Document KBNbLQN81xZeOoBdrq2B2Ogr

08/16/01 THU 09:26 FAX 816 836 8966 II. F. & Me P.C. 1002 Humphuey, Farstvoton, McClain 6c Edoah, P.C. ATTORNEY* AT LAV/ * A. irroH-Mfiit.icM NIMROO . CNMd. JM tTCVKN C. ovio w. roo*n* jomn r. coc** JOHN HOflAM buporo l. >AHHiaroM 3HELIIC L. OUIH* aaoTT g, nawi. w. cHmaroPHcn millman* tel: <6i6) S3*.o?o *ax: loie) 63M9&& 4JI WCST LEXINOT^N. W'TC AOO p.O. *OH oeo Ijtdspendekck. Missouri o*voai wiBSiTf: w*w.hfpil#a` com August 1, 2001 J. HO'r*N" OONAIO H. bOWOON. JM. scorr a. manucw KENNETH B. MCLAIN RALPH M. PHALSH AMT M. njACLL** JAMES H. ElCOWSn AAAoMmITtRTEeOa IN in KNAiBNiKlAiwIIrAn NI8BOUBI a nithyork David Hgilmar, MD, MPH Clinical Associate Professor Department ofCommunity Health Brown University Member Boarc ofDirectors Cricarc 759 Granite $t-eet Braintree, Ma 02184 Re: Arl linger Dear Dr. Egilman: Enclosed is an affidavit ofArthur Lauger offered by Conwed in its litigation with Union Carbide. The ffidavit docs not, as I incorrectly represented, say that the Calidria contains tremolitc. Tha: comes from interrogatory answers ofConwed which state that Lauger performed analysis by TEM and found tremolite. I do not have any of the back up materials or Langcr's deposition. SEC:acs Enc. 08/16/01 THU 09:26 FAX 816 836 8966 H. F. & Me P.C. 003 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CONWED CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 5-92-88 UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL., Third-Party Defendants. AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ARTHUR M. LANGER STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) ) ss. ) Dr. Arthur M. Lunger, being duly sworn upon oath, states as follows: l. I am a mineralogist with a concentration and specialty in asbestos mineralogy. Over the past 35-years I have focused my research on the biological effects of mineral dust, especially asbestos, and have published many ofthese studies in medical and biological journals. See my publications in my attached curriculum vitae. Exhibit 1. 08/16/01 THU 09:27 FAX 816 836 8966 H. F. & Me P.C. 004 2. I am the Deputy Executive Officer ofthe Ph.D. Program in Earth and Environmental Sciences at the Graduate School and University Center ofthe City University ofNew York and 1 also serve as Director-Environmental Sciences Laboratory located on the Brooklyn College campus ofthe City University ofNew York. 3. A copy ofmy curriculum vitae, containing a list ofmy former appointments and positions in the Mount Sinai School ofMedicine, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 4. I have been retained by Conwed Corporation as an expert witness in the above matter and will testify, among other things, specifically about Union Carbide's marketed asbestos, trade name Calidria, mined and extracted from the serpentine ore body near the towns ofCoalinga and New Idria, California. 5. My deposition was taken by Trevor Will, counsel for defendant Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastic, Inc. on four occasions on 01/14/94, 05/25/94, 09/16/98, and 11/19/98. The deposition transcript totaled 712 pages and included 21 exhibits. At that deposition, my opinions in this matter, together with the bases therefore, were fully explored. 6. One ofthe manors upon which I expect to testify at trial is the amount ofasbestos used at Conwed's Cloquet, Minnesota ceiling tile plant. I have reviewed all available records ofasbestos purchases to that plant and have quantified the amount ofasbestos used in the plant on the attached bar graph, Exhibit 2. The darker colored bar on that exhibit shows shipments ofthe Union Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos product from Union Carbide's mine in King City, California to ' Conwed's plant in Cloquet, Minnesota. 08/16/01 THU 09:27 FAX 816 836 8966 H. F. & Me P.C. 0005 7. I also expect to testify at trial concerning the exposure ofConwed workers in the Cloquet ceiling tile plant to airborne asbestos dust generated by use ofthe Union Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos in the plant. My opinion as to the amount of such airborne asbestos dust is based upon, among other things, the following information; the physical, chemical, morphological, and electrical charge characteristics ofUnion Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos, the size, and size distribution, ofthe Calidria chrysotile asbestos fibers, experimental data carried on in my own laboratory concerning airborne asbestos fiber concentrations from Union Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos, similar tests carried out by Union Carbide at its research laboratory in Niagara Falls, New York concerning airborne fiber concentrations ofUnion Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos, and a thorough review ofthe extensive airborne Calidria asbestos dust monitoring conducted by Union Carbide at its Calidria asbestos customers' locations, including Conwed, over a period ofmany years, which data has been collected and provided by Union Carbide through discovery in this matter. 8. Based upon these data, it is my opinion that airborne asbestos fibers, also known as a fiber aerosol, within the Conwed plant, during production use ofUnion Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos, from 1965 to 1974, probably resulted in substantial and significant asbestos exposure to the Conwed workers. 9. In summary, the data supporting this conclusion, described above, includes the following: 10. Union Carbide's own airborne asbestos airborne dust simulation study conducted ^ in its research laboratory at Niagara Falls, New York, which shows an airborne 08/16/01 THU 09:27 FAX 816 836 8966 H. F. & Me P.C. 0006 asbestos dust level ranging from 12.9 fibers greater than 5 microns in length per cubic centimeter (free) ofair to 43.4 free ofair. 11. Dust measurements during the bagging operations at Union Carbide's mill in King City, California reveal an airborne asbestos fiber level greater than 5 microns in length ranging from 3.3 free ofair to 9.6 free of air, with high exposuics to 23.7 free ofair. 