Document MMdRapOJx1oe8LxXrGDNqV2Dz
NO. 95-12951-D
JEANIE LEIGH FLEMING, individually and as, )
Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate )
of ROY FLEMING, Deceased; and THOMAS )
RICHARD GORMAN and ROSE MARY
)
GORMAN;
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
v- )
OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS
) )
)
CORPORATION, etal.,
)
Defendants.
) )
)
._ PLAINTIFF'S
( EXHIBIT T RR-444b f -y IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
95TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY TO SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF JEANIE LEIGH FLEMING
Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSRC) f/k/a/ Southern Railway Company (Southern), for its answers to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories, states as follows:
PREL1 1311? ARY_STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTION NSRC objects to the Second Set of Interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by NSRC. At the time of the deposition of Plaintiffs decedent, NSRC became aware that Plaintiffs decedent was employed by Nickel Plate Road (The New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company) and Norfolk and Western Railway Company. NSRC has requested the personnel and medical files of Plaintiff s decedent from Norfolk and Western Railway Company (NW) and that file reveals that Plaintiffs decedent was first employed by Nickel Plate in August, 1955 as a brakeman in Bellevue, Ohio and through his career for the Nickel Plate and NW, he worked as a brakeman
"and switchman in the Bellevue, Ohio and Conneaut, Ohio area. Plaintiffs decedent voluntarily
resigned from the NW and took a buy-out in December, 1986.
NSRC has not located any employment information to support the allegation that
Plaintiffs decedent, Roy Fleming was ever employed by it. For that reason, NSRC believes
that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by NSRC or Southern. Accordingly, at this time
NSRC is unable to respond to any of the interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff.
NSRC objects to the instructions and definitions supplied by Plaintiff with regard to
these interrogatories, on the bases that the definitions are overbroad, vague and often
inconsistent with the normal usage and meaning of such words. The instructions are
overbroad, burdensome and constitute an unreasonable expansion of the interrogatories
themselves. NSRC therefore gives notice that it does not consider itself bound by the
instructions and definitions propounded by Plaintiff, and instead has answered these
interrogatories in a manner consistent with the normal understanding of the language used in
the interrogatory and to the extent necessary to fairly and fully answer the interrogatory.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
At any time prior to 1980 did Defendant or anyone at the
direction of Defendant, conduct an investigation, survey or other process to identify the
primary emission sources of airborne asbestos fibers and/or to assess and/or sample for the
detection of, the quantity of, or threshold limit value of airborne asbestos fibers in relation to
Defendant's railroad? If so, please identify with particularity the entity and/or persons
conducting such investigation(s), survey(s) or test(s), the dates conducted and the results.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope;
2
*" 3. the request is vague; 4. the request is ambiguous; 5. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 6. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; 7. the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; 8. the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; 9. the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; 10. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, 11. the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Did Defendant ever arrange for any labor agency,
insurance company, government agency, inspectors or anyone from your company to go into
any of Defendant's railway car(s) and/or engine(s) and/or locomotive(s) and/or roundhouses
and/or shops to take dust level counts related to asbestos dust? If so, identify with particularity
the party(ies) conducting such procedure(s), the dates conducted, the purpose of such
procedure(s), and all results of such procedure(s).
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; 3. the request is vague; 4. the request is ambiguous; 5. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 6. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; 7. the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; 8. the request infringes on the investigative/party communicationprivilege; 9. the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; 10. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and.
3
" 11. the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Did Defendant obtain facts, knowledge or information
from any industry, insurance company, governmental agency, union, and/or any other entity
regarding the potential health effects and/or health hazards created for persons exposed to
airborne asbestos dust? If so, please list all sources of such information and the dates received.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; 3. the request is vague; 4. the request is ambiguous; 5. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 6. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; 7. the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; 8. the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; 9. the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; 10. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, 11. the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiff's decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
List each person 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 (including those physicians who would have been responsible for conducting
physicals, evaluations or screenings of Defendant's employees) and industrial hygienists, and
4
the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals who has had or
may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of airborne asbestos dust.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; 3. the request is vague; 4. the request is ambiguous; 5. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 6. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; 7. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, 8. the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
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;
D. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request is unlimited in terms of time; 3. the request is vague; 4. the request is ambiguous; 5. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;
5
6. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request;
7. the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; 8. the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; 9. the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; 10* the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule166b of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, 11. the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or
proprietary.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Has Defendant 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 airborne asbestos? If so, state:
A. The name and address of each such association or organization;
B. The dates during which Defendant member;
C. The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations;
D. Whether any of those publications are still in your possession, and if so: 1. A description of the publications, including the date; 2. The current location of such publications; 3. The custodian of such publications; 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained.
