Document JvaBRyEmw55M3Epb5Y6r451n6

21119/DA/wb 8/30/02 J:\DA\ASBHSTOS\F.B. WrightVResponses to Baron & Budd Interogatories.wpd PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT FBW-3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO IN RE: ALL BARON & BUDD CASES IN WHICH F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI IS NAMED AS DEFENDANT Plaintiffs, -vs- A-BEST PRODUCTS COMPANY, ET AL,, Defendants. : ASBESTOS MASTER CASE : NUMBER 073958 : : (JUDGE HARRY A. HANNA) ANSWERS OF F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI TO PLAINTIFFS* MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI TO: F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI, by and through its attorney of record, David Arnold, Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, 2500 Terminal Tower, 50 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44113-2241. F.B. Wright Company ofCincinnati ("Defendant") is hereby requested to answer under oath the interrogatories numbered 1 to 58, inclusive, as set forth below, within twenty-eight (28) days of the time service is made upon Defendant, in accordance with Ohio Civil Rule 33. INSTRUCTIONS 1. Answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection must be stated in lieu of answer. 2. An evasive or incomplete answer is deemed to be a failure to answer under Ohio Civil Rule 37(A). PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 1 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all. fbwright-cin.rog.wpd 3. Defendant is under a continuing duty to seasonably supplement its response with respect to any question directly addressed to the identity and location of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters, and the identity of each person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial and the subject matter on which he or she is expected to testify. Furthermore, Defendant, pursuant to Rule 26(E) of the Ohio Rules, is under a similar duty to correct any incorrect response when Defendant later learns that it is incorrect, including in such supplemental answer the date upon and manner in which such further or different information came to Defendant's attention. 4. Unless otherwise specified, each of these interrogatories are meant to apply to the time period from 1920 until the present. 5. Should Defendant assert a privilege with respect to any information, Defendant is requested to provide the following as to each such document or item of information: (a) The type of document or information (e.g., letter, notebook, telephone conversation, etc.), (b) The date of the document or transaction involving the information; (c) Identification of the author and/or all participants with respect to the information; (d) Identification of the signatory or signatories of the document, if any; (e) Identification of the document's current custodian; (f) The present whereabouts of the document and/or the names of all persons with personal knowledge with respect to the information; and (g) A statement ofthe grounds on which the claim ofprivilege rests with respect to each such document or piece of information withheld. 6. If your answer states that Defendant is undertaking an investigation of the subject matter ofthe interrogatory, state when the investigation began, what steps comprise the investigation and what documents are being reviewed as part of the investigation. 7. The following terms are defined as follows for the purpose of these interrogatories: PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 2 N:'OHIO'CLTAHOGA\DlSCOVERvall.fbwTight-cin.rog.wpd DEFINITIONS As used in this set of Interrogatories, the following terms mean: 1. The words "Defendant," "You," "Your," or "Your company," all mean the corporate Defendant separately answering these Interrogatories, and any of its merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates. This includes, but is not limited to, those known to have mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, utilized or distributed asbestos or asbestos-containing products or that incorporated-asbestos or asbestos-containing products at any work site. This definition includes present and former officers, directors, servants, agents, employees, and all other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of the corporate Defendant or its predecessors, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates known to have mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, utilized or distributed asbestos or asbestos-containing products. "Predecessors" means any business firm, whether or not incorporated, which had all or some of its assets purchased by you or came to be acquired by you whether by merger, consolidation, or otherwise known to have mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, utilized, or distributed asbestos or asbestos-containing products. "Subsidiaries" means any business firm, whether or not incorporated, which is or was in any way owned or controlled, in whole or in part by Defendant or-its predecessors and which is known to have mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, utilized or distributed asbestos or asbestos-containing products. 2. "Document" includes, but is not limited to, correspondence, letter, memoranda, message, note, report, cable, telegram, photograph, film, tape, and all other written communications of every kind and character; note, recording disk, or any other record of oral communication; microfilm; worksheet; schedule; exhibit; demonstrative aid; letter; contract; agreement; deeds, bills ofsale, deeds oftrust, security agreements, leases and other instruments or documents oftitle; maps; diagrams; logs; summaries; printouts; graphs, charts; compilations, tables; publications; manuals; minutes; by-laws; articles of incorporation; resolution; shareholder endorsements; partnership PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 3 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DlSCOVER\alI.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd documents; minute books, diaries; calendars, bank statements, tax returns; lists; tapes, video tapes; and any other data compilations from which information can be obtained and translated. 3. "Identify" means to give the date, title, origin, author, and addressee to enable plaintiffto retrieve it from a file; and further, identify means to give the name, address, position, title, and whether a person is employed or not employed by Defendant. 4. The words "person" or "persons" include natural persons, firms, partnerships, associations, joint ventures, corporations, and any other form of business organization or arrangement, and officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, and contractors ofany business organization or arrangement. 5. The words "meeting" or "meetings" may mean any coincidence or presence of any persons, whether or not such coincidence or presence was pre-arranged, was formal or informal, or was in connection with some other activity. 6. The words "describe" or "description", when referring to a place, thing, or occurrence, mean to identify with sufficient particularity the place, thing, or occurrence so as to enable one to locate, examine and fully comprehend or understand the place, thing, or occurrence described. 7. The words "product containing asbestos fibers," "asbestos-containing products," or "asbestos products" all refer to any products or materials prepared in any way for sale and/or distribution that contained any kind of asbestos in any possible form. The words "asbestos materials" refer to any and all materials, substance, or matter used or assembled or fabricated during the manufacture ofa product, and that contain at least some asbestos fibers. "Product" includes, but is not limited to, pipecovering, turbines, cement, block, gaskets, packing, plaster, joint compound, floor and ceiling tiles, mastics, boilers, raw fibers, fireproofing, shingles, panels, sheets, boards, millboard, refractory cement, boilers, firebrick, brake and clutch linings, finishing compound, texture, and other construction, building, drywall, lath and insulation materials. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 4 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGAvDISCOVERVall.fowright-cin.rog.wpd 8. The words "design changes," or "modifications" mean alterations in the makeup and/or components of a particular product, including but not limited to, variations in the amount or type of asbestos used in the process of manufacturing the product. 9. The words "distribute," "distributed," "distributor,", or "distribution" all refer to the sale, marketing, dispersal and/or shipment ofasbestos-containing products for purposes oftheir sale, resale and/or for purposes of filling orders provided by other business concerns. The word "distributor" specifically refers to a company or its sales representatives, whether dependent or independent, responsible for sales or marketing of products. 10. The words "marketed," or "market" mean and include all efforts to assist in the distribution and/or sale of products. More generally, these terms refer to only efforts on your part or the part of manufacturers or distributors to sell or otherwise distribute products. 