Document KRrbRgDeQKDJ74JxN8npOk02X

NO. 96-03172-A RAMON T. CEXULLO; ALVINO RESENDO LOPEZ; AMBROSIO NINO RAMIREZ; and RICHARD PUENTES VELA IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VS. OWENS-CQRNINGFIBERGLAS CORPORATION, FT AL NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 21TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT EEFENPANT UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY flk/l CHAMPLIN PETROLEUM COMPANY. INDIVIDUALLY ANDAS-SUCOBSSOB BY MERGER TO PONTIAC REFINING CORPORATION SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES and objections TO THE PLAINTIFPS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION COMES NOW, Defendant UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY in the above numbered and entitled cause ofaction and pursuant to the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure makes and files tins its Second Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff"s First Set ofInterrogatories and Request for Production as follows: SEE ATTACHED. Respectfully submitted, HAYS, McCONN, RICE ft PICKERING CSWVM5337.1 State Bar No. 16*38000 ROBERT E. FURGATORIO State Bar No. 16399600 400 Two ABen Center 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 654-1111 (713) 655-9212 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT UNIONPACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY mi'i '6 '9flV3W!i Q3AI3D33 OBJECTIONS TO PEBTOTTIONS Defendant objects to the stated definition of the terms `Defendant," "You,77 "Your" and "Your Company" on the grounds H is overly broad and seeks to extend the definition beyond the scope of discovery allowed under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to inquiries relating to auhadiarias, foreign subsidiaries and other separately incorporated non-parties thus rendering the Plaintiffs stated' definitions overly broad, vague and improper. Defendant objects to the stated definition ofthe terms "Document," "Documents," "Written Materials" and "Printed Materials'* on the grounds it is overly broad, vague and dearly outside the scope of penhisable discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. This Defendant would specifically object to the attempt to extend the definition ofthese terms as requiring the responding party to mairw & determination ofwhat documents may be responsive to these Interrogatories and Requests ibrProduction "regardless ofwho now has or formerly had custody, possession or control" on the ground that it dearly outside the scope of permissible discovery and could be construed as seeking disdosure ofinformation that would be protected from discovery by virtue ofthe attorney work product exemption afforded by the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and the Texes Rules of Civil Evidence. Defendant would Anther object to die stated definition ofthe terms "Meeting" or "Meetings" on the grounds that it is so overly broad and vain and renders each discovery request to which it may apply incapable ofbemg answered; and therefore, improperunds the Tecas Rules ofCivil Procedure. Dcfendazt objects to the stated definition ofthe terms "products containing asbestos fiber," "asbestos containing products* and "asbestos products" on the grounds it is ovetfy broad, vague and not limited to the matters made file baab ofthblgwsuit and therefore, seeks disclosure ofinformation and/or the production ofdocumentation wholly indevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. CSWV4M3S7.1 PRELIMINARY STA" T OF UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY Union Pacific Resources Company, a Delaware Corporation is currently an independent corporation but was previously a subsidiary ofUnion Pacific Corporation. A predecessor ofUnion Pacific Corporation purchased the stock of Champlin Petroleum Company and the fanner Pontiac Refinery from Cdsnese Corporation ofAmerica in 1969. Champlin Petroleum Company's name was changed to JMonPac^ResoytcesOxr^e^ 'm 1987. Also, effective January 1,1987,50% interest in the Corpus Chiiati refinery was add to a subsidiary of PDVSA the National Oil Company of Venezuela. A general partnership Was established known as the ChampHn Refining Company partnership operating the Corpus Chiisti refinery on behalfofthe 50% interest held by a