Document N2467x5J69qgbLvLQmJjJQZJV

FILE NAME: Ford (FD) DATE: 2003 DOC#: FD092 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Ford's Amended Response to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories p< & o 9 2 Brown McCarroll L.L.P. JAN. 0 7 . 0 3 * 0 6 9 4 5 7 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2 0 0 0 , -Dallas, Texas 7755 2 0 1 - 6 9 2 9 214-9 9 9 -6 1 0 0 fax 214-999-6170 . , - 1 d i r e c t (214) 981-7077 Tdinck@mailbmc.com : January 3, 2003 (* In RE: Asbestos Court Administrator 68th District Court Records Building 509 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75202 Re In RE: Asbestos Master Discovery Filing Ford Motor Company's Amended Response To Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Request For Production Propounded To Defendants Dear Asbestos Court Administrator: We are enclosing Ford Motor Company's Amended Response To Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Request For Production Propounded To Defendants. Please file and return a filestamped copy. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Kathleen Morrison Linck Legal Assistant Enclosure cc: Mike Kaeski Kaeske Reeve 6301 Gaston, Suite 735 Dallas, TX 75214 DAI. 394147 I ; "<> Aust i n Dallas Hou s t o n L n g \ lew IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED OR TO BE FILED IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS IN CIVIL DISTRICT COURTS AND COUNTY COURTS AT LAW ' , OF DALLAS. COUNTY, TE^AS FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S AMENDED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANTS Defendant, Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), submits its Amended Response to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendants. Respectfully submitted, BROWN MCCARROLL^L.P. JohnHenderson State Bar No. 09424200 Sean M. Higgins State Bar No. 24001220 1111 Bagby, 47th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Ph. (713) 559-6213 Fax (713) 525-6295 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing instrument has been filed with the Asbestos Court Administrator as per the Master Asbestos Case Management Order-2P0f, on January 3, 2003. 'AithurTiTfialdQiT^ State Bar No. 24002186 DM- 457000 I 'T 4 i PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Ford's Response to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests has been prepared in full compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure ("TRCP"), pursuant to a reasonable and duly diligent search for information properly requested. For many years Ford has had at any time hundreds o f thousands o f employees m different locations throughout the world. In conducting its business Ford has created every year millions o f documents that have been kept in numerous different locations and have been moved frequently from site to site as employees have changed jobs. Accordingly, Ford does not, and could not possibly, represent that its responses constitute all o f the information requested. Rather, as required by the TRCP, Ford's responses reflect all responsive information identified by Ford before the date of the responses pursuant to a reasonable and duly diligent search and investigation conducted in connection with these requests. To the extent that the requests purport to require more, Ford objects on the grounds that (a) the requests seek to compel Ford to conduct a search beyond the scope o f permissible discovery contemplated by the TRCP and (b) compliance with the requests would impose an undue burden and expense. Furthermore, in compliance with the TRCP, Ford responds to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests only with respect to information and/or documents in Ford's possession, custody, or control. Some or all o f Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests purport to call for information or documents not in the possession, custody or control of Ford but in the possession, custody, or control of other, separate legal entities. To the extent that Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests attempt to require Ford to obtain information and/or documents not in Ford's possession, custody, or control, Ford objects on the grounds that they (a) seek to compel Ford to conduct a search beyond the scope D M .45TJO O 1 of permissible discovery contemplated by the TRCP and (b) impose an undue burden and expense on Ford Ford does not concede that any o f its responses will be admissible evidence at trial. Further, Ford does not waive any objections, whether or not stated herein, to use such answers at trial. When Ford uses any terms or phrases that Plaintiffs have purported to define, such terms and phrases should be given either (a) the meanings set out by Ford herein or in the individual responses or (b) in cases of ordinary words that Plaintiffs have attempted to define in a manner inconsistent with their meanings, the ordinary meaning of such words. ANSWERS TO INDIVIDUAL INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1 State the name, address, job title, length o f time employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list o f all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant o f each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. OBJECTIONS: Ford objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory seeks information protected under the attorney-client privilege or work product immunity, and on the additional grounds that the interrogatory (a) is overly broad and (b) seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter o f this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ANSWER Subject to and without waiving these objections, Ford states that these are the answers of Defendant Ford Motor Company and are signed on behalf o f Ford by the authorized agent identified on the attached verification. They were prepared under the direction and supervision of Ford's attorneys, including outside counsel. 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 DAL 457000 1 person or entity authorized to accept service o f process on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate o f Authority to do business in the State o f Texas. ANSWER: Ford Motor Company was incorporated in the State o f Delaware on July 9, 1919. Ford's principal place o f business is located at The American Road, Dearborn, Michigan 48121. Ford has offices, assembly plants and-other facilities at various locations throughout the world. Ford is qualified to conduct business in all 50 states o f the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 3 Has Defendant or any o f 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 o f the mine(s), the years o f its operation, the type of asbestos mined and whether you sold any asbestos to any Defendants in the Dallas County asbestos litigation. OBJECTIONS: Ford believes that most or all o f the documents for which the information requested in this interrogatory could only be denved from are no longer available due to the extreme passage of time. Ford objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it (a) is overly broad and unlimited in scope, (b) seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence, and (c) is unduly burdensome and oppressive. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving these objections, Ford states that it has never mined raw asbestos or manufactured asbestos-containing products. Ford states that it did sell vehicles and replacement parts which included asbestos-containing brake linings, pads and clutch facings through franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors in the United States, under names such as Ford, Mercury, Ford Authorized Remanufacturers, and under various lines and series names such as Motorcraft. Such components were purchased from suppliers to Ford. 