Document Lp5GQmdpQwRqyzVG3jZaXn667

CAUSE NO. A-010568-C Nikki Haley, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of John Newton Haley, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. North American Refractories, et al. Defendants. In The 128th Judicial District Court Of Orange County, Texas DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Defendant Foseco, Incorporated, by and through the undersigned attorney, hereby submits, pursuant to, under the protection of, and to the extent that such requests comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to the "General Objections" noted below, its Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production. These responses are based on facts known to or believed byFoseco, Inc. at the time ofanswer. As much as the information sought concerns matters and events which occurred many years ago, it is difficult, ifnot impossible, to reconstruct or retrieve a complete past history. Therefore, Foseco, Inc., reserves the right to amend these responses as, and if, new orbetter information becomes available, or if any error is discovered. To the extent that the information contained herein differs in any respect from anyprevious responses to discovery, this response shall be deemed to update and supersede such prior responses. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Foseco, Inc. objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek to require 1 it to respond on behalf of any other entity. 2. Foseco, Inc. objects to these discoveryrequests to the extent that they seek to require it to provide information other than that which maybe obtained through a reasonably diligent search ofits records. 3. Foseco, Inc. objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek to require it to respond other than in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. Thus, Foseco, Inc. declines any obligation to: (a) locate or interview former employees or any otherperson not presently employed or engaged by Foseco, Inc.; (b) generate documents not presently existing; (c) describe its unsuccessful efforts to answer any request; (d) identify an unknown custodian or the current custodian of documents not in Foseco, Inc.'s possession; (e) identify the file designation and other identifying designation, the present location, or the source ofdocuments identified unless specifically requested in the request; (f) add to or to change the meaning of any request in the conjunctive or disjunctive; (g) respond to any aspect ofa request not described with reasonable particularity by the express language ofthe request; or (h) provide medical or other expert opinion beyond the scope of Foseco, Inc.'s business. 4. Foseco, Inc. objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek to require it to reveal trade secrets or other confidential product or commercial information. 5. Foseco, Inc. objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek to require it to respond to questions or to identify or produce documents relating to times, events and other things beyond the subject matter of the Complaint, or outside of the time period during which Foseco, Inc. may have manufactured asbestos-containing hot-top products, or relating to any products other than asbestos-containing hot-top products. 2 6. Foseco, Inc. objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek to require it to provide information concerning its manufacturing operations, or any safetyprecautions or tests undertaken therein, whether in compliance with OSHA or otherwise, inasmuch as the occupational level exposures of manufacturing workers differs from the occupational level exposure of hottoppers/mold yard workers who would have installed or utilized the products. 7. Foseco, Inc. objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek to require it to provide information or to identify any documents or other tangible things prepared or obtained in anticipation of litigation or for trial where the Plaintiffhas not shown that it (1) has substantial need for the materials in the preparation of the case and (2) is unable to obtain the substantial equivalent ofthe materials by other means without undue hardship. 8. Foseco, Inc. objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek to require it to disclose privileged attorney-client communications or information otherwise protected from discovery on the grounds ofprivilege. 9. Foseco, Inc. objects generally and individually to these discovery requests on the grounds and to the extent that they assume facts not in evidence or otherwise erroneous and on the further grounds-that they are vague, overly broad, oppressive, unduly burdensome, excessive in number, not relevant to the subject matter ofthe litigation, and not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and thus declines to pursue a detailed search of its documents. 10. Foseco, Inc., objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek to obtain information concerning products which are not relevant to the subject litigation. Plaintiffs claim to have contracted an asbestos-related disease. The only relevant products would be those that contained asbestos and have been identified as having been sold to Plaintiffs place ofemployment. 3 11. Foseco, Inc. hereby adopts the motions and objections ofthe other Defendants, and reserves the right to adopt future motions and objections relating to Plaintiffs discovery requests. 12. Foseco, Inc. objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek to require it to gather and summarize information contained in voluminous papers that are already a matter of public record. 13. Foseco, Inc. objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek to require it to provide information that is equally available to the Plaintiffas to Foseco, Inc. 14. Foseco, Inc. objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek it to respond other than in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and thus Foseco, Inc. declines to identify computer tapes and programs, computer printouts and any electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, disks, recordings and computer memories), or fields, files, menus, databases, or other computer classifications or material, inasmuch as such documents constitute documents or other things prepared or obtained in anticipation of litigation or for trial, work product, confidential attorneyclient communications, and otherwise privileged documents. Subjecfto the foregoing "General Objections" and the limitations that are outlined with regard to each specifically numbered discovery request, Foseco, Inc. responds to Plaintiffs' discovery requests without waiver of, and with the.preservation of the following: (1) The right to object to the use of any responses, or the subject matter thereof, on any ground in any proceedings in any action (including any trials); (2) The right to object on any ground, at any time, to a demand or request for a further response to these discovery requests or to any other discovery requests relating to the matters 4 contained herein; and (3) The right at any time to revise, correct, add to, supplement, or clarify any of the responses to Plaintiffs' discovery requests contained herein. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, job title, length oftime employed by Defendant, and a year-by year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant ofeach person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER NO. 1: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome to require the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., to respond to this Interrogatory. During the course ofthe Defendant's asbestos litigation history, corporate documents have been reviewed by numerous individuals to assist the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., in responding to past discovery requests. It would be impossible for the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., to identify everyone who participated in these undertakings. Reserving said objections, and in an attempt to be responsive to this Interrogatory, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., states that Mr. Anthony Money; President; Foseco, Inc.; 321 East Bay Street, Suite 100; Charleston, SC 29401 is the individual who will verify the responses to these Interrogatories. 