Document JOa1a8ja9GnBev8GnJm5Xo4e

1 MICHELE C. BARNES (SBN: 187239) michele.bames@klgates.com 2 ROSEANNA M. CASTILLO (SBN: 252761) roseanna. casti!lo@klgates .com 3 K&L GATES LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 4 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.882.8200 5 Facsimile: 415.882.8220 RECEIVED MAR 0 8 m 6 Attorneys for Defendant SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC. 7 UkJa SQUARE D COMPANY THE SIMMONS FIRM-SF 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 11 CARIR, PILLO, et al,, Case No. RG-11-607335 12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 CBS CORPORATION, et al., 15 Defendants. DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 16 17 PROPOUNDING PARTY: 18 RESPONDING PARTY: 19 SET NUMBER: 20 Plaintiffs Defendant Schneider Electric USA, Inc,, formerly known as Square D Company ONE (1) 21 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC.'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL 22 RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 23 Defendant Sclineider Electric USA, Inc., formerly known as Square D Company ("Square 24 D"), by counsel, supplements its answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories ("Plaintiffs' 25 Discovery") as follows: 26 PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS 27 The following responses are based upon the information that is presently known and available 28 to Square D based upon a continuing and ongoing reasonable investigation. Square D believes that i DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SC-SDC-5980 1 these responses are accurate as of the date made. However, many of the matters inquired about in 2 Plaintiffs' Discovery took place decades ago. Therefore, some information may be incomplete or no 3 longer available due to the passage of time. Although Square D has endeavored to conduct a 4 reasonable investigation, it cannot exclude the possibility that its continued review of these subjects 5 may reveal more complete information. Consequently, Square D's review of the matters inquired 6 into by Plaintiffs' Discovery continues, and, to the extent appropriate, Square D reserves the right to 7 further supplement or amend its objections and responses. 8 Square D's Preliminary Statements are incorporated into the discoveiy responses set forth 9 below. 10 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 11 Square D's General Objections are incorporated by reference into the discovery responses set 12 forth below and are stated here for the convenience of the parties and the Court. 13 1. Square D objects to the unlimited scope and breadth of Plaintiff's Discovery. For over 14 100 years, Square D has conducted operations manufacturing a diverse and broad range of electrical 15 equipment products, which have been steadily developed and improved over time to satisfy emerging 16 industry and customer demands as well as advances in design and technology. To require Square D 17 to conduct an unlimited scope of inquiry into every product, and every iteration of eveiy product, that 18 it ever manufactured and to provide the kind of broad information requested by Plaintiffs Discovery 19 is unfair, unreasonable, and would involve enormous expense and an unnecessary burden on Square 20 D's part, 21 2. Square D objects to Plaintiffs' Discovery to the extent that Plaintiffs have failed to 22 identify a Square D product or products at issue. It is fundamentally unfair and unreasonable to 23 require Square D to defend itself in a lawsuit when its alleged product is not sufficiently identified so 24 as to put Square D on notice of the purported product liabilities asserted against it. In light of the 25 foregoing, and based on the limited information provided to date, Square D assumes that Plaintiffs' 26 alleged exposures against Square D in Alameda County litigation relate exclusively to certain broad 27 and undefined general classifications of electrical equipment products manufactured by Square D, 28 However, the design, function, materials, and construction applicable to the numerous electrical 2 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 equipment products or configurations developed and manufactured by Square D over the last 100 2 years vary greatly and could possibly include many hundreds of different products, product 3 configurations, and many thousands of individual parts and pieces. Square D objects that Plaintiffs 4 have failed to provide information, such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or 5 factory order numbers, which would assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. 6 As such, Square D has nevertheless made a reasonable and good faith effort to provide what it 7 understands to be responsive information to this unlimited discovery request, subject, however, to the 8 fact that Square D remains unaware of what Square D product or products remain at issue in this : 9 case. 10 3. In several instances. Plaintiffs1 Discoveiy requests refer to the interchangeable terms 11 "Defendant," "You," "Your" and "Your Company." Unless otherwise stated, these terms shall be 12 reasonably understood to refer to Square D Company; a business corporation originally formed in 13 Michigan in approximately 1903 as the McBride Manufacturing Company, which after successive 14 name changes, became known as Square D Company in approximately 1917, and changed its name 15 to Schneider Electric USA, Inc, on or about December 15, 2009. 16 4. Square D submits these responses on its own behalf and for no other entity, including 17 without limitation, any other parent, subsidiary, or affiliated entities. 18 5. Square D objects to Plaintiffs' Discovery to the extent it seeks the production or 19 disclosure of communications prepared by or for Square D's lawyers, which communications (a) 20 were made by or to legal counsel in anticipation of or in connection with litigation, or (b) reflect 21 confidential and privileged communications between or among counsel, representatives of Square D 22 and/or non-testifying experts retained for purposes of assisting Square D or its counsel in litigation. 23 Square D will not produce or disclose such privileged communications; in addition, Square D will not 24 disclose or otherwise identify such privileged communications in response to written discovery or on 25 any listing of documents or things withheld from production. 26 6. In responding to Plaintiffs5 Discovery, Square D does not waive, and expressly 27 preserves the following objections: 28 3 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 a. all objections regarding competency, relevancy, materiality, and 2 admissibility; 3 b. all objections regarding the use of the responses in any proceeding; 4 and 5 c. all objections to any further interrogatories or other discovery 6 requests involving, or related to, any of the requests in Plaintiffs' 7 discovery. 8 7. Square D does not concede that any of its responses to Plaintiffs' Discovery are 9 admissible evidence at any trial or any other legal proceeding in which evidence is heard. 10 Accordingly, Square D does not waive any objections, on any ground, whether or not asserted herein, 11 to the use of such answers at trial. 12 INTERROGATORIES 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 14 With respect to the individual verifying these answers on your behalf, state the following: 15 a. their name; 16 b. their present business address; 17 c. their present job title; 18 d. their date of first employment with you, and the dates and titles of each job position 19 they have held while they were employed by you. 20 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, Square D states that 21 the information set forth in these answers has been compiled by counsel retained by Square D from 22 information developed during the course of discovery activities for similar, previously-filed litigation. 23 Such information has developed over a period of time through conversations with individuals and the 24 review of documents and other materials. Such individuals were not consulted, however, specifically 25 for responding to these interrogatories. By way of further response, William Pratt and Biyce 26 Wendland provided certain information used in answering these Interrogatories and verify these 27 answers. Mr. Pratt began employment with Square D as an Applications Engineer in 1984. In 28 approximately 1986, Mr. Pratt became a Product Specialist. In approximately 1990, Mr. Pratt's title 4 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 became Construction Marketing Specialist. Mr, Pratt assumed the title of Senior Project Specialist in 2 1993. In 2006, Mr. Pratt's title became Senior Staff Electrical/Electronics Engineer. By way of 3 further response, Mr, Pratt's business address is 8001 Knightdale Boulevard, Knightdale, North 4 Carolina. Mr. Wendland's current title is Safety and Environmental Systems and Project Manager, 5 Mr. Wendland was first employed with Square D in 1994 as a Safety, Health, and Environmental 6 Manager. From 2008 through 2011, Mr. Wendland's title was Safety, Health, and Environmental 7 Senior Manager. Mr. Wendland's business address is 1717 Centerpark Road, Lincoln, Nebraska. 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 9 State whether YOU are a corporation. If so, state: 10 a. YOUR full corporate name; 11 b. the state of incorporation; 12 c. the date of incorporation; 13 d. the address of YOUR principal place of business; 14 e. if YOU are wholly-owned or if more than five (5) percent of the ownership interest of 15 YOUR COMPANY is owned by another business entity, state that entity's name and principal place 16 of business. 17 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the correct corporate 18 name for this defendant is Schneider Electric USA, Inc. By way of further response, Schneider 19 Electric USA, Inc., formerly known as Square D Company, is a corporation formed under the laws of 20 the State of Delaware. By way of further response, Schneider Electric USA, Inc. was originally 21 incorporated in Michigan in approximately 1903 under the name McBride Manufacturing Company. 22 After successive name changes, McBride Manufacturing Company eventually became known as 23 Square D Company in approximately 1917. In or about 1988, Square D Company reincorporated in 24 the State of Delaware. On approximately December 15, 2009, Square D Company changed its name 25 to Schneider Electric USA, Inc. This December 15, 2009 event was only a name change and did not 26 involve corporate status or the disposition or transfer of any assets or liabilities. Additionally, Square 27 D's principal place of business is located at 1415 South Roselle Road, Palatine, Illinois. By way of 28 further response, but without conceding the relevance of this response, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., 5 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 formerly known as Square D Company, is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of 2 Delaware. The common stock of Sclmeider Electric USA, Inc. is owned by Schneider Electric 3 Holdings, Inc., which is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and is not publicly traded. The 4 common stock of Schneider Electric Holdings, Inc. is in turn owned by Schneider Electric Industries 5 SAS and by Schneider Electric Holding Amerique du Nord, both of which are incorporated under the 6 laws of France. Schneider Electric Holding Amerique du Nord is in turn owned by Schneider 7 Electric Industries SAS. Schneider Electric Industries SAS is in turn owned by Schneider Electric 8 SA, which is incorporated under the laws of France. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 10 Has THIS DEFENDANT ever been identified, known, or done business under any other 11 name? If so, please state such name or names and the time period during which THIS DEFENDANT 12 was so known or identified. 13 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, particularly General 14 Objection No. 3, the correct corporate name for this defendant is Schneider Electric USA, Inc. By 15 way of further response, Schneider Electric USA, Inc. was originally incorporated in Michigan in 16 approximately 1903 under the name McBride Manufacturing Company. After successive name 17 changes, McBride Manufacturing Company eventually became known as Square D Company in 18 approximately 1917. In or about 1988, Square D Company reincorporated in Delaware. On 19 approximately December 15,2009, Square D Company changed its name to Schneider Electric USA, 20 Inc, This December 15, 2009 event was only a name change and did not involve corporate status or 21 the disposition or transfer of any assets or liabilities. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 23 State whether YOU have ever been registered or qualified to do business in the State of 24 California. If so, state the date YOU became qualified to conduct business in the State of California. 25 ANSWER: Subject to and without waving its foregoing General Objections, Square D states that 26 upon information and belief, since approximately 1936 it has been registered to do business in the 27 State of California. 28 6 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS* FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 2 Does THIS DEFENDANT currently have, or has THIS DEFENDANT had a department, 3 division, subdivision, branch or group responsible for the design, development, manufacture, testing 4 and use of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S). If so, state: 5 a. the name of each present or former corporate department, division, subdivision, 6 branch or group; 7 b. the IDENTITY of the person most knowledgeable about such department, division, 8 subdivision, branch or group. 9 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, Square D did not 10 maintain a department, division, subdivision, branch or group responsible for the design, 11 development, manufacture, testing and use of "asbestos-containing products" as such. Moreover, 12 Square D is unaware of facts or circumstances necessitating that it maintain a department, division, 13 subdivision, branch or group responsible for the design, development, manufacture, testing and use of 14 "asbestos-containing products" as such. Plaintiffs cannot establish that Square D electrical 15 equipment products contained asbestos; indeed, not all of Square D's thousands of electrical 16 equipment products contained asbestos. By way of further response, and without conceding the 17 relevance of the same, Square D has maintained an engineering department whose responsibilities in 18 part would include research associated with the design and manufacture of electrical equipment 19 products. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 21 Has THIS DEFENDANT engaged in the MARKETing of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 22 PRODUCT(S) comprised in whole or in part of amosite asbestos fiber; if so, please state: 23 a. the trade, brand name and/or generic name of each type ofproduct; 24 b. the date(s) THIS DEFENDANT first MARKETed each type of product; 25 c. the date(s) THIS DEFENDANT ceased MARKETing each type of product; 26 d. a general description of the chemical composition of each type of product, including: 27 28 of product; (i) the type(s) and/or grade(s) of RAW ASBESTOS FIBER contained in each type 7 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 (ii) the quantitative percentage of the type(s) of RAW ASBESTOS FIBER in each 2 type of product; 3 (iii) any change(s) in the quantitative percentages of the type(s) of RAW 4 ASBESTOS FIBER in each type of product; 5 e. the NATURE of each type of product; 6 f. a description of any wording, markings and/or logo on each type of product; 7 g. the recommended use(s) of each type ofproduct, including temperature limits; 8 h. the name(s) of the manufacturer(s) of each type of product; 9 i. the name(s) and address(es) of the supplier(s) of the amosite asbestos fiber used in 10 each type of product; 11 j. the IDENTITY of the person(s) most knowledgeable concerning the purchase of 12 amosite asbestos fiber by THIS DEFENDANT. 