subsidiary ofPDVSA and 50% interest bdd by Champlin Refining Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Champlin Petroleum Company (now known asUnion Pacific Resources Company). Effective January 1,1989, Champlin Refining, Inc. had sold ftp remaining 50% interest in ChampHn Refining Company to a subsidiary ofPDVSAwhich was subsequently merged by PDVSA into PDVSA's CFFGO Petroleum Company. Following the sale of its interest in the Corpus Chiisti Refinery, (formerly known as the Pontiac Refinery), Champlin Petroleum Company, now known as Union Pacific Resources Company, retained no records or documents relating to the operation ofthat refinery. Aflsudt documentation remained in the possession oftire current owner and operator ofthat refinery. INTERROGATORIES WQGA1QBXML2: Please identify each person known to Defendant as having knowledge offacts relevant to this case. For each person identified, please describe the relevant facts which you believe are within such person's scope ofknowledge and about which such person could be expected to testify if called to trial as a witness. Further, ifsuch person is or has been an employee ofDefeodant, please state the years of employment and the person's employment positions. SUFPL asiaM fALA] De&ndait UniooPidfic Resources Company objects to this interrogatory on die grounds it is overly broad and deariy outside the scope ofpermissible discovery under Rule 166b ofthe Teas Rules of Civil Procedure. This Dejfeddaut would specifically object to this request to the extent it disclosure of information that .would be protected from discovery by virtue of the attorney pf^^gr d1* p"*y cnjitmMrijrtptinn pwviiwg^ fhJohn defense privilege and the attorney work product exemption afforded fay tins Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence. Subject to and without Waiving the foregoing objections: mi-s '9AV3HIA 53a;h: 1. Joe F. Gay 7704 Weatwind Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76179 (817)236-8418 Safety 1974-1998 2. Braxton D. Routh 901 Pyramid Drive Corpus Christi, Texas 78412 (512)9104)206 Safety 1974-1984 3. Bob Loveless 224 Congressman Lane Lake Charles, Louisiana 70611 (318)217-8491 Safety 4. Mark Hawkinaon 4907 Bay Oaks Court College Station, Texas 77845-8919 (409)690-0786 or Brazos Valley Production Office 7300 N.FM 2818 Suite 200 Biyan, Texas 77803 (409)778-8525 Environmental 1978-present 5. Albert K Barth P. O. Box 832 Fredericksburg; Texas 78624 Purchasing CSWU05337.1 -3- 6. Harry Edwards Occupational Health Consultants* Inc. P. O. Box 3127 Freeport, Texas 77541 (409) 233-3324 Industrial Hygiene 7. Dr. Warren Mooreman Fort Worth, Texas Medicine 8. WflHamE. Childers 1202 Cimmaron D<be Granhry, Texas 76048 i Safety 9. Ray Russell Industrial Relations 10. Bill Lodce Industrial Relations 11. JimKucers Aransas Pass, Texas 78336 (361)758-2644 Safety 12. Robot A. Koy Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 (361) 854-9042 Safety 13. D. Cave Safety CSWV403337.J 'Wmii 03.4.13333. 14. Julian C. Bailey 208 Coronado Drive Renville, Texas 78028-3815 (830) 895-2241 Safety 15. Wes Plummer 4139 Miichire Drive Houston, Texas 77025-4025 (713)665-3552) Ray West Bill Pennington Beny Contracting Contracting 16. David Massey fiilmqn Tn|Bi4rifln Contracting 17. JeffSasara Corpus Christi, Tocaa 18. William Tansey 19. Gary C. Whipple 800 Link Drive Duncanville, Texas 75116-2694 (972) 296-7598 20. Dr. JD. T Jndwnan Medical 21. TomFanier Safety CSWH03337.1 -5- Wd'8Z -i jiiUlL 22. See all persons listed in the distribution list of the Champlain Chemical Safety Handbook and the Champlin Safety Procedures book. 23. DJL Bladen UPR Safety 24. Guy D. Whipple 14628 Sweet Water Creek Drive Corpus Chrigti, Texas 78410-5636 (361)387-5360 25. Mrs. Kathryn Gicptner, R.N. Occupational Health Consultants, Inc. 26. RP. Paretic 5940 Wiflowrosa Way Plano, Texaa 75093-1776 (972)403-7723 27. RA. Arthur 28. H.C. Cazalas 7805 Etienne Drive Corpus Christ Texas 778414-6011 (361)994-1360 29. CJP. LeRoy 30. WJ3. Duckworth 31. PJ>. Viazd 32. M.G. Word 33. C.W. Shumate 34. C.J. Schultz CSWM5337.1 -6- 35. P.E. Taylor 36. T.N. Coha 37. G.W. Smith 38. D.L. Teny 39. F.G. Velasquez, 40. C.W. Thompson 41. S. Salinas 42. J. Perez 43. JohnM. Snyder 44. KW. Frank 45. J. Garda 46. B.A.Dahm 47. DJ. Falcon 