11. The words "medical advisory capacity" refer to the duties, abilities or capabilities of any member of Defendant's staff, or any individual or organization who has contracted with Defendant, to provide services of a medical nature, including but not limited to providing medical advice. 12. The words "trade organization," or "trade association" mean any organizations or associations of business or industrial entities that are associated and/or meet for the purpose of achieving common goals and/or exchanging information related to common needs or interests, and/or learning information or facts of interest to the various members of the organization or association. 13. The word "plant" means a manufacturing or assembly facility where products are assembled, manufactured, constructed, fabricated, or where component parts, materials, substances, or matter of such products are fabricated, assembled, or manufactured or are prepared for further fabrication and/or assembly. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 5 N:\OHIO'CUYAHOGA'DISCOVERXall.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd 14. The word "manufacture," or "manufactured" means to fabricate, to construct, to assemble, prepare for fabrication or assembly, or any other action taken prior to completion of the product or material before the time of its shipment. 15. The words "sales materials," or "written sales materials" mean any and all documents or literature of a promotional nature that were created or printed for the purpose of assisting in the marketing or distribution of the products. Such documentation may include, but is not limited to, sales invoices, order slips, and other written indicia of orders received and sales made. 16. The words "rebranding agreement" mean an agreement ofany kind whereby one party to the agreement is provided products by the other party to the agreement and the agreement contemplates that the first party will place the brand name of its choice upon the products, either by repackaging or otherwise, and then proceed to sell, market, distribute and/or place the product in the stream of commerce, utilizing its new brand name. 17. The words "research" or "research department" refer to efforts, whether scientific or otherwise, to develop new and/or different types of products, processes or designs of pre-existing products and is meant to incorporate all efforts that specifically contemplated the possible alteration of products. 18. The words "medical department" refer to an individual or a section or group of individuals working for Defendants, either directly or in a contractual capacity, whose purpose was or is to provide guidance, assistance, or advice concerning any aspects ofmedical health, including but not limited to, the safety of Defendant's workers and the safety of individuals using products manufactured by Defendant. 19. The words "industrial hygiene surveys" mean surveys, tests, interviews, or other procedures taken or effectuated for the purpose of determining air quality, air contamination, dust content, safety of a facility or hazards at any site or facility. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 6 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVERNMl.ft>wright-cin.rog.wpd 20. The words "health hazards," or "potential health hazards" refer and relate to any injury, effect, damage, scarring, wound, impairment or disability of any part ofthe human anatomy, including but not limited to the lungs and lung linings. 21. The words "test" or "testing" are used in their broadest sense, including but not limited to, studies of atmospheric dust samples, studies of the concentration of asbestos in such airborne test samples, studies of the lung conditions ofworkers (by x-ray or other means of medical surveillance), pulmonary function studies ofworkers, animal studies, pathological studies, industrial hygiene studies,?isk assessment studies, cost-benefit analyses and any other studies on the product concerning health and safety required by any governmental agency. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS Defendant F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati objects to this discovery at the outset for the reason that the Baron & Budd site list attached as Exhibit A to the master set of interrogatories demonstrates that the vast majority ofwork sites are locations where this Defendant has never sold any product. As such, the Plaintiffs' work site identification, without specific product identification, should not require this Defendant to respond to the master interrogatories set. Defendant F.B. Wright Company ofCincinnati objects to the "instructions" and "definitions" segments ofPlaintiffs' master set ofinterrogatories to the extent that they may seek to impart on this answering Defendant any requirement or obligation beyond those which are implicit in the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and/or to the extent they define terms other than those terms commonly used or understood under Ohio law. Defendant F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati further objects to Plaintiffs' master set of interrogatories to the extent they seek information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine, or otherwise as trial preparation materials outside what is permitted under the Court's Case Management Plans (as amended). Defendant F.B. Wright Company ofCincinnati incorporates this Preliminary Statement and General Objection into each and every interrogatory answer without repeating and restating them PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 7 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGANDISCOVER\a11.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd individually therein. Without waiving any of these objections, and subject thereto, Defendant F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati hereby provides the following responses: ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES 1. For each Interrogatory below, please state the name, and last known address of each person answering it, including whether he/she is employed by Defendant and if employed by Defendant include job title, length oftime employed by Defendant and a year by year list ofall other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant. ANSWER: Arthur Colburn, President . F. B. Wright Company of Cincinnati Physical Address: 4689 Ashley Drive Hamilton, Ohio 45011 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 46507 Cincinnati, Ohio 45240 Mr. Colburn has been employed by F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati for 24 years and is currently the President of the Company, a position which he has held since 1999 Mr. Colburn was the general manager ofF.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati from 1981 to 1999. Gayle Eastham, Office Manager F. B. Wright Company of Cincinnati Physical Address: 4689 Ashley Drive Hamilton, Ohio 45011 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 46507 Cincinnati, Ohio 45240 Ms. Eastham has been employed by the F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati since 1970 and has been office manager since 1983. 1.1 Please identify all documents used, related to, or referred to in connection with the preparation of or answers to these Interrogatories and state the number of the Interrogatory and its subpart to each such document. ANSWER: We have utilized all available records in connection with the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories. However, our Company has, throughout its history, had a record PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 8 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\ail.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd retention policy of seven years. Therefore, the vast majority of the records reviewed had been only in the last seven years with exceptions as noted below. 2. Please state whether or not Defendant is a corporation. If so, please state: (a) Your correct corporate name; (b) The state of your incorporation; (c) The address of your principal place of business; (d) Your registered agent for service in the state of Ohio; (e) For each Defendant claiming that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction, list year by year the total amount of income received by Defendant from entities in Ohio, any and all years that Defendant, as defined, has been licensed to do business in Ohio, and any real property owned at any time by Defendant or its present or past subsidiaries. ANSWER: (a) F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati (b) Delaware (c) F. B. Wright Company of Cincinnati Physical Address: 4689 Ashley Drive Hamilton, Ohio 45011 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 46507 Cincinnati, Ohio 45240 (d) C.T. Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio (e) N/A. 3. State Defendant's complete corporate or business history, including dates of incorporation, mergers, consolidations, reincorporations, and the like. Also provide historical information regarding all predecessors, prior names, asset purchases, acquisitions or spin-offs. In addition: (a) ifDefendant or any ofits predecessors or subsidiaries at any time purchased, assumed, or in any other manner acquired ANY of the assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity at any prior time engaged in any aspect of the placing of asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce or the insuring of asbestos-related risks, then please state the following as to each acquisition: PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 9 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOG A\DISCOVER'all.fbwright-cin.rag.wpd (b) the name or description of each corporation, entity or assets acquired by Defendant, that entity's state of incorporation and principal place ofbusiness, its date of incorporation, and the name of Defendant at the time of acquisition; (c) the manner by which each such corporation, entity or interest therein, was acquired (e.g.," merger, consolidation, change of name, stock sale, transfer or purchase of assets or product line); (d) the date of each such acquisition; (e) the state in which each such acquisition was effected; . (f) the state law governing each such acquisition if specified by contract; (g) whether Defendant became legally responsible for the past torts of each such corporation or entity; (h) identify each document reflecting or related to the history and/or transaction(s) set forth in answer to this Interrogatory. ANSWER: See Answer to Interrogatory No. 2 above. (a) N/A (b) N/A (c) N/A (d) N/A (e) N/A (f) ' N/A (g) N/A (h) N/A 4. Please state whether or not Defendant has purchased, assumed, or in any other manner acquired any ofthe assets and/or liabilities ofany corporation or entity (such corporations or entities PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 10 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER'all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd being limited to those engaged in the mining, selling, manufacturing, marketing or distribution of asbestos-containing products.) If so, please state the following: (a) the name or description of each corporation, entity or assets acquired by Defendant, its state of incorporation and principal place of business, its date of incorporation, and the name of Defendant at the time of acquisition; (b) the manner by which each such corporation, entity, or interest therein, was acquired (e.g. merger, consolidation, change ofname, stock sale, transfer or purchase of assets or product line); (e) the date of each such acquisition; (d) the state in which each such acquisition was effected; (e) the state law governing each such acquisition if specified by contract; (f) whether Defendant became legally responsible for the past torts of each such corporation or entity; (g) whether the acquisition concerned asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: No. (a) N/A (b) N/A (c) N/A (d) N/A (e) N/A (f) N/A (g) N/A 4.1 For each corporation, other than the answering Defendant, that has at any time in the past been involved in the placing of asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce for PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 11 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd which officers of the answering Defendant's corporation have also served as officers, directors or served in any managerial position while employed by the answering defendant, state: (a) the name of the entity involved in the placing of asbestos products into the stream of commerce; (b) the manner in which the entity was involved in the placing of asbestos containing products into the stream of commerce (i.e., mining, milling, manufacturing, distributing, installing, rebranding, etc.); (c) the specific products placed into the stream of sr commerce by the entity, year by year and by brand or trade name; (d) the name, positions and a brief description of the responsibilities of the person or persons serving the answering Defendant and the entity simultaneously, including the positions held with the entity and with the answering Defendant. ANSWER: Not applicable. 5. Has Defendant ever engaged in the mining, manufacturing, selling, marketing, installation or distribution of asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the following: (a) The name of the company engaged in the activity (whether it is Defendant, Defendant's predecessor. Defendant's subsidiary or some other entity related to Defendant); (b) As to each product mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed, please state the following: (1) The trade or brand name. (2) Its identification number (model, serial number, etc.). (3) The time period it was manufactured, mined, marketed, distributed or sold. (4) Its physical description including color, general composition, and form. (5) A detailed description of its intended use and purpose. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 12 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd (6) A detailed description of the type package in which it was sold, listing the dates of each type of package used, a physical description of the package, and a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. (7) The percent of asbestos which it contained. (8) The percent of asbestos by asbestos type (amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, chrysotile). (c) The time period during which each of these products were on the market; (d) The material components/ingredients of each such product, giving specific or approximate percentage both by weight and by volume of each material component/ingredient (this interrogatory is not limited to the asbestos component ofthe product but seeks information as to the nature, weight and volume of non-asbestos ingredients, as well) of each such product; (e) How each of these asbestos-containing product can be distinguished from those of competitors; (f) A description of the physical appearance of such product; (g) A detailed description of the intended uses. ANSWER: Yes. (a) F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati (b) (1) Garlock, Inc. (2) Gasket Sheet and Precut Gaskets (3) 1976-1981 (4) Precut and sheet. The sheets were 60" x 60" and varied in thickness. The material was compressed and looked like linoleum. It was rubber impregnated and came in various colors including dark green, black and white. There was both a manufacturers' part number and the "Garlock" name on the gaskets. (5) The gaskets were used for any type ofpiping system. Generally, they were utilized for maintenance. (6) Precut gaskets came in a cardboard box. The sheet gaskets were shipped on skids without any covering. (7) Unknown. (8) Unknown. (c) 1976 to 1981. (d) Unknown. (e) By brand name. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 13 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.(bwright-cin.rog.wpd (f) See Answer to Interrogatory No. 5(b)(4) above. (g) It was used as a gasket. 6. Does Defendant or any ofits subsidiary companies claim that any patent would cover any product listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please' state the following: (a) The date of each patent; (b) The date same was issued; (c) *r ANSWER: . No. The number of each patent application that is pending. 7. Have any of the products listed above in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 been altered in chemical composition since first being marketed? If so, please state the following: (a) The trade name of each such product; (b) The date each such product was altered; (c) The nature of the alteration; (d) The reason for the alteration. ANSWER: No. 8. Have any ofthe asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 ever been marketed, distributed, packaged, labeled, and/or sold by any other company or business? If so, please state the following: (a) The name and address of each such company. (b) The names and address of Defendant's distributors in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky since 1940. (c) The date of each sale. (d) The name of the person at each location with whom you primarily dealt. (e) A list of all asbestos-containing products that you sold to each location from 1945 to 1980. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 14 N:\OfflO\CUYAHOGAVDISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd ANSWER: (f) The amount ofeach asbestos product sold to each location during this period. (g) Please identify all documents relating to this distributor for the particular location. Unknown. 8.01 Has Defendant ever purchased asbestos-containing products from any other Defendant? ANSWER: Yes. 8.02 If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is yes, please state the following: (a) name each Defendant from whom this Defendant purchased any asbestos-containing product; (b) list each product purchased from each co-Defendant; (c) list the dates of each purchase of asbestos-containing products from each co-Defendant. ANSWER: (a) Garlock, Inc. (b) On account of the record retention policy as related above, we are unable to respond to this question with specificity as it relates to the purchase of any products that may have contained asbestos. (c) See Answer to Interrogatory No. 8.02(b) above. 8.03 Has Defendant ever sold asbestos-containing products to any other Defendant? ANSWER: No. 8.04 If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is yes, please state the following: (a) name each Defendant to whom this Defendant sold any asbestos-containing product; (b) list each product sold to each co-Defendant; PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 15 N:\OH10\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd ANSWER: (c) N/A list the dates of each sale of asbestos-containing products to each co-Defendant. 