5 Further responding, the following individuals have assisted the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., in responding to these Interrogatories by providing relevant information in the past: Anthony Money; 321 East Bay Street; Suite 100; Charleston, SC 29401 Edward J. "Ted" Jago; 3801 County Road, #1; Swanton, OH; 43558 Richard "Dick" Phoenix; 147 Jackson Street; Youngstown, NY; 14107 l INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your correct corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the address ofyour principal place ofbusiness, the name and address ofthe person or entity authorized to accept service ofprocess on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate ofAuthority to do. business in the State of Texas. ANSWER NO. 2: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., was incorporated in the State ofDelaware on May 16,1977. The Defendant's principal place of business is located at 321 East Bay Street, Suite 100, Charleston, SC 29401. The Defendant's registered agent for service of process is CT Corp. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., has done business in the State of Texas. The Defendant's Corporate History, which sets forth the Corporate Names, is as follows: June 28,1933 Foundry Services, Inc. incorporated in New York February, 1961 Foundry Services, Inc. changes its name to Foseco, Inc. (still incorporated in New York). November 12,1974 Foseco, Inc. (New York) creates Foseco Minsep North America, Inc. (Delaware). 6 December 20,1974 Foseco, Inc. (New York) merged with Foseco Minsep North America, Inc. (Delaware) to become Foseco Minsep, Inc. (Delaware). May 16,1977 Foseco, Inc. (Delaware) was dissolved. May 16,1977 Foseco M insep, I nc. ( Delaware) ch anges i ts name Foseco, Inc. (Delaware). September 28,2001 Foseco, Inc. sold substantially all of its assets. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Had Defendant or any ofits predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale ofmaterial containing asbestos fibers? If so, identify the location ofthe mine(s), the years of its operation, the type of asbestos mined and whether you sold any asbestos mined and whether you sold any asbestos to any Defendants in the Dallas County asbestos litigation. ANSWER NO. 3: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds that it has never mined asbestos fibers. INTERROGATORY NO. 4 7 Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time manufactured or sold. ANSWER NO. 4; The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as unduly and unfairly prejudicial and having no legitimate purpose to the extent it seeks to require Foseco, I nc. t o p rovide i dentifying i nformation b efore P laintiffs h ave fully submitted to discovery and described the product or products, if any, to which they claim exposure and where and when Plaintiffs claim such exposure, if any, occurred. The onlyjobsite identified to date as being at issue is the Alcoa, Wenatchee, WA facility.. Said jobsite was identified by Plaintiffs as being at issue concerning the subject litigation. Reserving said objections, and limiting its response those products which may have been manufactured or sold for use at the Alcoa, Wenatchee, WA facility, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc. provides the following response: Kalminex and Kalmin were the trade or brand names of the foundry sleeve products which may have been manufactured for sale to the Alcoa, Wenatchee, WA facility. INTERROGATORY NO. 5 Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any ofits predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time marketed or sold. 8 ANSWER NO. 5: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as unduly and unfairly prejudicial and having no legitimate purpose to the extent it seeks to require Foseco, I nc. t o p rovide i dentifying i nformation b efore P Iaintiffs h ave f ully submitted to discovery and described the product or products, if any, to which they claim exposure and where and when Plaintiffs claim such exposure, if any, occurred. The only jobsite identified to date as being at issue is the Alcoa, Wenatchee, WA facility. Said jobsite was identified by Plaintiffs as being at issue concerning the subject litigation. See Response to Interrogatory No. 4. INTERROGATORY NO. 6 If the answer to one or more of the last three interrogatories is in the affirmative or lists any products, state as to each named product the following: A. As to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. B. The names ofthe companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each product mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. C. The trade or brand name of each ofthose products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold. 9 D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market. E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each ofthe named products, including the type ofasbestos contained in the product and the percentage of asbestos put in each product. F. The date each ofthe products was removed from the market and no longer sold or distributed and the reason or reasons therefor. G. The date asbestos was removed from such products, ifever, and the reasons therefor. H. A description ofthe physical appearance of each ofthe named products. I. A detailed description of the intended uses ofthe named products. J. Identify the last year that you sold each asbestos-containing product. ANSWER NO. 6: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as unduly and unfairly prejudicial and having no legitimate purpose to the extent it seeks to require Foseco, I nc. t o p rovide i dentifying i nformation b efore P laintiffs h ave fully submitted to discovery and described the product or products, if any, to which they claim exposure and where and when Plaintiffs claim such exposure, if any, occurred. The only jobsite identified to date as being at issue is the Alcoa, Wenatchee, WA facility. Said jobsite was identified by 10 Plaintiffs as being at issue concerning the subject litigation. Reserving said objections, and limiting its response those products which may have been manufactured or sold for use at the Alcoa, Wenatchee, WA facility, the Defendant^ Foseco, Inc. provides the following response: (A) The Kalminex and Kalmin foundry sleeve products were manufactured and sold by the Defendant to foundries. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., did not conduct mining operations. (B) Sales and distribution of the Kalminex and Kalmin foundry sleeve products were made by the Defendant via direct customer sales to the foundries and also through distributors. Upon information and belief the Defendant's foundry products would have been distributed in the State of Washington by Robert Barnes in Seattle, Washington. (C) The Kalminex and Kalmin names were brand/trade names utilized by the Defendant All general commercial sales were made utilizing the brand/trade name. (D) Reserving said objections, Foseco, Inc.'s Foundry Division began the development and testing for commercial sales of its Kalmin and Kalminex products in late 1965. While some of the Kalmin and Kalminex products contained asbestos, many did not contain asbestos. While the Kalminex product developed in 1965 may have contained asbestos, commercial sales of asbestos-containing Kalmin did not begin until 1971. Upon information and belief, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., ceased the use of asbestos in its Kalmin and Kalminex foundry products in 1975. (E) The material components ofthe Kalminex and Kalmin hot top products varied throughout the years depending upon customer requirements and needs. Foseco, Inc. ll considers its recipes for these products to be trade secrets which require the constituent parts of the hot top products to remain confidential. Further responding, the Kalminex products contained between 1.75% and approximately 9% asbestos. The Kalminex recipes contained amosite and/or chrysotile asbestos. The Kalmin contained between 4% and 12.5% chrysotile asbestos. (F) The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further responding, see Response to Interrogatory No. 6(d). (G) See Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6(d) and 10. (H) The Kalminex and Kalmin products were hard, pre-formed cylindrical shaped sleeves that would have been either gray or tanish/brown in color. The size of the sleeve depended upon the size of the mold(s) to which they were to