Document NGKn4zx80apnoreDq0wKOMGbR

FILE NAME: Warren Pumps (WAR) DATE: 2012 Oct 12 DOC#: WAR010 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition of Roland Doktor Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 1 VOLUME 2 PAGES 109 - 228 2 EXHS. 22, 29 - 31 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT TACOMA 7 Q 'k-k'k-k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k Roland L. Stevens and 9 Shirley J. Stevens 10 v. * * * Civil Action * No. 3 :ll-CV-0607 3 * 11 CBS Corporation, et al. * * k-k-k-k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k 13 14 15 Rule 30(b)(6) Notice to Warren Pumps, LLC 16 Video Deposition of Roland R. Doktor Friday, October 12, 2012 17 Offices of Eppley Court Reporting, LLC 9 Hammond Street 18 Worcester, Massachusetts 01610 19 20 21 J. Edward Varallo, RMR, CRR 22 Registered Professional Reporter EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 23 P.O. Box 382, Hopedale, Mass. 01747 508.478.9795 - Fax 508.478.0595 24 www.eppleycourtreporting.com Page 109 EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 1 Present via videoconference for Plaintiffs: Anna D. Knudson, Esq. 2 Bergman Draper Ladenburg, PLLC 614 First Avenue - 4th Floor 3 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.957.9510 ~ Fax 888.647.6007 4 annak@bergmanlegal.com 5 Present via telephone for Defendant Cleaver Brooks, 6 Inc.: Jackie K. Unger, Esq. 7 Carney Badley Spellman, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue - Suite 3600 S Seattle, Washington 98104 206.622.8020 ~ Fax 206.467.8215 9 unger@carneylaw.com 10 Present via videoconference for Defendant 11 Imo Industries: Michael E. Ricketts, Esq. 12 Gordon Thomas Honeywell 600 University Street - Suite 2100 13 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.676.7500 ~ Fax 206.676.7575 14 mricketts@gth-law.com 15 Present for Defendant Warren Pumps LLC: 16 Judith A. Perritano, Esq. Pierce Davis & Perritano, LLP 17 90 Canal Street - 4th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02114 18 617.350.0950 ~ Fax 617.350.7760 jperritano@piercedavis.com 19 20 Present via telephone for Defendant Warren Pumps 21 LLC: J. Michael Mattingly, Esq. 22 Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth, P.C. 411 SW 2nd Avenue - Suite 200 23 Portland, Oregon 97204 503.229.1819 ~ Fx 503.229.0630 24 mmattingly@rizzopc.com Page 110 1 -------------------------------------------------------- 2 DOKTOR EXHIBITS FOR IDENT-IF-I-C-A-TION PAGE 3 22-D Memo dated March 24, 1983, from C. 156 4 Nordhausen to members of the Product Liability Committee, Subject: Product liability (Bates 5 WP 0443677) 6 7 22-E Memo dated March 24, 1983, from C. 158 Nordhausen, Subject: Product Liability 8 Subcommittee, Tags and Plates (Bates WP 0464618 - 4619) 9 10 22-F Memo dated April 13, 1983, from C. 163 11 Nordhausen to members of the Product Liability Committee, Subject: Product liability (Bates 12 W P 0443672 - 3673) 13 14 22-G Memo dated April 20, 1983, from C. 169 Nordhausen to E. Baldyga and J. Kesler, 15 Subject: Braided Asbestos Packing (Bates WP 0443665) 16 17 22-H Letter dated May 24,1983, on 172 18 letterhead of Warren Pumps Houdaille, from C.W. Nordhausen to Matthew J. Allen of Liberty 19 Mutual, Subject: Products Safety and Reliability (Bates W P 0443634, 0443635 and 20 0443633) 21 22 22-1 Letter dated June 3, 1983, on 177 letterhead of Liberty Mutual, from Matthew J. 23 Allen to Frank Bugbee o f Warren Pumps (Bates WP 0443627 - 3632) 24 Page 112 1 Videographers: Steven Garcia, Legal Video Specialist 2 Michael Loiurio, Legal Video Specialist National Video Reporters, Inc. 3 7 Cedar Drive Woburn, Massachusetts 01801 4 781.937.9900 in fo @ le g a lv id e o .n e t 5 6 7 8 9 10 -------------I -N-D--E--X--------------- DEPONENT PAGE 11 ---------------------------------- 12 Roland R. Doktor by Ms. K n u d so n ...........................116, 220 13 by Ms. Perritano..........................197 14 15 DOKTOR EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION PAGE 16 17 22-A Memo dated June 25, 1981, from R J . 132 Flanigan at Houdaille, Subject: Parts orders 18 (Bates W P 0464689) 19 22-B Memo dated March 22, 1982, from F. 141 20 Standish to members of the Product Liability Committee, Subject: Product liability (Bates 21 WP 0464649 - 4650) 22 22-C Memo dated April 12, 1982, from C. 148 23 Nordhausen to members of the Product Liability Committee, Subject: Product liability (Bates 24 WP 0464663 - 4664) Page 111 1 ----------------------------------------------------- DOKTOR EXHIBITS 2 FOR IDENTIFICATION PAGE 3 22-J Letter dated June 9, 1983, on 180 4 letterhead of Liberty Mutual, from Matthew J. Allen to Mr. C.W. Nordhausen of Warren Pumps 5 Division, Re: Products Safety & Reliability, with attached environmental health memo (Bates 6 WP 0443617 - 3626) 7 22-K Memo dated June 15, 1983, from C.W. 183 8 Nordhausen to members of the Product Liability Committee, Subject: Product liability, with 9 attached letters (Bates WP 0443616, 0443615, 0443614, 0443627 - 3632, 0443617 - 3626) 10 11 22-L Memo dated June 22, 1983, from R. 192 Flanigan of Houdaille to C. Nordhausen, 12 Subject: Manuals for Pumps (Bates WP 0443571 - 3572) 13 14 22-M Memo dated July 20, 1983, from R. 185 Flanigan to C. Nordhausen, Subject: Asbestos 15 Packing & Gaskets (Bates WP 0443511, 0443510, 0443507 and 0443508) 16 17 22-N Letter dated May 11, 1987, from J.J. 196 Paugh, P.E. of Warren Pumps, Inc. to Naval Sea 18 Systems Command, Department of the Navy, Subject: Proper Disposition of Original 19 Equipment, Manufacturer's Drawing Revisions and Applicability of MIL-STD-480/481, with 20 attachments (Bates WP 0447159 - 7166) 21 28 Warren Pumps headsheet dated March 6, 119 22 1971, for 12 vertical two-stage single-suction enclosed impellers (Bates WA-RS-00187 - 00199) 23 24 Page 113 EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 2 (Pages 110 to 113) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 1 DOKTOR EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION PAGE 2 3 29 Letter dated May 24, 1983, on 209 4 letterhead of Warren Pumps/Houdaille from C.W. Nordhausen to Robert Ecker, Hydraulic 5 Institute 6 30 Document headed HI Bulletin No. 116-83 210 7 from Hydraulic Institute, dated July 5, 1983, from Allen P. Wherry to Executive Committee, 8 Subject: Product Liability (three pages) 9 31-A Drawing BS-1195 headed Assembly, List 225 10 of Spares and Material 6 by 9 by 12 Vertical Single Fire and Bilge Pump (Bates WA-RS-00456) 11 12 31-B Posterboard blowup of schematic on 225 drawing Assembly, List of Spares and Material 13 6 by 9 by 12 Vertical Single Fire and Bilge Pump 14 15 16 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS RETURNED TO 17 BERGMAN DRAPER LADENBURG, PLLC, 18 EXCEPT EXHIBIT 31-B WHICH WAS 19 RETAINED BY ATTORNEY PERRITANO 20 21 22 23 24 Page 114 Page 116 1 the court reporter will administer the oath. 2 MS. KNUDSON: This is Anna Knudson 3 representing Mr. and Mrs. Stevens in this matter. 4 I am with the law firm of Bergman Draper Ladenburg 5 in Seattle. 6 MR. RICKETTS: Michael Ricketts, Gordon 7 Thomas Honeywell, representing Imo Industries, Inc. 8 MS. PERRITANO: This is Judy Perritano 9 from Pierce Davis & Perritano in Boston representing 10 Warren Pumps, LLC. 11 MR. MATTINGLY: This is Michael Mattingly 12 with Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth P.C., also 13 representing Warren Pumps PC. 14 MS. UNGER: This is Jackie Unger with 15 Carney Badley Spellman representing Cleaver Brooks, 16 in Seattle. 17 ROLAND R. DOKTOR, 18 having been previously sworn on oath, was 19 examined and testified further as follows: 20 EXAMINATION, resumed 21 BY MS. KNUDSON: 22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Doktor. 23 A. Well, almost there, but good morning and 24 then good afternoon. Page 115 Page 117 1 1 Q. Okay, good morning/good afternoon/good 2 MORNING SESSION 2 day. 3 11:25 a.m. 3 A. Yeah, we're pretty close. 4 4 Q. All right. Well, I'm sure we'll get there 5 (Doktor Deposition Exhibits 22-A through 6 22-N and 28 were pre-marked for identification.) 5 soon enough. 6 Are you aware that you are still under 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now recording 8 and on the record. My name is Steven Garcia. I am 9 a Legal Video Specialist for National Video 7 oath and that this is a continuation of the 8 deposition that we started on September 27? 9 A. Yes, I am. 10 Reporters, Inc. Our business address is 7 Cedar 10 Q. And are you still the witness that Warren 11 Drive, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801. 11 has designated to testify under 30(b)(6) of the 12 Today is October 12, 2012, and the time is 12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? 13 11:26 a.m. 13 A. Yes, I am. 14 This is the deposition of Roland Doktor in 14 Q. And are you prepared today to answer 15 the matter of Roland L. Stevens and Shirley J. 15 questions regarding topic 5 of the notice of 15 Stevens, plaintiffs, versus CBS Corporation, et al., 16 deposition in this case? 17 defendants, in the United States District Court, 17 MS. PERRITANO: Why don't we get the 18 Western District of Washington at Tacoma, 18 notice out, Anna, just so he can look at it. 19 3:ll-CV-06073. 19 MS. KNUDSON: Sure. 20 This deposition is being taken at 20 MS. PERRITANO: Here you go. 21 9 Hammond Street, Worcester, Massachusetts on behalf 21 A. Yes. 22 of the plaintiffs. The court reporter is J. Edward 22 Q. Would you take a look at the notice of 23 Varallo of Eppley Court Reporting. 23 deposition? On the second page you see topic number 24 Counsel will state their appearances and 24 5 there? EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 3 (Pages 114 to 117) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 118 Page 120 1 A. Yes. 1 Q. Sure. Looking at the first page of 2 Q. And it reads "Warren Pumps' actions, if 2 Exhibit 28, do you know what this first page is? 3 any, taken in response to knowledge of asbestos 3 A. This is - Well, the document looks like 4 hazards, including but not limited to warnings, 4 it's what we would call the headsheet or a synopsis 5 experimentation with non-asbestos-containing 5 of the customer's order to build twelve pumps for 6 products, medical screening for its employees and 6 Litton Systems, Incorporated. 7 consultation with physicians and/or industrial 7 Q. And what kind of pump? 8 hygienists"? 8 A. These were main condenser condensate 9 A. Yes. 9 pumps. 10 Q. When did Warren learn of the hazards of 10 Q. Can you identify which vessel in this case 11 asbestos? 11 is listed on this headsheet? 12 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, overbroad. 12 A. Excuse me. It appears that it's LHA-1, 13 A. A specific date? I can't give you that 13 LHA-2 and LHA-3. 14 right now. 14 Q. And is one of those the BELLEAU WOOD? 15 Q. Can you give me a decade or a time frame? 15 A. I believe LHA-3 is the BELLEAU WOOD, yes. 16 MS. PERRITANO: Same objection. 16 Q. And does the headsheet confirm in your 17 A. No, I can't. 17 mind that Warren provided four pumps for the BELLEAU 18 Q. Was Warren aware of the hazards of 18 WOOD? 19 asbestos in 1970? 19 A. Yes, there would have been four pumps on 20 A. I don't know. 20 each of the ships that were listed on the order. 