Document M4BBaKGDQ8wrrX5gaqLnoj1JL

IN THE SUPERIOR CCURT CF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY ROBERT LOGAN,et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASBESTOS COEP. OF AMERICA, et al., . Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 82C-DE-102 (Asbestos) ) ) ) ) ) ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE COMPANY TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES PER STANDING ORDER NO. 1 EXHIBIT "C" 1. Describe in detail, with specificity and particularity each product mined, produced, manufactured or sold by the answering defendant or its predecessors in title or subsidiaries which contained asbestos for each year from 1936 until 1980; anc for each such product describe: (a) Its chemical ingredients; (b) State the manner in which it was intended to be used, i.e., in the construction and/or insulation of buildings and/or equipment, etc.; (c) For each ingredient contained therein state: (i) Hie name or chemical composition of each substance, what harmful effects, if any are known, that it produces in man or mammals and whether it produces its harmful effects through ingestion, inhalation, absorption or a combination of these; (ii) When you determined and/or learned that the substance produced harmful effects and how such effects were produced; (iii) Identify each individual who participated in such determination and/or obtained such knowledge; (iv) Identify each document that refers, reflects or relates to any information pertaining to the properties of each of the ingredients and/or how the harmful effects are produced as well as your determination of those toxic effects and the manner by which they are produced; (v) As to any information received orally in answer vto this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information ' and state the full substance of the information supplied; (vi) Which products or ingredients were mined, which were manufactured and which were distributed by answering defendants. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without pre judice to this defendant's objection, the only asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by this defendant to Haveg Industries between 1936 and 1980; namely, 1971 and 1972, were High Bulk Asbestos Paper and/or Blue Asbestos Paper Type 41. The answers to the following subparts are limited by the above-mentioned objection and refer only to products sold to Haveg Industries. (a) The chemical ingrediant of High Bulk Asbestos Paper and Blue Asbestos Paper Type 41 were, to the best of our recollection, the same and hereinafter both shall be referred to as "High Bulk Asbestos Paper." The ingredients themselves were crocidolite, cellulosic fiber, acrylic latex, diatonaceous earth, melamine-formaldehyde resin, alum, cind possibly other ingredients presently unknown. (b) High Bulk Asbestos Paper was intended to be used in the fabrication of pipe. <c) (i) Although this defendant is not an authority on the subject of harmful effects of chemical substances, it presently believes that asbestos may produce asbestosis, mesothelioma, and/or certain lung cancers through inhalation of asbestos fibers. J (ii) This defendant first learned in the 1950's that asbestos may produce sane harmful effects but at this time it is unknown exactly what harmful effects this defendant learned at that time. -2- (iii) Harold w. Knudson -- former Vice President cf Research and Development (retired) Donald G. Magill -- former Vice President and Division Manager Massachusetts Mills 7 Wyeth Road Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 Edward J. McCormick, Jr. -- Vice President Industrial Relations East Walpole, Massachusetts 02032 (iv) Objected to on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to list the many of documents requested in this Interrogatory and also on the grounds that said Interrogatory calls for documents available as matters of public record which are available to plaintiffs. The answer to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its initial Rule 33(c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to any objections defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. (v) Objected to on the grounds that this interroga tory is unclear, unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and repetitive; calls for information already given above; and requests information not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also answer to Interrogatory No. 75. (vi) High Bulk Asbestos Paper was manufactured and sold by this defendant. This answering defendant is not a mining com pany. 2. If any product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 1 and was produced, manufactured and/or sold under a trade name, identify that trade name(s) and state the time period that each such product was sold under such trade name. -3- A. High Bulk Asbestos Paper was manufactured and sold free 1967 to 1972. However, it was only sold toHaveg Industries from 1971 to 1972. ' 3. For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1, state: (a) The address of each plant where it was manufactured, processed or packaged; (b) Whether you were the sole producer, manufacturer and/or distributor of the product and, if not: (i) The name and address of each other person, firm or other entity .enganged in the production, manufacture and/or distribu tion of the product; (ii) Whether any other manufacturers produced the product by virtue of a franchise or license fran you; (iii) The persons or firms who produced the product for distribution in the' United States; (iv) The person or firm who produced the product for distribution in the State of Delaware. A. (a) High- Bulk Asbestos Paper was manufactured and packaged at this defendant's Easton, New York, plant at County Route 113, Greenwich, New York 12834, and later the East Walpole, Massachusetts plant at 112 Washington Street, East Walpxole, Massachusetts 02032. (b) This defendant was the sole manufacturer of High Eulk Asbestos Paper. Hcwever, we believe that at least one other manufacturer; namely, Herty Foundation of Savannah, Georgia, may have produced a very similar product. (i)-(iv) NOt applicable. 4. For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1, state: (a) Hew the product was sold and/or distributed for use in the United States and/or the State of Delaware; (b) Identify all person, firms or other entities to wham these products were sold or through whom they were distributed during the period 1936 to 1980; -4- (c) For each such person, firm or other entity identified in answer to subpart (b) above, state the following: (1) the specific product sold and/or distributed; (2) the quantity of the product sold and/or distri buted; (3) the dates which these products were sold, shipped and delivered to each entity; (d) Identify each individual who has any knowledge of these sales and/or distribution and state with specificity and particu larity the substance of each individual's knowledge; (e) Identify and produce all documents which reflect or relate to all sales and/or distribution of each such product to each such entity identified above. A. (a) Objected to on the ground that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to rele vant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence and also on the ground that it would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to ccnpile a list of all distributors through the United States. Furthermore, the answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33 (c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to any objections defendant may have to privilege, wark product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. Without waiving this defendant's objection, this defendant answers that High Bulk Asbestos Paper was sold to Johns Manville Corporation frcm 1968 to 1970 and to Haveg Industries frcm 1971 to 1972. . (b) See answer to subpart (a) of this Interrogatory No. 4. (c) (1) See answer to subpart (a) of this Interrogatory No. 4. High Bulk Asbestos Paper. -5- (2) See answer to subpart (a) of this Interrogatory No. 4. Haveg Industries -- 88,539 pounds. ' (3) See answer to subpart: (a) of this Interrogatory No. 4. The dates High Bulk Asbestos Paper was shipped to Haveg Industries are as follows: 12/3/71, 12/11/72, 12/13/72, 12/18/72 No. 4. (d) See answer to subpart (a) of this Interrogatory _ George H. Ives -- Purchasing Agent Hollingsworth & Vose Company County Route 113 Greenwich, New York 12834 Graham Blandy III -- Sales Representative Hollingsworth & Vose Carpany East Walpole, Massachusetts 02032 Charles Perry -- Assistant Mill Superintendent East Walpole, Massachusetts 02032 (e) See answer to subpart (a) of this Interrogatory No. 4. 5. For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 state whether you engaged in any advertising program to promote the sale of that product and, if so, state: (a) The name or description of each advertising media that you have used to prerote the product during the period 1936 to 1980; (b) The name of each national magazine or periodical in which you have advertised the product during the period 1936 through 1980? (c) The date of each issue of such magazine or periodical in which such advertisement appeared; (d) The name and address of each newspaper in which it advertised the product during the period 1936 through 1980; (e) The date of each publication of each newspaper in which the advertisement appeared; (f) Identify and produce each document which refers, reflects or pertains to each such advertisement which was published in each such magazine, periodical and/or newspaper; (g) State whether the advertising of the product was handled by an agency and, if so, state the name and address of each -6- of the record of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33 (c) option and will rake such relevant documents available subject to any objections defendant may have to privileged, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. (e) Objected to on the ground that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this carpi aint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this defendant's objection, the following information is given: presently unknown. Haveg Industries, and before that Johns Manville, were responsible for the specifications for the formulation of High Bulk Asbestos Paper. (f) See answer to subpart (d) of this Interrogatory No. 6. Without waiving this defendant's objection, the following docu ments are listed: Memorandum dated April 28, 1970 by R. P. Foster -- "Materials Required for Blue Asbestos Trial (TR-48)" Memorandum dated June 14, 1971 by John Banton -- ""Chemitite Asbestos Paper - New York Mills" Memorandum dated June 14, 1972 from Norman Bugeau -- "Ccrmercial Trial on T-41 Asbestos." Salesman's Report dated 11/14/72 from Graham Blandy III (g) Paul Reynier, Division Purchasing Agent Haveg Industries (h) Graham Blandy III (i) Graham Blandy III -8- 7. With regard to each form of asbestos fibers identified in the answer to Interrogatory 6, state: (a) Where it was purchased, if it was not purchased, where it was obtained; (b) Fran whan it was purchased; (c) The manner in which it was received, stored and used in the production of the product. A. (a) North American Asbestos 150 North Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois (b) See answer to subpart (a) of