Document MJk7Rv67qwdd825e7jE498M7a

Drasnsr, Kacal, Adams, Pappas & Law A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE RIVERWAY, SUITE 1200 HOUSTON, TEXAS 7TOOQ MAR TELEPHONE (713) 529-3992 FACSIMILE (713) 529-^JjSI ROBERT L. ADAMS SHAREHOLDER ladams@dkapl.com BOARD CERTIFIED PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL LAW TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION MEMBER AMERICAN BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCATES February 28, 2004 DALLAS 900 JACKSON STREET, SUITE 600 DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 TELEPHONE (214) 651-8100 FACSIMILE (21 A) 651-8116 Ms. Vickie Edgerly District Clerk, Orange County Courthouse P. O. Box 427 Orange, TX 77631-0427 RE: In Re: All Asbestos Litigation or to be Filed in the 163rd, 128th and 260th District Courts by Brent Coon & Associates, Baron & Budd, Hissey, Kientz & Herron, Heard, Robins, Cloud, Lubel & Greenwood, Nix Patterson and Roach and Waters & Kraus; In the District Courts of Orange County, Texas Dear Clerk: Enclosed for filing among the papers of the above-styled and numbered cause please find Defendant, Crane Co.'s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Disclosure, Master Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production to Defendants). By copy of this letter I am furnishing Plaintiffs' counsel of record with same and advising all known defense counsel of the filing of same. I would appreciate your marking the date of filing on the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to the undersigned. Thank you for your attention to the above. Enclosures 21882\0RANGE\ltr3 .rla.doc cc: Brent Coon & Associates (w/enc.) CM-RRR Baron & Budd (w/enc.) CM-RRR Law Offices of Robert E. Kientz (w/enc) CM-RRR Hissey Kientz & Herron (w/enc.) CM-RRR Waters & Kraus (w/enc.) CM-RRR Nix Patterson & Roach (w/enc.) CM-RRR Heard, Robins, Cloud, Lubel & Greenwood (w/enc.) CM-RRR All Known Defense Counsel (wo/enc.) 1(KHBHW I EXHIBIT WK CC 5046 IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS LITIGATION OR TO BE FILED IN THE 163rd, 128TM AND 260th DISTRICT COURTS BY BRENT COON & ASSOCIATES BARON & BUDD, HISSEY, KIENTZ AND HERRON, HEARD, ROBINS, CLOUD, LUBEL & GREENWOOD, NIX, PATTERSON AND ROACH; AND WATERS & KRAUS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS ORANGE COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT, CRANE CO.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES, . REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANTS TO: PLAINTIFFS, by and through their assigned attorneys of record, Brent Coon & Associates, Suite 100, 917 Franklin, Houston, Texas, 77002; Baron & Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75219; Law Offices of Robert E. Kientz, 600 Congress, Suite 1700, Austin, Texas 78701; Hissey, Kientz & Herron, LPPC, 16800 Imperial Valley Drive, Suite130, Houston, TX 77060; Heard, Robins, Cloud, Lubel & Greenwood, 910 Travis, Suite 2020, Houston, Texas 77002; Nix, Patterson & Roach, 205 Linda Dr., Daingerfield, TX 75638; and, Waters & Kraus, 3219 McKinney Avenue, Suite 3000, Dallas, TX 75204 Defendant CRANE CO. hereby serves its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Disclosure, Master Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Defendants. Respectfully submitted, DUNN, KACAL. ADAMS, PAPPAS & LAW, P.C. BY:_ Roberta Adams^BOT# 00878000 One Riverway,fSjJlte 1200 Houston, Texas77056 713/529-3992; 713/529-1416 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, CRANE CO. PI-1101455 v2 0213660-0910 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Crane Co.'s Objections and Reponses to Plaintiffs' Master Set of Interrogatories, Request for Disclosure, and Request for Production Propounded to Defendants was served on Plaintiffs' counsel via first class mail this the j clay of March, 2004. 2 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT/GENERAL OBJECTIONS/ RESERVATION OF RIGHTS A. The following responses are based upon the information that is presently known and reasonably available to Crane Co. Crane Co. believes these responses are accurate as of the date made. Many matters inquired about in Plaintiffs' Requests for Disclosure, Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents ("Discovery Requests") took place decades ago. Due to the passage of time, information may be incomplete or no longer available. Moreover, information sought in the Discovery Requests may be contained in documents housed in various document repositories. Due to the time and expense involved, it would be unduly burdensome and impractical to review all of those documents in connection with preparing responses to the Discovery Requests. Nevertheless, Crane Co. has endeavored to investigate all relevant facts and circumstances. The following answers are based upon its investigation. Crane Co. cannot exclude the possibility that its continued investigation may reveal more complete information. Crane Co.'s investigation into the matters inquired into in these Discovery Requests continues. The investigation is dependent upon locating knowledgeable individuals and relevant documents. No finite completion date can be placed upon those efforts. Crane Co. has made a reasonable effort to answer these Discovery Requests to the best of its present knowledge, information, and belief. B. Crane Co. objects to the Discovery Requests to the extent they (1) are unduly burdensome and overbroad, and/or (2) seek information that is not relevant to this lawsuit or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Information not presently known to or readily ascertainable by Crane Co. may be located in various document repositories. Given the manner in which the documents are located at 3 the repositories, Crane Co. has not reviewed the documents stored at those locations, because the expense involved with such an effort would be unreasonably costly and unduly burdensome. Therefore, Crane Co. is not able to ascertain whether any documents located within the repositories contain information responsive to the Discovery Requests. The repositories, however, contain numerous documents that are likely not responsive to the Discovery Requests and which, Crane Co. presumes, may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and/or other applicable privileges and/or protections. Should plaintiffs wish to review the documents located at any of the repositories, Crane Co. will make certain of those documents available to plaintiffs if plaintiffs agree, in writing, that (i) Crane Co. has not waived any objections it may have with respect to the discoverability of those documents on any ground, all of which objections are expressly reserved, and (ii) Crane Co. may conduct a post-designation review to remove privileged and/or irrelevant documents from any collection of documents that may be copied for production to plaintiffs, even if plaintiffs had specifically designated the privileged and/or irrelevant documents for copying. The burden of obtaining responsive information from those documents is the same for plaintiffs as it is for Crane Co. C. Crane Co. does not concede that any of its responses to the Discovery Requests are or will be admissible evidence at trial. Crane Co. does not waive any objection on any ground, whether or not asserted herein, to the use of any such response at trial. D. Crane Co. objects to the definitions contained in the Discovery Requests to the extent they render the Requests vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and/or unduly burdensome. In responding to the Discovery Requests, Crane Co. will use the commonly understood, everyday meanings of the terms used. The breadth and volume of the definitions plaintiffs seeks to propound would complicate tremendously the task of 4 responding to the Discovery Requests. E. Crane Co. specifically objects to any Discovery Requests containing the phrase "Defendant, Defendant's predecessors or Defendant's subsidiaries" (or a similar phrase) because the phrase renders the Discovery Requests overbroad and unduly burdensome. Crane Co. will respond to the Discovery Requests with relevant information pertaining to the named Defendant Crane Co. only. F. Crane Co. objects to the Discovery Requests because they are irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711,712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Requests is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). G. The foregoing Preliminary Statement and General Objections are incorporated by reference into each of the responses provided hereinafter. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES UNDER RULE 194.2 (aMk) (a) The correct names of parties to this lawsuit. Response: Crane Co. is the correct name of the answering Defendant. (b) The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties. Response: Crane Co. is not presently aware of any potential parties not already in this action. Crane Co. may become aware of further information in this regard as discovery progresses. 5 (c) The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party's claims or defenses (the responding party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial). Response: Crane Co. is unaware of any product identification made by Plaintiffs and therefore has not yet developed any legal theories regarding Plaintiffs' claim. However, Crane Co. does deny that any of its products were the cause of Plaintiffs' alleged damages. (d) The amount and any method of calculating economic damages. Response: Discovery at this time is inadequate to make a response. Crane Co. expressly reserves the right to amend and supplement its response to this request upon receipt of additional discovery. (e) The name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the case. Response: Crane Co. is unaware of any product identification made by Plaintiffs and therefore presently, Crane Co. is only aware of Plaintiffs as having knowledge of the relevant facts. Crane Co. may become aware of further information in this regard as discovery progresses. (f) For any testifying expert: (1) the expert's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the subject matter on which the expert will testify; (3) the general substance of the expert's mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party, documents reflecting such information; 6 (4) if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party; (A) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or date compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert's testimony; and (B) the expert's current resume and bibliography. Response: Crane Co. is not aware of any product identification by Plaintiffs and therefore has not yet made a decision regarding expert witnesses. Crane Co. may become aware of further information in this regard as discovery progresses. (g) Any indemnity and insuring agreements described in Rule 192.3 (f). Response: The following chart identifies the confirmed primary insurance coverage available to Crane Co. Additional primary coverage may be available for prior years, but it is subject to dispute by certain carriers: Carriers Policy Number Globe Indemnity GLC 011930 Globe Indemnity GLC 011931 CCC CL 4293679R Term 1/1/60-1/1/61 1/1/61-1/1/62 7/1/61-7/1/64 Liberty Mutual Liberty Mutual Liberty Mutual Hartford Hartford Hartford Aetna Aetna Aetna Aetna Aetna LG1621004017028 LG1621004017029 LG1621004017020 10 CA 46800 10 CA 46801 10 CA 46801 01AL260803SCA 01AL260851SCA 01GL8SCA 01AL265932SCA 01GL1475SCA 2/1/68-2/1/69 2/1/69-2/1/70 2/1/70-2/28/71 2/28/71-7/1/72 7/1/72-7/1/73 7/1/73-7/1/74 7/1/76-7/1/77 7/1/77-7/1/78 7/1/78-7/1/79 7/1/78-7/1/79 7/1/79-7/1/80 Limits 1 M OCC/2M AGG 1MOCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG PER YEAR 1M OCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/1M AGG 1MOCC/1M AGG 1MOCC/1M AGG 1M OCC/1M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 7 Carriers Aetna Continental Continental INA INA INA Policy Number 01AL265996SCA SRL3636025 SRL3636199 CFG209262 CFG209868 CFG G07749673 Term 7/1/79-7/1/80 7/1/80-7/1/81 7/1/81-7/1/82 7/1/82-7/1/83 7/1/83-7/1/84 7/1/85-7/1/86 Limits 1M OCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1MOCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/3M AGG (h) Any settlement agreements described in Rule 192.3 (g). Response: Crane Co. is not aware of any responsive documents. (i) Any witness statements described in Rule 192.3 (h). Response: Crane Co. is not aware of any responsive documents. (j) In a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills that are reasonably related to the injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills. Response: Not applicable to this Defendant. (k) In a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills obtained by the responding party by virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party. Response: In the event that this Defendant acquires records under this paragraph, a copy of same will be provided to you. 8 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by year list of all other positions, titles or jobs held when working for Defendant of each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Crane Co.'s answers to these Interrogatories were prepared by Crane Co.'s litigation counsel and are based upon review of numerous documents and interviews with past and present employees. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your correct corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the address of your principal place of business, the name and address of the person or entity authorized to accept service of process on your behalf, and whether or not you have over hold a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas. ANSWER: Crane Co. is a corporation that was originally incorporated in Illinois in or about 1865. In 1985, Crane Co. was reincorporated in Delaware. Its headquarters are located at 100 First Stamford Place, Stamford, Connecticut 06902. Crane Co. is authorized to do business in the State of Texas. Its agent for service is CT Corporation, 350 North St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale of material containing asbestos fibers? If so, identify the location of the mine(s), the years of its operation, the type of asbestos mined and whether you sold any asbestos to any Defendants asbestos litigation. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, no. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time manufactured, distributed, installed, or sold. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured asbestos-containing products. Moreover, Crane Co. objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able 10 Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Crane Co.'s response to this Interrogatory shall not be construed as an admission that Crane Co. was involved in any activity with respect to asbestos-containing products that is relevant in any way to this litigation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. was not a manufacturer of any asbestos-containing product, as that term is commonly used in asbestos litigation. Crane Co. is and has been a manufacturer of certain types of industrial equipment. Crane Co.'s principal line of industrial equipment has been industrial valves. Industrial valves manufactured by Crane Co. were made of steel, bronze, and other metals; the valves themselves were not composed of asbestos. Many of those valves bore the name "Crane," marked directly on the valve. Certain of the valves had enclosed within their metal structure asbestos-containing gaskets, packing, or discs. Crane Co. did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that may have been encapsulated within the valves, but purchased them from other companies. Any components that may have been enclosed within the metal structure of Crane Co. valves did not emit friable or respirable asbestos fibers while enclosed within that structure. Any asbestos-containing components were completely encapsulated within the metal structure of the valves. Furthermore, any asbestos contained in the components themselves was chemically and physically bound within the component itself by a rubber-like compound. Crane Co. acquired around and subsequent to 1961 the assets of several industrial pump companies that became divisions of Crane Co. Subsequent to those acquisitions, Crane Co. manufactured industrial pumps that may have incorporated within their metal structure an encapsulated asbestos-containing gasket and/or 11 asbestos-containing packing. Crane Co. did not, however, manufacture the asbestos-containing components, such as gaskets or packing, contained in the industrial pumps. It purchased those components from other companies. Any components that may have contained asbestos were enclosed within the metal structure of Crane Co. industrial pumps and did not emit friable or respirable asbestos fibers while enclosed within that structure. Furthermore, any asbestos contained in the components themselves was chemically and physically bound within the component itself by a rubber-like compound. Crane Co. manufactured boilers in the late 1800s, a practice which it appears to have discontinued prior to 1900. Crane Co. resumed manufacturing boilers in or about 1931, suspended those operations during World War II, and discontinued that practice in the 1950s. At least some of the boilers Crane Co. manufactured through, at least, the early 1940s contained asbestos insulation. For a brief period of time after it ceased manufacturing boilers, Crane Co. sold boilers that were manufactured, at least in part, by another company. In or about the 1960s, Crane Co. purchased the assets of two boiler companies, which it resold a few years later. To the best of Crane Co.'s knowledge, however, the boilers, water heaters, and furnaces that Crane Co. manufactured with those acquired assets contained fiberglass, not asbestos, insulation. After it sold those assets, Crane Co. may have sold boilers, water heaters, and furnaces that it purchased from other entities. It is believed, however, that those items contained fiberglass, not asbestos, insulation. For a period of time believed to be less than four years during the early 1960s, Crane Co., through its division, Crane-Midwest Piping, was involved with the 12 erection of piping systems in limited geographic areas. In connection with that erection business, Crane Co. is presently aware of at least two projects to which Crane Co. sent flat gaskets that, most likely, contained some asbestos as part of their chemical and physical composition. Crane Co., through a division, sold industrial water treatment systems, including deaerators, water conditioners, multi-port steam relief valves, drainers, sample coolers, and condensate boosters. Those products were composed primarily of metal; they were not composed of asbestos. Depending on the application for which it was to be used, some of this equipment incorporated internal components, primarily cloth gaskets, manufactured by others, that may have contained some asbestos as part of their chemical composition. Those components were enclosed within the equipment and were not exposed during installation or normal use of the product. Prior to the mid 1980s, Crane Co. may have sold replacement gaskets for use in the industrial water treatment systems. To the best of Crane Co.'s knowledge, Crane Co. did not manufacture any of the internal components, but purchased them from other companies. Crane Co. also offered for sale certain products manufactured by other companies. A small quantity of those products may have contained asbestos. Crane Co. offered for sale gaskets, packing, and discs manufactured by other companies that may have contained asbestos. Material called Cranite was manufactured exclusively for resale by Crane Co., during the relevant time period through what appears to be the early-to-mid 1970s. The finished "Cranite" products had the name "Cranite" stamped directly upon them. Any asbestos contained in 13 Cranite, however, was chemically and physically bound within a rubber-like compound that prevented the release of any friable asbestos fibers. In addition, Crane Co. offered for sale products manufactured by others at many of its branch locations. Some of these products contained asbestos. Most of those products are listed in Crane Co. catalogs, which will be made available to plaintiffs at a mutually agreeable time and place. Byway of further response, see Preliminary Statement, B. . INTERROGATORY NO. 5: If the answer to one or more of the last three Interrogatories is in the affirmative or lists any products, state as to each named product the following: (a) As to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold; (b) The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, installing, and/or selling each product mined, manufactured, marketed, distributed, installed and/or sold; (c) The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold; (d) The date each of the named products was placed on the market; (e) A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage of asbestos put in each product; (f) The date each of the products was removed from the market and no longer sold or distributed and the reason or reasons therefor; (g) The date asbestos was removed from such products, if ever, and the reasons therefor; (h) A description of the physical appearance of each of the named products; (i) A detailed description of the intended uses of the named products; and (j) Identify the last year that you sold each asbestos-containing product. 14 ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because (i) it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (ii) it is overly broad and unduly burdensome because of the multitude of different types of industrial equipment and components that are discussed in response to Interrogatory No. 4. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see Crane Co.'s Response to Interrogatory No. 4. In addition, Crane Co. placed on the market industrial valves that may have contained asbestos-containing materials within their metal structure as early as 1858. Asbestos was removed as a component from Crane Co.'s industrial valves in the mid-1980's, with the exception of one specific type of valve designed for petroleum industry applications, which incorporated an asbestos component until, to the best of Crane Co.'s present belief, the late 1980s or early 1990's. In all cases, asbestos was eliminated as a component of Crane Co. products because of decreased consumer demand for products that incorporated asbestos and/or Crane Co.'s inability to obtain asbestos-containing components. 15 Except for Cranite "sheet packing", Crane Co. cannot state the amount of asbestos that may have been a component of any of its products, because, inter alia, the asbestos-containing components were manufactured by others. Cranite "sheet packing" was comprised of 75%-85% chrysotile asbestos, the balance consisting of a natural rubber binder and inert fillers. Cranite "sheet packing" was sold in sheet and pre-cut gasket form. Crane Co. sold Cranite sheet packing from approximately 1920.until, to the best of its belief, 1972. To the best of Crane Co.'s knowledge, the product was never manufactured without asbestos. By way of further answer, Crane Co. believes that information responsive to this Interrogatory can be derived from Crane Co.'s annual reports. Crane Co. is willing to make its annual reports for the years 1960 through the present available to plaintiffs upon request. The burden of deriving responsive information from these reports is the same for plaintiffs as it is for Crane Co. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the design, preparation, or introduction into the market of the products identified in your answers to these Interrogatories still exist? If so, state: (a) A description of each such document; (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where the documents are currently located. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 16 discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSXCorp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *59 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, other companies manufactured, designed, prepared and introduced into the market the asbestoscontaining component parts identified in Crane Co.'s response to Interrogatory No. 4. By way of further answer, to the extent relevant, to its knowledge, Crane Co. presently possesses drawings and technical specification data relating to various items of industrial equipment. Crane Co. also possesses technical specifications for Cranite "sheet packing". By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Before distributing, selling, or placing the product(s) identified in your answers to these Interrogatories into the stream of commerce, were any tests conducted to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The names of the products tested and the date of each test; (b) The name, address, and job title of each person conducting the tests or involved with conducting the tests; and 17 (c) The results of the tests. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant, and because it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to alleged asbestos-related hazards. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-MartCorp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies (i) that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestos-containing products or (ii) that there were any health hazards involved with Crane Co.'s products. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. did not believe that any product it sold was harmful when used as intended, and therefore Crane Co. did not conduct any such tests regarding potential health hazards associated with asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the testing of the products identified in your answers to these Interrogatories now exist? If so, state: (a) A description of each such document; 18 (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: See objections and response to Interrogatory No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Did Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies make any design changes or modifications as a result of those tests identified in your answers to these Interrogatories? If the answer is affirmative, state: ' (a) The trade names of the products changed; (b) The nature of the changes made and the date of such changes or modifications; (c) The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having caused a change to be made, or having made a change or modification. ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: After releasing the products identified in your answers to these Interrogatories to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use of or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The names of the products tested and the dates of each tests; (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests; (c) The results of those tests; (d) Whether, as a result of the tests, any products were removed from the market; (e) The names of all products removed from the market as a result of those tests. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant, and because it is 19 overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to alleged asbestos-related hazards. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-MartCorp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies (i) that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestos-containing products or (ii) that there were any health hazards involved with Crane Co.'s products. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. did not believe that any product it sold was harmful when used as intended, and therefore, Crane Co. did not conduct any tests regarding any potential health hazards associated with asbestos. Moreover, Crane Co.'s products were sold primarily to industrial customers, who were sophisticated users of those products. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Do any documents, including, but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the potential health hazards of the products identified in your answers to these Interrogatories now exist? If so, state: (a) The name of each product; (b) A description of each document and how it relates to each product; and 20 (c) The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to this action and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to alleged asbestos-related hazards. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies (i) that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestos-containing products or (ii) that there were any health hazards involved with Crane Co.'s products. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. did not believe that any product it sold was harmful when used as intended, and therefore, Crane Co. is not presently aware of any such documents. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of the tests identified in your answers to these Interrogatories? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The names of the products changed or modified; (b) The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having made a change or modification; (c) The nature of the hazard or defect which resulted in such change or modification. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, see objections and response to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material of any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of the asbestos-containing products identified in your answers to these Interrogatories? If so, state: (a) The names of each relevant product; (b) The exact wording of each warning statement on each printed material; (c) A description of the printed material other than the warning statement; (d) The method used to distribute the warning to persons likely to use the product; (e) The date each warning was first issued, distributed, or placed on packaging; (f) The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning; (g) The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof; 22 (h) The form in which such literature or printed materials can be accessed, i.e., the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that (i) Crane Co. manufactured any asbestoscontaining products or (ii) there was any possibility of injury resulting from the use of a Crane Co. product. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, the only "warning" associated with any Crane Co. industrial product regarding asbestos was a notification which first appeared in the mid-1980s, attached to certain industrial valves that informed the user that asbestos-containing materials were contained within the valve. That warning read as follows: "CAUTION - Contains Asbestos Packing or Gasket". By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Before 1970, had you received notice that any individual or individuals claimed an injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company or any of its predecessors or subsidiaries before 1970? If so, state: (a) The name and address of each claimant; (b) The date of notice of each claim; (c) A description of the claim; (d) The type of injuries allegedly sustained; (e) The name and address of each attorney who represents each individual making a claim; (f) The style and court number of each claim; (g) The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, overbroad and seeks information that is not relevant to this action and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, no. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Were your asbestos products distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled and/or sold by companies other than your own? If the answer is affirmative, list the names and addresses of each of those companies, and the products in question. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane 24 Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured asbestos-containing products. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. sold products through its own branches as well as through third-party distributors, although it is not presently aware of the identities of all of those entities. Byway of further response, see Crane Co.'s objections and response to Interrogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Did you or any of your predecessor, successors, or subsidiaries have any distributors or sales representatives of asbestos products in Texas as well as in those states identified on Plaintiffs' Work History Sheets? If so, state: (a) The name and address of each such distributor or sales representatives; (b) The years in which such company or person distributed, marketed, or sold your products; and (c) What products were distributed, marketed, or sold and in what years. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad. Crane Co. 25 further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, as Crane Co. was not provided with Work History Sheets for the plaintiffs, it is incapable of fully responding to this Interrogatory. Subject to and without waving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. maintained branch houses at the following locations in Texas during some portion of the time at which it supplied at least some of the products referenced in its response to Interrogatory No. 4: 720 Fannin St., Beaumont, TX; 1212 North Toncahau St., Corpus Christi, TX; 814 Young St., Dallas, TX; 1609 Texas St., El Paso, TX; 201 West C St., Harlingen, TX; 2204 Pease Ave., Houston, TX; 1200 East Houston St., San Antonio, TX. Beginning in or around the late 1950s and ending in 1987, Crane Co. began closing or selling its supply branch locations in the United States. The Dallas branch was closed in 1978. The San Antonio branch was sold in 1979. The Houston branch was sold in 1987. Crane Co. believes that the remainder of the above mentioned branches were closed or sold prior to the early 1970s. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, B. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: List each employee who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number, and job title of each of those 26 individuals and who has, had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of asbestos. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it does not know of any physician or industrial hygienist that Crane Co. employed with respect to asbestos issues, outside of those retained in connection with asbestos litigation. Crane Co. is aware that its factory in Chicago, Illinois employed physicians and nurses for treatment of work-related injuries. To the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of the names, addresses, or phone numbers of said physicians or nurses. Byway of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so, state: (a) The name of each such publication; - (b) The date of publication and the names of the author and publisher (if any); (c) The date received by Defendant, if known; and (d) The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks 27 information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects on the grounds that this Interrogatory seeks to invade Crane Co.'s attorney work product. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of its present knowledge, Crane Co. is not aware of any such documents, other than documents it has obtained in connection with the defense of asbestos litigation. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of asbestos comprised of other manufacturers, miners, marketers, and/or sellers of asbestos products? If so, state: (a) The name and address of each such association or organization; (b) The dates during which Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors were members; (c) The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations; and (d) Whether any of those publications are still in your possession, and if so: (i) A description of the publications, including the date; (ii) Thu current location of such publications; (iii) The custodian of such publications; and (iv) The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. is not presently aware of 28 receiving information of the type requested in this Interrogatory from any organization of which it was a member. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products identified in your answers to these Interrogatories were manufactured, assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing, specifying which plants produced each item, the dates each plant is or was in operation, and the time span during which each named item was produced or manufactured. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re: CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. Lexis 414, at *59 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. Lexis 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. Lexis 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Moreover, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestos-containing products. 29 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of its present knowledge and according to its annual reports, without limitation, Crane Co. assembled and/or manufactured valves at plants located in Chicago, Illinois; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Indian Orchard, Massachusetts; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Rogers, Arkansas; Long Beach, California; and Washington, Iowa; pumps at plants located in Rogers, Arkansas; Salem, Ohio; and Warrington, Pennsylvania; deaerators at a plant located in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; and boilers at plants located in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey. Crane Co. also manufactured other products at other locations. Crane Co. did not ever manufacture any of the asbestos-containing components that may have been included in the pumps, valves, deaerators, or boilers. Accordingly, those components would not have been manufactured at any of the locations listed above. By way of further response, see response to Interrogatory No. 4 and Preliminary Statement, B. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents purposes of marketing or advertising products containing asbestos? If so, state: (a) The name, address, and job title of each person or entity who prepared such materials; (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials and their present location; (c) The date the materials were prepared; and (d) The media used to disseminate the sales materials. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured asbestos- 30 containing products, and on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and seeks information that is not relevant to this action and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex.. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it distributed catalogs that would have referenced products identified in Interrogatory No. 4, which Crane Co. will make available to plaintiffs at a mutually agreeable time and place. Crane Co. further believes that it produced other promotional materials that mentioned those products. However, Crane Co. is not presently aware of any formal collection of such promotional materials. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Have any written or printed materials or instructions of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents indicating how asbestos products should be used and maintained? If so, state: (a) The name, address, and job title of each person who prepared such materials or instructions or assisted in their preparation; (b) The name, address and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials or instructions and their present location; 31 (c) The dates of distribution or use and the manner in which such materials or instructions were distributed to purchasers of Defendant's products or those of its subsidiaries or predecessors; and (d) The year each such written material or instruction was prepared and disclosed to potential customers. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory as being unduly burdensome because it is not limited in time or geographical area. Moreover, Crane Co. objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Crane Co. also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured asbestos-containing products. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, with respect to the products it sold, Crane Co. is not presently aware of having distributed any such materials in North America. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. 32 INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claims made by Plaintiffs in these cases? If so, list the name of each insurance carrier, the amount of initial coverage, amount of coverage remaining at the present time, and the effective dates of each policy. (If properly answered, this Interrogatory need not be supplemented as to the remaining amount of coverage). ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. is liable on any of the claims made by Plaintiffs herein. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the following chart identifies the confirmed primary insurance coverage available to Crane Co. Additional primary coverage may be available for prior years, but is subject to dispute by certain carriers: Carriers Globe Indemnity Globe Indemnity CCC Policy Number GLC 011930 GLC 011931 CL 4293679R Liberty Mutual Liberty Mutual Liberty Mutual Hartford Hartford Hartford Aetna Aetna Aetna Aetna Aetna Aetna Continental Continental INA INA INA LG1621004017028 LG1621004017029 LG1621004017020 10 CA 46800 10 CA 46801 10 CA 46801 01AL260803SCA 01AL260851SCA 01GL8SCA 01AL265932SCA 01GL1475SCA 01AL265996SCA SRL3636025 SRL3636199 CFG209262 CFG209868 CFG G07749673 Term 1/1/60-1/1/61 1/1/61-1/1/62 7/1/61-7/1/64 2/1/68-2/1/69 2/1/69-2/1/70 2/1/70-2/28/71 2/28/71-7/1/72 7/1/72-7/1/73 7/1/73-7/1/74 7/1/76-7/1/77 7/1/77-7/1/78 7/1/78-7/1/79 7/1/78-7/1/79 7/1/79-7/1/80 7/1/79-7/1/80 7/1/80-7/1/81 7/1/81-7/1/82 7/1/82-7/1/83 7/1/83-7/1/84 7/1/85-7/1/86 Limits 1 M OCC/2M AGG 1MOCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG PER YEAR 1M OCC/2M AGG 1MOCC/2M AGG 1MOCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/1M AGG 1MOCC/1M AGG 1MOCC/1M AGG 1MOCC/1M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1MOCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1MOCC/2M AGG 1MOCC/2M AGG 1MOCC/2M AGG 1M OCC/2M AGG 1MOCC/3M AGG 33 INTERROGATORY NO. 24: As to the disease asbestosis, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans; (b) How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease; (c) (d) Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease and/or of asbestos exposure; What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; (e) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form; (f) Who is the custodian of such information; and (g) The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust fibers. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. states that in an organization of its size and duration, it is impossible to determine when a responsible employee first learned that forms of asbestos were, under certain circumstances, possibly associated with harmful effects in humans. Crane Co. believes that its knowledge may have come from employees reading publications, but cannot identify which publications may have been the original source or state under oath precisely when those specific publications were actually received or read or by whom. It is also impossible to state when a responsible employee first learned when specific allegations were made of the connection between asbestos exposure and specific diseases. Knowledge in this area, as in all scientific areas, develops over time and allegations in scientific literature may not be generally accepted when 34 first reported, and may be confirmed or refuted by subsequent studies. Crane Co. believes that employees were aware of allegations of the relationship between some forms of asbestos and disease at least by the 1970's. By way of further response to Crane Co.'s present information and belief, there is no single mineral known as "asbestos". Rather, "asbestos" is a name which has been given to a group of minerals, each differing from the other physically, chemically, and in biologic effect. Further, it is Crane Co.'s present information and belief that "asbestos" in all its forms and uses does not pose a risk of harm to all humans in all circumstances; in other words, simply being in the area of asbestos or "exposures" to all types of asbestos does not necessarily result in disease. Throughout the relevant time period the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists "ACGIH" has published threshold limit values for a variety of substances including "asbestos". The ACGIH threshold limit values are premised on the medical assumption that a human may be exposed to "asbestos" in an amount lower than the TLV for a working lifetime without the production of disease. Since approximately 1971 an agency of the U.S. Government, OSHA, has published Permissible Exposure Limits for "asbestos" which are premised upon the same medical assumption that a human may be exposed to "asbestos" in an amount lower than the PEL for a working lifetime without the production of disease. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: As to the disease lung cancer, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans; 35 (b) How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure; (c) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; (d) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; (e) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant's or its subsidiaries or predecessors in any written form; . (f) Who is the custodian of such information; and (g) The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust fibers. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. states that in an organization of its size and duration, it is impossible to determine when a responsible employee first learned that forms of asbestos were, under certain circumstances, possibly associated with harmful effects in humans. Crane Co. believes that its knowledge may have come from employees reading publications, but cannot identify which publications may have been the original source or state under oath precisely when those specific publications were actually received or read or by whom. It is also impossible to state when a responsible employee first learned when specific allegations were made of the connection between asbestos exposure and specific diseases. Knowledge in this area, as in all scientific areas, develops over time and allegations in scientific literature may not be generally accepted when first reported, and may be confirmed or refuted by subsequent studies. Crane Co. believes that employees were aware of allegations of the relationship between some forms of asbestos and disease at least by the 1970's. By way of further response to Crane Co.'s present information and belief, 36 there is no single mineral known as "asbestos". Rather, "asbestos" is a name which has been given to a group of minerals, each differing from the other physically, chemically, and in biologic effect. Further, it is Crane Co.'s present information and belief that "asbestos" in all its forms and uses does not pose a risk of harm to all humans in all circumstances; in other words, simply being in the area of asbestos or "exposures" to all types of asbestos does not necessarily result in disease. Throughout the relevant time period the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists "ACGIH" has published threshold limit values for a variety of substances including "asbestos". The ACGIH threshold limit values are premised on the medical assumption that a human may be exposed to "asbestos" in an amount lower than the TLV for a working lifetime without the production of disease. Since approximately 1971 an agency of the U.S. Government, OSHA, has published Permissible Exposure Limits for "asbestos" which are premised upon the same medical assumption that a human may be exposed to "asbestos" in an amount lower than the PEL for a working lifetime without the production of disease. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: As to the disease pleural thickening or pleural plaques, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans; (b) How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos; (c) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered, recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; (d) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; 37 (e) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form; (f) Who is the custodian of such information; and (g) The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust fibers. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. states that in an organization of its size and duration, it is impossible to determine when a responsible employee first learned that forms of asbestos were, under certain circumstances, possibly associated with harmful effects in humans. Crane Co. believes that its knowledge may have come from employees reading publications, but cannot identify which publications may have been the original source or state under oath precisely when those specific publications were actually received or read or by whom. It is also impossible to state when a responsible employee first learned when specific allegations were made of the connection between asbestos exposure and specific diseases. Knowledge in this area, as in all scientific areas, develops over time and allegations in scientific literature may not be generally accepted when first reported, and may be confirmed or refuted by subsequent studies. Crane Co. believes that employees were aware of allegations of the relationship between some forms of asbestos and disease at least by the 1970's. By way of further response to Crane Co.'s present information and belief, there is no single mineral known as "asbestos". Rather, "asbestos" is a name which has been given to a group of minerals, each differing from the other physically, chemically, and in biologic effect. Further, it is Crane Co.'s present information and belief that "asbestos" in all its forms and uses does not pose a risk of harm to all humans in all circumstances; in other words, simply being in the area of asbestos or 38 "exposures" to all types of asbestos does not necessarily result in disease. Throughout the relevant time period the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists "ACGIH" has published threshold limit values for a variety of substances including "asbestos". The ACGIH threshold limit values are premised on the medical assumption that a human may be exposed to "asbestos" in an amount lower than the TLV for a working lifetime without the production of disease. Since approximately 1971 an agency of the U.S. Government, OSHA, has published Permissible Exposure Limits for "asbestos" which are premised upon the same medical assumption that a human may be exposed to "asbestos" in an amount lower than the PEL for a working lifetime without the production of disease. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans; (b) The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers; (c) How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos; (d) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects asbestos exposure; (e) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; (f) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form; (g) Who is the custodian of such information; and (h) Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. . 39 ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. states that in an organization of its size and duration, it is impossible to determine when a responsible employee first learned that forms of asbestos were, under certain circumstances, possibly associated with harmful effects in humans. Crane Co. believes that its knowledge may have come from employees reading publications, but cannot identify which publications may have been the original source or state under oath precisely when those specific publications were actually received or read or by whom. It is also impossible to state when a responsible employee first learned when specific allegations were made of the connection between asbestos exposure and specific diseases. Knowledge in this area, as in all scientific areas, develops over time and allegations in scientific literature may not be generally accepted when first reported, and may be confirmed or refuted by subsequent studies. Crane Co. believes that employees were aware of allegations of the relationship between some forms of asbestos and disease at least by the 1970's. By way of further response to Crane Co.'s present information and belief, there is no single mineral known as "asbestos". Rather, "asbestos" is a name which has been given to a group of minerals, each differing from the other physically, chemically, and in biologic effect. Further, it is Crane Co.'s present information and belief that "asbestos" in all its forms and uses does not pose a risk of harm to all humans in all circumstances; in other words, simply being in the area of asbestos or "exposures" to all types of asbestos does not necessarily result in disease. Throughout the relevant time period the American Conference of Governmental industrial Hygienists "ACGIH" has published threshold limit values for a variety of 40 substances including "asbestos". The ACGIH threshold limit values are premised on the medical assumption that a human may be exposed to "asbestos" in an amount lower than the TLV for a working lifetime without the production of disease. Since approximately 1971 an agency of the U.S. Government, OSHA, has published Permissible Exposure Limits for "asbestos" which are premised upon the same medical assumption that a human may be exposed to "asbestos" in an amount lower than the PEL for a working lifetime without the production of disease. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: As to gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer, state: (a) The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans; (b) What cancers has the Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers; (c) The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation; (d) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; (e) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; (f) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form; (g) Who is the custodian of such information; and (h) The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. 41 ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. states that in an organization of its size and duration, it is impossible to determine when a responsible employee first learned when specific allegations were made of the connection between asbestos exposure and specific diseases. Knowledge in this area, as in all scientific areas, develops over time and allegations in scientific literature may not be generally accepted when first reported, and may be confirmed or refuted by subsequent studies. With respect to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer and lymphatic cancer, there is a dispute within the medical community regarding the existence, if any, of an established link between these disease processes and asbestos. By way of further response to Crane Co.'s present information and belief, there is no single mineral known as "asbestos". Rather, "asbestos" is a name which has been given to a group of minerals, each differing from the other physically, chemically, and in biologic effect. Further, it is Crane Co.'s present information and belief that "asbestos" in all its forms and uses does not pose a risk of harm to all humans in all circumstances; in other words, simply being in the area of asbestos or "exposures" to all types of asbestos does not necessarily result in disease. Throughout the relevant time period the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists "ACGIH" has published threshold limit values for a variety of substances including "asbestos". The ACGIH threshold limit values are premised on the medical assumption that a human may be exposed to "asbestos" in an amount lower than the TLV for a working lifetime without the production of disease. Since approximately 1971 an agency of the U.S. Government, OSHA, has published 42 Permissible Exposure Limits for "asbestos" which are premised upon the same medical assumption that a human may be exposed to "asbestos" in an amount lower than the PEL for a working lifetime without the production of disease. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Does Defendant believe that asbestos products can be manufactured or designed so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or exposed to them? If the answer is affirmative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys upon which this answer is based. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestoscontaining products. Crane Co. further objects because this Interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant, and because it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to Crane Co.'s products. Moreover, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory as calling for expert opinion. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. does not consider itself competent to offer opinions as to causal relationships, if any, between various substances and alleged disease processes. Crane Co. must defer to the reasoned judgment and opinions of expert witnesses on all questions of human disease, its cause, and its diagnosis. By way of further response, Crane Co. did not believe that any product it sold was harmful when used as intended. Any asbestos dust or fibers that may have been emitted from the asbestos-containing components encapsulated within Crane Co.'s valves was at a de minimis level and 43 significantly below OSHA regulatory levels. Moreover, at such low levels, Crane Co. is not aware of any OSHA requirement that would have ever required warnings or precaution labels regarding asbestos to be placed on these components or their packaging. Accordingly, without regard for other products, Crane Co. contends that the asbestos-containing components contained within its valves did not pose health hazards to workers who came into contact with them. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Describe in detail the types of packages or packaging which Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies used for asbestos material or products, listing the dates each type of package was used, a physical description of each type of package, and providing a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestoscontaining products, and on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing 44 objections, Crane Co. is not presently aware of any particular "packages" or "packaging" that may have been associated with its products. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos materials or asbestos products? If so, state, as to each such agreement: (a) The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products; (b) The trade name affixed to those products; (c) The periods of time covered by such agreement; (d) The volume, in dollar amount, of each transaction; and (e) The initial purchaser of the products. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because the term "rebranding" is vague and ambiguous. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s knowledge, it never engaged in the "rebranding" of asbestos-containing products, as it understands those terms. See 45 also objections and response to Interrogatory No. 4; Preliminary Statement, Section B. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: List the name and address of each company from which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor purchased materials or asbestos products which Defendant sold or distributed in any form, stating the form of the materials, the dates of such purchases, and the ultimate disposal of such materials. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, overbroad and seeks information that is not relevant to this action and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestos-containing products. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. is not presently aware of all of the entities from which it obtained asbestos-containing components for its industrial products. Nevertheless, based upon available 46 documents, it appears that, at various times, Crane Co.'s approved suppliers may have included B.F. Goodrich Co., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and Sweet Rubber Co. of Akron, Ohio, with respect to "Cranite" material, Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., Garlock, Inc., Johns-Manville, Inc., "Klingerit", M.V.G. Inc., Melrath, Collins Packing and Nicolet, Inc., with respect to sheet gasket material, Crane Packing Co. (later John Crane-Houdaille, Inc.), Anchor Packing, Raybestos-Manhattan, Greene-Tweed, Garlock, Inc., Johns-Manville, Inc., Lindstrom & King, and R.M. Industrial Products with respect to valve packing, Johns-Manville, Inc., Fiexitallic, Spirotallic, Lamons Gasket Co., and R-Way Gasket & Supply Co., with respect to spiral wound gaskets, Aberden Industries, Inc., with respect to discs, Johns-Manville, Inc. and Keasby Mattison with respect to cement pipe, and Johns-Manville, Inc. with respect to miscellaneous materials. The foregoing list is not intended to be an exhaustive list of Crane Co.'s suppliers. By way of further response, see also Preliminary Statement, B. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Does Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies currently have possession of any writings or contracts on those rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to Interrogatory No. 31? If the answer is affirmative, state: - (a) The name, address, and job title of each person having custody of each of those documents and their current location: and (b) A brief description of each such document, including the dates and the parties signatory. ANSWER: See objections and response to Interrogatory No. 31. 47 INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Prior to 1968, did any person file a claim against a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he/she contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers? If so, provide: (a) A list of the claims, including each claimant's name, address and the date each claim was filed, and including the caption and jurisdiction of the claim; (b) The disease alleged in each such claim; ` (c) A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim; and (d) The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Crane Co. also objects because to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, plaintiffs neither worked at nor have alleged that they were exposed to asbestos-containing products at a Crane Co. facility. Subject 48 to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, no. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? If so, for each such set of minutes, state: (a) The dates of each such meeting; (b) The general subject matter discussed at each meeting; (c) Who was in attendance at each meeting; (d) Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained; (e) By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format; and (f) Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, in that it is not limited to Crane Co.'s products, and seeks information that is not relevant to this action and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege and work product protection. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, there are no board of directors minutes addressing asbestos issues outside of those that discuss the defense of asbestos litigation, which are protected 49 by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Do you or any of your subsidiaries, including foreign business entities, currently manufacture any products containing asbestos? If so, state: (a) ` (b) (c) (d) (e) As to each product, whether such product is mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold; The names and addresses of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each of those products; The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold; The date each of the named products was placed on the market; A description of the physical (chemical) composition of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product; (f) A description of the physical appearance of each product and its packaging; (g) A detailed description of the intended uses of each of the named products; and (h) Whether there are any warning labels on said products or containers regarding potential asbestos-related health hazards. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it is not limited in geographical scope. Crane Co. further objects to the use of the phrases "subsidiaries" and "foreign business entities" as being vague, ambiguous, argumentative and/or seeking a legal conclusion. Moreover, Crane Co. objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711,712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 50 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, as Crane Co. stated in the Preliminary Statement, Crane Co.'s answers to these Discovery Requests are limited to Crane Co., upon whom the Discpvery Requests were served. To the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, Crane Co. did not ever and does not presently manufacture any asbestos containing products. By way of further response, see objections and response to Interrogatory No. 4. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: State whether you or any of your predecessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies of invoices, shipping documents, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the mining, manufacture, marketing, sale or distribution of asbestos products. If so, state: (a) The location of such documents; (b) The name and address of the custodian of the documents; and (c) The format in which the documents are kept; i.e. by state, by product, etc., and if by product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, unduly burdensome, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 51 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured asbestos-containing products. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. has no organized collection of sales records related to asbestos issues. Records relevant to the issues raised in this Interrogatory may be located in various document repositories or operating facilities. Nevertheless, as presently worded, this Interrogatory is too overbroad to enable Crane Co. to provide a complete and meaningful response. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement Section B. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Will you call company representatives as witnesses at the trial of any of these cases. If so, list: (a) The name, address, and job title of each company representative who may be called; (b) A summary of the testimony expected to be given by each such witness; and; (c) List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs in that case. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory as being premature. Crane Co. will submit information regarding witnesses pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure and any Court Order regarding disclosure of witnesses entered in this matter. 52 INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Have Defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed, or contracted or supplied products containing asbestos? If so, for each such entity, state: (a) Full and correct name; (b) Principal place of business; (c) State of incorporation; (d) Date of acquisition by Defendant; and (e) Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in this state. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that it not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see objections and response to Interrogatory No. 4. In addition, information responsive to this Interrogatory covering the time period 1960 to the 53 present may be ascertained by reviewing Crane Co.'s annual reports, copies of which for the period 1960 to 2000 will be made available to plaintiffs at a mutually agreeable time and place. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Was each of your asbestos products generally expected to reach, or packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? If not, with respect to any such product, explain in what way the Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the terms "altered" or "substantially changed" are vague and ambiguous, and to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestos-containing products. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *59 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. generally expected the products referenced in its response to Interrogatory No. 4 to reach the purchaser in the same condition in which they were delivered. 54 INTERROGATORY NO. 41: For each asbestos-containing product identified in your answers to these Interrogatories, identify all foreseeable users of any of Defendant's asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestoscontaining products. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Moreover, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for legal conclusions or expert opinion. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. did not control the products referenced in its answer to Interrogatory No. 4 once they left its possession. The subsequent use of those products was within the control of the purchaser, not Crane Co. 55 INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Based upon the material contents of your asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, can such products be generally applied without liberating asbestos fibers into the air? (a) If there is a different answer concerning different products manufactured, sold, distributed, or used by your company, then specify the different products by precise manufacturer's name and popular name. (b) If there is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in which a particular product was used, then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you are referring to and year involved. . ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestos- containing products. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Moreover, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory as calling for expert opinion. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. must defer to the reasoned judgment and opinions of expert witnesses on all such areas of inquiry. By way of further response, Crane Co. did not believe that any product it sold was harmful when used as intended. Any asbestos dust or fibers that may have 56 been emitted from the asbestos-containing components encapsulated within Crane Co.'s valves was at a de minimis level and significantly below OSHA regulatory levels. Moreover, at such low levels, Crane Co. is not aware of an OSHA requirement that would have ever required warnings or precaution labels regarding asbestos to be placed on these components or their packaging. Accordingly, without regard for other products, Crane Co. contends that the asbestos-containing components contained within its valves did not pose health hazards to workers who came into contact with them. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Was it a foreseeable use of your asbestos-containing products that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced at some time after installation? ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestoscontaining products. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Moreover, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for legal conclusions or expert opinion. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. did not 57 control the products referenced in its answer to Interrogatory No. 4 once they left its possession. The subsequent use of those products was with the control of the purchaser, not Crane Co. By way of further response, depending on the specific product and application, gaskets, packing and discs contained in Crane Co. industrial equipment may have needed to be replaced from time to time. INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Before 1970, did you or your subsidiaries or predecessor(s) ever arrange for any labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company to go to job sites where your products were being used or installed to make or take dust level counts? If so, state when this procedure started, the purpose of such procedures, and all results of such procedures. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing 58 objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, no. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: If Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, in the 1980s, Crane Co. performed dust monitoring at two of its valve plants. The results of that monitoring revealed the presence of fibers at no greater than background levels. Accordingly, no action was necessary. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: Has your company or its subsidiaries or predecessor(s) ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies designed to assist in minimizing or eliminating the inhalation of 59 asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use of your company's products? If so, give the following: (a) Name of the person or firm conducting such studies; (b) The date the studies began and the date they were completed; (c) Any publication or other written dissemination of the results of the studies; and (d) The nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, as a result of, inter alia, the knowledge that was available during the time that Crane Co. sold valves with asbestos-containing components and the dust monitoring at the two plants described above, Crane Co. did not believe any studies responsive to this Interrogatory were necessary. 60 INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Does your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a Research Department? If so, give the year such Research Department was established, and whether or not such Research Department has operated continuously since being established. State also: (a) The amount of time and money expended each year on research concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products? (b) What percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessor(s) spend on research concerning the health effects of asbestos? (c) State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities of such Research Department. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s knowledge, it presently knows of no individuals or departments who, on its behalf, were responsible for conducting research involving any particular asbestos-containing products. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Does your company have, or has it ever had, or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a Medical Department? If so, state: (a) The year such Medical Department was established; (b) Whether or not such Medical Department has operated continuously since being established; (c) The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Medical Director or Medical Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; and 61 (d) State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it did not have a Medical Department devoted to asbestos issues. By way of further response, see Crane Co.'s objections and response to Interrogatory No. 17 and Preliminary Statement, Section B. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever place any warning directly on any of its asbestos-containing products or on their packaging? If so, identify the product(s) and year said warning was first applied. ANSWER: See objections and response to Interrogatory No. 13. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever stamp or place the name of the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any of its asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the name brand names of such products, a description of such stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. ANSWER: See objections and response to Interrogatory No. 4. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Has your company, or your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries, ever devised a research plan to develop, or actually developed or had developed, a product which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for one or more of your asbestos-containing products? If 62 so, state the date that such research plan was begun and when such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestoscontaining products. Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that there was a product that "could be substituted for" asbestos-containing components that may have been associated with any Crane Co. product. Moreover, Crane Co. objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as a result of changes in customer preferences, Crane Co. began to explore the prospect of replacing the asbestoscontaining components in its industrial products. At that time, Crane Co. encountered difficulty locating suitable substitute components. Nevertheless, Crane Co., modified its engineering specifications in 1985 to phase out asbestoscontaining components from all valves manufactured in the United States other than one specific valve designed for petroleum industry applications, which required the use of asbestos-containing packing material. 63 INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever recall any products containing asbestos from the market or stream of commerce? If so, state: (a) All details of such recall; (b) The name of the product recalled, including the reason for the recall and the names and current addresses of those individuals who determined that it should take place; (c) The dates of the recall; and (d) The purpose of the recall. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Moreover, Crane Co. objects to the term "recall" as being vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, no. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. 64 INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Before 1970, did you ever manufacture or sell products which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date such asbestos-free products were first placed on the market. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestoscontaining products. Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory, because it is ambiguous in its reference to a product that "could be substituted for" asbestoscontaining components that may have been associated with any Crane Co. product. Moreover, Crane Co. objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711,712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, with respect to the valve packing and gasket materials that may have been incorporated into Crane Co. valves, prior to at least 1970, there were not any non-asbestos materials of which Crane Co. is presently aware that could perform the same functions to the same level of performance as asbestoscontaining components that were used during that time period. 65 INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Have any products you identified in your answers to these Interrogatories not performed as intended? Please list all such products that have not performed as intended. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *59 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711,712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Moreover, Crane Co. objects that the phrase "not performed as intended" is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, because Crane Co. does not know what is meant by "not performed as intended" it cannot respond to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever make, order, or arrange for any industrial hygiene surveys regarding asbestos or asbestos-containing dust? If so, give the date of such surveys and state who, or what entity, was responsible for completion of such surveys. 66 ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to this action and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, in the 1980s, Crane Co. performed dust monitoring at two of its valve plants. The results of that monitoring revealed the presence of fibers at no greater than background levels. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: . (a) The year in which Defendant or any predecessor(s) or subsidiaries were first advised of such limits or concentrations; (b) The name of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice; and (c) How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not 67 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, while Crane Co. is today aware of the applicable regulations governing asbestos exposure levels, Crane Co. has no present knowledge of the precise circumstances regarding how or when it first became aware of such limits. INTERROGATORY NO. 57: Were the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations inquired about in the previous Interrogatory for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone? ANSWER: See objections and response to Interrogatory No. 56. By way of further response, Crane Co. does not consider itself competent to offer opinions as to such technical and regulatory issues, but must defer to the reasoned judgment and opinions of expert witnesses on all such questions. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: State in detail what tests, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing your asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 68 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, in the 1980s, Crane Co. performed dust monitoring at two of its valve plants. The results of that monitoring revealed the presence of fibers at no greater than background levels. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: Please state the following with respect to each expert witness that you may call during trial of these cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you may call, including: (a) The name, address, and job classification of each such expert witness; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion; (d) Whether any person identified in subparagraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify and produce each such document or report; (e) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above; and (f) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. 69 ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory as being premature. Crane Co. will provide this information pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure or Court Order. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge of facts relevant to these cases including, but not limited to: (a) Identification of asbestos-containing products to which each and every individual Plaintiff, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, allegedly was exposed or facts disputing the identification of asbestos-containing products in the case; (b) Each and every individual Plaintiff's, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiff's within the group, alleged damages, injuries and/or facts disputing each and every Plaintiffs alleged damages and/or injuries; (c) The negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of each and every individual Plaintiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged injuries and/or damages; and (d) Each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed Answer in each of these cases. . ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory as being premature. Crane Co. will provide this information pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure or Court Order as the litigation continues. INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Please identify documents which will be used at time of trial (Exhibit List, Deposition List) which are relevant to each of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. 70 ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory as being premature. Crane Co. will provide this information pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure or Court Order. INTERROGATORY NO. 62: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels", published in January, 1946 in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene & Toxicology, and authored by W. Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al ("the Fleischer-Drinker Report")? (a) Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; (b) Please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Fleischer-Drinker" study prior to 1968; (c) Please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; (d) Please identify the name(s) and address(es) of any person(s) who can verify your above response; (e) Did Defendant ever rely on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; (f) If so, please produce every document which evidences in any way, that Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 62(e) above; and (g) If your answer to 62(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 64(e) above? ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present 71 knowledge, it would not have received a copy of such study outside of the context of the defense of asbestos litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Study of Asbestos in the Asbestos Textile Industry", published in 1938 in Public Health Bill, No. 241, U.S. Public Health Service and authored by W. C. Dreessen ("the Dreessen Report")? (a) Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; (b) Please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Dreessen" study prior to 1968; (c) Please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; (d) Please identify the name(s) and address(es) of any person(s) who can verify your above response; (e) Did Defendant ever rely on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; (f) If so, please produce every document which evidences in any way, that Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 63(e) above; (g) If your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 64(e) above? ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present 72 knowledge, it would not have received a copy of such study outside of the context of the defense of asbestos litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 64: Please identify all documents and other tangible things, including, but not limited to, exhibits, video tapes, audio tapes, materials, and/or demonstrative aids, which support or refute any of Defendant's defenses, including, but not limited to, affirmative defenses. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory as being premature. Crane Co. will provide any such responsive information required by the Rules of Civil Procedure or Court Order. INTERROGATORY NO. 65: Has Defendant ever tested processed chrysotile asbestos, raw chrysotile asbestos, and/or asbestos-containing products for the presence of contaminants such as tremolite, anthophyllite, crocidolite, amosite, actionolite, michteriite, or amphibotes? If your answer is no, explain why not, and if your answer is yes, please summarize the results of defendant's findings and identify the year(s) in which the testing occurred, the trade name or make of the contaminated products and the name, job positions and years of employment of the person(s) who performed the testing. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for expert opinion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, see objections and responses to Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 66: Has Defendant ever identified any asbestos-containing friction products manufactured or distributed by defendant which incorporated or contained tremolite, anthophyllite, crocidolite, amosite, actionlite, Richterlite or amphiboles? If your answer is yes, please 73 identify each effected friction product by name and year(s) of manufacture or distribution and the name, job positions and years of employment of your person(s) most knowledgeable regarding this subject. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, Crane Co. did not manufacture, sell, or distribute any friction products. INTERROGATORY NO. 67: Has Defendant ordered, authorized or acquiesced in the recalling of asbestos-containing products, removal of asbestos and/or asbestos containing products in its operations, work places, vessels, automobile friction products, and/or buildings, which it owned or leased? If so, identify all persons with knowledge of such removal or recall, who removed or recalled the products, when the products were removed or recalled, and the reason the products were removed or recalled. 74 ANSWER: See objections and response to Interrogatory No. 66. INTERROGATORY NO. 68: For the years 1930-Present, please identify by make, brand, model, manufacturer and year, vehicles in North America that used Defendant's asbestos-containing friction products, including in your response the trade name and identity of the asbestos-containing friction product identified. ANSWER: See objections and response to Interrogatory No. 66. INTERROGATORY NO. 69: For the years 1930-Present, please identify vehicles manufactured and sold in Europe for which Defendant supplied asbestos-free friction products, including in defendant's response whether defendant supplies exclusively asbestos-free after-market friction products for vehicles manufactured in European countries, and, if so, set forth the reason why defendant supplies exclusively asbestos-free friction products in Europe or in any European country, as well as the date on which defendant first began supplying exclusively asbestos-free friction products in Europe or any European country. ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatory No. 66. INTERROGATORY NO. 70: Does Defendant have a global corporate policy regarding asbestos substitutes for friction products? If not, please explain why not. If so, please summarize the policy, providing in your response the name, position held, and address of the person(s) most knowledgeable about said policy and the date on which said policy was first discussed. ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatory No. 66. 75 INTERROGATORY NO. 71: Is Defendant aware of any global corporate policies regarding asbestos substitutes for friction products instituted or promoted by Audi, Chevrolet Motor Company, Chrysler Corporation, Dana Corporation, Eaton Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mercedes Benz, Saab, Volkswagen, and/or Volvo? If so, please set forth Defendant's understanding of said policy and the date on which defendant first became aware of said policy. ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatory No. 66. INTERROGATORY NO. 72: If Defendant is aware of countries in the world that prohibit the use of asbestos in automobiles, please set forth the name of the country or countries and the dates on which defendant first became aware of such a prohibition or ban. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing 76 objections, to the best of its knowledge, Crane Co. does not have any information responsive to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 73: Identify all masks, respirators or other respiratory protective devices which you claim were provided to or offered to your employees to protect them from asbestos containing dust and state when each of these devices were first made available. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections set forth above, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestoscontaining products. Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that it is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, because, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, the plaintiffs did not work at and have not alleged that they were exposed to asbestos-containing products at a Crane Co. facility. Moreover, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-MartCorp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). 77 INTERROGATORY NO. 74: Did this defendant or its predecessor or subsidiary companies ever have any inspectors, anyone from your company, or employees of another entity whose job it was to go to work sites where your or others' asbestos-containing products and/or asbestos-containing friction products, were being used, installed, ground, cut or removed to make a dust level count? If so, please state the following: (a) The date this procedure started; (b) The purpose of such procedure; (c) The technique used to make dust sampling or dust counts; (d) The person(s) who conducted such dust sampling techniques and identify their employer; (e) The results of such dust sampling; (f) The location of and the custodian of the records of such sampling; and (g) If such sampling or data from such sampling was published, identify the publication where such data appeared or produce the publications. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of 78 the Interrogatory is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, no. INTERROGATORY NO. 75: Has your company or any of its predecessors or subsidiaries ever conducted, or caused to be conducted or been involved with any tests, surveys, or studies concerning the effects of the inhalation of asbestos dust or fibers on persons using or being exposed to any of the asbestos materials mined, manufactured, sold or distributed by you, or your predecessor or subsidiary? If so, then state: (a) The date and nature of such test, surveys, or studies, if any; (b) The name or names of the persons conducting such tests, surveys, or studies and their addresses; (c) The purposes of the tests, surveys, or studies; (d) To whom such reports were given and the date; and (e) If any design changes were made as a result of such tests. If so, then please state: (1) The nature of the changes made; (2) The name, address and job classification of each person in charge of making a change. ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 76: State the decade that there first existed manufacturing technology for commercial purposes for combining chemicals and minerals into a high heat friction product as a substitute for asbestos in insulation and/or friction materials. 79 ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Interrogatory as calling for expert opinion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Crane Co. must defer to the reasoned judgment and opinions of expert witnesses on such issues. INTERROGATORY NO. 77: Identify any person who was employed by, acted as a lobbyist or representative for, or acted on behalf of this defendant or its predecessors or subsidiaries, and further identify any lobbyist who: (a) Testified before any committee of the United States Senate, any committee of the House of Representatives, any agency or department of the United States government, any State agency or department, any committee of a State Legislative body, or other foreign or domestic governmental body concerning asbestos, asbestos containing products, health hazards associated with exposure to asbestos, respiratory protection for exposure to asbestos, environmental controls for the protection from asbestos, or any proposed or pending legislation concerning asbestos, and (b) Give the dates of his testimony and identify the entity where the testimony was given. "Lobbyist" here means someone who is registered as a lobbyist with any governmental entity, conducts activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation, promotes or secures the passage of legislation by influencing public officials, and/or attempts to influence or sway (as a public official) towards a desired action. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to 80 and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s knowledge, none. INTERROGATORY NO. 78: If defendant has a library or any collection of literature mentioning respirators, respiratory protection, asbestosis, mesothelioma, or asbestos as causing an increased risk of lung or other cancer, identify the location of the library or collection and the name and address of the custodian or persons who are charged with responsibility to maintain the library or collection. ANSWER: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s knowledge, it does not maintain such a library. CRANE CO.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1 Please produce a true and correct copy of each photograph of each asbestoscontaining product identified in answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 81 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, information responsive to this Request regarding the products discussed in response to Interrogatory No. 4 may be obtained from Crane Co.'s catalogs, copies of which will be made available to plaintiffs at a mutually agreeable time and place. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2 Please produce any diagrams or schematics indicating, stating or detailing the existence of any of your subsidiaries, predecessors, or divisions as defined in your answer to Interrogatory No. 2. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane 82 Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of any such diagrams or schematics. By way of further response, information generally responsive to the subject matter of this Request may be available in Crane Co.'s annual reports copies of which will be made available to plaintiffs at a mutually agreeable time and place. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3 All documents which support, contradict, or are otherwise relevant to Plaintiff's claims of exposure to Defendant's products at any jobsite identified in Plaintiffs responses to discovery. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured asbestos-containing products. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Crane Co. was not provided with Work History Sheets for the plaintiffs. Therefore, Crane Co. is incapable of responding to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4 All documents identified in your answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Crane Co. will make available at a mutually agreeable time and place all documents specifically identified in its responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5 All documents supporting your answer to Interrogatory No. 3. RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, see objections and response to Interrogatory No. 3. 83 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6 All documents supporting your answer to Interrogatory No. 5. RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, see objections and response to Interrogatory No. 5. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7 All documents supporting your answer to Interrogatory No. 9. RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, see objections and response to Interrogatory No. 9. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8 All documents supporting your answer to Interrogatory No. 12. ! RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, see objections and response to Interrogatory No. 12. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9 All documents supporting your answer to Interrogatory No. 13. RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, see objections and response to Interrogatory No. 13. By way of further response, Crane Co. will make available to plaintiffs at a mutually agreeable time and place a copy of the warning referenced in its response to Interrogatory No. 13. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: The current curriculum vitae and/or resume of all testifying experts identified by you in your answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories or in your Witness List. RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, see objections and response to Interrogatory No. 59. 84 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: All documents and other tangible things identified by you in your answer to Interrogatory No. 75. RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, see objections and response to Interrogatory No. 75. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce copies of non-privileged documents setting forth the history of Defendant's involvement in research or product manufacturing, sale or distribution concerning asbestos-free or semimetallic friction products. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. 85 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: For the years 1920 - Present, please produce copies of documents Defendant received from any scientific research organization, institute or association, medical organization, institute or association, and/or business organization, institute or association, concerning exposure to asbestos among persons working with or around asbestoscontaining friction products. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce copies of documents identifying the asbestos-containing friction products and asbestos-containing paper products which defendant relabeled, including documents identifying the name of the product before and after relabelling. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 86 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce copies of non-privileged documents identifying all trade names, trademarks and brand names under which defendant has manufactured, distributed, supplied, sold, labeled, relabeled and advertised asbestos-containing friction products. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce copies of advertising, marketing, sales and promotional literature, brochures, pamphlets and materials, including videos or motion pictures, both edited and 87 unedited, and photographs (as well as negatives) compiled, generated, shown, distributed or supplied by defendant to distributors, purchasers or users, including employees and sales representatives, of asbestos-free and/or asbestos-containing friction products for the years 1920 - Present. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 17: Please produce copies of invoices, contracts, receipts, inventory logs orjournals and agreements identifying sales of Defendant's asbestos-containing products made to Plaintiffs' job sites. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects 88 to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving these objections, Crane Co. was not provided with Work History Sheets for the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is incapable of responding to this Interrogatory. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Please produce copies of Defendant's patents and patent applications pertaining to asbestos-containing, asbestos-free and/or semimetallic friction products. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 89 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce documents received or generated in the ordinary course of Defendant's business which identify and/or discuss the following: Patent Number Patentee (Assianee) a) 1,950,262 b) 2,110,571 c) 2,158,337 d) 2,239,134 e) 2,369,502 f) 2,408,430 g) 2,784,105 h) 2,861,964 i) 2,938,790 j) 2,945,291 k) 2,945,292 1) 3,033,326 m) 3,184,001 n) 3,210,303 o) 3,269,976 P) 3,494,884 q) 3,552,533 r) 3,743,069 s) 3,756,910 t) 3,835,118 u) 3,870,581 v) 3,896,075 w) 3,967,037 X) 4,118,528 y) 4,119,591 z) 4,197,223 aa) 4,217,255 bb) 4,244,994 Norton (Bendix) Elerath Rasmussen (General Motors) Wellman (S.K. Wellman Company) Walker (Raybestos-Manhattan) Lowey (S.K. Wellman Company) Stedman (Bendix Aviation) de Gague (Johns-Manville) Stedman (Bendix Aviation) Ankeny (General Motors) Luther (General Motors) Byers (S.K. Wellman Company) Reinsch (General Motors) Biggs (American Brake Shoe Co.) Ueda Kraft (Jurid-Werke) Nitz (Abex Corp.) Barnett (Johns-Manville) Peters (Johns-Manville) Rhee (Bendix) Afflerbach (Johns-Manville) Longley (BBA Group, Ltd.) Marzocchi (Owens-Corning) Lowry (Raybestos-Manhattan) Aldrich (Bendix) Bartam (Ferodo, Ltd.) Griffith (Abex Corp.) Trainer (Raybestos-Manhattan) RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects 90 to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and Improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. Byway of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Please produce copies of non-privileged documents evidencing when and why Defendant introduced or began manufacturing, using, distributing or selling asbestos-free or semimetallic friction products. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" 91 and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please produce copies of non-privileged documents evidencing when and why Defendant discontinued or stopped using or integrating asbestos in any of Defendant's friction products, including, without limitation, documents referring to a ban or discontinuance of the use of asbestos in friction products and/or schools. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request to the extent it infers that Crane Co. manufactured or sold asbestoscontaining friction products. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. By way of further response, see objections and response to Interrogatory No. 66. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce copies of correspondence, memos, notices and/or reports, including attachments received by defendant from manufacturers and/or suppliers of dust masks and/or respirators, such as American Optical, DeVillbriss, Moldex, or Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3-M), during the years 1920 - Present, concerning occupational exposure to asbestos-containing friction products and/or respiratory protection against exposure to asbestos dust. 92 RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: For the years 1920- Present, please produce copies of correspondence, cautions, warnings, memos, bibliographies, medical and/or scientific reports, publications or studies, industrial hygiene surveys, epidemiological studies, including attachments, forwarded by defendant to the following companies and/or received by Defendant from the following companies, including their officers and employees: a. Abex Corporation: b. American Brake Block Corporation; c. American Brake Shoe Company; d. American Brake and Clutch; e. American Motors; f. Ammco Tools, Inc. (Ammco); g. Asbestos Corporation of America; h. Auto Zone; i. BBA Group Limited; j. B. F. Goodrich Company; k. Borg-Warner; l. Carquest Brakes; m. Chevrolet Motor Company; n. Chrysler Corporation; o. Chrysler Chemical Division; p. Cooper Industries; q. Dana Corporation; r. Dana Corporation's Sao Paulo, Brazil subsidiary; s. Eaton Corp.; t. EIS; ' u. Ferodo, Ltd.; v. Firestone; w. Ford Motor Company; x. Garlock, Inc.; 93 y- General Aniline & Film Corp. (GAF); z. General Motors Corporation; aa. General Motors' Inland Manufacturing Division; bb. General Motors' Delco Moraine Division; cc. Goodyear; dd. Grand Auto; ee. Hi-Lo Auto Parts, L.P.; ff. Johns-Manville; gg- Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Company; hh. Lear Seigler, Inc.; ii. Lucas Varity Group; jj- Maremont Corporation; kk. Moog Automotive; II. NAPA; mm. Nuturn Corporation; nn. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation; 00. Pep Boys; PP- Per-Lux, Inc.; qq. Rapid American Corp.; rr. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.; ss. Raymark; tt. Ruberoid Company; uu. S. K. Wellmann Company; ' vv. Sears, Roebuck & Co.; ww. Standard Motor Products, Inc.; XX. TRW, Inc.; yy- United States Government, Army, Air Force, Marines, or Navy; zz. Vermont Asbestos Group; aaa. Wagner Brake; bbb. Wellman Friction Products; ccc. Western Auto; and/or, ddd. Western Wheel, concerning health hazards and/or dangers associated with exposure to asbestos- containing friction products and/or asbestos dust or fibers. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of whether any of the listed companies would have received a copy of the 94 warning referenced in Crane Co.'s response to Interrogatory No. 13. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Please produce copies of non-privileged documents evidencing Defendant's membership in and/or financial support of the: a. American Cancer Society, b. American Industrial Hygiene Association, c. Asbestos Information Association, ' d. Asbestos Lining Association, e. Asbestos Paper Mfg. Association, f. Asbestos Research Council, g. Automobile Service Industry Association, h. Chemical Manufacturer's Association (CMA), i. Friction Materials Standards Institute, j. Industrial Hygiene Foundation, k. Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc., l. Manufacturing Chemists Association, m. National Safety Council; and/or n. Quebec Mining Association. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, while to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it may have been a member of the National Safety Council from 1975-96, it is not presently aware of documents responsive to this Request. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce copies of studies, research papers, bibliographies, publications, manuals, reference materials, correspondence and/or memos Defendant received from or forwarded to: 95 a. American Cancer Society, b. American Industrial Hygiene Association, c. Asbestos Information Association, d. Asbestos Lining Association, e. Asbestos Paper Mfg. Association, f. Asbestos Research Council, g. Automobile Service Industry Association, h. Chemical Manufacturer's Association (CMA), i. Friction Materials Standards Institute, j. Industrial Hygiene Foundation, k. Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc., l. Manufacturing Chemists Association, m. National Safety Council; and/or n. Quebec Mining Association. pertaining to, discussing, and/or identifying health hazards on dangers associated with exposure to asbestos dust or fibers. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Please produce copies of non-privileged documents evidencing whether Defendant has ever used, incorporated and/or integrated asbestos paper, amphibole actionlite, tremolite, anthrophyllite, Richterlite, and/or crocidolite asbestos in asbestos-containing friction products. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects 96 to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27; For the years 1920 - Present, please produce copies of non-privileged documents evidencing the type of asbestos, asbestos content amount, formulation and composition of Defendant's asbestos-containing friction products. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 97 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Please produce copies of non-privileged documents evidencing Defendant's knowledge of health hazards or dangers associated with amphibole, actinolite, anthopyllite, chrysotile, crocidolite, Richterlite and/or tremolite asbestos. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. By way of further response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Please produce copies of written instructions, pamphlets, correspondence, memos, medical, scientific or corporate studies or records supporting and evidencing Defendant's recommendation, suggestion or orders that employees use industrial type vacuum cleaners to clean brake drums and/or refrain from or stop using air hoses to clean brake drums. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 98 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Please produce the following documents: (a) Employee testimony, including depositions and trial testimony, as well as exhibits, given in connection with a claim for personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos dust and/or asbestos-containing products; (b) Employee testimony, including exhibits, pertaining to legislation or proposed legislation concerning asbestos, asbestos removal, asbestos-related personal injury or asbestos-containing products; (c) Non-privileged lists evidencing employee depositions concerning personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing friction products; (d) Expert witness depositions, including exhibits and trial testimony, as well as exhibits, concerning personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestoscontaining friction products; and, (e) Exhibit lists submitted in asbestos-containing friction product related trials. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John 99 Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Crane Co. also objects to this Request because it impermissibly seeks to invade Crane Co.'s counsel's work product and trial strategy. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Crane Co. Is not aware of any documents responsive to subparts (b) - (e) of this Request. In response to subpart (a) of this Request, and in addition to the transcripts from the depositions of plaintiffs and any co-workers or co-defendants, Crane Co. is presently aware of deposition transcripts for William McLean that may be relevant to this action. Mr. McLean has been deposed in three cases. Mr. McLean was deposed on February 9,1995 in In re: Burleigh and Cass Counties: on December 15,1995 in Mike Norman v. A-C Product Liability Trust, et al.. in the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, Michigan 94-421061 NP; and on September 5,2002 in Marion C. Bentley, Sr., et al. v. Crane Co., et al., in the Circuit Court for the County of Jasper, Mississippi First Judicial District, 11-0064. In addition, Anthony Pantaleoni, Crane Co.'s Vice President of Environment, Health and Safety, was deposed on March 11,2003, in Louis Barletta and Mary Jane Barletta v. American Cvanamid, et al.. in the 105th Judicial District Court of Kleberg County, Texas, No. 01-454-D; and on December 2,2003 in Melvin Eldon Boggs, etal. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al., in the 128th Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas, No. A 030062-C. Crane Co. will make available such transcripts at a mutually convenient time and place. 100 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Please produce copies of correspondence, memos, studies and research written, reviewed or generated by Dr. Dan Block, a Ford corporate medical officer, concerning health hazards or dangers associated with chrysotile asbestos. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Please produce each document obtained or reviewed by Defendant since 1930 referencing the following matters: 1. Studies of occupational lung diseases in which you have participated; 2. Studies (formal or informal, published or not) of occupational lung diseases; 3. Studies (formal or informal, published or not) of dust producing activities; 4. Studies (formal or informal, published or not) conducted by the Friction Materials Standards Institute concerning any occupational lung diseases. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Moreover, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. Finally, Crane Co. objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. 101 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, it is not aware of documents responsive to this Request other than documents it may have obtained in the context of the defense of asbestos litigation. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Please produce all documents relating to your efforts to or decisions whether or not to: a) Warn users of your asbestos products, or bystanders to their use, of the hazards of asbestos-related disease producing dusts; b) Instruct users of your asbestos products, or bystanders to their use, of the hazards of asbestos-related disease producing dusts; c) Determine whether the use of asbestos products: (1) generated levels of asbestos-related disease producing dusts potentially injurious to users or bystanders of such use; (2) generated levels of asbestos-related disease producing dusts in excess of the threshold limit values or maximum permissible concentrations require by law or regulation since 1930. (3) effectively protected the users of asbestos-related disease dust producing asbestos products and the bystanders to such use from the inhalation of asbestos-related disease producing dusts. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996); In re John 102 Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Crane Co.'s present knowledge, and subject to Crane Co.'s understanding of the Request, it is not aware of documents specifically responsive to this Request. By way of further response, Crane Co. will make available to plaintiffs at a mutually agreeable time and place a copy of the warning discussed in response to Interrogatory No. 13 and the dust studies discussed in response to Interrogatory No. 45. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Please produce the following documents: a) Copies of the 20 earliest worker's compensation claims against Defendant concerning asbestos exposure; b) Copies of the 20 earliest petitions or complaints in which you were sued for personal injuries resulting from asbestos exposure; c) Copies of the 20 earliest petitions, complaints, and worker's compensation claims filed against you by an automotive repairman or asbestos-containing friction product user claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos dust or fibers. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711,712(Tex. 1998); KMart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and 103 improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Moreover, Crane Co. objects to this Request to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestos-containing products. Crane Co. further objects to this Request on the grounds that plaintiffs did not work at and have not alleged that they were exposed to asbestos-containing products at a Crane Co. facility. Crane Co. also objects to this Request because it seeks information which is publicly available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Please produce a copy of each safety manual provided to end-users of your asbestos-containing products since 1930. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,431 (Tex. 1996)] In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Moreover, Crane Co. objects to this Request to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestos-containing products. Subject to and without waiving these objections, to the best of its present knowledge, Crane Co. is not presently aware of documents responsive to this Request. By way of further 104 response, see Preliminary Statement, Section B. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Please produce each document which references the use of any asbestos product upon a worksite including employee training manuals, safety manuals, and warnings in connection with an asbestos-related disease producing dust. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Moreover, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Crane Co. was not provided with worksite information for plaintiffs. Therefore, Crane Co. is incapable of responding to this Request. By way of further response, see objections and response to Request No. 33 and Preliminary Statement, Section B. 105 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce any and all invoices, receipts, bills of lading or other documents evidencing your sale or delivery of asbestos-containing products to any worksite of the Plaintiff herein since 1930. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Crane Co. objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crane Co. further objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, vague, overly broad in time and scope and nothing more than a prohibited fishing expedition. See In re CSX Corp., 2003 Tex. LEXIS 414, at *5-9 (Tex. 2003); In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); In re John Crane, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9684 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003). The effect of the Request is to "fish" and improperly shift the burden of proof. See Able Supply, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995). Moreover, Crane Co. objects to this Request to the extent it implies that Crane Co. manufactured any asbestos-containing products. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Crane Co. was not provided with Work History Sheets for plaintiffs. Therefore, it is incapable of responding to this Request. 106