21 Q. Do you have any information about when 21 Q. And what kind of packing is specified here 22 Warren first learned of the hazards of asbestos? 22 on the headsheet? 23 A. Some of the documents that I've reviewed 23 A. The packing is identified as Anchor number 24 for this particular case shows that there were some 24 317 and SS number 1. Page 119 Page 121 1 discussions starting in the early '80s. 1 Q. Is that asbestos-containing? 2 Q. So is it your testimony that Warren was 2 A. I think the discussions we had previously 3 not aware of the hazards of asbestos until the early 3 indicate that that Anchor 317 on the drawings 4 '80s? 4 indicated that it was asbestos-containing. 5 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, misstates his 5 Q. There's a name written up at the top of 6 testimony. 6 this page. Whose name is that? 7 A. No, I just don't know a specific date when 7 A. Are you talking about the one that's 8 they might have had that information. 8 handwritten at the top of the page? 9 Q. Do you know if they knew in the 1950s at 9 Q. Yes. 10 all about the hazards of asbestos? 10 A. That's C. Nordhausen. 11 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, overbroad. 11 Q. Do you know who he was? 12 A. I do not, no. 12 A. That was Charlie Nordhausen, yes. 13 Q. What about in the 1960s? 13 Q. Who was he in terms of his position at 14 MS. PERRITANO: Same objection. 14 Warren? 15 A. Again, I don't know. 15 A. I don't know what his position was back in 16 Q. 17 28. If you could please take a look at Exhibit 16 1971, but I knew Charlie when he was an application 17 engineer when I joined the company. 18 A. Yes, I have Exhibit 28. 18 Q. What is an application engineer? 19 Q. Take a moment to look through it, if you 20 don't mind. (Pause) Mr. Doktor, are you about 21 through the document? 22 A. Almost, yes. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. (Pause) Yes. Thank you. 19 A. He would basically be responsible for 20 reading through the customer's requirements and 21 coming up with the proper product that would be 22 designed for that particular application. 23 Q. Can you walk us through the different 24 pages and documents within Exhibit 28 and describe EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 4 (Pages 118 to 121) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 122 Page 124 1 for us what each one or section Is? 1 Q. Yes. 2 A. It looks like the first five pages, Bates 2 A. Yes, yes, I have. 3 numbers 00187 through 191, again is just a synopsis 3 Q. And do you recall when you first saw a 4 or an outline of those things that needed to be done 4 warning plate like this? 5 to complete the order, including the customer's 5 A. No, I do not. 6 requirements and special procedures and tests that 6 Q. Why did Warren require this warning plate? 7 would have to be completed prior to the shipment of 7 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 8 the pumps. The -- 8 calls for speculation. 9 Q. And then - 9 A. I don't know if it was a requirement from 10 A. I'm sorry. 10 Warren, don't know if it was a requirement by this 11 Q. No, you go ahead. 11 order or don't know if it was a requirement by the 12 A. The second section, starting with Bates 12 specification, but it is noted on here that it was 13 number WA-RS-00192 through 195 appears to be the 13 to be used. 14 shock test procedure, which is a special test that 14 Q. So you have no more specific information 15 had to be run at an independent lab on one of the 15 about why this warning plate was required for the 16 pumps to ensure that it passed the military 16 four pumps on the BELLEAU WOOD? 17 specification, MIL-S-901C, that's part of the order. 17 MS. PERRITANO: Same objections. 18 And the last section -- oops, excuse me - Bates 18 A. No, I do not. 19 pages 196 and 197 again are just some, it's an order 19 Q. Where on the pump would this warning plate 20 data sheet or some preliminary notes taken from the 20 have been located or was it located? 21 customer order. 21 A. It's not specifically noted here. I can't 22 And the last two pages, Bates number 198 22 tell just from this information. 23 and 199, are supplements that were provided during 23 Q. Do you agree that the warning plate 24 the course of the order that would make any changes, 24 directs users to consult Warren's instruction manual Page 123 Page 125 1 indicate any changes that the customer might relay 1 about how to safely use the Warren pump? 2 to Warren as far as special instructions that might 2 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 3 have to be completed. 3 misstates the statement. 4 Q. Thank you. Turning to the first section 4 A. It basically says that it's not to be used 5 that you described, look at the last page, which is 5 for other purposes other than the original order, 6 191. 6 which would be the actual customer order, not just 7 A. Yes. 7 the instruction manuals. So they would have to go 8 Q. Do you see where it says "Add warning 8 more than one place to get that information. 9 plate: Do not use for purposes other than shown in 9 Q. Well, but doesn't it "Say do not use for 10 original order acknowledgment or in instruction 10 purposes other than shown in original order or in 11 manual. Copy available at Warren Pumps, Inc., 11 instruction manual"? So isn't it one or the other? 12 Warren, Mass." Did I read that correctly? 12 A. It is "or." But, like I said, I'm not 13 A. Yes, you did. 13 sure how much information might be in the order 14 Q. And so do I understand that there was a 14 acknowledgment or the instruction manual. 15 warning plate for each of the pumps on the BELLEAU 15 Q. Does Warren still have the instruction 16 WOOD that are shown in Exhibit 28? 16 manual for these main condenser condensate pumps on 17 A. That's what the order indicated, that that 17 the BELLEAU WOOD? 18 should take place. 18 A. Let me see. I'm just looking to see if 19 Q. Do you know when Warren first started 19 somewhere in the order instructions if it was 20 putting warning plates like this on its pumps? 20 required by the order or if the customer completed 21 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, overbroad. 21 the manual. It appears that Warren would have to 22 A. No, I do not. 22 provide a manual to the customer. I'm not quite 23 Q. Have you seen a warning plate like this? 23 sure what the requirements might be because it 24 A. Have I seen a warning plate like this? 24 looked like there was a spec or something that went EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 5 (Pages 122 to 125) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 126 Page 128 1 along with that. But we may or may not have the 1 test procedure 18472" dash, looks like "MM-03 of 2 manual. I'm not quite sure what the history of this 2 July 10, 1970," which is the document that we're 3 particular pump is. 3 looking at. 4 Q. Turning to the next section, which is 4 Q. So is the warning in this document 5 Bates-stamped 00192, this is the shock test 5 directed at -- Well, let me strike that. Who is 6 procedure. Right? 6 this warning directed to? 7 A. Yes. 7 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 8 Q. Can you please read the cautionary 8 calls for speculation. 9 statement that is about three-quarters of the way 9 A. This would be directed toward Lockheed 10 down on that first page? 10 Electronics, who's the person or the company that 11 A. "No mercury-containing instruments." 11 was performing the high-impact shock test. 12 Q. Before that it says "Caution - Use no 12 Q. And Warren created the shock test 13 mercury-containing instruments." Did I read that 13 procedure document. Right? 14 correctly? 14 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 15 A. Yes. 15 misstates testimony. 16 Q. Do you know why that statement was 16 A. The document was based on the customer's 17 included in this particular document outlining the 17 order, the pump specification, and the test 18 shock test procedure? 18 specification. 19 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, beyond the 19 Q. But Warren created it. Right? 20 scope. 20 MS. PERRITANO: Same objections. 21 A. I'm assuming it was part of the original 21 A. Warren wrote the document, yes. 22 order requirements from the customer that would have 22 Q. And in that, they included a caution 23 to be flowed down to the particular lab or 23 statement with regard to a potential hazard from 24 laboratory that was doing the shock test. 24 using a mercury-containing instrument while testing Page 127 Page 129 1 Q. Your testimony is that that cautionary 1 the Warren pump. Right? 2 statement was in there because the customer 2 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts. 3 instructed Warren to include it? 3 A. It doesn't say -- doesn't warn against 4 A. I'm assuming that's the case, or 4 that. It just says "Caution - Use no mercury- 5 potentially that one of the military specifications 5 containing instruments." 6 above required it. I know today it's a requirement 6 Q. So Warren was including in its shock test 7 of contracts directly from the customer. I'm 7 document a cautionary statement about a potential 8 assuming it was the same during that time period. 8 hazard from using or testing the pump with a 9 Q. Let me back up for a minute here. This 9 hazardous substance or instrument that was not part 10 document, the shock test procedure, is that an 10 of the pump. Am I right? 11 internal Warren document? 11 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 12 A. This is a document that we would have 12 calls for speculation, beyond the scope. 13 written, submitted for approval to the Navy or to 13 A. They're telling the customer not to use 14 Ingalls Shipbuilding, and again would outline a 14 mercury-containing instruments. That's all they're 15 special test that was required to be performed on 15 telling them. 16 one of the pumps. 16 Q. They are telling Lockheed not to use 17 Q. And who then would perform that test? 17 instruments, mercury-containing instruments because 18 A. Let me look and see. I'm not sure it's 18 mercury is hazardous. Is that correct? 19 specified in here, a specific laboratory. Let me 19 MS. PERRITANO: Same objections. 20 just look here. 20 A. The statement doesn't go any further than 21 On Bates page 189, about the one, two, 21 what we've already stated. 22 three, fourth line down from the top of the page, it 22 Q. Do you know whether mercury can be 23 indicates "Shock test one unit at Lockheed 23 hazardous or not? 24 Electronics, Inc. as required by Warren high shock 24 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, beyond the EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 6 (Pages 126 to 129) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 130 Page 132 1 scope. 1 Q. Were there any documents included in 2 A. Are you asking my personal opinion? 2 Exhibit 22 that you had not seen prior to today? 3 MS. PERRITANO: He is not here to give 3 A. I can't say one way or the other if I've 4 his -- 4 seen all these prior to that or not. 5 Q. You on behalf of Warren. 5 Q. Have you seen some of them? 6 MS. PERRITANO: He is not here to give his 6 A. Yes, I have. 7 personal opinion. 7 Q. And how much time did you spend looking at 8 Q. You on behalf of Warren. 8 Exhibit 22? 9 MS. PERRITANO: No, no, no no. He is 9 A. Oh, probably four to six hours. 