Document JNVYELDbyRXnQ7YgYkryZ8MeZ

1 Lisa I,. Oberg (State Bar No. 120139) John T. Burnite (State Bar No. 162223) 2 HAIGHT, BROWN & BONLSTEHL, L.L.P. 100 Bush Street, 27th Floor 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-7700 4 Attorneys for GAF CORPORATION 5 - F'ARA ///,yZ^> othfr - - AT1Y CLASS FiFCFIVFD file NOV 2 0 1997 BRAYTON HARLEY CURTIS HAND OVERNIGHT MAIL ,/( 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF TIIE STATE OE CALIFORNIA \ \ 7 COUNTY OE SAN FRANCISCO 8 t 9 IN RIP ) 10 COMPLEX ASBESTOS ) ) 11 LITIGATION ) ) 12 ) _________________ _______________________________ ) 13 Case No. 828684 GAF CORPORATION'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 129 INTERROGATORIES 14 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFFS 15 RESPONI)ING PARTY: GAF CORPORATION 16 SET NUMBER: ONE 17 RESPONSE OF GAF CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' 18 STANDARD INTERROGATORIES TO ALL DEFENDANTS 19 GAF Corporation ("GAF") hereby responds to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories ("the 20 Interrogatories") only pursuant to, under the protection of and to the extent that such requests 21 comply with the California Code of Civil Procedure, as follows: 22 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 23 These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. 24 The following responses are given without prejudice to GAFs right to produce, at any 25 time, subsequently discovered evidence relating to proof of presently known material facts and to 26 produce all evidence, whenever discovered, relating to the proof of subsequently discovered 27 material facts. Except for explicit facts admitted herein, no admissions of any nature whatsoever 28 are implied or should be inferred. The fact that any Interrogatory herein has been responded to CC25-10000/# 354 19 1 should not be taken as an admission or acceptance of the existence of any facts set forth or 2 assumed by such Interrogatory. 3 GAF limits its response to the period from 1928 to 1981, during which The Ruberoid Co., 4 until its acquisition by GAF on May 26, 1967, and thereafter GAF, may have manufactured 5 asbestos-containing products. 6 GAF objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek disclosure of any 7 attorney-client privileged communications or information, work product privileged information 8 and/or information protected by any other applicable privilege, and hereby asserts those doctrines 9 and privileges with respect to each Interrogatory. GAF will not supply or render information 10 protected from disclosure by virtue of such doctrines or privileges. No response herein is, or 11 shall be construed to be, a waiver of the protection provided by such doctrine or privilege. 12 GAF's failure to make any objection, either in this preliminary statement or in a specific 13 response below, through inadvertence, ignorance of facts giving rise to such objection, or for any 14 other reason, should not be considered a waiver of such objection. 15 INTERROGATORIES 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 17 IDENTIFY the person verifying these answers on YOUR behalf. 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 19 Michael J. Baker, Assistant Secretary, GAF Corporation, 1361 Alps Road, Wayne, NJ. 20 INTERROGATORY NO.2: 21 State the date of first employment with YOU, and the dates and titles of each job position 22 the person verifying these interrogatories has held while employed by YOU. 23 24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 25 Michael Baker, presently Assistant Secretary, has been employed by GAF since May 28, 26 1982. One of his duties and responsibilities since that date has been to act as records custodian. 27 INTERROGATORY NO.3: 28 State whether or not YOU are a corporation, and if so, state: CC25-10000/# 35419 2 1 A. YOUR correct corporate name; 2 B. YOUR state of incorporation; 3 C. The date of YOUR incorporation; 4 D. The address of YOUR principal place of business; 5 E. Whether or not YOU have ever held a certificate of authority to do 6 business in the State of California, and if so, the inclusive dates of any certificate; 7 F. If YOU are wholly owned or the majority interest of YOUR company is S owned by another business entity, state the entity's name and principal place of business; 9 G. Whether YOU have any business offices in California, and, if so, YOUR 10 principal place of business in California. 11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 12 This defendant responds that GAF Corporation was incorporated in Delaware in 1929 as 13 American I.G. Corporation. Its name was changed in 1939 to General Aniline & Film 14 Corporation. From its inception until May of 1967, General Aniline & Film Corporation was not 15 engaged in any aspect of the asbestos-containing industrial thermal insulation business and, in 16 fact, manufactured no products whatsoever containing asbestos. 17 On May 26, 1967, GAF acquired The Ruberoid Co. The Ruberoid Co. was originally 18 incorporated in New York in 1886 as the Standard Paint Company. This company was 19 succeeded by a company of the same name, which was incorporated in West Virginia in 1889; 20 that company was succeeded by the Standard Paint Company, incorporated in New Jersey on 21 June 16, 1905. The name of the company was changed to The Ruberoid Co. on March 10, 1921. 22 The Ruberoid Co. began the manufacture of industrial thermal insulation products containing 23 asbestos in 1928 when it acquired the H.F. Watson Co. 24 In 1942, 98 percent of the stock of General Aniline & Film Corporation was seized, 25 pursuant to a wartime legislative enactment, by the U.S. Treasury Department which assumed 26 control over the company management and operations. In 1965, the U.S. Government 27 relinquished control over General Aniline & Film Corporation and its stock was sold at public 28 auction. In 1968, the name of the company was changed from General Aniline & Film CC25-10000/# 35419 3 1 Corporation to GAF Corporation. GAF qualified to do business in California on December 18, 2 1939, which qualification was withdrawn effective December 21,1989. 3 GAF maintains its principal place of business at 1361 Alps Road, Wayne, New Jersey 4 07470. 5 INTERROGATORY NO .4: 6 Have YOU ever been identified, known, or done business under any other name in the 7 State of California? 8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 9 See response to Interrogatory No. 3. 10 INTERROGATORY NO.5: 11 If your answer to Interrogatory No. 4 is in the affirmative, please state such name or 12 names and the time period during which THIS DEFENDANT was so known or identified. 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 14 See response to Interrogatory No. 3. 15 INTERROGATORY NO.6: 16 If YOU are not a corporation, what is YOUR business structure (partnership, joint 17 venture, sole proprietorship, etc.). 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 19 Not applicable. 20 INTERROGATORY NO.7: 21 If YOU are not a corporation, please IDENTIFY all persons or other entities with an 22 ownership interest in YOU. 23 // 24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 25 Not applicable. 26 INTERROGATORY NO.8: 27 If you are not a corporation, please state the following: 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 4 1 A. The address where the HISTORICAL RECORDS of THIS DEFENDANT 2 are currently located; and 3 B. The name, job title and current address of the Custodian for THIS 4 DEFENDANTS HISTORICAL RECORDS. 5 As used herein, "HISTORICAL RECORDS" shall include all DOCUMENTS relating to 6 the formulation of THIS DEFENDANT, all minutes of partners, general partners, or other 7 owners' meetings, and all DOCUMENTS relating to THIS DEFENDANT'S merger with, 8 acquisition of or purchase, or sale of or by any other COMPANY. 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 10 Not applicable. 11 INTERROGATORY NO.9: 12 IDENTIFY YOUR custodian of Business Records. 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 14 Michael J. Baker. 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 16 IDENTIFY the person or persons most knowledgeable about: 17 A. YOUR acquisition of RAW ASBESTOS and/or ASBESTOS 18 CONTAINING PRODUCTS; 19 B. YOUR use of RAW ASBESTOS and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 20 PRODUCTS; 21 C. YOUR contracting with others to do work involving use or handling of 22 RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 24 Subject to the preliminary objections, this defendant names William C. Schwingen, 25 Phillip S. Bettoli and Armen Boranian. 26 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 27 For DEFENDANTS involved in the MARKETING of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 28 PRODUCTS, state the IDENTITY of physicians, medical directors and/or industrial hygienists CC25-10000/# 35419 5 1 employed by YOU during the time frame or prior to the time YOU discontinued the marketing of 2 such products. All other DEFENDANTS need only respond as to medical directors and/or 3 industrial hygienists or physicians employed in the area of employee health and safety. 4 PREMISES owners and domestic corporations need only respond as to the United States. 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 6 GAF responds that it never employed a "medical director." Harry Mesler was head of 7 Corporate Safety for Ruberoid and later GAF. Mr. Mesler was succeeded by William 8 Fassuliotis, who in turn was succeeded by Charles Bien. Mr. Mesler is deceased, Mr. Fassuliotis 9 is no longer employed by GAF, and Mr. Bien is now retired. The title for the position held by 10 Mr. Bien was Corporate Manager for Safety, Security and Occupational Health. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 12 Has any employee of THIS DEFENDANT testified by deposition or at trial on behalf of 13 THIS DEFENDANT in a third-party case, in which THIS DEFENDANT was a party, wherein 14 the plaintiffhas alleged an asbestos-related injury? If so, for each such third-party case (except 15 that Premises Defendants and Contractor Defendants need answer only with respect to cases 16 relating to sites within the GEOGRAPHIC AREA) please state: 17 A. The caption and case number, 18 B. The court filing including state and county; 19 C. The date of deposition or trial testimony; 20 D. The name and address of plaintiffs counsel of record; 21 E. The name and address of the court reporter. 22 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 23 This defendant responds as follows: 24 I. The following is a list of GAF/Ruberoid personnel who have testified at either a trial or deposition in 25 personal injury or asbestos-in-buildings litigation: 26 DEPONENTCASE/DATE:COURT 27 Herbert Abrons, Richard O. Evans, et USDC of NJ Former General Counsel al. v. J-M Sales Corp., 28 for GAF Corp. et al., 4/28/82 CC25-10000/# 35419 6 1 Michael J. Baker, Records Retention 2 Mgr., GAF Corp. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 In re: All Asbestos Cases 5/25/83 Creed J. Stiles, et ux., v. J-M Sales Corp. USDC E.D. of VA, Norfolk & Newport News Divisions Boyle, et al. v. OwensComing, et al., 1/27/84 Circuit Court, Jackson County, MO Erickson, et al. v. Superior Court, San Francisco Armstrong World Industries, et al., County, CA 2/22/84 In re: Massachusetts Asbestos Litigation, 2/28/84 USDC of MA Haugh v. Raymark, et al. 10/15/84 Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA Jestine Roberts v. JM, et al., 7/6/85 Superior Court, Union County, NJ 13 In re: Sparrows Point USDC of MD Steel Plant Asbestos 14 Cases, 11/26/85 15 State of Maryland v. Circuit Court,Anne Arundel Keene Corp., et al County, MD 16 4/6/87 17 Ella Parker for Harry Circuit Court, Parker v. Bell Asbestos Mobile, AL 18 Mines, et al., 2/25/93 19 Mayor & City Council Circuit Court, of Baltimore v. Keene Baltimore City, 20 Corp., et al., 12/17/93 MD 21 Norbert Baumstart, Hubert Hayes, et al. Former Purchasing/Traffic v. J-M Sales Corp., et 22 at St. Louis Plant al., 10/27/81 USDC E.D. of MO 23 // 24 Salvatore C. Bellini, Dir. of Internal Audit 25 Baltimore City Consolidation, 7/30/92 Dept. Circuit Court, Baltimore City, MD 26 Jonathan Berger, Richard Evans, et al., 27 Former Vice President of v. J-M, et al., 1/4/82 Human Resources at 28 GAF Corporation USDC of NJ CC25-10000/# 35419 7 1 Phillip S. Bettoli, Retired, Technical 2 Director of GAF Corporation 1967-80 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 // 24 25 26 27 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 Virgil E. Ballinger, et ux. vs. Combustion Bruce Alfred Nave, et ux., 1/28/77 Hattie S. Thornton v. J-M Corp., et al. Samuel E. Hershman v. J-M Corp., et al. Esther Bailey v. J-M Corp., et al. David C. Durham, et al. v. J-M Corp., et al., 9/7/77; 3/8/78 Ida Baltz v. J-M Sales Corp. et al., 4/25/80; 5/16/80 Stice v. GAF Corp., et al., 5/26/83 Pyne v. Baldwin-EhretHill, 8/14/84 Funseth v. Fibreboard, 11/7/84 Earl R. Nutt, et al. v. AC&S, Inc., et al., 10/10/85 William J. Komegary, 11/14/85; 12/17/85 Dorothy St. Jacque, et al. v. J-M Corp., et al., 7/2/86; 10/29/86 Lee v. American Cyanamid and Sholtis v. American Cyanamid, 8/13/87 Harry Parsysz, et al. v. Armstrong World Industries, et al., 2/29/88 University System of New Hampshire v. National Gypsum Co., 9/28/88 Laurie Williams v. 8 Circuit Court, Knox County, TN Virginia Circuit Court, City of Portsmouth, VA; Court of Common Pleas, Greenville, SC USDC E.D. of MO USDC of MD Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ Superior Court, San Francisco County, CA Superior Court, New Castle County, DE USDC S.D. of TX Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA Superior Court, NJ USDCS.D. ofFL USDC of NH Superior Court, 1 Fibreboard, et al., 4/28/89; 8/2/89 2 Joseph R. Theer, et al. 3 v. Celotex, et al., 10/2/90 4 Baltimore City 5 Consolidation, 2/12/91; 3/19/91 6 In re: State of West 7 Virginia Public Buildings, 3/29/91 8 In Re: Asbestos Cases 9 (Kanawha County Mass I), 7/19/91 10 Baltimore City Consoli 11 dation, 5/19/92 12 Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Keene Corp., 13 et al., 8/19/92 14 Charles F. Bien, Ida Baltz v. J-M Corp., Retired, Chief etal., 8/7/80 15 Environmental Engineer at GAF Corp., Wayne, NJ Richard Evans, et ai., 16 v. J-M, et al,, 1/13/82 17 18 19 20 Armen G. Boranian, 21 Former Manager, Floor Tile Group at 22 GAF Corp. Lee v. Carey-Canada, 5/9/84 In re: Promaulayko and and Other Consolidated Matters, 5/9/84 Adams-Arapahoe School Mffg. District No. 28J v. Celotex Corp., et al.. 11/10/87; 10/29/90 23 // 24 St. Vrain Valley S.D. v. W.R. Grace, et al., 25 10/13/89; 6/25/91; 7/2/91 26 27 28 V. Robert Canfield, CC25-10000/# 35419 John L. May, Archbishop of St. Louis, et ai. v. AC&S, et al., 4/14/92, 4/15/92,4/16/92 Daniel Frank v. GAF, 9 King County, WA Circuit Court, Baltimore City, MD Circuit Court, Monogalia County, WV Circuit Court, Kanawha County, WV Circuit Court, Baltimore City, MD Circuit Court, Baltimore City, MD USDC E.D. of MO USDC ofNJ USDC of NJ Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ USDC of CO USDC of CO USDC E.D. of MO Superior Court, 1 Manager, R&D, et al., 10/17/91 GAF Corp. 2 Patricia M. Corbutt, 3 Former Assistant Elizabeth C. Morris, Indiv. and as Co- Secretary, GAF 4 Corporation Executor of the Estate of Fred Lavell Morris, Douglas Morris and 5 Patricia Morris v. J-M Sales Corp., 3/23/83 6 Philip Dalton, 7 Retired, Former Richard O. Evans, et al. v. J-M Corp., et al., President of GAF 4/23/82 8 Theodore E. Dean, 9 Mgr., Technical Dorothy St. Jacque, et al. v. JM Corp., et al., Services 10 12/20/83 St. Vrain Valley S.D. v. 11 WR Grace, et al., 6/19/91 12 Leo J. Faneuf, Hubert Hayes, et al. 13 Former Vice President andv. J-M Sales Corp., et Director of Manufac- 14 turing and Building al., 4/28/82 Materials at GAF 15 Richard