Document LKEY53de4O8XrzXVz7M6XMvBX

Craig S. Wolcott Board Certified - Civil Trial Law Texas Board of Legal specialization Hays, McConn, Rice & ISUV. Pickering 12.93* 0075 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 400 TWO ALLEN CENTER I 200 SMITH STREET HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 TELEPHONE (7I3)S4-III1 TELECOPIER (713)050-0027 DIRECT Line: (7 I 3) 752-8300 E-Mail: Cwolcott@HaysMcConn.Com http://www.haysmcconn.com November 10, 1999 4^- Ms. Melissa Hutts Baron & Budd 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 CMRRR NO..Z 271 972 257 Re: Cause No. 97-0844-E; Jose J. Cano, Sr., et al. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation, et al.; In the 28* Judicial District Court ofNueces County, Texas Dear Ms. Hutts: Transmitted herewith please find the following: 1. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff s Request for Production. By copy of this letter, all known counsel of record are receiving a copy of this document without the enclosures. / Sincerely yours, HAYS, McCONN, RICE & PICKERING ^-- Craig S. Wolcott CSW:elp Enclosures cc: All other known counsel of record (w/o end.) CSWV422121.1 PLAINTIFF'S | EXHIBIT 1 UPRC-47 NO. 97-0844-E JOSE J. CANO, SR. AND MARIA CANO; RUBEN EURESTE; and LEO MOORE AND VELENA FAY MOORE VS. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 148TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION COMES NOW DEFENDANT UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY F/K/A CHAMPLIN PETROLEUM COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO PONTIAC REFINING CORPORATION, and pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, makes this its Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production as follows: SEE ATTACHED. CSWV422119.1 Respectfully submitted, HAYS, McCONN, RICE & PICKERING State Bar No. 16838000 CRAIG S. WOLCOTT State Bar No. 21845475 400 Two Allen Center 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 654-1111 (Telephone) (713) 655-9212 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY F/K/A CHAMPLIN PETROLEUM COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO PONTIAC REFINING CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was forwarded via certified mail/retum receipt requested to counsel for Plaintiffs and by regular mail to all counsel ofrecord on this day of AJ--1999. C&AIGS. WOLCOTT CSWVJ22119.1 -2- OBJECTION APPLICABLE TO ALL REQUESTS Defendant objects to each item of discovery to the extent that the discovery calls for documents protected by the attomey/client privilege, work product privilege, or the party communication privilege. OBJECTIONS. TO PE QMCIIfV Defendant objects to the stated definition of the terms "Defendant," "You," "Your" and "Your Company" on the grounds it 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 subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries and other separately incorporated non-parties thus rendering the Plaintiff s stated definitions overly broad, vague and improper. Defendant objects to the stated definition of the terms "Document," "Documents," "Written Materials" and "Printed Materials" on the grounds it is overly broad, vague and clearly outside the scope of permissible 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 make a determination of what documents may be responsive to these Interrogatories and Requests for Production "regardless ofwho now has or formerly had custody, possession or control" on the ground that is clearly outside the scope of permissible discovery and could be construed as seeking disclosure of information that would be protected from discovery by virtue of the attorney work product exemption afforded by the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence. Defendant would further object to the 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 ofbeing answered; and therefore, improper under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to the stated definition ofthe terms "products containing asbestos fiber," "asbestos containing products" and "asbestos products" on the grounds it is overly broad, vague and not limited to the matters made the basis ofthis lawsuit and therefore, seeks disclosure ofinformation and/or the production of documentation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CSVA422119.I -3- PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY Union Pacific Resources Company, a Delaware Corporation is currently an independent corporation but was previously a subsidiary of Union Pacific Corporation. A predecessor ofUnion Pacific Corporation purchased the stock of Champlin Petroleum Company and the former Pontiac Refinery from Celanese Corporation ofAmerica in 1969. Champlin Petroleum Company's name was changed to Union Pacific Resources Company in 1987. Also, effective January 1, 1987, 50% interest in the Corpus Christi refinery was sold to a subsidiary of PDVSA, the National Oil Company of Venezuela. A general partnership was established known as the Champlin Refining Company partnership operating the Corpus Christi refinery on behalf of the 50% interest held by a subsidiary ofPDVSA and 50% interest held by Champlin Refining Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary ofChamplin Petroleum Company (now known as Union Pacific Resources Company). Effective January 1, 1989, Champlin Refining, Inc. had sold its remaining 50% interest in Champlin Refining Company to a subsidiary ofPDVSA which was subsequently merged by PDVSA into PDVSA's CITGO Petroleum Company. Following the sale of its interest in the Corpus Christi 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. All such documentation remained in the possession ofthe current owner and operator of that refinery. CSWV422119.1 -4- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Produce all documents which evidence Defendant's, net worth, including but not limited to all "10-K" forms filed for the last five (5) years. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this request on the grounds it is overly broad, vague, 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, and/or does not exist. Subject to its objections, and without waiver of same, Defendant produces Form 10-K reports for the fiscal years ended December 31, 1995 through December 31, 1998. CSWV422119.1 -5-