48. N.E. Wittry 49. VJL Breckemidge 50. GJL Pakehuseh 51. U.G. Froodorf 52. G.D. Stanton j 53. James Bolliger 7401 Bourget Drive Corpus Christi, Texas 78413-5240 (361) 850-8305 54. R.O. Harrison C5WU03337.1 -7- 56. AJP. Uehlinger 9302 Moon Beam Trail Corpus Christi, Tews 78409-2608 (361)241-2035 57. WM. Tory 58. KX>. Bosworth 59. J.W. Mason 60. L.H. Owen 61. Daniel Safety 62. Danny Garcia 63. Mike lewd 64. Kenny Dean 65. Don Jarvis 66. C.J. Romero 67. MkeWittliff 68. Wayne Buckley 69. W.E. Reagan 70. MJ5. WOton INTERROGATORY NO 6: Mease state whether a medical monitoring program, medical examination program or other medical alrvallaaceprogram (^program*') was provided to waken at Defendant's Premises. If such programs were offered, please describe these programs in detail; specify in your response to whom subprograms were offered (Le* cortiytor employees and Defendant employees); describe thedates that Agafiwgtngiainiifld jpiagmnawpre Injplaeq and ittate whst documents concerning the described programs exist. CSWVI03337.1 -8- t ,1 I t. u f. I ..... /nn n I_wa-bi r*r\ -aji-L dUWifittUUUfiMiUittiUaAiaMiaiiaiU M d 'snv3?i;; SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, vague, not in time nor is it limited to the matters made the basis of this lawsuit, specifically alleged exposure to asbestos fibers and therefore, seeks disclosure of information wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably egleulafait to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subject thereto and without waiver ofsame, see: 1. Champlin IOC ofJuly 9,1986 (CHAV-000603-611). ICVS3t IRQGATORYNO 8 Have you ever provided safety equipment to persona working on Defendant's Premises? If so, please fin the safety equipment provided and indicate when the equipment was first provided, to whom the equipment was provided, and under what circumstances the equipment was provided. Further, identify the person with the most knowledge ofyour "safety equipment" policies. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Objection. Defender* Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, vague and not limited to the lime period relevant' in this case nor is it limited to asbestos containing thermal insulation products which presumably is one ofthe basis ofthe Plaintiff's claims herein, and therefore, seeks disclosure of information wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject thereto and wkHoirtwiiverofsame^ Air Iiw Respirators were issued for asbestos exposure. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please state whether any. asbestos-containing products in place or in use at Defendant's Premises have been abated at any time, Ifso, please list each person or company involved with the abatement ofasbestos, incfamfaj address and telephone number, and state the dates and particular locations of each abatement procedure. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Objection. Drftnriant UnionPacific Resources Company objects to this interrogatory cm the grounds it isoverly broad, vague, not limited to fiie time period relevant in this base nor is it limiied to the matters made the bans ofthis lawsuit, specifically alleged exposure to asbestos fibers and therefore seeks disclosure ofinformation wholly irrelevant to toy material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject thereto and without a/art/f>r rtfnaira, w* mWm nWiwwnt and rprtinval Av-iirraitfg in rggpnng* in Plaintiff*1 Rflqilfifit for Production. CSWV40J337.1 -9- 7-7 /hi T .r'lhhnnnpo -mi/nn'M io/70-pi cc cn-nnUmuiY TJIia ^ROGATORY NO. 12: State in detail what tests-have been conducted with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using working with or around, or installing asbestos-confaiiling products in any ofyour finlj*"* Please state where and when these tests were conducted, by whom these tests were conducted, and the results ofany such test. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this mtecrogstoiy on the grounds it is overly broad, vague, not limited to the subject premises and not limited to the time period relevant in this case and therefore seeks disclosure ofinformation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subjectthereto and without waiver ofsame, Occupational Health Consultants performed an asbestos survey on March 23,1983. No asbestos fibers were detected. (&000479) ioksm:ROGATORYNQ. 