8.05 Has Defendant engaged in the manufacture and/or sale and/or distribution and/or marketing and/or supply and/or purchase and/or use ofnon-asbestos-containing products for use in connection with temperatures above 125 Fahrenheit since 1930? If so, please state: (a) the date such activity began; (b) the years during which such activity took place; (c) the date when such activity was terminated; (d) if such activity was terminated, the reason(s) why; (e) the geographical area into which you claim the product(s) were sold, purchased, or used; (f) identify the organizational unit of Defendant so engaged; (g) the site(s) at which each such product was manufactured; (h) the material components ofeach such product, giving specific or approximate percentage both by weight and by volume of each material component of each such product; (i) the temperature ranges for which each product(s) was intended to be used; (j) the product's generic name; (k) the product's trade or brand name; (l) the container in which the product was shipped (i.e., paper bags, cardboard boxes) including the size and amount of the container; (m) a description of any logos, writing impressions or identifying markings which appeared on the product, as well as a description ofthe package used, the dates that type ofpackage was used, and any logos, product PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 16 N:\OraO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd names, trademarks, etc. which appeared on the package; (n) whether the words "non-asbestos" or "asbestos free" were used on the package; (o) a detailed description of the intended method of preparation and application of the product;" (P) a description of the physical appearance of the product, including size, shape, color and texture. ANSWER: Yes. (*) ' (b) 1980. 1980. (c) N/A (d) N/A (e) The greater Cincinnati area. (f) N/A (g) N/A (h) N/A (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) 300 degrees fahrenheit Non-asbestos gasket sheet. Blueguard. The sheets were delivered on skids. The Precut gaskets were in a cardboard box or a plastic bag. The words "blueguard" and "non-asbestos" appeared on the product. (n) No. (o) See answer to Interrogatory No. 5(b)(5) above. (P) The sheets were 60" x 60". The Precut gaskets varied in color depending on the type of rubber compound. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 17 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\alI.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd 8.06 Did Defendant ever market or distribute any asbestos-containing product manufactured in whole or in part by someone else? If so, please state the following for each such product: (a) the name and address of the manufacturer;; (b) the product's trade and brand name; (c) the organizational unit of Defendant who did so; (d) XT . (e) date(s) beginning, ending and during which the marketing or distributing took place; whether the product was distributed through the same channels as those used for products manufactured by Defendant, and if not, please explain the exact channels of distribution; (f) identify all documents relating the marketing or distribution. ANSWER: Yes. (a) Garlock, Inc. 1666 Division Street Palmyra, New York 14522 (b) Gasket Sheet and Precut Gaskets (c) N/A (d) 1976 - 1981 (e) N/A (f) No records before 1995 8.1 Does Defendant have reason to believe that any of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 were used at any of the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto? If your answer is "yes", please state: (a) The basis of your answer. (b) Which ofDefendant's asbestos-containing products listed in InterrogatoryNo. 5 were used at each job site listed on Exhibit A. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 18 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd ANSWER: Possibly but not certain. (a) Recollection (b) Possibly Gasket Sheet and/or Precut. 8.2 For each company or business that Defendant knows may have marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold those products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please state the following as to each job site listed on Exhibit A: (a) The name and address of each such company; (b) The date of each sale from Defendant to such other company; (c) The name of the person at each other company with whom Defendant primarily dealt. (d) Names and quantities ofthe asbestos-containing products that you marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974. (e) Identify all documents relating to the sales to each such company. ANSWER: (a) Armco Steel, Middletown, OH Armco Steel, Ashland, KY Philip Carey, Cincinnati, OH (b) We are unable to answer this Interrogatory because of our record retention policy. (c) We are unable to answer this Interrogatory because of our record retention policy. (d) We could possibly have sold this product only from 1976 to 1981. However, our record retention policy prevents us from specifically answering this Interrogatory. (e) We have no such documents. 8.3 Ifyou do not know anybusiness that may have marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 to any of the job sites listed on Exhibit A, please state the names and last known addresses of those companies who Defendant knows PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 19 N:\OfflO\CUYAHOGA\DlSCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd marketed, distributed, installed and/or sold their asbestos-containing products in Ohio from 1950 to 1974. For each of those companies, please state the following: (a) Name and address of each such company; (b) The dates of each sale from Defendant to such other company; (c) The name of the person at each other company with whom Defendant primarily dealt; (d) The names of the asbestos-containing products that Defendant marketed, distributed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974. ANSWER: Unknown. 8.4 Does Defendant have records and/or any knowledge that reflects sales of their asbestos-containing products to any of the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto? If so, please state the following as to each job site listed on Exhibit A: (a) The names and last known addresses of those people with such knowledge. (b) The location of such records. ANSWER: No. 9. Did Defendant or any of Defendant's distributors, as listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 8.1,8.2, and/or 8.3 have sales representatives who specifically called on the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto, from 1945 to 1975? Ifyour response is yes, as to each site listed on Exhibit A, please state the following: (a) The name and last known address of each such representative and whether they are still employed by Defendant; (b) The period of time they acted as your representative; (c) Their general responsibility as to each facility; (d) Whether that person is still alive; and (e) Any documents relating, referring or pertaining thereto. ANSWER: Yes. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 20 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd (a) James Carmichael P.O. Box 64 Dayton, Ohio 45409 William Shakespeare, Jr. Last Known Address: 2028 Hawaii Drive St. Petersburg, FL 33707 (b) Carmichael Shakespeare - 1971 to present 1970 to 1975 (c) Sales (d) Yes, both. (e) None. 9.1 Identify all managers and sales personnel responsible for your sales or installation of any asbestos-containing products in Ohio from 1930 to the present and state their position, last known address and the local or regional office through which they were employed. ANSWER: Objection. This answering Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it suggests or implies that this Defendant is currently selling asbestos-containing products. Without waiving said objection, these are the same two individuals identified in the Answer to Interrogatory 9(a) above. 10. Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying or removing asbestos-containing products? If so, please state: (a) The name of each subdivision; (b) The full address of the home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business; and (c) Whether said division or subsidiary conducted such business at any of the sites listed on Exhibit A from 1940 to 1975? If so, please state the following as to each job site listed on Exhibit A: (1) The dates of such contracts; PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 21 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd (2) The specific asbestos-containing products that were used or removed in each contract. ANSWER: No. 11. Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying or removing asbestos-containing refractory? If so, please give the name of each subdivision, the full address of the home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business. Sr ANSWER:- . No. 12. Please identify by location and product produced, each plant in which products listed in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5 have been manufactured and/or assembled and the dates said plants have been in operation. ANSWER: Garlock, Inc. 1666 Division Street Palmyra, New York 14522 13. Has Defendant, at any time, entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as a buyer or a seller, concerning any asbestos-containingproducts and/or materials? If so, please state: (a) The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products under such agreement; (b) The trade name affixed to such products; (c) The periods of time covered by each such agreement; (d) The volume (in dollars amounts) of each such transaction; (e) The purchaser of such products; PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 22 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.lbwright-cin.rog.wpd (f) Does Defendant currently have in its possession any of the writings or contracts concerning such rebranding agreement? ANSWER: No. 13.1 Have you ever owned or operated a business or portion thereof which engaged in construction, erection or tear-out of furnaces, pipes, boilers, turbines, lehrs, ovens, kilns, etc? Ifso, please state: (a) the name of said business; (b) the date of commencing business and cessation of business, if applicable; (c) type of construction or tear-out performed; (d) state whether said business installed or supplied asbestos-containing products on the furnaces, pipes, boilers, turbines, lehrs, etc., i.e., gaskets, pipecovering, block, cement, rope, cloth, clothes, etc., containing asbestos, asbestos pipe, board, etc.; (e) state the trade name and/or manufacturer of any asbestos-containing product which you installed or supplied to any site on Exhibit A. (f) provide the dates for the applicable construction, installation or tear-out project. ANSWER: No. 13.2 Do you have within your custody, possession, or control any packages that presently or formerly packaged asbestos-containing products or were produced for the purpose ofpackaging asbestos-containing products contemporaneous with your manufacture sale or distribution of such asbestos-containing products? If so, provide the following: (a) a description of each such package; (b) the present location and custodian of each such package; (c) the date or approximate date on which each such package was produced. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 23 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd ANSWER: No. 14. What is the name, address and job title of each individual who participated in the design and preparation ofmanufacturing specifications for each such product listed above in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? ANSWER: N/A. 15. As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please describe how each product was to be cut, shaped, scribed, mixed and applied on the job. In answering this question, give particular reference as to whether or not the materials were to be sawed or cut on the job, blown into confined areas, mixed with water in a cement or paste. ANSWER: N/A. 16. Based upon the material contents ofthe asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method ofapplication, please state which products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 could be applied by a worker without creating dust. ANSWER: Gasket Sheet. 17. Do any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character now exist relating to the design and preparation of the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please: (a) List each such written material or document; (b) Identify the person or persons presently in possession ofeach such document; (c) State where each such document is located. ANSWER: No. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 24 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fowright-cin.rog.wpd 18. Prior to releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 for sale and usage, were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said products to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state: (a) The name of the products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; (c) The results of such tests. ANSWER: No. r 18.1 Prior to releasing any products for sale and usage (whether asbestos-containing or not), were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said products to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state: (a) The name of the products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; (c) The results of such tests. ANSWER: No. 19. Does Defendant have or control any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character relating to the testing of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 hereinabove? (a) Identify each such written material or document; (b) Identify each person who presently has possession of each such document; (c) State where each such document is located. ANSWER: No. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 25 N:\OHIO\ClJYAHOGA\DISCOVER\al|.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd 20. Were any design changes or modifications made as a result of such tests listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 18 hereinabove? If so, please state: (a) The trade name of the product changed or modified; (b) The nature ofthe change made and the date ofsuch changes or modifications; (c) The name, address, and job classification ofeach person in charge ofmaking a change. ANSWER: N/A. 21. After releasing for sale, distribution or marketing the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5, did Defendant conduct any tests (either on animals or humans) to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of said materials and/or products? (a) The names of the products tested and the dates of said tests; (b) The name, address, and job classification of each person and/or agency conducting said tests; (c) The results of said tests; (d) Whether, as a result ofany tests conducted, any products were removed from the market; (e) The names of all products removed from the market as a result of said tests. ANSWER: No. 22. Has Defendant ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies concerning the effects of the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers on workers or other persons applying, using and/or working around any ofthe asbestos products manufactured, sold, distributed and/or relabelled for distribution by you or your predecessor? If so, please state: (a) The dates and nature of such studies; (b) The names and addresses of persons conducting such studies; (c) The purpose of such studies; PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 26 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA'DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd (d) (e) (f) (g) ANSWER: No. Identify and list those persons to whom such reports were given and the date of such dissemination; State any publication or other written dissemination of the results of such studies; State the nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; and Attach a copy of reports based upon such studies. 23. Before placing in the market the asbestos-containing products that Defendant, mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed on the market, did Defendant make or cause to be made, any studies to determine whether their asbestos-containing products would be hazardous to people? If so, please state: (a) The date of said studies; (b) What studies were done; and (c) The titles of each study. ANSWER: No. 24. Please state whether or not Defendant ever conducted or caused to be conducted any tests in the field (where asbestos-containing products were applied, removed or utilized) to determine the nature and extent of asbestos dust and/or fiber exposure to insulators, applicators, fellow employees, or other workers removing and/or tearing out asbestos-containing products, and/or other workers in the vicinity thereof? If so, please identify: (a) The date, place and nature of each and every test; (b) The particular asbestos-containing products to which each test applied; (c) The results of each test with particular reference to the number of asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air found at each site; and (d) The persons to whom the results said tests were given and the date of such dissemination. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 27 N:\OH10\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-ciii.rog.wpd ANSWER: No. 25. Please state whether or not Defendant ever obtained any knowledge concerning the likelihood of asbestos being hazardous to human health. If so, please state: (a) When Defendant first became aware of the' hazardous potential of asbestos dust and asbestos fibers; (b) The manner in which the Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies first obtained this knowledge and became aware ofsaid hazards and from what source this information was obtained; (&) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company, or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; (d) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. (e) The name, address and job classification of the custodian of such information. ANSWER: Yes. (a) Approximately 1980. (b) From the manufacturers. (c) N/A (d) No. (e) N/A 26. Please state when Defendant first became aware ofthe possible association between inhalation ofasbestos dust and/or fibers and the contraction ofasbestosis and cancers including, but not limited to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, renal cancer, lymphoma, lung cancer and mesothelioma. As to each disease or condition, please state the source ofthat information, including a description of all tests conducted relative to the possibility of such a relationship. ANSWER: We did not. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 28 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd 27. Please identify all physicians, industrial hygienists, and other employees (including their names and addresses) who were employed, retained or otherwise engaged by Defendant for research, investigation or study concerning asbestos or asbestos-related diseases. ANSWER: N/A' 28. As to each person who acted in a medical advisory capacity (as it relates in any way to asbestos) to Defendant, please list their name, the date individual acted in this capacity, and that person's current address and job title. ANSWER:- . N/A. 29. Please state if any medical officer or industrial hygienist or medical consultant ever made at any time any recommendations and/or suggestions to Defendant pertaining to the risks or hazards to persons involved in the manufacture or use of asbestos products and, if so, please state when, by whom or to whom such recommendations and/or suggestions were made and the substance of each recommendation. ANSWER: No. 30. Please state the scientific and/or medical periodicals to which Defendant, its medical department, research department, industrial hygiene divisions, engineering department or consulting physicians subscribed between 1945 and 1975. ANSWER: None. 30.1 Please state whether Defendant, its medical officer or industrial hygienist or medical consultant or physicians were ever involved in testing or received literature or correspondence from the Mellon Institute. ANSWER: No. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 29 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVERVill.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd 30.2 Has Defendant, or any engineer, industrial hygienist or physician in Defendant's employ, been a member in any professional group, trade group or any of the following groups: American Ceramics Society Asbestos Textile Institute National Insulation Manufacturers Association Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association Quebec Asbestos Mining Association Asbestos Information Association Industrial Health Foundation Industrial Hygiene Foundation Iron and Steel Institute National Safety Counsel Refractories Institute Air Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc. Sprayed Mineral Fiber Association American Society of Mechanical Engineers If the answer is yes, state the following: (a) The name of the group or groups in which Defendant or individual(s) were members; (b) The name and position individual(s) within the Defendant, as defined, who were members; (c) The years Defendant or individual(s) were members of the groups; (d) Whether Defendant paid the individual(s) dues or membership fees or reimbursed the individual(s) for dues or membership fees in the group. ANSWER: No. 31. State in detail what test, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values ofasbestos dust, fibers or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with and/or around, installing and/or applying your asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: None. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 30 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGAVDISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd 32. For each test described in Interrogatory No. 31, please give the name of the person conducting the test, the date of the test, and attach true copies of any documents, including but not limited to, reports, findings or memoranda concerning such tests or studies. ANSWER: N/A 3 3. Please state the year that Defendant was first advised of either threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust by the American Conference ofGovernmental Industrial Hygienists and state the name ofthe employee/official ofthe company receiving such advice. ANSWER: N/A 33.1 State whether Defendant at any time conducted, caused to be conducted, or had conducted on any job site, or at any of Defendant's plants or buildings, any air sampling, dust counts, dust observations, dust sampling tests or other activities to determine air quality. If your answer is in the affirmative, please indicate: (a) the date of any such air samples, tests, or activities; (b) by whom such activities were performed; (c) where such activities were performed; (d) the results of any such activities. ANSWER: None. 34. Does Defendant maintain a library dealing with industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and engineering and/or research? If so, state: (a) The date each such library was established; (b) The location of each library; (c) The name(s) of the librarian(s) since 1930; PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 31 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\alI.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd (d) List alljournals subscribed to by you concerning asbestos, industrial hygiene, medicine, safety, and/or engineering; (e) List all books and articles dealing with asbestos and asbestos-related diseases and the date acquired. ANSWER: No. . 35. Did Defendant in the 1920's or 193 0's commission, or participate in the arrangements with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for studies at the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, concerning the effect of inhalation or ingestion of asbestos fibers upon human and/or r animal bodies. ANSWER: N/A 36. When was Defendant first aware of reports of studies of the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, entitled "Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust in the Lungs of Asbestos Workers" by A.J. Lanza, Assistant Medical Director published in the J. Public Health Report, Vol. 50, No. 1, dated January 4,1935 ("Lanza Report")? ANSWER: N/A. 36.1 Did Defendant ever contract with Saranac Laboratories to study the hazards of any dust producing product manufactured by you (whether asbestos-containing or not)? If so, identify by date and author all documents concerning or any way related to such study. ANSWER: N/A 36.2 Did Defendant ever contract with Saranac Laboratories to analyze dust or products? If so, identify by date and author all documents concerning or any way related to such analysis. ANSWER: N/A PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 32 N:\OHlO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-ci11.rog.wpd 37. Please state whether Defendant at any time has been a member of any "trade organization" or "trade association" composed of other manufacturers, miners, distributors, and/or sellers of asbestos-containing products and, if so, please identify the name and address of each such association or organization, the dates of membership, and the names of any publications issued or written by such association or organization. ANSWER: No. 38. With respect to each trade organization or association listed in answer to Interrogatory fir No. 37, please state whether the minutes of the group's meetings and any correspondence between the members of such groups concerning the hazards of asbestos exposure are available. ANSWER: N/A 39. Please identify by name the technical and trade association periodicals to which Defendant subscribed, and state whether Defendant had knowledge of any articles being printed, or withheld from printing, in said periodicals pertaining to the potential hazards of asbestos. If so, please state the following: (a) The title of each such article; (b) The periodical in which each such article was published; (c) The date each such article was published; (d) A detailed explanation of the reason for withholding any such article for printing; (e) Produce documentation which refers, alludes or mentions articles which were withheld for publication. ANSWER: N/A 40. Please state whether, prior to 1975, Defendant sponsored, or attended any meeting, seminar, conference, convention or legislative hearing where the subject ofoccupational health and PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 33 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd exposure to asbestos was discussed and, if so, please state the date and place of such meeting and the name and address of any speakers or participants. ANSWER: No 41. As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please state whether Defendant, at any time, published and/or distributed any printed materials, including but not limited to brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packagings or other written materials ofany kind or character that contain any warnings, cautions, caveats or directions concerning the possible health effects of the products on a person. If so, please state as to each product: (a) The name of each relevant product; (b) The wording of each such warning; (c) A description of each such printed material; (d) The method used to distribute the warning to persons who are