12. A study ofUnion Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos in my laboratory at the Environmental Sciences laboratory in New York showed an airborne asbestos fiber level of26.5 free ofair offibers g-eater than 5 microns in length when analyzed by phase contrast (light optical) microscopy and 83.8 f/cc ofair when analyzed by transmission electron microscopy. 13. The only measurements taken by Union Carbide at Conwed's ceiling tile plant in Cloquet, Minnesota were conducted by Union Carbide personnel in August, 1972, by optical light microscopy, and showed an average airborne asbestos fiber level of 1.9 free ofair, greater than 5 microns in length, with a high of5.5 free of air, on personnel samples taken. 14. In contrast, Union Carbide has taken hundreds ofairborne asbestos fiber measurements at other Union Carbide customers' plants, on the same or similar manufacturing operations, which are more representative ofaverage airborne fiber levels over time. In contrast to the 15 samples Union Carbide took in Cloquet, I have carefully examined 479 measurements taken by Union Carbide personnel, with the same optical microscopy techniques they used at Conwed's plant, over ' the time period from 1972 to 1985, A representative sample ofthose 08/16/01 THU 09:27 FAX 816 836 8966 H. F. & Me P.C. 007 measurements, in operations the same or similar to those employed by workers in Conwed's plant, from 1971 to 1976, is as follows (given as fibers greater than 5 microns in length): AIR LEVELS MEASURED IN SOME INDUSTRIES USING CALEDRIA CHRYSOTXLE FIBER 1971-1976 Activity Average f/cc ofair Boxcar Loading 4.7 and Unloading Dumping Bags oFPellets 12.5 Dumping Bags ofPellets 31.4 Industrial Process 12.9 Cutting, Trimming of 13.2 Product Personal (Employees) 18.0 Environment in Plant 2.8 Highest Value 9.6 31.4 69.6 26.1 18.0 44.5 22.2 15. In comparison, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted its airborne asbestos fiber standard which applied to workplaces, in 1972. That standard, which applies to Union Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos, and its permissible exposure levels in the workplace, is as follows: Year? Permissible Exposure Level Asbestos Fibers Greater Than 5 Microns in Length 1972-1976 OSHA Workplace Asbestos Standard 5.0 free ofair 1976-1986 OSHA Workplace Asbestos Standard 2.0 free ofair 1986-1992 OSHA Workplace Asbestos Standard 0.2 free ofair 1992-2000 OSHA Workplace Asbestos Standard 0.1 free of air 16. By way ofcomparison, historical levels ofairborne asbestos fiber found in U.S. cities, based partly upon my own research, is less than 0.0001 free ofair, historical levels found in the air in U.S. buildings, containing asbestos-containing materials, ,/ is 0.0005 free ofair, and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 08/16/01 THU 09:28 FAX 816 836 8966 H. F. & MC P.C. 008 contractor release level (the permissible level of asbestos in the air following an asbestos abatement in buildings), is 0 005 1/cc ofair. 17. ' Based upon these data, and other data as described more fully in my deposition taken in this case, 1 will testily at trial that the workers in Conwed's Cloquet, Minnesota ceiling tile plant were exposed to substantial and significant amounts of Union Carbide Caiidria asbestos throughout the years the Union Carbide Calidria asbestos was used in that plant from 1965 to 1974. 18. Union Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos is neither a safe nor benign asbestos type, as Union Carbide appears to contend in its motion. A substantial body of research, as described in ray deposition, indicates it is not only harmful, it may be more harmful than chrysotile mined at other geological locales. Attached as Exhibit 3, is a copy ofa paper entitled Cytotoxicity ofa Short-Fiber Chrysotile Asbestosfor Human Alveolar Macrophages: Preliminary Observations, ofwhich I was an author, published in the peer reviewed scientific literature, which describes more severe effects from Union Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos on live human lung macrophage cell cultures, than produced by other asbestos types. TEJINDER SINGH NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF N.Y. #0154736189. Exp. 12/31/2000 Qualified in Westchester County OS'lfl'Ol THU 09:28 FAX 816 836 8966 f H. F. & Me P.C. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE; ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITI3ATI0N (NO. VI) This Document Relates To; CONWED CORPORATION, Plaintiff^ v. UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC., ` Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff; v. OWEMS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORJ ORATION, ETAL. Third-Party Defendants. Civil .urion No. 5-92-88 CIVIL ACTION NO. MDL 875 PLAINTIFF CONWED CORPORATION'S ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION'S FOURTH SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS PlaintiffConwed Corporation and for its Answers and Responses to the Fourth Set of Discovery Requests ofDefendant and Third-Party PlaintiffUnion Carbide Chemicals and Plastic Comp iny, Inc. (``Union Carbide") states as follows: . 10/01 THU 09:28 FAX 810 836 8966 i II. F. & Me P.C. 0010 c. This document was obtained during the course ofdiscovery in Manisio v. American Brake Block Corporation, et at. d. Unknown, investigation is continuing by Conwed's Counsel. e. Unknown, investigation is continuing by Conwed's Counsel. f. This document was obtained during the course ofdiscovery inManisto v. American Brake Block Corporation, et al. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Did Conwed do any testing to determine whether the asbestos in its ceiling tile caused any health hazard to users, handlers, installers, maintenance personnel, occupants ofbuildings, or others who might come in contact with the product after it left thi: Cloquet Plant? Ifyour answers is other then an unequivocal "no', then do the following: a Describe the testing that was done. b. Stale the date when it was done. c. Identify the person or entity doing the testing. d. Identify all reports, letters, notes, summaries or other documents referring to or describing the tests, the results or the conclusions to be drawn. ANSUEg Please see Preliminary Statement and General Objections. Without waiving above stated objections, Conwed states: See Attached Exhibit "A,H INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Did Conwed ever place any warnings concerning asbestos on any of ts asbestos-containing products? Ifyour answer is other than an unequivocal "no", then do the foil owing: a. State the test of each warning which was used. . 7 08/16/01 THU 09:28 FAX 816 836 8966 ^ '* '* ` H. F. & MC P.C. I . b. State the dates when each warning was placed on product. c. Describe the physical appearance of the warning, including where it was placed on the product or packaging, the size ofthe text, the color of the printing or lettering, any designs or graphics used, etc. d. Identity all documents that refer to, relate to, describe or discuss each waiting. ANSWER . Plea: e see Preliminary Statement and General Objections. With out waiving above stated objections, Conwed states: No. * INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Did Conwed ever discuss or consider placing a warning on its asoestos-contaming products? Ifyour answer is other then an unequivocal "no", then do the fbllovmg: . . a. Identify the people who participated in the discussion or consideration. - b. State the dales of all such discussion or consideration. c. Identify who ultimately made the decision whetherto use warnings on the products d. Identify all documents which refer to, relate to or contain the discussions or consideration of placing a warning on products, or any reasons to do so or not to _ do so, or the decision ofwhether to do so. ANSWER Please see Preliminary Statement and General Objections. With out waiving above stated objec ions, Conwed states: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Have Dr. Harter's projections of Conwed'i workers comp aisation liability costs been provided to either Leucadia, Inc. or Leucadia National Corporation? Ifyour answer is otherthen an unequivocal "no", state the following: 8 4 08/10/01 THU 09:20 FAX 810 836 8906 II. F. & Me P.C. 012 a. The date on which those calculations were so provided. b. Identify the person to whom they were provided. c. Identify any document that was provided to explain, describe, interpret, or otherwise provide information about Dr. Harter's projections. ANSV ER This Ii :enogatory is objected to as requesting information that is privileged, proprietary, confidrntial, subject to attorney-client privilege and calling for attorney work product and docum arts prepared in anticipation oflitigation. . INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Has either Leucadia, Inc. or Leucadia National Corporation included Dr. Harberis projections in any public statement or filing concerning its financial condition and/or the financial condition ofConwcd? If not, state why not. Ifso, provide the followi ig information . a. The date ofall such statements which include Dr. Harter's projections. b. Identify all documents which include the projections. ANSWER Objecti oa. JVith respect to documents prepared by Leucadia, Inc., Leucadia National Corpor ition. Coopers & Lybrand, or any acting on their behalf; such documents are by companies other than Conwed Corporation. With respect to documents prepared by those companies or by Cotrwe i Corporation, Conwed ofcgects to production ofthose documents on the grounds that they are prndiged, proprietary, confidential 9 * 08/16/01 THl' 09:29 FAX 816 836 8966 H. F. & Me P.C. 013 Conwed further objects to production of *11 documents sought in this Request on the grounds of attomey-ciient privilege and calling for attorney work product and documents prepared in anticipation oflitigation INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify the individual who is now responsible for detennining whether Conwed should settle workers compensation claims, and ifso, how much settler ;ent authority should be given to Conwed's lawyers to try to acliieve that settlement. ANSViTR This li terrogatory is objected to as subject to attorney-client privilege. Without waiving said objection, Conwed states Lowell Anderson. President and Robert Yaeger, Attorney. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Did the case cost averages given to Dr. Harber for use in projecting of Conwed's future worker's compensation costs contain any deduction for payments to Conwed from Minnesota's Special Compensation Fund? If so, explain how that deduction was calcula .ed, and for each category of case for which a Special Compensation Fund payment could be mace, state what the average cost was before taking the deduction for the Special . Compe;isaiion Fund payment, and what the average cost was after subtracting the Special Compensation Fund payment. ANSWER NO. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Provide the formula (including the different ingredients, and their pc rentage in the product) for all Tufflex products, and all other fiber padding products manufa itured by Conwed at the Cloquet Plant, and state the years each such product was mam ifj tTi in*H v OS/16/01 THU 09:29 FAX 816 836 8966 .i H. F. & Me P.C. I 014 ANSWER Please see Preliminary Statement and General Objections. With out waiving above stated object ons, Conwcd provides the following formulation and information: 80% Paper printed bleach board 10-11% Food grade Starch < 5% Dearcide (in early years used pentachlorophenol) < 5% Monoammonium phosphate . Manufacture ofTufflcx began during World War n, approximately 1942, and continued at the Cloquet Plant until the plant closing in 1985. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Did Conwed ever tell Union Carbide what Conwed knew about the potential health hazards ofasbestos? Ifyour answer is other then an unequivocal "no", then provide the following information: x What Conwed told or communicated to Union Carbide. b. The date on which it was communicated. . w c. Identify the person at Conwed who communicated the information. 1 Identify the person at Union Carbide to whom the information was communicated. ... . Describe what response, ifany, was received from Union Carbide to this information: \l Identify all documents which refer, relate to, or coatain the information Conwed provided to Union Carbide, or Union Carbide's response. answi::r Please vt Preliminary Statement and General Objections. With out waiving any above stated objections, Conwed states: Unknown. 11 THU 09:20 FAX 816 836 3966 I II. F. & Me P.C. 1015 REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 1: No one who was or is employed ai the King City Mine or Mill h.is an asbestos-related disease or condition. RESPONSE Deny. REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 2: You do not have any information that any person who was 01 is employed at the King City Mine or Mill has an asbestos-related disease or condition. RESPONSE Deny. .. . INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Ifyour response to either Request to Admit No. 1 or. Request to Admit No. 2 was anything other then an unqualified admission, then provide the follow ng information: ' a. The name ofthe person whom you believe has an asbestos-related disease or condition. b. The specific asbestos-related disease or condition you contend that person has. c. The date that condition was diagnosed or detected. d. =. Identify the person diagnosing or detecting that disease or condition. c. Identify all documents upon which you rely to establish that the person has been diagnosed with, or in fact has, an asbestos-related disease or condition. f Identify all expert witnesses whom you intend to have testify that the person has an asbestos-related disease or condition. ANSWER a. Albert A. Andrade Trinadad Cruz Larry DeLeon Isabel G. Flores, Sr. i 12 : 08/16/01 THU 09:30 FAX 816 836 8966 H. F. & Me P.C. 016 John F. Godinho (aka Joao, aka Joel) George F. Larson Fred H. Lawson Scgjfredo S. Olivas Edward J. Sinclair Leo A. Trevino Hector Venegas Milton Kemper West Paul R. Whitlock b. See Medical Records and Employment Records ftimished by Union Carbide in this action and in Board ofEducation ofthe City ofChicago, el al v. ACandS. Inc., el al. c. Sec Medical Records and Employment Records furnished by Union Carbide in this action and in Board ofEducation ofthe City ofChicago, et al v. ACandS, Inc., eta!. d. See Medical Records and Employment Records furnished by Union Carbide in this action and in Board ofEducation ofthe City ofChicago, et al v. ACandS, Inc., et al. e. See Medical Records and Employment Records furnished by Union Carbide in this action and in Board ofEducation ofthe City ofChicago, et al v. ACandS, Inc., et al. f. See Medical Records and Employment Records furnished by Union Carbide in this action and in BoardofEducation ofthe City ofChicago, et al v. ACandS. Inc., et al. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Do you contend that mere is any person not identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 14, whose only occupational exposure to asbestos was to chrysotile from the New ldria region, who has an asbestos-related disease or condition? If so, provide the following information: a. The name, address and telephone number ofthat individual b. The asbestos-related disease or condition you contend that person has. c. The date that disease or condition was diagnosed or detected. d. Identify the person who diagnosed or detected that disease or condition. e. Identify all documents upon which you rely to establish the person has that disease or condition. 13 08/10/01 THl' 09:30 FAX 816 830 8900 . I II. F. & MC P.C. )017 f. Identify any witness upon whose testimony you will rely to establish that this person has an asbestos-related disease or condition. ANSWER Unknown. Counsel for Conwed are currently analyzing information in cases from the list provided by Unon Carbide in this action. INTERROGATORY NO 16: What specific type of clay or clays were used in the asbest js-containing ceiling tile made by Conwed. Ifdifferent types ofclays were used in different products, specify which particular clays were used in which particular products, and the yean during which they' were used. ANSWER I Please see Preliminary Statement and General Objections. Whh out waiving any above stated objections, Conwed states: Clay was purchased from a family owned business in Kentucky and was a ball-type day. Conwed plant workers referred to it as "HT clay." It is believed that the day was eiiber kaolin clay or montmorilionite day. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: What specific brand ofstarch was used in the asbestoscontaix .ing^cefling tile made by Conwed? If different brands were used for different products or during different years, specify which brands were used in which products during which yea.