Document LKeEEgBQ3YGrky3mYxenoJy5d

BAKER BOTTS u, ftnumu'2*ut>4bsy ONE SHELL PLAZA 910 LOUISIANA HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-4995 713.229.1234 FAX 713.229.1522 AUSTIN BAKU DALLAS HOUSTON LONDON NEW YORK RIYADH WASHINGTON April 5,2002 00C885.O222 (iSkelton, Joseph) By Certified Mail Amy J. Blumrosen 713.229.1286 FAX 713.229.7786 Mr. Thomas A. Wilder Tarrant County District Clerk 401 W. Belknap Fort Worth, Texas 76196-0402 Re: Cause No. 48-180262-99; Joseph Skelton, et ux. vs. Crown Cork and Seal Co., et al\ In the 48th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas Dear Mr. Wilder: Enclosed for filing is an original and one copy of BASF Corporation's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Request for Production and Request for Admissions and Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories. Please stamp the date and time of filing on the enclosed extra copy of this letter and document and return them to me in the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope. All known defense counsel are being served with a copy of this transmittal letter only. Please contact my secretary if you would like to receive a copy of the enclosure. Very truly yours, Enclosures cc: Mr. David Ritter Baron & Budd 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 Brooke Peyton (file copy) All Known Defense Counsel (transmittal letter only) HOUO 1:700640.1 NO. 48-180262-99 JOSEPH SKELTON, ET UX, Plaintiffs, VS. CROWN CORK AND SEAL COMPANY, INC., ET AL Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 48TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT BASF CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO: Plaintiff Joseph Skelton, by and through his attorney of record, Baron & Budd, P.C., Centrum Building, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. COMES NOW, BASF Corporation fJc/a Badische Corporation t7k/a Dow-Badische Company f7k/a Dow-Badische Chemical Company, (hereinafter "BASF"), DEFENDANT, in the above-entitled cause, and responds and objects to Plaintiff Joseph Skelton's First Set of Interrogatories. Respectfully submitted, BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. HOUO 1:700518.1 Amy J. Blumrosen State Bar No. 00798069 One Shell Plaza 910 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 713.229.1234 713.229.1522 Facsimile Attorneys for Defendant BASF Corporation CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On ____________________ , 2002, I served a true and correct copy of BASF Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories upon Plaintiffs counsel by certified mail, return receipt requested, regular mail, facsimile, and/or hand delivery in compliance with TEX. R. Civ. P. 21 and 21a, and to all known counsel of record shortly thereafter. yJ; osen HOU01:700518.1 -2- INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS AND OBJECTIONS 1. Defendant objects to these interrogatories because they are overbroad and purport to create and/or impose obligations upon Defendant beyond those contemplated by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant will respond to Plaintiffs interrogatories and requests for production pursuant to a reasonable and duly diligent investigation and search. Defendant's responses will be given without prejudice to further supplementation and will be made solely for the purpose of this lawsuit. 2. Defendant has had thousands of employees over the years. In conducting business, Defendant has created millions of documents which have been kept in numerous geographic locations and moved as required in the normal course of business. Accordingly, Defendant does not represent that the responses it will give provide all information requested. Rather, Defendant's responses will reflect information obtained pursuant to a reasonable and duly diligent investigation in those areas where information is expected to be found. If any request purports to require more. Defendant objects on the grounds that compliance with such a request is not reasonable and imposes an undue burden and expense upon Defendant. 3. Defendant also objects to each of the interrogatories and requests for production that are not limited in time or location. A search as requested not limited in time would be unduly burdensome, extremely expensive, and time consuming for Defendant. Any possible benefit to Plaintiffs derived by a search of this nature would be greatly outweighed by the enormous expense to Defendant. 4. Defendant also objects to having been required to attempt to answer these requests because Plaintiff never worked as an employee or "contractor" at the Premise at Issue, rather Plaintiff was an employee of Missouri Pacific Railroad Company. This situation has required Defendant to incur unnecessary expense in the preparation of these responses. 5. Defendant objects to the overbroad and unduly burdensome nature of Plaintiff s requests for "all" documents that relate to specific requests as it invades the attorney-client, work product, investigative and joint defense privileges. OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the term "Defendant," "Your company," "You," and "Your" because they are overbroad. The definition indicates that terms "Defendant," "Your company," "You," and "Your" mean "the corporate Defendant answering these Interrogatories, and any of its merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates." Plaintiffs inclusion of "subsidiaries" and "predecessors" purports to require Defendant to respond on behalf of entities which are not parties to this action and for which Defendant is not liable. Further, the inclusion of "subsidiaries" or "predecessors" makes these interrogatories grossly overbroad and unduly burdensome and requires the expenditure of even larger numbers of man-hours to prepare a response. Defendant also objects to these definitions because they are designed to harass and impose an undue burden on Defendant. 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "document," "documents." "written material," and "printed material" because they are overbroad, vague, and contrary to the HOU01:700518.1 -3- standard definition of this term. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs definitions because they are inconsistent with the definition found in Rule 192.3(b) the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and, as such, purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those contemplated by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of "person" and "persons" as overbroad and inconsistent with the standard definition and usage of these terms. 4. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of "meeting" and "meetings" as overbroad and beyond the scope of the standard definition and usage of these terms. 5. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "describe" and "description" in that Plaintiff's definition improperly requires Defendant to speculate as to what information Plaintiffs would consider "sufficient." 6. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definitions of the words "product containing asbestos fibers," "asbestos-containing products," "asbestos products," and "asbestos materials" because they are grossly overbroad. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition because it is designed to harass and impose an undue burden on Defendant. 7. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "medical advisory capacity" as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and vague. Plaintiff's definition is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that this definition is in no way limited to the' specific medical issues involved in this matter. 8. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "trade organization" and "trade association" because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs definition of these terms is calculated to harass Defendant rather than to obtain discovery of discoverable information. Plaintiffs definition seeks to impose obligations on Defendant far beyond those contemplated by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "plant" and "facility" because it is overbroad, undefined, and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs definition is not limited to the "plant(s)" at issues in this lawsuit and is, therefore, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not identified the facilities at issue in this lawsuit. 10. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "manufacture" and "manufactured" because it is overbroad, and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs definition is not limited to any particular "product" or "material" at issues in this lawsuit and is, therefore, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 11. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "research" and "research department" because it is grossly overbroad and places obligations on Defendant far beyond those contemplated by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 12. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "medical department" and "safety department" as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs definition is in no way limited to HOU01:700518.1 -4- Defendant's facility, or facilities, at issue in this lawsuit and is therefore beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 13. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's definition of the words "industrial hygiene surveys" as overbroad, vague and unduly burdensome. Again Plaintiffs definition fails to identify the specific facility, or facilities, at issue in this lawsuit at which Plaintiffs alleged exposure to asbestos occurred. 14. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "potential health hazards" and "health hazards" as grossly overbroad and unduly burdensome. The scope of Plaintiffs definition is not limited in any way to the type of friable asbestos or the facilities which are at issue in this lawsuit. 15. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "test" and "testing" as grossly overbroad and placing obligations on Defendant far beyond those contemplated by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. HOU01:700518.1 -5- INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories, or who assisted in identifying, locating or retrieving documents responsive to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, identify such person and include the length of time employed by Defendant or other employer, and a year-by-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its introductory statement, Defendant objects to this request because it seeks to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those contemplated by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to this objection, these responses and objections are the corporate responses of Defendant and, as such, are disassociated from any specific individuals. Defendant is a large corporation, and these responses came from many different sources. The information in these responses was gathered and assembled by numerous current and former employees of Defendant with assistance from lawyers employed by Defendant and Defendant's trial counsel at Baker Botts L.L.P. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: As to each of the following, please state the first year you first became aware, what you learned, and how Defendant learned that humans who inhale asbestos fibers can contract a. asbestosis b. lung cancer c. mesothelioma ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that this type of information, and knowledge thereof, develops gradually over time and is constantly evolving. Defendant has employed thousands of persons at its various plant locations. Defendant is not able to determine precisely how or when it, as a corporation, learned of the matters inquired of. However, Defendant would state that certain persons became aware that certain types and amounts of asbestos exposure could cause asbestos-related lung problems or disease in some industrial settings in the early 1970's. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please list all trade organizations, trade associations and any other industry-wide groups to which you belong(ed) (specifically including but not limited to the following groups: American Hygiene Foundation, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Chemical Manufacturer's Association, American Chemical Council, American Petroleum Institute, Texas Chemical Council, Ohio Safety Congress, National Safety Council, Asbestos Information Association, Industrial Medical Association) in which information or documents relating to asbestos was discussed, disseminated, or published (including, but not limited to, the effects of exposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations at risk). As to each such group, please state: HOU01:700518.1 -6- a. the inclusive dates of your membership and b. identify Defendant's employees or former employees or representatives who attended any of the meetings held by each organization, and c. the meetings they attended, and d. if any individuals employed by Defendant or representing Defendant were members of committees or subcommittees of any such organizations, (such as, e.g., a medical advisory committee or legal committee), identify the committee or subcommittee on which such individual served and the position occupied on the committee, if applicable. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time or location, seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant belonged to the following organizations: 1. American Petroleum Institute 2. American Congress of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists 3. Gulf Coast Section of American Industrial Hygiene Association 4. Texas Safety Association 5. Texas Public Health Association 6. American Industrial Hygiene Association 7. National Safety Council 8. American Medical Association 9. Industrial Medical Association 10. Institute of Industrial Hygiene However, Defendant is not specifically aware that any trade group to which Defendant has belonged over the years that has disseminated any such information. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery develops. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify Defendant's employees or former employees or representatives who attended any proceedings, symposia, or conferences of a scientific or medical or technical nature at which information or documents relating to asbestos was discussed, disseminated, or published, (including, by way of example, the effects of exposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations at risk) and specifically including but not limited to the Seventh Saranac Symposium, 1952, and/or New York Academy of Sciences, October 1964 . and for each such individual, state the proceedings, symposia, or conferences attended and to whom within your corporate organization information concerning attendance at such proceedings, symposia, or conferences were reported, either verbally or in documentary form. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this interrogatory as being overbroad and undulv HOUO1:700518.1 -7- burdensome. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as seeking irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that it seeks information unrelated to the circumstances surrounding the Plaintiff's alleged exposure and medical conditions. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify each company from which you acquired asbestos-containing products used at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the years Plaintiff has indicated he worked at Defendant's Premises At Issue and include in your response a. a description of each asbestos-containing product acquired and b. the dates each asbestos-containing product was acquired. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant in this lawsuit. Furthermore, Defendant objects because Plaintiff did not work with any asbestos containing products while on the Premise at Issue and therefore this question is irrelevant and harassing. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If any asbestos-containing materials located or formerly located at Defendant's Premises At Issue have been removed, encapsulated, or otherwise abated at any time, a. Identify each person or company that performed such abatement services; b. State the dates and locations within Defendant's Premises At Issue of each abatement procedure; and c. Describe what asbestos-containing materials were abated d. State how such asbestos-containing waste was stored at Defendant's Premises At Issue prior to disposal and how it was disposed of. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time or location, seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge of facts relevant to this case concerning Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to the identification or location in your premises of asbestos-containing products to HOUO1:700518.1 -8- which Plaintiff was exposed or facts disputing the identification or location of such product or type of products. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant in this lawsuit. Furthermore, Defendant objects because Plaintiff did not work with any asbestos containing products while on the Premise at Issue and therefore this question is irrelevant and harassing. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S. W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989). INTERROGATORY NO. 8: With respect to Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as being employed by you or having been employed by you whose duties and/or responsibilities included interface or liaison with Plaintiffs employer or other contractors who installed, removed, maintained, repaired or replaced asbestos-containing products (including foremen or supervisors or Plaintiff) on Defendant's Premises At Issue (regardless of job title, including but not limited to "plant engineers", "project engineers", "company engineers", "project superintendents", cc purchasing agents" or job descriptions of a similar nature) and specifically include those whose duties and responsibilities included the following: a. entering into contracts or purchase orders (including specifications) with such contractors b. allowing such contractors access to Defendant's Premises At Issue, c. overseeing or supervising or observing or monitoring such contractor activities or addressing any contractor questions or concerns relating to the work being performed d. providing or approving asbestos-containing materials to be used by such contractors e. inspecting or approving work done by such contractors or authorizing payment for work done by such contractors. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As drafted, this request would require Defendant to manually search through all purchasing files, of which the volume is overwhelming, in order to determine which documents pertain specifically to asbestos materials, asbestos removal and/or insulation materials. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Furthermore, Defendant objects because Plaintiff did not work with any asbestos containing products while on the Premise at Issue and therefore this question is irrelevant and harassing. Plaintiff was not employed as a contractor at Defendant's premise, rather Plaintiff was employed by Missouri Railroad, therefore Defendant objects to this request as irrelevant. Moreover, Defendant objects HOU01:700518.1 -9- to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). INTERROGATORY NO. 9: If you have or have had an industrial hygiene or safety or medical department, please a. state the year such department was established, and whether it was established on the corporate level or at Defendant's Premises At Issue or both and b. with respect to Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as being or having acted in a medical, safety, or industrial hygiene advisory capacity (regardless of job title), specifically including, but not limited to, physicians, medical directors, medical personnel, nurses, safety engineers or managers and industrial hygienists. (You should include in your answer those persons on a corporate level, regardless of whether they worked directly on Defendants' Premises if they had such responsibilities for workers on Defendant's Premises At Issue, and identify such individuals as affiliated with the corporate headquarters of Defendant.) ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, seeks information not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the following individuals were responsible for Defendant's industrial hygiene program: Frank Iroska (1981-1989), Scott Kaylor, James E. Doff (Ecology and Safety Department) and Patrick Lonner (Medical Department). INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify all warnings given by Defendant, if any, to anyone at Defendant's Premises At Issue (including the Plaintiff) regarding the hazards of asbestos and the dangers inherent in the inhalation of asbestos fibers, and please include in your response: a. to whom these warnings were given (and specifically state if Plaintiff was among them), b. when they were given, if ever, and c. in what manner they were given (e.g. written pamphlets, signs posted, oral/group meeting, individual discussions, etc.) and d. state whether you have ever published, written, edited, or distributed any other printed materials, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging, advertising, signs, statements, or other materials containing any warnings of the possibility of injury from the use or exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, and e. state whether any of the foregoing warnings were in Spanish or any other language besides English. HOUO1:700518.1 -10- ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant in this lawsuit. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). Defendant should not be required to respond to this request until Plaintiff specifically identifies the corresponding period of time at which Plaintiff alleges exposure with respect to Defendant. Furthermore, Plaintiff was not an employee of Defendant's, therefore this question is harassing and irrelevant. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If Defendant has or had or maintained in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings, please identify a. the individuals who received, maintained, reviewed, and disseminated the information contained in such written materials, b. identify the written materials received, and c. state how and why these materials came into Defendant's possession. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague~ unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant nor is it limited to the premise at issue in this lawsuit. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please describe in detail your manufacturing or industrial use of any asbestos or asbestoscontaining products at Defendant's Premises At Issue. Please include in your response a. the type of asbestos fiber used, b. from whom you purchased the asbestos fiber used, c. a description of the process in which the asbestos was used. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant in this lawsuit. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). Defendant should not be required to respond to this request until Plaintiff specifically identifies the corresponding period of time at which Plaintiff alleges exposure with respect to Defendant. Defendant did not manufacture any asbestos containing products. Furthermore, Defendant objects because Plaintiff did not work with any asbestos containing products while on the Premise at Issue and therefore this question is irrelevant and harassing. HOUO 1:700518.1 -11- INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify by name and location each plant, facility, location, or premises owned, operated, or controlled by you in which asbestos-containing products were assembled, stored, used, prepared for use, installed, or fabricated during the Time Period At Issue. For each plant, facility, location, or premises listed as responsive to the above request, specify a. the functional dates for each plant, facility, location, or premises and b. the period during which asbestos-containing materials were stored, used, prepared for use, installed or fabricated. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to the premise at issue corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant in this lawsuit. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request becaues Plaintiff did not work with any asbestos containing products while on Defendant's premise, therefore, this request is irrelevant and harassing. Furthermore, Defendant did not manufacture any asbestos containing products. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 116 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). INTERROGATORY NO. 14: For any of Defendant's Premises At Issue, during the Time Period At Issue, if you, your affiliates, subsidiaries, or predecessor(s), arranged for any of your employees, labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors, industrial hygienists, or any other party, whether directly employed by you or otherwise, to count or measure quantity, quality or threshold limit values or concentrations of asbestos dust or particles or other dust at any of your plants, facilities, locations, or premises where asbestos or asbestos-containing products were used, assembled, installed, or removed, please describe such tests and indicate a. the results obtained, b. by whom such tests were performed and c. identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as the person most knowledgeable concerning such tests and their results. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because Plaintiff was not an employee or contractor involved in construction or maintenance of the facility and therefore this request is irrelevant and harassing. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). INTERROGATORY NO. 15: For the Time Period At Issue, if you provided or caused to be provided any safety equipment or medical programs (including, but not limited to, masks, respirators, other breathing devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, area air filtration systems, and area exhaust systems or barriers or enclosures or medical monitoring program, medical examination program. HOU01:700518.1 -12- or other medical or safety program) to employees, contractors, or invitees at any of your plants, facilities, locations, or premises where asbestos and asbestos-containing products were manufactured, used, assembled, installed, or removed, please indicate a. when such was first provided to your employees, contractors, and/or invitees and to whom, b. under what circumstances such were provided, and c. state whether you conducted safety meetings discussing the hazards of asbestos with employees, contractors, or invitees at any of Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, and if so, when and what was discussed, and d. identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as the person most knowledgeable concerning such equipment and programs and their provision. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it is not possible to describe every item of equipment provided for any and all purposes and the precise circumstances involved with each occasion. Furthermore, Defendant objects because Plaintiff did not work with any asbestos containing products while on the Premise at Issue and therefore this question is irrelevant and harassing. Defendant states that it is not possible to state with certainty who is "most knowledgeable." INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state for each of Defendant's Premises At Issue, all relevant State and Federal regulations, laws, statutes, mandates, or other authority pertaining to industrial hygiene, safety, and health of which you were aware during the Time Period At- Issue that governed, controlled, or applied to exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, abatement or removal of asbestos-containing products, and transportation of asbestos containing waste from such removal or abatement activities. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant assumes it was subject to those state and federal regulations concerning asbestos, if any, that were applicable to all similarly situated industries, which regulations, laws, and statutes are equally available in the public record for review by Plaintiff. Further, Defendant has diligently attempted to stay abreast of and comply with applicable laws, regulations, etc. This type of information and knowledge thereof, develops gradually over time and is constantly evolving. Defendant has employed thousands of persons at various plant locations, including its Freeport facility. Consequently, Defendant is not able to determine precisely when it, as a corporation, became aware of a particular law orjegulation. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: For any of Defendant's Premises At Issue, detail every occasion during the Time Period At Issue when any State, Federal, or local regulatory agency, commission, or other examiner inspected or visited any of your plants, facilities, locations, or premises where asbestos and asbestos-containing products were used, manufactured, assembled, installed, or removed to HOU0I:700518.1 -13- ascertain whether you were in compliance with relevant State, Federal, or local health and safety regulations. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As drafted, this request would require Defendant to manually search through all purchasing files, of which the volume is overwhelming, in order to determine which documents pertain specifically to asbestos materials, asbestos removal and/or insulation materials. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as premature as Plaintiffs have not yet identified the time frame and as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). INTERROGATORY NO. 18: If, before 1980, you had received notice that any individual or individuals had claimed for alleged injury against you resulting from exposure to asbestos, state for each: a. The name and address of the claimant b. A description of the claim. c. The name and address of the attorney representing such claimant. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant in this lawsuit. Furthermore, Defendant objects because Plaintiff did not work with any asbestos containing products while on the Premise at Issue and therefore this question is irrelevant and harassing. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). INTERROGATORY NO. 19: If you contend that you did not own or operate or control the Defendants' Premises during the Time Period At Issue, or if you contend you are not liable in the capacity alleged in the most recent petition, describe in detail the facts supporting your contention and include a detailed corporate history of Defendant and its ownership, sale, acquisition, or divestiture or any of Defendant's Premises At Issue and any relevant mergers, acquisitions, consolidation, or other events of similar nature that you believe bear on the issue of ownership, control, or assumption of liabilities for acts occurring on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue and identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge of facts relevant to this issue. HOU01:700518.1 -14- ANSWER: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). INTERROGATORY NO. 20: If you contend that venue is not proper, identify by municipality and county the location you contend is your principal place of business within this state for purposes of venue, as well as your next three most significant business locations within this state. If you do not contend that any of your locations are a principal place of business, identify up to four of your places of business where your highest level decision makers within this state work. ANSWER: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessors or subsidiary companies manufactured, marketed or sold from 1969 to 1998.- ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant in this lawsuit. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request as it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowable under the Tex. R. Civ. P. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant did not manufacture, market or sell asbestos containing products. INTERROGATORY NO. 22 If Defendant from 1969 to 1998 manufactured, marketed or sold a product that contained asbestos fibers, state as to each product the following: a. As to each product, state whether your product was manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. b. The trade or brand name of each of those products manufactured, marketed and/or sold. c. The date each of the named products, if any, was placed on the market. HOU01:700518.l -15- d. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, if any, including the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage of asbestos put in each product. e. The date Defendant stopped manufacturing such asbestos-containing product. f. The date each of the products was removed from the market and no longer sold or distributed and the reason or reasons therefor; g. The date asbestos was removed for such product, if ever, and the reasons for removing it. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant in this lawsuit. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request as it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowable under the Tex. R. Civ. P. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant did not manufacture, market or sell asbestos containing products. INTERROGATORY NO. 23 Before manufacturing, selling or placing the products listed in Defendant's response to" interrogatory no. 21 into the stream of commerce, were any tests conducted to determine the potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the asbestos materials contained in that product or products? ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant in this lawsuit. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request as it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowable under the Tex. R. Civ. P. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant did not manufacture, market or sell asbestos containing products. INTERROGATORY NO. 24 If the answer to interrogatory No. 22 is in the affirmative, state: a. The names of the products tested and the dates of such tests; b. The name, address and job title of each person who conducted those tests. c. The results or conclusions for those tests. d. Whether any products were removed from the market as a result of these tests. e. The name of all products removed from the market as a result of these tests. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant in this HOU01:700518.1 -16- lawsuit. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request as it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowable under the Tex. R. Civ. P. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant did not manufacture, market or sell asbestos containing products. INTERROGATORY NO. 25 Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products listed in Defendant's answer to interrogatory No. 21 were manufactured, assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing from 1969 to 1998, specifying which plants produced each item, the dates each plant is or was in operation, and the time span during which each named item was produced or manufactured. ANSWER: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant in this lawsuit. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request as it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowable under the Tex. R. Civ. P. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant did not manufacture, market or sell asbestos containing products. HOUOl :700518.1 -17- No. 48-180262-99 JOSEPH SKELTON, et ux. vs. CROWN CORK AND SEAL CO., INC., et al. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 48th JUDICIAL DISTRICT VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW JERSEY ) COUNTY OF MORRIS ) Keith H. Ansbacher, being Erst duly sworn, deposes and states as follows: That he is an authorized representative of BASF Corporation C'BASF"), and that he verifies the foregoing Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories, Request for Production, Request for Disclosure and Request for Admissions and is duly authorized so to do; that the facts and matters stated therein are not within the personal knowledge of the undersigned or any one individual at BASF; and that the facts stated therein have been assembled by authorized employees and/or counsel of BASF with personal knowledge ofthe subject matter ofthe responses. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of April 2002. Keith H. Ansbacher Assistant Secretary BASF Corporation Notary Public CAROL C. HENDRIX Notify Pofclfe of Mm Jomj My Commission Eiptm 4/21/03 NO. 48-180262-99 JOSEPH SKELTON, ET UX, Plaintiffs, VS. CROWN CORK AND SEAL COMPANY, INC., ET AL Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 8 48TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT BASF CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO: Plaintiff Joseph Skelton, by and through his attorney of record, Baron & Budd, P.C., Centrum Building, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. COMES NOW, BASF Corporation f7k/a Badische Corporation f7k/a Dow-Badische Company fik/a Dow-Badische Chemical Company, (hereinafter "BASF"), DEFENDANT, in the above-entitled cause, and responds and objects to Plaintiff Joseph Skelton's Request for Production and Request for Admissions. Respectfully submitted, BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. HOU01:700530.1 fge T. Shipley state Bar No. 18267100 Amy J. Blumrosen State Bar No. 00798069 One Shell Plaza 910 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 713.229.1234 713.229.1522 Facsimile Attorneys for Defendant BASF Corporation CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On , 2002, I served a true and correct copy of BASF Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Production and Request for Admissions upon Plaintiffs counsel by certified mail, return receipt requested, regular mail, facsimile, and/or hand delivery in compliance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 21 and 21a, and to all known counsel of record shortly thereafter. :osen HOUO1:700530.1 -2- INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS AND OBJECTIONS 1. Defendant objects to these requests because they are over broad and purport to create and/or impose obligations upon Defendant beyond those contemplated by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant will respond to Plaintiffs interrogatories and requests for production pursuant to a reasonable and duly diligent investigation and search. Defendant's responses will be given without prejudice to further supplementation and will be made solely for the purpose of this lawsuit. 2. Defendant has had thousands of employees over the years. In conducting business, Defendant has created millions of documents which have been kept in numerous geographic locations and moved as required in the normal course of business. Accordingly, Defendant does not represent that the responses it will give provide all information requested. Rather, Defendant's responses will reflect information obtained pursuant to a reasonable and duly diligent investigation in those areas where information is expected to be found. If any request purports to require more. Defendant objects on the grounds that compliance with such a request is not reasonable and imposes an undue burden and expense upon Defendant. 3. Defendant also objects to each of the interrogatories and requests for production that are not limited in time or location. A search as requested not limited in time would be unduly burdensome, extremely expensive, and time consuming for Defendant. Any possible benefit to Plaintiff's derived by a search of this nature would be greatly outweighed by the enormous expense to Defendant. 4. Defendant also objects to having been required to attempt to answer these requests because Plaintiff never worked as an employee or "contractor" at the Premise at Issue, rather Plaintiff was an employee of Union Pacific Railroad Company. This situation has required Defendant to incur unnecessary expense in the preparation of these responses. 5. Defendant objects to the over broad and unduly burdensome nature of Plaintiff s requests for "all" documents that relate to specific requests as it invades the attorney-client, work product, investigative and joint defense privileges. OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the term "Defendant," "Your company," "You," and "Your" because they are over broad. The definition indicates that terms "Defendant," "Your company," "You," and "Your" mean "the corporate Defendant answering these Interrogatories, and any of its merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates." Plaintiffs inclusion of "subsidiaries" and "predecessors" purports to require Defendant to respond on behalf of entities which are not parties to this action and for which Defendant is not liable. Further, the inclusion of "subsidiaries" or "predecessors" makes these interrogatories grossly over broad and unduly burdensome and requires the expenditure of even larger numbers of man-hours to prepare a response. Defendant also objects to these definitions because they are designed to harass and impose an undue burden on Defendant. 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "document," "documents." "written material," and "printed material" because they are over broad, vague, and contrary to HOU0t:700530.1 -3- the standard definition of this term. Defendant further objects to Plaintiff's definitions because they are inconsistent with the definition found in Rule 192.3(b) the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and, as such, purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those contemplated by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of "person" and "persons" as over broad and inconsistent with the standard definition and usage of these terms. 4. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of "meeting" and "meetings" as over broad and beyond the scope of the standard definition and usage of these terms. 5. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "describe" and "description" in that Plaintiffs definition improperly requires Defendant to speculate as to what information Plaintiffs would consider "sufficient." 6. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definitions of the words "product containing asbestos fibers," "asbestos-containing products," "asbestos products," and "asbestos materials" because they are grossly over broad. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition because it is designed to harass and impose an undue burden on Defendant. 7. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "medical advisory capacity" as over broad, unduly burdensome, and vague. Plaintiffs definition is not reasonably calculated to" lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that this definition is in no way limited to the specific medical issues involved in this matter. 8. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "trade organization" and "trade association" because it is over broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs definition of these terms is calculated to harass Defendant rather than to obtain discovery of discoverable information. Plaintiffs definition seeks to impose obligations on Defendant far beyond those contemplated by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's definition ofthe words "plant" and "facility" because it is over broad, undefined, and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs definition is not limited to the "plant(s)" at issues in this lawsuit and is, therefore, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not identified the facilities at issue in this lawsuit. 10. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's definition of the words "manufacture" and "manufactured" because it is over broad, and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff s definition is not limited to any particular "product" or "material" at issues in this lawsuit and is, therefore, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 11. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "research" and "research department" because it is grossly over broad and places obligations on Defendant far beyond those contemplated by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 12. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "medical department" and "safety department" as over broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs definition is in no way limited to HOUO1:700530.1 -4- Defendant's facility, or facilities, at issue in this lawsuit and is therefore beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 13. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "industrial hygiene surveys" as over broad, vague and unduly burdensome. Again Plaintiffs definition fails to identify the specific facility, or facilities, at issue in this lawsuit at which Plaintiffs alleged exposure to asbestos occurred. 14. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "potential health hazards" and "health hazards" as grossly over broad and unduly burdensome. The scope of Plaintiffs definition is not limited in any way to the type of friable asbestos or the facilities which are at issue in this lawsuit. 15. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "test" and "testing" as grossly over broad and placing obligations on Defendant far beyond those contemplated by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. HOU01:700530.1 -5- REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all ordering, sales, and shipping documents pertaining to the purchase or acquisition of asbestos-containing products for use at Defendant's Premises At Issue at any time. 16. In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As drafted, this request would require Defendant to manually search through all purchasing files, of which the volume is overwhelming, in order to determine which documents pertain specifically to asbestos materials, asbestos removal and/or insulation materials. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Furthermore, Defendant objects because Plaintiff did not work with any asbestos containing products while on the Premise at Issue and therefore this question is irrelevant and harassing. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as premature as Plaintiffs have not yet identified the time frame at issue and as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. This situation has required Defendant to incur unnecessary expense in the preparation of these responses. RESPONSE:Moreover. Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing, expedition of the-sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents that relate to abatement of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue and transportation of asbestos-containing waste. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As drafted, this request would require Defendant to manually search through all purchasing files, of which the volume is overwhelming, in order to determine which documents pertain specifically to asbestos materials, asbestos removal and/or insulation materials. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Furthermore, Defendant objects because Plaintiff did not work with any asbestos containing products while on the Premise at Issue and therefore this question is irrelevant and harassing. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as premature as Plaintiff's have not yet identified the time frame at issue and as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). HOU01:700530.1 -6- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. V. Please produce all records identifying contractors and/or the employees of contractors who were on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to gate records, sign-in logs, visitor's logs, identification badge or "brassing" procedures, fingerprinting, or other documents of a similar nature. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this interrogatory as being over broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as seeking irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that it seeks information unrelated to the circumstances surrounding the Plaintiff's alleged exposure and medical conditions. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all records pertaining to the methods and manner of identification ofindividuals entering and/or leaving Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this interrogatory as being over broad and unduly burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant objects because Plaintiff did not work with any asbestos containing products while on the Premise at Issue and therefore this question is irrelevant and harassing. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as seeking irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that it seeks information unrelated to the circumstances surrounding the Plaintiffs alleged exposure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce the contract and work progress documents pertaining to the contractors who performed services at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including, but not limited to, invitations to bid, requests for proposals, bids, proposals, statements of scope of work, work orders, specifications, blueprints, plans, acceptances, contracts, amendments, addenda, change orders, inspection reports, work logs or contractor logs, including but not limited to all of the contractor documents referring to work to be done, underway, or completed by Plaintiffs employer at Defendant's Premises At Issue dining the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As drafted, this request would require Defendant to manually search through all HOUO1:700530.1 -7- purchasing files, of which the volume is overwhelming. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Furthermore, Defendant objects because Plaintiff did not work with any asbestos containing products while on the Premise at Issue and therefore this question is irrelevant and harassing. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 716 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents reflecting payments made to Plaintiffs employer for work contracted to do at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to authorizations for payment, invoices, bills, check requests, requisitions, canceled checks, or other documents of a similar nature reflecting payment for services rendered by Plaintiffs employer. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As drafted, this request would require Defendant to manually search through all files^ of which the volume is overwhelming. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all photographs or videographic depictions or films depicting the use of any safety precautions (such as containment areas, warning signs, etc.) taken to protect bystanders from the hazards of airborne asbestos resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not , reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, this request is over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiff s allegations against Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, HOU01:700530.1 8- - unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As drafted, this request would require Defendant to manually search through all purchasing files, of which the volume is overwhelming, in order to determine which documents pertain specifically to asbestos materials, asbestos removal and/or insulation materials. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all photographs of warning signs or warning statements which are or have been in place at Defendant's Premises At Issue 'in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the. permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents that relate to any inspections by any regulatory agency for the purpose of ascertaining whether health or safety regulations were being followed or adhered to at any of your plants. This request specifically seeks any and all such documentation referring to dust hazards, including but not limited to asbestos in your plants. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). HOU01-.700530.1 -9- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11 In the event that Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts or measurements of any of its plants or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, please produce any documents, memoranda, or other writings that in any way reflect the results of such studies or counts and actions taken as a result of such counts or studies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Defendant further objects to Plaintiff's request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents relating to inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company or hired by your company, that included the taking or measuring of "dust counts". RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type ofproduct, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 116 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR'PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents that indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health ofhuman beings. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. HOUOl .-700530.1 -10- Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents supporting the legal theories and factual bases of your defenses set forth in your response to Plaintiff's Request for Disclosure under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194.2, subparagraph (c). RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: If you contend that Plaintiff was not exposed to asbestos dust at Defendant's Premises At Issue, please produce the documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as over broad to the extent it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant in this lawsuit. Defendant also objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents used, referred to or relied upon in answering any Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FORrPRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce any and all documents and other tangible things which refer to the document retention (and/or destruction) policy of Defendant, including the following: a. Any document retention and/or destruction policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions HOU01:700530.1 -11- that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. b. Any record retention and/or destruction, dumping, or purging policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records created, maintained or stored by electronic and/or magnetic means, including but not limited to records that have been microfilmed, microfiched, imaged, scanned, or stored on tapes, disks, diskettes, CD-rom, databases, etc. or on or within any computer hardware, backup system, download system, file dumping or other system of information management, whether on-site or off-site, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Please produce all documents, including but not limited to lists, inventories, indices, databases or printouts thereof, archives, storage inventories, logs, or other search aids that refer or relate to the existence, extent, type, organization, filing system, method of access or retrieval, and/or location of Defendant's documents (maintained or stored on-site or off-site) pertaining to any of the subject matter areas of Plaintiffs Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce all books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that that were received by you and that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is HOUO 1:700530.1 -12- not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Defendant farther objects to Plaintiffs request as premature as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 116 S.W.2d i45 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Please produce all documents that reflect, indicate or in any way relate to communications between you and any manufacturer of asbestos-containing products concerning or related to the asbestos contained in such products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as premature and as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please produce all documents in your possession disseminated or published by any trade association that contain information relating to the hazards of asbestos and all documents which refer to such documents and any documents pertaining to meetings of such trade associations that were attended by any of your employees or representatives. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce all of Defendant's safety meeting minutes that refer to the dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, HOU01:700530.I -13- unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As drafted, this request would require Defendant to manually search through all files, of which the volume is overwhelming, in order to determine which documents pertain specifically to asbestos materials, asbestos removal and/or insulation materials. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. .23: Please produce all documents related to the installation of asbestos- containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Defendant, further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). Subject to and without waiving these objections, after Plaintiff identified the time period at issue, Defendant will produce documents, if any exist, for inspection by Plaintiffs counsel at a mutually agreeable time and place. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Please produce all documents related to the medical condition of Plaintiff at any time during his work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. This request specifically includes any and all x-rays, x-ray reports, medical notes and/or medical records of any kind, annual physical forms, and any records relating to Plaintiffs health. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, Plaintiff was never an employee of Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents related to Plaintiff, including but not limited to Plaintiff s work performance and/or personnel records at Defendant's Premises At Issue. HOUO 1:700530.1 -14- RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). Furthermore, Plaintiff was never an employee of Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Please produce all documents that reflect or depict in anyway the layout of Defendant's Premises At Issue, including the location and dimensions of all buildings and the location and placement of asbestos-containing products, and specifically including all photographs, plats, maps, diagrams, blueprints, drawings, specifications or other architectural renderings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Please produce all demonstrative aids Defendant plans to use at trial in this matter. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters set forth in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome and as exceeding the scope of the Rules. Subject to the above. Defendant will make all exhibits and witness documents that are required to be produced under the Rule available for inspection by Plaintiffs at a mutually convenient time and place. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Please produce all photographs of asbestos products in place or asbestos-containing materials being installed, maintained, removed, replaced, repaired, or manipulated in any way at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to HOU01:700530.1 -15- this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Please produce all documents relating to any individuals' claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos at any facility of Defendant, including, but not limited to, workers' compensation claims and any documentation going to or received from any insurance carrier pertaining to such claims, and any documentation pertaining to the disposition of such claims. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Please produce all documents that in any way reflect corporate minutes, corporate records, departmental meetings or discussions, or meetings with agents or contractors that in any way discuss, note, or table a discussion of the hazards of asbestos or potential health hazards of asbestos. The documents sought in this request include those produced and/or maintained at a corporate level by those responsible for supervising or advising personnel at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 116 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Please produce all documents of corporate, board of directors. Defendant Premises representatives, departmental persons, task force, or other meetings of members of Defendant from 1940 until the last year of the Time Period At Issue that contain discussion or information concerning asbestos, asbestos-related health hazards, or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further HOU01:700530.t -16- objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Please produce all documents which will be used at the time of trial, including all potential exhibits and those documents which may be used to cross-examine other witnesses or in rebuttal, and which you contend are relevant to any of defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's most recently filed Answer. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters set forth in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome and as exceeding the scope ofthe Rules. Subject to the above, Defendant will make all exhibits and witness documents that are required to be produced under the Rules available for inspection by Plaintiff at a mutually convenient time and place. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Please produce documents between Defendant and any of its worker's compensation insurance carriers or any other insurance carriers regarding the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Please produce documents between Defendant and any of its insurance carriers relating to any inspections carried out by the insurance carrier in which asbestos or dust in general was mentioned. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). HOUO 1:700530.1 -17- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Please produce a copy of all regulations, orders, rules and/or policies which have been used relating to the safety ofthe Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Please produce all documents which contain complaints by employees of Defendant at the Defendant's Premises At Issue regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce all documents which contain complaints by Union representatives of Defendant's Premises At Issue regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). HOU01:700530.1 -18- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce all documents, organizational charts or rosters which identify the members of the management at the Defendant's Premises At Issue and their areas of responsibility during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Please 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. RESPONSE: Defendant will produce documents responsive to Plaintiff's request, if any, at a mutually convenient time and place. In response to this request, Defendant also refers Plaintiff to the documents produced, or to be produced, in this matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Please produce all documents which evidence Defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale, or transfer of ownership or of liabilities relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: If you contend that you are not liable for any dangerous condition or activity taking place at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please produce all title documents supporting this contention. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as assuming disputed facts that Plaintiff was ever present at Defendant's premise. Also, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). HOU01:700530.l -19- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: If you contend that you did not own or control the facility(ies) during any portion of the Time Period At Issue, please produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of the facility(ies); such documentation to include, by way of example and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 10K reports or other state or federal agency filings, or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits of your corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as assuming disputed facts that Plaintiff was ever present at Defendant's premise. Also, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: If you contend that you have not been sued in the proper capacity as set forth in Plaintiff s latest petition, produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the history of Defendant and any relevant purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of the facility(ies); such documentation to include, by way of example and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 10K reports or other state or federal agency filings, or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits of your corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Please produce all indemnity agreements, assignments of liability, subrogation agreements and other similar documents relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue and liabilities arising from said ownership. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. HOU01-.700530.1 -20- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: If you contend Defendant's Premises At Issue was asbestos-free during the Time Period At Issue, please produce all documents which support your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: If you contend that some or all of Defendant's Premises At Issue are asbestos-free, please produce all documents, including but not limited to, specifications, blue prints and drawings supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Please produce all documents relating to your manufacturing of any asbestos or asbestoscontaining products, or products to which any amount of asbestos was added, for use at any of Defendant's facilities or for sale to others. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Please produce all documents relating to your use of any asbestos containing materials, asbestos containing products or tools with which asbestos is used, for any process taking place at any of Defendant's facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. HOUO 1:700530.1 -21- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Please produce all documents relating to your use, manipulation or handling of asbestos in any industrial processes at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: Please produce all marketing and advertising materials related in any way to your manufacturing of asbestos or asbestos containing materials or your use of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials in your industrial processes. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the' permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Please produce all documents relating to boilers at Defendant's Premises At Issue. This request includes owner manuals, maintenance manuals, purchase orders, and invoices. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Please produce all documents relating to any audits you conducted or caused to be conducted at Defendant's Premises At Issue in order to review some aspect of Defendant's safety program. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. HOU01:700530.1 -22- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: Please produce all documents provided by you to other plants or facilities relating to safety in the industry, audit procedures or means to eliminate dust exposure, including, but not limited to asbestos dust, at industrial facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Please produce depositions and trial transcripts of your current or former employees or other corporate representatives taken in any matter involving an alleged injury or claimed property damage due to asbestos or insurance coverage for claims related to asbestos injury or property damage. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or typeof activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Please produce exhibit lists produced to you by any other counsel for plaintiff in other cases involving claim of injury or property damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Please produce all correspondence from you to Plaintiffs employer and from Plaintiffs employer to you during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. HOU01:700530.1 -23- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in any way any decision or discussion related to the cessation of the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products in any of your facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in any way any the catalog or index or subscriptions or holdings of any library or other research repository of Defendant containing magazines, journals, books, publications or other documents relating to asbestos (including, but not limited to, the effects of exposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations at risk, etc.). RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As drafted, this request would require Defendant to manually search through all files, of which the volume is overwhelming, in order to determine which documents pertain specifically to asbestos materials, asbestos removal and/or insulation materials. Defendant fhrther objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Please produce all inventory, stock-on-hand, warehouse or other documents pertaining to asbestos-containing products that were stored, maintained, stockpiled, or kept by Defendant for use at any facility of Defendant, including Defendant's Premises At Issue, at any time. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As drafted, this request would require Defendant to manually search through all files, of which the volume is overwhelming, in order to determine which documents pertain specifically to asbestos materials, asbestos removal and/or insulation materials. Defendant further objects to Plaintiff's request as premature as over broad because it is not limited to a time HOUO 1:700530.1 -24- frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Please produce any letters, affidavits, or stipulations concerning authenticity of any of Defendant's documents provided by you in any other case involving claim of injury or property damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs request as over broad because it is not limited to a time frame corresponding with Plaintiffs allegations against this Defendant in this lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 116 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Please produce all workers' compensation policies which were in effect during the years that Plaintiff claims to have been on your premises. Please be sure to include the information page of the policy which describes who is covered by the policy. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, is not reasonably limited in scope to any reasonable or relevant time, location, type of product, or type of activity, it seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this request as irrelevant and overbroad because Plaintiff was never an employee ofDefendant. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND FURTHER REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR-ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products were utilized on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects because Plaintiff did not work with any asbestos containing products while on the Premise at Issue and therefore this question is irrelevant and harassing. Furthermore, this request is over broad because Plaintiff did not work inside any of the facilities operated by Defendant, rather Plaintiff was an employee of Missouri Railroad HOU01:700530.1 -25- Company and worked on the railroads. Subject to and without waiving these objections, after a reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period at Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as assuming disputed facts that Plaintiff was ever present at Defendant's premise. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit", produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial of the foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry yotr undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that you have no air monitoring for asbestos taken on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because Plaintiff has not yet identified the time frame at issue and as over broad. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Denied. Based upon reasonable inquiry and information known. Defendant began air sampling and moitoring for asbestos prior to 1975. REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that results of air monitoring for asbestos taken on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue indicate Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue: RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as assuming disputed facts that Plaintiffwas ever present at Defendant's premise. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d HOU01:700530.1 -26- 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit", produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial of the foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable 'inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: In addition to its Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is grossly over broad, vague, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, due to the passage of time, many documents are no longer available as they have been destroyed in accordance with Defendant's records retention program. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it constitutes a fishing expedition of the sort prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that Defendant's employees were working with asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as harassing, irrelvant and over broad because Plaintiff was not an employee of Defendant. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that contractors were working with asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as irrelevant and over broad because Plaintiff was not a contractor at Defendant's premise, rather Plaintiff was employed by Missouri Railroad Company. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Defendant was aware of the presence of asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as irrelevant and over broad HOU01:700530.1 -27- because Plaintiff was not a contractor at Defendant's premise, rather Plaintiff was employed by Missouri Railroad Company. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that Defendant was aware of the use of asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because Plaintiff was not employed by Defendant. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that you did not post a warning, caution or hazard signs concerning asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because Plaintiff was not an employee of Defendant and Plaintiff did not work inside the facilities at issue, rather Plaintiff was employed by the Missouri Railroad company. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that you did not post a warning, caution or hazard signs in Spanish concerning asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because Plaintiff was not an employee of Defendant. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant ts unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that you specified the use of asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue prior to or during the Time Period At Issue. HOU01:700530.1 -28- RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because Plaintiff was not an employee of Defendant. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1950's. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as over broad and irrelevant as it does not relate to the time frame at issue. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1960's. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because this request is over broad and irrelevant as it does not relate to the time frame at issue. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1970's. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, because this request is over broad as it does not relate to the time frame at issue. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. HOU01:700530.1 -29- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that asbestos-containing, materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1980's. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because this request is over broad as it does not relate to the time frame at issue. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1990's. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request is over broad as it does not relate to the time frame at issue. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls., for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that you did not provide to contractors working at Defendant's Premises At Issue health and safety procedures relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as irrelevant and harassing because Plaintiff was not an employee of defendant and Plaintiff did not work as a construction contractor at Defendant's premise, rather Plaintiff was an engineer for the Missouri Railroad Company. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that you did not provide to contractors working at Defendant's Premises At Issue health and safety procedures in Spanish relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as irrelevant and harassing HOU01:700530.1 -30- because Plaintiff was not an employee of defendant and Plaintiff did not work as a construction contractor at Defendant's premise, rather Plaintiff was an engineer for the Missouri Railroad Company. Furthermore, this request is irrelevant because Plaintiff is capable of speaking English and reading English. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that you did not conduct with contractors health and safety meetings relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as irrelevant and harassing because Plaintiff was not an employee of defendant and Plaintiff did not work as a construction contractor at Defendant's premise, rather Plaintiff was an engineer for the Missouri Railroad Company. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that you did not conduct with contractors health and safety meetings in Spanishrelating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as irrelevant, and harassing because Plaintiff was not an employee of defendant and Plaintiff did not work as a construction contractor at Defendant's premise, rather Plaintiff was an engineer for the Missouri Railroad Company. Furthermore, this request is irrelevant because Plaintiff is capable of understanding and speaking English. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that you did not take any steps to protect contractor employees from exposure to asbestos on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as irrelevant and harassing because Plaintiff was not an employee of defendant and Plaintiff did not work as a construction contractor at Defendant's premise, rather Plaintiff was an engineer for the Missouri Railroad Company. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: HOU01:700530.1 -31- If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit", produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial of the foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that asbestos is still in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because this request is irrelevant and over broad as it does not relate to the time frame at issue. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that asbestos is still in place at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established' in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because this request is irrelevant and over broad as it does not relate to the time frame at issue. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that the United States government has contracted with Defendant for work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is irrelevant and over broad because it does not relate to the time frame at issue nor does it relate to the Plaintiffs claims. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR-ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that the United States government paid Defendant more than $10,000 for the work it contracted with Defendant for work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is irrelevant and over broad because it does not relate to the time frame at issue nor does it relate to Plaintffs claims. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. HOU01:700530.1 -32- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26- Admit that Defendant owned Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Subject to and without waiving these objections. Defendant admits that it owned and possessed all rights of ownership regarding the Premise At Issue. This is not to say that Defendant controlled the work of employees or independent contractors. Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admit that Defendant operated Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request is over broad as it does not relate to the time frame at issue. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. -. Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admit that you did not conduct air monitoring for the presence of asbestos dust during the time period in question. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request is over broad as it does not relate specifically to Plaintiffs claims. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, you did not conduct air monitoring tests for levels of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request is over broad as it does not relate specifically to Plaintiffs claims. Also Defendant objects to this request because it impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ HOU01:700530.1 -33- App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that you were aware that business invitees at Defendant's Premises At Issue did not understand English. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because as over broad and irrelevant to Plaintiffs claims. Furthermore, this request is irrelevant because Plaintiff is capable of understanding and speaking English. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that you did not take any steps to ascertain whether business invitees at Defendant's Premises At Issue understood English. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request as over broad and irrelevant to Plaintiffs claims. Furthermore, this request is irrelevant because Plaintiff is capable of understanding and speaking English. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that you did not to provide safety orientations to contractor employees prior to their commencing work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because as over broad and irrelevant because it is not limited to the time frame at issue and it does not relate to Plaintiffs claims as he was not a contractor for Defendant. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that you did not to provide safety orientations in Spanish to contractor employees prior to their commencing work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because as over broad and irrelevant because it is not limited to the time frame at issue and it does not relate to Plaintiffs HOU01:700530.1 -34- claims as he was not a contractor for Defendant. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to remove asbestos-containing materials from Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Furthermore, Plaintiff was an employee of Missouri Railroad company. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to replace asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. - RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to install asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to maintain asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue. HOU01:700530.1 -35- RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because the request is not relevant to the time frame at issue. Defendant denies this request.. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to do new construction work at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request Plaintiff was employed by the Missouri Railroad company as an engineer. Therefore, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admit that you hired Plaintiffs employer to do "turnaround" work at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request Plaintiff was employed by the Missouri Railroad company as an engineer. Therefore, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admit that you communicated with Plaintiffs employer concerning the work to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to the foregoing objections. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. HOUO1:700530.1 -36- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: Admit that you instructed Plaintiffs employer concerning the work to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to the foregoing objections. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that you instructed Plaintiffs employer concerning how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects, to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297' S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: Admit that you showed Plaintiffs employer how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that your specifications indicated to Plaintiffs employer how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because HOU01:700530.1 -37- it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit", produce all documents which support your response, 'including any documents which you believe support a denial of the foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: Admit that your specifications indicated to Plaintiffs employer what materials were to be used in performing the work on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: hi addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established, in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitffhas not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is. unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit", produce all documents .Which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial of the foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer or supervisor when to start work.. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d HOU01:700530.1 -38- 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer or supervisor when to stop work. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that you told Plaintiff s employer what materials to use when doing the work RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer in what order the work should be done. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. -- Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer the deadline by which the work on Defendant's Premises At Issue was to be completed. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its HOU01:700530.1 -39- meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: Admit that you had the power to correct the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admit that you had the power to require that the work performed by the employees of Plaintiff's employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue be redone to your satisfaction. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51; Admit that you had the power to stop the work performed by the employees of Plaintiff s employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. HOU01:700530.1 -40- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: Admit that you observed the work performed by the employees of Plaintiff's employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: Admit that you inspected the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: Admit that you approved the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: Admit that you retained the power to control all phases of the work being performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: In addition to Defendant's Introductory Objections and the parameters established in its Introductory Statement, Defendant objects to this request because it is unclear in its meaning and could assume facts disputed. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request because HOU01:700530.1 -41- it calls impermissibly calls for an admission of a legal question. Gore v. Cunningham, 297 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1956, writ refd n.r.e.); Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1992). Also, Defendant objects to this request because Plainitff has not identified the time frame at issue. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. HOU01:700530.l -42- No. 48-180262-99 JOSEPH SKELTON, et ux. vs. CROWN CORK AND SEAL CO., INC., et al. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 48th JUDICIAL DISTRICT VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW JERSEY ) COUNTY OF MORRIS ) Keith H. Ansbacher, being first duly sworn, deposes and states as follows: That he is an authorized representative of BASF Corporation ("BASF"), and that he verifies the foregoing Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories, Request for Production, Request for Disclosure and Request for Admissions and is duly authorized so to do; that the foots and matters stated therein are not within the personal knowledge of the undersigned or any one individual at BASF; and that the foots stated therein have been assembled by authorized employees and/or counsel ofBASF with personal knowledge ofthe subject matter ofthe responses. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day ofApril 2002. Keith H. Ansbacher Assistant Secretary BASF Corporation ]Uhj2' Notary Public CAROL C.HENDMX Notary Public of XwJ*xy My Commission Eipim VH/W