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 or sold. D-\I 457000 1 3~3 54 1 ANSWER: Ford refers to and incorporates herein its Answer to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5 Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any o f its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time marketed or sold. ANSWER: Ford sold replacement parts, which included asbestos-containing brake linings, pads and clutch facings, through franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors in the United States. Aftermarket parts were sold under the name o f Ford or Ford Authorized Remanufacturers, as well as various lines and series names, such as Motorcraft. Ford states that it has not manufactured asbestos-containing brake linings, pads or clutch facings. Ford purchased these products from suppliers. Ford understands the type o f asbestos fibers in these to be chrysotile. However, since Ford did not manufacture these products, it does not know percentages of asbestos that they contain, but, generally, it is thought to be, for example, between 40% and 60% asbestos, by weight, in brake linings. INTERROGATORY NO. 6 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, and/or sold. B. The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each product mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. C. The trade or brand name o f each o f those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold. D. The date each o f the named products was placed on the market. E. A description o f the physical (chemical) composition o f each o f the named products, including the type o f asbestos contained in the product and the percentage o f 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 o f each o f the named products. I. A detailed description of the intended uses of the named products. J. Identify the last year that you sold each asbestos- containing product. DAL 457000 1 37354 1 ANSWER: Ford states as follows: A. Ford sold replacement parts, which included asbestos-containing brake linings, pads and clutch facings, through franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors in the United States; B. Ford purchased these products from suppliers. Ford will produce a list o f some historic suppliers upon request; C. Aftermarket parts were sold under the name o f Ford or Ford Authorized Remanufacturers, as well as various lines and series names, such as Motorcraft; D. Ford believes asbestos-containing friction products were incorporated into its vehicles since it began selling mass production vehicles in the early 1900's; E. Ford understands the type o f asbestos fibers in these to be chrysotile. However, since Ford did not manufacture these products, it does not know percentages o f asbestos that they contain, but, generally, it is thought to be, for example, between 40% and 60% asbestos, by weight, in brake linings. F. Ford states that the use of asbestos-containing friction products were phased out o f the majority o f Ford's vehicles by 1984. By 1993, the only vehicles in which asbestos-containing friction products were still used were low-volume limousine applications. Their use in limousines was discontinued in 1997. G. Ford states that the use o f asbestos-containing friction products were phased out o f the majority of Ford's vehicles by 1984. By 1993, the only vehicles in which asbestos-containing friction products were still used were low-volume limousine applications. Their use in limousines was discontinued in 1997. No one person authorized or directed the stoppage o f asbestos-containing friction products. Such products were phased out as OSHA regulations changed and suitable alternatives were discovered; H. A brake lining is a narrow rectangle, shaped to fit around a circle. A brake pad is a narrow arc-shaped material mounted to an arc-shaped flat plate. A clutch facing is a flat, round, metal plate with two rings, one on each side of friction material. The facing is between the fly-wheel o f the engine and the pressure plate o f the transmission; I. Ford refers Plaintiff to the Answer to Interrogatory No. 6 (H); J. Ford refers Plaintiff to the Answer to Interrogatory No. 6 (G). INTERROGATORY NO. 7 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 listed in Interrogatory No. 6 still exist? If so, state: A. A description of each such document. DAL. 4 "0 0 0 1 57554 1 B. The name, address, and job title o f each person who currently has possession o f each document, and where the documents are currently located. OBJECTIONS: Ford believes that most or all o f the documents for which the information requested in this interrogatory could only be derived from are no longer available due to the extreme passage o f time. Ford objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it (a) is overly broad and unlimited in scope, (b) seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter o f this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence, and (c) is unduly burdensome and oppressive ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving these objections, Ford purchased brake linings, pads and clutch facings from its suppliers. Aspects o f design and preparation o f these products are proprietary with their manufacturers. Ford prepared performance specifications, not manufacturing specifications. Specifications would be issued, samples received, samples tested against specifications and purchase orders issued. Many Ford employees were involved in this process. INTERROGATORY NO. 8 Before distnbuting, selling, or placing the products listed in your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 into the streams o f 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 o f the products tested and the date o f each test. B. The name, address, and job title o f each person conducting the tests or involved with conducting the tests. C. The results o f the tests. ANSWER: Ford states that in the early 1970's Arnold Anderson and Roy Gealer o f Ford's Scientific Research Staff conducted tests to determine the quantity o f asbestos fibers liberated from brake linings during the braking process. They concluded that over 99.98% o f the asbestos fibers in brake linings decomposed during the braking process into other materials. Their results were published in a 1973 SAE paper by A. Anderson and R. Gealer entitled "Asbestos Emissions From Brake Dynamometer Tests." DAI 457000 ! In 1973, Ford's Industrial Hygiene Department conducted air sampling tests on brake linings being cleaned by brake mechanics using air hoses. They determined that asbestos levels were well below existing or proposed OSHA standards. This testing was done by Mr. Anderson and Henry Lick, under the supervision o f Paul Toth, who was then manager o f Industrial Hygiene. In addition, Ford states that commencing in the early 1970's, Ford participated in and provided partial funding for studies done by Dr. Irving Selikoff and others at what is now the Mt. Sinai School o f Medicine in New York, which work was reported on in a paper entitled "Asbestos Exposure During Brake Lining and Maintenance and Repair," published in Environmental Research. Vol. 12, pp. 110-128(1976). The work done was a study o f the environmental pollution, if any, caused by asbestos in brake linings. The study came to focus on the occupational exposure o f mechanics during brake repair and maintenance. Ford's Research and Engineering Department and Industrial Hygiene Department were advised of the study. INTERROGATORY NO. 9 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 referred to in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. A description o f each such document. B. The name, address, and job title o f each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Did Defendant or any o f its predecessor or subsidiary companies make any design changes or modifications as a result o f those tests described in responses to Interrogatory No. 8? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The trade names o f the products changed. B. The nature o f the changes made and the date o f such changes or modifications. C. The name, address, and job title o f each person responsible for having caused a change to be made, or having made a change or modification. ANSWER: Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 7. DM. 457000 1 3"354 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 11 A fter releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use o f or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names o f the products tested and the dates o f such tests. B. The name, address, and job title o f each person who conducted those tests. C. The results o f those tests. D. Whether, as a result o f the tests, any products were removed from the market. E. The names o f all products removed from the market as a result o f these tests. ANSWER: Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 12 Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials o f any kind or character, relating to the potential health hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. The name o f each product. B. A description o f each document and how it relates to each product. C. The name, address, and job title o f each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 13 Did Defendant or any o f its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result o f the tests discussed in your response to Interrogatories No. 8 or 11? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names o f the products changed or modified. B. The name, address, and job title o f 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: DAL 457000 1 Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 14 Has Defendant or any o f its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed materia], including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material or any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility o f injury resulting from the use o f the asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No. 6? If so, state: A. The names o f each relevant product. B. The exact wording o f each warning statement on each printed material. C. A description o f 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 o f each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning. G. The current location o f any such printed material and the custodian thereof. H. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, i.e., the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSWER: Ford states that it did not manufacture asbestos-containing brake or clutch products for sale in its vehicles. Ford purchased preassembled brake and clutch assemblies which were installed in vehicles or sold as replacement parts. Therefore, most promotional material concerning brakes or clutch assemblies would pertain to the vehicle as a whole or to pre-assembled replacement parts. However, Ford states that it began using the following warning on its cartons in 1980: CAUTION: CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS. AVOID CREATING DUST. BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM. WHEN SERVICING THIS BRAKE LINING OR ANY COMPONENT RELATED TO IT OR LOCATED NEAR IT, PREVENT ASBESTOS DUST FROM BEING AIRBORNE BY VACUUMING THIS ASSEMBLY WITH AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE VACUUM CLEANER EQUIPPED WITH A HIGH EFFICIENCY FILTER SYSTEM AND BY WASHING THE ASSEMBLY WITH AN APPROPRIATE BRAKE PARTS WASHER IF NECESSARY. NEVER REMOVE DUST OR DIRT FROM THIS ASSEMBLY BY BLOWING WITH COMPRESSED AIR. In addition, Ford issued an August 3, 1973, memorandum to Plant Safety Engineers directing that brake drums be cleaned using industrial type vacuum cleaners. The memo directed that air hoses should not be used to clean brake drums. Simultaneously, Maintenance Bulletin 137 was issued by the Plant Engineering Office to the same effect. DAL 457000 1 37354 I On October 24,1975, Ford Technical Service Bulletin 99 was distributed to Ford and Lincoln-Mercury Dealers. It recommended that a vacuum cleaner be used for cleaning brakes. In January 1976, a Technical Service Bulletin 104 was issued to the dealers indicating that Ford recommended the use o f an industrial vacuum cleaner in brake cleaning operations. The 1977 edition o f the Rotunda Catalog and Ford's Shop Manual for Dealerships recommended that brakes not be cleaned with an air hose and that a vacuum cleaner be used for this purpose. In November 1983, Ford issued Bulletin No. 83-22 on brake and clutch servicing. Technical Service Bulletins are presently distributed to approximately 29,000 Ford and Lincoln-Mercury dealer technicians. These documents are the results o f corporate activity and are not the work of any single author. These bulletins have not been superseded. Additionally, as mentioned in Ford's Preliminary Statement, Ford will make available for inspection at a mutually agreeable time in Dearborn, Michigan, a collection of documents and other materials pertaining to asbestos, which may contain information responsive to this request. INTERROGATORY NO. 15 Before 1970, had you received notice that any individual or individuals, other than those Plaintiffs who have filed personal injury actions in Dallas County, Texas, is or are claiming or has or have claimed an injury as a result o f using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company or any o f its predecessors or subsidiaries before 1970? If so, state: A. The name and address o f each claimant. B. The date o f notice of each claim. C. A description o f the claim. D. The type o f 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. OBJECTIONS: Ford objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it (a) is overly broad, (b) seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter o f this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence at the trial o f this matter, and (c) is unduly burdensome and oppressive. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving these objections, Ford's records do not permit retrieval of this information as injuries alleged are described in general terms such as: lungs, chest, back, DAL 457000 1 37354 1 silicosis, bronchitis, emphysema, pneumoconiosis, cough, pulmonary system, etc., resulting from exposure to "deleterious substances" or "atmospheric pollutants." It is impossible to ascertain from these records whether or not the alleged injury was associated with asbestos exposure. Furthermore, because o f the differences in occupational exposure, the information sought would not be relevant to the claims asserted herein. INTERROGATORY NO. 16 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 o f each o f those companies, and the products in question. ANSWER: Ford states that it sold replacement parts which included asbestos-containing brake linings, pads and clutch facings through franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors in the United States, under names such as Ford, Mercury, Ford Authorized Remanufacturers, and under various lines and series names such as Motorcraft. Aftermarket parts were sold under the name o f Ford or Ford Authorized Remanufacturers. Ford will produce a list o f Ford Authorized Remanufacturers. INTERROGATORY NO. 17 Did you or any o f your predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries have any distributors or sales representatives o f asbestos