be applied. The sleeve products were manufactured in universal shapes and sizes. No sawing, grinding, or other manipulation of the Kalminex and Kalmin sleeves was intended in order to have it fit within the sand mold. (I) Foseco, Inc.'s Foundry Division designed and manufactured its asbestoscontaining Kalminex and Kalmin products for sale to various foundry sites. The Kalmin and Kalminex products were sleeves used in the pouring of molten steel and metal in foundry castings. The foundry sleeves are supplied as a preformed sleeve, so application begins with the selection of the proper grade and size of sleeve. The sleeve is chosen based on the pouring qualities needed by the foundry. The pouring process begins with a pattern. The pattern 12 contains several risers. These risers will form the channels for the molten metal to be poured into the mold. The outer dimension of the riser is equal to the inner dimension of the sleeve. The sleeve is placed on the riser. After the sleeve is in place, sand is molded into place using hand ramming, jolting, etc. After forming the sand mold, the pattern is removed and the mold is ready to be poured. (J) See Response to Interrogatory No 6(d). INTERROGATORY NO. 7 Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the design, preparation, or introduction into the market of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 still exist? If so, state: A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where the documents are currently located. ANSWER NO. 7: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 8 Before distributing, selling, of placing the products listed in your responses to 13 Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 into the streams ofcommerce, were any tests conducted to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials such as asbestos, contained in those products? Ifthe answer is affirmative, state: A. The names ofthe products tested and the date of each test. B. .The name, address, and job title of each person conducting the tests or involved with conducting the tests. C. The results ofthe tests. ANSWER NO. 8: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the term "stream of commerce" is not sufficiently defined and seeks to obtain a legal conclusion. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., states that no tests concerning the potential health hazards with regards to the installation of the sleeve products was performed. The sleeve products were manufactured in universal shapes and sizes. As no sawing, cutting or other alterations of the sleeve products were intended during the installation process, Foseco, Inc. did not think that the installation and use ofits sleeve products would result in the release of any appreciable amount of asbestos fiber during application. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 6(i). 14 Additionally, prior to beginning general commercial sales of its sleeve products, the Defendant's Cleveland manufacturing facility was inspected by the Ohio Industrial Commission. The Ohio Industrial Commission, after being informed that asbestos was used as a raw material in the facility, reported to Foseco, Inc. that no condition constituting a health hazard was found in the plant. As the Industrial Commission found no health hazard in Foseco, Inc.'s manufacturing facility where raw asbestos fibers were being used, Foseco, Inc. reasonably believed that there was no potential hazard with the use of its hard, pre-formed sleeve products. Foseco, Inc. did test its Profax hot top product for use at steel mills to determine if any asbestos would remain after the product had come into contact with the molten steel being poured by its steel mill customers. Mr. Edward J. "Ted" Jago performed the test in late 1964/early 1965. The Profax product was heated on an Amitec to simulate the casting temperature of molten steel. The residue of the Profax products was examined, and it was determined that the asbestos contained in the product was altered. Mr. Jago confirmed his results during a visit to the Ceramics Department of Rutgers University. Further responding, the Kalmin and Kalminex recipes evolved from the Profax hot top products tested by Ted Jago. INTERROGATORY NO. 9 Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the testing ofthe products referred to in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. A description ofeach such document. 15 B. The name, address, and job title of each person who current has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER NO. 9: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory Incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, and limiting its response to the use of the foundry sleeve products, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., provides the following response: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., incorporates by reference its Response to Interrogatory . No. 8. Further responding, no documents exist concerning any testing by Ted Jago. INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Did Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies make any design changes or modifications as a result of those tests described in response to Interrogatory No. 8? Ifthe answer is affirmative, state: A. The trade names ofthe products changed. B. The nature ofthe changes made and the date of such changes or modifications. C. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having caused a change to be made, or having made a change or modification. ANSWER NO. 10 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by 16 reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Additionally, Foseco, Inc. objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks to obtain information, which is a confidential trade secret Reserving said objections, the Defendant Foseco, Inc. provides the following response: The Defendant Foseco, Inc., responds, incorporating by reference its Response to Interrogatory No. 8, that no changes or modifications were made as a result of the testing identified in Response to Interrogatory No. 8. Further responding, the Defendant Foseco, Inc., states that it did change or modify its Kalminex and Kalmin products, but that it would be impossible for it to provide the information requested in this Interrogatory. Upon information and belief, any alteration of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6 would have concerned the constituent parts of the products. Changes to the products would range from minor alterations of the recipe for production purposes to major changes such as the substitution of one constituent part for another. The reason for any alterations would be to improve the product's performance. Additionally, efforts to remove asbestos from the recipes were undertaken. Foseco, Inc. ceased utilizing asbestos in its sleeve recipes dne to concerns that it could no longer use asbestos as a raw material in its manufacturing plants and meet the new OSHA regulations/guidelines of 1976 with regards to exposure. INTERROGATORY NO. 11 17 After releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use of or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is 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 of those tests. D. Whether, as a.result ofthe tests, any products were removed from the market. E. The names of all products removed from the market as a result ofthese tests. ANSWERNO.il The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objecting, the phrase "released to the public" is ambiguous and not sufficiently defined. The Foseco, Inc. products at issue in this litigation would have only been sold to and used by foundries and foundry distributors for very specific applications. Reserving said objections, and limiting its response to the use of the sleeve products, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds as follows: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., states that no tests concerning the potential health hazards with regards to the installation of the sleeve products was performed. The sleeve products were manufactured in universal sizes and shapes. As no sawing, cutting or other alterations of 18 the sleeve products were intended during the installation process, Foseco, Inc. did not think that the installation and use of its sleeve products would result in the release of any appreciable amount of asbestos fiber during application. Further responding, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., incorporates by reference its Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 12 Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the potential health hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. The name of each product. B. A description of each document and how it relates to each product. C. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER NO. 12 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Reserving said objections, see Response to Interrogatory No. 26. INTERROGATORY NO. 13 Did Defendant or any ofits subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of 19 the tests discussed in your response to Interrogatories No. 10 or 13? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products changed or modified. B. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having made a change or modification. C. The nature ofthe hazard or defect which resulted in such change or modification. ANSWER NO. 13 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Reserving said objections, see Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11. INTERROGATORY NO. 14 Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material or any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use ofthe asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No. 6? If so, state: A. The names ofeach relevant product. B. The exact wording of each warning statement on each printed material. C. A description ofthe printed material other than the warning statement. 20 D. The method used to distribute the warning to persons likely to use the product. E. The date each warning was first issued, distributed* or placed on packaging. F. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning. G. The current location ofany such printed material and the custodian thereof. H. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSWER NO. 14 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., states that it did not believe that its sleeve products posed any health hazard to end users. Notwithstanding this belief, Foseco, Inc., pursuant to the OSHA regulations, supplied purchasers ofits sleeve products with Material Safety Data Sheets which contained information concerning the Threshold Limit Values for asbestos dust The Material Safety Data Sheets further advised the purchasers of the sleeve products that the products did, in fact, contain asbestos. Upon information and belief, the first Material Safety Data Sheet would have been supplied to the purchasers, including distributors of the sleeve products in late 1971. 21 Further responding, in 1972, Foseco, Inc., pursuant to the OSHA regulations, began to place a "caution label" on the packaging for its Kalminex and Kalinin sleeve products. The OSHA regulations were new. Foseco, Inc. was in the process of learning and understanding what was to be required by the regulations. The regulation concerning the placement ofcaution labels on products stated no labels were required on products in which the asbestos fiber contained in the products .. have been modified by a bonding agent, coating, binder, or other material so that during any reasonably foreseeable use, handling, storage, disposal, processing, or transportation, no airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers in excess ofthe exposure limits prescribed in paragraph (b) ofthis section will be released." As the Kalminex and Kalmin sleeve products were hard, pre-formed shapes that were not intended to be cut, sawed, ground, or otherwise manipulated in order to be used, it was initially felt that the regulation would not apply to Foseco, Inc.'s sleeve products. During the time period, July 1972 to September 1972, Foseco, Inc. continued to review the issue. Even though Foseco, Inc. did not believe that its Kalminex and Kalmin sleeve products constituted any health hazard to foundry employees who would use the products, it was ultimately decided that the "Caution Label" would be placed on the Kalminex and'Kalmin sleeve hot top products. The "caution label" was first used on or about September 1972. The "caution label" continued to be applied to these products until the removal of asbestos from the products in 1975. The "caution label" read as follows: CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS AVOID CREATING DUST BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE BODILY HARM The "caution label" was affixed to the packaging ofthe products. The label was 2Vi inches by 4% inches, orange semi-gloss in color with black print 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 15 Before 1970, had you received notice that any individual or individuals, other than those Plaintiffs who have filed personal injury actions in Dallas County, Texas, is or are claiming or has or have claimed an injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company or any ofits predecessors or subsidiaries before 1970? If so, state: A. The name and address of each claimant. B. The date of notice of each claim. C. A description ofthe claim. D. The type ofinjuries allegedly sustained. E. The name and address of each attorney who represents each individual making a claim. F. The style and court number of each claim. G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. ANSWER NO. 15 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., before 1970, had not received notice that any individual claimed an injury resulting from use of its asbestos-containing products. 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 16 Were your asbestos products distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled and/or sold by companies other than your own? Ifthe answer is affirmative, list the names and addresses of each of those companies, and the products in question. ANSWER NO. 16 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., states that its Kalminex and Kalinin foundry products were distributed and sold by independent foundry distributors in limited geographic areas. Upon information and belief, these companies would not have marketed, packaged or labeled these products. Further responding, the Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 17. INTERROGATORY NO. 17 Did you or any ofyour predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries have any distributors or sales representatives of asbestos products in the States ofAlabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas or Virginia? If so state: A. The name and address of each such distributor or sales representatives. B. The years in which such company or person distributed, marketed, or sold your products. 24 C. What products were distributed, marketed, or sold and in what years. ANSWER NO. 17 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as unduly and unfairly prejudicial and having no legitimate purpose to the extent it seeks to require Foseco, I nc. t o p rovide i dentifying i nformation b efore P laintiffs h ave fully submitted to discovery and described the product or products, if any, to which they claim exposure and where and when Plaintiffs claim such exposure, if any, occurred. Reserving said objections, and limiting its response to address the Defendant's distributors in Washington, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc. provides the following response: Incorporating by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 16, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds that it did use Robert Barnes for the distribution of its foundry products in Washington. INTERROGATORY NO. 18 List each employee (including only physicians and/or hygienists) who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals and how has, had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of asbestos. 25 ANSWER NO. 18 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Defendant's manufacturing facilities are not at issue in this pending litigation. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., provides the following response: Joseph Solomayer, M.D. (approximately 1973 to 5/22/81) Peter Gomos, M.D. (5/14/81 to 3/9/82) Alan Jones, M.D. do Southwest General Hospital (March of 1982 to present) Howard VanOrdstrand, M.D. Keith Irish, M.D. c/o Southwest General Hospital George Wright, M.D. These physicians were hired by Foseco, Inc. to review Foseco, Inc.'s employees chest x- rays and perform physical examinations. Further responding, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., did utilize the services of Thomas Bozich, an industrial hygienist, on a consulting basis. He has been retained at various times by Foseco, Inc. since mid 1970s to analyze air samples for all potentially hazardous dust in Foseco's manufacturing facilities. He has also provided consultation information to Foseco, 26 Inc. concerning dust extraction equipment He further assisted Foseco, Inc. in learning, understanding and complying with die regulations promulgated by OSHA. INTERROGATORY NO. 19 Does Defendant have 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? If so, state: A. The name of each such publication. B. The date ofpublication and the names ofthe author and publisher (ifany). C. The date received by Defendant, ifknown. D. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. ANSWER NO. 19 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 20 Has Defendants or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards ofasbestos comprised of other manufacturers, miners. 27 marketers, and/or seller of asbestos products? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such association or organization. B. The dates which Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors were members. C. The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or. disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations. D. Whether any ofthose publications are still in your possession, and if so: 1. A description of the publications, including the date. 2. The current location of such publications. 3. The custodian of such publications. 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. ANSWER NO. 20 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections and in an attempt to be responsive, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., provides a negative response. INTERROGATORY NO. 21 Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products 28 listed in your answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 were manufactured, assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing, 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 NO. 21 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference ail of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking. information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Foseco, Inc. facilities in Cleveland, Ohio, Mt Braddock, Pennsylvania, and Chicago, Illinois would have manufactured the products listed in Response to Interrogatory No. 6. Further responding, see Response to Interrogatory No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 22 Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes ofmarketing or advertising products containing asbestos? If so, state: A. The name, address, andjob title of each person or entity who prepared such materials. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials and their present location. 29 C. The date the materials were prepared. D. The media used to disseminate the sales materials. ANSWER NO. 22 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., did have sales material prepared for the purpose of marketing and advertising its products, including the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 6. The sales literature, upon information and belief, would have been hand delivered to the appropriate persons employed by the foundry. INTERROGATORY NO. 23 Have you written or printed materials or instructions ofany kind or character been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiaiy or predecessor companies or their agents indicating how asbestos products should be used and maintained? Ifso, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person who prepared such materials or instructions or assisted in their preparation. B. The name, address and job title of each person who currently has possession of sftuch materials or instructions and their present location. C. The dates of distribution or use and the manner in which such materials or instructions were distributed to purchasers ofDefendant's products or those ofits 30 subsidiaries or predecessors. D. The year each such written material or instruction was prepared and disclosed to potential consumers. ANSWER NO. 23 The Defendant,. Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., incorporates by reference its Response to Interrogatory No. 22. The Defendant states that it did discuss the application and use of its products with foundry customers. Additionally, the Defendants technical and sales personnel would demonstrate the application and use of the sleeve products to foundry personnel. Upon information and belief, any instructions regarding the use ofthe Defendant's products would have been made orally. As the Kalminex and Kalmin products were meant to have a single use, no information was provided concerning their maintenance. INTERROGATORY NO. 24 Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claims made by Plaintiffs in these cases? If so, list the name of each insurance carrier, the amount ofinitial coverage, amount of coverage remaining at the present time, and the effective dates of each policy. (Ifproperly answered, this Interrogatory need not be supplemented as to the remaining amount of coverage). ANSWER NO. 24 31 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., states that it has sufficient insurance coverage to address the claims filed by the Plaintiff(s). INTERROGATORY NO. 25 As to the disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such . disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant became aware ofthe existence ofthe disease. C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease and/or of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. ANSWER NO. 25 32 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., provides the following response: Prior to and including 1962, Edward J. "Ted" Jago reviewed standard industrial hygiene text material concerning the raw materials that were being used to manufacture the company's products and later reviewed articles concerning health and safety. Asbestos was one of the raw materials that Mr. Jago researched. It was learned that if one breathes excessive quantities of asbestos over an extended period of time, one could potentially develop the condition asbestosis. This information was learned while performing the product development work concerning the Profax hot top product in the early 1960s. INTERROGATORY NO. 26 As to the disease lung cancer, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware ofthe disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. 33 D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form. F. Who is the custodian or such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. ANSWER NO. 26 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., provides the following response: The Defendant incorporates by reference its Response to Interrogatory No. 25. Further responding, in addition to Mr. Jago's research involving standard industrial hygiene text material, Mr. Jago also researched the connection between excessive asbestos exposure and cancer at the Cleveland Public Library. The Defendant also inquired of its supplier of raw asbestos concerning the materials potential to cause cancer. A response was received, dated April 7,1964, and discussed asbestos and cancer issues. Additionally, Foseco, Inc. received a Research and Development Report No. 82 which was authored by 34 C. Washbourne on behalf of Foseco International Limited, Birmingham, UK. The Report is dated August 10,1965, and reviewed various medical articles and contained a discussion of the Profax product. INTERROGATORY NO. 27 As to pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER NO. 27 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 35 evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., provides the following response: See Response to Interrogatory No. 26. INTERROGATORY NO. 28 As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. C. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware ofthe disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. G. Who is the custodian of such information. H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. ANSWER NO. 28 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by' reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. 