likely to use the products; (e) The date each such warning was issued; (f) Whether any warning accompanied any ofyour asbestos-containing products' sales literature, handout or pamphlets; (g) Please attach a copy of the warning and date said warning was issued; (h) The name, address, and job classification of each person who presently has possession of the above-described documents; (i) The name or names and addresses of the company who provided, produced, or manufactured the boxes or containers on which the warning appeared and dates these boxes with the warnings appeared. ANSWER: No. 42. Has sales material been prepared by Defendant or its agents forpurposes ofmarketing or advertising the asbestos products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please state: (a) The name and address of each person or entity who prepared same; PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 34 N:\OH]O\CUYAHOGA\DISC0VER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd (b) The name, address and job title of each person who presently has possession of same; (c) The date same was prepared; (d) The media used to disseminate the sales material. ANSWER: No. 43. Has any written material of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant, Defendant's predecessor or any ofDefendant's subsidiary companies or their agents indicating how &* the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 should be used or maintained by the ultimate user or those working in facilities or at job sites where the product was used, installed or removed, including, but not limited to, those sites listed on thejob site list attached as Exhibit A? Ifso, please state the following: (a) The name, address andjob classification of each person who prepared same; (b) The name, address and job classification of each person who presently has possession of same; (c) The dates and manner in which said material was distributed to purchasers of the products in answer to Interrogatory No. 5. ANSWER: No. 44. Was any written material of any kind prepared by Defendant and distributed to those individuals listed in response to Interrogatory No. 9? If so, please state the following: (a) Identify the written material by content and date; (b) To whom was it delivered. ANSWER: No. 45. Does Defendant contend that asbestos-containing products can be manufactured so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or around, installing or applying same? If so, please state the following: PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 35 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd ANSWER: 45. (a) The date that Defendant first determined that another product could be used in place of asbestos; (b) The chemical of the substitute; (c) Whether the substitute is suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used; (d) Whether Defendant used the substitute for asbestos to 1971; (e) Whether Defendant ever used the substitute for asbestos for high or low heat insulation. This Defendant does not have information sufficient to respond to Interrogatory No. Sr 46. Did Defendant give any warnings to any individuals at the sites listed on Exhibit A, including any individuals who owned, operated, or managed the facilities at the sites listed on Exhibit A, regarding the potential health hazards of any product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5. If yes, please state: (a) Name of person most knowledgeable about this communication. (b) Name of person at the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto most knowledgeable about this communication. (c) Dates of each communication. - (d) Contents of each communication. ANSWER: No. 47. Did any person prior to 1970, file a claim against any Workers' Compensation carrier covering Defendant alleging that he or she contracted a disease as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, please state the following: (a) A list of each such claim by claimant's name, date filed, the caption and jurisdiction involved; (b) The disease alleged in each such claim; (c) A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim; and PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 36 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA'DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd (d) The name, address and job classification of the person or persons having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: No. 47.1 Please identity all documents concerning or in any way related to any decisions made by you to cease manufacturing asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: N/A 47.2 Has anyperson or company from which you purchased asbestos-containing products ever issued a recall of their products or taken any action to take those products off the market after said products were in your possession? If so, provide: (a) the date of said recall; (b) the name of the company which issued the recall; (c) a copy of the recall. ANSWER: No. 47.3 State what action, if any, you have ever taken since 1930 to minimize or eliminate any risk ofoccupational disease or pneumoconiosis to those at any time engaged in the manufacture or production of asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: N/A 47.4 State what action, if any, you have ever taken since 1930 to minimize or eliminate any risk of occupational disease or pneumoconiosis to those at any time engaged in the use, as distinguished from the manufacture, or exposed to the use of asbestos-containing or industrial insulation products or who were otherwise exposed to asbestos-containing or industrial insulation products. (a) describe such action; PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 37 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\alMbwright-cin.rog.wpd (b) state when such action was taken; (c) state what written material exists related to such action; (d) state the names, job titles and last known address of the individuals who undertook such actions. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory assumes that this Answering Defendant was required to take actions. Without waiving said objection, the Answer to this Interrogatory is no. AS TO OBJECTION DAVID ARNOLD 48. Did Defendant receive notice prior to 1968 that anyperson was claiming injury or had sustained an abnormal x-ray reading as a result of using asbestos products manufactured, sold, installed, and/or distributed by Defendant? If so, please state: (a) The name and address of each claimant; (b) The date ofnotice of each claim; (c) A description of the claim; (d) The type of injuries allegedly sustained; (e) The name and address of each attorney representing the individuals making such claims; (f) The style and court number of each such claim; (g) The resolution of each claim. ANSWER: No. 48.1 Describe the method by which you have maintained records concerning the manufacture, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery and/or installation or tear-out of each of asbestos-containing products. For each description provide the following: PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 38 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVERVill.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd (a) each present and former company or corporate department, division or subdivision responsible for maintaining such records; (b) the manner in which the records are kept (e.g., boxes, computer tape, microfilm, etc.); (c) the inclusive dates ofany such manufacture, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery, and/or installation or tear-out which such record keeping system covers; (d) the present location at which all such records are maintained; (e) the identity of each person employed by you at any time from 1930 to the present who is or was responsible for the collection and a- maintenance of such records. ANSWER: We maintain no such records. As stated above, our records retention policy is to retain records for only seven years. 48.2 State whether any records concerning the manufacture, sale, supply, distribution, advertising, delivery, use or installation or tear-out of asbestos-containing products have been destroyed or discarded and if so, indicate: (a) the date and location of such destruction or discard; (b) the custodian and location of such records prior to their destruction or discard and the identity of each employee, representative, official or agent who ordered, authorized or supervised such destruction or discard. ANSWER: None. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 48.1 above. 48.3 For all documents, other than invoices, work orders and/or purchase orders, which relate to matters relevant to all the preceding interrogatories: (a) Is there any kind of index for the documents? (b) How many pages is the index of documents? (c) How many documents are referred to in the index? (d) Is the index maintained in electronic format (i.e. database, word processing or other computerized format)? (e) What manner of electronic format is used? PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 39 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd ANSWER: N/A 48.4 For all invoices, work orders and/or purchase orders, which relate to matters relevant to all the preceding interrogatories: (a) Is there any kind of index for the documents? (b) How many pages is the index of documents? (c) How many documents are referred to in the index? (d) Is the index maintained in electronic format (i.e. database, word processing or other computerized format)? (e) What manner of electronic format is used? ANSWER: Not applicable. 