this Interrogatory No. 7. " (c) Objected to on the ground that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8. If you manufacture any insulation products which are camonly used by insulators and which contain asbestos; (a) Describe how the products listed in (b) are cut, shaped, mixed and applied on the jobs giving particular reference as to whether or not the materials have to be sawed or cut on the job, blown into confined areas, or mixed with water into a cement or paste; (b) State if there is any way known to you that the products listed below can be used and applied without the workers inhaling any of the asbestos dust or fibers: (1) Asbestos cement; Asbestos Finishes; (2) Asbestos pipe covering; (3) Asbestos bricks or block; (4) Asbestos sheeting; (5) Asbestos insulation used to cover extremes of heat as well as cold; (6) Asbestos insulation in loose form which may be blown into hones or buildings; (7) Asbestos in spray form; (8) Asbestos mineral in fiber form or particulate form; (9) Asbestos Millboard, rope, gaskets, paper gloves or blanket. (c) Did your company buy any products listed in (b) above fran other manufacturers and relabel it or have it labeled for your carpany? (1) If yes, which products and for whan? (d) Did your carpany produce any products within the list in (b) above for other canpanies? -9- (1) If yes, which products and for whan? (e) Whether prior to distributing the product you altered it in any manner frcm the fom in which you received it from the source, and if so what type of alterations or modifications were made by you; (f) Whether prior to distributing the product you repac kaged or in any way altered the packaging or labelling of the product after receiving it frcm the source, and if so, what alterations were made by you. A. Not applicable. This defendant is not a manufacturer of insulation products. 9. For each product listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 1, describe each end use for which each such product was intended to be used by the general industry and for each such use: (a) Describe the form of the product when so used; ' (b) Describe the process and/or method by which the . product would be applied for each such use; (c) Describe the equipment to be used to apply the product for each such use; (d) Identify each document that refers, reflects or relates to any information and state the full substance of the informa tion supplied; ' (e) As to any information received orally in answer to any interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. (a) Pipe (b) Unknown (c) Unknown ' (d) Objected to on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to determine and identify documents requested in this Interrogatory and also on the grounds that said Interrogatory calls for documents available as matters of public record which are available to plaintiffs and finally on the grounds that said interrogatory is too broad, covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery - 10 - of admissible evidence. The answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its initial Rule 33(c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to any objections defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. (e) Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is unclear, unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and repetitive; calls for information already given above; and requests information not reason ably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also answer to Interrogatory No. 75. 10. State whether any of the equipment identified in answer to Interrogatory NO. 9(c) was manufactured by you or any parent or subsidiary company or related ccnpany. A. Not applicable. 11. If any piece of equipment identified in answer to Inter rogatory No. 9(c) was invented, developed or first made by you or any person associated with you or any related company or association, state: (a) When it was invented, developed or made? (b) The identity of each individual who participated therein and describe in detail the extent of his participation; (c) The identity of each document which reflects, refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; (d) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. Not applicable. 12. State whether you or any person associated with you or any related company or association invented, developed or made any change and/or improvement in any piece of equipment identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 9(c), and if so: (a) Describe the change and/or improvement made; (b) State when it was made; - 11 - (c) Identify each individual who participated therein and describe in detail the extent of his participation? (d) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who has supplied such informa tion and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. Not applicable. 13. For each process and/or method identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 9 (b), state whether it was developed by you or a parent or subsidiary or related canpany. A. Not applicable. 14. For each process and/or method identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 9 (b) developed or first made by you or any person associated with you or any related canpany or association, state: (a) When and where it was developed; (b) The identity of each individual who participated therein and describe in detail the extent of his participation; (c) The identity of each document which reflects, refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this Interrogatory; (d) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. Not applicable. 15. State whether you or any person associated with you or any related company or association developed or made any change and/or improvement in any process and/or method identified in answer to inter rogatory No. 9(b), and if so: (a) Describe the change and/or improvement made; . (b) State when and where it was made; (c) Identify each individual who participated therein and describe in detail the extent of his participation; (d) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied; (f) Identify the living person who has the most knowledge of matters discussed herein. A. Not applicable. ( 16. For each product identified in the answer to Interrogatory No. 1, describe what, if any, tests were made to determine the safety of said product and: (a) State when and where each such test was made; (b) Describe the results of each such test; (c) Identify each individual who participated therein and describe in detail the extent of his participation; ' (d) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. _ None. 17. For each process or method identified in answer to Inter rogatory No. 9 (b), describe what, if any, tests were made to determine the safety of said process or method and: (a) State when and where each such test was made; (b) Describe the results of each such test; (c) Identify each individual who participated therein and describe in detail the extent of his participation; (d) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. Not applicable. 18. For each piece of equipment identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 9(c), describe what, if any tests were made to deter mine the safety of said equipment and: (a) State when and where each such test was made; (b) Describe the results of each such test; (c) Identify each individual who participated therein and describe in detail the extent of his participation; (d) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. NOt applicable. - 13 - 19. For each label, brochure, or other written material describing or relating to the use of each product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 1, produced by you or any person associated with you or any related company or association? (a) Describe its contents; buted; (b) State when, where, how, and to whom it was distri (c) State the manner in which it was placed on or in the product container or whether it was separate from the product container, or whether it was separate fran the product or container; (d) State whether any written, printed or graphic matter was present to warn of any harmful ingredient it might contain. If so, state; (i) Whether a signal word, i.e., "danger", "warning" or "caution" was present; (ii) Whether a signal word was printed in boldface, capital letters or different colored inks. Which? hazard; (iii) The wording of the statements describing any (iv) The wording of all directions and/or instruc tions pertaining to any method of use to avoid any hazard. (e) Identify each individual who participated in the writing of the label, brochure or other written materials and describe in detail the extent of his participation; (f) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to the information contained on the labels, brochures, or otherwritten materials and/or the decision to include such information? (g) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. (a) The answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the record of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33(c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to any objection defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. As further answer to this interrogatory, the only written materials relating to the use of High Bulk Asbestos Paper were shipping labels which were attached to the packages containing the product. Those labels stated the custoner's name and address, together with the identifi cation and quantity of the product. - 14 - (b) Distributed directly to this defendant's customer, Haveg Industries, in 1971 and 1972. (c) See answer to subpart (a) of Interrogatory No. 19. (d) No. (e) The answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the record of this defendant even though defendant is presently unaware of such documents. Nonetheless, this defendant ..relies upon its Rule 33 (c) option and will make such relevant documents if any exist available subject to any objection defendant may has as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. As further answer to this interrogatory, unknown. (f) Objected to on the grounds that this would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to cull through hundreds of documents in order to prepare the list called for. The answer to this subparagraph (f) of this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant even though defendant is presently unaware of such documents. Nonetheless,, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33(c) option and will make such relevant documents if any exist available subject to objections defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. (g) Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is unclear, unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and repetitive; calls for information already given above; and requests information not reason ably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also answer to Interrogatory No. 75. - 15 - 20. For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory i state whether warnings of any harmful or potentially harmful effects of the product were printed on the cartons or packing cases in which indi vidual containers were packed and, if so: (a) State the printed warning's contents; (b) State when the warning was used; (c) Describe the manner in which it was placed on or in .the product container; (d) Identify each individual who participated in writing of the label or brochure and describe in detail the extent of his parti cipation; (e) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to the information contained on the cartons or packing cases and the decision to include that information; (f) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. See answer to Interrogatory No. 19. 