13; Have you ever had a policy requiring workers an Defendant's premises to use respirators? Ifso, please state when tins policy was implemented; describe this policy in detail; state to wham it applied (i,e. Defendant employeerand contractor employees); and describe what types and brand names ofrespirators were required by you. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to fins mterrogatoiy as overly broad, vague and not limited to asbestos or the matters made the basis ofthis suit. Subject thereto and without waiver ofsame, see: 1. Respiratory Protection Program, Procedure No. 708.1, issued June 5,1987. (CHG 01910). Air line Respirators were indicated; 2. Respirator Application Procedure, Procedure No. 44 (CH/W-001102-4) issued August 1977. IRQGAlQRYJtiQ. lfr Have you ever warned workers mi Defendant's Premises of the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products? If so, describe in detail the methods of such warnings, who you warned and when. Please include in your response a description ofany written warnings relating to the hazards ofasbestos in place at Defendant's Premises and state when the written warnings were installed, how many were installed, and whether they have been removed. CSWU0S337J -10- J bbO I 7AP0 rut/ruvri -lawn as sn_'Q_Q l\\r\wY rut ntavn r j SUPPU 33 me* rAL ANSWER: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overiy broad, vague add oat limited to the time period relevant in this case and therefore seeks disclosure ofinformationwholly irrelevant to any material issue in this cade and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmiisible evidence. Subject thereto and without waiver of same, see the Champhn Basic Safety Regulations for Contractors and Contract Employees, INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Has Defendant ever published or distributed any printed material'containing any warnings concerning fee posribifey ofinjury resulting from the use ofasbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos? If so, describe the printed material and identify each person responsible for having drafted or issued fee warning statements or written matoials, and the dates when the printed material was first issued or distributed. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Objection, DderaJantUnionPicific Resources Company objects to tins intenogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, vague and not Smited to the time period relevant in this case and therefore seeks disclosure ofinformation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the'discomery of admissibly evidence. Subject thereto and without waiver of same, see fee Champlin Baric Safety Regulations for Contractors and Contract Employees. C3WY40S337.1 -11- 77/01 4 Crt7t70f?QCC -nM/Qn:CI 'Ifi/gglCl fifi fin `fin (NOW) mmnu nwi Mil 'SnVHWii 2H: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PROPUCTIOW NO 4: Produce all documents, that relate to any inspections by any regulatory agency for the purpose ofascertaining whether health or safety regulations were being followed or adhered to at any of your plants. Hus request specifically seeks any and all such documentation referring to dust hazards, including but not limited to asbestos in your plants, RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this request on the grounds it is overiy broad, vague, not limited to the subject premises nor is it limited to the time, period relevant in this case. Further, this Defendant would object to this request as not limited to the mattos made the basis ofthis lawsuit, specifically alleged exposure to asbestos fibers and therefore, seeks disclosure cftnformatkm and/or prodiiction ofdocumentation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject thereto and without waiver ofsame, inspection will be permitted at defense counsel's office at a nutuafiy-convenient date and time. See: 1. The U.S. DOL Citation ofApril 20,1984 issued to Goldstein Corp.; 2. IOC ofAugust 15,1985 re: EPA Inspection (CHAV-000601-502); 3. U.S; DOL Complaint to* Maintenance* Circles Ltd, (CHW-000628). i. l^UESTJQRPRQgUCTIQW NQ. ft Produce all safety meeting minutes or other documents, that refer to the dangers