-s. Also, fx each starch used, specify the manufacturer and the supplier. ANSWER Please ;ee Preliminary Statement and General Objections. With out waiving any above stated objections, Conwed states: Conwed primarily used wheat flour from Minildra in Minneapolis. Conwed may have used com starch, wheat starch and potato starch at different times in its 14 OS'16'Ol THV 09:30 FAX 816 836 8966 ....................... . I H. F. & MC P.C. I 2018 miner d board product. Pricing played a primary role in which starch was purchased and from whom for use in the mineral board. REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 3. The formulas attached to this discovery request as Exhib.t 1 were provided by Conwed Corporation. RES1 ONSE Admi. REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 4: The formulas attached as Exhibit 1 were the formulas for the asbestos-containing ceiling tile manufactured by Conwed. RESIONSE . Admit that the request attached as.Exhibit 1 were the formulas for Conwed ceiling tile which have been located by counsel by Conwed in connection with certain asbestos building litigation against Conwi in the State ofMaryland. REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 5: To the best of Conwed's knowledge, the formulas attached as Exhibit 1 are accurate. RESPONSE At thh; point, because these are old documents, and because the person with the most knowledge concejning these formulas, Fred Bergstrom, is deceased, Conwed is not in a position to either admit or deny this Request, INTERROGATORY NO. 18; Ifyour answer to any one of Requests to Admit 3 through 5 was inything other then an unqualified admission, explain the factual basis for your refusal to admit, including, without limitation, what you now contend the accurate formula is. / 15 18'01 THU 09:30 FAX 816 836 8966 H. F. & MC P.c. : 019 ANS'VER See Response to Request to Admit No. 4, above INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Please explain the following about the formulas attached as Exhibit 1: a. Why don't the percentages next to each ingredient add up to 100 % for all the products? b. Are the percentage figures for weight or for volume? c. For each formula for which the percentages add up to less then 100%, state what ingredient is missing and the percentage attributed to that ingredient. d. Ifthe percentage is more then 100%, (i.e. C-51) explain how this is possible, and what the actual percentages should be. ANSY.-ER Please see Preliminary Statement and General Objections. With out waiving any above suited objections, Coirwed states: a. Cull board and edge trim were routinely recycled into the board at the hydropulper. The amount ofcull board and edge trim recycled into the furnish was approximately 8%. . b. = Weight. c. See 19a. d. The 80% for Mineral Wool may have been rounded up from 78.7%. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Please identify by date and place ofpublication what you referra to in the deposition ofDr. Allen Gibbs as the AMA Guidelines used by Minnesota law for worker * compensation purposes that pertain to alleged asbestos-related diseases and/or lung impairu.ent caused by asbestos. 16 08'18/01 THL' 09:31 FAX 816 836 8966 .i II. F. & Me P.C. ! 020 ANSWER This Interrogatory is objected to as calling for attorney work product. REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 6: Calidria asbestos was not contaminated with fibrous trend .c. RESP )NSE Deny. --------.REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 7: Calidria asbestos was not contaminated with fibrous amphit ole asbestos of any type. ' RESPONSE Deny. REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 8: Conwed's expert witnesses attempted to find fibrous amphibole asbestos in the King Chy mine. KESttiESE To the extent this Request deals withthe visit to the King Chy Mine by Conwed's expert. Dr. Amur Langer, and his analysis ofthe samples taken on that visit, admit. Otherwise, deny. .* REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 9: Conwed's experts were not able to find fibrous amphibole asbestos in the King City mine. To the rxtent this Request deals with the visit to the King Chy Mine by Conwed's expert. Dr. Amur Langer, and his analysis ofthe samples taken on that visit, admit. Otherwise, deny. 17 OS'lfl'Ol THU 09:31 FAX 816 836 8966 . i H. F. & Me P.C. I 0021 7NTERR0GAT0RY NO. 21: Ifyour response to any one ofRequests to Admit 6 throuj(h 9 was anything other than an unqualified admission, then state in detail the basis for your denial including, but not limited to the following: a. Identity the person who claims to have found fibrous tremolite or amphibole. b. State the date on which it was found. c. Describe the methodology used to identify the fibrous amphibole or tremolite. d. Identify all reports, notes, photographs, lab data, electron microscopy data, electron microphotogmphs, x-ray detraction analysis and the like upon which you rely to establish the presence offibrous amphibole or tremolite. ANSWER a. Dr. Arthur Langer b. This will be supplied. c. Transmission Eleoron Microscopy. . d. This will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Do you contend that any ofthe documents narked as Exhibits 2 through 9 or 13 through 17 at the December 9, 1996 deposition ofDr. AJan Gibbs in this caie were actually reviewed and relied upon by any physician employed or retained by Conwed concerning any worker's compensation claim alleging asbestos exposure at the Cloquet Plant? Ifyour answer is anything other then a unequivocal "no", then do the following: a. Identify ail doctors who reviewed and relied upon those documents. b. For each doctor so identified, specify which documents he or she reviewed and relied upon. c. State the date on which each doctor reviewed each such document. 18 16/01 THl' 09:31 FAX 816 836 8966 r II. F. & Me P.C. f 0022 ANSWER This Interrogatory is objected to as calling for attorney work product. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Do you contend that any doctor who examined a claimant, or whose opinions or findings were used to support a claim for worker's compensation due tc asbestos exposure at the Cloquet Plant, had reviewed or relied any ofthe documents marked as Exhibits 2 through 9 or 13 through 17 at the deposition ofAlan Gibbs in this case? If your case is anything other then an unqualified no", then provide the Mowing information. a. Identify all doctors who reviewed and relied upon those documents. b. For each doctor so identified, specify which documents he or she reviewed and relied upon. c. State the date on which the doctor reviewed each such document. ANSWER This Ii rerrogatory is objected to as calling for attorney work product. REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 10: The only notice ofsettlement discussions between Conwe d employees and Union Carbide concerning an employee's claims for asbestos related person d ugury against Union Carbide that Coawed received was a letter dated October 21, 1988 fromK Jchael S. Polk to Cortwed Corporation regarding James Manisto. RESPONSE Admit hat the letter described in this Request was received by Conwed Corporation. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Ifyour response to Request to Admit No. 10, is anything other then an unequivocal admission, then do the following: a. State the name ofeach Conwed employee for whom you received such a notice of settlement discussions. 19 * 08'18/01 THl' 09:31 FAX 816 836 3966 II. F. & Me P.C. I 023 b. Stale the date on which you received such notice. c. Identify the person who gave such notice. d. : Identity all documents which refer to, relate to, reflect or contain that notice. * ANSWER Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Has anyone other then Phillip Harber (and those working with him) prepared a projection and analysis ofConwed's actual or potential liability for worker's compt nsation claims alleging asbestos exposure at the Conwed Plant? This interrogatory includes, but is not limited to, projections or analyses prepared by accountants or others for financial piannij .g or reporting purposes. Ifyour answer is anything other then an unqualified 'no", then provide the following information: a. Identify the person or entity who has prepared such analyses or projections. b. State the date when they were prepared. c. State whether they were provided to Dr. Harber. d Identify all documents which relate to, refer to, discuss, or contain any such report, analyses or projection. ANSWER This Iif.errogatory is objected to as requesting information that is privileged, proprietary, subject to atto ney-cHent privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: At his deposition on December 11, 1996, Robert Crowson stated that Conwed maintained a reserve for anticipated worker's compensation liability arising out of; lleged asbestos exposure at the Conwed Plant, and that amount was contained within an / 20 > 08/18/01 THU 09:32 FAX 816 836 8966 11. F. & Me P.C. I 1)024 account for "litigation expense." For each year for which Conwed has maintained a reserve for "litigaion expense,'' state the amount ofthat ie$erve. In addition, ifthe reserve changed for any year due to anything other then changes in the perceived liability for worker's compensation claims alleging asbestos exposure at the Conwed Plant, describe that factor or event, and state the dollar amount of the change in the reserve attributable to that fact or event, and whether that change was an increase or a decrease. AESSflSB This Ii:torrogatory is objected to as requesting information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, subject to attorney-client privilege. REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. U: Prior to December 1. 1996, you advised attorneys for Union Carbide that B. H. Rowe was dead. RSP3L Deny t uit Counsel for Conwed specifically so advised counsel for Union Carbide. INTERROGATORY NO. 27; Explain in detail the basis for your representation to Union Carbid: that B. H. Rowe was dead. Include in your explanation a description ofthe information you ofc ained about Mr. Rowe and what you did to try to locate Mr. Rowe, including who did the investigation, the places where you searched for information about Mr. Rowe, and the identhy of anyone who told you that he was dead. ANSVl ER In a letier to Trevor Wffl dated October 28, 1996, Robert Brownson states: "With respect to T.J. Rowe i sic). I believe that he is deceased but I will... confirm his exact status and advise you" (Emph sis added). The referenced follow-up did not take place. In an earlier letter dated / 21 v 08'18'01 THU 09:32 FAX 818 836 8968 .1 U. F. fi. MC P.C. i 025 October 22, 1993, Mr. Brownson advised Mr. Will that Conwed was unable to locate B.H. Rowe. No oce ever expressly informed Coawed that B. R Rowe was deceased. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Identify the 215 Conwed employees whose records were used by Dr. Harbcr to predict workcis compensation claim costs for Conwed, as more fhlly described at pages 190-192 and 315-321 ofDr. Harter's deposition. ANSWER John/iK Archie Anderson Arvin .Anderson Ben Adcrson Frcdcr-ck Anderson Ralph Anderson . David Antus George .Arthur Allen MBacka Gene Elacke Tboma; Barnes Georgt Basche Martin Beck Walter Beckman George Bednarck Donald Beldcn Wilfrec Belden Martin 3erg Howar. Blossom Hubert Blossom Jerry B cssom Lee Boiway Arthur Bolander Rennet: Bong Lloyd Feng Rnsseil 3ong Ronald Bonneville John B< cker George Bradley Donald Broeffle Robert Broeffle / . . * 22 t . " . i 08/16/01 THU 09:32 FAS 816 836 8966 I Geny Cavanaugh James Chambers Richard Chick Alva (Christian Lester Clark Lyle Colton James Conley Gary Cordle Jack Dahl Donald Daliman Gordc n Davis James Davis Willia-a Davis Felix Dean Harold DeLacey Edward Demenge Robcr; Demsha Donald Dobosenski Edwin Domke Clifford Edman Keith I'-dmundson Geralc Ellsworth Lester Earner Donald Ericksen David Fall Deanii Fall Donald Fjeld William Flasch Stanley Fletsch Walter Forstie Maynard Franseen Robert Frederick Arthur Frehse James Furey Georg) Garrett Angus; Gault Pear (Howacki Arnold Goble Emil Godbout Kennel;i Godbout Richard Godbout Russell Godbout Wilfrec Godbout H. F. & MC P.C. I 23 026 0*'18/01 THU 09:32 FAX 816 836 3966 H. F. & Me P.C. Cliffeird Golden Roy Golden Delburr Golen HaroW Gotzh Leonud Gotzh Lawrence Grimm Kenneth Grondahl Gerald Gross Chesvtr Gryzwinsld Chesier Haataja William Haburt Arvo Hackman Carl Halverson Rolar i Halvorson Wayne Hammer Genii Hansen Henry Hansen Roger Haiju Donald Haro GeniiI Haugen Rayw Id Hedin Wesley Heikkila James HeHand Howard Hemmila Raymond Hendrickson Harold Henschel Ronali Hopp