ANSWER:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
6.
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms of time; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and,
6
7. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
As to the disease asbestosis, state:
A. The date on which Defendant first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers;
B. How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease;
C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease;
D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects;
E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form;
F. Who is the custodian of such information;
G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers alone or in conjunction with second hand smoke.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request is vague; 3. the request is ambiguous; 4. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; 5. the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; 6. the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; 7. the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; 8. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, 9. the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary.
7
- NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8;
As to the disease lung cancer, state:
A. The date on which Defendant first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers;
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 Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form;
F. Who is the custodian of such information;
G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the
following grounds:
1. the request is
overly broad;
2. the request is vague;
3. the request is
ambiguous;
4. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information
necessary to respond to this request;
5. the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege;
6. the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege;
7. the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege;
8. therequest exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and,
9. the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or
proprietary.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
8
'iNTERROGATORYLNO. 9:
As to the disease mesothelioma, state:
A. The date on which Defendant first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers;
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 of asbestos exposure;
E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects;
F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form;
G. Who is the custodian of such information;
H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: I. the request is overly broad; 2. the request is vague; 3. the request is ambiguous; 4. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; 5. the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; 6. the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; 7. the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; 8. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, 9. the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
9
" NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
As to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer,
pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer, state:
A. The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant first learned that such diseases were 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 with 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 a written form;
G. Who is the custodian of such information.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request is vague; 3. the request is ambiguous; 4. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; 5. the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; 6. the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; 7. the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; 8. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, 9. the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
10
" NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Did Defendant 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;
F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request is vague; 3. the request is ambiguous; 4. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; 5. the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; 6. the request infringes on the investigative/party communicationprivilege; 7. the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; 8. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, 9. the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
11
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Does Defendant intend to call a company representative as
a witness at the trial of any of this case? 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;
C. List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs in that case.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. therequest is overly broad; 2. the request is vague; 3. the request is ambiguous; 4. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 5. the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; 6. the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; 7. the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; 8. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, 9. the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or
proprietary.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Does your company have, or has it ever had, a Medical
Department of Medical Section? If so, state:
A. The year such Medical Department or Section was established;
B. Whether or not such Medical Department or Section has operated continuously since being established;
12
" C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department or Section year by year, beginning with the first year of its existence and the last known address and phone number of each;
D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department or Section.
ANSWER: OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds:
1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request is unlimited in terms of time; 3. the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; 4. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 5. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, 6. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiff's decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Please state whether written warnings were placed at any
locations adjacent to or near asbestos in place on railroad(s), at anytime from 1930 to the
present. If so, please describe with specificity such signs, including size, color, wording, etc.
Additionally, please state the number of such signs that were installed and indicate the specific
location of each such sign and the dates such sign was at that location.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; 3. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 4. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and.
13
" 5. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Does Defendant have, or has it ever had, a Safety
Department? If so, state:
A. The year such Safety Department was established;
B. Whether or not such Safety Department has operated continuously since being established;
C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Safety Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Safety Director or Safety Department, and the last known address and phone number of each;
D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Safety Department.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; 3. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 4. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, 5. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Please state whether a medical monitoring program,
medical examination program or other medical surveillance was provided to your employees
14
'and specifically to Plaintiff. If so, please indicate what records of such program, examination
or surveillance concerning Plaintiff exist at this time, including but not limited to reports, x-
rays and medical notes.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; 3. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 4. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, 5. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
Please state whether Defendant has at any time provided
safety equipment to the Plaintiff and/or the railroad workers of Defendant present at any time
during Plaintiffs alleged employment by Defendant for protection against the inhalation of
airborne asbestos dust, including but not limited to; masks, respirators, other breathing
devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, etc. For each such item of equipment, please
indicate when such item was first provided, under what circumstances provided, and the name,
address and telephone number of the person most knowledgeable concerning such provision.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC Defendant objects to the form and substance of this request onthe following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; 3. the request is vague; 4. therequest is ambiguous; 5. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;
15
" 6. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and,
7. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
Please state whether Defendant ever agreed by contract,
agreement, negotiation, collective bargaining or otherwise, to provide masks to Plaintiff and
other crew members and/or employees of Defendant working with or around asbestos
products. If so, please state verbatim the specific agreement or contract and/or other document
by which Defendant agreed to provide such masks. Include the date the agreement was entered
into, the period of time covered by the agreement and the parties to the agreement.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request is vague; and, 3. the request is ambiguous.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
Please state the precise State and/or Federal regulations,
laws, statutes, or other authority pertaining to industrial hygiene or worker safety and health
that governed, regulated controlled and/or were applicable to airborne asbestos exposure in
your operations and/or in relation to Defendant's railroad.