36 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that It is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., provides the following response: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., incorporates by reference its Response to Interrogatory No. 26. INTERROGATORY NO. 29 As to gastro-mtestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The type ofcancer and the date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such diseases were caused by inhalation ofasbestos fibers by humans. B. What cancers has the Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers? C. The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated with Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. 37 F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. G. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER NO. 29 . The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., provides the following response: The Defendant does not know when, if ever, that it learned of a causal connection concerning asbestos and other cancers. INTERROGATORY NO. 30 Does Defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactured or designed so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or exposed to them? Ifthe answer if affirmative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys on which this answer is based. ANSWER NO. 30 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds 38 that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, seeks medical/scientific opinion which this Defendant is not qualified to give, and seeks to obtain a legal conclusion. Reserving said objections, see Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 31 Describe in detail the types ofpackages or packaging which Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies used for asbestos materials or products, listing the dates each type ofpackage was used, a physical description ofeach type ofpackage, and providing a description of any printed material or trademark that appeared thereon. ANSWER NO. 31 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, upon information and belief, Kalmin and Kalminex were initially shipped for sale in cardboard boxes on top of wooden pallets. In approximately 1968/69, the Kalmin and Kalminex products would have been plastic shrink-wrapped in cardboard boxes and shipped on wooden pallets. The size and amount contained in each container would depend upon the size of the Kalmin and Kalminex products which were being supplied. The Product name, as well as the name "Foseco" and the crucible logo 39 would have appeared on a paper insert with regards to the plastic shrink-wrap method of shipping. Beginning in late 1972, a "caution label" was attached to the packaging for Kalmin and Kalminex. INTERROGATORY NO. 32 Has Defendant or any ofits subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos materials or asbestos products? Ifso, state as to each such agreement: A. The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products. B. The trade name affixed to those products. C. The periods oftime covered by each such agreement. D. The volume, in dollar amount, of each transaction. E. The initial purchaser of the products. ANSWER NO. 32 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc. provides a negative response to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 33 List the name and address of each company from which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor purchased materials or asbestos products which Defendant sold or distributed in any 40 form, stating the form of the materials, the dates of such purchases, and the ultimate disposal of such materials. ANSWER NO. 33 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., provides the following response: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., purchased the raw asbestos fibers used to manufacture its Kalmin and Kalminex products from the following entities: Amosite Asbestos North American Asbestos Corp., a distributor for Cape Asbestos. Chrysotile Asbestos Donald McKay Smith, a distributor for Carey Canada. INTERROGATORY NO. 34 Does Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessor currently have possession of any writings or contracts on those rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to Interrogatory No. 32? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person having custody of each ofthose documents and their current location. B. A brief description of each such document, including the dates and the parties signatory. 41 ANSWER NO. 34 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vagne, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Incorporating by reference its Response to Interrogatory No. 32, this Interrogatory is not applicable to this Defendant INTERROGATORY NO. 35 Prior to 1968, did any person file a claim against a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he/she contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers? If so, provide: A. A list of the claims, including each claimant's name, address and the date each claim was filed, and including the caption and jurisdiction of the claim. B. The disease alleged in each such claim. C. A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim. D. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER NO. 35 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. 42 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Also, the Defendant's manufacturing facilities are not at issue. Reserving said objections, prior to 1968, no Worker's Compensation claims for the inhalation of asbestos fibers had been filed against Foseco, Inc. INTERROGATORY NO. 36 Did Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes of coiporate meetings, either board ofdirectors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? If so, for each such set ofminutes, state: A. The dates of each such meeting. B. The general subject matter discussed at each meeting. C. Who was in attendance at each meeting. D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained. E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format. F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. ANSWER NO. 36 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. 43 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., provides the following response: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., upon information and belief, is not aware ofany "Board of Director" meetings at which the specific subject matter of this Interrogatory was discussed. However, in an effort to be responsive, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., is aware ofthree meetings of the Board of Directors or the Executive Committee where a discussion was had regarding the undertaking of capital appropriations in order to comply with OSHA requirements. The relevant meetings were, as follows: 1. The meeting of the Foseco, Inc. Executive Committee on June 23,1972; 2. The meeting of the Foseco, Inc. Board of Directors on November 13,1974; and 3. The meeting of the Foseco Minsep, Inc. Board ofDirectors on December 2,1975. INTERROGATORY NO. 37 Do you or any ofyour subsidiaries, including foreign business entities, currently manufacture any products containing asbestos? Ifso, state: A. As to each product, whether such product is mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold. B. The names and addresses of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each ofthose products. C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. 44 D. The date each ofthe named products was placed on the market. E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product. F. A description ofthe physical appearance ofeach product and its packaging. G. A detailed description of the intended uses of each ofthe named products. H. Whether there are any warning labels on said products or containers regarding potential asbestos-related health hazards. ANSWER NO. 37 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., does not currently manufacture any products containing asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 38 State whether you or any ofyour predecessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies ofinvoices, shipping documents, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the mining, manufacturing, marketing, sale or distribution of asbestos products. Ifso, state: A. The location of such documents. B. The name and address ofthe custodian of the documents. 