Harold Homer John Homer Richaid Houck Andrew Houwman Gcralc. Hovis Charles Huhta Stanley Janczak Allen.arve George Jenkins Fnnd* Jensen Marlin Jobe Carl Jc bnson Charles Johnson James Johnson Orea J >hnson Vernon Johnson / 24 I 2)027 08/16/01 THU 00:33 FAX 816 836 8966 H. F. & MC P.C. Bernard Karulak Bernard JCatchrcark Paul Ketchum Victor KJiniski Vcmcn Knickerbocker Edward Kolodge Edward Kolocynski James Korbonen Eino Korpi Mdvii. Koskda Stephen Kroll Arthui Kubis Ronald Kubis Frank! m Kwapick Russel LaGrow Lester Lamb Ronald Lanhart Arthur Larsen Roben Larson . Cleme it Lavoie Donald Lehner Tlieod re Lilliquist Donald Lillquist Gerald Little Duane toucks Raymcnd Luke Clarerve Maki Leo Minty Joseph Manin Mumk c Marandale Charier Matthes Martin Megcr . Mardis Miller Donalc Monfeldt Mervic Montgomery Raymo id Nagoiski Leroy Nelson JohnN nrfiled Raymo i Nicely Theodt re Niemi Ronald Norgren Wayne Xynas Gerald G'Gray 25 028 08/16/01 THU 09:33 FAX 816 836 8966 H. F. & Me P.C. ' 029 Raymond Oman Fredesick Paitrick Carroll Pease Rober: Pdofske Duane Putnam John C'uinn John F.anta Lloyd Reed Arvin <osen Lawrence Roseih Wilis .Smiley Clarence Smith Donald Strom Arne S-romsness _ Warrei Swing Clonei t Tasky Benedict Trettel James LHvi , Gerald Vork Mayon Wait Bernard Walczak John Walker William Wheale Gerald Wixeli James Withoff Thcodc re Zuk . - . INTERROGATORY NO. 29: State the average case cost for each category ofcase that you prt vided to Dr. Harber for his projections; for each category ofcase identify those claimants whose settlements were used to calculate the average cost for that type ofclaim; and state the dare on which the average cost figures were given to Dr. Harter. ANS^V^R Ca^jgoiy 1 15% $10,018 Category 2 30% $23,671 Category 3 60% $36,346 , 26 OS' 16''01 THl- 09:33 FAS 816 836 8966 : ( H. F. & Me P.C. I 0030 Category 4 85% $59,000 . Cancers Mesotheliomas $116,000 $ 116,000 This in ermation was conveyed to Dr. Harber on or about March 27, 1995. These numbers include all cases settled up to that time. Cases summarily determined with no liability were not included in these numbers. REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 12: Al all times between January 1, 1958 and July 15, 1974, the Stale ofMinnesota had a regulation governing the amount ofasbestos dust that could be in the aimjsphere ofa place of employment in Minnesota. RESPONSE ` .. - Admit. REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 13: The State of Minnesota's regulations governing the amount ofasbestos dust that could be in the air ofa place ofemployment upplied to Conwed Corporation's Coquet Plant. RESPC KSE To the extent such regulations existed, at relevant times to this lawsuit, 1965 - 1974, and to the extent sich regulations applied to airborne asbestos, admit. PsEQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 14: At all times prior to July 15, 1974, Conwed did not know al out the State ofMinnesota's regulations governing asbestos dust in the air in a place of employeient / 27 08'16'01 THU 09:33 FAX 816 836 8966 I 11. F. & MC P.C. i 031 RESPONSE Deny. REQUEST TO ADMIT NO. 15: Conwed never tested its Cloquet Plant to see ifthe plant complied with the Minnesota regulations governing asbestos dust in a place of employment. RESPONSE Deny. INTERROGATORY no. 30; Ifyour answer to any one ofRequests to Admit Nos. 12 through 15 was anything other than a unequivocal admission, then explain in detail the basis for your rdusal to admit, including, without limitation: ;L What you contend to be the effective dates ofany Minnesota regulation governing asbestos dust in places ofemployment; b. Why you contend such regulations did not apply to Conwed; Identify every person at Conwed who you contend was aware ofthe regulations; ti. Identify each person who tested to detennine Conw-d's compliance with those regulations; ei Identify all documents which reflect, refer to, relate to or comprise any discussion " ofapplicable Minnesota regulations, any testing done to measure asbestos dust in the air or compliance with Minnesota regulations, or any discussion ofwhat would be necessary to achieve compliance with the Minnesota regulations. ANSWIR a. 1950-1973. b. Tois interrogatory is objected to as calling for legal conclusion. c. Sdepositions offormer Conwed employees taken in this action. d. See Union Carbide test report concerning dust tests at Conwed, August 28,1972. See a.so Environmental Research Corporation, December 22, 1971. 28 i 08'16''01 THl 09:33 FAX 816 836 8966 . -' - I 11. F. & Me P.C. f 032 e. See answer to Interrogatory No. 30 d, above. REQUEST NO. 1: All summaries of worker's compensation claims prepared by Robert Crowsen as he described in his deposition on December 11, 1996, including, without limitation, the summaries provided to Coopers & Lybrand or Thomas Mara. BESEDtfSE Objecti >n. These summaries, to the extent they still exist, are proprietary and privileged. REQUEST NO. 2: All documents prepared by Conwed, Leucadia, Inc., Leucadia National Corporation, Coopers & Lybrand, or anyone acting on any oftheir behalf; which refer to, reflect, predict, analyze, evaluate, discuss or in any way mention workers compensation claims against Conwed for alleged asbestos exposure at the Cloquet Plant. RESPC VSE Objection. With respect to documents prepared by Leucadia, Inc., Leucadia National Corporation, Coopers & Lybrand, or any acting on their behalf; such documents are by companies other thin Conwed Corporation. With respect to documents prepared by those companies or by Conwed Corporation, Conwed objects to production of those documents on the grounds that they are privi eged, proprietary, confidential Conwed further objects to production ofall documents sought in this Request on the grounds of attorney client privilege and calling for attorney work product and documents prepared in antiripaton oflitigation BEQUEST NO. 3: All responses to auditors or accountants prepared by Conwed, Leueadifl. Inc. or