21. For each label, brochure, or other written material describing or relating to each process or method identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 9 (b) produced by you or any person associated with you or any related catpany or association; and for each such label, brochure or written material: (a) Describe its contents; (b) State when, where, how, and to wham it was distributed; (c) State whether any written, printed or graphic matter was present to warn of any harmful ingredient it might contain. If so, state: (i) Whether a signal word, i.e., "danger", "warning" or "caution" was present; (ii) Whether a signal word was printed in boldface, capital letters or different colored inks, and if so, which one; (iii) The wording of the statements describing any hazard; (iv) The wording of all directions and/or instructions pertaining to any method of use to avoid any hazard. (d) Identify each individual who participated in the writing of the label, brochure or other written materials and describe in detail the extent of his participation; (e) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to the information contained on the labels, brochures, or other written materials and/or the decision to include such information; (f) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. - 16 - A. Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory No. 19. 22. For each label, brochure, or other written material describing or relating to equipment identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 9 (c), produced by you or any person associated with you or any related company or association; and for each such label, brochure or written material; (a) Describe its contents; buted; (b) State when, where, how, and to whan it was distri (c) State whether any written, printed or graphic matter was present to warn of any harmful ingredient it might contain. If so, state; - (i) Whether a signal word, i.e., "danger", "warning" or "caution" was present; (ii) Whether a signal word was printed in boldface, capital letters or different colored inks, and if so, which one; hazard; (iii) The wording of the statements describing any (iv) The wording of all directions and/or instructions pertaining to any method of use to avoid any hazard. (d) Identify each individual who participated in the writing of the label, brochure or other written materials and describe in detail the extent of his participation; (e) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to the information contained on the labels, brochures, or other written materials and/or the decision to include such information; (f) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. Not applicable. 23. With regard to the production, distribution, and/or sale of each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 state whether you have ever been accused of violating any of the provisions of the Federal Labeling of Hazardous Substances Act, and, if so, state: (a) The date of each indictment, complaint or information that accused you of such violation; . (b) The court in which the proceedings were instituted; (c) The plea you entered; (d) The verdict and/or judgment in each such case; (e) The date set for trial of any pending case; (f) The identity of each document which reflects, refers or relates to information pertaining to such accusation; (g) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. - 17 - A. Objected to on the grounds that it would be unduly burden some, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to cull through many documents in order to be certain that no such accusation was made. The answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained frcn relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33(c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to objections defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. Without waiving this defendant's objection, this defendant further answers that it is unaware of any such accusations. 24. For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1, state whether you contend it is a "hazardous substance" as defined in 15 United States Code, Section 1261(f) and, if so, state with specificity and particularity the facts which you rely on to support that contention. A. Objected to on the grounds that it calls for the dis closure of impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories, all of which are not discoverable under Civil Rule 26 of the Superior Court. 25. With regard to each product identified in answer to Inter rogatory 1 state whether any quantity of that product has ever been seized by any agency of any government? and if so: (a) State the date of each such occurrence; (b) State the name or description of the violations of which you were accused; (c) State the court in which the action was filed; (d) Describe the judgment that was rendered; (e) State the date that has been set for trial of any pending case; (f) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to information pertaining to such seizure; (g) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. - 18 - A. NO. 26. State whether you have ever been the subject of any investigation or accusation by any Governmental Agency concerning the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-596, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). If so, state: (a) The date of such investigation, accusation, or other administrative or judicial procedure or action; (b) The administrative agency or court in which any proceedings arising from such investigation or accusation were heard or instituted; (c) The determination and results of any such accusation or action; (d) The identity of each document which refers or relates to information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. Objected on the ground that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this ccrrplaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant ' information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objected to on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppres sive and unduly expensive to cull through many documents in order to be certain that no such investigation or accusation was made. The answer to this interrogatory ray be derived or ascertained fran relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33 (c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to objections defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. Without waiving this defen dant's objection, this defendant further answers that it is unaware of any such investigations or accusations with regard to each product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 1. - 19 - 27. State what action, if any, you have taken since 1935 tc reduce or eliminate any risk of occupational disease or personal injur/ to those engaged in the manufacture of your, asbestos products or to these using your asbestos products which arises form the inhalation of dust and fibers. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiv ing this defendant's objection, this defendant answers that it discon tinued the sale of its High Bulk Asbestos Paper as shewn in the letter dated December 11, 1972 fran Graham Blandy III to Eugene. O'Neill of Hsveg Industries a copy of which is attached hereto and race a part hereof as Exhibit "A". 28. Describe in full and complete detail each of the activi ties which you have undertaken with the intention of warning the public of the effects of any product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 as to the health of the user or general public and give the inclusive dates of each such activity, and: (a) Identify each individual who participated therein and describe the nature of his participation; (b) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to information pertaining to such warning; (c) As to any information received orally in answer tc this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. Objected to on the ground that this interrogatory is vague, unclear and too broad covering areas which have no relevancy tc the issues raised in this corplaint and which are not reasonably calcu lated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this defendant's objection, this defendant - 20 - answers none. Since this defendant did not sell to "the public", it, in turn, had no obligation to undertake activities "vith the intenticn of warning the public" of the effects of High Bulk Asbestos Paper. 29. Have you or any of your companies conducted any studies concerning the effects of inhalation of asbestos dust or fibers by one using or being exposed to any of the asbestos materials manufactured by you and/or any of your companies? In answer to this question, please state: (a) The date, nature and location of your studies; (b) The name or names of the persons conducting the studies and their address and describe in detail the extent of their participation; (c) The purpose of the studies; (d) The identity of each document which refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; . (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. Objected to cn the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this defendant's objection, this defendant answers no. 30. Have you or any of your ccnpanies conducted any studies designed to minimize or eliminate the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use of any of the products containing asbestos materials manufactured by you or any of your ccnpanies? If so: (a) The date, nature and location of your studies; (b) The name or names of the persons conducting such studies and their address and describe in detail the extent of this participation; (c) State what action, if any, was taken based upon such studies in an effort to minimize or eliminate the effects of inhalation of asbestos dust or fibers upon those using or being exposed to the dust and fibers contained in such products as manufactured by your company; (d) Identify each document which refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. - 21 - A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this canplaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this defendant's objection, this defendant answers: no. However, this defendant did eliminate the manufacturing of High Bulk Asbestos Paper in 1972. 31. What technique, if any, did and/or do you use to make dust samplings in the manufacturing and packaging production environment or at job sites where your materials are used? (a) Set forth in detail the technique used, when it was contnenced and when, if ever, it was' concluded; (b) State the purpose for administering such samplings; (c) State the results of such samplings; (d) State what action, if any, has been taken in response to the findings as to the dust samples; (e) Identify each document which refers or relates to such sanpling; ' (f) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied; (g) Identify the living person who has the most knowledge of matters discussed herein. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is tcc broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this canplaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this defendant's objection, this defendant did not make any dust samp lings at job sites where this defendant had no control over the working conditions at the Haveg plant. 32. State what, if any safety measures were taken by you as to your employees, during the processing, manufacturing and packaging of - 22 - products containing asbestos including but r.ot limited to products that have been distributed to the duPont Coroanv. If any such safety treasures were taken, state: clothing; (a) The reason for the use of such measures, equipment or (b) Identify each document relating to safety procedures taken by employees or plant personnel in the manufacture, processing and packaging of such products; (c) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory has no relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admis sible evidence. As further answer, plaintiffs have not alleged that they worked for this defendant or that they were employed in the manufacture and packaging of asbestos products. 33. State: (a) Knowledge as to any respirator or other breathing device which was on the market during the relevant period which would prevent the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers; (b) A detailed description of such respirator or other breathing device, together with all information as to how such device prevents the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers; (c) What tests, if any, were conducted, by whan and where, with regard to the effectiveness of any such device; (d) Identify each document in any defendant's possession which refers or relates to the subject matter of this interrogatory; (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. (a) Unknown. This defendant during 1971 and 1972 was only aware of devices or dust masks that would minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. - 23 - (b) Not applicable. (c) Not applicable. . (d) Not applicable. (e) Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is unclear, unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and repetitive; calls for information already given above; and requests information not reason ably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also answer to Interrogatory No. 75. Without waiving this objection, this defendant further answers: not applicable. ' 34. Have you or anyone on your behalf conducted or had con ducted any investigation of the statistical and/or epidemiological relationship between the use of any product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 and the contraction by humans or animals of cancer including but not limited to mesothelioma. If so: (a) Identify each person participating in such investiga tion and describe in detail the extent of this participation; ' (b) State when the investigation was conducted; (c) Identify the person or persons who authorized the investigation; (d) Identify each document which refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. No. 35. Have you or anyone on your behalf conducted or had con ducted any investigation of the statistical and/or epidemiological relationship between the use of any product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 and the contraction by humans of pulmonary asbestosis. If so: (a) Identify each person participating in such investiga tion and describe in detail the extent of his participation; (b) State when the investigation was conducted; (c) Identify the person or persons who authorized the investigation; (d) Identify each document which refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; - 24 - (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information studied. A. No. 36. Describe in detail all written and oral reports including those reports originating fran lasers of any of the products identified in answer to Interrogatory 1, including doctors, and employees and agents of the defendants concerning any relationship between the use of these products and the development of pulmonary asbestosis in humans or ani mals; (a) Identify all persons making said reports and to whan said reports were made; (b) State whether any report cr series of reports initiated changes and/or reevaluation of the production, sale or use, or recaimendations for use, of any of those products; . . (c) Identify each document which refers or relates to any ' information set forth' in answer to this interrogatory; (d) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory has no relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admis sible evidence. As further answer, plaintiffs have not alleged that they worked for this defendant or that they were employed in the manufacture and packaging of asbestos products. Without waiving this defendant's objection, this defendant answers: none to our knowledge. 37. Describe in detail all written and oral reports including those reports originating from users of any of the products identified in answer to Interrogatory 1, including doctors, employees and agents of the defendants concerning any relationship between the use of any of those products and the development of cancer including but not limited to mesothelioma in humans or animals: (a) Identify all persons making said reports and to whom said reports were made; (b) State whether any report or series of reports initiated changes and/or reevaluation of the production, sale or use, or recommendations for use, of any of those products; - 25 - (c) Identify each document which refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; (a) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. See answer to Interrogatory No. 36. 38. For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 state whether the production and/or sale of the product has been discon tinued and, if so: (a) State when it was discontinued; (b) State with specificity and particularity all the reasons for the discontinuance; (c) Identify each individual who participated in the decision to discontinue production and/or sale and describe in detail the extent of his participation; -. ' (d) Identify all documents which reflect, .refer or relate to each such discontinuance; * " '' ' ` ' (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. Yes. (a) The production and sale of High Bulk Asbestos Paper was discontinued in 1972. (b) Inability to process the fiber. (c) Presently unknown. (d) Objected to on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to cull through our business records. The answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33(c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to any objections defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with - 26 - Pule 26. Without waiving this defendant's objection: see letter dated December 11, 1972 from Graham Blanay III (Exhibit "A"). (e) Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is unclear, unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and repetitive; calls for information already given above; and requests information not reason ably calculated to lead to relevant information to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also answer to Interrogatory No. 75. 39. For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1, state whether the production and/or sale of that product has been limited and/or curtailed or reduced and, if so: (a) . Describe how it was so limited or curtailed or reduced; ' " ' (b) State when it was so limited, curtailed or reduced; (c) State with specificity and particularity all of the reasons for the limitation, curtailment, or reduction; (d) Identify each individual who participated and the extent of his participation in the decision to so limit, curtail or reduce production and/or sale; (e) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to the limitation, curtailment or reduction and/or the decision to implement the limitation, curtailment or reduction; (f) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. See answer to Interrogatory No. 38. 40. Do you contend that each of the products identified in Interrogatory 1 do not or did not create any risk to one who applies or uses the product? (a) If so, state the factual basis for each such conten tion; (b) If not, state: (i) The degree and kind of risk which is created by such use; (ii) The conditions under which such risk is created, increased or decreased; (iii) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to your answers to this interrogatory; - 27 - (iv) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. Objected to on the grounds that it calls for the dis closure of impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal theories and ether expert opinions or conclusions which are not discoverable under Civil Rule 26 of the Surserior Court. 41. .Do you contend that it was not your responsibility to warn workers of the risk of harm arising from the use of your product or of the danger of asbestos to their health? (a) State the factual basis for such response; (b) .Identify each document which reflects,, refers or relates .to..your answers-to this interrogatory;. .. (c) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. See answer to Interrogatory No. 40. 42. Do you contend that it was only the responsibility of the employing ccrtpany involved, or others, to so warn the workers of the risk of harm arising frem the use of your product or of the danger of asbestos to their health? (a) State the basis for such contention; (b) Identify which others were so responsible; (c) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to your answer to this interrogatory; (d) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. See answer to Interrogatory No. 40. 43. Do you contend that the danger to any plaintiff was not foreseeable at the time the products alleged to have caused his injuries were sold? If so, as to each plaintiff: (a) State the factual basis for such contention; (b) Identify each document relied upon in support of such contention; (c) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. - 28 - A. See answer to Interrogatory No. 40. 44. Do you contend that the danger from the use by plaintiffs of products containing asbestos was obvious? If so, as to each plaintiff: (a) State the factual basis for such contention; (b) Identify all documents relied upon in support of such contention; (c) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. See answer to Interrogatory No. 40. Without waiving its objection, this defendant does not knew what was obvious to the plaintiffs. ' ' 45. Do you- contend that plaintiffs knew, understood and appreciated the danger arising fran their contact with asbestos which you mined or distributed or products containing asbestos which you manufac tured or distributed? If so, as to each plaintiff: (a) State the factual basis for such contention; (b) Identify all documents relied upon in support of such contention; (c) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. See answer to Interrogatory No. 40. Without waiving its objection, this defendant does not knew what was known, understood and appreciated by the plaintiffs. 