O. Evans, et al. v. J-M Sales Corp., et al., 4/28/82 16 Balderman v. GAF, et al., 17 5/3/84 18 William Fassuliotis, All Philadelphia Naval Former Director of 19 Safety & Occupatn'l Shipyard Cases-Eleanor Van Buskirk v. GAF Corp., Health at GAF Corp. 20 11/26/79 Forest, Baitz & Smith 21 v. J-M Sales Corp., et al., 12/14/79 22 George R. Ferment Dorothy St. Jacque, et 23 Former Technical Director, al.v. J-M Corp., et al.. Floor Tile Group at GAF 12/20/83 24 Richard F. Fisanick, 25 Former Supervisor, Promaulayko, et al. v. J-M Corp., et al., Office Services 26 South Bound Brook 4/24/84 27 Eugene Flood, Former Plant Mgr., 28 Gloucester, NJ The Ruberoid Co. CC25-10000/# 35419 Elizabeth Martorano, et ux. v. GAF, 8/26/81 10 Ocean County, NJ Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco, CA USDC of NJ Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA USDC of CO USDCE.D. of MO USDC of NJ Superior Court, Camden County, NJ USDC E.D. of PA USDC E.D. of MO Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ USDC E.D. of PA 1 R. Power Fraser, Anthony & Ellen Grugan 2 Jr., Former V.P. and v. J-M Corp., et al., General Manager of 3 Industrial Products 12/14/78 Division of GAF Corp. 4 Guy C. Freeman, Port Authority of New 5 Regional Mgr., Technical York and New Jersey and Services, GAF Corp. Port Authority Trans- 6 Hudson Corp. v. Allied Corp., etal., 4/13/92 7 Thomas F. Gedettis, Richard O. Evans, et al. 8 Retired Manager of v. J-M Corp., et al., Manufacturing Roof 9 and Granule at GAF 4/29/82 10 Jack Gow, Richard O. Evans, et al. Former Senior Vice 11 President (Personnel v. J-M Corp., et al., 4/29/82 Relations) at GAF 12 Joseph G. Hall, Anthony & Ellen Grugan 13 Former Senior Vice v. J-M Corp., et al., President, Building 12/20/78 14 Materials Div., GAF Corp. 15 Forest, Baltz & Smith v. J-M Sales Corp., et 16 al., 12/14/79 17 Richard W. Henry, Deed., Market 18 Manager for Calsilite Products, 19 The Ruberoid Co. Joseph G. Clune v. J-M Corp., et al. and All Philadelphia Naval Shipyard Cases, 6/12/80 20 21 22 23 // Ida Baltz v. J-M, et al., 9/25/80 Biagio Leopanto for George Blair, etc., v. GAF, et al., 4/22/87 24 Jack Holloway, Environmental Engi 25 neer in Wayne, NJ at GAF Corp. 26 27 Richard O. Evans, et al. v. J-M Corp., et al., 4/15/82 Marsden, et al. v. J-M Corp., et al., 5/19/82 28 James J. laquinto, Former Manager of CC25-10000/# 35419 Anthony & Ellen Grugan v. J-M Corp., et al., 11 Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA USDC S.D. of NY USDC of NJ USDC of NJ Court of Common Pleas, PA USDCE.D. of MO USDC E.D. of PA; Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, PA; USDC E.D. VA USDC E.D. of MO Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA USDC of NJ USDC of NJ Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA 1 Sales Administration of the Industrial 2 Products Division of GAF Corp. 3 Howard F. Johnston, 4 Retired as Personnel Manager of Chemical 5 Group Manufacturing in Bound Brook, NJ 6 Harry H. Kaufman, 7 Retired as Assistant Director of Quality 8 Control in South Bound Brook, NJ 9 10 Robert Klein, 11 Controller for Building Materials 12 Group at GAF Corp. 12/20/78 Hubert Hayes, et al. v. J-M Sales Corp., et al., 3/26/82 Hubert Hayes, et al. v. J-M Sales Corp., et al., 3/29/82 Richard O. Evans, et al. v. J-M Corp., et al., 3/30/82 Hubert Hayes, et al. v. J-M Sales Corp., et al., 3/22/82 13 Elmer L. Krusa, Port Authority of New NY District Field York and New Jersey and 14 Sales Mgr., GAF Corp. Port Authority Trans- Hudson Corp. v. Allied 15 Corp., etal., 4/13/92 16 Stanley L. Leach, In re: Shipyard & Former V.P. of Sales, Applicator Asbestos 17 Vermont Asbestos Group Cases, 2/24-2/25/86 18 Asbestos Litigation, 7/1/86 19 20 Jack Lee, Dorothy St. Jacque, et Former General Product al. v. Owens-Coming 21 Manager at GAF Corp. Fiberglass 5/13/83 22 Charles Limerick, Former Vice Presi 23 dent of Operations for Ruberoid 24 25 26 Oral Forrest, et al. v. JM, 12/28/79 Florence Ubben v. J-M Sales Corp., et al., 11/19/81 In re: All Asbestos Cases, 5/24/83 27 Biagio Leopanto for George Blair, etc. v. GAF, et al., 28 4/23/87 CC25-10000/# 35419 12 USDC E.D. of MO USDC E.D. of MO USDC of NJ USDC E.D. of MO USDC S.D. of NY Superior Court, Alameda County, CA Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA USDC E.D. of MO USDC E.D. of MO USDC E.D. of VA Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA 1 Bernard J. Lokuta, John L. Underwood v. Former Staff Engineer UIP Engineered Products, 2 of Technical Services 9/10/81; 3/11/83 at GAF Corporation 3 Alice M. Luongo, R.N., In re: Promaulayko, 4 Nurse at South Bound etc., 7/24/85 Brook 5 Lawrence E. Lyons, Hubert Hayes, et al. v. 6 Purchasing Specialist J-M Sales Corp., et al., in Wayne, NJ 12/3/81; 3/22/82 7 Anthony J. Marchetta, Martorano v. GAF 8 Esq. Corp., et al., 4/15/85 9 Thomas P. Martin, Former Director, 10 Corporate Safety Clayton Center Associates, et al. v. W.R. Grace, et al., 10/3/91 11 Ellis R. Mirsky, Esq., Baltimore City Former VP of Litigation Consolidation, 7/31/92 12 Louis T. Menapace, 13 Former Supervisor of In re: Promaulayko, etc., 2/28/85 Sales, The Ruberoid Co. 14 Michael T. Messel, Charles Lee Austin, et al. 15 Former Mine Manager, v. JM, et al., 8/18/80; Vermont Mine 16 8/19/80 Clayton Brass, et al. v. 17 Asbestos Corp., Ltd., et al., 1/15/87 18 Wilbur G. Neel, 19 Former Director of Cochran, Sullivan v. J-M Corp., 6/17/80 Sales/Trade Relations of 20 Asbestos Fibre and Phelps v. Fibreboard Industrial Insulation American Smelting & 21 at GAF Corp. Refinery Cross-D's 2/2/81 22 Hubert Hayes, et al. v. 23 v. J-M Sales Corp., et al., 3/9/82 24 M. Meyers v. J-M Sales Corp., et al., 3/9/82 25 Norman Banks v. J-M 26 Sales Corp., 9/22/83 William Nelson, 27 Former Manager of Ida Baltz v. J-M Sales Corp., et al., 3/28/80 St. Louis Plant 28 Hubert Hayes, et al. v. J-M, et al., 11/16/81 CC25-10000/# 35419 13 State Court, Chatham County, GA Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ USDC E.D. of MO USDC E.D. of PA Circuit Court, St. Louis, MO Circuit Court, Baltimore City, MD Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ USDC of NJ Superior Court, Quebec, Montreal Superior Court, CA Superior Court, CA USDC E.D. of MO USDC E.D. of MO Superior Court, CA USDC E.D. of MO USDC E.D. of MO 1 John G. O'Brien, Los Angeles Unified School 2 Former Senior Counsel, District v. Owens-Coming, GAF Corporation 3 et al,, 4/25/86 Leroy Hall v. Lac D'Amiante , 4 du Quebec, et al., 10/21/86 5 Tommie L. Heathman, et ux. v. Owens-Coming, 6 et al., 8/9/89 7 E.J. O'Leary, Hubert Hayes, et al. Retired, Former Presi v. J-M Sales Corp., 8 dent of Ruberoid and et al., 3/29/82 member of Board of 9 Directors of GAF Richard O. Evans, et al. v. J-M Corp., 10 et al., 3/30/82 11 Wayne H. Page, Former Ida Baltz v. J-M Sales Vice President, 12 Manufacturing of Corp., et al., 9/7/77; 10/22/80 Consumer Products 13 Group of GAF Corp. Eleanor Van Buskirk, et 14 al. v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., et al. and 15 All Philadelphia Naval Shipyard Cases and Va. 16 Consolidated Proceedings 11/27/79 17 Dorothy C. Balderman, 18 et. al v. GAF, 3/14/84 Biagio Leopanto for George 19 Blair, etc. v. GAF, et al., 4/87 20 Clell Pickens, 21 Former Supervisor Hubert Hayes, et al. v. J-M Sales Corp., of St. Louis Plant et al., 11/21/81 22 John F. Rebele, 23 Controller, GAF Baltimore City Consolidation, 8/3/92 Bldg. Materials Corp. 24 Dominic S. Sandora, Fred Eppler, et al., Retired, Mfg., Shipping v. JM, et al., '25 & Receiving, GAF 4/26/83 26 Louis Sarlo, Banks v. GAF, Former Mfg. Coordinator 8/10/76 27 for GAF Corp., Gloucester, New Jersey Joseph G. Clune v. J-M 28 Corp., et al., 5/1/80 Superior Court, Los Angeles County, CA USDC E.D. of PA USDC of TX USDC E.D. of MO USDC of NJ USDC E.D. of MO; Court of Common Pleas, Greenville, SC USDC of PA Superior Court, Camden County, NJ Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA USDC E.D. of MO Circuit Court, Baltimore City, MD Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ NJ, Dept, of Labor & Industry, WC Div. USDC E.D. of VA; USDC E.D. of PA CC25-10000/# 35419 14 1 Louis J. Fitzgerald v. Brand Insulations, 2 Phila. Asbestos Corp., J.J. White Corp. etc., 3 9/14/81 4 Richard 0. Evans, et al., v. J-M et al., 5 1/13/82; 1/5/83 6 Robert A. Smith v. Celotex, et al., 7 2/11/86 8 Biagio Lopanto for George Blair, etc. v. GAF, et al., 9 4/23/87 10 Arnold Schwartz, Kirkwood Carey, et ux. Engineer at Linden v. Philip Carey, et al., 11 Plant, GAF Corporation 8/2/88 12 William C. Schwingen, Consolidated Cases V.P., Technical Services, Virgil E. Ballinger, 13 GAF Building Materials et ux. v. Combustion Corp. Engineering, Inc., et 14 al., 1/29/77 15 Virgil E. Ballinger, et ux. v. Combustion 16 Engineering, Inc., et al., 9/7/77 17 Dolores M. Moran v. J-M 18 et al., 4/81 19 Hubert Hayes, et ux. v. J-M Sales Corp., et al. 20 v. Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, LTEE vs. GAF 21 Corp., 3/25/82 22 Eve Lorraine Marks, et al. v. Fibreboard Corp., 23 et al., 7/21/82 24 Doan v. J-M, et al., 10/13/82; 7/12/88 25 26 27 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 In re: All Asbestos Cases, Creed J. Stiles, et ux. v. J-M Sales Corp., 5/25/83 Arrendondo v. J-M, 15 NJ Dept, of Labor & Industry USDC of NJ Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia PA Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia PA Superior Court, Middelsex County, NJ Circuit Court, Knox City, TN; USDCE.D. of TN State of South Carolina, City of Greenville USDC N.D. of OH USDC of MO USDC E.D. of TX Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, OH USDC E.D. of VA USDC S.D. of TX, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 6/4/83 Earl R. Nutt, et al. v. A.C. & S., et al., 12/5/83; 6/28/84 Balderman v. J-M Sales Corp., 12/15/83 RE: Gloucester Plant Workers Williams v. Fibreboard, 1/27/84 Massachusetts Asbestos Cases, 3/12/84 Earl Patterson, etc. v. GAF and A.C.&S., Inc., 3/13/84 Press, etc. v. J-M Corp., 4/25/84 In re: Promaulayko, 5/9/84 Broszeit v. GAF Corporation, 5/16/84 Walter Hanna, et ux. v. J-M Corp., et al., 7/23/84 John Haugh, et ux., v. Raymark, et al., 10/15/84 Kathryn Guidry, Executrix of the Estate of Gilbert Guidry v. GAF, 10/15/84 Case name unknown, 11/28/84 Houston Division Superior Court, New Castle County, DE Superior Court, Camden County, NJ Circuit Court, Jackson County, MO USDC of MA USDC of MD Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia PA Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA Unknown Hosea v. Standard Insulation, 12/12/84 Deilomo v. Keene, 1/9/85; 1/15/85 16 USDC S.D. of TX, Houston Division Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 In re: Asbestos School Litigation, 1/15/85; 8/23/88 Babich, etc., v. EP, et al,, 7/24/85; 8/1/85 Consolidated Asbestos Cases, 11/20/85 Robert A. Smith v. Celotex, et al., 2/11/86 McCarty, et al. v. J-M Sales Corp., et al. 10/7/86 University System of New Hampshire v. National Gypsum Co., et al, 7/28/88; 9/28/88 In re: Asbestos School Litigation National Schools Class Action, 8/23/88 State of Maryland v. Keene Corp., et al., 6/2/89 Geoffrey D. Spinks, et ux. v. Celotex Corp., et al., 2/8/90 In re: State of West Virginia, 3/27/91 Baltimore City Consolidation, 4/18/91; 5/19/92 USDCE.D.ofPA Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ Circuit Court, Duval County, FL Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA USDCS.D. of MS USDC of NH USCD E.D. of PA Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County, MD USDC of D.C. Circuit Court, Monogalia County, WV Circuit Court, Baltimore City, MD Ivy Laurie for George Laurie v. JM, et al., 4/24/91 Tommie Heathman, et ux. v. OCF, et al., 6/21/91 Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Port 17 Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA District Court, Brazoria County, TX USDC S.D. of NY 1 Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Allied Corp., et 2 al., 4/14/92 3 Virginia Philbrook, etc. v. Fiberboard Corp., et al., 4 5/21/92 5 June A. Behrendt for Otto E. Behrendt v. 6 GAF, et al., 6/4/92 7 Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Keene Corp., 8 et al., 7/28/92 9 Virginia M. Jackson for Elson S. Jackson, et al., 10 v. OCF, et al., 3/9/93 11 Jack White v. Celotex, etal., 7/13/93 12 In Re: Asbestos (Kanawha 13 County Mass III), 7/22/93 14 Virgil Armel, et al., v. 15 GAF, et al. (VA ABEX Plantworker Cases), 16 10/25/93 17 Mike Norman v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 18 et al., 12/8/95 .19 Herbert Stoudt, Dorothy St. Jacque, et al., Former Technical v. J-M Corp., et al., 20 Information 12/12/83 Supervisor at GAF Corp. 21 Hazel Sutton, Hubert Hayes, et al. 22 Former Cost Accountant v. J-M Sales Corp., at the St. Louis Plant et al., 3/9/82 23 24 Phillip Teague, Forrest v. J-M Sales Former Plant Manager Corp., 12/20/79 25 of St. Louis Plant 26 Hubert Hayes, v. J-M Sales Corp., et 27 al., 11/13/81 28 Harold James Vickery, Richard 0. Evans, Former Safety Coordinator et al. v. J-M Corp., CC25-10000/# 35419 18 District Court, Harris County, TX Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County, PA Circuit Court, Baltimore City, MD Superior Court, MA Circuit Court, Knox County, TN Circuit Court, Kanawha County, WV Circuit Court, Winchester, VA Circuit Court, Wayne County, MI Superior Court, San Francisco, CA USDC of MO USDC E.D. of MO USDC E.D. of MO USDC of NJ 1 for GAP Corp. et al., 11/12/81 2 II. The following is a list of GAF/Ruberoid personnel who have testified before or submitted statements to Congressional committees: 3 Robert A. Beber, Written testimony dated 6/14/83 before the 4 Executive V.P., General Subcommittee on Labor Standards of the Committee Counsel and Secretary, on Education and Labor on H.R. 3175 5 GAF Corporation Testimony of Beber and Daniel H. Williams on 7/27/83 before the Subcommittee on 6 Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, 98th Cong., on H.R. 3175, the "Occupational Disease Compensation Act of 1983" 7 Testimony presented on 5/21/84 on the Occupational Disease Compensation Act of 1983 8 before a House Subcommittee on Labor and Human Resources 9 Philip S. Bettoli, Statement on 2/15/72 and 2/16/72 before U.S. Environmental Retired, Technical 10 Director, GAF Protection Agency, Public Hearing on National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Corporation, 1967-80 11 Joseph G. Hall, Testimony on 3/14/72 before U.S. Department of 12 V.P., GAF Corporation Labor in the Matter of Standard for Exposure to Asbestos Dust 13 Edward E. Shea, Testimony presented on 4/23/85 to a House Senior V.P., General of Representatives Subcommittee on H.R. 1626 14 Counsel and Secretary, GAF Corporation 15 Statement for the Record dated 5/15/86 on S.2083 (AHERA) and S.2300 before the Toxic Substances and Environmental Oversight Subcommittee on Environment and Public Works 16 Paul I. Weiner, Esq. 17 GAF Corporation Statement for the record dated 3/22/72 of GAF Corporation in the Matter of Standard for Exposure to Asbestos Dust, submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor 18 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 20 For each of the following, please state whether, at any time within the time frame or until 21 such time as any defendant which had been engaged in MARKETING RAW ASBESTOS or 22 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS discontinued the MARKETING of such products, 23 THIS DEFENDANT was a member or paid dues for any representative of THIS DEFENDANT 24 (excluding faculty members of educational institutions) to be a member of the following: 25 A. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygierusts; 26 B. American Industrial Hygiene Association; 27 C. American Petroleum Institute; 28 D. American Railroad Association; CC25-IOOOO/# 35419 19 1 E. Asbestos Cement Producers Association; 2 F. Asbestos Information Association (AIA)(please answer through date of your 3 answers); 4 G. Asbestos Information Association/North America (AWNA)(please answer 5 through date of your answers); 6 H. Asbestos Textile Institute (ATI); 7 I. Industrial Hygiene Foundation and/or Industrial Health Foundation (IHF); 8 J. Industrial Mineral Insulation Manufacturers Institute; 9 K. Magnesia Insulation Manufacturers' Association; 10 L. Magnesia Silica Insulation Manufacturers Association; 11 M. Mineral Wool Institute; 12 N. National Insulation Manufacturers Association (NIMA); 13 O. National Safety Council; 14 P. New York Academy of Sciences; 15 Q. Quebec Asbestos Mining Association (QAMA); 16 R. Refractories Institute; 17 S. Safe Building Alliance (please answer through date of your answers); 18 T. Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association (TIMA); 19 U. U.S. Maritime Commission; 20 V. IDENTIFY any other organizations, associations or groups of manufacturers, 21 miners, distributors, importers, labelers, suppliers, and/or sellers of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 22 PRODUCTS of which THIS DEFENDANT was a member; 23 W. IDENTIFY any such representative of THIS DEFENDANT. 24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 25 This defendant responds that it was a member of the following industrial groups or 26 organizations: 27 National Insulation Manufacturers' Association, Inc. 441 Lexington Avenue 28 New York, New York 10017 1958-1971 CC25-10000/# 35419 20 1 Thermal Insulation Manufacturers' Association, Inc. 2 Seven Kirby Plaza Mount Kisco, New York 10549 3 After 1973 - approximately 1978 4 Asbestos Information Association/North America 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 509 5 Arlington, Virginia 22202 1971-1977 6 National Safety Council 7 444 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 8 Prior to 1966 - 1981 9 American Society for Testing Materials 1916 Race Street 10 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Approximately 1946 - 1981 11 Asbestos Cement Products Association 12 Approximately 1937-1964 13 Mineral Products Fiber Bureau 1964 - approximately 1971 14 Resilient Floor Covering Institute 15 f/k/a Asphalt & Vinyl Asbestos Tile Institute Suite 12-B 16 966 Hungerford Drive Rockville, Maryland 20805 17 1959-1981 18 National Roofing Contractors Association Associate Member 19 Chicago, 111. 20 This defendant is aware of documents, neither generated by nor in the custody and 21 control of this defendant, reflecting that General Aniline & Film Corporation was a new member 22 of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation during the years 1945 to 1947, a period when General 23 Aniline & Film Corporation was under government ownership and did not manufacture any 24 asbestos-containing materials. Although certain documents appear to indicate that Ruberoid 25 considered becoming a member for a limited period in 1953-1954, this defendant possesses no 26 evidence that it ever did so. 27 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 28 CC25-I0000/# 35419 21 1 For each organization, association or other entity identified in YOUR Response to 2 Interrogatory No. 13, please state: 3 A. The dates during which THIS DEFENDANT was a member; 4 B. The name(s) of any publication^) received by THIS DEFENDANT from 5 such association or organization; 6 C. The name of any committee or subcommittee of which THIS 7 DEFENDANT was a member, and the dates of such committee or subcommittee membership. 8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 9 This defendant states that Ruberoid and then GAF representatives were members, along 10 with representatives of the United States Navy, of standard-setting groups and committees of the 11 American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ("ASTM"). Specifically, 12 Ruberoid/GAF representatives served on subcommittee C-16, which dealt with high temperature 13 thermal insulation, from 1950 until 1971. At various times in this period, this defendant's 14 representatives on subcommittee C-16 were J.M. High, Thomas J. Walters, Duane A. Davis, and 15 William C. Schwingen. 16 Ruberoid and then GAF was also a member of the National Insulation Manufacturers' 17 Association for certain years between 1958 and 1971. Wilbur G. Neel at some point in the 18 1960's was a member of the Board of Directors of NIMA and attended a meeting in 1964. 19 During the 1970's, representatives of GAF were members of the Board of Directors of the 20 Asbestos Information Association/North America. Among persons so serving were Frank 21 Campagna, Joseph Hall and William Fassuliotis. GAF is aware of documentation indicating that 22 it was a member of the ACPA Health and Safety Council in the late 1960s. 23 // 24 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 25 Had THIS DEFENDANT prior to 1973 received any DOCUMENTS containing results 26 or conclusions of any studies and/or tests conducted by Bonsib for Standard Oil of New Jersey 27 relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or the human health consequences of exposure to 28 asbestos? If so: CC25-10000/# 35419 22 1 A. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the information sought in 2 this Interrogatory and its subparts to your answers to these Interrogatories, or (2) attach disks 3 containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they 4 may be made the subject of a request for production of documents. 5 B. State the date upon which THIS DEFENDANT first received such 6 DOCUMENTS; 7 C. State the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 8 D. This INTERROGATORY does not apply to DOCUMENTS contained in a 9 library maintained by a DEFENDANT hospital or a DEFENDANT'S library providing access to 10 the general public. 11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 12 No. 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 14 Had THIS DEFENDANT prior to 1973 received a copy or any portion of any studies 15 and/or tests conducted by any insurance company, including but not limited to Metropolitan Life 16 Insurance Company and Aetna Insurance relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or the 17 human health consequences of exposure to asbestos? If so: 18 A. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the information sought in 19 this Interrogatory and its subparts to your answers to these Interrogatories, or (2) attach disks 20 containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they 21 may be made the subject of a request for production of documents. 22 B. State the date upon which THIS DEFENDANT first received such 23 DOCUMENTS; 24 C. State the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 25 D. This INTERROGATORY does not apply to DOCUMENTS contained in a 26 library maintained by a DEFENDANT hospital or a DEFENDANT library providing access to the general public. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: CC25-10000/# 35419 23 1 No. 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 3 Had THIS DEFENDANT prior to 1973 received any DOCUMENTS containing results 4 or conclusions of any studies and/or tests conducted by any laboratory, including but not limited 5 to, the Saranac Laboratory relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or the human health 6 consequences of exposure to asbestos? If so: 7 A. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the information sought in 8 this Interrogatory and its subparts to your answers to these Interrogatories, or (2) attach disks 9 containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they 10 may be made the subject of a request for production of documents. 11 B. State the date upon which THIS DEFENDANT first received such 12 DOCUMENTS; 13 C. State the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 14 D. This INTERROGATORY does not apply to DOCUMENTS contained in a 15 library maintained by a DEFENDANT hospital or a DEFENDANT library providing access to 16 the general public. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 18 No. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 20 Had THIS DEFENDANT (except for a defendant that is an educational institution) prior 21 to 1973 ever maintained a library (or libraries) which contained books, articles, periodicals, 22 journals, and/or reference materials that related to the subjects of asbestos, industrial hygiene, 23 medicine, safes, and/or occupational disease. If so, state: 24 A. The date each such library was established; 25 B. The location of each such library; 26 C. The IDENTITY of each librarian or other person in charge of such library. 27 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 24 1 This defendant states that neither GAF Corporation nor The Ruberoid Co. maintained a 2 central corporate library as to occupational safety and health. Any information which did exist 3 was kept by Mr. Harry Mesler while he headed corporate safety for the company from 4 approximately the early 1960's into 1971. Prior to Mr. Mesler's appointment to this position, 5 Ruberoid and GAF employees may have from time to time maintained or possessed personal 6 files containing periodicals and other literature relating to asbestos, its uses and qualities. 7 Mr. Mesler died on August 29, 1972, and the whereabouts of any such information is 8 unknown. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 10 With the exception of OSHA compliance, had THIS DEFENDANT (except for a 11 defendant that is an educational institution) prior to 1980 exchanged DOCUMENTS or 12 communicated with any person or other COMPANY expressly regarding the results of tests 13 and/or studies relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or the human health consequences 14 of exposure to asbestos? If so, state: 15 A. Each person or COMPANY with whom the information was exchanged or 16 to whom it was communicated. 17 B. The date(s) of any such exchanges or communications; 18 C. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 20 This defendant states that on or around April 14, 1964, W.G. Neel of The Ruberoid Co. 21 attended a meeting of the Board of Directors of NIMA, in Chicago, Illinois. At that time, The 22 Ruberoid Co. first learned that Johns-Manville Corporation, the world's largest manufacturer of 23 asbestos products, was commencing to place a warning on certain of its asbestos-containing 24 products. Richard W. Henry, Sales Manager of Ruberoid's industrial products division, saw, in 25 1964 or 1965, a warning label printed on a box of Johns-Manville calcium silicate thermal 26 insulation. Phillip Bettoli attended a conference held by the New York Academy of Sciences on 27 May 14, 1968, at which health aspects were discussed. Fiber suppliers may have warned 28 purchasers and prospective purchasers. In addition, Ruberoid, until its acquisition by GAF on CC25-10000/# 35419 25 1 May 26,1967, and thereafter GAF, at all times complied with the United States Government's 2 specifications concerning product form, content, packaging and labeling for products to be used 3 in Government-owned and sponsored projects and facilities. Until 1972, the U.S. Government 4 did not require any warning with respect to asbestos-containing products. Nevertheless, as 5 described above, GAF (and Ruberoid, before May 26,1967) did provide warnings. With respect 6 to these warnings, GAF was at all times in compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health 7 Act of 1970. 8 As to floor tile, commencing in or about 1977, there were discussions involving GAF's 9 representatives to and other members of the RFCI, concerning the promulgation by the RFCI of 10 an integrated set of suggested work practices covering the maintenance, installation and removal 11 of asbestos-containing flooring products, including VAT. GAF and some other members had 12 previously issued their own recommended work practices with the sale of their individual floor 13 tile products. In this connection, there were also discussions concerning whether research should 14 be undertaken to determine whether, in the course of using recommended practices, asbestos 15 fibers are released from floor tile during life-cycle conditions. It was determined that such 16 research or tests should be done. 17 RFCI engaged Stanford Research Institute ("SRI"), an independent consulting, research 18 and testing entity, to monitor and report on the results of certain work practices. The purpose of 19 these industrial hygiene tests was to monitor for airborne asbestos fibers, if any, during 20 conditions of installation, normal traffic, maintenance and removal of VAT. 21 In the latter part of 1978 and during 1979 sites were selected for the individual tests. 22 GAF helped locate appropriate test sites and supplied personnel to assist in the installation and 23 removal tests. SRI independently determined the protocol for the sampling, including the 24 number and location of the pumps, conducted air sampling at each test site and performed the 25 microscopy analysis. It submitted its report to RFCI, and in approximately December, 1979, the 26 report was made public. 27 GAF did not participate in planning or performing SRI's air sampling, nor did it play any 28 role in drafting or approving SRI's results. CC25-10000/# 35419 26 1 RFCI's tests and SRI's air sampling results demonstrated that there is no exposure to 2 airborne asbestos fibers during the use or maintenance of VAT, and that when recommended 3 work practices were used during installation and removal, fiber releases, if any, would be 4 substantially below the levels established by the federal government for occupational exposure. 5 GAF cannot state whether any company director knew of the RFCI/SRI tests in 1978-79. 6 However, GAF believes that officers of its Building Products business and/or its Flooring 7 business knew of and approved the idea to undertake the research project inasmuch as it 8 advanced funds to RFCI for the tests, and Mr. Ted Dean, then GAF's Manager of Technical 9 Services for Floor Products, provided assistance to SRI in site selection and certain related 10 matters. 11 GAF cannot state with any specificity the dates when any discussions may have been held 12 concerning the decision to perform the tests, but believes the discussions occurred in 1977 or 13 1978 and resulted in RFCI engaging SRI to monitor the life-cycle tests. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 15 Has any employee or designee of THIS DEFENDANT testified as a representative of 16 THIS DEFENDANT before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National 17 Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, or any committee or subcommittee of the United 18 States Congress relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or the human health consequences 19 of exposure to asbestos? If so, please state: 20 A. The entity before whom such testimony was given; 21 B. The date(s) and location(s) of such testimony; 22 C. The IDENTITY of the individual(s) who so testified; 23 D. Whether any DOCUMENTS were presented to the entity before which 24 testimony was given; 25 E. Whether copies of DOCUMENTS presented were retained by THIS 26 DEFENDANT and, if so, state the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 27 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 28 See response to Interrogatory No. 12. CC25-IOOOO/# 35419 27 1 INTERROGATORY NO.21: 2 Has THIS DEFENDANT (except for a defendant that is an educational institution) 3 conducted, or caused to be conducted, tests, and/or studies of ambient asbestos dust created 4 during the manufacture, processing and/or assembling for sale of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 5 PRODUCTS? If so, state: 6 A. Each manufacturing facility, including location and address, at which any 7 such test and/or study was conducted; 8 B. The date of each such test and/or study; 9 C. The individual(s) or entity conducting each such test and/or study; 10 D. Whether THIS DEFENDANT has any DOCUMENTS containing the 11 results and/or conclusions of each such study; 12 E. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 14 This defendant responds that airborne asbestos dust sampling was conducted in GAF 15 plants starting in approximately 1972, by GAFs Environmental Engineering Department. 16 Documents pertaining to such sampling are under the control of its records retention manager. 17 INTERROGATORY N0.22: 18 Has THIS DEFENDANT (except for a defendant that is an educational institution) 19 conducted, or caused to be conducted, any tests and/or studies on ambient asbestos dust levels at 20 any location or job site where ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS were installed, utilized 21 or removed? If so, for the first 5 sets and/or studies, state: 22 A. The location, including name and address, at which each such test and/or 23 study was conducted; 24 B. The individual(s) or entity conducting each such test and/or study; 25 C. The date of each such test and/or study; 26 D. Whether THIS DEFENDANT has any DOCUMENTS containing the 27 results and/or conclusions of each such test and/or study; 28 E. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. CC25-IOOOO/# 35419 28 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: 2 This defendant responds that jobsites were under the exclusive control of their 3 owners, or employers or contractors at those jobsites. This defendant believes that those owners, 4 employers or contractors present at jobsites (on which this defendant's asbestos-containing 5 industrial thermal insulation products were installed or otherwise used) had a legal duty 6 mandated by state and federal governments to inspect and monitor those jobsites, in the manner 7 required by OSHA and other laws, and this defendant did not have any such legal duty at any 8 time. 9 See response to interrogatory No. 19. 10 INTERROGATORY N0.23: 11 Did THIS DEFENDANT (except for a defendant that is an educational institution) have 12 any laboratory or other similar type of facility anywhere in the United States at which it 13 conducted, or caused to be conducted, any tests and/or studies of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 14 PRODUCTS or RAW ASBESTOS relating to the health consequences of asbestos or the dust 15 generated by any use of asbestos or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS. If so, state: 16 A. The location, including name and address, at which each test and/or study 17 was conducted; 18 B. The individual(s) or entity conducting each such test and/or study; 19 C. The date of each such test and/or study; 20 D. Whether THIS DEFENDANT has any DOCUMENTS containing the 21 results and/or conclusions of each such test and/or study; 22 E. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: 24 No. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 24: 26 Has THIS DEFENDANT made available to its employees a medical examination 27 program to determine the absence or presence of asbestos-related disease? If so, state: 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 29 1 A. Whether chest x-rays or pulmonary function tests were part of such 2 program(s); 3 B. Whether participation in any such program was a mandatory condition of 4 employment or was voluntary; 5 C. Whether THIS DEFENDANT has DOCUMENTS of such program(s); 6 D. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 7 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: 8 From the beginning of the manufacture of asbestos-containing industrial thermal 9 insulation products by The Ruberoid Co., such as Calsilite, the standards for manufacture were 10 contained in specifications issued by the U.S. Government and other purchasers as described 11 below, with which specifications Ruberoid complied. Ruberoid's Calsilite was produced to meet 12 these specifications. Further, governmental and industrial hygienists adopted a safety standard of 13 5 m. particles per cubic foot, and the government studies indicated that asbestos-containing 14 industrial thermal insulation products such as this defendant's products, as used in the shipyard 15 and other construction work places, were in compliance with that standard. Further, the 16 President and U.S. Congress, and executive departments adopted that safety standard in the 17 Walsh-Healy Act, and perpetuated it in subsequent regulations. In the early 1970's the United 18 States adopted the standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, with which the products 19 of this defendant have also complied. 20 From time-to-time during the period beginning in approximately 1930, this defendant 21 called upon local physicians from surrounding cities or towns near its plant locations to perform 22 routine physical examinations and to administer routine medical treatment when and if 23 necessary. 24 // 25 // 26 INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 27 Prior to 1973, did any person file a Workers' Compensation claim for asbestos-related 28 injury against THIS DEFENDANT or against any Workers' Compensation insurance carrier CC25-10000/# 35419 30 1 which provided coverage for THIS DEFENDANT? If so, state the total number of such claims 2 and, for the first 20 such claims state: 3 A. The date of such claim; 4 B. The name of the claimant; 5 C. The case number; 6 D. The court in which the claim was filed; 7 E. The IDENTITY of THIS DEFENDANTS custodian of DOCUMENTS 8 evidencing such claims. 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 10 For purposes of this response, GAF includes any workers compensation claim in which 11 the workers compensation judge made a finding that the worker had asbestosis, mesothelioma, 12 lung cancer and/or died as a result of asbestos exposure. Such claims do not include matters 13 where only the claimant, the claimants workers compensation lawyer, or the claimants workers 14 compensation doctor alleged an asbestos-related disease but where the judge did not sustain 15 those allegations. GAF does not necessarily agree that all of the workers compensation judges 16 findings of asbestos-related disease were correct, and GAF reserves the right to prove, in this and 17 other litigations, that each or any of the asbestos-related claims identified in the response to this 18 interrogatory was not ti asbestos-related. 19 20 CLAIMANT 21 DEMETER, Stanislaw 22 FRANCIS, Joseph 23 MARSDEN, James 24 L UMBRA, Arthur 25 CLAIM DATE 4/27/67 9/20/72 ?/?/72 ?/?/6 8 ORDER DATE APPROVING SETTLEMENT OR JUDGMENT 12/5/68 6/20/74 11/30/72 ?/?/69 JURISDICTION New Jersey New Jersey New Jersey Vermont 26 INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 27 Does THIS DEFENDANT have insurance available to cover judgment(s) entered against 28 it in asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits? If so, state: CC25-10000/# 35419 31 1 A. The name and principal place of business of any insurance carrier who has 2 issued such policy of insurance; 3 B. The number and effective date of each policy; 4 C. The amount(s) of coverage of each policy; 5 D. The applicable dates of coverage. 6 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 7 This defendant responds that, on January 7,1987, this defendant entered the Asbestos 8 Claims Facility, Princeton, New Jersey. This defendant is prepared to provide copies of what it 9 believes to be the relevant policies. 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 11 State whether YOU have controlled, purchased, or in any way acquired any controlling 12 interest in any corporation or business entity which has mined, manufactured, produced, 13 processed, compounded, sold, supplied, distributed and/or otherwise placed RAW ASBESTOS 14 or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS in the stream of commerce. If so, state: 15 A. The name and address of said corporation or business entity; 16 B. The dates YOU controlled, purchased or acquired any interest; and 17 C. The nature of the business as it pertains to asbestos. 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 19 See response to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 39. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 28: 21 State whether THIS DEFENDANT, between 1930 and 1985, has ever engaged in the 22 following activities with regard to RAW ASBESTOS, and if so, state the inclusive dates of such 23 activity: 24 A. Mining; 25 B. Milling; 26 C. Supply; 27 D. Importing; 28 E. Processing; CC25-10000/# 35419 32 1 F. Distribution; 2 G. Marketing; 3 H. Sale; 4 I. Brokering. 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28: 6 Subject to the definition of raw asbestos, this defendant responds: 7 A. 1937-1975 8 B. 1937-1975 9 C. 1937-1975 10 D. Unknown years between 1937 and 1975 11 E. 1937-1975 12 F. No 13 G. 1937-1975 14 H. 1937-1975 15 I. No. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 29: 17 If YOUR answer to any of subparts of Interrogatory 28 regarding RAW 18 ASBESTOS is in the affirmative, state: 19 A. The trade, brand name, and/or generic name of such RAW ASBESTOS 20 milled or MARKETED in any form or quantity between 1930 and 1985; 21 B. The date(s) such RAW ASBESTOS was first placed on the market, 22 including the date(s) such RAW ASBESTOS was first marketed; 23 1. On an experimental basis; 24 2. On a test basis; 25 3. For sale. 26 C. The date(s) such RAW ASBESTOS: 27 1. Ceased to be produced; or 28 2. Was recalled from themarket, if ever. CC25-10000/# 35419 33 1 D. A description of the chemical composition of such RAW ASBESTOS, 2 including the type and/or grade of asbestos; 3 E. A description of the physical appearance and nature of such RAW 4 ASBESTOS, including any color coding, distinctive marking and/or logo on the packaging or 5 container; 6 F. A detailed description of the intended use of such RAW ASBESTOS, 7 including any temperature limits for each such use; 8 G. Whether such RAW ASBESTOS was on the U.S. Government's "Qualified 9 Products List," and if so, the inclusive dates it was on such list; 10 H. IDENTIFY to whom such RAW ASBESTOS has, at any time, been sold. 11 As to each such, state: 12 I. Whether any of THIS DEFENDANTS RAW ASBESTOS has, at any time, 13 been sold, shipped, or otherwise distribute, used or installed to or at any COMPANY (including 14 power company or utility), governmental agency or entity, shipyard, distributor, refinery, 15 contractor, supplier, PREMISE owner or occupant, ship owner, or other PREMISE or site in the 16 GEOGRAPHIC AREA and whether any of THIS DEFENDANTS RAW ASBESTOS has at any 17 time, been sold to any manufacturer, or manufacturing facility, of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 18 PRODUCTS. If so, state: 19 1. The names of each such COMPANY, governmental agency or 20 entity, shipyard, distributor, supplier, manufacturer or refinery; 21 2. The inclusive dates of each such sale, and the amount (quantity) 22 and the trade brand name of such RAW ASBESTOS sold; 23 3. The manner of shipment (e.g. boat, rail, etc.) 24 4. Whether you have any records indicating any such sale or shipment 25 and, if so, the name, address and job classification of each person who currently has possession 26 of such records. 27 5. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the information 28 sought in this Interrogatory and its subparts to your answers to these Interrogatories, or (2) attach CC2S-10000/# 35419 34 1 disks containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that 2 they may be made the subject of a request for production of documents. 3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29: 4 Subject to a reasonable and proper definition of the term raw asbestos, this defendant 5 responds: 6 1. 115 Insulation Cement 7 115 Insulation Cement was a chrysotile asbestos product which, in some instances, was 8 produced at Ruberoid/GAF's Vermont facility and in other instances was purchased from various 9 other asbestos suppliers and resold. Some of the product purchased from other suppliers may 10 have been milled again at Ruberoid/GAF's Vermont facility prior to resale. Asbestos insulation 11 cements produced at GAF's Vermont facility could generally be distinguished from asbestos 12 insulation cements produced by other manufacturers inasmuch as the Vermont product was a slip 13 chrysotile asbestos rather than a cross vein asbestos and was generally of a lower grade and 14 contained a greater percentage of impurities, such as dirt and rock particles. It is believed that 15 this product was sold from at least as early as 1937 to 1975. It is believed that the " 115" 16 designation was employed from approximately 1950 to 1975 and the designation "Grade B" was 17 also employed in years prior to 1950. 18 The basic ingredients of this cement product were: 19 chrysotile determined to pass the 0-0-1-15 Quebec test 20 impurities (dirt, rock, earth) 21 The particular formulas utilized by entities which purchased this product for construction 22 are not known by GAF, but this product was normally mixed with Portland cement, water and/or 23 other substances. 24 2. 214 Insulation Cement 25 214 Insulation Cement was also a chrysotile asbestos product which, in some instances, was produced at GAF's Vermont facility and in other instances was purchased from various other asbestos suppliers and resold. Some of the product purchased from other suppliers may have been milled again at Ruberoid/GAF's Vermont facility prior to resale. Ruberoid/GAF's Vermont CC2S-10000/# 35419 35 1 product was a lower grade cement which contained a greater percentage of impurities, such as 2 dirt and rock particles, making it lightly mottled and giving it an overall darker appearance. It is 3 believed that this product was sold from at least as early as 1937 to 1975. It is believed that the 4 "214" designation was employed from approximately 1950 to 1975 and the designation "Grade . 5 BB" was also employed in years prior to 1950. 6 The basic ingredients of this cement product were: 7 chrysotile determined to pass the 0-0-2-14 Quebec test 8 impurities (dirt, rock, earth) 9 The particular formulas utilized by entities which purchased this product for construction 10 are not known by GAF, but this product was normally mixed with Portland cement, water and/or 11 other substances. 12 Both "115" and "214" insulation cements could be packed "loosely" in burlap through the 13 1940's and thereafter "pressure packed" or "semi-pressure packed" in either kraft paper, plastic 14 lined or woven plastic bags. 15 3. Other Insulation Cements 16 In unknown years prior to 1955, which varied by product, Ruberoid listed for sale the 17 following other insulation cements. Except as stated below, little is known about these products, 18 including the specific years they were offered, the constituents and, except as indicated, whether 19 or not they were manufactured or produced by Ruberoid. 20 a. Grade 203 Insulating Cement - Grade 203 had a screen test of 21 approximately 0-0-8-8 which was intended to result in a light, fluffy cement. It was practically 22 free of grit and dirt. Its temperature limit was 1200 degrees F. 23 b. Grade 016 Insulating Cement - This 100% chrysotile cement had a screen 24 test of approximately 0-0-1-16 which made it the lowest grade cement sold by Ruberoid/GAF. 25 In the years 1937-75 this defendant sold chrysotile determined to pass higher Quebec 26 tests, but it is not believed this fiber was used in the manufacture of asbestos-containing 27 industrial thermal insulation products. 28 It is believed GAF asbestos was on the Governments Qualified Products List. CC25-10000/# 35419 36 1 As to purchasers, upon the plaintiffs supplying a list of worksites/employers and dates 2 relevant to their claims, this defendant will supply responsive documents, if any. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 30: 4 Between 1930 and 1985, did YOU ever engage in any of the activities listed below with ' 5 regard to ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS? If so, state the inclusive dates of such 6 activity: 7 A. Supply; 8 B. Importing; 9 C. Distribution; 10 D. Marketing; 11 E. Sale; 12 F. Labeling; 13 G. Manufacturing; 14 H. Brokering; 15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30: 16 This defendant responds yes as to some products in some years between 1929 and 1981, 17 with the exception of H., which is denied. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 31: 19 If your answer to any subpart of Interrogatory No. 31 regarding "ASBESTOS 20 CONTAINING PRODUCTS" is in the affirmative, state: 21 A. The trade, brand name, and/or generic name of each such ASBESTOS 22 CONTAINING PRODUCT MARKETED in any form or quantity between 1930 and 1985; 23 B. The date(s) each such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT was first 24 placed on the market, including the date(s) each such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT 25 was first MARKETED; 26 1. On an experimental basis; 27 2. On a test basis; or 28 3. For sale. CC25-10000/# 35419 37 1 C. The date(s) each such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT: 2 1. Ceased to be produced; or 3 2. Was recalled from the market, if ever. 4 D. A detailed description of the chemical composition of each such 5 ASBESTOS CONTAINING PRODUCT, including the type and/or grade of asbestos and/or 6 asbestos fiber contained in each such product and the quantitative percentage of asbestos or 7 asbestos fiber in each such product, and all non-asbestos components of the ASBESTOS8 CONTAINING PRODUCT, and if the chemical composition changed over time, the inclusive 9 dates of each formulation; 10 E. A description of the physical appearance and nature of each such 11 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT, including any color coding, distinctive marking and/or 12 logo, either on the product or on the packaging; 13 F. A detailed description of the intended use of each such ASBESTOS14 CONTAINING PRODUCT, including any temperature limits for each such use; 15 G. Whether any such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT was on the 16 U.S. Government's "Qualified Products List," and if so, the inclusive dates it was on such list; 17 H. The name and address of the supplier of the RAW ASBESTOS used in 18 each such product and the time period of such supply; 19 I. Whether any of THIS DEFENDANTS RAW ASBESTOS OR 20 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS have, at any time, been sold, shipped, or otherwise 21 distributed to any COMPANY (including power company or utility, governmental agency or 22 entity, shipyard, distributor, refinery, contractor, supplier, manufacturer, PREMISE owner or 23 occupant, shipowner, or other PREMISE or site in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA. If so, state: 24 1. The names of each such COMPANY, governmental agency or 25 entity, shipyard, distributor, supplier, manufacturer, refinery, contractor, PREMISE owner or 26 occupant, ship, owner, PREMISE or site; 27 28 CC25-IOOOO/# 35419 38 1 2. The inclusive dates of each such sale, shipment, distribution, use or 2 installation and the amount (volume) and the trade or brand name of each such ASBESTOS3 CONTAINING PRODUCT sold; 4 3. Whether you have any records indicating any such sale, shipment, 5 distribution, use or installation and, if so, the name, address and job classification of each person 6 who currently has possession of such records. 7 J. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the information sought in 8 this Interrogatory and its subparts to your answers to these Interrogatories, or (2) attach disks 9 containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they 10 may be made the subject of a request for production of documents. 11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31: 12 This defendant responds: 13 I. CALSILITE 14 With the support and at the behest of the United States Government which needed to 15 increase wartime production of shipboard insulation materials, in 1944 Ruberoid constructed a 16 Calsilite plant in Gloucester City, New Jersey, to manufacture Calsilite pipe covering and 17 block insulation. The plant was completed in approximately November, 1944. Some limited 18 production of Calsilite occurred prior to the plant's completion. GAF believes that all 19 Calsilite production during World War II was for the United States Navy. In June, 1947 the 20 Calsilite facility was shut down temporarily and all outstanding orders were canceled. The 21 facility was reopened on July 10,1947 and operated on a pilot plant basis until March 7, 1949. 22 During this research project period, production was limited and of an experimental nature. 23 Calsilite was again manufactured on a commercial basis by Ruberoid beginning on March 7, 24 1949, and then by General Aniline & Film Corporation in 1967, and then by GAF Corporation 25 from 1968 to October, 1971, when the plant was closed. 26 Calsilite was a lightweight, hard, calcium silicate insulation designed to withstand 27 temperatures up to 1250 F. Calsilite pipe covering was manufactured in three-foot lengths and 28 in varying thicknesses. It was available in half-sectional pieces and, at various times, in three- CC25-10000/# 35419 39 1 segmental and regular segmental shapes, for assembly around a pipe in single or double layers. 2 Pipe covering normally was provided with standard weight cotton or canvas jackets applied with 3 silicate of soda. No "T's," elbows or joints were produced. Flat Calsilite blocks were 4 manufactured, at various times, in 18 or 36-inch lengths, in widths from 3 to 36 inches, and in 5 thicknesses up to 4 inches. Six-inch wide curved segmental blocks, capable of contouring more 6 easily for insulation of large pipes and circular vessels, also were available. Throughout the time 7 it was manufactured, Calsilite pipe covering and block was packaged in corrugated boxes. 8 Calsilite was manufactured by a "pan-molding" method until 1964 when Ruberoid 9 began using a "filter-press" method or process. Pan-molded Calsilite was grayish white and 10 relatively smooth, with some small holes. Calsilite filter press was grayish white with screen 11 marks on the outer surfaces. 12 Calsilite-Hi, developed in or around 1960, could withstand temperatures up to 1800 F. 13 In the mid-to-late 1960s, Ruberoid developed Calsilite SS, an "inhibited" product designed 14 specifically to prevent stress corrosion and cracking of stainless steel piping. 15 In addition to formula changes made in connection with product development, the 16 Calsilite formula was adjusted often in order to compensate for changes in the quality and 17 availability of raw materials. GAF does not have a complete set of all the formulas used in 18 Calsilite production nor does it have complete information about the production dates of 19 known formulas. 20 This defendant began production of asbestos-free Calsilite after having developed the 21 product as a result of a project initiated sometime after the acquisition of The Ruberoid Co. on 22 May 26,1967, with sales beginning in 1970 or 1971. This product was identified as "Calsilite 23 II" or "Calsilite A-F." However, without adding asbestos, GAF was unable to manufacture a 24 calcium silicate insulation which met all applicable United States Government specifications. 25 These limitations made it impossible for this defendant to manufacture and sell an asbestos-free 26 Calsilite that met applicable Government requirements. GAF asked the Government (U.S. 27 Navy) to modify its specifications so that GAF's new product could be sold to the Navy and other 28 customers who required that materials meet such specifications. The failure by the United States CC25-10000/# 35419 40 1 Government to act promptly to approve non-asbestos Calsilite for procurement was the leading 2 factor resulting in the closure of the entire Calsilite facility. 3 II. ASBESTOS PAPER AND MILLBOARD PRODUCTS 4 Asbestos paper, millboard and laminated products were manufactured at Erie, 5 Pennsylvania, by Ruberoid from 1928 to 1967, and then by General Aniline & Film Corporation 6 in 1967, and then by GAF Corporation from 1968 to 1981, when the Erie facility was sold. 7 These products generally were shipped in cardboard cartons of varying sizes, except for Imperial 8 insulation and sponge felt which, because of their weight and bulk, were packaged into sections 9 in wooden crates. 10 Asbestos Paper 11 Asbestos paper was designed to be used alone or in the manufacture of other products. It 12 was manufactured in various thicknesses, according to customer specifications. Asbestos paper 13 had a temperature limit of 250 degrees F. Its primary constituent was chrysotile asbestos, 14 generally a mixture of grades 5 to 7. Other constituents included sulphite pulp, diatomaceous 15 earth and starch, although in the early years of manufacture this product may have consisted only 16 of chrysotile and starch (which was sometimes in the form of tapioca). 17 Rollboard 18 Rollboard was an asbestos paper product, consisting of plies of asbestos paper bonded 19 together without glue to create thicknesses varying from 1/16 to 1/8 of an inch. Rollboard had a 20 temperature limit of 250 degrees F. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 Millboard 25 Millboard was a stiffer product than asbestos paper or rollboard and was manufactured in 26 sheets of varying thicknesses according to customer specifications. Millboard consisted 27 generally of chrysotile asbestos (usually grades 5D, 5R and 6D), sulphite pulp and often other 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 41 1 constituents, bonded with Portland cement and/or starch. In later years, at least as early as 1974, 2 latex was added as a binder. 3 Corrugated Asbestos Paper 4 Corrugated asbestos paper was designed to be used alone or in the manufacture of other, 5 products. It was made in three types: 1/4 inch thickness per ply (4 plies/inch); 1/8 inch thickness 6 per ply (6 plies/inch) and 1/16 inch thickness per ply (8 plies/inch). It was manufactured by 7 adhering 36" to 37 1/2" wide flat sheets of asbestos paper (usually six pound paper) with silicate 8 of soda to sheets of the same paper which had been corrugated using char acteristic "Roman 9 Arch" shaped corrugations, 26-28 to the foot. Its constituents were those of the asbestos paper 10 from which it was constructed. Corrugated asbestos paper was sold in 250 and 500 square foot 11 rolls. 12 Air Cell 13 Air cell was a corrugated asbestos paper product manufactured from 1928 to 14 approximately 1958. It was constructed of layers to the thickness specified by the customer of 15 36 or 37-1/2 inch wide flat asbestos paper which was adhered to corrugated asbestos paper with 16 silicate of soda. The corrugations of this product had a characteristic "Roman Arch" shape. As 17 of 1938, the corrugated paper component had 28 corrugations per linear foot. Each ply was 1/4 18 inch thick and air cell came in three standard thicknesses - 2-ply, 3-ply, and 4-ply. Air cell pipe 19 covering, sheets and blocks were sold. Often a canvas, cloth,or pyroxyline jacket was applied to 20 the outer surface of air cell pipe covering with an adhesive, usually a starch or cereal paste. 2-1/2 21 inch wide brass lacquered bands were provided for each canvas-jacketed section of air cell pipe 22 covering to hold it to the pipe. With the pyroxyline jacket, three 1-inch wide black japan bands 23 were supplied with each section. Air cell had a temperature limit of 250 degrees - 350 degrees F. 24 Prior to 1935, air cell may have been sold only under the name "Celasbestos, which was 25 available in 5, 6, 7 and 8 ply versions as well as 1-4 ply versions. 26 Watcocell 27 Watcocell was a corrugated asbestos paper product manufactured as Watcocel from 1928 28 to 1934, as Supercell from 1935 to 1942 and as Watcocell from 1942 to 1960. In 8-ply per inch CC25-10000/# 35419 42 1 Watcocell, the corrugations were 1/16" thick; in 6-ply, the corrugations measure about 1/8" 2 thickness. Watcocell was sold in rolls, sheets and blocks. Watcocell's temperature limit was 250 3 degrees F. 4 Imperial Insulation 5 Imperial insulation was manufactured from at least 1936 to approximately 1960 and was 6 discontinued due to a lack of commercial demand. It had a temperature limit of 500 degrees 7 700 degrees F. Imperial paper consisted of two plies of flat asbestos paper which were passed 8 through an indenting roll resulting in a waffle-like appearance with closely spaced square 9 indentations. Imperial pipecovering was wound on a mandrel to achieve the desired thickness 10 and canvas-covered. In early years of production, layers of Imperial may have been stapled 11 together or stitched with strands of wire rather than wound on a mandrel. Imperial sheets and 12 blocks were made of layers of Imperial paper glued to the desired thickness with a fireproof glue, 13 such as silicate of soda. This product was sold with a canvas, asphalted felt or pyroxyline jacket. 14 Aristo Insulation 15 The years of manufacture of Aristo Insulation are unknown, except that it was listed for 16 sale in and around 1940. It was a corrugated asbestos paper product with carefully measured 17 indentations and 23-25 laminations per inch of thickness. Its temperature limit was 700 degrees 18 750 degrees F. The asbestos paper used in this product was treated with a surface treatment, 19 possibly Bennett size. This product was sold in a standard thickness of one inch, but often was 20 used in thicknesses up to and exceeding three inches. Standard canvas and waterproofjackets 21 were available for this product. 22 // 23 // 24 Sponge Felt 25 Sponge felt was manufactured from 1936 to approximately 1960 and was discontinued 26 due to a lack of commercial demand. It consisted of asbestos sponge paper made by imbedding 27 small pieces of sponge into asbestos paper. Its temperature limit was 750 degrees F. It was sold 28 CC25-IOOOO/# 35419 43 1 in 36-inch wide rolls, sheets and blocks which were produced in the same manner as Imperial 2 products. 3 Woolfelt 4 Woolfelt, a wool or rag felt insulation manufactured from 1928 to approximately 1959, 5 did not contain asbestos, but was sometimes sold with an asbestos paper liner or backing paper. 6 Tar-lined woolfelt was sold with a tar paper liner which did not contain asbestos. Twin-purpose 7 woolfelt was sold with a liner of asphalt coated asbestos paper. 