10 not -- Whether a particular substance is or is not 10 Q. Let's look at Exhibit 22-A. 11 hazardous is beyond the scope of this deposition. 11 MS. PERRITANO: Got them in order? 12 He is not here to give his personal opinions and he 12 Reverse order. 13 has not been designated to offer opinions as to the 13 BY MS. KNUDSON: 14 hazards of substances such as mercury on behalf of 14 Q. Have you seen this particular document 15 the company. 15 before? 16 MS. KNUDSON: Well, I disagree with your 16 MS. PERRITANO: We had them in reverse 17 representation of the scope of the witness because 17 order. Can you just wait a second, please? 18 the notice went to the issue of knowledge and 18 MS. KNUDSON: Oh, sure. 19 warnings. 19 A. I can't say one way or the other whether 20 MS. PERRITANO: It went to the issue of 20 I did or not. 21 knowledge and warnings as it relates to asbestos. 21 Q. Is this in your opinion a Warren document? 22 It doesn't say a thing, a thing, in fact it says 22 A. This is a document addressed from our 23 knowledge of asbestos hazards. Asbestos hazards. 23 corporate entity, Houdaille, to somebody at Warren 24 It doesn't say anything about other hazards. 24 Pumps and along with a lot of other people that Page 131 Page 133 1 (Pause) 1 aren't at our facility. 2 MS. KNUDSON: I am just taking a moment to 2 Q. Who among the names listed at the top of 3 look at Exhibit 28 and seeing if I have any more 3 22-A was at Warren? 4 questions to ask before we move on to Exhibit 22. 4 A. The only name that I recognize in that 5 (Pause) 5 list I know specifically being at Warren at the time 6 BY MS. KNUDSON: 6 was C. Nordhausen. 7 Q. A moment ago you indicated you were not 7 Q. And that's the gentleman we talked about 8 sure whether or not Warren had any of the manuals 8 earlier? 9 that it created for these particular pumps. Is that 9 A. Yes. 10 something you could find out? 10 Q. Is this a document that was from Warren's 11 A. Yes. 11 file? 12 Q. I will ask that you do that then, please. 12 A. Yes, it would have been. 13 MS. PERRITANO: Why don't you put your 13 Q. And whose initials are in the upper left- 14 request in writing to Mike and we will respond to 14 hand corner? 15 your request through Mike, please. 15 A. It appears to be CN. 16 MS. KNUDSON: Sure. I will just remind 17 you that that request was already included in our 16 Q. Please read the first sentence of the 17 document. 18 request for production, but I will do it again. 18 A. "It is suggested that a review be made of 19 BY MS. KNUDSON: 19 practices relative to parts orders to ensure that 20 Q. Let's move on to Exhibit Number 22. 20 any safety or instruction decals, signs or tags go 21 A. Yes. 21 out to the parts customer that are the same as would 22 Q. And did you review Exhibit 22 prior to 23 today's deposition and since September 27? 22 be supplied on a new part assembly or finished 23 product." 24 A. Yes, I have. 24 Q. What is an instruction decal? EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 7 (Pages 130 to 133) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 134 Page 136 1 A. I don't know what they were talking about 1 MS. KNUDSON: Then I will strike that part 2 specifically there. Again, this went to -- 2 of the question. 3 Q. Do you know what - 3 BY MS. KNUDSON: 4 A. It looks like it also went to other people 4 Q. Sitting here as Warren's representative 5 that might have been in other divisions within the 5 today, what is your understanding of what that 6 corporate realm. I just - - 1just don't know what 6 second sentence meant? 7 they might call different things. 7 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, beyond the 8 Q. Did you ever see instruction decals on 8 scope. 9 Warren pumps? 9 A. It's talking about putting potentially new 10 A. Not that I recall, no. 10 design information, new parts, updated parts into 11 Q. What about tags? What are tags? 11 existing designs that might improve their 12 A. Again, I'm not sure what specifically they 12 performance or longevity, things like that. 13 are relating to. 13 Q. And would you agree that that new practice 14 Q. Have you ever seen tags used on Warren 14 or information also included safety information? 15 pumps? 15 MS. PERRITANO: Same objection. 16 A. I can't say that I have. 16 A. It was being suggested here. 17 Q. What about signs on Warren pumps? 17 Q. And so would you agree that coming from 18 A. Not that I would say would be a sign, no. 18 the parent company of Warren, that there was a 19 Q. But what about, for example, the warning 19 recommendation that the parts order business could 20 plate that we talked about with regard to Exhibit 20 be an avenue for communicating safety-related 21 28? 21 information to Warren's customers? 22 A. I have seen -- 22 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts. 23 Q. Would you consider that to be a sign? 23 A. That's only one of the things that's 24 A. A sign? No. 24 talked about here. It talks about other Page 135 Page 137 1 Q. So you distinguish between signs and 1 improvements, updated designs. Again, it was 2 warning plates? 2 several things that they want us to explore as part 3 A. Yes. 3 of this particular memo. 4 Q. Do you agree that warning plates include 4 Q. That included safety? That included 5 safety information? 5 safety as potentially one topic that could be 6 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, overbroad, 6 communicated to customers through the Warren parts 7 beyond the scope. 7 or replacement parts business. Is that correct? 8 A. They would include information that would 8 A. One of the elements they discussed was 9 be relevant to the particular person receiving the 9 safety. 10 product. 10 Q. And in fact if you read the last 11 Q. And to that particular person's safety. 11 sentence - Well, why don't you go ahead and read 12 Right? 12 the last sentence. 13 MS. PERRITANO: Same objections. 13 A. "This area should be explored to ensure 14 A. Could be safety, could be operation, could 14 each division is doing what it can to improve and 15 be several other things. 15 promote the safe use of its products in the field." 16 Q. Read the next sentence on Exhibit 22-A. 16 Q. Do you agree that the last sentence 17 A. "Parts order business can be considered a 17 emphasizes safety in particular as an important 18 fertile area for updating old machines to current 18 topic that can be addressed through Warren's 19 practices in the areas of improved design, better 19 replacement parts business? 20 manuals, safety or standard improvements, and new 20 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, beyond the 21 decals, signs or tags." 21 scope. 22 Q. And what did that mean, in your opinion? 22 A. That's what the paragraph indicates. 23 MS. PERRITANO: Objection. He is not here 23 Q. So in fact Warren was encouraged to 24 to give his opinion. It's beyond the scope. 24 provide updated safety information through its spare EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 8 (Pages 134 to 137) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 138 Page 140 1 parts and replacement parts business? 1 Q. Houdaille, okay. 2 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 2 My question is: Did Warren take 3 misstates testimony, beyond the scope. 3 Houdaille's recommendation to essentially use its 4 A. It's encouraging them to do that, to 4 replacement parts business to improve and promote 5 explore what they're doing. Doesn't give any 5 the safe use of its pumps in the field? 6 specific direction to that enterprise. 6 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 7 Q. And you don't think that the statement 7 beyond the scope. 8 "This area should be explored," you don't believe 8 A. Again, from the documents I've reviewed in 9 that that's a recommendation? 9 this case, they didn't specifically talk to that 10 MS. PERRITANO: Same objections. 10 item. They talked about other safety and liability 11 A. Again, it's something to be looked at. 11 issues concerning asbestos materials. But I'm sure 12 But, again, what the actual meaning of this document 12 the committees did talk about safety. And, again, 13 is, I mean, it's just up to the person who wrote it. 13 we did have safety committees and product liability 14 It does indicate that it should be looked at. I 14 committees that would talk about various items 15 know that they had ongoing safety committees and 15 related to pumps. 16 product liability committees to look at issues, so 16 Q. Was your answer yes, that Warren did 17 they were doing that as well. 17 follow Houdaille's recommendations in this letter? 18 Q. Basically the recommendation was that 18 MS. PERRITANO: Objection. 19 Warren essentially use its spare parts business to 19 A. Whether it was specifically for repair 20 improve and promote the safe use of its products in 20 parts or pumps, we always would look for any 21 the field. Right? 21 improvements to safety and the operation of the 22 MS. PERRITANO: Same objection. 22 machinery itself or the pumps themselves. 23 A. Again, it's something that should be 23 Q. So is your answer yes? 24 investigated and it should be looked at. Again, 24 MS. PERRITANO: Same objections. Page 139 Page 141 1 there was ongoing things to do, things just like 1 A. Yes. 2 that, you know, talked about in some of the other 2 Q. Let's look at Exhibit 22-B. 3 documents that that's what they were doing. And, 3 A. Yes. 4 again, it's a recommendation from Houdaille to each 4 Q. What is this document? 5 of its divisions. 5 A. This is a document talking about the 6 Q. And at the time that this memo was written 6 minutes of a meeting of the product liability 7 in 1981, Warren was still supplying asbestos- 7 committee that was held on April 5th of 1982. 8 containing parts, wasn't it? 8 Q. Are we looking at 22-B? 9 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts. 9 A. Oops, no, I'm sorry, that's 22-C. 10 A. During this period of time we were. We 10 A little out of order. I'm sorry. 11 were also looking for substitutes. There were a lot 11 MS. PERRITANO: 22-B I have as March 22, 12 of other things going on as well. 12 1982. 13 Q. What asbestos-containing spare parts was 13 THE WITNESS: That's correct, yes. 14 Warren selling and supplying in 1981? 14 A. I'm sorry. This is a notice of product 15 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts. 15 liability committee meeting to be held April 6th. 16 A. At that time, depending on the customer 16 Q. And is this a Warren document? 17 requirements or what the customer would ask for, 17 A. Yes, it would be. 18 we'd probably have some packing and gasket material. 18 Q. Does it look to you like it's an agenda 19 Q. That was asbestos-containing? 19 for the meeting on April 6th? 20 A. Yes. 20 A. Yes. These would be items for discussion 21 Q. At this time did Warren follow Houdaille 21 at the next meeting. 22 - I'm mispronouncing it, I know. But can you tell 22 Q. And were agendas regularly created in 23 me again how to pronounce the parent company? 24 A. Houdaille. 23 advance of the product liability committee meetings? 24 A. From the information that I've reviewed, EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 9 (Pages 138 to 141) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 142 Page 144 1 yes, they were. 1 that were part of the Balthazar deposition that you 2 Q. It was the regular practice of the 2 did not include in your packet. 