49. Has Defendant obtained statements from any witnesses including Plaintiffs? If so, please: (a) list each witness who has given a statement and the name, address, and job title of each person having custody of any such statement. ANSWER: No. 50. Do you contend that Plaintiff/Decedent improperly used those products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please set forth in detail in what respect the product was improperly used. ANSWER: We do not have sufficient information to respond to Interrogatory No. 50. 51. As to the sites listed on Exhibit A, and as to each PlaintifBDecedent, please state whether Defendant contends that there was any substance other than asbestos which contributed to or caused PlaintiflPDecedent's injuries. If your answer is yes, please state the following: (a) The facts upon which you rely; (b) The identity of the sources upon which you rely which substantiate these facts. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 40 N:\OH10\CUYAHOGA\DlSCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd ANSWER: We do not have sufficient information to respond to Interrogatory No. 51. 52. Would any respirator, mask or other breathing devices prevent inhalation of the asbestos dust and fibers contained in products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, state: (a) When the respirator was sold; (b) A detailed description ofsuch respirator or other breathing devices, including name of manufacturer and model number; (c) The basis of your claim that such respirators or other breathing devices will prevent the inhalation of such dust and fibers; . (d) Identify any tests performed regarding the efficaciousness ofsuch respirators and other breathing devices in preventing the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers including date, title, author and number; (e) List all documents which mention, allude or refer to tests performed on breathing devices which prevented the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers. ANSWER: This Answering Defendant does not have sufficient information to respond to Interrogatory No. 52. 53. Does Defendant expect to call expert witnesses at the trial ofthis case? Ifso, please state the following: (a) Their identity and last known address; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The expert's specific conclusion and specific opinions and the specific basis therefore; (d) The expert's qualifications to render the opinions set forth above; (e) Whether any person identified in sub-paragraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify such document or report; (f) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to sub-paragraph (a) above; and (g) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treaties, article, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to sub-paragraph (a) PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 41 N:\OfflO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwiight-cin.rog.wpd above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list ofpublications to your answer. ANSWER: This Defendant has not as yet identified any expert witnesses who will be called at the trial of this case. 54. Please state the name and last known address of 'each expert witness who is not retained or employed for that purpose who is an employee of Defendant and will render an opinion within his expertise at the time of trial. ANSWER: N/A 55. Does Defendant admit that service ofprocess was properly had on it in these cases? If not, please state why. ANSWER: Objection. In those cases in which there has been a defect in service of process, Defendant F.B. Wright Company ofCincinnati has likely not entered its appearance or preserved that defense in its responsive pleading. 55.1 For each and every affirmative defense asserted in Defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, or the cross-claims or counter-claims of any party against Defendant, state: (a) the facts upon which Defendant relies for each and every affirmative defense; (b) each and every document which will be offered to prove each and every affirmative defense; and (c) each and every witness who will testify in support of each and every affirmative defense. (d) the substance and subject matter of the anticipated testimony of each witness identified in the preceding response. ANSWER: Any such facts and documents that support any of the defenses asserted by this defendant are equally available to plaintiffor are in plaintiff's possession. Discovery is continuing. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 42 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd 56. Does Defendant have policies ofinsurance that might cover the claims that have been made by Plaintiffs herein? (a) If so, please list the name of each insurance carrier who may have coverage, the amount of such coverage, and the dates of each such policy. ANSWER: Yes. Comnanv Policv Number CNA 2 02303385 CNA 2 02303385 CNA 9 02303387 Westfield CWP3482575 Westfield Westfield UXC530 9512 CWP3482575 Dates 1/20/88-89 1/20/89-90 1/20/88-89 1/30/90-95 1/30/90-91 1/30/92-95 Limits 1,000,000/ 2,000,000 1,000,000/ 2,000,000 1,000,000/ 2,000,000 1,000,000/ 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 Coveraee Primary Primary Umbrella Primary Umbrella Excess 56.1 Has Defendant ever been involved in any litigation concerning potential insurance coverage for asbestos products liability matters? If so, please state: (a) the case caption, court and date of filing of each case in which you have been involved; (b) whether you were Plaintiff or Defendant; (c) a brief statement of the issues; (d) identify by date, author and recipient(s), (including recipients of carbon copies) all documents listed as exhibits by either party in this litigation; (e) identify by deponent and date all individuals who were deposed in these cases; (f) identifyby date, author and recipient(s) all documents that have been placed on a protective order in such litigation; (g) identify all expert witnesses retained for use at trial in any of the above litigation by name, address and telephone number. ANSWER: No. PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 43 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVER\all.fbwright-cin.rog.wpd 57. Please state the name and address ofeach person who has knowledge ofrelevant facts regarding claims and defenses of this lawsuit. ANSWER: David Arnold, Esq. Weston Hurd Fallon Paisley & Howley 2500 Terminal Tower, 50 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113 58. State the last date that Defendant sold, distributed, manufactured, installed, and/or otherwise placed asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce. ANSWER:- . 1981 Respectfu DAVID/A DAm0ld@westonhurd.com Weston Hurd Fallon Paisley & Howley L.L.P. 2500 Terminal Tower 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113-2241 216.241.6602 Fax 216.621.8369 Attorney for Defendant F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 44 N:\OHIO\CirYAHOGA'DISCOVER\all.fl)wrighl-cin.rog.wpd STATE OF OHIO COUNTY of _/9a"u'lh>n ) j SS: VERIFICATION Now comes ART COLBURN, President, and states-' that he is an officer of this Defendant F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati and is authorized to sign on behalf of said Company; that he has knowledge of the facts and circumstances in this pending litigation; that he has read the foregoing Answers to Plaintiffs Master Set of Interrogatories and % Request for Production of Documents directed to Defendant F.B. Wright Company of Cincinnati, and they are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED, before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State on this 1 day of ,/$ -CJ 2002. NOTARY PUBLIC PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO F.B. WRIGHT COMPANY OF CINCINNATI - PAGE 45 N:\OHIO\CUYAHOGA\DISCOVERall.fb\vright-cin.rog.wpd i WESTON HURD FALLON PAISLEY & HOWLEY L.L.P. COUNSELLORS AT LAW 2500 TERMINAL TOWER 50 PUBLIC SQUARE CLEVELAND, OH 44113-2241 216.241.6602 FAX 216.621.8369 WWW.WESTONHURD.COM David Arnold 216.687.3202 DAmold@westonhurd.com September 9, 2002 Ladd Gibke, Esq. Baron & Budd 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 RE: Discovery Responses F. B. Wright Company of Cincinnati, Ohio Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Cases Dear Mr. Gibke: Enclosed please find Defendant F. B. Wright Company of Cincinnati, Ohio's Answers to Plaintiffs' Master Set ofInterrogatories Propounded to F. B. Wright Company of Cincinnati and Responses ofF. B. Wright Company ofCincinnati to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents Propounded to F. B. Wright Company of Cincinnati. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, David Arnold ^ DA/sce Enclosures J \ASBESSKR\DAV1D ARNOLD CORRESPONDENCBbaron&bud lir.upd MEMBER FIRM OF MACINTYRE STRATER INTERNATIONAL, LTD. (MSI), A WORLDWIDE ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL FIRMS.