Document MOrv8qRaNrggvDZNM6E46b7a

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT STATE OF ILLINOIS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF MCLEAN BEVERLY LAHNE, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Richard Lahne, deceased, Plaintiff, v. ABEX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 96 L 41 ) ) ) ) c m> Pc 0 4z> favtz DEFENDANT OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY Defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc. (hereinafter "Owens-Illinois") for its Response to Plaintiffs First Request for Discovery states as follows: 1. All transcripts in the possession of O-l of the trial or deposition testimony of any of the following: Robert Grim, Richard Grimmie, Richard Jackson or any other person who fits within the group to whom 0-1 referred in opening statement in McClure 94 L107, as "people who used to work at the Owens-Illinois plant in the '40's and in the '50s." RESPONSE: Owens-Illinois objects to this request as vague and ambiguous with respect to which Owens-Illinois employees plaintiff is referring, but assumes that the request refers to information regarding the Owens-Illinois' plant workers in the 1940's and 1950's mentioned to in McClure. Owens-Illinois also objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and that it seeks irrelevant and immaterial information which is neither admissible nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Expressly reserving and without waiving its objections, and subject to them, Owens-Illinois, has previously produced copies of all the 2 transcripts in its possession of trial or deposition testimony provided by Richard E. Grimmie to the plaintiffs counsel with Owens-Illinois' responses to plaintiffs request for discovery in Phelps. 94 L 295 (McLean County). Owens-Illinois is not aware, or in possession of, any other transcripts of any other persons to whom counsel for Owens-Illinois referred during opening statement in McClure. Mr. Grim was never an Owens-Illinois plant worker and Mr. Jackson has never given trial or deposition testimony. 2. All documents served by any party on the opposite party in the "arbitration claim by Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation for partial indemnity under a clause in a 1958 contract by which Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation acquired the ... asbestos insulation business" of Owens-Illinois, Inc., and the arbitration counterclaims by Owens-Illinois, Inc. against Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation as described in pages 55 and 56 of the form 10-K of Owens-Illinois for the fiscal year ended December 31,1994. RESPONSE: Owens-Illinois objects to this request as vague and ambiguous with respect to which documents plaintiff is referring to as those "served by any party on the opposite party." Owens-Illinois also objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad, that it seeks irrelevant and immaterial information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and that it is not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. Specifically, Owens-Illinois states that the arbitration involved questions of contract construction regarding an indemnity provision contained in a 1958 sales contract between Owens-Illinois and Owens-Coming Fiberglas. The contemporary legal dispute over the terms of the contract is not relevant to this lawsuit. Furthermore, this request seeks documents that are subject to a Protective Award Compelling Confidentiality and Non-Waiver of Privileges and Protection (the "Award"), a certified copy of which is attached. The Award defined "confidential information" as "[all materials . . . produced and other information disclosed during the course of discovery, hearings or other proceedings in the] arbitration," including ail documents, "filed with ... or submitted to the Panel." (Award fll). Thus, the Award covers all documents "served by one party on the opposite party" in the arbitration, including all pleadings served in the arbitration. Moreover, the documents requested are subject to a privilege applicable to confidential communications made in reliance on their confidentiality in the course of an arbitration proceeding. See Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board v. Homer Community Consolidated School District No. 208,132 lll.2d 29, 547 N.E.2d 182 (1989). The Award makes clear that all arbitration information was disclosed in confidence and that the preservation of confidentiality was important to the parties and to the prompt and efficient conduct of the arbitration. Finally, some of the documents requested, even if not protected from disclosure by the Award or by the privilege described in Homer, are subject to the attorney- client, work product or joint defense privilege. 3. Each different telex or other document by which McKinney of JohnsManville invited representatives of various companies, including Owens-Illinois, to a meeting on May 22,1979, and all documents concerning, and minutes of, that meeting. RESPONSE: Owens-Illinois objects to this request as vague and ambiguous with respect to whether the documents requested include anything other than the document which plaintiff attached to its discovery requests in this case, a copy of which Owens-Illinois previously received from plaintiffs counsel in the course of other litigation. Owens-Illinois also objects that this request seeks irrelevant and immaterial information which is neither admissible nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Expressly reserving and without waiving its objections, and subject to them, Owens-Illinois states that after performing a reasonable search, it believes that it possesses no document by which Johns-Manville invited representatives of various companies to a meeting on May 22,1979, other than the document referred and attached to plaintiffs discovery request in this case, a copy of which Owens-Illinois obtained as stated above. 4. All documents regarding any other meeting of representatives of three or more of the companies named in the memorandum regarding the CEO Meeting of May 22,1979 (a copy of which is attached). RESPONSE: Owens-Illinois objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous with respect to which "other meetings ... regarding the CEO meeting of May 22,1979" plaintiff is referring to. Furthermore, Owens-Illinois objects that the request is overly broad and that it seeks information that is neither admissible nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Expressly reserving and without waiving its objections, and subject to them, Owens-Illinois states that after performing a reasonable search, it believes that it possesses no documents which relate to any other meeting connected with the meeting of May 22, 1979, regardless of the number of company representatives present. 