3 committee to create an agenda like this before their 3 MS. KNUDSON: Okay. 4 meetings? 4 BY MS. KNUDSON: 5 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, beyond the 5 Q. Is there anything else? 6 scope, assumes facts. 6 MS. PERRITANO: If you know. 7 A. Again, from what I've reviewed for Warren 7 A. Again, I've reviewed many, many documents. 8 documents, yes. 8 I can't say one way or the other whether I have seen 9 Q. Do you know when the product liability 9 any other documents for the product liability 10 committee was created? 10 committee or the safety committee or whatever other 11 A. No, I do not. 11 than these, but I just don't know. 12 Q. Do you know what the purpose of the 12 Q. But sitting here right now, no other 13 product liability committee was? 13 documents related to the product liability committee 14 A. A specific charter, if you're looking for 14 come to mind? 15 that? No, I do not. 15 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 16 Q. Do you know what it did? 16 misstates testimony. 17 A. Again, based on the documents I've seen, 17 A. Again, other than ones I might have seen 18 to review issues that come up with the products and 18 in other depositions I've done, I can't think of 19 potential issues that might come up in the plant as 19 any. 20 well. 20 Q. Okay. 21 Q. So when you say potential issues, what 21 Do you know how long the product liability 22 kind of issue are you talking about? 22 committee was in existence? 23 MS. PERRITANO: In the plant? In the 23 MS. PERRITANO: Asked and answered. 24 plant, Anna? 24 A. I do not, no. Page 143 Page 145 1 MS. KNUDSON: Well, I just want him to 1 Q. Do you agree that on the agenda for the 2 explain his answer. He just said potential issues. 2 April 6 meeting, the committee planned to consider 3 MS. PERRITANO: He said potential issues 3 tagging repair parts for product liability? 4 in the plant. That's why I was asking. 4 A. That was one of the agenda items. 5 MS. KNUDSON: Well, I would like him to 5 Q. And then also another agenda item was 6 answer both parts of the question - - 1 mean his 6 consideration of eliminating the use of asbestos 7 response. 7 packing and gaskets? 8 A. They were looking at design information, 8 A. That - Yes, that action item was also on 9 design limits for the products, certain actions 9 the agenda. 10 relating to materials to be used, things like 10 Q. Why was Warren considering eliminating the 11 performance parameters, things like that. 11 use of asbestos packing and gaskets at this time? 12 Q. Let's step back for one moment. In 12 A. Again, this is the first time I've seen 13 considering in entirety all of Exhibit 22, have you 13 that particular statement being used that way. I 14 seen any documents related to the product liability 14 know we were also substituting where we could before 15 committee that are not included in this set of 15 this. I don't know one way or the other why that 16 exhibits? 16 was actually part of the minutes of the committee. 17 MS. PERRITANO: Well, you selected the set 17 Q. Or the agenda? You're not sure why it was 18 of exhibits, not him. 18 part of the agenda? 19 MS. KNUDSON: I know. And I'm wondering 19 A. Not at this time, no. 20 if there's more about the product liability 20 Q. Is it possible that it was because Warren 21 committee than what we have here in this particular 21 knew that asbestos packing and gaskets could be 22 stack. 22 hazardous to users of its pumps? 23 MS. PERRITANO: Well, he hasn't 23 24 reviewed - - 1 have a couple of documents with me 24 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts. A. Well, it was being used in the pumps. But EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 10 (Pages 142 to 145) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 146 Page 148 1 looking at all these documents, the committee time 1 based on some meeting notes and discussions from the 2 and again has concluded that they didn't think there 2 product liability committee, they did ask some 3 was a hazard with the use of the packing or gaskets 3 questions of Liberty Mutual and they did get some 4 in our pumps. 4 information back concerning asbestos. But that was 5 Q. So your testimony is that even though 5 post this. I don't know and haven't seen anything 6 Warren was considering eliminating the use of 6 before this in these documents to know whether they 7 asbestos packing and gaskets, it wasn't because 7 specifically knew one way or the other. 8 Warren thought that the use of asbestos packing and 8 Q. Looking back at the first page and item 9 gaskets was hazardous? 9 number 9 regarding the tagging of repair parts for 10 A. As used in our pumps, that's correct. 10 product liability, did that happen? 11 MS. PERRITANO: Anna? Your paper- 11 A. Again, I'd have to look at the actual 12 shuffling is coming through loud on the microphone. 12 notes from the meeting. I don't know if that 13 MS. KNUDSON: Sorry. 13 actually took place or not. I don't recall seeing 14 MS. PERRITANO: Thank you. 14 anything in the minutes of the meeting. 15 BY MS. KNUDSON: 15 Q. Let's turn to Exhibit 22-C. What is this 16 Q. So you don't know for sure why Warren was 16 document? 17 considering eliminating the use of asbestos packing 17 A. This is the minutes of the meeting of the 18 and gaskets at this time? 18 product liability committee that was held on April 19 MS. PERRITANO: Objection. 19 5th of 1982. 20 BY MS. KNUDSON: 20 Q. Is this a Warren document? 21 Q. I just want to be sure I'm clear on your 21 A. Yes, it is. 22 answer, your prior answer. 22 Q. And was it a regular practice of this 23 A. There is nothing that I have seen to 23 committee to keep minutes? 24 indicate that there was anything before this as 24 A. Yes. Page 147 Page 149 1 discussion as far as why this agenda note might have 1 Q. Did this come from Warren's files? 2 been put on this particular meeting agenda. 2 A. Yes, it did. 3 Q. At this time did Warren know that asbestos 3 Q. And was it kept in the regular course of 4 was hazardous? 4 business? 5 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, asked and 5 A. Yes, it would have been. 6 answered. 6 Q. Do you know what Mr. Nordhausen's position 7 A. Again, the committee has looked at a lot 7 was at this time? 8 of - Based on the documents that I've reviewed 8 A. He was still an application engineer. 9 here, it looks like the committee has looked at a 9 Q. What was the subcommittee on warning and 10 lot of information and has asked people for 10 informational plates and tags? 11 information and they concluded as used in our pumps 11 A. Again, it was just a - looked like an 12 that it was not a hazard. 12 offshoot of the product liability committee that 13 Q. Well, I'm just asking about at this point 13 would look at specific areas that may have been 14 in time, on March 22, 1982, when this agenda was put 14 discussed during the regular meetings. 15 together. Is it your testimony that Warren did not 15 Q. Could Warren have included information or 16 believe that asbestos was hazardous at that time? 16 warnings about asbestos on its warning nameplates? 17 A. I don't believe - Based on these 17 A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that7 18 documents, no, I don't believe that they thought 18 MS. PERRITANO: You dropped out. 19 there was a hazard as gaskets and packing were used 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 in our pumps. 20 BY MS. KNUDSON: 21 Q. Did Warren know generally that asbestos 22 was hazardous at the time that this agenda was put 21 Q. Could Warren have included warnings about 22 asbestos on its warning nameplates? 23 together on March 22, 1982? 24 A. Again, specifically I don't know. I know 23 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 24 assumes a hazard, calls for speculation, beyond the EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 11 (Pages 146 to 149) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 150 Page 152 1 scope. 1 to the subcommittee on warnings and informational 2 A. Again, depending on what product and 2 plates and tags." 3 specification the product might have carried, that 3 Q. Would you agree that what is reflected in 4 could have been up to the Navy and what 4 the paragraph you just read is the notion that 5 specifications they might require and whether it was 5 Warren should warn of hazards from using its pumps 6 something they wanted on there or not. 6 not only when Warren was supplying the entire pump 7 Q. Assuming there was no prohibition on the 7 but also when supplying replacement parts? 8 Navy or from the Navy with regard to Warren placing 8 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 9 asbestos warnings on its warning nameplates, could 9 calls for speculation. 10 Warren have done so? 10 A. It talks about the possibility of tagging 11 MS. PERR1TANO: Objection, assumes a 11 those parts. It doesn't talk about doing it. And 12 hazard, assumes facts. 12 it does also talk about the use of those tags and 13 A. Again, it would have to be approved by 13 plates, but no decision was reached based on this 14 them and any language that would have to be on that 14 particular meeting whether to do that or not. 15 particular tag would have to go through them for 15 Q. Was a decision ever reached whether to do 16 Inclusion. 16 that or not? 17 Q. But Warren could have done it. Right? 17 MS. PERRITANO: Asked and answered. 18 MS. PERRITANO: Assumes facts, assumes a 18 A. I didn't see anything one way or the other 19 hazard. 19 whether it was or not. 20 A. Yes. 20 Q. So this is just something Warren was 21 Q. Do you know if Warren ever included any 21 considering at the time? 22 information related to asbestos hazards on its 22 MS. PERRITANO: Asked and answered. 23 warning nameplates for pumps? 23 A. The paragraph indicates that they were 24 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes a 24 going to investigate it and it was put as part of Page 151 Page 153 1 hazard, assumes a duty, beyond the scope. 1 the subcommittee to go look at that. 2 A. Not that I have seen. 2 Q. Would you read the fifth paragraph that 3 Q. Would you agree that this memo, Exhibit 3 starts "A brief discussion was held...." 4 22-C, is discussing at the same time tagging repair 4 A. "A brief discussion was held on the 5 parts for product liability and the possibility of 5 possibility of eliminating asbestos packing and 6 eliminating asbestos packing and gaskets from Warren 6 gaskets in our products. It was agreed that 7 pumps? 7 engineering would furnish the sales department with 8 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes a 8 information including cost on acceptable non- 9 hazard, assumes a duty. 9 asbestos materials to determine the impact on 10 A. Those were different topics that were 10 product cost so that a decision could be made. 11 discussed at the same meeting at the same time. 11 Since C. Pybas had done some previous work on this, 12 Q. Looking at -- Actually, will you go ahead 12 he will head up that project" - or "this project." 13 and read into the record paragraph number three, 13 Q. Do you agree that when Warren was deciding 14 which starts with "The possibility of tagging...." 