Leucadia National Corporation or anyone retained by any ofthem (including attorneys) which in any relate to, refer to, mention or discuss Conwed's liability (including, / 29 16/01 THU 09:34 FAX 616 636 8966 I H. F. Me P.C. 033 without limitation, projeoioos of future liability) for worker's compensation ciaims from a,leged asbestos exposure at the Cloquet Plant. RESPONSE Objecr.oa. With respect to documents prepared by Leucadia, Inc.. Leucadia National Corpo ation, Coopers & Lybrind. or any acting on their behalf) such documents are by companies other than Conwed Corporation. With respect to documents prepared by those companies or by Conwed Corporation, Conwed objects to production ofthose documents on the grounds that they are privileged, proprietary, confidential. Conwe1 further objects to production ofall documents sough: in this Request on the grounds of aitonie client privilege and calling for attorney work product and documents prepared in antiriparion oflitigation REQUEST NO. 4: All reports, analyses or projections concerning Conwed's worker's compcn nation liability for alleged asbestos exposure at the Coquet Plant This request includes, but is net limited to. documents identified in response to Interrogatory 24d, and any reports or documents prepared by or for Coopers & Lybrand. RESPONSE Objeerie\ With respect to documents prepared by Leucadia, Inc.. Leucadia National Corpora ion. Coopen & Lybrand, or any acting on their behalf) such documents are by companies other thinConwed Corporation. Withrespectto documents preparedby those companies or by Coawed Corporation. Conwed objects to producrion ofthose documents on the grounds that they are privileged, proprietary, confidential. * 30 > /01 THU 09:34 FAX 816 636 8966 H. F. & MC P.C. i 034 Conv ed further objects to production of all documents sought in this Request on the grounds of atton ey-client privilege and calling for attorney work product and documents prepared in anticipation oflitigation REQUEST NO. 5: All documents which contain, relate to, or reflect the amount of Conw-d's reserve account for worker's compensation liability and/or 'litigation matters" or any adjustments to those reserve amounts. RESPONSE Objection. With respect to documents prepared by Leucadia, Inc., Leucadia National Corpoation, Coopers <Sr Lybrand, or any acting on their behalf, such documents are by companies other than Conwed Corporation. With respect to documents prepared by those companies or by Conwe i Corporation, Conwed objects to production of those documents on the grounds that they are prb ileged, proprietary, confidential. Conwed further objects to production of all documents sought in this Request on the grounds of attorne --client privilege and calling for attorney work product and documents prepared in anticipation-pf litigation REQUEST NO. 6: All discovery responses Conwed has submitted in other cases, as called for in re eponse to Interrogatory No. 2d RESPCVSE Objecticn. With respect to documents prepared by Leucadia, Inc., Leucadia National Corpora-ion. Coopers & Lybrand, or any acting on their behalf, such documents are by companies other thi a Ccnwed Corporation. With respect to documents prepared by those companies or by ' 31 08'16'01 THl` 09:34 FAX 816 836 8966 H. F. & MC P.C. I @005 Conw:d Corporation, Conwed objects to production ofthose documents on the grounds that they are privileged, proprietary, confidential Conwtd further objects to production ofall documents sought in this Request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege and calling for attorney work product and documents prepared in anticipation of litigation REQUEST NO. 7: Transcripts ofthe depositions of Conwed's experts, as called for by Interrogatory No. 2e, and any reports prepared by those experts. RESPONSE . ` These documents will be produced. REQUEST NO. 8: All documents identified in response to any interrogatory, or which should have been identified in response to any interrogatory, including, without limitation, documents identified in, or responsive to. Interrogatories No. 2d, 3 5d, 6d, 7d, 8c, 9b, 13$ 14e, 15e,20; 2Id, 25d, and 30e. . RESPS^SE Subject to the objections interposed by Conwed in its Answers to Union Carbide's Interroi stories, and to the extent they exist in the possession ofCoawed or its counsel, these documents will be produced. i* 32 08<*10''01 THU 09:35 FAS 816 836 8966 H. F. & Me P.C. I 036 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss. COUNTY OF SAN DEGO ) ASJO fNTCRROGATORIES; ] .owed Anderson, being an officer ofConwed Corporation, and being duly sworn, deposes and $tat; that he is an officer ofConwed Corporation, plaintiffin the above-entitled cause and that he.verif es the foregoing .Answers and Responses to Union Carbide Corporation's Founh Set of Discovery Requests for and on behalfof said Conwed Corporation and is duly authorized to do so. 1 hat certain ofthe matter stated in the foregoing Answers and Responses to Union Carbide Corporation's Fourth Set ofDiscovery Requests are not within the personal knowledge of the deponent and that deponent is informed that there is no officer of defendant, Conwed Corporation, who has personal knowledge ofsuch matters. That the facts stated in said Answers and Responses to Union Carbide Coiporatin's Fourth Set ofDj covery Requests have been assembled by authorized employees and counsel ofdefendant, Conwed < Corporation, and deponent is informed by said employees and counsel that the facts stated IT in said Aj swers and Responses are true and correct to the best oftheir knowledge. Subscribe l and sworn to before me By. Lowell Anderson Its: SHBOET A OAVtS C0oro.e9838W .tsmhafc- s THl 09:35 FAX 816 836 8966 `. . H. F. & Me P.C. @037 AS TO ::lEQUTST$: ST1CH, AN BALLOU, I ROWHSON& BY Robert D. Brownson, #12245 Attorneys for PlaintiffConwed Corporation The Crossings, Suite 120 # 250 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401-2122. (612) 333-5251