Document JJj5bqKdGozg8MOzLZEKjmYg6

INTERROGATORY NO. 63* Did Defendant, any related company, or any predecessor at any time, give to persons, who would be applying and/or removing any of the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42, any instructions or guidelines concerning precautions, warnings, procedures, and/or methods to use, in order to safety apply or remove such products? If so, describe such instructions, state tn whom they wem given, state the dates they were given, and describe the manner in which they were given. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 63: Abex objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, compound, vague and ambiguous and calls for speculation Abex also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term "any related company" is vague and ambiguous and calls for speculation. Abex further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it purports to shift the burden ofestablishing causation from plaintiffs to Abex. Abex objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to seek information or materials regarding time periods and products that are not at issue in these cases, on the ground that such information or materials lack relevance and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Abex also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information ormaterials it purports to seek otherwise lack relevance to the issues arising in these ! cases and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Abex further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes the truth ofmatters not established or matters hot in evidence. Abex objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks to impose upon Abex a legal duty or obligation to which it was not subject. Subject to and without waiving these additional objections, in 1979 and 1982, L -145- A1Q flC ACn