13 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 14 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 15 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 16 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 17 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 18 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 19 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 20 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 21 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factoiy order numbers, which would 22 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 23 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 24 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response, Square D 25 incorporates by reference its objections and response to Interrogatory No. 8. 26 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 27 Has THIS DEFENDANT engaged in the MARKETing of amosite asbestos fiber; if so, please 28 state: 8 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 a. the name and location of each amosite asbestos mine which THIS DEFENDANT 2 presently operates, has operated, or in which THIS DEFENDANT has or had an ownership interest, 3 including the dates of such ownership, and the grade of amosite asbestos fiber mined; 4 b. the date(s) THIS DEFENDANT first MARKETed amosite asbestos fiber; 5 c. the date(s) THIS DEFENDANT ceased MARKETing amosite asbestos fiber; 6 d. the grade(s) of such amosite asbestos fiber MARKETed by THIS DEFENDANT; 7 e. the recommended use(s) of each grade of such amosite asbestos fiber, including any 8 temperature limits; 9 f. the name(s) and address(es) of the suppliers) of amosite asbestos fiber to THIS 10 DEFENDANT. 11 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 12 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the relevant time 14 periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D products. Additionally, Square D 15 objects that this Interrogatory seeks information that is overly broad, unduly burdensome and 16 duplicative in that it seeks information provided in response to another Interrogatory, specifically 17 Interrogatory No. 8. Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, Square D incorporates 18 by reference its objections and response to Interrogatory No. 8, By way of further response, Square 19 D states that it was not a seller of raw asbestos. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 8 21 Has THIS DEFENDANT engaged in the MARKETing of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 22 PRODUCTS comprised in whole or in part of chiysotile asbestos fiber; if so, please state: 23 a. the trade, brand name and/or generic name of each type of product; 24 b. the date(s) this Defendant first MARKETed each type of product; 25 c. the date(s) THIS DEFENDANT ceased MARKETing each type of product; 26 d. a general description of the chemical composition of each type of product, including: 27 (i) the type(s) and grade(s) of asbestos fiber contained in each type of product; 28 9 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 (ii) the quantitative percentage of the types of asbestos fiber in each type of 2 product; 3 (iii) any change(s) in the quantitative percentages of the type(s) of asbestos fiber in 4 each type of product; 5 e. the NATURE of each type of product; 6 f. a description of any wording, markings, and/or logo on each type of product; 7 g. the recommended use(s) of each type of product, including temperature limits; 8 h. the name of the manufacturer of each type of product; 9 i. the name(s) and address(es) of the suppliers) of the chrysotile asbestos fiber used in 10 each type of product; 11 j. the IDENTITY of the person(s) most knowledgeable concerning the purchase of 12 chrysotile asbestos fiber by THIS DEFENDANT. 13 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter. 14 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 15 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 16 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 17 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 18 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history. The design, function, materials, 19 and construction applicable to the numerous electrical equipment products or configurations ' 20 developed and manufactured by Square D over the last 100 years vary greatly and could possibly 21 include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 22 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 23 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 24 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 25 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 26 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response. Square D 27 generally states that it manufactured and sold many different types of electrical equipment products 28 over the course of its over one hundred year history. Throughout that time, electrical distribution and 10 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 control products may have been re-engineered and redesigned to satisfy new applications and 2 requirements in the marketplace and/or respond to new materials, codes, and standards for the 3 distribution and control of electricity. Over the decades, Square D products have evolved and were 4 redesigned, modified or re-engineered to meet changing demands. For many decades, these products 5 incorporated molded or bonded component parts manufactured from composite materials. Generally, 6 molded or bonded composite materials were used in some, but not all, electrical equipment products 7 for structural support, mechanical operation, electric arc suppression, or for physical barriers. 8 Molded or bonded component parts used in electrical equipment products were manufactured with 9 various materials, including ceramics, plastics, and other composites. 10 Over time, molded or bonded composite materials used for these purposes incorporated a 11 wide variety of ingredients--most of which were proprietary to the third-party entities, which 12 manufactured, marketed, and sold such composite materials. For limited periods of time, some of the 13 composite materials may have included some quantity of encapsulated asbestos fibers. At all relevant 14 time periods, molded or bonded composite materials were generally manufactured or supplied by 15 third-parties; however, for a period of time before approximately 1975, Square D purchased raw 16 chrysotile asbestos from at least Carey-Canadian Mines Ltd. for use in the manufacture of certain 17 cold-molded component parts used in certain types of electrical equipment. 18 From approximately 1978 to the mid-1980s, suitable replacement composite materials, which 19 did not contain asbestos, were becoming available from suppliers of such materials. Accordingly, by 20 approximately the mid-1980s, non-asbestos-containing replacement materials, which did not and do 21 not contain asbestos, came to be used generally. 22 As noted above, molded or bonded composite component parts were made from a variety of 23 ingredients. Upon information and belief, the constituent composite materials, including any asbestos 24 or other fibrous material contained in the molded or bonded materials, were chemically and/or 25 physically bound within the compound itself. Thus, the encapsulated fibers could not be released in a 26 respirable form under reasonably anticipated usage conditions. Moreover, the molded or bonded 27 component parts that were incoiporated into Square D products did not require alteration or 28 modification by persons using the products for their intended puipose. 11 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 By way of further response, to the best of its present knowledge, Square D generally did not 2 specify that suppliers of composite materials use asbestos. Instead, Square D generally required that 3 materials used to make component parts of its electrical equipment products meet certain physical 4 and performance specifications. Additionally, Square D states that to the best of its knowledge, 5 information regarding the specific chemical composition and ingredients of such molded or bonded 6 materials utilized in Square D electrical equipment products would be in the possession of the 7 suppliers of those materials and not necessarily with Square D. To the best of its present knowledge, 8 the following may have supplied materials to Square D for use in the manufacture or assembly of 9 molded or bonded component parts in certain electrical equipment products: Meriden Molded 10 Plastics, American Cyanamid, Plastics Engineering Company, Plumb Chemical Company, Plaslok 11 Corp,, Garfield Manufacturing Company, Cytec Industries, Dow Coming, Rostone Corporation, U.S. 12 Polymeric, Freeman Chemical, Johns Manville, British Industrial Plastics, Rogers Corporation, Durez 13 Corporation, Glastic Corporation, Paramount Industries, Fiberite, Allied Chemical, Monmouth 14 Plastics, Union Carbide Corporation, Premix Inc., Carey-Canadian Mines, Ltd., Polyply Inc., 15 Reichhold Chemicals, Ciba Geigy, Precision Paper and Tube, Wilson-Fiberfil, Quin-T Corporation, 16 DuPont, Polymer Corp., General Electric, B.F. Goodrich, Eastman, LNP Corp., Rhone-Poulenc, Gulf 17 Oil, Monsanto, Wellman Inc., Amoco Chemicals Corp., Shaw Plastic, Rohn & Hass, Borg-Warner 18 Chemicals, Uniroyal Chemical, Resinoid Engineering, RTP Company, Mobay, Continental 19 Polymers, BASF Corporation, Perstorp Ferguson, Bayer, A. Schulman Inc., Phillips Chemical Co., 20 Kay-Fries Inc., Spaulding, Norplex, Iten Industries, Northern Plastics, J.P. Lewis Co., National 21 Switch, and Celanese Plastics. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 23 Has THIS DEFENDANT engaged in the MARKETing of chrysotile asbestos fiber; if so, 24 please state: 25 a. the name and location of each chrysotile asbestos mine which THIS DEFENDANT 26 presently operates, has operated, or in which THIS DEFENDANT has or had an ownership interest, 27 including dates of such ownership, and the grade of chrysotile asbestos fiber mined; 28 b. the date(s) THIS DEFENDANT first MARKETed chrysotile asbestos fiber; 12 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 c. the date(s) THIS DEFENDANT ceased MARKETing chrysotile asbestos fiber; 2 d. the grade(s) of such chrysotile asbestos fiber MARKETed by THIS DEFENDANT; 3 e. the recommended use(s) of each grade of such chrysotile asbestos fiber, including 4 temperature limits; 5 f. the name(s) and address(es) of the suppliers) of chrysotile asbestos fiber to THIS 6 DEFENDANT. 7 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 8 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 9 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the relevant time 10 periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D products. Additionally, Square D 11 objects that this Interrogatory seeks information that is overly broad, unduly burdensome and 12 duplicative in that it seeks information provided in response to another Interrogatory, specifically 13 Interrogatory No. 8. Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections. Square D incorporates 14 by reference its objections and response to Interrogatory No. 8. By way of further response. Square 15 D states that it was not a seller of raw asbestos. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 17 Has THIS DEFENDANT engaged in the MARKETing of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 18 PRODUCTS comprised in whole or in part of crocidolite asbestos fiber; if so, please state: 19 a. the trade, brand name and/or generic name of each type of product; 20 b. the date(s) THIS DEFENDANT first MARKETed each type ofproduct; 21 c. the date(s) THIS DEFENDANT ceased MARKETing each type of product; 22 d. a general description of the chemical composition of each type of product, including: 23 (i) the type(s) and grade(s) of asbestos fiber contained in each type of product; 24 (ii) the quantitative percentage of the. type(s) of fiber in each type of product; 25 (iii) any change(s) in the quantitative percentages of the type(s) of asbestos fiber in 26 each type of product; 27 e. the NATURE of each type of product; 28 f. a description of any wording, markings and/or logo on each type of product; 13 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 g. the recommended use(s) of each type ofproduct, including temperature limits; 2 h. the name of the manufacturer of each type of product; 3 i. the name(s) and address(es) of the suppliers) of the crocidolite asbestos fiber used in 4 each type of product; 5 j. the IDENTITY of the person(s) most knowledgeable concerning the purchase of 6 crocidolite asbestos fiber by THIS DEFENDANT. 7 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 8 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 9 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such. Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 10 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 11 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 12 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 13 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 14 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 15 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factoiy order numbers, which would 16 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 17 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 18 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response, Square D 19 incorporates by reference its objections and response to Interrogatory No. 8. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 21 Has THIS DEFENDANT engaged in the MARKETing of crocidolite asbestos fiber; if so, 22 please state: 23 a. the name and location of each crocidolite asbestos mine which THIS DEFENDANT 24 presently operates, has operated, in the, and/or in which THIS DEFENDANT has or had an 25 ownership interest, including the dates of such ownership, and the grade of asbestos fiber mined; 26 b. the date(s) THIS DEFENDANT first MARKETed crocidolite asbestos fiber; 27 c. the date(s) THIS DEFENDANT ceased MARKETing crocidolite asbestos fiber; 28 d. the grade(s) of such crocidolite asbestos fiber MARKETed by THIS DEFENDANT; -- DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 e. the recommended use(s) of each grade of such crocidolite asbestos fiber, including 2 temperature limits; 3 f. the name(s) and address(es) of the suppliers) of crocidolite asbestos fiber to THIS 4 DEFENDANT. 5 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 6 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 7 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the relevant time 8 periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D products. Additionally, Square D 9 objects that this Interrogatory seeks information that is overly broad, unduly burdensome and 10 duplicative in that it seeks information provided in response to another Interrogatory, specifically 11 Interrogatory No. 8. Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, Square D incorporates 12 by reference its objections and response to Interrogatory No. 8, By way of further response, Square 13 D states that it was not a seller of raw asbestos. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 15 Does or did THIS DEFENDANT have a controlling ownership interest in any COMPANY 16 which MARKETed ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S); if so, please state: 17 a. the name of such COMPANY; 18 b. the date of incorporation of such COMPANY; 19 c. the state of incorporation of such COMPANY; 20 d. the date such interest was acquired; 21 e. the date such interest was changed or terminated, if applicable; 22 f. the name and location of each facility of such COMPANY; 23 g. the name of each type of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S) manufactured, 24 processed, and/or assembled by such COMPANY. 25 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D also objects that this 26 Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is not relevant to this 27 action, and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in that it is 28 not limited in time and seeks a discussion of over one hundred years of company history. As such, 15 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 this Interrogatory is an improper, onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require 2 Square D to conduct a nearly unlimited investigation into the potentially numerous corporate 3 transactions over the course of its over one hundred year histoiy, much of which may not be 4 applicable to this case. Square D further objects to this Interrogatory in that it seeks legal conclusions 5 regarding a "controlling ownership interest." 6 INTERROGATORY NO, 13; 7 Does or did THIS DEFENDANT have a controlling ownership interest in any COMPANY 8 that MARKETed RAW ASBESTOS FIBER; if so, please state: 9 a. the name of such COMPANY; 10 b. the date of incorporation or charter of such COMPANY; 11 c. the state or country of incorporation of such COMPANY; 12 d. the date such interest was acquired; 13 e. the dates such interest changed or terminated, if applicable; 14 f. the name and location of each asbestos mine owned by such COMPANY; 15 g. the grade and type of RAW ASBESTOS FIBER mined at each mine. 16 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 17 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the relevant time 19 periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D products. Subject to and without 20 waiving its foregoing objections, Square D states that it was not a seller of raw asbestos. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 22 Has THIS DEFENDANT warehoused any RAW ASBESTOS FIBER or ASBESTOS- 23 CONTAINING PRODUCT(S) in the State of California; if so, please state: 24 a. the address of each warehouse facility; 25 b. the year(s) THIS DEFENDANT utilized each facility; , 26 c. the IDENTITY of the custodian of warehousing records. 27 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, Square D states that to the best 28 of its present knowledge, it did not "warehouse" raw asbestos fibers in the State of California. 16 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 Plaintiffs cannot establish that Square D electrical equipment products contained asbestos; indeed, 2 not all of Square D's thousands of electrical equipment products contained asbestos. By way of 3 further response, and without conceding that any of these sites were involved with "asbestos4 containing products" generally, or the "warehousing" of "asbestos-containing products" specifically, 5 Square D states that it has maintained the following facilities in the State of California: an assembly 6 plant in Chino, California which opened in approximately 1986 and closed in approximately 1992; an 7 assembly plant in Los Angeles, California from approximately 1946 until 1986; and an assembly 8 plant in San Francisco, California from 1936 until 1969. By way of further response, Square D may 9 have had distribution facilities in Cerritos, California and Bakersfield, California, but to the best of its 10 present knowledge, additional information is not available at this time. Additionally, Square D does 11 not have a formal custodian of records. 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 13 Has THIS DEFENDANT owned or operated facilities anywhere in the United States in which 14 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S) have been manufactured, processed and/or assembled; if 15 so, state: 16 a. the address of each such facility, including city and state. 17 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, see Square D's 18 objections and responses to Interrogatory No. 16. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 20 If THIS DEFENDANT owned or operated facilities in which ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 21 PRODUCT(S) have been manufactured, processed and/or assembled, please state: 22 a. the date said facilities began operation; 23 b. the date said facility ceased operation; and 24 c. the name of each type of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT manufactured, 25 processed or assembled at each such facility. 26 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 27 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 28 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 17 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 2 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 3 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 4 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 5 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 6 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 7 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 8 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 9 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. Plaintiffs cannot establish that Square D 10 electrical equipment products contained asbestos; indeed, not all of Square D's thousands of 11 electrical equipment products contained asbestos. By way of further response. Square D states that to 12 the best of its present knowledge, the following list identifies the location, approximate years of 13 operation of each facility, and a general description of the types of products manufactured or 14 assembled at each facility; however, Square D does not concede that these facilities were involved in 15 the manufacture or assembly of asbestos-containing products. Moreover, given Square D's broad and 16 diverse product offerings over the years, it is possible that other types of products were manufactured 17 at these facilities: Allentown, Pennsylvania opened in 1981 and is now closed (various); Asheville, 18 North Carolina opened in 1960 and is now closed (various); Atlanta, Georgia from 1957 until 1993 19 (assembly); Birmingham, Alabama from 1971 until 1983 (various); Bordentown, New Jersey from 20 1979 until 1990 (copper foil); Bronx, New York opened in 1975 and is now closed (electrical signal 21 devices); Cedar Rapids, Iowa from 1955 until present (circuit breakers); Chicago, Illinois from 1971 22 until 1986 (various); Chino, California opened in 1986 and closed in approximately 1992 (assembly); 23 Clanton, Alabama from 1970 until 1995; Clearwater, Florida from 1974 until 1995 (transfonners); 24 Cleveland, Ohio from 1955 until approximately 1973 (crane control products); Columbia, Missouri 25 from 1978 until present (circuit breakers); Columbia, South Carolina from 1972 until present 26 (various); Dallas, Texas opened in 1951 and is now closed (assembly plants); Denver, Colorado from 27 1956 until 1986 (assembly); Detroit, Michigan from 1909 until 1960; Emmaus, Pennsylvania from 28 1975 until 1986 (various); Huntington, Indiana from 1966 until present (transformers); Leeds, 18 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 Alabama from 1970 until 1995 (various); Lexington, Kentucky from 1957 until present (various); 2 Lincoln, Nebraska from 1970 until present (circuit breakers); Los Angeles, California from 1946 until 3 1986 (assembly); Lyndhurst, New Jersey from 1970 until 1986; Madison Heights, Michigan from 4 1956 until 1984 (assembly); Mesquite, Texas from 1974 until 1987 (various); Middletown, Ohio 5 opened in 1969 and is now closed (switches); Milwaukee, Wisconsin from 1971 until 1997 6 (transformers); Milwaukee, Wisconsin from 1940 until 1997; Milwaukee, Wisconsin opened in 1952 7 and is now closed; Monroe, North Carolina from 1982 until 2003 (transformers); Omaha, Nebraska 8 opened in 1970 and is now closed (assembly); Oiling, Washington from 1973 until 1986 (various); 9 Oshkosh, Wisconsin from 1974 until 2000 (various); Oxford, Ohio from 1969 until present (bus 10 duct); Pern, Indiana from 1920 until present (various); Pinellas Park, Florida from 1981 until 1996 11 (various); Raleigh, North Carolina from 1972 until present (motor control products); San Francisco, 12 California from 1936 until 1969 (assembly); Seneca, South Carolina from 1986 until present 13 (various); Schiller Park, Illinois from 1964 until present (assembly); Seattle, Washington from 1952 14 until 1986 (assembly); Secaucus, New Jersey opened in 1955 and is now closed (assembly); Smyrna, 15 Tennessee from 1981 until present (various); Spokane, Washington from 1979 until 1986 16 (transformers); Tempe, Arizona, opened in approximately 1981 and now closed (various); and Three 17 Rivers, Michigan from 1966 until the early 1980s (various). By way of further response, Square D 18 may have had a facility in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, but to the best of its present knowledge, 19 additional information is not available at this time. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 21 Has THIS DEFENDANT purchased or otherwise acquired any rights to the manufacture of 22 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S) from another COMPANY? If so, state: 23 a. the date of purchase or acquisition of such rights; 24 b. the trade, brand, and/or generic name of such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 25 PRODUCT(S); 26 c. the name and location of any COMPANY from which such rights were purchased or 27 acquired; 28 d. the IDENTITY of the custodian of records of such purchase(s) or acquisition(s). 19 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D also objects that this 2 Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is not relevant to this 3 action, and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in that it is 4 not limited in time and seeks a discussion of over one hundred years of company history. As such, 5 this Interrogatory is an improper, onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require 6 Square D to conduct a nearly unlimited investigation into the potentially numerous corporate 7 transactions over the course of its over one hundred year history, much of which may not be 8 applicable to this case. Square D also objects that this Interrogatory is generally vague and 9 ambiguous. 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 11 Has THIS DEFENDANT applied for and/or received any patent(s) for any ASBESTOS12 CONTAINING PRODUCT(S). If so, state for each such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT: 13 a. the product for which each patent was applied and/or issued; 14 b. the date(s) of application; 15 c. the date(s) of issuance of the patent(s), if granted; 16 d. the date(s) of renewal, if any; 17 e. the patent number(s); 18 f. the name of the individual or COMPANY to whom each patent was issued; 19 g. the IDENTITY of the custodian of patent records of THIS DEFENDANT. 20 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 21 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 22 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 23 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 24 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 25 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 26 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 27 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 28 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 20 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 2 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 3 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response, over the 4 course of its one hundred year histoiy Square D has held numerous patents for electrical equipment 5 products it manufactured. At the present time. Square D is unaware that it had patents relating to 6 asbestos. As noted above, Square D's investigation of this matter is continuing, and it reserves the 7 right to amend or supplement this response. 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 9 Has THIS DEFENDANT registered any trademark(s) for any ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 10 PRODUCT(S); if so, state for each such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT: 11 a. the product for which each trademark was registered; 12 b. whether the registration was State or Federal; 13 (i) if State, name the State; 14 c. the date(s) or registration; 15 d. the term(s) thereof; 16 e. the date(s) of renewal; 17 f. the name of the individual or COMPANY to whom each trademark was registered; 18 g. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such trademark records of THIS DEFENDANT. 19 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 20 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 21 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such. Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 22 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 23 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 24 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 25 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 26 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 27 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 28 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 21 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies ail Square D electrical equipment products 2 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response, at the 3 present time Square D is unaware that it had trademarks relating to asbestos. By way of further 4 response, Square D sometimes used the "Square D" trademark and logo on many products. The 5 Square D logo typically includes a blue or black capital letter "D" centered in a two-dimensional blue 6 or black square box against a yellow or black background. 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 8 Did THIS DEFENDANT contract with the General Services Administration and/or other 9 federal-government agency for the sale, anywhere in the United States, of RAW ASBESTOS FIBER 10 between 1930 and 1980; if so, state for each such sale: 11 a. the grade(s) and type(s) of RAW ASBESTOS FIBER; 12 b. the quantity; 13 c. the date(s) of delivery; 14 d. the location(s), including the address(es) of delivery. 15 e. the name(s) of the agency with which THIS DEFENDANT contracted; 16 f. the date(s) of execution of such contract(s); 17 g. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such contract records of THIS DEFENDANT, 18 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 19 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the relevant time 21 periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D products. Square D also objects that 22 this Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and poses an incomplete hypothetical without context and 23 without any connection whatsoever to the product or component parts of such products allegedly 24 manufactured by Square D. Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections. Square D states 25 that it was not a seller of raw asbestos. 26 27 28 22 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 2 Did THIS DEFENDANT contract with the General Services Administration and/or other 3 federal-government agency for the sale, anywhere in the United States, of ASBESTOS4 CONTAINING PRODUCT(S) between 1930 and 1980, please state for each such sale; 5 a. the type of product; 6 b. the quantity; 7 c. the date(s) of delivery; 8 d. the location(s), including the address(es) of delivery; 9 e. the name(s) of the agency with which THIS DEFENDANT contracted; 10 f. the date(s) of execution of such contract(s); 11 g. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such contract records of THIS DEFENDANT. 12 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 13 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 14 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 15 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 16 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 17 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 18 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 19 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 20 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 21 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 22 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 23 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response, and to the 24 best of Square D's present knowledge. Square D electrical equipment products which may have 25 incorporated molded or bonded component parts manufactured from composite materials, which 26 could have contained some quantity of encapsulated asbestos, were generally not qualified under the 27 relevant military specifications during the relevant time period. Indeed, Square D does not believe 28 that its electrical equipment products were suitable for installation and use aboard United States Navy 23 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 warships during the relevant time period. By way of further response. Square D states that it sold its 2 products primarily through distributors or original equipment manufacturers. Thus, at the present 3 time, Square D is generally unaware as to the specific identity of entities or persons to whom its 4 products were ultimately sold, at which job sites they may have been delivered or used, or when those 5 sales took place. Moreover, at the present time, Square D is generally unable to ascertain specifically 6 to whom its products were sold during time periods when certain of its products may have contained 7 molded or bonded component parts manufactured from composite materials which could have 8 contained some quantity of encapsulated asbestos. Additionally, Square D states that at the present 9 time, and in the absence of additional information, such as, for example, product-specific catalog 10 and/or factory order numbers, Square D is generally unable to ascertain when, where, or to whom 11 certain Square D electrical equipment products were supplied to or placed into service. Square D 12 reserves the right, however, to supplement this response if responsive information becomes available. 13 INTERROGATORY NO, 22: 14 Does THIS DEFENDANT have any records of the MARKETing, advertisement, or delivery 15 of its RAW ASBESTOS FIBER and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S) in or to 16 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA? If so, state: 17 a. the manner in which the records are kept, (e.g., in boxes, files, on microfilm, 18 microfiche or computer tape or disk); 19 b. the location(s) and address(es) where such records are maintained; 20 c. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such records. 21 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 22 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 23 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 24 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 25 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 26 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 27 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 28 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 24 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 2 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 3 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 4 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response, Square D did 5 not sell or distribute raw asbestos fiber. Additionally, Square D sold its products through distributors 6 and original equipment manufacturers. Thus at the present time, Square D is generally unaware as to 7 the specific identity of entities or persons to whom its products were ultimately sold, at which job 8 sites they may have been delivered or used, or when those sales took place during time periods when 9 those products incorporated component parts, some of which may have contained composite 10 materials that contained some quantity of encapsulated asbestos. By way of additional response, 11 Square D states that at the present time, and in the absence of additional information, such as, for 12 example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, Square D is generally 13 unable to ascertain when, where, or to whom certain Square D electrical equipment products were 14 supplied to or placed into service. 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 23: 16 If THIS DEFENDANT has in its possession any records of the MARKETing, advertisement, 17 or delivery of its RAW ASBESTOS FIBER and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS 18 (including microfilm, microfiche, computer tape or disk, or any other system in which data is taken 19 from other records), state whether THIS DEFENDANT has retained the original DOCUMENTS 20 from which the data entered into these modes of storage was obtained. If THIS DEFENDANT has 21 not retained such original DOCUMENTS, state: . 22 a. the date(s) when and location() where the original DOCUMENTS were disposed of; 23 b. the IDENTITY of the custodian of the original DOCUMENTS, at the time of their 24 disposal. 25 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 26 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 27 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 28 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 25 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 2 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 3 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 4 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 5 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 6 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that tliis 7 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 8 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response. Square D did 9 not sell or distribute raw asbestos fiber. Additionally, Square D sold its products through distributors 10 and original equipment manufacturers. Thus at the present time, Square D is generally unaware as to 11 the specific identity of entities or persons to whom its products were ultimately sold, at which job 12 sites they may have been delivered or used, or when those sales took place during time periods when 13 those products incorporated component parts, some of which may have contained composite 14 materials that contained some quantity of encapsulated asbestos, By way of additional response, 15 Square D states that at the present time, and in the absence of additional information, such as, for 16 example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, Square D is generally 17 unable to ascertain when, where, or to whom certain Square D electrical equipment products were 18 supplied to or placed into service. By way of further response, Square D did not advertise or feature 19 "asbestos-containing products" as such during time periods when certain of its products may have 20 included molded or bonded component parts manufactured from composite materials which could 21 have contained some quantity of encapsulated asbestos. Additionally, over the years Square D has 22 published digests that would have referenced various Square D products. Square D is prepared to 23 make a representative sample of its digests available for inspection, examination, and copying at a 24 mutually convenient time and place. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 24: 26 Does THIS DEFENDANT have in its possession any exemplar(s) of advertisements or 27 brochures describing its RAW ASBESTOS FIBER and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 28 PRODUCTS; if so, please state: 26 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 a. the location of each exemplar; 2 b. the year(s) in which said exemplar(s) was utilized; 3 c. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such exemplars. 4 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 5 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 6 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 7 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 8 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 9 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 10 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 11 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 12 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 13 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 14 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 15 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response. Square D did 16 not advertise or feature "asbestos-containing products" as such during time periods when certain of 17 its products may have included molded or bonded component parts manufactured from composite 18 materials which could have contained some quantity of encapsulated asbestos. Additionally, Square 19 D states that over the years it has published digests that would have referenced various Square D 20 products. Square D is prepared to make a representative sample of its digests available for 21 inspection, examination, and copying at a mutually convenient time and place. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 23 State the following: 24 a. the address(es) where the corporate records of THIS DEFENDANT (including 25 minutes from the Board of Directors meetings and corporation annual reports), are currently located; 26 b. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such records. 27 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 28 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 27 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the relevant time 2 periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D products. Square D also objects that 3 this Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and poses an incomplete hypothetical without context and 4 without any connection whatsoever to the product or component parts of such products allegedly 5 manufactured by Square D. Additionally, Square D objects that this Interrogatory seeks information 6 not relevant to this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and to the best of 7 its present knowledge. Square D does not have a "custodian of records" as it reasonably understands 8 that term. By way of further response, each employee is to one extent or another a "custodian of 9 records" and is expected to comply with retention guidelines. Retention and disposal of records 10 pursuant to these guidelines rests with the individual and/or departmental custodian. By way of 11 further response, Square D is prepared to make a copy of its Protection, Retention and Destruction of 12 Records Policy that was issued on August 1,1982 available for inspection, examination, and copying 13 at a mutually convenient time and place. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 15 Describe the packaging or containers in which THIS DEFENDANT sold and/or distributed 16 RAW ASBESTOS FIBER, including composition, dimension, shape and color. 17 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, Square D did not sell 18 or distribute raw asbestos fiber. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 20 Describe any logo, design, marking or printing, including size and color, which appeared on 21 the packaging or containers in which THIS DEFENDANT sold and/or distributed RAW ASBESTOS 22 FIBER. . 23 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, Square D did not sell 24 or distribute raw asbestos fiber. 25 INTERROGATORY NO, 28: 26 Describe the packaging or containers in which THIS DEFENDANT sold and/or distributed 27 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S), including composition, dimension, shape and color. 28 28 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 2 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 3 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 4 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 5 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 6 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 7 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 8 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 9 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factoiy order numbers, which would 10 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this n Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 12 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response. Square D 13 sometimes used the "Square D" trademark and logo on many products. The Square D logo typically 14 includes a blue or black capital letter "D" centered in a two-dimensional blue or black square box 15 against a yellow or black background. Packaging of Square D electrical equipment products varied 16 depending on the size and shape of products, and would have included cardboard boxes and wooden 17 crates. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 29: 19 Describe any logo, design, marking or printing, including size and color, which appeared on 20 the packaging or containers in which THIS DEFENDANT, sold and/or distributed ASBESTOS21 CONTAINING PRODUCT(S). 22 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 23 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 24 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 25 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 26 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 27 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vaiy greatly and could 28 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 29 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 2 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 3 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 4 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 5 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response. Square D 6 incorporates by reference its objections and response to Interrogatory No. 8. Moreover, Square D 7 sometimes used the "Square D" trademark and logo on many products. The Square D logo typically 8 includes a blue or black capital letter "D" centered in a two-dimensional blue or black square box 9 against a yellow or black background. Packaging of Square D electrical equipment products varied 10 depending on the size and shape of products, and would have included cardboard boxes and wooden 11 crates. 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 30: 13 Does THIS DEFENDANT have any exemplar(s) ofpackaging or containers in which its 14 RAW ASBESTOS FIBER and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S) were sold and/or 15 distributed; If so, state: 16 a. the location of each exemplar; 17 b. the year(s) in which said exemplars) was utilized; 18 c. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such exemplars. 19 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 20 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 21 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 22 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 23 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 24 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 25 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 26 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 27 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 28 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 30 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 2 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response, Square D did 3 not sell or distribute raw asbestos fiber. Additionally, and to the best of its present knowledge, 4 Square D is unaware of exemplars of historical packaging. Square D's investigation of the matter is 5 ongoing, and Square D reserves the right to amend or supplement this answer as appropriate. 