46. Do you contend that plaintiffs voluntarily and unreason ably exposed themselves to the danger arising from their contact with asbestos which you mined or distributed or products containing asbestos which you manufactured or distributed? If so, as to each plaintiff: (a) State the factual basis for such contention; (b) Identify all documents relied upon in support of such contention; (c) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. - 29 - A. See answer to Interrogatory No. 40. 47. Do you contend that plaintiffs used any asbestos which you mined or distributed or any products containing asbestos which you manufactured or distributed in other than their usual, customary and expected manner? If so, as to each plaintiff: (a) State the name and chemical composition of the product claimed to have been used in other than its usual, customary and expected manner? (b) State in detail the manner in which plaintiffs used said product in other than its usual, customary and expected manner; contention; (c) Identify each document relied upon in support of such _(d) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. See-answer to Interrogatory No. 40. Without waiving its' objection, defendant does not know how any of the plaintiffs used defendant's product. 48. With regard to each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 or 8, state whether you have ever been named as a defendant in any civil action, including Workmen's Compensation Actions, filing of Workmen's Compensation consent agreements, or other proceed ings, to recover damages for injuries resulting from asbestosis and asbestos related pleural disease received as a result of using that product and, if so, for each proceeding; (a) State the name and address of each plaintiff; (b) State the name and address of each co-defendant; . (c) State the date it was filed; (d) State the name of the Court in which it was filed; (e) Describe the judgment rendered; (f) State the date that has been set for trial of any case still pending; (g) Describe the terms of any settlement reached before or during trial; . (h) State whether any appeal is pending from any judgment that has been rendered; (i) State the exact nature of the condition alleged in such action to have resulted from the plaintiff's use of or contact with said product and identify the product involved; (j) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to any information pertaining to that complaint. - 30 - A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objected on the grounds that this would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to cull through many documents in order to identify the relevant documents called for and also on the grounds that said interrogatory calls for documents available as matters of public record which are available to plaintiffs. The answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant.- Therefore, this'defendant relies upon its Rule 33(c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to objections defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. Without waiving its objection, this defendant answers: yes. This defendant is named in New Jersey law suits by em ployees of Johns Manville which used this defendant's High Bulk Asbestos Paper. This paper was manufactured by this defendant pursuant to Johns Manville's specifications. 49. With regard to each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 or 8, state whether you have ever received a notice of injury to any other person as a consequence of a condition of asbestosis, asbestos related pleural disease and cancer resulting from the use of that product and, if so: (a) State the date it was received; (b) State the name and address of the injuried person; (c) Describe in detail the canplaint; (d) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to any information pertaining to that complaint; (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. - 31 - A. See answer to Interrogatory No. 48. 50. With regard to each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 or 8 state whether you have ever been named as a defendant in any other action to recover damages for injuries resulting fran cancer including but not limited to mesotheliaia received as a result of using that product and, if so: (a) State the name and address of each plaintiff; (b) State the name and address of each co-defendant; (c) State the date it was filed; (d) State the name of the court in which it was filed; (e) Describe the judgment rendered; (f) State the date that has been set for trial of any. case still pending; (g) Describe the terms of any settlement reached before or during trial; (h) State whether any appeal is pending from any judgment that has been rendered. A. See answer to Interrogatory No. 48. 51. With respect to the period frcm 1950 through 1980, state the name, addresses and company title or position of each person who at any time during that period was in charge of the following activities with regard to each of the products identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 or 8: (a) Production; (b) Marketing; (c) Labeling; (d) Advertising; (e) Product evaluation; (f) Research and development; (g) Distribution. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this ccmplaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objected to on the grounds that this would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppres sive and unduly expensive to cull through many documents in order to obtain the information called for. The answer to this interrogatory may - 32 - be derived or ascertained fran relevant portions of the record of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33(c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to any objection defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. Without waiving its objection, this defendant answers for the relevant years of 1971 and 1972 as follows: (a) Donald G. Magill, Jr., former Vice President and Division Manager . Massachusetts Mills 7 Wyeth Road Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 (b) Stoughton L. Ellsworth, now Vice President ' /. ` of Sales" . East Walpole, Massachusetts 13 Canpello Road Framingham, MA 01701 (c)-(e) Not .applicable. (f) Harold W. Knudson, former Vice President of Research and Development 9 Victoria Circle Norwood, Massachusetts 02062 (g) Not applicable. 52. Identify the living parties or persons who are the most knowledgeable about asbestos mined and products containing asbestos sold and/or distributed by your from 1936 to present. Identify all documents which relate to such sales and/or distribution. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this carplaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence and also on the ground that even if said request was relevant, it would be unduly burden some, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to make such identifica tion. The answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained - 33 - from relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33 (c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to any objections defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. Without waiving this defendant's objection, this defendant answers: Harold W. Knudson Graham Blandy III 53. Have you or has anyone on your behalf attended an/or participated in any conference, seminar, lecture or synposium dealing with the hazards of using any product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 or 8 of asbestos in general and, if so, state: (a) The date and place of such conference, seminar, lecture or symposium;- ' ... .` (b) The person or persons conducting such conference, seminar, lecture or synposium; (c) The person or persons who attended on your behalf; (d) The subject matter of such conference, seminar, lecture or synposium; . (e) The speakers and/or moderators at such conference, seminar, lecture or synposium; (f) Whether any reports or memoranda were made concerning the subject matter of such conference, seminar, lecture or synposium; identifying each such report or memorandum. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence and also on the ground that even if said request was relevant, it would be unduly burdensane, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to make such identifica tion. The answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33 (c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to any objections defendant may have as to - 34 - privilege, work product or other ratters in conformity with Rule 26. Without waiving this defendant's objection; this defendant answers: presently unknown. 54. Are you familiar with the hearing concerning the dangers of asbestos conducted in March, 1967 before the House of Representatives of the United States Congress Sub-Carmittee on Labor? If so, identify those person who are or were associated with you chat were familiar with that hearing. A. _No. 55. State when, if at ail, you received knowledge of the following publications or matters discussed therein, who received such knowledge and identify all documents relating to such knowledge: (a) Fleischer, Viles, Gade and Drinker, "A health Survey of Pipe-Covering Operations in Construction Naval Vessels," 28 J. Indus. Hyg. 9-16. (b) Selikoff, et al., "Asbestosis and Neoplasia," 42 Am. J. Med. (1967); . (c) Selikoff, Churg and Harmon, "The Occurrence of Asbestosis Among Industrial Insulation Workers," 132 Ann. New York Acad. Sc. 139 (1965); (d) "Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Substances in Workroom Air," A.C.G.I.H. (3rd 1971); (e) "Threshold Limit Values for 1961," A.C.G.I.H. (1961); (f) 1906 report by Dr. H. Montague Murray; (g) 1934 study by Dr. Anthony J. Lanza, Assistant Medical Director of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. A. Not applicable. 56. Identify each publication contained in your research library, or otherwise in your custody, including but not by way of limitation, your Research and Development Center, all medical journals, industrial medical journals, industrial hygiene journals, technical literature in the area of asbestos mining, manufacture, application and use, and Governmental publications, dealing with occupational diseases arising from the manufacture and use of asbestos-containing products. As to all such publications, state the volumes which are in your custody and control, when each such volume was received and the present location of such publications. - 35 - A. Objected to cn the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad and calls for information having no relevancy to the issues raised in this canplaint and are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or the discovery of admissible evidence. Also objected to on the grounds that said interrogatory calls for documents available as matter of public record which are available to plaintiffs and also on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to go through defendant's records to provide the infor mation called for. The answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33 (c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to any objection defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26 in the even this interrogatory must be responded to. Without waiving this defendant's objection, since 1972 this defendant has re ceived same books and periodicals dealing with asbestos. 