45 c. The format in which the documents are kept, ho, hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. L&,D. hi what form the documents can be accessed, by state, by product, etc., and if by product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. ANSWER NO. 38 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is ' neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc. provides the following response: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., is in possession of"sales summaries" which show sales ofits Kalminex and Kalmin products. INTERROGATORY NO. 39 May you call company representatives as witnesses at the trial of any of these cases? If so, list: A. The name, address, and job title of each company representative who may be called. B. A summary ofthe testimony expected to be given by each such witness. C. List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number, date oftestimony, and the name of the attorney 46 taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs in that case. ANSWER NO. 39 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating byreference all of the General Objections previously set forth. Additionally, discovery has not yet been completed. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., states that its Witness List has been Hied with the Court INTERROGATORY NO. 40 Have Defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessor ever acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed, or contracted or supplied products containing asbestos? Ifso, for each such entity, state: A. Full and correct name; B. Principal place ofbusiness; C. State of incorporation; D. Date of acquisition by Defendant; E. Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in the State ofTexas. ANSWER NO. 40 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds 47 that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., or its subsidiaries or predecessor never acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed, or contracted or supplied products containing asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 41 Was each ofyour asbestos products generally expected to reach, or packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? Ifnot, with respect to any such product, explain in what way the Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user. ANSWER NO. 41 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, see Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 42 For each asbestos-containing product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6, identify 48 all foreseeable users such as insulators, helpers, pipefitters, welders, machinists,plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, boilermakers, shipwrights and riggers, etc. of any ofDefendant's asbestos-containing products. ANSWER NO. 42 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Kalinin and Kalminex products were intended to be used by those foundry employees who would place the products into the sand mold. INTERROGATORY NO. 43 Based upon the material contents ofyour asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method ofapplication, can such products be generally applied without liberating asbestos fibers into the air? A. Ifthere is a different answer concerning different products manufactured, sold, distributed, or used by your company, then specify the different products by precise manufacturer's name and popular name. B. Ifthere is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in which a particular product was used, then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you are referring to and year involved. 49 ANSWER NO. 43 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, seeks medical/scientific opinion which this Defendant is not qualified to give, and seeks to obtain a legal conclusion. Reserving said objections, see Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 44 Was it a foreseeable use ofyour asbestos-containing products that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced at some time after installation? ANSWER NO. 44 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It w as n ot a f oreseeable u se that Foseco, Inc.'s sleeve products would have been removed and replaced after installation because they were a single-use product. However, Foseco, Inc. states that the removal of its sleeve products would not result in exposure to any 50 asbestos based on the results ofTed Jago's experiment. Further responding, see Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 45 Before 1970, did you or your subsidiaries or predecessor(s) ever arrange for any labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company to go to job sites where your products were being used or installed to make or take dust level counts? If so, state when this procedure started, the purpose of such procedures, and all results of such procedures. ANSWER NO. 45 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, see Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 8. Further responding, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., states that it did not conduct or direct any studies as outlined in this Interrogatory concerning the use of its sleeve products. INTERROGATORY NO. 46 IfDefendant performed or had performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? ANSWER NO. 46 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by 51 reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 47 Has your company or it subsidiaries or predecessors) ever conduct or caused to be conducted any studies designed to assist in minimizing or eliminating the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use ofyour company's products? If so, give the following: A. Name of the person of firm conducting such studies; B. The date the studies began and the date they were completed; C. Any publication or other written dissemination ofthe results of the studies; D. The nature ofany action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers. ANSWER NO. 47 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 45,6 and 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 48 Does your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessors) or subsidiaries ever 52 had, a Research Department? If so, give the year such Research Department was established, and whether or not such Research Department has operated continuously since being established. State also: A. The amount oftime and money expended each year on research concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products. B. What percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessors) spend on research concerning the health effects of asbestos? C. State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities or such Research Department. ANSWER NO. 48 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., had a technical department which tested and researched the raw materials prior to their use by Foseco, Inc. INTERROGATORY NO. 49 Does your company have, or has it ever had, or have your predecessors) or subsidiaries ever had, a Medical Department? If so, state: A. The year such Medical Department was established; 53 B. Whether or not such Medical Department has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Medical Director or Medical Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department. ANSWER NO. 49 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, the Defendant's manufacturing facilities are not at issue in this litigation. See Response to Interrogatory No. 18. INTERROGATORY NO. 50 Did your company or its predecessors) or subsidiaries ever place any warning directly on any of its asbestos-containing product or on their packaging. If so, identify the product(s) and year said warning was first applied. ANSWER NO. 50 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. 