ofasbestos safety measures to be used in the vicinity ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant Umpn Pacific Resources Company objects to this request on the grounds it is overly broad, vague, not limited to the-time period relevant in this case, and therefore seeks production of documentation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to fee discovery of evidence. Further, this Defendant would object to this request to the extent it could he construed as seeking production ofdocumentation that would be protected from discovery by virtue ofthe attorney client privilege, party communication privilege and the attorney work product exemption afforded by the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and the Texas Rules ofdvil Evidence. Subject thereto and without waiver ofsame, inspection will be permitted at defense counsel's office at a naitually-coiivement date and time. See: 1. Safety Department Corpus Chrisd Rcfihey Monthly Reports January 1985-March 1987 (CHAV-000003-103); CS9MOSniA "12- 11/1 i t n! f,*,r i-jaao -am/nn r i 'iq/coti an'OfWMnuh _ 1 'tU'iC'-i '6 'OnVdH'i, IH.'.idCHj! 2. Centrai/Managemeat Safety Committee Meetings January 1981 (CH/W-000166) through December 1985 (CHAV-000203); 3. Monthly Reports Safety Department Corpus Chtisti Refinery 1984-present (CH/W-000002-165); 4. Central Safety Committee Meeting March 1,1984 (E-00093J-2); 5. Safety Audit Corpus Christi Refinery 1987 (CHAV-000204-295); 6. Management Safety Committee Minutes January 1986 (CHAV-000451-462); 7. Safety Meetings January 1,1982-present (CHAV-000463-506); 8. West liant Status/Pxogre&s Reports (CHAV-000507-544); 9. Central Safety Committee Meeting Minutes (CHAV-001059-1076); 10. Monthly Reports - Safety Department 1975-1983 (CHAV-001900-2196); 11. Central Safety Committee Meetings 1981-1984 (CHAV-001760-1899); and 12. Central Safety Committee Minutes 1975-1980 (CHAV-002197-2504). CSWVN8337.1 -13- 77/01 J C/t7t7QJ7QCP "OM/Qfl G I ` T g/CP : CI fifi fill 'Pfl (MflW) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, fr Produce all contracts, of other documritfsthat relate to abatement ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises. SUFPL1 rAL RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this request on the grounds it is overly broad, vague, not limited to the time period relevant in this case nor is it limited to the matters made the basis ofthi^lawaiit, and therefore seeks production ofdocumentation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, to the extent necessary,,this Defendant objects to tins request-to the extent it could be construed m seeking production ofdocumentation that would be protected from discovery by virtue ofthe attorney client privilege, party communication privilege and theattomey work procfcict cxeriytion afforded by the Texas RulesofCivil Procedure and the Texas Rules ofCivil Evidence. Subject thereto and without waiver of same, inspection will be permitted at defense counsel's office at a imituahy-comreniedt date and time. See; 1. Asbestos removal documents (AQQ01110-2558); 2. IOC ofOctober 11,1984 re: asbestos seminar (E-000911-22); 3. CfaamptinlDC of September 10,1986 (CH/W-000468-470) re: removal contractor; amt 4. Environmental Cost Breakdown - asbestos disposal (CH-009321-4). REQUEST TOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce all documents that in anyway reflect a removal plan or organized written criteria or schedule tor the removal ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE* Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to tins request cm the grounds!! is overfy broad, vague, npC fimited to the time period relevant in this case nor is it limited tothe matters made the bains ofthis lawmit, and thejteferc seeks production ofdocumentation wholly irrelevant to any material bane m this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admiuMfrlg evidence. Puitber, to the extent necessary, this Defendant objects to this request to the extent it could be construed as **,**V*ig production of documentation that would he protected from discovery by virtue ofthe attorney efient privilege, party communication privilege and the attorney tupfif prnAirf m&r*AA by Pylff ofCivil Procedure and the Texas Rules ofCivil Evidence. Subject thereto and without waiver of same, inspection will be permitted at defense counsel's office at a rautually-cbixvement datoand time. See: 1. Asbestos removal documents (A0001110-2558); CSWV405U7.1 -14- z.imiim 'ON/QO: Q l IS/SS^l 66 .60 '8(1 (NOW) nwiHanau n lain mom ~savh /iOHi 2. IOC ofOctober 11,1984 re: asbestos seminar (E-000911-22); 3- Champlin IOC of September 10,1986 (CH/W-000468--470) re: removal contractor; and 4. Environmental Cost Breakdown - asbestos disposal (CH-009321-4). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 9: Prodace all documents that relate to abatement ofasbestos from any ofyour plants, including but not limited to the Defendant7a Premises located in Corpus Christi, Texas. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this request an the grounds it is overly broad, vague, not Hmhed to thetime period relevant in ibis case nor is it Hnrited tothe matters made die basis ofthislawaoit, and therefore jmeks production ofdocumentation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in tips case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, to tbe extent necessary, tbis Defendant objects to this request to the extent it could be construed as seeking production ofdocumentation that would be protected from , discoveryby virtue ofthe attorney cllert privilege; party communication privilege and the attorney workproduct exemption afforded by the Tom Rulea ofCivil Procedure arid the Texas Rules ofCivil Evidence. Subject thereto and without waiver ofsame* inspection will be permitted at defense counsel's office at a mutuaUynKurvement date and time. See: 1. Asbestos removal documents (AD001110-2558); 2. IOC of October 11,1984 re: asbestos seminar (E-000911-22); 3. Cfaampiin IOC of September 10,1986 (H/W-O0O468-47O)'re:removal contractor; and 4. Environmental Cost Breakdown - asbestos disposal (CH-009321-4). REQUEST FORPRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce' all documents that reflect the layout ofDefendant's Premises, including the location aiut itimanAwM rtfall Wilding* fvt tto Irtwtinn wut pbflBnMt ftf adldtOfcCnilUmiflfl products, 1 SI ;AL RESPONSE; Objection, Unpon Pacific Resources Company objects to this request on the grounds it is overly broad, vague, hot limited to the time period relevant in this case and therefore seeks production of documentation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated tolead to the discovery ofsdmisnble.evidence. further, to the extent necessary, tins Defendant objects to this request to the exteutit could be construed as seeking production of documentation that this Defendant considers to be proprietary in nature, and therefore would be CSWVMMQS7.1 -15- . ?.?.rn P.mfi/Zflqs 'ON/90:Ql IS/t^Sl 66 .60 '80 (NOW) ONimOld n '30IH 'NNODOW `SAVH flOHi protected from discovery by virtue ofthe trade secret privilege afforded by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence. Subject thereto and without waiver of inspection will be permitted at defense counsel's office at amutualfy-convenieut date and time. 1. Two (2) pages ofmaps a. Champlin Refinery - West Plant b. Champlin Refinery East Plant; 2. One (1) page map - Champlin Corpus Christi (CH-009339); and 3. Various aerial photographs (CH-09365-9372). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13! Produce all documents containing any warnings concerning the possibility ofinjury resulting from the use ofasbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos. SUFPL1 EAL RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this request on the grounds it is ovedy broad, vague, npt limited to the time period relevant in this case nor is it limited to the subject premises, and thera&re seeks production of documentation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, to theekterit Decenary, thisDefendant objects to this request to the extent it could be construedas seeking production of documentation that would be protected from discovery by virtue ofthe attorney client privilege, party eommumcation privilege and the attorney work product exemption afforded by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence. Subject thereto and without wavier ofsame^ inspection will be permitted at defense counsel's offices, at amutiialfy-convementdate and tune. 1. Champlin Basic Safety Regulations for Contractors Sod Contract Employees (C-000001-8). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIONKO. 27: Produces copy ofall regulations, orders, rules and/or policies which have been used relating to the safety ofthe Defendant's Premises.. SUPPL 3i:ki rALRESPQSSE: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this request on the grounds it is dearly overiy broad, vague, not limited to the time period relevant in this case nor is ft timhedto the matters made the basis ofthis lawsuit specifically alleged exposure to asbestos fibers, and therefore production ofAyunMittatinn wholly irrelevant to any material in this case arid not reasonably to lead to the discovery of evidence. Further, fins Defendant would abject to this request to the extent it seeks production ofdocnmmfsrirtn that is considered proprietary in nature, and therefore protected from discovery by virtue ofthe trade secret privilege CSWV40S337.1 -16- ?mz d Sm8A29SS'ON/90:Sl '1SA8:SI 66 ,60 '80 (NOW) ONimOId 3 '301H MOOOrSAVHJOHi afforded by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence. Subject thereto and without waiver of Sane, inspection will be permitted at defense counsel's offices at a xnutually-cpnvenient date and time; . See: 1. CJhamplin Basic SafetyRegulations for Contractors and Contract Employees (L-OQOOOl-8); 2. Champiin Safety Procedures (L-000207-464); 3. Champiin Chemical Sa&ty Handbook (L-000033-206); 4. Champiin Safety Assignment for Supervision (CHAV-000296-333); 5. Safety Regulation* of Outside Contractors, Procedure No. I (CHAV-000446-450); 6. Champiin correspondence re: HsaaCom Act (CH/W-000619-27) 7. Corpus Christi Refinery and Offices Working Conditions (CHAV-000418-445); and 9. Safety Regulations far Outside Contractors, Procedure No. 1 (CHAV-000446-450). CSWU05337.1 -17- i HJ82:e '6 '9ftV3Mil 33AIH033 szc Hays. McConn, Rick & Pickering ruortt0tt>tli.L co*P^IO" aTTOWEYS AT W.W 400 TWO AlXliW CENTER laoo SMtTH STREET ftOUSTOK. TEXAS 77003 TELEPHONE <713) eSA-Llll TELECOMS* <7l3) e0-0037 ahhi DATE 5-14 3This transmission consists of ^ages. including this cover sheet and is being sent from (713) 655-9212. v If you have difficulty in receiving this telecopy, please contact (713) 654-1111. UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED OR OBVIOUS FROM THE NATURE OF THIS TRANSMITTAL. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FAX MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY/CIJENT PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIAL. INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT (OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLETO DELIVER IT TOTHE INTENDEDRECIPIENT).YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY COLLECT TELEPHONE AND' RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS AT OUR EXPENSE. feleno$^>7/W ba CiAiafi. Waicerr boasdcaawm cwiauu 'fjaui Boudor LboaI. Aneuuzjaxx i '6 '9flV3H!i GSA-333H Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering a PBoriaaioNAt cokfobatzox aTTohotsys at Law 400 TWO AiXE* CENXaa 1200 aKITH STEeicaT HOUSTON, TEXAS 770DS TKLBi>HO>rE <713) 6944UI TMUSCOl-WJ* <713) 6300097 OaarrLE (713)752-8309 E-Maiu CVoiorr@HAYaWcCoHlcCM August 6,1999 Ms. Melissa Hutts Baron ft Buck! 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 VIA FACSIMILE <2141 520-1181 Attention: Ms. Sylvia Castillo Re: Cause No. 96-03172-A; Raman T. CcdiUo, etaLvs. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation, et ai.; In the 28th Judicial District Court ofNueces County, Texas Dear Melissa: Transmitted herewith pleasefind DefendaitUnion Padfie Resources Company fTk/a Champiin Petroleum Company, Individually and as Successor by Merger to Pontiac Refining Corporation's Second Supplemental Responses and Objections to the Plaintiffs First Set ofInterrogatories and Request for Production. The documents identified are quite voluminous, and they are available &r inspection on or after Monday, August 9,1999. Please advise ifwe can pass the hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, set for Tuesday, August 10. Sincerely yours, HAYS, McCGNN, RICE ft PICKERING CSWrelp Enclosure CraigS. Wolcott mi'i '6 'Dnvawu Q3A1333H Ms. MeHsuHutts August 6,1999 Page 2 1 cc: All other counsel ofrecord (w/eacl) CSVMBOMJ