ANSWER: OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds:
16
^ 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request is unlimited in terms of time; 3. the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; 4. the request is vague; 5. the request is ambiguous; 6. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 7. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, 8. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
Please describe each and every occasion during the past
thirty years when any regulatory agency or other governing body inspected Defendant's
railroad to ascertain whether health and safety regulations were being followed or adhered to,
including the date of such inspection and/or meeting, the results, and whether a written report
was produced.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the requestis unlimited in terms of time; 3. the requestin unlimited in terms of geographic scope; 4. the request is vague; 5. the requestis ambiguous; 6. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 7. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, 8. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
17
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
NSRC further objects for the reason that it requests information about a time period subsequent to Plaintiffs alleged employment.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
Please state whether any asbestos-containing products in
place or in use on Defendant's railroad, has been removed or abated at any time from 1965 to
the present. If so, please answer the following:
A. List each and every abatement company or other contractor involved with the removal of asbestos, including address and telephone number, dates of such removal, and whether a contract for such removal exists;
B. Indicate the total amount in dollars spent by Defendant to abate or remove asbestos from the railroads.
C. State whether any "removal plan" or organized written criteria or other document related to asbestos removal on the railroad(s) was ever prepared by Defendant;
D. State whether corporate documents discussing or relating generally to the removal of asbestos are in existence and, if so, where they are maintained;
E. State precise dates and locations when and where such removal or abatement took place for each railroad.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request is unlimited in terms of time; 3. the request in unlimited in termsof geographic scope; 4. the request is vague; 5. the request is ambiguous; 6. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 7. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; 8. the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; 9. the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; 10. the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege;
18
11. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and,
12. the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
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 was first advised of such limits or concentrations;
B. The name of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice;
C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request is vague; 3. the request is ambiguous; 4. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 5. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; 6. the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; 7. the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; 8. the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; and, 9. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
19
INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
Please state whether and when Defendant received a copy
of the Fleischer/Drinker Report published in 1945/1946.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the ground the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
Please describe all actions taken by Defendant to comply
with the Boiler Inspection Act, previously 45 U.S.C. 23 during the past thirty-five (35) years,
now designated at 49 U.S.C. 20701 et seq.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. NSRC objects to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: 1. the request is overly broad; 2. the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; 3. the request is vague; 4. the request is ambiguous; 5. the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 6. the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly
burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, 7. the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168.
NSRC further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that Plaintiffs decedent was never employed by it.
20
6
JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 112 E. Pecan, Suite 2100 San Antonio, Texas 78205 TEL: (210)978-7700 FAX: (210) 978-7796
LEO D. FIGUEROA State Bar No. 06984100
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
CERTIFICATE OESERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by hand delivery, to Mr. Peter Kraus / Ms. Kimberly A. Castles, Baron & Budd, A Professional Corporation, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219, on this the 6V~Kday
of August, 1997.
All defense counsel may request a
of this document Jl
\Jia
LEO D. FIGUEROA
1612040/03
21
N$ GEN MGR CftS aM$ Fax:8046292639
Aug 7 '9? 9:12
P.02'02
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
By: T. M. Body Assistant to the - Casualty Claims Norfolk Southern Corporation
STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF NORFOLK
)
)
)
T. M. Body, bang first duly sworn upon his oath, says that he has read the above and foregoing Answers and Objections of Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company to Plaintiffs Interrogatories Directed to Norfolk Soothers Railway Company; that he does sot have personal knowledge regarding the answers thereto bat that foe matters set forth therein are true, according to his best information and belief; and that he is authorized to execute these answers on behalf of the Norfolk Southern Railway Company.
T. M. Brady Assistant to the General Manager Casualty Claims Norfolk. Southern Corpondoa
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
August-, 1997.
day of
My Commission Expires: Q-30-Q8
CJunJ1L6cr#f.
Notary P'uubWlicicf
Jj
COMMISSIONED AS CHERIL. TATE
15