Document KzbxzgqKZ7w8y4ve27QJ9BY1X

IN RE ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C., OR TO BE FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. IN DALLAS COUNTY, Texas IN THE CIVIL DISTRICT COURTS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION IN ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. OR TO BE FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS TO: Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys of record Russell W. Budd, Scott L. Frost, Monty Wade, David T. Ritter, Chris Panatier, Baron & Budd, The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219. Pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, The Dow Chemical Company ("Defendant") files the following objections and responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production. Respectfully submitted, ABBOTT, SIMSES & KUCHLER Lawrence E. Abbott State Bar No. 00795846 400 Lafayette Street, Suite 200 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 568-9393 (Tel) (504) 524-1933 (Fax) Attorneys For Defendant, The Dow Chemical Company G: D Dow-Asbestos General-12575 Responses to Baron & Budd RFP in Dallas.doc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing instrument were served upon all attorneys of record on the day of 2002, in accordance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. ' Lawrence E. Abbott G: D Dow-Asbestos General-125~5 Responses to Baron & Budd RFP in Dallas.doc REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all depositions given by each and every deponent reference by Defendant in Defendant's Objections and Response to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated July 23, 2002. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and non-specific as to a time, place or event relevant to this lawsuit. See Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 818 (Tex. 1995). Defendant further objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and because it seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this Request because the documents requested are as available to Plaintiff as to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant states that not all individuals identified in Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production have been deposed. However, Defendant will make all depositions within the custody and control of the undersigned counsel available to Plaintiff, upon written request, for inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time and will comply with T.R.C.P. and Court orders. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2; Please produce all trial transcripts of all testimony given by each and every deponent referenced by Defendant in Defendant's Objections and Response to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated July 23, 2002. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and non-specific as to a time, place or event relevant to this lawsuit. See Texaco Ittc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 818 (Tex. 1995). Defendant further objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and because it seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this Request because the documents requested are as available to Plaintiff as to Defendant. G. D Dow-Asbestos GenemM25',5 Responses to Baron Budcl RFP in Dallas.doc Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant states that not all individuals identified in Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production have given trial testimony. However, Defendant will make all trial transcripts within the custody and control of the undersigned counsel available to Plaintiff, upon written request, for inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time and will comply with T.R.C.P. and Court orders. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all trial transcripts of all testimony given by each and every person listed by Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 39 in Defendant's Objections and Response to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated July 23, 2002. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and non-specific as to a time, place or event relevant to this lawsuit. See Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 818 (Tex. 1995). Defendant further objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and because it seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this Request because the documents requested are as available to Plaintiff as to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant states that not all individuals identified in Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production have given trial testimony. However, Defendant will make all trial transcripts within the custody and control of the undersigned counsel available to Plaintiff, upon written request, for inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time and will comply with T.R.C.P. and Court orders. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all witness statements given by each and every person listed by Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 39 in Defendant's Objections and Response to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated July 23, 2002. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and non-specific as to a time, place or event relevant to this lawsuit. See Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 818 (Tex. 1995). Defendant further objects to G: D Dow-Asbestos General-12575 Responses lo Baron & Budd RFP in Dallas.doc this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and because it seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this request may seek the production of statements that are protected by attorney work-product and/or attorney client communication privileges. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all witness depositions given by each and every person listed by Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 39 in Defendant's Objections and Response to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated July 23, 2002. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and non-specific as to a time, place or event relevant to this lawsuit. See Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 818 (Tex. 1995). Defendant further objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and because it seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this Request because the documents requested are as available to Plaintiff as to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant states that not all individuals identified in Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production have been deposed. However, Defendant will make all depositions within the custody and control of the undersigned counsel available to Plaintiff, upon written request, for inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time and will comply with T.R.C.P. and Court orders. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce trial transcripts of all testimony given by each and every person listed by Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 61 in Defendant's Objections and Response to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated July 23, 2002. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and non-specific as to a time, place or event relevant to this lawsuit. See Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 818 (Tex. 1995). Defendant further objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of G: D Dow-Asbestos General-125?5 Responses to Baron Sc Budd RFP in Dallas.doc items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and because it seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this Request because the documents requested are as available to Plaintiff as to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant states that not all individuals identified in Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production have given trial testimony. However, Defendant will make all trial transcripts within the custody and control of the undersigned counsel available to Plaintiff, upon written request, for inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time and will comply with T.R.C.P. and Court orders. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all depositions given by each and every person listed by Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 61 in Defendant's Objections and Response to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated July 23, 2002. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and non-specific as to a time, place or event relevant to this lawsuit. See Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 818 (Tex. 1995). Defendant further objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and because it seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this Request because the documents requested are as available to Plaintiff as to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant states that not all individuals identified in Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production have been deposed. However, Defendant will make all depositions within the custody and control of the undersigned counsel available to Plaintiff, upon written request, for inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time and will comply with T.R.C.P. and Court orders. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all witness statements given by each and every person listed by Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 61 in Defendant's Objections and Response to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated July 23, 2002. G L> Dow-Asbestos General-125~5 Responses to Baron & Budd RFP in Dallas.doc RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and non-specific as to a time, place or event relevant to this lawsuit. See Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 818 (Tex. 1995). Defendant further objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and because it seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this request may seek the production of statements that are protected by attorney work-product and/or attorney client communication privileges. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce trial transcripts of all testimony given by each and every person listed in Exhibit A attached to Defendant's Objections and Response to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated July 23, 2002. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and non-specific as to a time, place or event relevant to this lawsuit. See Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 818 (Tex. 1995). Defendant further objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and because it seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this Request because the documents requested are as available to Plaintiff as to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant states that not all individuals identified in Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production have given trial testimony. However, Defendant will make all trial transcripts within the custody and control of the undersigned counsel available to Plaintiff, upon written request, for inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time and will comply with T.R.C.P. and Court orders. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all depositions given by each and every person listed in Exhibit A attached to Defendant's Objections and Response to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated July 23, 2002. G: D Dow-Asbeslos Gencr.il-125`T5 Responses to Baron Sl Budd RFP in Dallas.doe RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and non-specific as to a time, place or event relevant to this lawsuit. See Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 818 (Tex. 1995). Defendant further objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and because it seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this Request because the documents requested are as available to Plaintiff as to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant states that not all individuals identified in Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production have been deposed. However, Defendant will make all depositions within the custody and control of the undersigned counsel available to Plaintiff, upon written request, for inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time and will comply with T.R.C.P. and Court orders. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all witness statements given by each and every person listed in Exhibit A attached to Defendant's Objections and Response to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated July 23, 2002. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and non-specific as to a time, place or event relevant to this lawsuit. See Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 818 (Tex. 1995). Defendant further objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and because it seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this request may seek the production of statements that are protected by attorney work-product and/or attorney client communication privileges. G. D Dow-Asbestos General-12575 Responses to Baron & Budd RFP in Dallas.doc IN RE ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C., OR TO BE FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS IN THE CIVIL DISTRICT COURTS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Defendant, The Dow Chemical Company certifies under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure that the following document has been served on plaintiff on September 3, 2002: 1. Defendant The Dow Chemical Company's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production in All Asbestos-Related Personal Injury or Death Cases Filed by Baron & Budd, P.C. or to be Filed by Baron & Budd, P.C. in Dallas County, Texas. Respectfully submitted, ABBOTT, SIMSES & KUCHLER By: / SL Lawrence E. Abbott (TX 00795846) ABBOTT, SIMSES & KUCHLER 400 Lafayette Street, Suite 200 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Phone: (504)568-9393 Facsimile: (504) 524-1933 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This will certify that a copy of the foregoing document was furnished to all known counsel $aLof record on this the day of September 2002, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Certificate of Written Discovery -1- LAWRENCE E. ABBOTT SER 06.02*054699 ABBOTT, SIMSES & KUCHLER A Professional Law Corporation 400 Lafayette Street Suite 200 New Orleans, Louisiana 70 l 30 Telephone: (504) 568-93Q3 Fax: (504)524-1933 5 l OO Village Walk Suite 200 Covington, Louisiana 70433 Telephone: (985) 893-299 I Fax: (985) 898-0383 1360 Post Oak boulevard suite i 700 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (7 I 3) 627-9393 Fax: (7 I 3) 627-9395 Reply to: New Orleans Office Tommy Rigsby Paralegal September 3, 2002 Email: TRigsby@abbott-simses.com Via Certified Mail 700208600000079122758 Jim Hamlin, District Clerk George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Building 600 Commerce St., 4th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202-4606 Re: In Re All Asbestos-Related Personal Injury or Death Cases Filed by Baron & Budd, P.C., or to be Filed by Baron & Budd, P.C. in Dallas County, Texas Dear Mr. Hamlin: Enclosed for filing please find an original and one (1) copy of Certificate of Written Discovery for Defendant The Dow Chemical Company's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production in All Asbestos-Related Personal Injury or Death Cases Filed by Baron & Budd, P.C. or to be Filed by Baron & Budd, P.C. in Dallas County, Texas. Please return a conformed copy to the undersigned in the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope. Your cooperation and assistance in this matter is appreciated. With best regards, I remain /tar Enclosure cc: David Ritter, Esquire Baron & Budd 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219-4281 Ail Known Counsel of Record Via Certified Mail 7002086000000791222765 Via Regular Mail