57. As to any threshold limit values published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist, state whether you have brought such information to the attention of those using your products. If you have not done so, state the reasons why you have not dene so. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad and calls for information having no relevancy to the issues raised in this canplaint and are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or the discovery of admissible evidence. Also objected to on the grounds that said interrogatory calls for documents available as matter of public record which are available to plaintiffs and also on the 36 grounds that it would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to go through defendant's records to provide the infor mation called for. The answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained frcm relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33(c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to any objection defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26 in the even this interrogatory must be responded to. Further, to the extent applicable, this interrogatory is objected to on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories, all of which are not discoverable under Civil Rule 26 of the Superior Court. Without waiving said objections, this defendant presently has no records or recollection of doing so during the times relevant to this defendant and if in fact this defendant "did not" it was probably because its product caused no problem since the paper had a binder and further because the product was produced according to Haveg specification and Haveg had knowledge about the use of the product at the Haveg plant. 58. Have you been: (a) a member of or (b) affiliated in any manner with or (c) received reports or (d) subscribed for reports or publication to the Industrial Hygiene Foundation of Pittsburgh? A. No. & 59. With regard to Interrogatory 58, what years did you participate under (a), (b), (c) or (d) ? A. Not applicable. 60. With regard to Interrogatory 58, do you have any documents obtained from the Industrial Hygiene Foundation? If so: (a) List all such documents? (b) Who currently has them in their possession? (c) When was each received? (d) State the name of the individuals who received such documents or information contained in such documents. A. (a) IHF Engineering Services dated 1/70 (brief fact sheet describing their engineering services -- two pages). (b) Paul A. Walker, Senior Environmental Engineer - (c) June 8, 1970 (d) Donald G. Magill -- former Vice President and Division Manager, Massachusetts Mills. 61. Have you received any reports or documents prepared by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 1929 to about 1960, concerning statistical and other studies of asbestos workers for Johns-Manville? If so, state: ' (a) The documents received; (b) Who received them and when; (c) The current location of the documents. A. No. 62. State all chemical, industrial, medical or trade associa tions to which you have belonged since 1936. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this ccnplaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, without waiving said objection, this defendant in 1971 and 1972 belonged to the following associations which may have discussed at one time or another asbestos products. Representatives of this defendant attended various meetings and seme simply received publications or mailings. - 38 - American Paper Institute - Specialty Paper and Board (formerly API - Assoc, of Pulp Consumers) . Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) Business Council of New York State (formerly Associated Industries of New York State) INDA Massachusetts Safety Council National Association of Manufactures (NAM) National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement National Safety Council TAPPI (Technical Assoc, for the Pulp and Paper Industry) Institute of Environmental Sciences (formerly American Association for Contamination Control) 1942 - Present 1969 - Present 1968 - Present 1968 - Present 1960 - Present 1971 - Present 1962 - Present 1952 - Present 1964 - Present 1961-1975 63. With regard to the associations enumerated in the answer to Interrogatory 62, state: (a) The names of each individual associated with the answering defendant since that date who have had dealings with each said association; (b) Describe the nature of their dealings with each such association; (c) State their last known address; (d) If still employed, their current job and title. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad and calls for information having no relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or the discovery of admissible evidence. Also objected to on the grounds that said interrogatory calls for documents available as - 39 - ratter of public record which are available to plaintiffs and also on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to go through defendant's records to provide the infor mation called for. The answer to this interrogatory ray be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33(c) option and will rake such relevant documents available subject to any objection defendant ray have as to privilege, work product or other ratters in conformity with Rule 26 in the even this interrogatory oust be responded to. See also answer to Interrogatory No. 62. Without waiving this defendant's objec tion, defendant supplies the following information: American Paper Institute - Specialty Paper and Board (formerly API - Assoc, of Pulp Consumers) Mark Hollingsworth (deceased) Edward J. McCormick, Vice President - Industrial Relations David R. Smith, Vice President - Engineering Walter F. Kopke, former Director of Purchasing Phillip L. Jenkins, Director of Purchasing Harvey W. F. Mason, Vice President - Manufacturing Richard E. Reny (deceased) Stoughton L. Ellsworth, Vice President - Sales Carl Hazelton, former Techni cal Director Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) Business Council of New York State (formerly Associated Industries of New York State) Mark Hollingsworth (deceased) Edward J. McCormick, Vice President Industrial Relations Leonard Sinpson, New York Mill Manager Phillip L. Jenkins, Director of Purchasing - 40 - INDA Massachusetts Safety Council National Association of Manufactures (NAM) National Council of the'Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement National Safety Council TAPPI (Technical Assoc, for the Pulp and Paper Industry) Richard E. Reny (deceased) Stouchton L. Ellsworth, Vice President - Sales James LaValley, Personnel Manager, West Groton, Massachusetts Thomas Cbea (deceased) , former Personnel Manager '.vest Groton, Massachusetts Edward J. McCormick, Vice President - Industrial Pelations Frank Harmon (deceased), former Personnel Manager West Groton, Massachusetts Walter Golden (deceased), former Personnel Manager East Walpole, Massachusetts Representatives who mayhave attended or received publication or mailings are presently unknown Harold Knuason, former Vice President - Research and (Development (retired) Edward J. McCormick, Vice President - Industrial Relations Everett Gillis (retired) Thcras Cbea (deceased) John Eanton, former Mill Manager - East Walpole Frank Harmon (retired) Walter Golden (deceased), former Personnel Manager, East Walpole, Massachusetts R. McLauchlon (deceased), former Personnel Manager, East Walpole, Massachusetts T. E. MacLeon (deceased), former Personnel Manager, East Walpole, Massachusetts Harold W. Knudson, former Vice President - Research and Development (retired) - 41 - Institute of Environmental Sciences (formerly American Association for Contamination Control) Robert Parsons, Senior Development Engineer Harold W. Knudson, former Vice President - Research and Development (retired) J. Loring, former Development Engineer, Hovolite Department, West Groton, Massachusetts 64. Name each corporate officer and/or member of corporate management who attended any meeting and/or conference concerning the health and medical aspects of asbestos and/or the use of products con taining asbestos, and for each person identified, state the nature of his participation in each such meeting or conference. A. See answer to Interrogatory No. 63. 65. State the sources of all products containing asbestos which have been incorporated in any product manufactures by you which have been distributed, sold and/or utilized from 1936 to 1980. (a) State the names of all individuals associated with the above stated sources who dealt with or handled your account; (b) Identify any such document which refers, reflects or relates to any information provided in answer to this interrogatory; (c) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no- relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence and also on the ground that even if said request was relevant, it would be unduly burden some, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to make such identifica tion. However, without waiving this defendant's objection to this interrogatory, the answer to this interrogatory' may be derived or ascer tained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant. There fore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33(c) option and will make such 42 - relevant documents available subject to any objections defendant may have as to privilege, work produce cr other matters in conformity with Rule 26. Without waiving this defendant's objection, this defendant answers: North American Asbestos. See also answer to Interrogatory No. 7(a). (a) See answer to this Interrogatory No. 65. Presently unknown. (b) See answer to this Interrogatory No. 65. (c) Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is unclear, unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and repetitive; calls for information already given above; and requests information not reason ably calculated to lead to relevant information to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also answer to Interrogatory No. 75. 66. For each product identified in the answer to interrogatory 1 or 8, which you distributed, identify the source fran which you obtained the product. (a) State the names of all individuals associated with the above stated sources who dealt with or handled your account and specify who handled your account for products distributed to Delaware; (b) Identify any such documents which refer, reflect or relate to any information provided in answer to this interrogatory. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this carpi a int and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence and also on the ground that even if said request was relevant it would be unduly burden some, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to make such identifica tion. However, without waiving this defendant's objection to this interrogatory, the answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascer- - 43 - tained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant. There fore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33(c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to any objections defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. Without waiving this defendant's objection, this defendant was the source of its own products. It did not distribute High Bulk Asbestos Paper obtained from another source. Graham Blandy III, Sales Representa tive, handled our account with Haveg. See also answer to Interrogatory No. 65. 