14 whether or not to eliminate asbestos packing and 15 MS. PERRITANO: You mean on page 2? 15 gaskets from Warren's pumps, Warren was considering 16 THE WITNESS: Is this page 2? 16 the cost consequences for Warren as part of that 17 MS. KNUDSON: Yes. 17 decision? 18 THE WITNESS: Okay. 18 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts. 19 A. "The possibility of tagging repair parts 19 A. It doesn't say that that was the primary 20 for product liability was discussed. It was 20 driver of that. It was just part of the explanation 21 suggested that any part that had a warning tag or 21 on what engineering was to furnish to sales to give 22 plate attached as part of an assembled pump should 22 them all the information that might be needed for 23 also have the tag or plate when it is furnished as 23 that decision to be made. 24 an individual part. This matter was also referred 24 Q. There is no other information request EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 12 (Pages 150 to 153) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 154 Page 156 1 specified in the second sentence there, it's just 1 and we are back on the record. 2 cost? 2 BY MS. KNUDSON: 3 A. It says that engineering will provide the 3 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Doktor. 4 sales department with information, including cost, 4 A. Good afternoon. We're actually there 5 on acceptable non-asbestos materials. So it talks 5 finally. 6 about - 6 Q. Yes, we are finally there. 7 Q. And then the rest of the sentence - I'm 7 I would like you to go ahead, please, and 8 sorry. 8 take a look at Exhibit 22-D. 9 A. To determine the impact on product cost so 9 A. Yes. 10 a decision can be made. But it also asks for 10 Q. Do you recognize this document? 11 information. What information are they talking 11 A. Yes. This is again a list of action items 12 about? Limits, surface speed, limits for 12 or agenda items for an upcoming product liability 13 temperature and pressure, loading, what might be 13 committee meeting. 14 acceptable/what not might be acceptable? There's a 14 Q. And I think we had just seen the agenda 15 lot of things that could be included in that 15 for that as Exhibit 22-C. 16 information that engineering was to get. Cost was 16 A. No, Exhibit 22-C was the minutes of the 17 one of the items that was part of that. 17 meeting from April 5,1982. This is a meeting of 18 Q. What is the basis for your understanding 18 the committee on April 6th of 1983. 19 that the information included those other types of 19 Q. Thank you for that correction. You know? 20 information you just listed? 20 I had made that mistake when I was reviewing these 21 A. Well, all it says is information including 21 and then I obviously just made it again. This is a 22 cost. What information? What information is 22 full year later? 23 necessary to make a decision whether it's acceptable 23 A. Pretty near a year, yes. 24 or not? 24 Q. Do you know whether or not you've ever Page 155 Page 157 1 Q. Right. But the end of the sentence says 1 seen any interim product liability committee notes 2 that engineering will furnish the sales department 2 or minutes between the April 6th meeting minutes and 3 with information, including cost, on acceptable 3 then this document dated March 24, 1983? 4 non-asbestos materials to determine the impact on 4 A. I don't know one way or the other, no. 5 product cost so a decision could be made. It 5 Q. It looks like that almost a year later the 6 doesn't say anything other than cost. You don't 6 product liability committee was still considering 7 agree that that sentence seems to indicate that the 7 whether or not to eliminate asbestos packing and 8 primary decision point in deciding whether to 8 gaskets from Warren pumps. Is that correct? 9 eliminate asbestos packing and gaskets from Warren 9 A. Along with other things, yes. 10 pumps was the cost consideration? 10 Q. So Warren was still considering it, but 11 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, misstates his 11 Warren still had not made a final decision? 12 testimony. 12 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts. 13 A. No, I do not. There's - I mean, the 13 A. Again, prior to this I know they had been 14 first thing it says is furnish department with 14 substituting where they could. This was still an 15 information, including the cost. Cost was only one 15 ongoing discussion with the product liability 16 element of what they were asking for and what was to 16 committee. 17 be brought forth to the sales department. 17 Q. So Warren was still manufacturing some 18 MS. KNUDSON: I have it that we've been 18 pumps with asbestos-containing gaskets and packing 19 going for about an hour. Can we take five minutes? 19 at this time. Right? 20 MS. PERRITANO: That would be great, yes. 20 A. Yes. 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:30 p.m. 21 Q. And Warren was still supplying asbestos- 22 and we are going off the record. 22 containing replacement packing and gaskets in some 23 (Short recess taken.) 23 cases. Right? 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:38 p.m. 24 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, overbroad, EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 13 (Pages 154 to 157) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 158 Page 160 1 assumes facts. 1 A. Again, based on what I've seen from the 2 A. In some cases, yes, if it was asked by the 2 information or the committee, they didn't think 3 customer or, again, if it wasn't already 3 there was a hazard as those particular parts were 4 substituted. 4 used in our pumps and I haven't seen any discussions 5 Q. Let's take a look at Exhibit 22-E. 5 to indicate that that was one of the things that 6 A. Yes. 6 they had considered. 7 Q. Do you recognize this document, which is 7 Q. At a later point Liberty Mutual came back 8 dated March 24, 1983? 8 to Warren and said we recommend that you eliminate 9 A. This is some information provided by the 9 all asbestos-containing products from your pumps. 10 subcommittee on tags and plates that we talked about 10 Right? 11 a little earlier. 11 A. That was -- 12 Q. And this is a Warren document also as 12 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, misstates the 13 well? 13 documents. 14 A. Yes, it is. 14 A. Again, Liberty did make suggestions as far 15 Q. And it was kept in the course of regular 15 as what to do with asbestos in - asbestos in 16 business? 16 general and didn't specifically target packing and 17 A. Yes. 17 gaskets. And basically other information that we 18 Q. What was the purpose of this subcommittee? 18 had and the committee reviewed suggested that as 19 A. It was to review the tags, plates, labels 19 those particular items were not, as they were used 20 for use on particular Warren products. 20 in our pumps, were not hazardous. So, again, I 21 Q. Do you know what the tags that are 21 haven't seen anything to suggest that the committee 22 contemplated in this memo were made of? 22 decided that there was a hazard. 23 A. There's no indication here. No, I don't. 23 MS. KNUDSON: Mr. Court Reporter, can you 24 Q. Have you ever seen a tag like this? 24 please read back my question. Page 159 Page 161 1 A. Like I said, I've seen the warning 1 (The reporter read the last question.) 2 nameplate. I can't say that I have seen the other 2 MS. PERRITANO: Same objection. 3 tags that they're talking about here. 4 Q. So it looks like as of March 24,1983, 3 BY MS. KNUDSON: 4 Q. Mr. Doktor, will you please answer the 5 Warren was also still considering whether to tag 5 question that was just read back? 6 repair parts with warnings. Is that right? 6 MS. PERRITANO: He did. 7 A. That's correct, yes. 7 MS. KNUDSON: I don't believe you've 8 Q. And so Warren still hadn't decided whether 8 answered it. 9 or not to do that? 9 MS. PERRITANO: He did. 10 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts. 10 MS. KNUDSON: He didn't answer the 11 A. According to this, that's correct. 11 question. 12 Q. Do you know if there was any consideration 12 MS. PERRITANO: Yes, he did. Why don't 13 of tagging asbestos-containing repair parts with 13 you read his answer, too? 14 asbestos-related warnings? 14 (The reporter read the answer.) 15 A. No, I don't. Based on the information 15 MS. KNUDSON: Judy, are you instructing 16 I've seen that the committee didn't think there was 16 him not to answer the question? 17 a hazard as those products were used in our pumps, 17 MS. PERRITANO: No, I'm not instructing 18 I haven't seen any tags. 19 Q. Well, so is your answer that you don't 18 him not to answer the question. I'm telling you he 19 answered the question. If you want to waste the two 20 think Warren ever considered tagging asbestos- 21 containing repair parts with asbestos-related 22 warnings? 23 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, misstates his 24 testimony. 20 hours that you have asking the same question again 21 and again, go ahead, but he did answer your 22 question. I don't think it is fair to say that he 23 didn't answer the question, so that's why I had the 24 answer read back. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 14 (Pages 158 to 161) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 162 Page 164 1 You want to ask him the same question 1 he had developed data on possible substitutes but 2 again? Go ahead. 2 pointed out that many of these substitutes were not 3 BY MS. KNUDSON: 3 considered as good as asbestos. However, it was the 4 Q. Looking at Exhibit 22-E, do you see the 4 overwhelming feeling of the committee that asbestos 5 list of documents that were attached to Exhibit 6 22-E? 7 A. There is a list of attachments that would 5 as used in our pumps should not be considered a 6 hazard. The chairman was requested to contact our 7 insurance company, Liberty Mutual, and the Hydraulic 8 have been part of this notice, yes. 8 Institute for their comments on the subject. The 9 Q. Can you tell me which if any of these 9 chairman was also requested to issue instructions to 10 documents listed in numbers 1 through 15 you've 10 have all loose asbestos packing put in heat-sealed 11 seen? 11 plastic bags prior to shipping." 12 A. The specific document? I cannot tell you 12 Q. And did the chairman contact Liberty 13 whether I have seen -- I don't -- I can't say I've 13 Mutual? 14 seen anything except probably item 14 and 15. And 14 MS. PERRITANO: Anna, I just want to 15 then without looking at the specific drawing itself, 15 interpose an objection on the record to the extent 16 whether I've actually seen that one before, I don't 16 that the existence of Liberty Mutual suggests that 17 know. 17 there is insurance in the sense that if the case 18 Q. So you don't know whether or not you have 18 were to go in front of a jury, I would be objecting 19 seen items number 1 through 13? 19 to any references to the actual existence of 20 A. I can't say I've ever seen any of those 20 insurance. 21 documents. 21 MS. KIMUDSON: He can go ahead and answer. 22 Q. Okay. So you don't know whether or not 22 MS. PERRITANO: And can I just have a 23 Warren has those currently? 23 running objection to that so I don't have to 24 A. Well, if they weren't attached here, 24 interrupt you on that technical point? Page 163 Page 165 1 I doubt that we would have them because they would 1 MS. KNUDSON: You may. 2 have been part of this original document. 