5. The results of all tests performed by, at the direction of, or known to O-l regarding the maximum distance that an asbestos particle can travel through the air; RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the work-product privilege or documents obtained in preparation for litigation. This defendant also objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in th6 manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kayio asbestos-containing products. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kayio asbestos-containing products in 1958. Without waiving the above objections, this defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kayio asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has found no documents in its business records responsive to this request. 6. The results of all tests performed by, at the direction of or known to O-l regarding the maximum time that an asbestos particle can travel through the air; RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the work-product privilege or documents obtained in preparation for litigation. This defendant also objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kayio asbestos-containing products. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kayio asbestos-containing products in 1958. Without waiving the above objections, this defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kayio asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has found no documents in its business records responsive to this request. 7. The results of all tests performed by, at the direction of, or known to 0-1 regarding the minimum quantity of asbestos necessary to induce mesothelioma; RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the work-product privilege or documents obtained in preparation for litigation. This defendant also objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products in 1958. Without waiving the above objections, this defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has found no documents in its business records responsive to this request. Further, during the time this defendant was involved in its Kaylo asbestos-containing products business, the state of medical and scientific knowledge was such that there was no reason to believe there was any connection between exposure to asbestos and the risk of contracting mesothelioma. 8. Its original records (or if the originals are not available then the best available copies) of sales or deliveries of Kaylo to: Mechanical Insulation AC&S Commonwealth Edison Rile Stoker Babcock & Wilcox United Engineers & construction Power Systems J. L. Allen Foster Wheeler Illinois Power Company CILCO Brand Insulation A & M insulation Sprinkmann Insulation RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products and except as it relates to plaintiffs employers during plaintiffs periods of employment. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products in 1958. Without waiving the above objections, plaintiff has not provided specific locations for any of the companies listed in this request. This defendant has found no records indicating that it sold, distributed, or otherwise supplied Kaylo insulation products containing asbestos to any locations within the state of Illinois for the companies listed in this request. 9. Its original records (or if the originals are not available then the best available copies) of the shipment or delivery (whether for installation by O-l or others) of Kaylo to: Commonwealth Edison Power Plant Cordova, IL Edwards Station Power Plant Bartonville, IL Caterpillar Tractor Co. All locations including Mapleton, East Peoria, Mossiville and Morton Commonwealth Edison's Powerton Plant Pekin, IL Duck Creek Power Station Canton, IL University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign, IL Wallace Power Station East Peoria, IL RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products and except as it relates to plaintiffs employers during plaintiffs periods of employment. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products in 1958. Without waiving the above objections, this defendant has found no records indicating that it sold, distributed, or otherwise supplied Kaylo insulation products containing asbestos to any locations listed. Respectfully submitted, SCHIFF HARDIN & WAITE 7200 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 60606 312/876-1000 One of the Attorneys for Owens-Illinois, Inc. Joseph J. O'Hara, Jr. Matthew J. Fischer STATE OF ILLINOIS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF MCLEAN BEVERLY LAHNE, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Richard Lahne, deceased, Plaintiff, v. ABEX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 96 L41 ) ) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 27,1997,1 served a copy of Defendant OwensIllinois, Inc.'s Response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Discovery, on all attorneys listed on the attached service list, by depositing same in the United States Mail in Chicago, Illinois, postage pre-paid. I additionally served plaintiffs' counsel by hand delivery on May 27, 1997. SCHIFF HARDIN & WAITE Matthew J. Richer 7200 Sears Tower Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 258-5591 -------------- ^ 2 1997 SERVICE LIST Lahne v. Abex Corporation, et al. No. 96 L 41, McLean County James Walker James Walker, Ltd. 207 West Jefferson Street P.O. Box 3455 Bloomington, IL 61702-3455 Edward J. Matushek HI Haskell & Perrin 200 West Adams Street Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Gregory C. Knapp P.O. Box 205 1952 South Main Street Eureka, IL 61530 Dennis J. Dobbels Polsinelli, White, Vardeman & Shalton, P.C. 700 West 47th Street Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 Ward Brown Kurnik, Cipolla, Stephenson & Barasha, Ltd. 120 West Eastman Street Suite 302 Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Cathy Molchin Schmidt & Molchin, P.C. 1518 First Financial Plaza 411 Hamilton Boulevard Peoria, IL 61602-1182 Robert W. Scott Swain, Hartshorn & Scott 1806 Savings Center Tower 411 Hamilton Boulevard Peoria, IL 61602 Robert W. Scott Swain, Hartshorn & Scott 1806 Savings Center Tower 411 Hamilton Boulevard Peoria, IL 61602 Edward Crane Deborah Solmor Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 333 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-1285 Richard K. Hellerman Amstein & Lehr 120 South Riverside Plaza Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60606-3913 Robert W. Nierynck Costigan & Wollrab P.O. Box 3127 Bloomington, IL 61702-3127 Robert Spitkovsky, Jr. Johnson & Bell 222 North LaSalle Street Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60601 Roland N. Litterst Litterst Law Office, Ltd. 500 River Valley Plaza Peoria, IL 61602 CHU:123280.I 05.27.97 09.04