67. State the names of all individuals associated with you who had any dealings with the requisition and/or procurement of asbestos or products containing asbestos as indicated in answer to interrogatories 65 and 66 and for each such person: (a) Identify the nature of his association(s), the locations and the dates of their occurrence; (b) Identify each document which refers, reflects or relates to any information provided in answer to this interrogatory; (c) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. A. (a)-(b) Objected to on the grounds that this interroga tory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this complaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence and also on the ground that even if said request was relevant, it would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to make such identification. However, without waiving this defendant's objection to this interrogatory, the answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33(c) option and will make - 44 - such relevant documents available subject to any objections defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other- matters in conformity with Rule 26. Without waiving this defendant's objections, Walter F. Kopke, former Director of Purchasing delt with the requisition and/or procure ment of raw asbestos. 68. State the names of all individuals who dealt with or handled the account with and/or made any sales to the employer of the plaintiff of asbestos and/or products containing asbestos. .(a) Describe in detail the nature and dates of each such association with the said accounts; (b) Identify each document which refers, reflects or relates to any information provided in answer to this interrogatory. A. Objected to on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to cull through many documents in order to respond to the requests in subparagraph (a) and (b). The answer to subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33 (c) option and will make such relevant documents available subject to objec tions defendant may have as to privilege, work product or other matters in conformity with Rule 26. Without waiving this defendant's objection, this defendant answers Graham Blandy III. 69. Identify each individual wham you expect to call as an expert witness at the trial of this litigation, and for each person identified: (a) The subject on which the expert is expected to testify and the substance of the facts and opinions to which he or she is expected to testify and a sumnary of the grounds for each opinion; (b) Identify each document referring, relating or con taining any such facts and/or opinions and identify each individual having custody of each document identified. - 45 - A. Unknown at this time. 70. Identify each individual who have retained or employed or anticipate retaining or employing in any way in preparation of or antici pation of trial in this litigation who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial, and for each such individual: (a) State the substance of any facts or opinion which he or she has discussed with any agent, employee or representative of the answering defendant, together with a summary of the grounds for each opinion; (b) Identify each document referring to or containing such facts and/or opinions, and identify each person having custody of each document identified. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory' calls for information not discoverable under Civil Rule 26 of the Superior Court. 71. State the names, last known addresses and telephone numbers of each and every person whom you intend to call as a witness at the trial of this litigation. (a) State the substance of any facts or opinion which he or she has discussed with any agent, employee or representative of the answering defendant, together with a summary of the grounds for each opinion; (b) Identify each document referring to or containing such facts and/or opinions, and identify each person having custody of each document identified; (c) Specify witnesses you intend to use at the trial of this case with respect to the occurrences and/or cause of plaintiffs' illnesses or with respect to the claimed damages or with respect to your liability. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory calls for information not discoverable under Civil Rule 26 of the Superior Court, and any other Civil Rule of this Court or Delaware decisional law. As further answer but without waiving this defendant's objection to this interrogatory, at the present time this defendant has not decided who it intends to call as witnesses for the trial in this case. - 46 - 72. State: (a) Whether your corporation is insured; (b) If so, the limits of coverage; (c) The name of the insurance company; (d) Whether this claim has been accepted or whether a letter of intent to deny coverage has been received. A. (a) Yes. (b) $500,000 (c) The Travelers Insurance Caipanv (d) Coverage of this defendant has been accepted. 73. In whose possession are your and your predecessors' annual reports from 1936 to the present? Produce such reports. A. Howard P. Whittle. Annual reports are available at this defendant's plant at East Walpole, Massachusetts, for review and copying at a mutually convenient time. ' 74. Describe in detail your policy with respect to the destruction of records pertaining to each of the products identified in answer to Interrogatory 1. (a) Identify all documents pertaining to your policy, if any, regarding the destruction of such records; (b) Identify the person or persons having custody of such policy documents; ' (c) Identify the person or persons in charge of destroy ing records pertaining to each such product; (d) Identify each document which refers, reflects or relates to any information provided in answer to this interrogatory; (e) Describe what steps, if any, you have taken since the institution of this action or other actions involving asbestos to prevent the destruction of any documents relating to asbestos. . A. This defendant has no set retention or destruction of corporate records policy except for certain accounting records retained until no longer subject to audit by Federal and State authorities. Nonetheless, all documents in this defendant's possession at the time of - 47 - the institution of this action and at the time of the institution of other actions involving asbestos have been retained. 75. State the names of all individuals who aided in the preparation of these answers, and for each such person, state: (a) Which interrogatories they helped prepare or the particular subject area for which they supplied information; (b) Their current position with the company; (c) Their current or last kncwn home and business address and phone numbers. A. This defendant has consulted numerous individuals on an informal bases to obtain various bits and pieces of information. The following individuals are those most responsible in aiding in the prepara tion of these answers: Paul A. Walker - Senior Environmental Engineer 27 Atherton Road Foxboro, Massachusetts 02035 Howard P. Whittle - Treasurer 185 Parker Street Acton, Massachusetts 01720 Mary Gaetani - Secretary to Howard P. Whittle 7 Willis Lane Foxboro, Massachusetts 02035 Harold W. Knudson - former Vice President, Research and Development (retired) Graham Blandy III - Sales Representative 76. State all processes used by plaintiff's employer, known to any defendant where asbestos was an ingredient. A. Unknown except this defendant knows that Haveg Industries used this defendant's High Bulk Asbestos Paper for the Chemtite Process. 77. State all of asbestos insulation by plaintiff's employer, known to any defendant. . (a) Types of asbestos insulation used; (b) Manufacturer and/or brand names; (cj Locations in said plants where said insulation was used; - 48 - (d) The person most knowledgeable in said corporation about the purchasing of insulation by distributors that covered the states of New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Naryland. A. Unknown. 78. If you have insurance including secondary or tertiary coverage, state: (a) Policy number and amount; (b) Company underwriting said insurance; (c) The name of your contact in said company concerning asbestos claims. A. (a) and (b) The Travelers Insurance Company One Tower Square Hartford, CT 06115 American Policyholders Insurance Company Quannapawut Parkwav Wakefield, MA 01880 First State Insurance 60 Batterymarch Street Boston, MA 02110 Hartford Insurance Company Hartford Plaza Hartford, CT 06115 For futher answer, see list of expiration cates, policy numbers, insurance ccrpanies and amounts attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B". (c) Objected to on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant, confidential, privileged and not reasonably calcu lated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. 79. State whether you have entered into any agreement, either oral or written, with any other defendant in this action regarding - 49 - \ (a) Settlement or non-settlement and/or (b) Allocation of damages, should the plaintiffs prevail on liability. If the answer is yes to either of the above, state the substance of each such agreement and such parties who have entered into this agreement: (a) Identify those person who participated in the prepara tion of each such agreement and describe in detail the nature and extent of his participation; and (b) Identify each document which contains, refers or relates to each such agreement. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this canplaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this defendant's objection this defendant makes the following further answer--No. 80. Do you or your attorneys know of any person or person not listed in the preceding answers having knowledge of facts relevant to the allegation in this lawsuit including witnesses to the accident, injury, illnesses, etc., in question? If yes, please state the names, addresses, heme telephone numbers, places of employment, relationship to you, the present whereabouts of all such persons, and which of said persons you intend to produce as witnesses in the trial of this action. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad, unduly burdensome and to the extent it calls for attorney-client materials and attorney work product. Without waiving this defendant's objection this defendant makes the following further answer--no. 81. Do you or your attorneys have any written statements which you have not previously produced in this suit fron any persons having knowledge of facts relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit, in cluding witnesses to the accident, injury, illnesses, etc., in question? If yes, please state the names, addresses, home telephone numbers, places of employment, relationship to you and the present whereabouts of all such persons. - 50 - A. Objected to cn the grounds that this interrogatory is too broad, unduly burdensome and to the extent it calls for attorney-client materials and attorney work product. Without waiving this defendant's objection this defendant makes the following further answer--no. 32. State whether you were a member of the Asbestos Informa tion Association (A.I.A.) or in any manner received information or participated in any of the association's activities. A. . Yes. But only after 1972; namely, 1977 to the present. 