2 MS. PERRITANO: Thank you. 3 Q. Do you know what happened to them? 3 A. Yes, there was indication that the 4 A. I have no idea what might have happened to 4 committee did contact Liberty Mutual as well as 5 them. 6 Q. Okay, let's move on to Exhibit 22-F. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. What is this document? 9 A. These were the meeting notes from the 5 Hydraulic Institute as this particular meeting note 6 said. 7 Q. Was Mr. Nordhausen the chairman at that 8 point? 9 A. It appeared that he was. 10 product liability committee meeting that was held on 10 Q. Do you know, was his position the same as 11 April 6, 1983. 11 you have represented earlier today? 12 Q. And is this a Warren document? 12 A. Yes. 13 A. Yes. 13 MS. PERRITANO: His position with the 14 Q. Was it kept in the regular course of 14 company as opposed to on the committee? 15 business? 15 MS. KNUDSON: Yes, with the company. 16 A. Yes, it would have been. 16 MS. PERRITANO: Okay. 17 Q. And was it the regular practice of this 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. That's how I 18 committee to keep notes like reflected in Exhibit 18 understood your question. 19 22-F? 19 BY MS. KNUDSON: 20 A. Yes, it would have been. 20 Q. And the last sentence, it says "The 21 Q. Can you read on the second page of this 21 chairman," and that would be Mr. Nordhausen, "was 22 exhibit the paragraph at the top? 22 requested to issue instructions to have all loose 23 A. "On the subject of possible elimination of 23 asbestos packing put in a heat-sealed plastic bag 24 asbestos packing and gaskets, C. Pybas reported that 24 prior to shipping." Do you know why he was asked to EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 15 (Pages 162 to 165) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 166 Page 168 1 do that? 1 strike that. Let me just make sure I understand 2 A. No, I don't. 2 clearly. Is it your understanding that it was the 3 Q. And who asked him to do that? 3 committee that asked the chairman to issue 4 A. There's no indication here whether it was 4 instructions to have all loose asbestos packing put 5 the committee, whether it was one individual, or 5 in a heat-sealed plastic bag prior to shipping? 6 what it was. 6 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, calls for 7 Q. Is it possible that the person or entity 7 speculation. 8 directing Mr. Nordhausen to take this action was 8 A. Again, it doesn't say whether it was the 9 concerned that loose asbestos packing could pose a 9 committee or whether it was an individual on the 10 health hazard? 10 committee. It was just, it was also requested. The 11 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 11 chairman was also requested to issue instructions to 12 calls for speculation. 12 do that, so I don't know one way or the other 13 A. I don't know. Again, the only note, the 13 whether it was the committee or an individual on the 14 only thing I know is what's here in the minutes, and 14 committee that asked him to do that. 15 it doesn't talk to that specific item. 15 Q. And you testifying today on behalf of 16 Q. So you speaking on behalf of the 16 Warren have no information about why the chairman 17 corporation Warren, the company Warren doesn't know 17 was requested to instruct that all loose asbestos 18 whether this recommendation was made out of concern 18 packing be put in heat-sealed plastic bags prior to 19 for health hazards caused by asbestos packing? 19 shipping? 20 MS. PERRITANO: Objection. And it 20 A. No, I do not, because again it's 21 actually takes the sentence out of context. If you 21 specifically stated that the members of the 22 look at the paragraph, the paragraph itself talks 22 committee specifically did not think there was a 23 about the fact that they didn't think there was a 23 hazard as those particular items were used in our 24 hazard. 24 pumps. Page 167 Page 169 1 MS. KNUDSON: You can go ahead and answer. 1 Q. Would you look at 22-G. 2 A. Yes. The beginning of that paragraph 2 A. Yes. 3 stated that "However, it was the overwhelming 3 Q. Is this a Warren document? 4 feeling of the committee that asbestos as used in 4 A. Yes, it is. 5 our pumps should not be considered a hazard." So 5 Q. Is this in fact the directive that we were 6 why they moved to then put it in a plastic bag I do 6 just discussing that was issued by the chairman of 7 not know, or a heat-sealed bag I don't know. 7 the committee with regard to shipment of asbestos 8 Q. Would you agree ~ 8 packing by Warren? 9 A. I'm sorry. 9 A. Yes. He's carrying out what the committee 10 Q. Would you agree that it is not entirely 10 asked him to do or the suggestion of that particular 11 clear from this paragraph whether it was the 11 paragraph asked him to do and directed it toward the 12 committee that requested that packing be put into 12 people in the shop who would be responsible for 13 plastic bags prior to shipping? It's not clear 13 ensuring that it was done. And all packing, not 14 whether it was the committee that requested that or 14 just asbestos packing, was to be sealed in 15 Warren who requested it. What is your 15 heat-sealed bags. 16 understanding? 16 Q. Was this a safety precaution? 17 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 17 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 18 calls for speculation, compound. 18 calls for speculation. 19 A. The committee is Warren. I mean, it's all 19 A. Again, the committee didn't think there 20 members from Warren who are on the committee. So 20 was a hazard, so I can't say one way or the other 21 again I don't know - There's no explanation as to 21 whether it was or not. 22 why that last item was put in there or why it was 23 decided to do that. 22 Q. This document confirms that Warren was 23 still shipping asbestos-containing packing to its 24 Q. Would you agree that -- Well, let me 24 customers as a replacement part. Right? EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 16 (Pages 166 to 169) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 170 Page 172 1 MS. PERRITANO: Overbroad, assumes facts. 1 liability committee as to why that was decided. And 2 A. There would be loose packing as 2 the committee didn't think there was a hazard, so 3 replacement parts if the customer requested it and 3 why it was actually done I do not know. 4 it also might be part of the original pump shipment 4 Q. Let's look at Exhibit 22-H. 5 when it was sent to the customer. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Did this happen after Mr. Nordhausen 6 Q. What is this document? 7 issued this directive about sealing asbestos packing 7 A. This is the letter to Liberty Mutual from 8 in plastic bags on April 20,1983? 8 Charlie Nordhausen that he was asked to put together 9 A. The directive told the people responsible 9 based on the minutes of the product liability 10 to do it to do it. I'm assuming that it did take 10 committee meeting that was held in early April and 11 place. 11 includes some of the asbestos-containing components 12 Q. Who are the two gentlemen listed at the 12 that Warren had used or was using at the time in the 13 top of the memo above Mr. Nordhausen's name? 13 pumps. 14 A. One of the gentlemen was responsible for 14 Q. Do you agree that the product liability 15 production and the other gentleman was responsible 15 committee wanted to get Liberty Mutual's perspective 16 for manufacturing. 16 on whether or not asbestos in Warren pumps should be 17 Q. Which was which? 17 considered a health hazard? 18 A. Mr. Baldyga was responsible for production 18 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts. 19 and Mr. Kesler was responsible for manufacturing. 19 A. They were seeking information from Liberty 20 Q. Did Mr. Kesler's responsibilities include 20 Mutual concerning asbestos materials as it was used 21 any safety-related responsibilities? 21 in our pumps as well as information from Hydraulic 22 MS. PERRITANO: Objection. If you know. 22 Institute. This was just one of the inquiries that 23 A. I don't know. I believe he was - Let's 23 they were making during this time period. 24 see. He was a member of the committee, so I don't 24 Q. Would you agree that the product liability Page 171 Page 173 1 know what other responsibilities he might have had. 1 committee and Warren thought that there was the 2 Q. What about the other gentleman? 2 potential that asbestos in Warren pumps could be 3 A. Mr. Baldyga was also a member of the 3 dangerous; they wanted to find out Liberty Mutual's 4 product liability committee. And again - 4 perspective? 5 Q. Did he have safety-related 5 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, misstates his 6 responsibilities within Warren? 6 testimony, assumes facts. 7 A. I do not know. 7 A. Again, the product liability committee did 8 Q. When Warren decided to place its asbestos- 8 not think there was a hazard based on their minutes 9 containing replacement packing in plastic bags, did 9 from the previous meeting as the products were used 10 Warren also include any warning? 10 in our pumps. They were just seeking other 11 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 11 information from other sources to make a better- 12 assumes a duty and assumes a hazard. 12 informed decision. 13 A. As the committee didn't think there was a 13 Q. To find out if they were right or not? 14 hazard and I don't see any indication here that 14 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts. 15 instructed them to put a tag or a sticker or 15 A. Well, again, they didn't think there was a 16 anything on it, no, we didn't. 16 hazard at that time. 17 Q. Why would Warren suddenly make the change 17 Q. But they wanted to make sure that they 18 from shipping all loose asbestos packing without 18 were right and so they wrote to Liberty Mutual? 19 being in a sealed bag to shipping it in a sealed bag 19 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 20 if there was not some concern about safety? 20 misstates his testimony. 21 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes a 21 A. Again, Liberty Mutual was just one of the 22 hazard, calls for speculation, assumes a duty. 22 people they asked for further information about 23 A. Again, I don't know why that decision was 23 asbestos packing and gaskets. It didn't say whether 24 made. The notes aren't clear from the product 24 they were concerned about safety, it just asks for EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 17 (Pages 170 to 173) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 174 Page 176 1 more information. 1 substitutes. 2 Q. Why do you think that the product 2 Q. Was it to get better information about 3 liability committee then sent samples of the 3 whether or not asbestos packing and gaskets in pumps 4 asbestos-containing packing and gasket material that 4 was actually hazardous? 5 Warren used in its pumps to Liberty Mutual? 5 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, misstates the 6 A. As these were the products we were using, 6 testimony. 7 the best way to find out if there was any issues 7 A. Again, the committee doesn't think there's 8 with them would be to provide that particular item 8 a hazard. Certain information has been provided 9 to the people you were asking. 