By_____ [Mr Deborah Newman Texas Bar No. 01237257 Maria Ragazzo Texas Bar No. 00783564 3040 Post Oak Boulevard Suite 900 Houston. TX 77056 713-626-1386 FAX 713.626438* Signed by Permission THOMPSON COBURN Q- Bv UJ^a/ yv. Alien McD. Goodloe, Jr.* Missouri Bar No. 23983 One Mercantile Center St. Louis, Missouri 63101 314-552-6000 FAX 314-552-7000 Attorneys for Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company [CATC OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production has been sent via Federal Express and Facsimile to Kimberly A. Castles, Baron A Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, pallas, Texas 752194281 and via First Class Mail to all parties of record on attached service list, this ^7*0ay of June, 1997. --Aksa. Maria Ragazzo r PDSiiaiav.i 12 - RECEIVED T1MEJUS. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:37 ProatPHELPS DUNBAR a 7136360656 >564 P.41/43 Job-784 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8 4 RECEIVED TIMEJUK. 27. 10:27AM JUN-27-97 10:37 FrosiPHELPS DUNBAR 7136260656 T-584 P.42743 Job-784 i >*tom PAOrib ManuAU wjwpMf v examine r hWMM fftMAl MfM PHYSICAL EXAMINATION i?tsni> dtiva APM 2. SOCIAAL SECURITY ACCOfl UNT NO. | S.OATI OF SIRTM 4. AOI #27-2D*lV5 TvO^ICtMACOUiiTiNOTNra CHAMIMAT WU 4. MCIG-H---T----- > I'olonolo Hist* iortwm t'J A WtlOMT J</ &7. COLOR OF FVE r12. DIVISION on DEPARTMENT %rbkii*MSUMW> TPURPOStoTiXAMINATIOM J-ooo n*a4-7<5_ M. siGNAViMroP ciSomsc auth6AuUJ*SoFTMlfSXA*WlAYfW tssOhTt;iSf"------------- ruok flpsmt A. STATION 10. YRS.OF SERVICE -2*___________ 1*. MCmCAL EXAMINER tmM w VM nm) 1$. WITNESSED BV \ II. MAIIK HOHIAUW1 ALLY THROUGH EACH OF TMt following if normal ion absent normally! CHECK ANY ABNORMAL FINDINGS TflW fl*. ulvl>lqn rortlaiXUOi. TThlooSTSeSurT SS.IITAST RATE _ 4N* EnOft.Mwr rhum a*U iMitm (UMN ""w", Smnm SI. Give /) <? t **. afw 22. Ammimmb OCNERAL SYSTEMIC: MNfti MR SrtomiillW, Hw^lk Mll. It. b. NEAP. FACE. NECK. AWO SCALP HRMINIC MUST DMRORt COMPLETELY mit'iH iwn AbmmMt in UaiNI. b. NOSE. SINUSCS. MOUTH. AND THROAT.. KARS. tbWftt. mANlSM. t. FVFS, 0MNfl; IMi, awpSl i.oculammutilitv amo visual fields WWAWwh. UnUfcftUL MHHW j-numwinwii h. LUNGS ANO CHEST i. HEART; Ib'MLJiM. tAvlkm, iMMLItt. t- VASCULAR SVE1 Hn, MtM SAM*. W*. L.APOOMCN l. HERNIA. pMmnn. --Wio<l. wnl. iwwtimi. hmomi m. ANUS. HFCTUM ANO (t. U. SYSTEM '-Ql^sCT ft. EHPOCWINE SYSTEM . exTRCMmis: vweii and lowf* P- SPINE: msMWly. SW--WMWL MSN. I- . SKIN* LYMPHATICS. SCARS #. EMOTIONAL STABILITY. MfUROiOflIC, INTCLLtOPNCC ftotOmHw. iwwr.wniwi Savmrim. m. 32. SIGNATURE OF EKAMMEF-MONFO IN PRESENCE OF MCOieAWCXAMINCII Tis jjg< nUMiNCRsetAssirtcATfoir MNk tbm MtuprsppMMM* mn CLASS I bTN III IV 24.MEDICAL EKMUffiEft**DECLARATION: I *m**f cattNp Hi | pwmimir twM Rw rpWwm wm<a iM> MaStMt MIDlMIlM NpNI. M M NRNt HStsSiH my MHMkiukMHtn i Ml MIMA M MR Hmi. Mtii&Ji&yW' ' n-24-76 LOVE SHOULD RETURN FOft Af-EXAMINATIOfI MEDICAL EXAMINER- PLEASE CALL EXAMINEE* ATTENTION TO CONDITION* THAT SHOULO HAVE FURTHER IMVSITIOATfflN OR TREATMENT It COLOR VISION ST. DISTANT VISION SS. NEAR VISION NwnWr MHutNS fiKS.aagf sS! PltMl 0 *rr.vt $<i 4T4VI ( am sw if LTJVE WITHOUT f TT THIS FORM M INCOMPLETE UNTIL REVIEWED ST THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER AMO DISPOSITION MADE SY THE OEMERAL OFFICER CONCtRNSO RECEIVED TIMEJUN. 27. 10:27AM SEOOOOOl JUN-27-97 10:38 Fro:PHELPS DUfBAR 7136260658 T-584 P.43/43 Job-7W *.*** *: INMKtM UnionPscifkfUttroadCofnpwv - , . . 1 WARS'* s*m KCKF MEDICAL HISTORY ^" I __ _ _ _ _ _4-r7->30-137> kDiMaffc*** <#-14-1013 4> wwMniwwtiiil |Oa a**t OfcMaaPt Ifmiltinal OK. - Ml* Nui^imMii'kTNMlMlK m PM NmiMMrMiPrPMWMi--r prti MO i.NwMi-- Atp*** V^J?P2!55Sr" IC-- ww tnm m >>i--iiwl IS. Ota--to* --ntf--ton) Mwvw in* --<.*--w--nli-- m NC HaM.kMMk*riMriKU>M f kf . --. i' . _ .a .. ^ > -- OwumpOH wO--liMPiMi i* A r > < 0. T*roMmk ar f*Ko ). Tww.Ofdrtle*M.toniv . *w*tvn 9 Ktmto W. OwMiW 11. OvvottUfccJavMrtietot wiWIv w- -- if-- tm* wititoi -- m*m IS. fHwuMflW Nnv 14. C--1.1-- tm V--*\\m mt !>-- 1l. Maart Tf*uM If. M rPmm IA Clwtt il.MaltnlantoM--iiMiin W If. With m bw IM --MUM Jf. RMMTiMM . Oto--I aK>MMKTHW.H(WM f ff.J---- nritow--to--mtd fl. 1--m OaM*i u 88. Caawrtitow.0tfc. fli tf8>w </ ... n.ftoMM-Otowt-- Jl. toyWww--W. *>!-- --0--f-- r .Pm--ii wwwny--Tniiw nn` r A.IiMin u t AM--tt Of Ora* fi --MMORMrMr fi--|kHH t 81. Mii'mmi liuMwna kwn >-- y fi'ibM -ton t'*****#Wmh K k tw Tm-- p f--r VikMt \ *4. OwM VWw -- Kti--fww V Ik kh--ivONtMN HMftM 1. ARIiHwIiib--HIw S3. Bh TMlk kf X fk^tort-- k--f tti--UOl--r i' fft, OaNk Ntokf M * tt- MM*r "Til--" imifir ar El--m f* If. fiMal "Triak" m laki- Im *** ft.O--If--a OrUltto C' 6X. Pkt Tt--b>/C>*w la Lii y M.WOHCM; As* Ohwa a DjwHyr yf * Tka f-- Ow 1 * r * - - T f + y Of Pn uni lim yi i>w >> t>-- am irJ* i j 1 ii *j W. Hm you, Urn Pwttcit (NMM. m* feMA i-tfcfpf ft--> w i--* > **< M. b**ii mm, f Mw yi) ny m*4-- T OixwiHy wwmwmHw town *y tewiffM*t9Afy, tH| flwAwwii, mr impsnsimnw toftoM--fP lf lUMfMlI m mwurt >', fin mitbttitol i. 11W4 y r Sav^( ^-cv^ *7*^ a-...