83. If your answer to any part of Interrogatory 82 is in the affirmative, please state; (a) The date, times and places of any A.I.A. meetings attended; (b) The date and time period during which you received any publication of the A.I.A.; (c) The name, address and telephone number of each and every person who attended such meetings and to whan any such publications were sent; (d) The nature of the information that was furnished at meetings or in such publications; (e) Name, address and telephone number of the present or last known custodian of any copies of A.I.A. newsletters, correspondence or publications. A. (a) Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is . too broad covering areas which have no relevancy' to the issues raised in this complaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence and also on the ground that even if said request was relevant, it would be unduly burden- seme, annoying, oppressive and unduly expensive to make such identifica tion. The answer to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained frail relevant portions of the records of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant relies upon its Rule 33(c) option and will mate such relevant documents available subject to any objections defendant may have as to - 51 - privilege, work product or other ratters in conformity with Rule 26. Without waiving this defendant's objection, this defendant was not a member of this association until 1977 when representatives of this defendant attended sane of the AIA meetings. (b) See answer to subpart (a) of this Interrogatory No. S3. This defendant received publications from AIA after it became a member of said association in 1977. (c) See answer to subpart (a) of this Interrogatory NO. 83. (d) See answer to subpart (a) of this Interrogatory No. 83. (e) Paul A. Walker. 84. State whether you received a publication known as the "Asbestos Magazine". A. No. 85. If your answer to Interrogatory 84 is in the affirmative, please state: (a) The date and time periods during which you received such publication; (b) The frequency of receipt, e.g., regularly, occasionally, rarely, etc.; (c) The terms, circumstances or requirements of receipt of such publication, e.g., free, by subscription, distributed at meetings, etc.; (d) Name, address and telephone number of the present or last kncwn custodian of any copies of such magazine. A. Not applicable. 86. Does the answering defendant have in its possession any medical records, not previously produced in this case relating to any of the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, charts, x-rays, physical examination reports, summaries, tape recordings of interviews and any and all other records pertaining to the medical condition of the plaintiffs? - 52 - If so, plaintiffs request that such records be produced in accordance with Rule 34. A. No. . 87. With respect to each contention contained in your response to the Complaint, state the following: (a) Identify which defense it relates to; (b) Each fact upon which your contention is based; (c) The names and present or last known addresses and present or last known employer of all persons having knowledge of any of the facts set out in answer to subparagraph (b) hereof; (d) The description or designation of each document which in any way reflects, relates or refers to any of the facts set out in answer to subparagraph (b) hereof. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is unclear, too broad, unduly burdensome and repetitive. 88. Other than annual reports produced pursuant to No. 73 above, identify documents which accurately reflect the following informa tion as to the answering defendant for each calendar year since 1940: (a) Total net worth; (b) Profits; (c) Total earnings; (d) Specific earnings attributed to the manufacture and/or distribution of any products containing asbestos. A. Objected to on the grounds that this interrogatory is unduly burdensare, annoying, oppressive, repetitive, too broad covering areas which have no relevancy to the issues raised in this canplaint and which are not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information or to the discovery of admissible evidence and is proprietary in nature. Mav 16, 1984 Eleventh Floor, Rodney Square North P. O. Box 391 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Attorney for Defendant Hollingsworth & VoseGcnpany December 11, 1972 Mr. Eugene O'Neill Haves Industries, Incorporated 900 Greanbank Noad ' Wilmington, Delaware Dear Gene: I id. 11 attempt to recap my conversation with you on 12/8/72, so that I end ay company can go on record with regards to our future intentions on the manufacture of T-4l Asbestos paper. We completed the run of T-Ul on. 12/7/72, end shipped 18 pallets, 5U rolls, 16,446 lbs. to you on 12/7/72. The balance of approx imately 24,000 lbs. will be chipped the week of 12/11/72. Due to indescribable difficulties encountered in preparing for the run, manufacturing the paper and cleaning up after the run we wish to go on record and state that we will not under any circumstances consider manufacturing this grade again. As you veil knew, asbestos fiber is an extremely hazardous fiber to handle. In order to process your paper ana keep the hazards to a minimum, ell-of the asbestos had to be re-shidded and then soaked . in a large tank to minimize dusting throughout the Dili. Protective clotiling and'nasks were used by all Dili personnel during and after the run cncive wash-up procedures were necessary, (it is new eighteen hours after the completion of the run and we have yet to complete the clean up), in order to eliminate traces of the asbestos fiber and we will not know for some time to what degree the machine and stock systems have been contaminated. All in all, it was an experience which we do not wish to repeat and therefore, ve are forced to terminate, the manufacture of this grade ns of now. As to the future, wc stand ready to assist you in finding another source for this material and would suggest as a starter that you ap proach Nicolct Industries in Norristown, Pennsylvania, who have manu factured asbestos papers for a number of years. I have asked our production department to gather together information covering the preparation and manufacture of this grade and we will send along to you as complete a file as ve can come up with in order EXHIBIT A HOLTJj'iGSTCRTH & VOSE COMPANY General Liability Policies Exoiration Date Policy Number *1/1/62 - 1/1/65 08-C-783820 1/1/65 - 1/1/68 08-C-783838 1/1/68 - 1/1/71 08-C-908665 1/1/71 - 1/1/72 08-C-911681 1/1/72 - 1/1/73 .. 08-C-915238 1/1/73 - 1/1/74 08-C-917981 12/31/73 - 12/31/74 K-SLG-554A548-7-73 12/31/73 - 12/31/74 Umbrella CUP-554A984-3-73 12/31/74 - 12/31/75 NSL-554A548-7-74 12/31/74 - 12/31/75 Umbrella CUP-554A984-3-74 12/31/75 - 12/31/76 NSL-554A548-7-75 1/1/76 - 1/1/77 Umbrella CU-116968-01-6 12/31/76 - 12/31/77 NSL-554A548-7-76 1/1/77 - 1/1/78 Uhbrella 905014 12/31/77 - 5/20/78 1/1/78 - 1/1/79 650-488E552-2-IND-77 Uhbrella 909024 5/20/78 - 5/20/79 1/1/79 - 1/1/80 650--540E141-3-TIA-78 Uhbrella 943105 5/20/79 - 5/20/80 1/1/80 - 1/1/81 650-540E141-3-TIA-79 Uhbrella 945754 5/20/80 - 5/20/84 1/1/81 - 5/20/82 650-540E141-3-TIA-80 Uhbrella 948079 5/20/81 - 5/20/82 650-54CE141-3-TIA-81 5/20/82 - 5/20/83 5/20/82 - 5/20/83 KSLG-276F529-6-82 Uhbrella 951915 5/20/83 - 5/20/84 5/20/83 - 5/20/84 KSLG-276F529-6-83 Uhbrella 953634 Insurance Ccmoanv The Hartford Ins- The Hartford Ins. , The Hartford Ins. The Hartford Ins. The Hartford Ins. The Hartford Ins. The Travelers Ins. The Travelers Ins. The Travelers Ins. The Travelers Ins. The Travelers Ins. Amer. Policyholders The Travelers Ins. First State Ins. The Travelers Ins. First State Ins. The Travelers Ins. First State Ins. The Travelers Ins. First State Ins. The Travelers Ins. First State Ins. The Travelers Ins. The Travelers Ins. First State Ins. The Travelers Ins. First State Ins. Amount -- $1 Million $1 Million $1 Million $2 Million $2 Million $300,000 $2 Million $300,000 $2 Million $300,000 $5 Million $500,000 $5 Million $500,000 $5 Million $500,000 $5 Million $500,000 $10 Million $500,000 $10 Million $500,000 $500,000 $10 Million $500,000 $10 Million *unable to locate copy of policy in files EXHIBIT "B" STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS COUNTY OF NORFOLK SS: /VftBE IT REMEMBERED, that on this /day of 1984, personally came before me, the subscriber, HOWARD P. Vi , and being duly sworn according to law, did depose and say that he is Treasurer for Hollingsworth & Vose Ccnpanv; that as such he is authorized to make this affidavit on its behalf; and that the facts set forth in the attached Answers to Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. \ HOWARD P. WHITTLE SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, a Notary Public, in and for the County and State aforesaid, on the day and year first above written. My Contnission Expires: JOHN C. PHILLIPS. JR. STEPHEN W. SPENCE ROBERT S. GOLDMAN ROBERT F. PHILLIPS LISA C. MCLAUGHLIN STEVEN K. KORTANEK JAMES P. HALL Phillips, Goldman & Spence, ATTORNEYS AT LAW PENNSYLVANIA AVE. ANO BROOM ST. 1200 N. BROOM STREET WILMINGTON. DELAWARE 19806 p. a. P.O. BOX 1710 WILMINGTON. DE 19699 TELECOPIER: (302) 63S-42IO February 4,1997 Cynthia Rodgers-Waire, Esquire Albright, Brown & Caudill, LLC 120 East Baltimore Street Suite 2150 Baltimore, MD 21202 RE: LIBERTY MUTUAL V. GUY J. TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. OUR FILE: LM-GUY Dear Cindy: Enclosed please find a filed copy of Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents for your file. Very truly yours, RSG:cls Enclosure ImguyVCW-fited.rfp ROBERT S. GOLDMAN 1 410 57- i...1LLIPS,GOLDMAN & SPENCE,P.A RE: PHELPS DODGE INDUSTRIES Delaware Fund c/o Dave Condron CPA Stegman & Company 6851 Oak Hall Lane Columbia, HD 21045 IOBERT S. GOLDMAN, ESQ. PHILLIPS,GOLDMAN & SPENCE,P.A. PENNSYLVANIA AND BROOM STREET 1200 N. BROOM STREET ~ WILMINGTON , DE 19806 01/17/97 IE: PHELPS DODGE INDUSTRIES Case Case Case Payee Date Pd Chk# Service Date Type Invoice Amount # of Members Amount Due 394 NORRIS, CARL C. 1054-14389 0 REALLOCATION // o 6> 07/29/96 PF WARREN BURT & ASSOC#2117 Total Case NORRIS 8.25 0.01 0.01 943 WARDELL, HERBERT O MABEL 0 REALLOCATION 11/20/96 PF // o 10 MARON MARVEL #2168 19.25 1.93 REALLOCATION 11/05/96 CC // o 10 COPYAMERICA CK#2158 3.45 REALLOCATION 11/21/96 PF 1.90 // o 10 TRISTATE COURIER CK#2164 0.35 0.19 PAUL E. EPSTEIN, M.D. 01/06/97 2170 10 12/11/96 PF 250.00 25.00 Total Case WARDELL 27.47 999999 SPEC ALLOC, 0 (M O 0 1 REALLOCATION 11/30/96 GF // 0 67 FINANCE CHGES -14.50 REALLOCATION 11/27/96 PF 1.18 ./ / 0 67 VALOCCHI & SASSO CK#2165 ******* ** ILLIPS,GOLDMAN & SPENCE,P.A : PHELPS DODGE INDUSTRIES REALLOCATION // o 67 SIGNET BANK // o 67 SIGNET BANK // o 67 ADJUSTMENT // o 67 VALOCCHI & SASSO, P. A. 01/15/97 2188 67 STEGMAN & COMPANY 01/15/97 2186 67 12/15/96 GF STEGMAN & CO. CK#2163 130.00 12/31/96 GF INTEREST EARNED -26.70 12/31/96 GF BANK CHARGES 8.83 12/31/96 GF FINANCE CHARGES -443.07 12/31/96 PD POSTAGE,TELEPHONE,FAX 32.19 01/15/97 GF FUND MAINTENANCE 2650.40 Total Case SPEC .ALLOC Total due for Defendant 0.17 -0.04 0.01 -0.59 0.04 3.52 3.09 $30.57