8 Anti-Sweat Pipe Covering 9 Manufactured until approximately 1958, anti-sweat pipe covering was intended 10 exclusively for residential use on cold water pipes. At least as early as 1936 this product was 11 composed of an inner layer of asphalt-saturated asbestos paper followed by a 1/2 inch layer of 12 woolfelt, 2 layers of asphalt-saturated asbestos paper, another 1/2 inch layer of woolfelt and two 13 final layers of asphalt-saturated asbestos paper. The outermost layer had a flap extending at least 14 3 inches beyond the longitudinal joint. GAF does not know whether a jacket was ever provided 15 with this product. This product was sold in 36 inch wide rolls and had a temperature limit of 50 16 degrees F. 17 Frost-Proof Pipe Covering 18 Practically nothing is known of this product which was apparently constructed of a layer 19 of felt made from cattle, goat or other animal hair with layers of asphalt-saturated asbestos paper 20 and a layer of woolfelt. Its years of manufacture, appearance and temperature limit are unknown 21 to GAF. 22 Ranee Boiler Jacket 23 This product consisted of a series of plies of corrugated asbestos paper built up to the 24 required thickness on mandrels that were the same size as the range boilers the product was 25 designed to fit. The corrugated paper used was a coarse variety with four plies per inch of 26 thickness. These jackets were furnished in two sections - upper half and lower half. Five extra27 wide bands were provided to attach the jacket to the range boiler. The outside surface was 28 painted or covered with canvas. GAF does not know the years of manufacture of this product. CC25-10000/# 35419 44 1 T/NA-100 2 T/NA-100 was manufactured from 1962 until 1971. This asbestos paper product was a 3 thin, fully bound two-ply laminated product consisting of an interior layer of asbestos paper 4 bonded with Neoprene to a layer of polyvinylfluoride (Tedlar) plastic film on the exterior of the 5 product. T/NA-100 was also sold with a back surface vapor barrier of Dow "Saran" film. The 6 paper inner layer was manufactured in Erie, Pennsylvania, the Neoprene outer layers were 7 supplied by DuPont, and the product was assembled by High Vacuum Company, Passaic, New 8 Jersey. Manufacture of this product was discontinued because it was not profitable. 9 At various times, Ruberoid product brochures and advertising listed for sale asbestos10 containing products not known to have been manufactured by Ruberoid, including 85% 11 magnesia and diatomaceous earth products, but which may have been manufactured for 12 Ruberoid. This defendant is aware of no sales documents with respect to these products, the year 13 of any sale of any such products or of any specific sale. However, this defendant is aware 14 through litigation of individual Ruberoid labels upon sections of pipe covering indicating that the 15 material was 85% magnesia pipe covering manufactured for Ruberoid by Plant Rubber and 16 Asbestos Company, and perhaps others. It is believed that this material dates from the late 17 1930's. 18 III. INSULATING CEMENTS 19 1. Calsilite Insulation Cement 20 Calsilite Insulation Cement was a combination of chrysotile asbestos fiber, ground 21 Calsilite pipe covering or block, and Portland and other cements. 22 It is believed that this product was made with Vermont-produced asbestos and thus 23 contained certain impurities, such as rock, dirt and earth particles. This product was never 24 widely or frequently sold and did not gain commercial acceptance. To the extent such sales took 25 place, they ceased completely in or around 1960, although the product was listed for sale until 26 approximately 1963-64. Generally, the product was packaged in kraft paper bags with a plastic 27 lining. 28 2. Other Insulation Cements CC25-IOOOO/# 35419 45 1 In unknown years prior to 1955 which varied by product, Ruberoid listed for sale the 2 following other insulation cements. Except as stated below, little is known about these products, 3 including the specific years they were offered, the constituents and, except as indicated, whether 4 or not they were manufactured or produced by Ruberoid. 5 a. Grade AA Insulating Cement - Grade AA was manufactured by Ruberoid 6 using a high grade of pure asbestos fiber together with suitable binding materials that had low 7 conductivity. It was designed to yield a hard, durable surface. Its temperature limit was 1200 8 degrees F. 9 b. Grade A Insulating Cement - This was a factory- prepared cement 10 consisting of fibers which were not as long as those used in the better grade AA, together with 11 suitable binding materials. Its temperature limit was 1000 degrees F. 12 c. Grade H F - Hard Finish - This was a hard finish cement designed to be 13 used as a final protective coating over other coats of cement. It had a smooth, glossy, hard finish. 14 Grade HF was recommended to be applied in a 1/4" thick layer. It had a temperature limit of 15 1500 degrees F and was a prepared cement manufactured by Ruberoid. 16 d. Grade HF - Hard Finish #48 High Gloss - This was another hard finish 17 cement manufactured apparently in 1945 and possibly other years. 18 e. Grade H. T. - High Temperature Cement - This cement was designed to 19 withstand temperatures of 1600 to 1800 degrees. This material was not designed.to be used for 20 finishing purposes. 21 f. Satin Finish Cement 22 g. Grade A-l 1 Insulating Cement - This product consisted of vermiculite, 23 chrysotile, and binding substances. It was recommended for temperatures up to 1500 degrees F, 24 or 1800 degrees F if the applicator did not intend to reclaim the material. Grade A-l 1 was 25 designed to be an insulation material, not a finishing cement. 26 h. Coverkote - Coverkote was designed to be a weatherproof coating for 27 insulated surfaces, rather than an insulating cement. It was a combination of emulsified asphalt 28 and 25-28% chrysotile. It was a black plastic material particularly designed for protection of CC25-10000/# 35419 46 1 insulation on large tanks and vessels and for insulated equipment such as smoke breechings and 2 ducts. The temperature limit for Coverkote was 400 degrees F. 3 i. Rock Wool Cement - Little is known about this product which was 4 apparently available from Ruberoid in the late 1940's and early 1950's. It consisted of a mixture 5 of rock wool and chrysotile asbestos and had a temperature limit of 1500 degrees F. 6 Insulation cements of different fiber sizes, commonly known as sizes 313 and 412, were 7 sold by The Ruberoid Co. from 1937 until 1967 and by General Aniline & Film Corporation and 8 then GAF Corporation from 1967 to 1975. 9 IV. ASBESTOS-CEMENT SHINGLES AND SIDING 10 The Ruberoid Co. commenced the manufacture of asbestos-cement shingles and siding 11 with its acquisition of a controlling interest in Etemit, Inc., in 1932. The Ruberoid Co. and, after 12 May 26, 1967, GAF produced shingle and siding products at the St. Louis, Missouri, facility 11 from 1932 to 1978, at the South Bound Brook, New Jersey, facility from 1935 to 1978, at the 14 Dallas, Texas, facility from 1948 to 1963 and at the Mobile, Alabama, facility from 1936 to 15 1978. These products contained only fully encapsulated asbestos, completely bound by Portland 16 cement, and in some cases were further bound by a polymer plastic coating. Only chrysotile 17 asbestos in varying quantities was utilized. 18 As a manufacturer and seller only, The Ruberoid Co. (and later GAF) did not have the 19 discretion or control to determine the method or manner of using or applying asbestos shingle 20 and siding products. Such products could have been used for a variety of purposes in the 21 construction industry. Such products were used almost exclusively for outdoor applications. 22 // 23 // 24 V. ASBESTOS FELT FOR ROOFING APPLICATIONS 25 The Ruberoid Co. commenced the manufacture of asbestos felts with its acquisition of 26 the H.F. Watson Company in 1928. The Ruberoid Co.'s (and later, GAF's) 16th Street facility at 27 Erie, Pennsylvania, produced the felt and shipped it to various roofing plants to be saturated with 28 asphalt or coal tar pitch from 1928 to 1981. CC25-10000/# 35419 47 1 Not all roofing felts manufactured by GAF contained asbestos. Only chrysotile asbestos 2 was utilized. 3 Asbestos-containing roofing felts were generally shipped in rolls with an outer-covering 4 of paper. 5 VI. FLOORING: 6 Sheet vinyl flooring was a laminated product composed of an asbestos felt backing 7 (consisting of asbestos and binders) which was adhered to a layer of vinyl. Only chrysotile fiber 8 was used. Sheet vinyl flooring was initially produced in thicknesses varying from 0.50 inch to 9 0.75 inch. 10 GAF Corporation did not manufacture any floor tile products prior to its acquisition of 11 The Ruberoid Co. on May 26,1967. Following the acquisition of The Ruberoid Co., GAF 12 continued to manufacture floor tile under the Ruberoid name until 1970. After 1970 and up until 13 1981, the trade name GAF was introduced on the floor tile and included the manufacture of such 14 brand names as GAF, GAFSTAR, and/or Ruberoid Resilient or Architectural Series vinyl 15 asbestos floor tile and Vinylflex vinyl composition tile. Particular styles of such tile were 16 marketed under the following names: Royal Stoneglow, Royal Travertine, Travertine, Finegrain, 17 Marbleized, Thru-Chip, Thru-Chip Accents, Thru-Chip Pastels, Thru-Chip Deeptones, Mini18 Chip, Antiqua and Royal Antiqua. The GAF Floor Products Division was sold on October 1, 19 1981, which concluded this defendant's involvement in manufacturing asbestos-containing floor 20 tile. 21 Asbestos-containing floor tile generally consisted of limestone, vinyl copolymer, 22 plasticizers, pigments, secondary resins, stabilizers and a small quantity of chrysotile fiber. 23 Asbestos-containing floor tile intended for commercial use (architectural tile) was generally 24 marketed in 12" squares, 1/8" and 3/32" thick. Asbestos-containing floor tile was manufactured 25 at Houston, Texas (1959 through mid-to-late 1970's), Long Beach, California (1959-81), Joliet, 26 Illinois (1959-81), Newburgh, New York (1959-65), and Vails Gate, New York (1965-81). The 27 Joliet plant was closed for one year in the mid-1960's. 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 48 1 After GAF acquired Ruberoid, it produced two basic types of asbestos-containing floor 2 tiles, asphalt tile and vinyl asbestos tile (VAT). Asphalt tile generally consisted of limestone, 3 courmene resin, gilsonite, petroleum resins, asphalt plasticizers, pigments and chrysotile fiber. 4 Asphalt tile was manufactured in 9" x 9" squares only and in 1/8" and 3/32" thicknesses. The 5 asbestos content of asphalt tile varied from plant to plant but remained between approximately 6 25% to 30%. Asphalt tile was manufactured in the Long Beach plant from 1959 to the early-mid 7 1970s. 8 VAT generally consisted of limestone, vinyl copolymer, plasticizers, pigments, secondary9 resins, stabilizers and chrysotile fiber. Floor tile intended for commercial use initially was 10 available in 9" x 9" square and later in 12" x 12" squares, and was 1/8" and 3/32" thick. The 11 asbestos content of VAT, which varied from plant to plant, started at approximately 24% to 26%, 12 but decreased over the relevant time period to approximately 10% to 15%. As the percentage of 13 asbestos in VAT decreased, other constituents, particularly limestone, increased proportionately. 14 VAT was manufactured in the Long Beach plant from the early 1960s to September 31, 1981. 15 It is believed some of GAFs products were on the Governments Qualified Products List; 16 this defendant will respond to a proper request for production. 17 As to purchasers, upon the plaintiffs supplying a list of worksites/employers and the dates 18 relevant to their claims, this defendant will supply possibly relevant documents as to certain 19 products for which the records are reasonably accessible. 20 VII. PAINT 21 Asbestos paint products were generally composed of cutback (asphalt which has been 22 combined with a solvent) and chrysotile fiber. Other ingredients could include pulverized silica, 23 limestone, naphtha or aluminum paste. Such paints were black, non-friable and tar-like, used in 24 the construction and repair of roofs. 25 This defendant states that, as a manufacturer and seller only, the method or manner of 26 using its asbestos-containing products was determined by the purchaser, contractor or other user 27 in the field, and was not within the discretion of this defendant. 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 49 1 The only possibly relevant sales of this defendant's asbestos-containing industrial thermal 2 insulation products would be for those shipments made to jobsites on which and during years in 3 which plaintiffs actually worked. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 32: (PREMISES DEFENDANTS only) 5 Did YOU install, remove, or handle or contract to have others install, remove, or handle 6 RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS at any PREMISES in the 7 GEOGRAPHIC AREA which PREMISES is at issue as to YOU in San Francisco Superior Court 8 asbestos litigation as of the date of your answers to these interrogatories? If so: 9 A. IDENTIFY the PREMISES. 10 B. For each of the PREMISES: 11 1. State the nature of your ownership or possessory interest; 12 2. State the inclusive date of that interest; 13 3. IDENTIFY the party from whom that interest was acquired; 14 4. IDENTIFY the party, if any, to whom that interest was transferred. 15 C. IDENTIFY every contract to which YOU were a party or of which 16 you have, knowledge wherein the performance of such contract involved the installation, 17 removal, disturbing or handling of any RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 18 PRODUCTS at YOUR PREMISES. For each such contract: 19 1. IDENTIFY the parties to the contract; 20 2. Provide a general description and specific location of the work to 21 be performed by each party to the contract; 22 3. IDENTIFY and describe the NATURE of the RAW ASBESTOS 23 or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS installed, removed, disturbed or handled in the 24 performance of the contract; 25 4. State the dates of the contract and the dates of performance; 26 D. Except as provided in response to subpart (c), has any work other than 27 routine maintenance been done on or to the PREMISES that involved the installation, removal, 28 disturbing or CC25-10000/# 35419 50 1 handling of RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS? If so, for 2 each such instance: 3 1. State the inclusive dates of the work; 4 2. Provide a general description and specific location of the 5 work; 6 3. State whether the work was done by YOU and/or YOUR 7 employees; 8 4. IDENTIFY and describe the NATURE of the RAW 9 ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS installed, removed, handled or 10 disturbed; 11 5. IDENTIFY from whom the RAW ASBESTOS OR 12 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS were acquired. 13 E. Has any asbestos abatement effort been made at the PREMISES? If 14 so, for each such effort: 15 1. IDENTIFY who did the work; 16 2. State the inclusive dates thereof; 17 3. State whether samples were taken, and, if the samples still 18 exist, IDENTIFY the custodian of the samples; 19 4. State whether any material was tested, , and, if so, what were 20 the results of each test; 21 5. IDENTIFY each test result with sufficient particularity for 22 purposes of a request for production of documents, or, in the alternative, attach a copy to YOUR 23 answers to these interrogatories. 24 F. Except for insurance coverage litigation, have you filed suit 25 against, or otherwise sought to recover from, any person or entity for some or all of the cost of 26 asbestos abatement or for the property damage allegedly caused by the presence of RAW 27 ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS on the PREMISES identified in 28 response to subpart (A) above? If so: CC25-10000/# 35419 51 1 1. IDENTIFY the person or entity against whom YOU have 2 filed suit or otherwise sought to recover; 3 2. If YOU have filed suit, state the court in which the action 4 was filed, the date on which it was filed, IDENTIFY all Plaintiffs and Defendants and their 5 counsel of record; 6 3. State whether or not the case has been resolved, and, if so, 7 what was the status or disposition. 8 G. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the information 9 sought in this Interrogatory and its subparts to your answers to these Interrogatories, or (2) attach 10 disks containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that 11 they may be made the subject of a request for production of documents. 12 H. IDENTIFY the person(s) presently most knowledgeable about the 13 information sought in this INTERROGATORY or its subparts. 14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32: 15 Not applicable. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 33:(CONTRACTOR DEFENDANTS only) 17 At any time between 1930 and 1985, did YOU hold a contractor's license in the State of 18 California? If so: 19 A. IDENTIFY each license by type, date and number. 20 B. If on the date of your answers YOU are a defendant in four or more 21 asbestos actions in San Francisco Superior Court, IDENTIFY each job or contract that YOU 22 performed (directly or through one or more subcontractors) during this time period for work in 23 any PREMISES which is at issue as to YOU on such date, and in any PREMISES of 50,000 24 square feet or more in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA which job or contract involved installation, 25 removal, disturbing or handling RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 26 PRODUCTS. (Alternatively, at your option, you may IDENTIFY each job or contract YOU 27 performed (directly or through one or more subcontractors) during this time frame for all work, 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 52 1 or for all work on PREMISES of 50,000 square feet or more, in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA.) As 2 to each such job or contract: 3 1. IDENTIFY the location (including name of ship, if applicable) 4 where the job or work was performed; 5 2. State the date of the contract or the inclusive dates of the work; 6 3. IDENTIFY the person or entity with whom you contracted; 7 4. State your job or contract number. 8 C. If on the date of your answers you are not a defendant in four or more 9 asbestos actions in San Francisco Superior Court, IDENTIFY each job or contract that YOU 10 performed (directly or through one or more subcontractors) during this time period for work in 11 any PREMISES which is at issue as to YOU on such date. As to each such job or contract: 12 1. IDENTIFY the location (including name of ship, if applicable) 13 where the job or work was performed; 14 2. State the date of the contract or the inclusive dates of the work; 15 3. IDENTIFY the person or entity with whom you contracted; 16 4. State your job or contract number. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33: 18 Not applicable. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 34: 20 Did any of the distributors identified in your Answer to Interrogatory Nos. 29 and 31 21 above have an exclusive distributorship? If so, state the relevant time period. 22 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34: 23 See response to Interrogatories Nos. 29 and 31. 24 INTERROGATORY NO. 35: 25 If THIS DEFENDANT entered into any agreements for the rebranding of any 26 ASBESTOS CONTAINING PRODUCTS by THIS DEFENDANT for resale or distribution by 27 another person or entity, describe each agreement's terms and the parties to said agreement, the 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 53 1 duration of the agreement, and name of each product(s) and/or material(s) covered by each such 2 agreement. 3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35: 4 See response to Interrogatory No. 36. 5 INTERROGATORY N0.36: 6 If THIS DEFENDANT entered into any agreements for the rebranding of ASBESTOS 7 CONTAINING PRODUCTS manufactured, sold, supplied or distributed by another person or 8 entity for resale or distribution by YOU, describe each of the agreements and the parties to said 9 agreement, the terms, the duration, and the names of each product(s) and/or material(s) covered 10 by each such agreement. 11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 12 This defendant believes that The Ruberoid Co. and GAF had three agreements relating to 13 cross-agreements with other companies from time to time between 1930 and 1979, which 14 agreements may have been, but are believed not to have been, applicable to sales of GAF 15 products in California: a relabeling agreement with the Grant Wilson Company, apparently in 16 the 1930s generally applicable to the sales of certain products, primarily in the midwestem area 17 of the United States; and agreement under which Baldwin-Ehret-Hill produced 313 and 412 18 insulating cements nationally or GAF from time to time from 1960 until 1971; and, an agreement 19 with Armstrong Contracting and Supply Company, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in 1963 under 20 which Ruberoid agreed to sell certain products to the Company and attach that Companys labels, 21 as and when directed. Other such arrangements may have been undertaken from time to time; for 22 example, Ruberoid purchased raw asbestos from Johns-Manville and others, for resale, 23 commencing in the early 1950s. 24 At various times, Ruberoid product brochures and advertising listed for sale asbestos25 containing products not known to have been manufactured by Ruberoid, including 85% 26 magnesia and diatomaceous earth products, but which may have been manufactured for 27 Ruberoid. This defendant is aware of no sales documents with respect to these products, the year 28 of any sale of any such products or of any specific sale. However, this defendant is aware CC25-10000/# 35419 54 1 through litigation of individual Ruberoid labels upon sections of pipe covering indicating that the 2 material was 85% magnesia pipe covering manufactured for Ruberoid by Plant Rubber and 3 Asbestos Company, and perhaps others. It is believed that this material dates from the late 4 1930s. 5 Some VAT was labeled for mass market retailers, such as Sears and K-Mart. 6 INTERROGATORY N0.37: 7 As to RAW ASBESTOS and to each such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT 8 listed in YOUR responses to Interrogatories No. 29 and 31 did DEFENDANT warn of the health 9 hazards of asbestos? If so, state for each such warning: 10 A. The content, size, color, and location; whether the warning appeared on 11 the material and/or on the container, and/or was placed on a tag; whether the warning was 12 included in contracts; whether the warning was included in advertising or other promotional 13 materials. 14 B. State whether you have any photographs thereof; 15 C. The inclusive dates on which you used each such warning; 16 D. State all changes you made in such warnings and the dates of such 17 changes; and 18 E. Identify the person most knowledgeable about your warnings and warning 19 policy. 20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37: 21 This defendant responds that, in approximately 1964, The Ruberoid Co. began placing 22 the following warning notices on packages of its asbestos-containing industrial thermal 23 insulation products: 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // CC25-10000/# 35419 55 1 2 CAUTION 3 THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. INHALATION OF ASBESTOS IN 4 EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. 5 IF DUST IS CREATED WHEN THIS PRODUCT IS HANDLED, AVOID BREATHING THE DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTILATION CONTROL IS NOT POSSIBLE, WEAR 6 RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMOCONIOSIS PRODUCING DUST. 7 8 GAF placed warning labels on packaging of asbestos fiber and insulation cements by 9 1968, and on millboard, rollboard and asbestos paper products, as well as relocating the warning 10 label for Calsilite pipe covering and block products from the sides to the front of the carton, by 11 1970. This warning label read as follows: 12 13 CAUTION 14 CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. INHALATION IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. 15 AVOID BREATHING DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTILATION IS NOT POSSIBLE, WEAR 16 RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMOCONIOSIS PRODUCING DUST. 17 18 In approximately 1972, this warning was further changed to read as follows: 19 20 CAUTION 21 CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. AVOID BREATHING DUST. 22 BREATHING ASBESTOS MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM. 23 In 1978, warning labels were placed on individual sheets of millboard. 24 Until 1972, GAF's use of these warnings followed major manufacturers in the industry 25 which used such cautionary notices after certain opinions were expressed by some members of 26 the medical profession that there might be a health risk to some persons who installed industrial 27 thermal insulation products containing asbestos from the inhalation of excessive quantities of 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 56 1 asbestos fibers over prolonged periods of time under certain conditions. Commencing in 1972, 2 pursuant to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, GAF placed the 3 last notice set out above. 4 AH observers of this packaging, whether purchasers, users, handlers, distributors, or 5 contractors, would have seen, and thus received, the warnings as set forth above. 6 This defendant identifies William C. Schwingen and Phillip S. Bettoli as persons with 7 knowledge. 8 With respect to floor tile, beginning in or about 1976-1977, GAF included a 5-inch by 7- 9 inch paper insert inside cartons of its vinyl asbestos-containing floor tile (VAT) which read as 10 follows: 11 12 WARNING: 13 DO NOT SAND EXISTING RESILIENT FLOORING, BACKING OR LINING FELT. 14 INHALATION OF RESULTING DUST CONTAINING ASBESTOS MAY BE INJURIOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. 15 16 In 1978, the warning was revised to read as follows: 17 18 ALTHOUGH MUCH RESILIENT FLOOR COVERING PRODUCED BY MANY MANUFACTURERS CONTAINS ASBESTOS, ASBESTOS FIBERS THAT ARE BOUND 19 INTO MATERIAL DO NOT PRESENT A HAZARD TO THE CONSUMER. HOWEVER, IF SUCH FLOOR COVERING IS SANDED DURING REMOVAL OR PREPARATION FOR 20 NEW INSTALLATION, EXPOSURE TO FIBERS MAY RESULT. DO NOT SAND EXISTING RESILIENT FLOORING, BACKING OR LINING FELT. INHALATION OF THE 21 RESULTING DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM. 22 Furthermore, the warning, as revised in 1978, was printed in books displaying the various 23 colors, styles and patterns of GAF's flooring products which GAF sent or otherwise distributed to 24 architects, various flooring installer unions, and other persons for their use. Warnings of this 25 type were also included in other literature printed by GAF which dealt with the installation or 26 removal of VAT. In addition, oral and written warnings of this type were given to installers and 27 removers at seminars given by GAF at its Floor Craftsmen's Training School. Moreover, GAF 28 CC25-I0000/# 35419 57 1 was a member of the Resilient Floor Covering Institute ("RFCI"), which developed, 2 promulgated, and distributed recommended work practices concerning the installation, 3 maintenance and removal of VAT beginning in 1980. RFCI's Recommended's Work Practices 4 included a warning against sanding. 5 This defendant identifies Theodore Dean as a person with knowledge. 6 INTERROGATORY NQ.38: 7 With respect to each of YOUR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS, state 8 whether THIS DEFENDANTS name, a trademark, logos, color coding, or other identifying 9 markings ever appeared on this actual product itself. If so, IDENTIFY each such product, state 10 when the practice to place such identifying markings upon the product was begun and when it 11 ended, if applicable, and describe in detail the pertinent marking(s) and the purpose, if any, of 12 such markings. 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38: 14 This defendant responds that it complied with Government specifications concerning 15 product form, content, packaging and labeling for products to be used in Government-owned and 16 sponsored projects and facilities. This defendant's name and logo, as they changed over the 17 years, generally appeared on the packaging of defendant's products. This defendant affixed 18 warnings, as are described in the response to Interrogatory No. 37. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 39: 20 Between the years 1930 to 1985, did THIS DEFENDANT purchase or otherwise acquire 21 any ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT lines from another person or entity? If so, state for 22 each such purchase: 23 A. Date of purchase or acquisition; 24 B. Terms of purchase or acquisition agreement; 25 C. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing said acquisition, or (2) 26 attach disks containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient 27 particularity that they may be made the subject of a request for production of documents. 28 D. Trade, brand, and/or generic name of each such product line so acquired; CC25-10000/# 35419 58 1 E. Name of the person or entity from whom YOU purchased or acquired each 2 such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT line; and 3 F. Location of any manufacturing facilities so acquired, and the type of 4 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS manufactured therein. 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39: 6 This defendant responds that it purchased the Vermont mine and mill in 1937 from the 7 Vermont Asbestos Company, and will make available relevant documents. The words Vermont 8 Asbestos appeared on many of the bags shipped from the Vermont mill. 9 Prior to the 1967 acquisition by General Aniline & Film, Ruberoid manufactured 10 asbestos-containing floor products using the HAKO tradename rights acquired through the 11 Mastic Tile Corporations merger with Hachmeister, Inc. in 1956. In addition, Ruberoid 12 manufactured floor tile under Moultile and Aristo-Flex brand names which were obtained as a 13 result of the acquisition of the rights and patent formulas from the Thos. Moulding Floor 14 Manufacturing Company in 1951. Production of the Matico tradename alone by Ruberoid was 15 acquired in the merger with Mastic Tile Corporation. 16 Mastic Tiles production of asbestos-containing floor tile began in 1945 and continued as 17 late as 1960. Production included such brand names as Moulflex, Moultred, Marvlon, Dramatile, 18 Dramacarts, Chemproof and Marbletred. Both Chemproof and Marbletred brand names were 19 obtained as a result of the acquisition of the rights and patent formulas from the Thos. Moulding 20 Floor Manufacturing Company. 21 Hachmeister, Inc.'s production of asbestos-containing floor tile began in 1945 and 22 continued until 1956. Additional Hachmeister floor tile products during that time included 23 Green Label Mastic and Vinyl-Flex. 24 Thos. Moulding Floor Manufacturing Companys production of asbestos-containing floor 25 tile began in 1920 and continued until 1951. Moulstone floor tile was manufactured during that 26 period of time. 27 The Sandura Company, principally a manufacturer of sheet vinyl flooring, was acquired 28 in 1965. CC25-IOOOO/# 35419 59 1 The asbestos-Portland cement siding and shingle described in response to Interrogatory 2 No. 31 were acquired from Etemit, Inc., in 1932. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 40: 4 Between the years 1930 to 1985, did THIS DEFENDANT sell any ASBESTOS5 CONTAINING PRODUCT line to another person or entity? If so, state for each such sale: 6 A. Date of sale; 7 B. Terms of sales agreement; 8 C. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing said sale, or (2) attach 9 disks containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that 10 they may I be made the subject of a request for production of documents. 11 D. Trade, brand, and/or generic name of each such product line sold; 12 E. Name of person or entity to whom you sold each such ASBESTOS13 CONTAINING PRODUCTS line; and 14 F. Location of any manufacturing facilities so sold, and the type of 15 ASBESTOS CONTAINING PRODUCTS manufactured therein. 16 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40: 17 This defendant responds that it sold the Vermont mine and mill to the Vermont Asbestos 18 Group, a group of former mine employees, in March of 1975. 