+ f * + 2^ OF o*o/*$+czFaS$f/i'.**CMsfi v/e > S7:t- .*/i/ < r t*** ^ ,. ' HI .,* M C.'C c-t walk HMTt Tr--M ar Mlfi Ww4 rnm* My m Cfci--to WMuTnnn faOww. ^1--* C--writ*>** ftavtot 5A. -Q 6fl.r4n.-- - - rV'Ctm V***< oa^i --?> kt *&*>**** &&.$`ckjw<**!*> 6&(A*+wTi/UOh -3^L/j7, -(r*** \ tt PVtili^lrifS^ ffrT--M, wwri>r --nfwtt ^ $ir*T>*** mjivTtoxfC , L* *' ' twwnun --m, mono <--Nrjmm*M ii> * *.* % ________ * MMtMifr ftnripttftttoidtotoiaM.M totortm wtkvatttoi--ttkto-toa^ara4--UaA f.\ V0 42 -* 'kK^yJ*H^ L 0t On ymylufar--> ftr runtoto--CH- -. tok Wtttokif--rfrwdii--n wHlin toulfwPw , V >* . <<nnrrt\<^Y ^ y 'l--. * V r u-o. t~wk'>iimm'' . > 'f. *___ fiMMlMH fc. On--'afftiiMrt AtiHwifAin--ti-- --oj M-Uyn--i jfcWywi toknwygnftottwMwW P|-- --|. M.0ty>ya--lOntvtfW-- (pinto 9* m-- m #f n ^*15 / ^yi*iw--nnm.(tin ywir a--mlim -- L ... . / POOR QUALITY DOCUMENT 7^4 DDCtfto--nt tt iicW Wof pot COOH-HlMfc Hfc--*y ItoA--a--jt--M--wi " VN*toMM . ^^ RECEIVED T1MEJUK. 27. 10:27AM SE 000002 JUL-03-97 13:06 FroerPlflPS DUNBAR H 0 7136261968 T--740 P.04710 Job-199 STEVE EVANS. Plaintiffs. SO. 9t-63* IN THE OrSTRfCT COURTS OF vs. OWENS-CORNINO FIBEROLaS CORPORATION. ET AL Defendants. HARRIS COUNTY. TEXAS :! 324TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT -i f VCTTFICATION STATE OF NEBRASKA ) ) COUNTY OF DOUGLAS ) Coma now A.L. Schrocdtr, Manager of Discovery for Union Pacific Railroad Company, being first duly sworn on her oath, and stufls that she it authorized on behalf ofj Union Pacific Railroad Company to moke tha foregoing ObjaodafM and SUtpoiiMt ut Plshvifft Pint Sat of Interrogatories Directed to Defendant, and that while she does not have personal knowlsdgs of all facta cited therein, the lnfonnadon has been collogwl and the answers made after a mtrmiMc search ofall available record* and that she has read the foregoing Objections and Response* to Plaintiffs First Set ofilmemigatanea, and (hat (he information contained therein is true and accurate based on her hew knowledge!. information and belief. Therefore, the foregoing responses are verified on behalf of Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. A. L. Schroeder SOSubscribed and sworn to before me this -- day of June, 1997 My commission expires: lxttftftu WTtfT-Stltt iflMruUl MMCS M. IUS*BA*K Notasy Pubiie i n i i f*ir ^ PD5 71JO.I RECEIVED TIMEJUL, 3. ! :09PM