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 31: 7 Did THIS DEFENDANT put warnings of asbestos-related health hazards on bags of RAW 8 ASBESTOS FIBER; if so, please state: 9 a. the wording of such waming(s), including size, location, and color; 10 b. whether the warning was put on a tag attached to the bags; 11 c. the date such waming(s) was first used; 12 d. whether any change was made in the wording of such warnings, the date(s) of such 13 change, and the reasons for such 6 change. 14 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, Square D did not sell 15 or distribute raw asbestos fiber. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 32: 17 Did THIS DEFENDANT put warnings of asbestos-related health hazards on the packaging or 18 containers of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S)? If so, please state: 19 a. the wording of such warnings, including size, location on the packaging or containers, 20 and color; 21 b. the date such waming(s) was first used; 22 c. whether any change was made in the wording of such waming(s), the date(s) of such 23 change, and the reason(s) for such change. 24 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter. 25 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 26 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 27 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 28 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it ' 31 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 2 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 3 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 4 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 5 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 6 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 7 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response, this 8 Interrogatory unfairly presumes that all products incorporating some quantity of asbestos, despite vast 9 distinctions in their finished form and application, create similar potential hazards, if any. Square D 10 states that it has published and distributed written materials providing warnings, cautions, and 11 instructions with respect to potential hazards associated with the use of its electrical equipment 12 products. However, Square D does not reasonably believe that its electrical equipment products 13 posed an asbestos-related hazard when used as intended. Therefore, safety warnings accompanying 14 Square D electrical equipment products were not altered on the basis of whether molded or bonded 15 component parts manufactured from composite materials could have contained some quantity of 16 encapsulated asbestos and Square D is unaware of facts or circumstances necessitating the provision 17 of such warnings or instructions in connection with the normal and intended use of its products. For 18 purposes of defending itself in this litigation, however, Square D may retain expert witnesses to 19 review case materials, prepare reports, and testify relative to, among other things, the historic and 20 current understandings with respect to the connection between asbestos exposure, asbestos, fiber 21 types, fiber release, and possible disease in humans, particularly in the context of the use and 22 handling of electrical equipment products that may have included molded or bonded component parts 23 manufactured from composite materials. Disclosure of these experts and their work will be provided 24 in accordance with the Court's orders and the California Code of Civil Procedure. 25 INTERRi OGATORY NO. 33: 26 Has THIS DEFENDANT distributed any brochures or pamphlets that contain warnings of any 27 asbestos-related health hazards; if so, please state: 28 a. the wording of such warning; 32 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 b. the method used to distribute such brochures or pamphlets; 2 c. the date(s) such brochures or pamphlets were first issued; 3 d. whether THIS DEFENDANT has exemplars) of such brochures or pamphlets; 4 e. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such exemplars). 5 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 6 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 7 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 8 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 9 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 10 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 11 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 12 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 13 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factoiy order numbers, which would 14 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 15 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 16 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response, this 17 Interrogatory unfairly presumes that all products incoiporating some quantity of asbestos, despite vast 18 distinctions in their finished form and application, create similar potential hazards, if any. Square D 19 has published and distributed written materials providing warnings, cautions, and instructions with 20 respect to potential hazards associated with the use of its electrical equipment products. However, 21 Square D does not reasonably believe that its electrical equipment products posed an asbestos-related 22 hazard when used as intended. Therefore, safety warnings accompanying Square D electrical 23 equipment products were not altered on the basis of whether molded or bonded component parts 24 manufactured from composite materials could have contained some quantity of encapsulated asbestos 25 and Square D is unaware of facts or circumstances necessitating the provision of such warnings or 26 instructions in connection with the normal and intended use of its products. For purposes of 27 defending itself in this litigation, however, Square D may retain expert witnesses to review case 28 materials, prepare reports, and testify relative to, among other things, the historic and current 33 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 understandings with respect to the connection between asbestos exposure, asbestos, fiber types, fiber 2 release, and possible disease in humans, particularly in the context of the use and handling of 3 electrical equipment products that may have included molded or bonded component parts 4 manufactured from composite materials. Disclosure of these experts and their work will be provided 5 in accordance with the Court's orders and the California Code of Civil Procedure. 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 34: 7 Did THIS DEFENDANT warn its employees and/or CONTRACT UNIT(S), anywhere in the 8 United States, that exposure to asbestos could be hazardous to human health. If so, state: 9 a. whether copies of DOCUMENTS containing such warnings exist; 10 b. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 11 ANSWER; Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, Square D states that 12 certain of its manufacturing facilities may have included warning signs in compliance with applicable 13 government regulations. To the best of its present knowledge, however, Square D does not possess a 14 copy of warnings that are no longer posted or required. Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not allege 15 they were Square D employees or injured in any way at facilities where Square D electrical 16 equipment products were manufactured or assembled. The process of designing and manufacturing 17 Square D products is vastly different from any exposure Plaintiffs may allege. Plaintiffs cannot 18 establish that Square D electrical equipment products contained asbestos; indeed, not ail of Square 19 D's thousands of electrical equipment products contained asbestos. Put simply, any asbestos that 20 may have been incorporated in certain composite materials would be encapsulated and thus Plaintiffs 21 would not be exposed to respirable asbestos. Accordingly, the means and method of manufacture of 22 a Square D product would present a significantly different potential exposure to asbestos that would 23 not be similar in any way to Plaintiffs' alleged exposure. As such, information on the means and 24 method of manufacture of Square D products is not relevant to this action and is an unfair attempt to 25 mislead the jury as to the nature of Plaintiffs' alleged injuiy. 26 INTERROGATORY NO. 35: 27 State the IDENTITY of medical directors and/or industrial hygienists retained by THIS 28 DEFENDANT in the United States. 34 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, to the best of its present 2 knowledge, Square D does not reasonably believe that its products posed an asbestos-related hazard 3 when used as intended, and Square D is not aware of having employed, as it understands that term, 4 medical directors or industrial hygienists who were responsible for addressing an asbestos-related 5 health hazard, if any, associated with the use and handling of electrical equipment products. 6 Moreover, Square D is unaware of facts or circumstances necessitating that it retain medical directors 7 and/or industrial hygienists for addressing an asbestos-related health hazard associated with the 8 normal and intended use of Square D electrical products. From time to time, Square D may have 9 retained industrial hygienists to consult at some of its facilities, although not necessarily with respect 10 to asbestos-related issues. However, Plaintiffs do not allege they were Square D employees or 11 injured in any way at facilities where Square D electrical equipment products were manufactured or 12 assembled. The process of designing and manufacturing Square D products is vastly different from 13 any exposure Plaintiffs may allege. Plaintiffs cannot establish that Square D electrical equipment 14 products contained asbestos; indeed, not ail of Square D's thousands of electrical equipment products 15 contained asbestos. Put simply, any asbestos that may have been incorporated in certain composite 16 materials would be encapsulated and thus Plaintiffs would not be exposed to respirable asbestos, 17 Accordingly, the means and method of manufacture of a Square D product would present a 18 significantly different potential exposure to asbestos that would not be similar in any way to 19 Plaintiffs' alleged exposure. As such, information on the means and method of manufacture of 20 Square D products is not relevant to this action and is an unfair attempt to mislead the jury as to the 21 nature of Plaintiffs' alleged injury. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 23 Has any employee of THIS DEFENDANT testified by deposition on behalf of THIS 24 DEFENDANT in a third-party case, brought in the United States, wherein the plaintiff has alleged an 25 asbestos related injury? If so, for each-such third party case, please state: 26 a. the caption and case number; 27 b. the court of filing including state and county; 28 c. the date of the deposition; 35 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 d. the name and address of plaintiffs counsel of record, 2 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 3 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 4 calculated to lead to the discovexy of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the context of 5 this litigation or the relevant time periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D 6 products. Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, but without conceding the 7 relevance of this answer, with respect to electrical equipment products, Robert Barbaglia was 8 deposed in connection with the following cases: 9 CASE INFORMATION 10 JURISDICTION DATE 11 Mavnard v. A.W. Chesterton Co., et al.. 04-C-3392 and Kanawha County, WV 12 Carter v. A.W. Chesterton Co., et al.. 04-C-3276 September 7,2005 13 Pounds v. A.W. Chesterton Co., et al.. No. 447748 14 15 Eubanks v. A.W. Chesterton Co., et al.. BC 365542 16 Enele v. 3M Com., et al.. C4-07-50665 17 San Francisco County, CA August 24, 2006 Los Angeles County, CA June 12,2007 and July 26, 2007 Ramsey County, MN August 30, 2007 18 Whitmire v. Alfa Laval. Inc., et al.. BC 374718 and Baker v. Bondex Int'L Inc., et al.. BC 19 367530 Los Angeles County, CA February 13,2008 20 21 Grossman v. American Standard Inc., et al.. 103812/05 New York County, NY June 18,2008 22 Bird v. 3M Comoanv. et al.. MID L-3599-08 AS 23 Middlesex County, NJ October 3, 2008 24 Woodard v. Alfa Laval. Inc., et al.. BC 387784 Los Angeles County, CA October 17, 2008 25 Smith v. Chrvsler. LLC. et al.. BC 396072 26 Los Angeles County, CA January 15,2009 27 Crull v. A.W. Chesterton Comnanv. et al.. 28 RG08404667 Alameda County, CA February 25,2009 36 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 Garrett-Takaki v. Union Carbide Corooration. et al. No. 08-1-110-06 2 First Circuit, HI March 20, 2009 3 Zickuhr v. Aloha Wire Corooration. et al.. No. 08-L4 5433 Cook County, IL April 16,2009 5 Christainsen v. 3M Comoanv. et al.. BC 388762 6 Los Angeles County, CA May 21,2009 7 Levitch v. Beck/Amlev Woodoarts Corooration. et al.. Los Angeles County, CA July 9,2009 BC 399923 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 37 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 Rilev v. Alcoa. Inc., et aL RG09441080 2 Alameda County, CA September 18,2009 3 Harris v. Goodvear Tire & Rubber Co., et aL 4 CV-09-686099 Cuyahoga County, OH January 7,2010 5 Durham v. General Electric Comoanv.. et aL No. 09- Jefferson County, KY 6 CI-09756 April 16,2010 7 Patton v. Garlock Sealine Technoloeies. LLC. et aL 8 No. CL08-00817P-03 (DP) City ofNewport News, VA September 17, 2010 9 Mullen v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co.. 190270-10: New York City Asbestos July 6,2011 10 Cristiano v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co.. 190317 Litigation 10: Loccisano v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co.. 11 190357-10: Gemellaro v. A.O. Smith Water Products 12 Co.. 190336-10: Amato v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co,, 190391-09 13 14 Silverstein v. A.W. Chesterton. Inc., et aL No. 08-L- Madison County, 1L 392 15 September 27, 2011 16 Additionally, Rodney West was deposed in connection with the following cases: 17 18 CASE INFORMATION JURISDICTION DATE 19 Kominskv v. Baldor Electric Comoanv. et al.. No. 4512 Philadelphia County, PA November 18, 2010 20 of2009 21 22 Fields v. South Wire Comoanv. et ah. CA 09-SC-0422 Cherokee County, GA March 3, 2011 23 Moscaritolo v. A.W. Chesterton Comoanv. et ah. No. 24 10-0862 Middlesex County, MA April 7, 2011 25 Moldenhauer v. A. W. Chesterton Comoanv. et ah. BC Los Angeles County, CA May 5,2011 26 439158 27 Gauaer v. Alcatel Lucent, et al.. No. CGC - 09-275194 San Francisco County, 28 CA May 5, 2011 38 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 Joseph Reed v. CBS Corporation. No. SPCV10-01540- Chatham County, GA KA 2 August 4, 2011 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 37: 4 Has THIS DEFENDANT been a member of the following: 5 a. Asbestos Textile Institute (ATI); 6 b. Industrial Hygiene Foundation and/or Industrial Health Foundation (IHF); 7 c. Mineral Wool Institute; 8 d. Industrial Mineral Insulation Manufacturers Institute; 9 e. Magnesia Silica Insulation Manufacturers Association; 10 f. National Insulation Manufacturers Association (NINA); 11 g. Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association (TINA); 12 h. Asbestos Information Association (AIA); 13 i. Quebec Asbestos Mining Association (QAMA); 14 j. National Safety Council; 15 k. Asbestos Cement Producers Association; 16 l. Refractories Institute; 17 m. any other organizations or associations of manufacturers, miners, distributors, 18 importers, labellers, suppliers and/or sellers of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS; 19 (i) please state the name(s) of such organizations or associations, 20 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 21 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the relevant time 23 periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D products. Square D also objects that 24 this Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and poses an incomplete hypothetical without context and 25 without any connection whatsoever to the product or component parts of such products allegedly 26 manufactured by Square D. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Square D states 27 that, to the best of its present knowledge, it has not belonged to any organizations which it views as 28 39 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 relating to "asbestos-containing products," By way of further answer, but without conceding the 2 relevance of the same. Square D states that it or its employees may have belonged to organizations, 3 including: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; American Society of Safety Engineers; 4 Home Safety Council; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; and National Safety Council. 5 As noted above, Square D's investigation of this matter is continuing, and it reserves the right to 6 amend or supplement this answer, 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 38: 8 For each organization, association or other entity identified in your Response to Interrogatory 9 No. 37, please state: 10 a. the dates during which THIS DEFENDANT was a member. 11 b.' the name(s) of any publication(s) received by THIS DEFENDANT from such 12 association or organization. 13 c. the name of such committee or subcommittee of which THIS DEFENDANT was a 14 member, and the dates of such committee or subcommittee membership, 15 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 16 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 17 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the relevant time 18 periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D products. Square D also objects that 19 this Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and poses an incomplete hypothetical without context and 20 without any connection whatsoever to the product or component parts of such products allegedly 21 manufactured by Square D. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Square D states 22 that, to the best of its present knowledge, it has not belonged to any organizations which it views as 23 relating to "asbestos-containing products." By way of further answer, but without conceding the 24 relevance of the same, Square D states that it or its employees may have belonged to organizations, 25 including: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; American Society of Safety Engineers; 26 Home Safety Council; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; and National Safety Council. 27 As noted above, Square D's investigation of this matter is continuing, and it reserves the right to 28 amend or supplement this answer. 40 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 39: 2 Has THIS DEFENDANT received any DOCUMENT(S) containing results or conclusions of 3 any studies and/or tests conducted by the Saranac Laboratory at the Trudeau Foundation relating to 4 the human health consequences of exposure to asbestos? If so, please: 5 a. IDENTIFY all such DOCUMENT(s); 6 b. state the date upon which THIS DEFENDANT first received such DOCUMENT(S); 7 c. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENT(S). 8 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 9 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the relevant time 11 periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D products, Square D also objects that 12 this Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and poses an incomplete hypothetical without context and 13 without any connection whatsoever to the product or component parts of such products allegedly 14 manufactured by Square D. Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, Square D states 15 that this Interrogatory unfairly presumes that all products incorporating some quantity of asbestos, 16 despite vast distinctions in their finished form and application, create similar potential hazards, if any. 17 To the best of its present knowledge. Square D is unaware of receiving such documents in the 18 ordinary course ofbusiness. Moreover, Square D is unaware of facts or circumstances necessitating 19 it receive such materials. As noted above, Square D's investigation of this matter is continuing and it 20 reserves the right to amend or supplement this answer. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 40: 22 State whether THIS DEFENDANT has ever maintained a library (or libraries) in the United 23 States which contains books, articles, periodicals, journals and/or reference materials that relate to the 24 subjects of asbestos, industrial hygiene, medicine, safety, occupational disease and/or engineering. If 25 so, state: 26 a. the date each such library was established; 27 b. the location of each such library; 28 c. the IDENTITY of each librarian or other person in charge of such library. 41 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 2 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 3 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the relevant time 4 periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D products. Square D also objects that 5 this Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and poses an incomplete hypothetical without context and 6 without any connection whatsoever to the product or component parts of such products allegedly 7 manufactured by Square D. Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, and to the best 8 of its present knowledge. Square D maintained general reference materials and technical materials 9 throughout the company which may have included, from time to time, various industry periodicals, 10 occupational health and medicine periodicals, and other topical reference materials. Such materials, 11 however, were not indexed throughout the company, readily searchable, or organized in a library. As 12 noted above, Square D's investigation of this matter is continuing and it reserves the right to amend 13 or supplement this answer. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 41: 15 Has THIS DEFENDANT exchanged documents containing the results of or communicated 16 with any individual or other COMPANY regarding tests and/or studies of the relationship between 17 the inhalation of asbestos fibers and development of disease(s); if so, please state: 18 a. each individual or COMPANY with whom the information was exchanged or to 19 whom it was communicated; 20 b. the date(s) of any such exchanges or communications; 21 c. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such documents. 22 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, Square D states that to 23 the best of its present knowledge, it did not receive tests and/or studies of the relationship between 24 the inhalation of asbestos fibers and development of disease(s) from its material suppliers. Further, 25 Square D does not reasonably believe that its products posed an asbestos-related hazard when used as 26 intended. By way of further response, in the 1970s and early-1980s, Square D became generally 27 aware of emerging regulatory restrictions and requirements associated with the use and handling of, 28 and reporting obligations in connection with, asbestos and later, certain non-electrical products 42 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 containing asbestos; efforts by component part suppliers to supply non-asbestos-containing substitute 2 products; and a generalized public concern with asbestos exposure. For purposes of defending itself 3 in this litigation, Square D may retain expert witnesses to review case materials, prepare reports, and 4 testify relative to, among other things, the historic and current understandings with respect to the 5 connection between asbestos exposure, asbestos, fiber types, fiber release, and possible disease in 6 humans, particularly in the context of the use and handling of its products, Disclosure of these 7 experts and their work will be provided in accordance with the Court's orders and the California 8 Code of Civil Procedure. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 42: 10 Has any employee of THIS DEFENDANT testified before the Occupational Safety and 11 Health Administration, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, or any committee or 12 subcommittee of the United States Congress on the inhalation of asbestos dust and the development 13 of disease; if so, please state: 14 a. the entity before whom such testimony was given; 15 b. the date(s) and location(s) of such testimony; 16 c. the IDENTITY of the individual(s) who so testified; 17 d. whether any DOCUMENTS were presented to the entity before which testimony was 18 given; . 19 e. whether copies of DOCUMENTS presented were retained by THIS DEFENDANT; 20 (i) if so, state the IDENTITY of the custodian of the DOCUMENT(S). 21 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, and to the best of 22 Square D's present knowledge, no employee has testified before OSHA, NIOSH, or committees of 23 the United States Congress regarding asbestos health hazards. 24 INTERROGATORY NO. 43: 25 At any of the physical facilities identified in the response to Interrogatory No. 15, has THIS 26 DEFENDANT conducted, or caused to be conducted, tests and/or studies of ambient asbestos dust 27 created during the manufacture, processing and/or assembling of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 28 PRODUCT(S); if so, please state: 43 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 a. each manufacturing facility, including location and address; at which any such test 2 and/or study was conducted; 3 b. the date of each such test and/or study; 4 c. the individual(s) or entity conducting each such test and/or study; 5 d. whether THIS DEFENDANT has any documents containing the results and/or 6 conclusions of each such study; 7 e. the IDENTITY of the custodian of the documents. 8 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 9 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the relevant time 11 periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D products. Square D also objects that 12 this Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and poses an incomplete hypothetical without context and 13 without any connection whatsoever to the product or component parts of such products allegedly 14 manufactured by Square D, Square D further objects that this Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly 15 burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to these actions nor reasonably calculated 16 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that Plaintiffs do not allege they were Square D 17 employees or injured in any way at facilities where Square D electrical equipment products were 18 manufactured or assembled. The process of designing and manufacturing Square D products is vastly 19 different from any exposure Plaintiffs may allege. Plaintiffs cannot establish that Square D electrical 20 equipment products contained asbestos; indeed, not all of Square D's thousands of electrical 21 equipment products contained asbestos. Put simply, any asbestos that may have been incorporated in 22 certain composite materials would be encapsulated and thus Plaintiffs would not be exposed to 23 respirable asbestos. Accordingly, the means and method of manufacture of a Square D product 24 would present a significantly different potential exposure to asbestos that would not be similar in any 25 way to Plaintiffs5 alleged exposure. As such, information on the means and method of manufacture of 26 Square D products is not relevant to this action and is an unfair attempt to mislead the jury as to the 27 nature of Plaintiffs5 alleged injury. 28 44 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 44: 2 Has THIS DEFENDANT conducted, or caused to be conducted, any tests and/or studies on 3 ambient asbestos dust levels at any location or job site where its ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 4 PRODUCTS were utilized in the United States; if so, please state; 5 a. the location, including name and address, at which each such test and/or study was 6 conducted; 7 b. the individual(s) or entity conducting each such test and/or study; 8 c. the date of each such test and/or study; 9 d. whether THIS DEFENDANT has any DOCUMENTS containing the results and/or 10 conclusions of each such test and/or study; 11 e. the IDENTITY of the custodian of these DOCUMENTS. 12 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 13 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 14 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 15 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 16 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 17 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 18 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 19 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 20 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 21 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 22 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 23 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied, By way of further response, Square D 24 states that this Interrogatory unfairly presumes that all products incorporating some quantity of 25 asbestos, despite vast distinctions in their finished form and application, create similar potential 26 hazards, if any. Indeed, Square D does not reasonably believe that its products posed an asbestos27 related hazard when used as intended. As such. Square D did not conduct tests to determine whether 28 its electrical equipment products released respirable asbestos when used as intended in the ordinary 45 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 course of business. Moreover, Square D is unaware of facts or circumstances necessitating that it 2 conduct or sponsor such tests. For purposes of defending itself in this litigation, however, Square D 3 may retain expert witnesses to review case materials, prepare reports, and testify relative to, among 4 other things, the historic and current understandings with respect to the connection between asbestos 5 exposure, asbestos, fiber types, fiber release, and possible disease in humans, particularly in the 6 context of the use and handling of electrical equipment products that may have included molded or 7 bonded component parts manufactured from composite materials. Disclosure of these experts and 8 their work will be provided in accordance with the Court's orders and the California Code of Civil 9 Procedure. 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 45: 11 Did THIS DEFENDANT have any laboratory or other facility anywhere in the United States 12 at which it conducted, or caused to be conducted, any tests and/or studies of its ASBESTOS13 CONTAINING PRODUCTS to measure the amount of asbestos dust generated by any use for which 14 such products were designed; if so, please state: 15 a. the location, including name and address, at which each such test and/or study was 16 conducted; 17 b. the individual(s) or entity conducting each such test and/or study; 18 c. the date of each such test and/or study; 19 d. whether THIS DEFENDANT has any DOCUMENTS containing the results and/or 20 conclusions of each such test and/or study; 21 e. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 22 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 23 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 24 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 25 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 26 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 27 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vaiy greatly and could 28 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 46 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 2 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 3 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 4 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 5 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. By way of further response, Square D 6 states that this Interrogatory unfairly presumes that all products incorporating some quantity of 7 asbestos, despite vast distinctions in their finished form and application, create similar potential 8 hazards, if any. Indeed, Square D does not reasonably believe that its products posed an asbestos9 related hazard when used as intended. As such, Square D did not conduct tests to determine whether 10 its electrical equipment products released respirable asbestos when used as intended in the ordinary 11 course of business. Moreover, Square D is unaware of facts or circumstances necessitating that it 12 conduct or sponsor such tests. For purposes of defending itself in this litigation, however, Square D 13 may retain expert witnesses to review case materials, prepare reports, and testify relative to, among 14 other things, the historic and current understandings with respect to the connection between asbestos 15 exposure, asbestos, fiber types, fiber release, and possible disease in humans, particularly in the 16 context of the use and handling of electrical equipment products that may have included molded or 17 bonded component parts manufactured from composite materials. Disclosure of these experts and 18 their work will be provided in accordance with the Court's orders and the California Code of Civil 19 Procedure, 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 46: 21 Has THIS DEFENDANT made available to its employees engaged in the MARKETing of its 22 RAW ASBESTOS FIBER and/or its ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S), a medical 23 examination program; if so, please state: 24 a. whether chest x-rays or pulmonary function tests were part of such program(s); 25 b. whether participation in any such program was a mandatory condition of employment 26 or was voluntary; 27 (i) if mandatory as a condition of employment, how frequently each employee 28 was required to undergo such examination; 47 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 c. whether THIS DEFENDANT has DOCUMENTS of such program; 2 d. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 3 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that Plaintiffs do not 4 provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products may allegedly be at issue in this case. 5 As such, Square D objects that this Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 6 of admissible evidence and is an improper, overly broad, onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt 7 by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly unlimited investigation into the broad and 8 diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it manufactured over the course of its over one 9 hundred year history that vary greatly and could possibly include many hundreds of different 10 products, product configurations, and many thousands of individual parts and pieces. Square D 11 objects that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, such as, for example, product-specific 12 catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would assist Square D in determining the 13 products at issue in this case. Square D also objects to the phrase "asbestos-containing products" to 14 the extent it implies that all Square D electrical components contained asbestos, which is expressly 15 denied. Square D further objects that this Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and 16 seeks information that is neither relevant to these actions nor reasonably calculated to lead to the 17 discovery of admissible evidence in that Plaintiffs do not allege they were Square D employees or 18 injured in any way at facilities where Square D electrical equipment products were manufactured or 19 assembled. The process of designing and manufacturing Square D products is vastly different from 20 any exposure Plaintiffs may allege. Put simply, any asbestos that may have been incorporated in 21 certain composite materials would be encapsulated and thus Plaintiffs would not be exposed to 22 respirable asbestos. Accordingly, the means and method of manufacture of a Square D product 23 would present a significantly different potential exposure to asbestos that would not be similar in any 24 way to Plaintiffs' alleged exposure. As such, information on the means and method of manufacture of 25 Square D products is not relevant to this action and is an unfair attempt to mislead the jury as to the 26 nature of Plaintiffs' alleged injury. 27 28 48 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 INTERROGATORY NO, 47: 2 Has THIS DEFENDANT notified in writing any individuals or COMPANIES to whom it 3 MARKETed RAW ASBESTOS FIBER and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S), 4 anywhere in the United States, of the potential relationship between exposure to asbestos and disease; 5 if so, please state: 6 a. the date(s) THIS DEFENDANT provided this information; 7 b. the means used for transmittal of such information; 8 c. whether THIS DEFENDANT has any copies of any DOCUMENTS transmitting such 9 information; 10 d. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such documents. 11 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, as an initial matter, 12 Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products 13 may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D believes this is an improper, overly broad, 14 onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly 15 unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it 16 manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year history that vary greatly and could 17 possibly include many hundreds of different products, product configurations, and many thousands of 18 individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, 19 such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would 20 assist Square D in determining the products at issue in this case. Square D further states that this 21 Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products 22 contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied, By way of further response, this 23 Interrogatory unfairly presumes that all products incorporating some quantity of asbestos, despite vast 24 distinctions in their finished form and application, create similar potential hazards, if any. Square D 25 did not sell or distribute raw asbestos fiber. Square D states that it has published and distributed 26 written materials providing warnings, cautions, and instructions with respect to potential hazards 27 associated with the use of its electrical equipment products. However, Square D does not reasonably 28 believe that its electrical equipment products posed an asbestos-related hazard when used as intended. 49 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 Therefore, safety warnings accompanying Square D electrical equipment products were not altered 2 on the basis of whether molded or bonded component parts manufactured from composite materials 3 could have contained some quantity of encapsulated asbestos and Square D is unaware of facts or 4 circumstances necessitating the provision of such warnings or instructions in connection with the 5 normal and intended use of its products. For purposes of defending itself in this litigation, however, 6 Square D may retain expert witnesses to review case materials, prepare reports, and testify relative to, 7 among other things, the historic and current understandings with respect to the connection between 8 asbestos exposure, asbestos, fiber types, fiber release, and possible disease in humans, particularly in 9 the context of the use and handling of electrical equipment products that may have included molded 10 or bonded component parts manufactured from composite materials. Disclosure of these experts and 11 their work will be provided in accordance with the Court's orders and the California Code of Civil 12 Procedure. 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 48: 14 Has THIS DEFENDANT required any individual(s) who MARKETed its ASBESTOS15 CONTAINING PRODUCT(S) to wear respirators or face masks; if so, please state: 16 a. the job title(s), if known, of individual(s) required to wear respirators or face masks; 17 b. the date(s) on which THIS DEFENDANT first required the wearing of respirators or 18 face masks; 19 c. the means by which the requirement to wear respirators or face masks was 20 communicated; 21 d. whether THIS DEFENDANT has any copies of DOCUMENTS communicating such 22 requirements; 23 e. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 24 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, Square D notes that 25 Plaintiffs in this litigation do not claim that they worked at or were otherwise present at Square D 26 facilities. Therefore, the means and method of manufacture of Square D products is vastly different 27 than any type of exposure the Plaintiffs may allege with respect to the use and handling of Square D 28 electrical equipment products. Plaintiffs cannot establish that Square D electrical equipment products 50 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 contained asbestos; indeed, not all of Square D's thousands of electrical equipment products 2 contained asbestos. Put simply, any asbestos that may have been incorporated in certain composite 3 materials incorporated into finished Square D electrical equipment products would be encapsulated 4 and thus Plaintiffs would not be exposed to respirable asbestos. Accordingly, the means and method 5 of manufacture of a Square D product would present a significantly different potential exposure to 6 asbestos that would not be similar in any way to Plaintiffs' alleged exposures in the use of those 7 Square D products. Additionally, Square D states that it did not provide its employees engaged in the 8 sale of Square D electrical equipment products with a respirator, and Square D does not reasonably 9 believe that the provision of a respirator was necessary or that its electrical equipment products posed 10 an asbestos related hazard when used as intended. By way of further response, Square D does not 11 have a formal custodian of records. 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 49: 13 Does or did THIS DEFENDANT utilize or employ any CONTRACT UNIT. If so, please 14 state: 15 a. the inclusive periods of time the CONTRACT UNIT(S) was utilized or employed; 16 b. the business address and name of the CONTRACT UNIT(S); 17 c. whether THIS DEFENDANT has any DOCUMENTS showing the location(s) of the 18 job site(s) where the CONTRACT UNIT(S) worked, and if so, state the IDENTITY of the custodian 19 of such DOCUMENTS. 20 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 21 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably 22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the relevant time 23 periods in which Plaintiffs allege exposure to certain Square D products. Square D also objects that 24 this Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and poses an incomplete hypothetical without context and 25 without any connection whatsoever to the product or component parts of such products allegedly 26 manufactured by Square D. Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, Square D has 27 offered certain maintenance and/or field repair services for its electrical equipment products. 28 51 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 50: 2 Has THIS DEFENDANT received any written communication or other DOCUMENT, other 3 than a claim for workers' compensation, that any person was claiming injury as a result of exposure 4 to its RAW ASBESTOS FIBER and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S); if so, please 5 IDENTITY the first such written communication or DOCUMENT. 6 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 7 is overly broad, unduly burdensome and oppressive to the extent that it seeks information about 8 cases, if any, not at issue in this litigation. Additionally, Square D objects that this Interrogatory 9 seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Subject to and without waiving its 10 foregoing objections, as an initial matter, Square D notes that Plaintiffs do not provide reasonable 11 notice regarding what Square D products may allegedly be at issue in this case. As such, Square D 12 believes this is an improper, overly broad, onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to 13 require Square D to conduct a nearly unlimited investigation into the broad and diverse variety of 14 electrical equipment products that it manufactured over the course of its over one hundred year 15 histoiy that vary greatly and could possibly include many hundreds of different products, product 16 configurations, and many thousands of individual parts and pieces. Square D also notes that 17 Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, such as, for example, product-specific catalog numbers 18 and/or factory order numbers, which would assist Square D in determining the products at issue in 19 this case. Square D further states that this Interrogatory is misleading to the extent that it implies all 20 Square D electrical equipment products contained asbestos components, which is expressly denied. 21 By way of further response, Square D did not sell or distribute raw asbestos fiber. Square D first 22 received notice of suit in June 1979 in the Mette Kamnick case, a products-liability case in Bucks 23 County, Pennsylvania. Square D was subsequently dismissed from the Kamnick case. 24 INTERROGATORY NO, 51: 25 Has any person filed a claim for asbestos-related injuiy regarding THIS DEFENDANT 26 against any workers' compensation insurance carrier which provided coverage for THIS 27 DEFENDANT; if so, please state: 28 a. the date of such claim; 52 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 b. the name of claimant; 2 c. the caption; 3 d. the case number; 4 e. the court in which the claim was filed; 5 f. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such documents. 6 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, Square D notes that 7 Plaintiffs in this litigation do not claim that they worked at or were otherwise present at Square D 8 facilities. Therefore, the means and method of manufacture of Square D products is vastly different 9 than any type of exposure the Plaintiffs may allege with respect to the use and handling of Square D 10 electrical equipment products, Plaintiffs cannot establish that Square D electrical equipment products 11 contained asbestos; indeed, not all of Square D's thousands of electrical equipment products 12 contained asbestos. Put simply, any asbestos that may have been incorporated in certain composite 13 materials incorporated into finished Square D electrical equipment products would be encapsulated 14 and thus Plaintiffs would not be exposed to respirable asbestos. Accordingly, the means and method 15 of manufacture of a Square D product would present a significantly different potential exposure to 16 asbestos that would not be similar in any way to Plaintiffs' alleged exposures in the use of those 17 Square D products. By way of further response, Square D directs Plaintiffs to its response to 18 Interrogatory No. 52. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 52: 20 Has any person filed a workers' compensation claim for asbestos-related injury against THIS 21 DEFENDANT; if so, please state: 22 a. the date of such claim; 23 b. the name of claimant; 24 c. the caption; 25 d. the case number; 26 e. the court in which the claim was filed; 27 f. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such documents. 28 53 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, Square D notes that 2 Plaintiffs in this litigation do not claim that they worked at or were otherwise present at Square D 3 facilities. Therefore, the means and method of manufacture of Square D products is vastly different 4 than any type of exposure the Plaintiffs may allege with respect to the use and handling of Square D 5 electrical equipment products. Plaintiffs cannot establish that Square D electrical equipment products 6 contained asbestos; indeed, not all of Square D's thousands of electrical equipment products 7 contained asbestos. Put simply, any asbestos that may have been incorporated in certain composite 8 materials incorporated into finished Square D electrical equipment products would be encapsulated 9 and thus Plaintiffs would not be exposed to respirable asbestos. Accordingly, the means and method 10 of manufacture of a Square D product would present a significantly different potential exposure to 11 asbestos that would not be similar in any way to Plaintiffs' alleged exposures in the use of those 12 Square D products. Additionally, and although whether Square D received workers' compensation 13 claims regarding employees involved in the manufacture of Square D electrical equipment products 14 has nothing to do with an asbestos-related hazard associated with the normal and intended use of 15 Square D electrical equipment products, Square D states that it has received asbestos-related workers' 16 compensation claims for the following individuals: George Franciskovick (claim filed in July 1987); 17 Donald Miller (claim filed in May 1988); Harry McArdle (claim filed in Ohio); Terry Browning 18 (claim filed in August 2001 before the North Carolina Industrial Commission); Mattie Jackson (claim 19 filed in July 2003 before the Illinois Industrial Commission); Sandra Oakley (claim filed in April 20 2005 before the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner); and Ray Shafer (claim filed in July 21 2011 before the North Carolina Industrial Commission). 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 53: 23 Does THIS DEFENDANT have insurance available to cover judgment(s) entered against it in 24 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits; if so, please state: 25 a. the name and principal place of business of any insurance carrier who has issued such 26 policy of insurance; 27 b. the number and effective date of each policy; 28 c. the amount(s) of coverage of each policy; 54 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 d. the applicable dates of coverage; 2 e. any reservation of rights contained in each such policy; 3 f. the amount of coverage presently exhausted under each such policy; 4 g. the amount of coverage presently available under each such policy; 5 h. whether limits contained in each such policy include costs of defense. 6 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections set forth above, Square D denies 7 any inference that it is liable on any of Plaintiffs' claims. By way of further answer, Square D 8 previously purchased various insurance policies which provide for liability coverage regarding its 9 product lines. Square D's known and confirmed liability insurance policies that have participated to 10 vaiying degrees in the defense and/or indemnification of asbestos-related bodily injury claims have 11 included the policies set forth on the following chart. The following chart identifies the liability 12 insurance coverage that was issued to Square D and may respond to asbestos-related bodily injury 13 claims, but Square D notes that the limits of various of these policies have been reduced as the result 14 of, for example, insurer insolvencies and prior payments: Insurer A. / ' . ' Policy Number 15 London Market Insurers CK2722 Policy Period 10/25/57-10/25/58 16 London Market Insurers CK2723 10/25/57-10/25/58 17 London Market Insurers London Market Insurers 18 London Market Insurers CK2724 K50304 K50352 10/25/57-10/25/58 10/25/57-10/25/58 10/25/57-10/25/58 19 London Market Insurers K50305 10/25/57-10/25/58 London Market Insurers 20 London Market Insurers CK2722 CK2723 10/25/58-10/25/59 10/25/58-10/25/59 21 London Market Insurers CK2724 10/25/58-10/25/59 22 London Market Insurers London Market Insurers 23 London Market Insurers K50304 K50352 K50305 10/25/58-10/25/59 10/25/58-10/25/59 10/25/58-10/25/59 24 London Market Insurers CK2722 10/25/59-11/24/60 London Market Insurers 25 London Market Insurers CK2723 CK2724 10/25/59-11/24/60 10/25/59-11/24/60 26 London Market Insurers K50304 10/25/59-11/24/60 27 London Market Insurers London Market Insurers 28 London Market Insurers K50352 K50305 CU 1004 10/25/59-11/24/60 10/25/59-11/24/60 11/24/60-11/24/61 Limits $100,000 $400,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $100,000 $400,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $100,000 $400,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 55 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Insurer 1 London Market Insurers 2 London Market Insurers 3 London Market Insurers London Market Insurers 4 London Market Insurers 5 London Market Insurers London Market Insurers 6 London Market Insurers 7 London Market Insurers 8 London Market Insurers London Market Insurers 9 London Market Insurers 10 London Market Insurers London Market Insurers 11 London Market Insurers 12 London Market Insurers 13 London Market Insurers London Market Insurers 14 London Market Insurers 15 London Market Insurers London Market Insurers 16 London Market Insurers 17 London Market Insurers 18 London Market Insurers London Market Insurers 19 London Market Insurers 20 American Employers American Employers 21 American Employers 22 Affiliated FM Affiliated FM 23 Affiliated FM 24 Affiliated FM 25 Northbrook Northbrook 26 Northbrook 27 London Market Insurers 28 Policy Number K 65077 K 65078 CU 1004 K 65077 K65078 CU 1004 K 65077 K65078 CU 1004 K 65077 K65078 CU 3470/CL94176 CU 3471/CL94177 CU 3470/CL94176 CU 3471/CL94177 CU 3470/CL94176 CU 3471/CL94177 CU 8322/CL99220 CU 8323/CL99201 CU 8324/CL99202 CU 8322/CL99220 CU 8323/CL99201 CU 8324/CL99202 CU 8322/CL99220 CU 8323/CL99201 CU 8324/CL99202 AW-8500-445 AW-8500-445 AW-8500-445 71592 71592 71592 94718 63-001-905 63-003-201 63-004-659 79DD1875C/PR11 4979(A) Policy Period 11/24/60-11/24/61 11/24/60-11/24/61 11/24/61-11/24/62 11/24/61-11/24/62 11/24/61-11/24/62 11/24/62-11/24/63 11/24/62-11/24/63 11/24/62-11/24/63 11/24/63-06/30/64 11/24/63-06/30/64 11/24/63-06/30/64 06/30/64-06/30/65 06/30/64-06/30/65 06/30/65-06/30/66 06/30/65-06/30/66 06/30/66-08/30/67 06/30/66-08/30/67 08/30/67-08/30/68 08/30/67-08/30/68 08/30/67-06/30/68 08/30/68-08/30/69 08/30/68-08/30/69 06/30/68-06/30/69 08/30/69-06/30/70 08/30/69-06/30/70 06/30/69-06/30/70 06/30/70-06/30/71 06/30/71-06/30/72 06/30/72-06/30/73 06/30/73-06/30/74 06/30/74-06/30/75 06/30/75-06/30/76 06/30/76-06/30/77 06/30/76-06/30/77 06/30/77-06/30/78 06/30/78-06/30/79 06/30/79-06/30/80 Limits $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $22,500,000 $25,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $22,000,000 $5,000,000 56 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Insurer 1 London Market Insurers 2 London Market Insurers 3 London Market Insurers 4 London Market Insurers 5 London Market Insurers 6 London Market Insurers 7 London Market Insurers 8 London Market Insurers 9 London Market Insurers 10 London Market Insurers Policy Number 79DD1876C/PY11 5079(A)* 79DD1877C/PY11 5179** 79DD1875C/PR11 4979(B) 79DD1876C/PY11 5079(B)* 80DD1928C/PY11 5180** 79DD1875C/PR11 4979(C) 79DD1876C/PY11 5079(C)* 80DD1928C/PY11 5180** KY022582(A) KY022682(A) Policy Period 06/30/79-06/30/80 06/30/79-06/30/80 06/30/80-06/30/81 06/30/80-06/30/81 06/30/80-06/30/81 06/30/81-06/30/82 06/30/81-06/30/82 06/30/81-06/30/82 06/30/82-06/30/83 06/30/82-06/30/83 Limits $14,550,000 $5,450,000 $5,000,000 $14,550,000 $5,450,000 $5,000,000 $14,550,000 $5,450,000 $5,000,000 $20,000,000 11 London Market Insurers KY022682(B) 06/30/83-06/30/84 $20,000,000 12 London Market Insurers London Market Insurers 13 KY022582(C) 06/30/84-06/30/85 KY022682(C) 06/30/84-06/30/85 * = $14,550,000 p/o S20MM $5,000,000 $20,000,000 14 ** - $5,450,000 p/o S20MM By way of further response, Square D states that its investigation into the subject matter of this 15 Interrogatory is ongoing and Square D reserves the right to amend or supplement this response as 16 appropriate. 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 54; 18 Has THIS DEFENDANT owned or operated any petroleum refining facilities; if so, please 19 state: 20 a. whether any ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S) WERE MARKETed on the 21 premises of such refining facilities; 22 b. the location, including the name and address of all such refining facilities; 23 c. the dates of operation of such refining facilities; 24 d. the types of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S) MARKETed on such 25 premises; 26 e. the names of the manufacturers of any ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS 27 MARKETed on such premises; 28 57 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 f. whether THIS DEFENDANT has documents identifying such MARKETing; 2 g. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such documents. 3 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections and to the best of its 4 present knowledge, Square D has not owned or operated any petroleum refining facilities. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 55: 6 Has THIS DEFENDANT held a controlling ownership interest in any COMPANY which 7 owned or operated petroleum refining facilities: if so, for the period(s) of time during which THIS 8 DEFENDANT held such interest, please state: 9 a. whether any ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS were MARKETed on the 10 premises of such refining facilities; 11 b. the location, including the name and address of all such refining facilities; 12 c. the dates of operation of such refining facilities; 13 d. the types of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS MARKETed on such 14 premises; 15 e. the names of the manufacturers of any ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS 16 MARKETed on such premises; 17 f. whether THIS DEFENDANT has DOCUMENTS identifying such MARKETing; 18 g. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 19 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General Objections, Square D has not held 20 a controlling interest in any company that owned or operated petroleum refining facilities. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 57: 22 Has THIS DEFENDANT contracted with any COMPANY for the MARKETing of 23 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S) on any premises owned or leased by THIS 24 DEFENDANT; if so, please state: 25 a. the location, including name and address of such premises; 26 b. the name and address of each such COMPANY; 27 c. the types of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS; 28 d. the name of the manufacturers of such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS; 58 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 e. whether THIS DEFENDANT has DOCUMENTS of such MARKETing; 2 f. the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 3 ANSWER: In addition to its foregoing General Objections, Square D objects that Plaintiffs do not 4 provide reasonable notice regarding what Square D products may allegedly be at issue in this case. 5 As such, Square D objects that this Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 6 of admissible evidence and is an improper, overly broad, onerous, and fundamentally unfair attempt 7 by Plaintiffs to require Square D to conduct a nearly unlimited investigation into the broad and 8 diverse variety of electrical equipment products that it manufactured over the course of its over one 9 hundred year history that vary greatly and could possibly include many hundreds of different 10 products, product configurations, and many thousands of individual parts and pieces, Square D 11 objects that Plaintiffs have failed to provide information, such as, for example, product-specific 12 catalog numbers and/or factory order numbers, which would assist Square D in determining the 13 products at issue in this case. Square D also objects to the phrase "asbestos-containing products" to 14 the extent that it implies all Square D electrical equipment products contained asbestos components, 15 which is expressly denied. Additionally, Square D objects that this Interrogatory is vague, 16 ambiguous, and confusing as applied to Square D. 17 18 Dated: March 7,2012 19 K&L GATES llp 20 21 Attorneys for Defendant SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC. 22 f/k/a SQUARE D COMPANY 23 24 25 26 27 28 59 DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC'S (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D COMPANY) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 In re: Complex Asbestos Litigation Alameda CouiUy, California 2 j-> VERIFICATION 4 1, Bryce Wendland, stale that 1 am an employee of Schneider Electric USA, Inc,, formerly 5 known as Square D Company ("the Company") and am authorized to make this verification for and 6 on behalf of the Company. I have read the Company's Fourth Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' 7 First Set oflntcrrogalories and am familiar with the contents thereof. 1 declare under penalty of 8 perjury under the laws of the Slate of California that the answers of the Company are true to the best 9 of my knowledge, information, and belief as I have been informed by others, limited records and 10 information available with respect to the subject matters at issue. 11 12 Dated: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 In re: Complex Asbestos Litigation Alameda County, California 3 4 VERIFICATION 5 I, William Pratt, state that I am an employee of Schneider Electric USA, Inc., formerly known 6 as Square D Company ("the Company") and am authorized to make this verification for and on 7 behalf of the Company. 1 have read the Company's Fourth Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' 8 First Set of InteiTOgatories and am familiar with the contents thereof. I declare under penalty of 9 perjury under the laws of the State of California that the answers of the Company are true to the best 10 of my knowledge, information, and belief as I have been informed by others, limited records and n information available with respect to the subject matters at issue. 12 13 Dated: 14 2011 15 William Pratt 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cari R, Pillo, et al. vs. CBS Corporation, et al. Alameda County Superior Court Case No.: RG 11-607335 1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 2 Executed on March 7,2012, at San Francisco, California. 3 4 Riza Florencio 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PROOF OF SERVICE