19 The Erie paper making facility was sold in November, 1981, to the Quin-T Corporation. 20 The Floor Products Division was sold to Tarkett, Inc., in September, 1981. 21 INTERROGATORY NO.41: 22 IDENTIFY all brochures, pamphlets, catalogs or other advertising relating to 23 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS and/or RAW ASBESTOS which THIS 24 DEFENDANT manufactured, sold, distributed or supplied from the year 1930 to 1985. For each 25 such document, state: 26 A. A description of the document; 27 B. The year it was printed; 28 C. The period of time in which it was used; CC25-10000/# 35419 60 1 D. The purpose of such document; 2 E. Whether the documents or copies of said documents presently exist; 3 F. If said documents or copies still exist, where they are located; and 4 G. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such documents. 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41: 6 This defendant states that The Ruberoid Co. (and later GAF) presented product and 7 technical information in trade and other magazines, and maintained entries in Sweet's Catalog 8 Files. Advertisements for this defendant's asbestos-containing industrial thermal insulation 9 products also appeared in the magazine Asbestos. 10 INTERROGATORY N0.42: 11 State if YOU have or had within YOUR corporate or other business structure any 12 CONTRACT UNITS. 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42: 14 No. 15 INTERROGATORY N0.43: 16 State whether or not any of YOUR CONTRACT UNITS installed and/or removed RAW 17 ASBESTOS and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA at 18 any time between 1930 and 1985. If so: 19 A. State the business addresses and none of the CONTRACT UNIT; 20 B. State the inclusive periods of time the CONTRACT UNITS was working 21 in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA; 22 C. State the name and address of each job site within the GEOGRAPHIC 23 AREA and the dates the CONTRACT UNIT worked at those job sites, and, IDENTIFY the 24 RAW ASBESTOS and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS installed or removed on 25 each occasion; 26 D. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the information sought in 27 this Interrogatory and its subparts to your answers to these Interrogatories, or (2) attach disks 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 61 1 containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they 2 may be made subject of a request for production of documents. 3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43: 4 Not applicable. 5 INTERROGATORY N0.44: 6 When do YOU contend that THIS DEFENDANT first became aware that there is an 7 association between asbestos exposure and disease in human beings? 8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44: 9 This defendant responds that, prior to 1964, it is aware of no information that Ruberoid 10 officials knew of health hazards from asbestos to users of its asbestos-containing industrial 11 thermal insulation products. In approximately 1964, Ruberoid became aware of opinions 12 expressed by some members of the medical profession that inhalation of asbestos dust in 13 excessive quantities which might be released while using asbestos-containing thermal insulation 14 products over long periods of time could be harmful, although the opinion did not relate to the 15 use of Ruberoid products. At approximately the same time, Ruberoid commenced providing its 16 warnings. In approximately 1968, GAF received further information that inhalation of asbestos 17 fibers in general could be harmful but GAF did. not receive medical information specific to the 18 type of products then being manufactured by GAF. 19 INTERROGATORY N0.45: 20 How do YOU contend that THIS DEFENDANT first became aware that there is an 21 association between asbestos exposure and disease in human beings. 22 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45: 23 This defendant responds that, prior to 1964, it is aware of no information that Ruberoid 24 officials knew of health hazards from asbestos to users of its asbestos-containing industrial 25 thermal insulation products. In approximately 1964, Ruberoid became aware of opinions 26 expressed by some members of the medical profession that inhalation of asbestos dust in 27 excessive quantities which might be released while using asbestos-containing thermal insulation 28 products over long periods of time could be harmful, although the opinion did not relate to the CC25-10000/# 35419 62 1 use of Ruberoid products. At approximately the same time, Ruberoid commenced providing its 2 warnings. In approximately 1968, GAF received further information that inhalation of asbestos 3 fibers in general could be harmful but GAF did not receive medical information specific to the 4 type of products then being manufactured by GAF. 5 INTERROGATORY N0.46: 6 Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the information upon which YOUR 7 contentions in YOUR answers to Interrogatories No. 44 and No. 45 are based, or (2) attach disks 8 containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they 9 may be made the subject of a request for production of documents. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46: 11 GAF agrees to produce at a mutually convenient date and location. 12 INTERROGATORY N0.47: 13 When did THIS DEFENDANT first warn its employees that exposure to asbestos could 14 be hazardous to human health? State: 15 A. Whether the first such warning was written or oral; 16 B. Whether copies of DOCUMENTS containing such warning exist; 17 C. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS; 18 D. The content of the warning. 19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47: 20 This defendant responds that, in approximately 1964, The Ruberoid Co. began placing 21 the following warning notices on packages of its asbestos-containing industrial thermal 22 insulation products: 23 24 CAUTION 25 THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. INHALATION OF ASBESTOS IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. 26 IF DUST IS CREATED WHEN THIS PRODUCT IS HANDLED, AVOID BREATHING THE 27 DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTILATION CONTROL IS NOT POSSIBLE, WEAR RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMOCONIOSIS 28 PRODUCING DUST. CC25-10000/# 35419 63 1 GAF placed warning labels on packaging of asbestos fiber and insulation cements by 2 1968, and on millboard, rollboard and asbestos paper products, as well as relocating the warning 3 label for Calsilite pipe covering and block products from the sides to the front of the carton, by 4 1970. This warning label read as follows: 5 6 CAUTION 7 CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. INHALATION IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. 8 AVOID BREATHING DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTILATION IS NOT POSSIBLE, WEAR 9 RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMOCONIOSIS PRODUCING DUST. 10 11 In approximately 1972, this warning was further changed to read as follows: 12 13 CAUTION 14 CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. AVOID BREATHING DUST. BREATHING ASBESTOS MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM. 15 16 In 1978, warning labels were placed on individual sheets of millboard. 17 Until 1972, GAF's use of these warnings followed major manufacturers in the industry 18 which used such cautionary notices after certain opinions were expressed by some members of 19 the medical profession that there might be a health risk to some persons who installed industrial 20 thermal insulation products containing asbestos from the inhalation of excessive quantities of 21 asbestos fibers over prolonged periods of time under certain conditions. Commencing in 1972, 22 pursuant to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, GAF placed the 23 last notice set out above. 24 All observers of this packaging, whether purchasers, users, handlers, distributors, or 25 contractors, would have seen, and thus received, the warnings as set forth above. 26 See also, response to Interrogatory No. 37. 27 // 28 // CC25-10000/# 35419 64 1 INTERROGATORY N0.48: 2 Did THIS DEFENDANT ever issue a written COMPANY policy discontinuing warning 3 its employees that exposure to asbestos could be hazardous to human health? If so, 4 A. Provide the date; 5 B. Describe the circumstances; and 6 C. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the information sought in 7 this Interrogatory and its subparts to your answers to these Interrogatories, or (2) attach disks 8 containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they 9 may be made the subject of a request for production of documents. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48: 11 This defendant responds, no, and further denies that it ever discontinued warning its 12 employees. 13 INTERROGATORY N0.49: 14 Did THIS DEFENDANT provide any Independent Contractor or Subcontractor within 15 the GEOGRAPHIC AREA with a written warning that exposure to asbestos could be hazardous 16 to human health. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 49: 18 This defendant responds, yes. 19 INTERROGATORY NQ.50: 20 Has THIS DEFENDANT been cited for or otherwise charged by a public agency with a 21 violation in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA of any statute, ordinance, safety order, regulation, or law 22 pertaining to asbestos exposure? For each occasion, IDENTIFY: 23 A. The code section, safety order, statute, or regulation for which THIS 24 DEFENDANT had bean cited or otherwise charged; 25 B. The date(s) thereof. 26 C. The agency or other governmental unit which issued the citation or 27 otherwise charged YOU. 28 D. All persons known to YOU with information relevant to the incident. CC25-I0000/# 35419 65 1 E. What was the ultimate resolution. 2 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 50: 3 This defendant responds, no. 4 INTERROGATORY NO.51: 5 If THIS DEFENDANT has ever owned or operated a railroad, state: 6 A. The IDENTITY of each such railroad, including the name(s) of such 7 railroad during the time period of YOUR ownership and/or operation, the principal place of 8 business of such railroad and the dates of YOUR ownership and/or operation; 9 B. The geographic area of operation of such railroad; 10 C. The name(s) of such railroad prior to YOUR ownership and/or operation; 11 D. The IDENTITY of the person or entity from whom YOU purchased your 12 ownership or operating interest, and the date of such purchase; 13 E. The IDENTITY of the person or entity to whom YOU sold your 14 ownership or operating interest, and the date of such sale; 15 F. Whether copies of DOCUMENTS evidencing your ownership/operation, 16 and/or sale exist; 17 G. The IDENTITY of the Custodian of such DOCUMENTS; 18 H. To the extent that information has not been given in answers to 19 Interrogatory Nos. 32 and 33, the information requested in Interrogatory Nos. 32 and 33, for each 20 railroad owned or operated by YOU. 21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 51: 22 Not applicable. 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 52: 24 If DEFENDANT has ever owned or operated a shipyard, state: 25 A. The IDENTITY of each such shipyard, including the name(s) of such 26 shipyard during the time period of YOUR ownership and/or operation, the place of business of 27 such shipyard and the dates of YOUR ownership and/or operation; 28 B. The name(s) of such shipyard prior to YOUR ownership and/or operation; CC25-10000/# 35419 66 1 C. The IDENTITY of the person or entity to whom YOU sold your 2 ownership or operating interest, and the date of such sale; 3 D. Whether copies of DOCUMENTS evidencing your ownership/operation 4 and/or sale exist; 5 E. Whether any representative of THIS DEFENDANT attended the Maritime 6 Commission Conference in December 1942 in Chicago, Illinois? If so, IDENTIFY any such 7 representative of THIS DEFENDANT; 8 F. The IDENTITY of the Custodian of such DOCUMENTS; 9 G. To the extent that information has not been given in answers to 10 Interrogatory No. 32, the information requested in Interrogatory No. 32, for each shipyard owned 11 or operated by YOU. 12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 52: 13 Not applicable. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 53: 15 At any time between 1930 and 1985, did you import, export, ship, transship or otherwise 16 transport RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS- CONTAINING PRODUCTS into, out of or 17 through any port in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA? If so, for each occasion: 18 A. IDENTIFY and describe the NATURE and amount of RAW ASBESTOS 19 and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS; 20 B. IDENTIFY the ship or ships (including the owners and operators thereof) 21 onto or from which the RAW ASBESTOS and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS 22 were loaded, unloaded or transshipped; 23 C. State the dates, port and pier involved for each occasion; 24 D. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the information sought in 25 this Interrogatory and its subparts to your answers to these Interrogatories, or (2) attach disks 26 containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they 27 may be made , the subject of a request for production of documents. 28 // CC25-10000/# 35419 67 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 53: 2 As to importing, this defendant responds, not applicable. 3 As to exporting, this defendant responds, not applicable. 4 DATED: November 18, 1997 HAIGHT, BROWN & BONESTEEL, L.L.P. 5 6 Lida L. Oberg 7 John T. Bumite tomeys for THE CENTER FOR CLAIMS 8 RESOLUTION DEFENDANTS including GAF CORPORATION 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CC25-10000/# 35419 68 1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ) ) ss.; ) 4 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 5 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 100 Bush Street, 27th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104. 6 On November 18, 1997,1 served on interested parties in said action the within: 7 8 GAF CORPORATION'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 129 INTERROGATORIES 9 10 by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated on the 11 attached mailing list and depositing such envelope(s) for collection and mailing by placing them in a postal box in my work area. 12 I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice of collection and processing 13 correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion ofparty served, 14 service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. . 15 16 Executed on November 18, 1997, at San Francisco, California. 17 I declare under penalty ofpeijury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Document 1 IN RE COMPLEX ASBESTOS LITIGATION SERVICE LIST 2 3 Wartnick, Chaber, Harowitz, Smith & Tigerman 101 California Street, 26th Floor 4 San Francisco, CA 94111 5 Alan Brayton, Esq. 6 Brayton, Harley & Curtis 222 Rush Landing Road 7 P.O. Box 2109 Novato, CA 94948 8 9 Law Offices of Christopher E. Grell The Monadnock Building 10 685 Market Street, Ste. 540 San Francisco, CA 94105 11 12 Jack Clapper, Esq. 2330 Marinship Way, Suite 140 13 Sausalito, CA 94965 14 Harrison & Degarmo One Daniel Burnham Ct., Ste. 220-C 15 San Francisco, CA 94109-5460 16 Visse & Yanez One Daniel Burnham Ct., Ste. 220-C 17 San Francisco, CA 94109-5460 18 Bruce L. Ahnfeldt P.O. Box 6078 19 Napa, CA 94581 20 Berry & Berry 1300 Clay Street, 9th Floor 21 Station D P.O. Box 70250 22 Oakland, CA 94612-0250 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 0029667.01 GAF Corporation G.O. 129 ROG responses 11/18/97 GAF Corporation G.O. 129 ROG responses 11/18/97