9 that states that certain types of asbestos products 10 Q. Would you agree that on this list there is 10 might be hazardous, so they're just looking to see, 11 some material described as being South African blue 11 these are the products that we use and what's the 12 asbestos fiber having been used in some of Warren's 12 best course of action. 13 pumps? 13 Q. And along with that, Warren was trying to 14 A. The Anchor 4250 gasket material that he 14 find out whether or not the asbestos gaskets and 15 references does indicate that it was made from South 15 packing in its pumps were hazardous? 16 African blue asbestos fiber. However, the sheet 16 MS. PERRITANO: Asked and answered. 17 gasket that he did send to Liberty Mutual is 17 A. Again, they didn't think there was a 18 identified as unidentified, didn't know what it was, 18 hazard. They didn't make the products. 19 and then assumed that it was possibly Anchor 4250 19 Q. But Warren didn't know one way or the 20 but was not sure. I don't know if that was 20 other. Is that your testimony? 21 something that he just found information on and 21 MS. PERRITANO: That's not his testimony. 22 included it, but it didn't look like that was 22 A. No. 23 exactly what he might have sent to Liberty Mutual at 23 MS. PERRITANO: You've asked the question 24 the time. 24 like ten times now and he's told you ten times. Page 175 Page 177 1 Q. But he stated that it was probably 4250, 1 A. The committee didn't feel there was -- 2 Anchor 4250, which does contain blue asbestos fiber. 2 MS. KNUDSON: Please go ahead and answer. 3 Right? 3 A. The committee didn't feel there was a 4 A. That's what he says. But, again, it 4 hazard as these particular products were used in our 5 wasn't identified as being that on the gasket 5 pumps. 6 material that he sent, so I don't know if that's 6 Q. Did the committee suspect that they were a 7 actually what he sent or not. 7 hazard? 8 Q. This document also confirms that the 8 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, asked and 9 Anchor 317 is an asbestos-containing packing, and 9 answered. 10 that is the packing that we have discussed already 10 A. Again, I don't know. It doesn't say that 11 in this case. Right? 11 we suspect there was; they just felt that there was 12 A. Yes, that's correct. 12 no hazard. 13 Q. Do you agree that in this document there 13 Q. Let's look at Exhibit 22-1. Do you 14 is an acknowledgment by Warren that asbestos is 14 recognize this document? 15 hazardous? 15 A. Yes. 16 A. Well, it talks about asbestos in certain 16 Q. What is this document? 17 forms; and again it reiterates that the overwhelming 17 A. This is a letter from Liberty Mutual to 18 feeling of the committee is that asbestos as used in 18 Mr. Frank Bugbee. It addresses some of the previous 19 our pumps is not considered to be a health hazard. 19 discussions that Liberty Mutual has had with 20 Q. What was the purpose of this letter to 20 Mr. Bugbee concerning different instruments, 21 Liberty Mutual? 21 different issues on the plant floor including the 22 A. To get more information about packing and 22 tightening of chucks or parts of machine tools on 23 gaskets that we were using so that the committee 23 the shop floor. And it also addresses the letter 24 could make a better-informed decision concerning 24 that Mr. Nordhausen sent from the product liability EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 18 (Pages 174 to 177) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 178 Page 180 1 committee concerning asbestos packing and gasket 1 MS. PERRITANO: Okay, thank you. 2 material. 2 A. Yes, they provided an environmental health 3 Q. And what did Liberty Mutual recommend to 3 memo number 11 along with this letter which was 4 Warren with regard to the asbestos-containing 4 referenced as an attachment to the documents that 5 packing and gaskets? 5 did talk about asbestos in general, not specifically 6 A. There were several things. They basically 6 in pump packing or gaskets, and it did list that as 7 came out and asked, basically suggested and based on 7 one of the hazards or one of the ailments that could 8 their review from their industrial hygiene and 8 be caused. 9 product liability staff, made some results as the 9 Q. And at the time that Warren received this 10 note would state. 10 letter, June 3, 1983, was Warren already shipping 11 Q. Will you please read into the record the 11 asbestos-containing replacement packing in sealed 12 last recommendation that starts out "In using 12 plastic bags? 13 asbestos gaskets...." 13 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts. 14 A. "In using asbestos gaskets, Warren Pumps 14 A. Our instructions had gone to -- Or the 15 is placing these pumps in the chain of commerce and 15 instructions from the committee had gone to the shop 16 may be included in asbestos claims based on the use 16 floor on April 20, so that was prior to receiving 17 of this substance in the packing and gasket 17 this letter. 18 materials. This type exposure is specifically -- 18 Q. Is the answer yes? 19 especially prevalent in confined space hazards in 19 A. Yes, we were. 20 shipyards and related industries, especially where 20 Q. But after receiving - Well, never mind. 21 maintenance personnel must change gaskets or other 21 Let's move on to 22-J. 22 items while in limited workspace areas." 22 A. Okay, yes. 23 Q. Do you agree that in this case the 23 Q. This letter is dated June 9, 1983. Do you 24 testimony in this case is that Mr. Stevens worked in 24 recognize this document? Page 179 Page 181 1 confined spaces with asbestos-containing Warren 1 A. Yes. 2 pumps? 2 (Pause) 3 MS. PERRITANO: Objection. That's beyond 3 THE REPORTER: If you asked a question, we 4 the scope. He is not being offered to talk about 4 didn't hear anything. 5 Mr. Stevens' work and he actually has not reviewed 5 MS. KNUDSON: Oh, I'm sorry. I said "What 6 Mr. Stevens' deposition testimony, so he's not here 6 is it?" 7 to answer those questions. 7 MS. PERRITANO: We didn't hear you. 8 BY MS. KNUDSON: 8 THE WITNESS: I missed that as well. I'm 9 Q. Did this letter from Liberty Mutual result 9 sorry. 10 in any specific actions by Warren with regard to 10 A. It is a letter from Liberty Mutual to 11 asbestos-containing materials in its pumps? 11 Mr. Nordhausen. It is a follow-up from his, 12 A. Based on the review of the documents, no. 12 I believe it was June 3rd letter with some 13 Again, the committee still didn't think there was a 13 additional information about asbestos in general. 14 hazard as used in our specific pumps. It also was 14 Q. And does the letter contain any specific 15 making substitutions where they could. That's been 15 recommendations to Warren? 16 reviewed before. So I didn't see anything based on 16 A. It basically just talks about the two 17 this letter. 17 memos that are attached and that Liberty Mutual is 18 Q. Would you agree that this letter from 18 not an approval authority; they just function as a 19 Liberty Mutual also included general information 19 consultant in certain matters and they just felt 20 about the hazards of asbestos including that 20 that eliminating the use of asbestos in any form 21 asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma? 21 would be a good course of action. 22 MS. PERRITANO: Is that Bates 629 that's 22 Q. For Warren? 23 part of that? I'm sorry, Anna. 23 A. For Warren Pumps, yes. 24 MS. KNUDSON: Yes. 24 Q. And that this recommendation was based on EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 19 (Pages 178 to 181) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 182 Page 184 1 the latest health-and-safety-related information 1 documents? 2 from NCI and the American Conference of Governmental 2 A. Yes. 3 Industrial Hygienists and the National Safety 3 Q. And the first one for the record is dated 4 Council? 4 June 15,1983; the next one is June 17,1983; and 5 A. Again, it was based on the information 5 then the third one is June 27,1983. 6 that was attached in that particular article. And, 6 A. Yes. We missed the date of the middle 7 again, that article primarily dealt with general 7 one. It's June 17,1983? 8 asbestos exposure in the workplace, not specific 8 Q. Yes. I'm sorry. 9 packing and gaskets or pumps themselves. 9 A. Okay, yes. Thank you. 10 Q. Is the answer yes? 10 Q. So this exhibit, this letter dated June 11 A. Again, the letter basically says that they 11 15,1983, confirms that Warren did receive a letter 12 suggested Warren to remove it from their pumps. 12 from Liberty Mutual recommending that Warren no 13 Q. And did Warren do that? 13 longer use asbestos-containing materials in its 14 A. Again, at that point in time we were 14 pumps. Is that right? 15 substituting where we could. Some of the 15 A. It does attach the two letters from 16 substitutes weren't as good, so we could sometimes 17 and not others; and depending on customer 16 Liberty Mutual that we just discussed. It also 17 indicates that Mr. Nordhausen has sent a letter to 18 requirements or Navy specifications, we were not 18 Hydraulic Institute on the same subject but has not 19 able to. 19 received a response as of yet. 20 Q. So at this time in 1983, after receiving 20 Q. And it looks like on the third page of 21 this letter from Liberty Mutual, Warren continued to 21 this exhibit in the letter dated June 27,1983, the 22 use asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in its 22 product liability committee decided to I guess bump 23 pumps? 23 up the decision on whether or not to eliminate 24 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, misstates his 24 asbestos to Houdaille. Is that right? Page 183 Page 185 1 testimony. 1 A. Yes, they've asked Mr. Flanigan to further 2 A. Yes, where we were required to, we did, 2 investigate the information that was provided by 3 and where there was not a substitute we would have. 3 Liberty and others to include a corporatewide 4 Q. But Warren never issued any warnings 4 decision as far as it was concerned. 5 relating to asbestos with its products. Right? 5 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 22 - Actually, 6 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes a 6 let's look at 22-M instead of 22-L. 7 hazard, assumes facts, assumes a duty. 7 A. 22-M? Yes. 8 A. That's correct. Again, the committee 8 Q. And this first one is July 20,1983? 9 didn't feel there was a hazard as used. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Go ahead and take a look at Exhibit 22-K. 10 Q. And is this a Warren document? 11 A. Yes. 11 A. Yes, it is. 12 Q. It's a long one, but I can tell you that 12 Q. And are all four pages Warren documents? 13 other than the first three pages of this exhibit, 13 A. Yes. 14 the documents are just duplicate copies of the June 14 Q. And were these documents kept in the 15 3,1983 letter and the June 9,1983 letter. So 15 regular course of business by Warren? 16 would you just take a quick look at the first three 16 A. Yes, they would have been. 17 pages. 17 Q. Can you please tell me what page 1 is? 18 MS. PERRITANO: Can I see your exhibit for 18 A. It's a letter from Mr. Flanigan based on 19 just one second? I'm sorry. 