products in the States o f Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia? If so, state: A. The name and address o f each such distributor or sales representatives. B. The years in which such company or person distributed, marketed, or sold your products. C. What products were distributed, marketed, or sold and in what years. OBJECTIONS: Ford objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it (a) is overly broad, (b) seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter o f this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence at the trial o f this matter, and (c) is unduly burdensome and oppressive. ANSWER: Ford states that it sold replacement parts which included asbestos-containing brake linings, pads and clutch facings through franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors m the United States, under names such as Ford, Mercury, Ford Authorized Remanufacturers, and DAL 457000.1 37354 1 under various lines and series names such as Motorcraft. Ford also sold vehicles which included asbestos-containing friction products to the United States government. INTERROGATORY NO. 18 List each employee (including only physicians and/or hygienists) 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 o f those individuals and who has, had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of asbestos. ANSWER: Ford has employed medical directors as part o f the Staff to monitor the health and safety of the employees. They are located in Dearborn, Michigan. They have been: Harley Krieger, M.D.: ? to 1954; now deceased; E.A. Irvin, M.D.: 1954 to 1970, now deceased; Duane L. Block, M.D.: 1970 to 1987; and John Triebwasser, M.D.: 1987 to present. An aggregate o f approximately 40 industrial hygienists have been employed at Ford in the past 45 years. Industrial Hygiene at Ford is a central staff function o f the Staff. In general, all 40 were classified as industrial hygienists with responsibility to perform industrial hygiene field studies only at Ford locations. The names o f the 40 are presented as follows in two groups--those presently employed and those who have left Ford. Credentials and dates of employment will be listed where known. Present Industrial Hygienists D.S. Carruthers, B.S., M.S. Occ & Env. Health, CIH L. Latorre, B.S., M.S. Industrial Hygiene, CIH, CSP, 1976 H.B. Lick, B.A., M.B.A., M.S. Occ & Envc. Health, CIH, CSP, 1968 S.S. Mingela, B.S., M.S. Occ & Env. Health, CIH, CSP, 1977 M. D. Kelly, B.S., CIH T.F. Strow, B.S., M.S., CIH P.A. Brogan, M.S. DAL 457000 1 }~354 1 Occ & Env. Health, CIH D. Hands, M.S., CIH Past Industrial Hygienists R. Anderson 1960s E. Brown 1960s N. Brush 1972-77 W. Delhey 1950s H. Dryer 1978-80 D. Eschelbach 1950s A. Frazho 1960s L. Jenson 1960s A. Karpowich 1978-80 R. Kersten 1977 W. Kronberger T. Mooney 1930s M. O'Brien 1977-81 D. Padden 1930s D. Greschaw 1956-80s C. Plasters 1950s-80s 1980s K. Swaney 1980s L. Parrish 1978-81 W. Preston S. Rabinovitz 1970s J. Radcliff, frnr. mgr., 1948-72 L. Redmond 1950s E. Ross 1950s J. Sattelmeier 1960s J. Slosar 1960s F. Snitz 1960s J. Sproat 1977 J. Stanko 1973 R. Stites 1940s P. Toth, fmr. mgr., 1960-82 J. Ware 1960s R. Wabeke, fmr. mgr, 1970s and INTERROGATORY NO. 19 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 o f each such publication. B. The date o f publication and the names o f the author and publisher (if any). C. The date received by Defendant, if known. D. The name, job title, and address o f each person who currently has possession o f each publication and its present location. OBJECTIONS: Ford objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it (a) is overly broad, (b) seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter o f this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence at the trial o f this matter, and (c) is unduly burdensome and oppressive. DAI 457000 I ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving these objections, Ford states that libraries are maintained in the following functional areas in Dearborn, Michigan: medical, industrial hygiene, toxicology, and health surveillance. Among the items in these libraries there surely are journals, books, and other publications that contain references to asbestos. There is no specific depository solely dedicated to the topic o f asbestos. The following journals, among others, were subscribed to at some time during the period from 1928 to the present by the medical and health interests: Industrial Health Industrial Medicine & Surgery Journal of Occupational Medicine Journal of American Medical Association Archives of Environmental Health British Journal of Industrial Medicine Annals o f Occupational Hygiene Journal of American Industrial Hygiene Association The following journals, among others, were subscribed to at some time by industrial hygiene interests: Archives o f Environmental Health American Industrial Hygiene Journal Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology British Journal of Industrial Medicine The Annals o f Occupational Hygiene Some health information relative to asbestos is maintained at the Industrial Hygiene and Employee Health Department. Additionally, as mentioned in Ford's Preliminary Statement, Ford will make available for inspection at a mutually agreeable time in Dearborn, Michigan, a collection o f documents and other materials pertaining to asbestos, which may contain information responsive to this request. INTERROGATORY NO. 20 Has Defendant or any o f 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 D \L 45'7000 1 37354 1 relating to the hazards o f asbestos comprised o f other manufacturers, miners, marketers, and/or sellers o f asbestos products? If so, state: A. The name and address o f each such association or organization. B. The dates during which Defendant or any o f its subsidiaries or predecessors were mentea C. The names and dates o f any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any o f the named associations or organizations. D. Whether any o f those publications are still in your possession, and if so: E. A description o f the publications, including the date. F. The current location o f such publications. G. The custodian o f such publications. H. The method or maimer in which such publications are maintained. ANSWER: Ford states as follows: A. Ford or Ford employees, or both, have had memberships in the American Society for Testing and Materials, Society o f Automotive Engineers and the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Ford cannot identify all o f its employees who have been or are members o f these organizations. Ford also had a membership from January 1947 through December 1974 in the Industrial Health Foundation, formerly known as the Industrial Hygiene Foundation. Ford is a member o f the National Association o f Manufacturers, 1176 F. St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006; Michigan Manufacturers Association; Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, 300 New Center Building, Detroit, Michigan 48202; and the National Safety Council, 444 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60611. B. Please refer to 20A. C. Ford states that Mr. Paul Toth, former Industrial Hygiene Manager, and H.L. Northrop, M.D., former Associate Medical Director, represented Ford at NIOSH brake/clutch assembly hazards meetings in 1975 and 1976. A copy o f minutes o f a 1975 meeting is available. Other meetings and seminars were attended by several other industrial hygienists o f Ford from 1970 to the present. The Asbestos Information Association reports that representatives of Ford sometimes attended an industry government conference, held annually by the Association: Mr. James Stock, Sept. 19-20, 1978, Mr. R. A. Husen Sept. 