Document M4jw9Dn5YwpLm7ydKKxmgXZwx

I SEP.u4.d7* l4266 SIDNEY RIVERS, JR., et al., vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP., etal. NO. 96-02651-H IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 160th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM ADAMS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION TO: WILLIAM ADAMS, by and through his counsel ofrecord, Peter A. Kraus, Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. Pursuant to Rules 120a, 166b and 169 of the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure, Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company ("ICRC") hereby files its Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Curtis Howell's Request for Admission, Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting to Jurisdiction. Thonlas R.deters GUNDbACH, LEE, EGGMANN, BOYLE & ROESSLER 5000 West Main Street, P.O. Box 23560 Belleville, IL 62223-0560 Telephone: (618)277-9000 Scott P. Hazen BROWN McCARROLL & OAKS HARTLINE 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75201-6929 (214) 999-6100 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ILLINOIS CENTRAL CORPORATION and ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY L PRELi ItfllC ARY STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS Subject to and without waiving its current or any future special appearances, ICRC makes this preliminary statement and these objections: ICRC currently has special appearance motions pending in various cases in Dallas County, Texas. Each ofthese cases involve numerous Plaintiffs who are residents ofstates other than Texas. Each and every objection, response or matter contained in these responses and answers is made strictly subject to and without waiving any pending special appearance motion. To the extent that ICRC is named and served as a party in future cases in Dallas County, these responses shall also be subject to and without waiving any future special appearance motions. ICRC expressly objects to each and every discovery request to the extent that it seeks any information in those cases wherein a special appearance is pending for the reason that such discovery requests are not related to any special appearance motion or likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in a special appearance hearing. ICRC does not own or control any railroad track in Texas. ICRC will provide substantive responses to those requests related to jurisdictional issues as they relate to those Plaintiffs who have sued ICRC. However, ICRC objects to each and every discovery request and/or interrogatory to the extent that it is unrestricted as to subject, time and geography on the grounds that such requests/interrogatories are unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably related to the discovery ofjurisdictional evidence related to such claims. 2 II. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. ICRC further objects to each and eveiy discovery request, interrogatory and request for admission to the extent that they require ICRC to search through all corporate documents on the ground that such requests are clearly overly board, unduly burdensome, exceptionally expensive, and not reasonably related to the discovery ofevidence relevant to die claims ofPlaintiffs claiming injury arising out of alleged exposure while employed by ICRC in Texas. 2. ICRC further objects to those requests as a whole, since they seek matters which are privileged under the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and Texas Rules of Civil Evidence, including, but not limited to, information and matters precluded by die attomey/client privilege, attomey/work product exemption and the party communications privilege. 3. ICRC further objects to the definitions set forthat the beginning ofPlaintiffs' requests as an improper attempt to give meanings to ordinary English words that are contrary to their accepted meanings and which render the requests ambiguous, overly broad and/or unduly burdensome to answer. 4. ICRC further objects to Plaintiffs' requests as vague since they are not limited to the time and location when and where Plaintiffs were allegedly employed by ICRC. 5. ICRC expressly incorporates each and every general objection and preliminary statement into its response to each interrogatory, subject to and without waiving its special appearance motion objecting to jurisdiction. 6. ICRC objects to any request relating to any topic other than jurisdiction, as it has a special appearance on rile in this matter and inquiries beyond the issue ofjurisdiction are unduly burdensome on defendant in that it has insufficient contacts with Texas. 3 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 1: Admit or deny that asbestos-containing products were in general use aboard Defendant's railroad during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits that at some time during Mr. Adams' employment with Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railway Company and Illinois Central Railroad Company between 1971 and 1984, asbestos-containing products were used on Defendant's railroad. Mr. Howell, however, denies the use ofany such products in his work vicinity. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit or deny that Defendant transported, ordered, purchased or otherwise acquired asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing fiiction products, machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. 4 Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits Request for Admission No. 2 to the extent it is limited to some period of time between 1971 and 1984. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit or deny that Defendant used or implemented on Defendant's railroad, asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, ifany, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits Request for Admission No. 3 to the extent it is limited to some period of time between 1971 and 1984. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit or deny that Defendant's cars, engines and/or locomotives which Plaintiff worked on or around were unreasonably dangerous and unfit because ofthe presence of and/or use of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objection, Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 4. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit or deny that Plaintiff was a railroad worker, as that term is generally understood, during his employment with Defendant 5 RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections, and its general understanding that a railroad worker is a person who works for a railroad company. Defendant admits Request for Admission No. 5 with respect to plaintiffs alleged employment with defendant. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit or deny that Plaintiff, in the course and scope of his work as a railroad worker and/or employee of Defendant, worked on and/or around Defendant's railroad, railway cars, engines and/or locomotives, shops, roundhouses, and transfer sheds where asbestos, and asbestos containing products were present RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously tiled objections, and to the extent "or around" implies close proximity. Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 6. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit or deny that Defendant was aware during the periods of time Plaintiffworked for Defendant that airborne asbestos dust created a potential health hazard to those who breathed such dust. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, ifany, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, 6 beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit or deny that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant or by a predecessor-in-interest of Defendant RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, ifany, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits Request for Admission No. 8 with respect to Plaintiffs employment with Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railway Company from 1971 to 1972 and Illinois Central Railroad Company from 1972 to 1984. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit or deny that Plaintiffworked on and/or around Defendant's railroad in areas where asbestos-containing products were installed, sued, prepared for use, replaced or repaired, stored or loaded, unloaded or transported. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 9 to the extent it is limited to some time period between 1971 and 1984. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit or deny that Defendant did not distribute any literature or warnings of any kind to its employees during the period of time Plaintiff worked for Defendant regarding the potential health hazards to those who breathe airborne asbestos dust. 7 RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, ifany, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections, Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 10 and further states that it is not currently known what warnings Plaintiff may have been given or received between 1971 and 1984. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit or deny that asbestos-containing products were placed on or used in the conduct of Defendant's railroad during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant including the following asbestos-containing products: a. any asbestos-containing product and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products and/or materials b. asbestos tiles c. asbestos millboard d. asbestos friction products e. asbestos pipecovering f. asbestos gaskets g* asbestos joint compound h. asbestos cement i. asbestos block j- asbestos packing k. boilers 1. brake shoes m. brake linings n. clutch linings 0. firebrick P- refractories/castables q- turbines RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. 8 1 Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits some ofthe above products were placed on or used on the GulfMobile & Ohio Railway Company at some time between 1971 and 1984. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit or deny that Defendant engaged in no abatement programs for the removal of asbestos at any time since 1965. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, ifany, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections, Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 12. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit or deny that Defendant was aware of the presence of and/or use of asbestos-containing products at the Railroad during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits its Request for Admission No. 13 to the extent it is limited to some time period between 1971 and 1984. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit or deny that Defendant became aware of the potential health hazards ofairborne asbestos during the time periods in which Plaintiffwas employed by Defendant. 9  RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit or deny that Defendant did not continuously provide face masks to railroad employees working with or around asbestos from 1945 to the present for the purpose ofprotecting these employees from inhaling asbestos. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections, Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 15. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit or deny that during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, it was foreseeable that asbestos-containing products on Defendant's railroad would or could be removed, stripped, replaced or repaired at some time after installation. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. 10 Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections, Defendant admits Request for Admission No. 16 to the extent it is limited to some time period between 1971 and 1984. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit or deny that during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Defendant failed to comply with the requirements ofthe Boiler Inspection Act, formerly 45 U.S.C. 23; and restated at 49 U.S.C 20701 et seq. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections, Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit or deny that Plaintifffiled suit against Defendant within three (3) years ofthe date ofdiscovering his asbestos-related condition or the existence ofany asbestos-related causes ofaction. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections, Defendant denies Plaintiff suffers any asbestos related health conditions, and, alternatively, denies Plaintiff filed his action within three years of suffering shortness ofbreath symptoms. 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: asbestos related illness. Admit or deny that Defendant is liable for Plaintiff's RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant denies Plaintiffhas an asbestos related illness and denies that it as liable to Plaintiff for any illness. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit or deny that Defendant knew or had reason to know that the asbestos was in use on its railroads since the 1930's. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant denies Request for Admission No.20, as the Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railway Company, the entity which allegedly employed Plaintiff until approximately 1960, did not exist in the 1930's. Defendant continues to object to knowledge of Illinois Central Railroad Company prior to 1972 as irrelevant REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit or deny that Defendant consciously decided not to warn its employees ofthe dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. 12 Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, ifany, with die State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 21. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: place on Defendant's railroad. Admit or deny that asbestos is still in use and/or in RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to die discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, ifany, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: on its railroad. Admit or deny that Defendant no longer uses asbestos RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 24: Admit or deny that Defendant acquired knowledge, during the 1930's of the Alton Railroad's responses to the Illinois Occupational Diseases Act. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. 13 Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 24, as the Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railway Company, the entity which allegedly employed Plaintiff until approximately 1960, did not exist in the 1930's. Defendant continues to object to knowledge of Illinois Central Railroad Company prior to 1972 as irrelevant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit or deny that Defendant was a member of the National Claims Registry which reported information regarding injury claims ofrailroad workers. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, ifany, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections, Defendant is unaware of what the "National Claims Registry" is, and therefore, without further information, denies Request for Admission No. 25. ly Submitted, GUNDLACH, LEE, EGGMANN, BOYLE & ROESSLER 5000 West Main Street, P.O. Box 23560 Belleville, IL 62226-0560 Telephone: (618)277-9000 Fax: (618)277-4594 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendant ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY 14 SIDNEY RIVERS, JR., et ah. vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP., et ah NO. 96-02651-H IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 160th JUDICIAL DISTRICT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy ofdie foregoing Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company's Responses and Objections to PlaintiffWilliam Adams' Request for Admissions Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting to Jurisdiction was faxed to the below-listed counsel on September 2, 1997, and was also deposited in a mail box located near 5000 West Main Street, Belleville, Illinois, with proper postage prepaid at approximately 5:00 p.m. on September 2,1997, addressed to the following: Ms. Kimberly Shauck (Fax: 214-520-1181) Baron & Budd, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 GUNDLACH, LEE, EGGMANN, BOYLE & ROESSLER 5000 West Main St, Box 23560 Belleville, IL 62223-0560 (618) 277-9000 (618) 277-4594 FAX SIDNEY RIVERS, JR., et al., vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP., et al. NO. 96-02651-H IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 160th JUDICIAL DISTRICT VERIFICATION BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared CHARLES G. GARRETT, who after being sworn, stated upon his oath that he is the Risk Manager of Illinois Central Railroad Company and as such is authorized to verify Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company's Responses and Objections to PlaintifFWilliam Adams' Request for Admissions Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting to Jurisdiction, and states that he has read and understands the same, and that all statements contained in the aforementioned supplemental responses are within his personal knowledge and are true and correct. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY BY CHARLES G. GARRETT Risk Manager KSUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this day of to certify which witness may hand and seal of office. . 1997, Notary Public in and for the State of -6 " INotary Expiration Date ~ /A/ J H U '"' NfaSSSfo