54 See Response to Interrogatory No. 14. INTERROGATORY NO. 51 Did your company or its predecessors) or subsidiaries ever stamp or place the name ofthe company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any of its asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the name brand names ofsuch products, a description ofsuch stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. ANSWER NO. 51 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by. reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., upon information and belief, never stamped or placed the name of the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on its Kalminex andKalmin products. INTERROGATORY NO. 52 Has you company, or your predecessors) or subsidiaries, ever devise a research plan to develop, or actually developed or had developed, a product which did not contain asbestos and which could be substitute for one or more of your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date that such research plan was begun and when such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. 55 ANSWER NO. 52 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., incorporates by reference its Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 53 Did your company or its predecessors) or subsidiaries ever recall any products containing asbestos from the market or stream of commerce? Ifso, state: A. All details of such recall; B. The name ofthe product recalled, including the reason for the recall and the names and current addresses of those individuals who determined that it should take place; C. The dates ofrecall; D. The purpose for the recall. ANSWER NO. 53 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds 56 that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the terms "market" and "stream of commerce" are not sufficiently defined and seek to obtain a legal conclusion. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., provides a negative response. INTERROGATORY NO. 54 Before 1970, did you ever manufacture or sell products which did not contain asbestos and which could be substitute for your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date such asbestos-free products were first placed on the market. ANSWER NO. 54 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. . See Response to Interrogatory No. 52. INTERROGATORY NO. 55 Have any products you identified in your response to Interrogatory Nos. 52 and 54 not performed as intended? Please list all such products that have not performed as intended. ANSWER NO. 55 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by 57 reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, seeks medical/scientific opinion which this Defendant is not qualified to give, and seeks to obtain a legal conclusion. INTERROGATORY NO. 56 Did your company or its predecessors) or subsidiaries ever make, order, or arrange for any industrial hygiene surveys regarding asbestos or asbestos-containing dust? If so, give the date of such surveys and state who, or what entity, was responsible for completion of such surveys. ANSWER NO. 56 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Defendant's manufacturing facilities are not at issue. See Response to Interrogatory No. 45. INTERROGATORY NO. 57 As to either the threshold limit value or maximum allowable concentrations ofboth asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 58 Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant or any predecessor(s) or subsidiaries were first advised of such limits or concentrations; B. The name of the employee or official ofthe company receiving such advice; C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. ANSWER NO. 57 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, Edward J. "Ted" Jago would have learned of this information in the 1960's through review of standard industrial hygiene texts. INTERROGATORY NO. 58 Were the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory No. 57 for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone? ANSWER NO. 58 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking 59 information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 59 State in detail what tests, if any. Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing your asbestos-containing products. ANSWER NO. 59 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, see Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 45. INTERROGATORY NO. 60 Please state the following with respect to each expert witness you that you may call during trial of these cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you will call, including: A. The name, address, and job classification of each such expert witness; B. The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; C. The substance ofthe facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary ofthe grounds for each opinion; 60 D. Whether any person identified in subparagraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify each such document or report; E. Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above; F. Describe in detail the education and work history of and identify any books, . treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list ofpublications to your answers. ANSWER NO. 60 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. In addition, discovery has not yet been completed. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., states that its Witness List has been filed with the Court INTERROGATORY NO. 61 Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge of facts relevant to these cases involving, but not limited to: A. Identification of asbestos-containing products to which each and every individual Plaintiff, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, allegedly 61 was exposed or facts disputing the identification of asbestos-containing products in this case. B. Each and every individual Plaintiffs separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged damages, injuries and/or facts disputing each and every Plaintiffs alleged damages and/or injuries; C. The negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of each and every individual Plaintiffs separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged injuries and/or damages; D. ` Each ofDefendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed Answer in each ofthese cases. ANSWER NO. 61 The Defendant, Foseco,.Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., incorporates by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 1. INTERROGATORY NO. 62 Please identify documents which will be used at time oftrial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each of defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed 62 Answer. ANSWER NO. 62 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., states that its Exhibit List has been filed with the Court INTERROGATORY NO. 63 Please state when you first received a copy ofthe Fleischer/Drinker Report published in 1945/1946. ANSWER NO. 63 The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Interrogatory incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc. does not know when, ifever, that it received the noted publication. 63 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce a true and correct copy of each photograph of each asbestos-containing product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 4 RESPONSE: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Request incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. Exhibit "A" - Representative photographs of Kalminex and Kalinin - Foseco, Inc.'s Foundry Products Brochure for 1969. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce any diagrams or schematics indicating, stating or detailing the existence of any of your subsidiaries, predecessors, or divisions as defined on Page 1 ofthese Interrogatories and Request for Production. RESPONSE: The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., responds to this Request incorporating by reference all of the General Objections previously set forth. The Defendant, Foseco, Inc., further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it Is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 64 evidence. Reserving said objections, the Defendant, Foseco, Inc., incorporates by reference its Response to Interrogatory No. 2 regarding its Corporate History. 65 Respectfully submitted. DEHAY & ELLISTON, L.L.P. 3500 BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA 901 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75202-3736 (214) 210-2400/210-2500 (fax) CHRISTOPHER P. MANNING State Bar No. 12941270 SCOTT D. MARQUARDT State Bar No. 00796999 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing document has been forwarded to Plaintiffs' counsel of record, Mr. Brian Minn, BARON & BUDD, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219, via hand delivery on this the 7th day of November, 2002. 66