16-17, 1981 It would be impossible for Ford to identify all Ford employees who may have attended meetings at which asbestos may have been a topic. DAL 457000 1 37354 1 D. A copy o f minutes o f a 1975 meeting is available. INTERROGATORY NO. 21 Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products listed in your answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 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. OBJECTIONS: Ford objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it (a) is overly broad, (b) seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter o f this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence at the trial o f this matter, and (c) is unduly burdensome and oppressive. ANSWER: Subject to and without waving these objections, Ford believes asbestos-containing friction products were incorporated into its vehicles since it began selling mass production vehicles in the early 1900 's. Ford further states that the use o f asbestos-containing friction products were phased out o f the majority o f Ford's vehicles by 1984. By 1993, the only vehicles in which asbestos-containing friction products were still used were low-volume limousine applications. Their use in limousines was discontinued in 1997. Ford additionally, sold replacement parts, which included asbestos-containing brake linings, pads and clutch facings, through franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors in the United States. Aftermarket parts were sold under the name o f Ford or Ford Authorized Remanufacturers, as well as various lines and series names, such as Motorcraft. Ford states that it has not manufactured asbestos-containing brake linings, pads or clutch facings. Ford purchased these products from suppliers. INTERROGATORY NO. 22 Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any o f its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes of marketing or advertising products containing asbestos? If so, state: A. The name, address, and job title o f each person or entity who prepared such materials. B. The name, address, and job title o f each person who currently has possession of such materials and their present location. C. The date the materials were prepared. DAL 457000 1 D. The media used to disseminate the sales materials. ANSWER: Ford states that it did not manufacture asbestos-containing brake or clutch products for use in its vehicles. Ford purchased preassembled brake and clutch assemblies which were installed in vehicles or sold as replacement parts. Therefore, most promotional material concerning brakes or clutch assemblies would pertain to the vehicle as a whole or to pre-assembled replacement parts. INTERROGATORY NO. 23 Have any written or printed materials or instructions o f 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, A. The name, address, and job title o f each person who prepared such materials or instructions or assisted in their preparation. B. The name, address and job title o f each person who currently has possession of such materials or instructions and their present location. C. The dates o f distribution or use and the manner in which such materials or instructions were distributed to purchasers o f Defendant's products or those of its subsidiaries or predecessors. D. The year each such written material or instruction was prepared and disclosed to potential consumers. ANSWER: Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 14. INTERROGATORY NO. 24 Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claims made by Plaintiffs in these cases? If so, list the name o f each insurance carrier, the amount o f initial coverage, amount o f coverage remaining at the present time, and the effective dates o f each policy. (If properly answered, this Interrogatory need not be supplemented as to the remaining amount o f coverage). ANSWER: Yes. Ford states that a summary o f its liability insurance is offered. DAL 457000 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 25 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 o f asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant became aware o f the existence o f the disease. C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects o f the disease and/or o f 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 or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. F. Who is the custodian o f such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation o f asbestos fibers. ANSWER: Ford states that the first case report associating asbestos exposure with asbestosis was published in the United Kingdom in 1907. Scattered case reports o f carcinoma in persons occupationally-exposed to asbestos began appearing in the literature in the 1930s. Ford cannot state when a Ford employee first had knowledge o f such information. It is known, however, that the initial knowledge of a suggestion o f potential hazards associated with asbestos lined brakes came in a telephone call from Dr. Selikoff to Dr. Roy Gealer o f Ford Research and Engineering in April 1975. Ford cannot state when it or one o f its employees first had knowledge o f asbestos-related disease among its employees. Furthermore, because o f the difference in occupational exposure, the information sought would not be relevant to the claims asserted herein. INTERROGATORY NO. 26 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. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware o f 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 o f 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. DAL 457000 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 31 Describe in detail the types o f packages or packaging which Defendant or any o f its subsidiary or predecessor companies used for asbestos material or products, listing the dates each type o f package was used, a physical description o f each type o f package, and providing a description o f any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. ANSWER: Ford sold replacement parts, which included asbestos-containing brake linings, pads and clutch facings, through franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors in the United States. Aftermarket parts were sold under the name o f Ford or Ford Authorized Remanufacturers, as well as various lines and series names, such as Motorcraft. Ford states that it has not manufactured asbestos-containing brake linings, pads or clutch facings. Ford purchased these products from suppliers. Ford understands the type o f asbestos fibers in these to be chrysotile. However, since Ford did not manufacture these products, it does not know percentages o f asbestos that they contain, but, generally, it is thought to be, for example, between 40% and 60% asbestos, by weight, in brake linings. Ford additionally responds to this interrogatory by stating that a brake lining is a narrow rectangle, shaped to fit around a circle. A brake pad is a narrow arc-shaped material mounted to an arc-shaped flat plate. A clutch facing is a flat, round, metal plate with two rings, one on each side of friction material. The facing is between the fly-wheel o f the engine and the pressure plate of the transmission. Vehicles are not generally shipped in packages. Aftermarket brake linings, pads and clutch facings are shipped in cartons. Ford states that it began using the following warning on its cartons in 1980: CAUTION: CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS. AVOID CREATING DUST. BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM. WHEN SERVICING THIS BRAKE LINING OR ANY COMPONENT RELATED TO IT OR LOCATED NEAR IT, PREVENT ASBESTOS DUST FROM BEING AIRBORNE BY VACUUMING THIS ASSEMBLY WITH AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE VACUUM CLEANER EQUIPPED WITH A HIGH EFFICIENCY FILTER SYSTEM AND BY WASHING THE ASSEMBLY WITH AN APPROPRIATE BRAKE PARTS WASHER IF NECESSARY. NEVER REMOVE DUST OR DIRT FROM THIS ASSEMBLY BY BLOWING WITH COMPRESSED AIR. A sample aftermarket carton is offered. DAJL 457000 1 3"354 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 32 Has Defendant or any o f 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 o f the company manufacturing the asbestos products. B. The trade name affixed to those products. C. The periods o f time covered by each such agreement. D. The volume, in dollar amount, o f each transaction. E. The initial purchaser o f the products. OBJECTION: For objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous _____ as the term "rebranding" is not defined. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving this objection and based on its understanding o f this Interrogatory, Ford responds as follows: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 33 List the name and address o f 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 o f the materials, the dates o f such purchases, and the ultimate disposal of such materials. OBJECTIONS: Ford believes that most or all o f the documents for which the information requested in this interrogatory could only be derived from are no longer available due to the extreme passage o f time. Ford objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it (a) is overly broad and unlimited in scope, (b) seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter o f this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence, and (c) is unduly burdensome and oppressive. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving these objections, Ford states that it sold vehicles and replacement parts which included asbestos-containing brake linings, pads and clutch facings through franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors in the United States, under names DAL 457000 1 37354 1 such as Ford, Mercury, Ford Authorized Remanufacturers, and under various lines and series names such as Motorcraft. Ford has not manufactured asbestos-containing brake linings, pads or clutch facings. Such components were purchased from suppliers to Ford. Upon request, Ford will produce a list o f historic suppliers. INTERROGATORY NO. 34 Does Defendant or any o f its subsidiaries or predecessor currently have possession o f any writings or contracts on those rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to Interrogatory No. 32? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The name, address, and job title o f each person having custody o f each o f those documents and their current location. B. A brief description o f each such document, including the dates and the parties signatory. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 35 Prior to 1968, did any person file a claim against a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any o f 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 o f the disposition o f each such claim. D. The name, address and title o f the person having custody o f the records pertaining to each such claim. OBJECTIONS: Ford objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it (a) is overly broad, (b) seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter o f this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence at the trial o f this matter, and (c) is unduly burdensome and oppressive. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving these objections, Ford's records do not permit retrieval of this information as injuries alleged are described in general terms such as: lungs, chest, back, DAL 45^000 I silicosis, bronchitis, emphysema, pneumoconiosis, cough, pulmonary system, etc., resulting from exposure to "deleterious substances" or "atmospheric pollutants." It is impossible to ascertain from these records whether or not the alleged injury was associated with asbestos exposure. Furthermore, because o f the differences in occupational exposure, the information sought would not be relevant to the claims asserted herein. INTERROGATORY NO. 36 Did Defendant or any o f its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board o f 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 o f minutes, state: A. The dates o f 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 o f those individuals. OBJECTIONS: Ford objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it (a) is overly broad, (b) seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter o f this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence at the trial o f this matter, (c) is unduly burdensome and oppressive, (d) is argumentative in nature and (e) assumes facts not in evidence. Ford further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product immunity. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving these objections, Ford denies that there exists today any medical or scientific knowledge that establishes risks associated with exposure to its asbestos-containing friction products. INTERROGATORY NO. 37 Do you or any o f your subsidiaries, including foreign business entities, currently manufacture any products containing asbestos? If so, state: A. As to each product, whether such product is mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold. D '\L 45"000 1 1 B. The names and addresses o f the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each o f those products. C. The trade or brand name o f each o f those products mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. D. The date each o f the named products was placed on the market. E. A description o f the physical (chemical) composition o f each o f the named products, including the type o f asbestos contained in the product. F. A description o f the physical appearance o f each product and its packaging. G. A detailed description o f the intended uses o f each o f the named products. H. Whether there are any warning labels on said products or containers regarding potential asbestos-related health hazards. OBJECTION: Ford objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery o f relevant and admissible evidence. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving this objection, Ford responds that it did not manufacture asbestos containing brake linings or clutch facings. INTERROGATORY NO. 38 State whether you or any o f 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 o f asbestos products. If so, state: A. The location o f such documents. B. The name and address o f the custodian o f the documents. C. The format in which the documents are kept, jj^ , hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. D. In what form the documents can be accessed, i.e.. by state, by product, etc., and if by product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. OBJECTIONS: Ford believes that most or all of the documents for which the information requested in this interrogatory could only be derived from are no longer available due to the extreme passage o f time. Ford objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it (a) is overly broad and unlimited in scope, (b) seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this DAL 457000 1 3"354 ! action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence, and (c) is unduly burdensome and oppressive. ANSWER: Ford states that it sold vehicles and replacement parts which included asbestos-containing brake linings, pads and clutch facings through franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors in the United States, under names such as Ford, Mercury, Ford Authorized Remanufacturers, and under various lines and series names such as Motorcraft. Ford has not manufactured asbestos-containing brake linings, pads or clutch facings. Such components were purchased from suppliers to Ford. INTERROGATORY NO. 39 May you call company representatives as witnesses at the trial o f any o f these cases? If so, list: A. The name, address, and job title o f each company representative who may be called. B. A summary o f the testimony expected to be given by each 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 o f the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs in' that case. OBJECTION: Ford objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, in part because it purports to require Ford to marshal the evidence it will present at trial. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving this objection, Ford responds that it will disclose its witnesses in a case by case basis, a reasonable time before trial, upon Plaintiffs agreement to do the same. INTERROGATORY NO. 40 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 o f business; DAL *457000 1 37354 1 C. State o f incorporation; D. Date o f acquisition by Defendant; E. Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in the State o f Texas; ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 41 Was each o f 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. OBJECTION: Ford objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous in party, because the term "asbestos products" is undefined. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving this objection, Ford did not manufacture brake linings or clutch facings for use in its vehicles. It purchased brake and clutch assemblies which had already been preassembled and affixed to metal shoes or plates. These products were then installed as assemblies in vehicle components and were sold as original equipment on vehicles and as replacement parts. INTERROGATORY NO. 42 For each asbestos-containing product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6, identify all foreseeable users such as insulators, helpers, pipefitters, welders, machinists, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, boilermakers, shipwrights and riggers, etc. o f any o f Defendant's asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Ford refers to the voluminous medical literature freely available in medical and general libraries, among others, Ford refers to a statement made by Dr. Irving Selikoff in his landmark study published in 1965: DM .457000 1 37354 1 With the growth of asbestos utilization, including rapid multiplication o f the number and variety o f its applications, it would perhaps be more accurate to categorize workmen exposed to asbestos as "asbestos mill workers", "asbestos insulation workers", "asbestos miners", "asbestos cement workers", etc. The different occupations vary widely in important respects: in intimacy, intensity, and duration o f exposure, in variety and grade o f asbestos used, in working conditions, in concomitant exposure to other dusts or inhalants. The Occurrence o f Asbestosis Among Insulation Workers in the United States, Ann. NY Academy Science, Vol. 132, p. 139. INTERROGATORY NO. 43 Based upon the material contents of your asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method o f 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 the friction process, 99.9% o f the asbestos fibers in brake drums becomes a harmless fibrous material. The remaining asbestos fibers, if any, are embedded in resin which prevents entry into the airways. Medical and technical literature discussing this process is equally available to Plaintiffs. INTERROGATORY NO. 44 Was it a foreseeable use o f your asbestos-containing products that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced at some time after installation? OBJECTION: Ford objects to this Interrogatory because the term "removed, stripped or replaced" are vague and ambiguous. DAL 457000 1 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving this objection, Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 41. INTERROGATORY NO. 45 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 o f such procedures, and all results o f such procedures. ANSWER: Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 46 If Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? ANSWER: Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 31. INTERROGATORY NO. 47 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 o f asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use o f your company's products? If so, give the following: A. Name o f 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 o f the results o f the studies; D. The nature o f any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; ANSWER: Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 8. DAL 457000 1 3-354 ] INTERROGATORY NO. 48 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 o f time and money expended each year on research concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products? B. What percentage o f gross sales did your company or its predecessor(s) spend on research concerning the health effects o f asbestos? C. State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities or such Research Department. OBJECTION: Ford objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous, in part because it does not define what is meant by "Research Department." Ford further objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant nor necessary calculated to lead to the discovery relevant or admissible evidence insofar as "research" can be related to a myriad o f subjects. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving these objections, Ford states that it has various activities devoted to scientific research. Ford has no department which as its sole function performs medical research. INTERROGATORY NO. 49 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 o f each director, chief, or head o f 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; D. State the duties and responsibilities o f such Medical Department. OBJECTION: Ford objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous insofar as it does not adequately define what is meant by the term "Medical Department" Ford further objects to DAL 457000 1 37354 ! this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery o f relevant and admissible evidence, in part because many o f the functions that could be included in a "medical department" have no bearing on this lawsuit. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving this objection, Ford has employed medical directors as part o f the Staff to monitor the health and safety o f the employees. They are located in Dearborn, Michigan. They have been: Harley Krieger, M.D.: ? to 1954; now deceased; E.A. Irvin, M.D.: 1954 to 1970, now deceased; Duane L. Block, M.D.: 1970 to 1987; and John Triebwasser, M.D.: 1987 to present. The Associate Medical Director responsible for environmental matters is Dr. Patrick Beecher. Ford maintains medical facilities at its plants and facilities to treat ill or injured employees for all medical complaints or refers them elsewhere for appropriate medical care. INTERROGATORY NO. 50 Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever place any warning directly on any o f its asbestos-containing product or on their packaging. If so, identify the product(s) and year said warning was first applied. ANSWER: Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 31. INTERROGATORY NO. 51 Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever stamp or place the name o f the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any o f its asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the name brand names of such products, a description o f such stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. ANSWER: With respect to the aftermarket brake linings sold by Ford, for example, the Ford logo, as well as a label which reads along the following lines has been placed on cartons since 1980: D \L 45',000 1 3~354 1 CAUTION: CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS. AVOID CREATING DUST. BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM. WHEN SERVICING THIS BRAKE LINING OR ANY COMPONENT RELATED TO IT OR LOCATED NEAR IT, PREVENT ASBESTOS DUST FROM BEING AIRBORNE BY VACUUMING THIS ASSEMBLY WITH AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE VACUUM CLEANER EQUIPPED WITH A HIGH EFFICIENCY FILTER SYSTEM AND BY WASHING THE ASSEMBLY WITH AN APPROPRIATE BRAKE PARTS WASHER IF NECESSARY. NEVER REMOVE DUST OR DIRT FROM THIS ASSEMBLY BY BLOWING WITH COMPRESSED AIR. IN TER RO G A TO R Y NO. 52 Has your company, or your predecessors) 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 o f your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date that such research plan was begun and when such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. ANSWER: Ford did not design brake linings, pads or clutch facings. Ford, however, cooperated with and assisted its supplier in research for substitute materials. IN T ER R O G A TO R Y NO. 53 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 o f such recall; B. The name o f the product recalled, including the reason for the recall and the names and current addresses o f those individuals who determined that it should take place; C. The dates of recall; D. The purpose for the recall. ANSWER: IN TERROGATORY NO. 54 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. DAL 457000 1 3"?54 i ANSWER: Ford is not aware o f satisfactory substitutes for friction products containing asbestos which were technologically feasible prior to 1973. INTERROGATORY NO. 55 Have any products you identified in your response to Interrogatory Nos. 52 and 54 not performed as intended? Please list all such products that have not performed as intended. ANSWER: Not applicable. IN TERRO G A TO RY NO. 56 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 o f such surveys. ANSWER: Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 8. IN TERRO G A TO RY NO. 57 As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations o f both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference o f Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant or any predecessor(s) or subsidiaries were first advised o f such limits or concentrations; B. The name o f the employee or official o f the company receiving such advice; C. How Defendant received notice o f such limits or concentrations. ANSWER: Ford cannot state the date and source from which it first received notice and awareness of asbestos threshold limit values. IN TER RO G A TO R Y NO. 58 DAL 457000 1 3~?54 1 Were the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory No. 57 for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone? ANSWER: Unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 59 State in detail what tests, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values o f asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing your asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Ford refers to and incorporates herein its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 60 Please state the following with respect to each expert witness you that you may call during trial o f these cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you will call, including: A. The name, address, and job classification o f each such expert witness; B. The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; C. The substance o f the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testily 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 each such document or report; E. Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above; 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 o f said response, attach a copy o f a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. OBJECTION: Ford objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information properly sought only through a Request for Disclosure. Tex.R.Civ.P.195. DAL 457000 1 3~354 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 61 Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, o f each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge o f facts relevant to these cases involving, but not limited to: A. identification o f 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 o f asbestoscontaining products in this case. B. Each and every individual Plaintiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged damages, injuries and/or facts disputing each and every Plaintiffs alleged damages and/or injuries; C. the negligence o f any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause o f each and every individual Plaintiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged injuries and/or damages; D. each o f Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed Answer in each of these cases. OBJECTION: Ford objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and purports to require Ford to marshal its evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 62 Please identify documents which will be used at time of trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each o f Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWER: Ford states that it has not yet determined which exhibits it intends to introduce at the trial of this lawsuit. Ford further states that it will disclose its intended exhibits in accordance with the applicable court rules or as otherwise may be mutually agreed upon by the parties. DAL 457000 1 3` 3 'J 1 I INTERROGATORY NO. 63 When, if ever, did Defendant or any o f its predecessor-in-interest first receive a copy o f the article entitled "A Health Survey o f Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels" published in January, 1946 in the Journal o f Industrial Hygiene & Toxicology, and authored by W. Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al ("the Fleischer-Drinker Report")? A. Identify the name and position o f 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) o f 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 o f 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. 63(a) above; G. if your answer to 63(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 63(e) above? ANSWER: Ford has no record o f receiving this article. INTERROGATORY NO. 64 When, if ever, did Defendant or any o f its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy o f the article entitled "A Study o f 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 o f 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) o f 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 o f asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; F. if so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that DAL 457000 1 3~?54 ] Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory 63(a) 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 63(e) above? ANSWER: Ford has no record o f receiving this article. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1 Please produce a true and correct copy of each photograph o f each asbestos-containing product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 4. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2 Please produce any diagrams or schematics indicating, stating or detailing the existence of any o f your subsidiaries, predecessors, or divisions as defined on Page 1 o f these Interrogatories and Request for Production. RESPONSE: Ford will produce a copy of the most recent organizational directory. DAL 457000 1 37354 1