19 it looks like maybe some information that 20 THE WITNESS: Oh, sure, yes. 20 Mr. Nordhausen might have sent to Mr. Flanigan 21 MS. PERRITANO: Okay, thank you. 21 concerning some of the questions that the committee 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm sorry. 22 might have had based on the Liberty Mutual and other 23 BY MS. KNUDSON: 23 letters that we had received concerning packing and 24 Q. Are these first three letters Warren 24 gaskets. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 20 (Pages 182 to 185) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 186 Page 188 1 Q. Who was Mr. Flanigan? 1 question number 2 and you can see the written note. 2 A. Mr. Flanigan was, It looks like he was the 2 Q. And what was his answer? 3 focal point for product liability within Houdaille. 3 A. "It is our understanding that engineering 4 Q. And the subject of the memo was asbestos 4 has made a change recently, so I'm not sure what we 5 packing and gaskets. Right? 5 are selling but I would guess the answer would be 6 A. Yes. 6 yes." 7 Q. Who was J. Latona? 7 Q. So the response to the question is that in 8 A. I don't recognize that name. 8 fact Warren was still selling replacement packing, 9 Q. And do you see where it says "You did not 9 gaskets and gasket and packing materials as of July 10 include Warren specification pages" and then it 10 28,1983? 11 lists a bunch of numbers? 11 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, overbroad. 12 A. Yes. 12 A. Yes, as the customer would request or the 13 Q. And then the rest of the sentence is 13 Navy specifications hadn't changed, we'd still be 14 "which might help me know the form of your 14 required to furnish that packing. 15 asbestos." What are those Warren specification 15 Q. Do you know what engineering change this 16 pages? 16 gentleman is referring to? 17 A. Those would be information for a 17 A. The engineering change would be at that 18 particular item that Warren would have purchased 18 time, again because we were substituting, whether 19 from a sub-vendor. 19 they had found substitutes for everything or not. 20 Q. So are those the Warren specification 20 I don't think Mr. Holley was quite aware of that or 21 numbers for the asbestos-containing packing and 21 not. That's why he answered in that particular 22 gaskets that it purchased from other companies? 22 format. 23 A. That's what this indicates, yes. 23 Q. And you've said throughout your testimony 24 Q. Does Warren still have any of those Warren 24 today that Warren was starting to substitute Page 187 Page 189 1 specification pages? 1 non-asbestos materials for the asbestos packing and 2 A. I don't know if we still have these pages 2 gaskets. Do you have any idea as of 1983 the extent 3 or not. 3 to which Warren had been successful in substituting? 4 Q. Have you seen any? 4 A. I don't know the total extent. I know 5 A. Have I seen any material specification 5 that substitutes were being used. I know we had 6 pages or - ? 6 tried certain materials for gaskets and packing 7 Q. Well, these particular ones that are 7 materials that when we actually did do the testing 8 listed here starting with, is that a zero, R004A? 8 at our facility, they were not a suitable 9 A. Yes. Have I -- ? I don't know if I have 9 replacement. So it was an ongoing process during 10 seen these specific ones or not. 10 this time period. 11 Q. And what are the different questions that 11 Q. So you have no I guess specific estimate 12 Mr. Flanigan asked Mr. Nordhausen? 12 or anything in terms of companywide how successful 13 A. It appears that he was looking for how we 13 the substitution effort was? 14 might treat the particular asbestos packing and 14 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, compound. 15 gaskets within our manufacturing facility and what 15 A. No, I do not. 16 we might do to them once they're received. 16 Q. And after Warren's correspondence and 17 Q. Do you see that number 2 is the question, 17 communication with Liberty Mutual, did Warren ever 18 "Do you sell replacement asbestos packing, gaskets 18 go back and warn its existing customers of the 19 and gasket and packing materials?" 19 dangers and hazards of asbestos from asbestos 20 A. Yes. 20 packing and gaskets that Warren had already shipped 21 Q. And looking at this exhibit, was that 21 or supplied? 22 question answered anywhere throughout this exhibit? 22 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 23 A. Yes, it was, on the next page, identified 23 calls for speculation, assumes a hazard, assumes a 24 as WP 0443510. It appears that Mr. Holley answered 24 duty. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 21 (Pages 186 to 189) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 190 Page 192 1 A. Again, I haven't seen anything prior to 2 this. Again, the committee didn't think there was a 1 asbestos." 2 Q. So essentially it would cost more for the 3 hazard. I haven't seen anything post this that 3 company to have made a complete switch over to non 4 suggested that they thought any differently. 4 asbestos-containing packing at this time. Is that 5 Q. Then looking at question number 3 on 5 right? 6 Exhibit Number 22-M, "If you do sell replacement 7 materials, to whom do you sell it and how do they 6 MS. PERRUANO: Objection, assumes facts, 7 calls for speculation. 8 process it?" And it looks like Mr. Holley answered 8 A. No, the manufacturers of the packing and 9 that question as well. Would you agree? 9 gasket material told him it cost more and I'm sure 10 A. Yes, he did. 10 that same information from the packing and gasket 11 Q. And what was his answer? 11 manufacturers relayed to Mr. Paugh told him that we 12 A. "We sell direct to distributor stock or 12 might have been the only ones that are doing it 13 ship direct to customer. Consult shipping for 13 because it costs more and nobody else was doing it. 14 answer to how we process it." 14 So if we're going to do it, it's going to erode our 15 Q. And what does that mean, "We sell direct 15 competition even though we might be doing it. 16 to distributor stock"? 16 Q. Were any of the other questions answered 17 A. For a short period of time Warren did have 17 that are on the front of Exhibit 22-M? 18 some stocking distributors for certain products, so 18 A. I didn't see any of the other questions 19 he was talking about those distributors that would 19 answered. 20 have our products within their facility. 21 Q. You said for a short period of time. Do 22 you know the time frame? 20 Q. So speaking on behalf of Warren, you don't 21 know the answer to questions number 1, 5 or 6? 22 A. At this time, no, I don't. 23 A. It was mid 70s to about mid '80s. 23 Q. Let's go ahead and take a look at Exhibit 24 Q. Can you provide the names of any of the 24 22-L. Page 191 Page 193 1 distributors that are referenced in this letter? 2 A. Not right off the top of my head. 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And this is dated June 22,1983; the 3 Q. But is that information that Warren could 3 subject is manuals for pumps. Do you see that? 4 find? 4 A. Yes. 5 A. If the distributor still exists, we would 5 Q. Have you seen this document before? 6 be able to. 7 MS. KNUDSON: I would ask that that be 8 produced. 9 MS. PERRITANO: Put it in writing to Mike 6 A. Other than for this particular case, 7 I don't recall seeing it. 8 Q. And is this a Warren document? 9 A. Yes. 10 and we'll respond. 10 Q. And how do you know that? 11 BY MS. KNUDSON: 11 A. It's addressed to Mr. Nordhausen and also 12 Q. And then in terms of question number 4, 12 indicated that it's intercompany correspondence from 13 "Are there acceptable substitutes, both function and 13 Houdaille corporate. 14 price, for each type of asbestos material now being 14 Q. Is this the type of document that was kept 15 used?" Is it your understanding that that question 15 in the regular course of business? 16 was answered? 16 A. Yes. 17 A. Yes, it appears that Mr. Paugh answered 17 Q. And is it your understanding that it came 18 that question on exhibit -- 18 from Warren's file? 19 Q. What was his response? 19 A. Yes. 20 A. His response was "Yes. According to the 20 Q. What is this document? 21 packing and gasket manufacturers, it is more 21 A. It's a letter to Mr. Nordhausen from 22 expensive particularly in the form of packing, 22 Mr. Flanigan, talking about some of the technical 23 Kevlar, and would further weaken our competitive 23 manuals that Warren has for some of its products. 24 situation unless competitors also eliminated 24 Q. And does this document indicate that not EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 22 (Pages 190 to 193) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 194 Page 196 1 all Warren manuals had a safety precautions section 1 Q. Let's take a look Exhibit 22-N. 2 as of the date of this document in 1983? 2 MS. PERRITANO: Ed, how long have we been 3 A. Yes. I'm not sure what documents were 3 on the record? 4 actually sent to Mr. Flanigan for review, so I'm not 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Over two hours. 5 sure if they were old documents or newer documents. 5 MS. PERRITANO: We have been on the record 6 Q. Would you agree that this is a memo from 6 over two hours, Anna. 7 Houdaille to Warren with specific recommendations 7 MS. KNUDSON: I only have a couple more 8 for making improvements to its Warren pump manuals? 8 minutes. 9 A. Yes. It talks about moving sections and 9 MS. PERRITANO: And I'm fine with that. 10 some of the things that they should include. 10 I just don't want it to be two more hours. 11 Q. So would you agree that the content of 11 MS. KNUDSON: Sure. 12 Warren Pumps pump manuals was dictated at least In 12 THE WITNESS: 22-N, yes. 13 part by Houdaille? 13 BY MS. KNUDSON: 14 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts. 14 Q. Is this a Warren document? 15 A. They're making some suggestions here about 15 A. Yes, it is. 16 what to do and how to do it. I don't know if 16 Q. And is it a document that was kept in the 17 they're making specific suggestions on how to do it 17 regular course of business? 18 or whether they want to comply with everything 18 A. Yes. 19 across the board for all the divisions within 19 Q. Have you seen this document before? 20 Houdaille. Again, there's other things that they 20 A. Just when I was reviewing for this case, 21 could be talking about. 21 that's the only time I've seen this document. 22 Q. Do you see anywhere on this exhibit any 22 Q. We do agree that this document confirms 23 mention to military specifications? 23 that Warren as of 1987 was still routinely supplying 24 A. On this particular one? No, I don't. 24 repair parts for its pumps to the SPCC? Page 195 Page 197 1 Q. Do you see any reference to Navy 1 A. Yes. The parts that he's talking about 2 specifications? 2 and the drawings that he's talking about are those 3 A. No. 3 parts that Warren manufactures at our facility which 4 Q. Do you know whether Warren implemented the 4 would normally include like impeller shafts, rings, 5 changes that were recommended by Houdaille as a 5 bushings, again things that we would manufacture 6 result of this memo? 6 directly. 7 A. Specifically, I do not. 7 MS. KNUDSON: At this point I have no 8 Q. Do you know how often Warren updates and 9 revises its manuals for its pumps? 8 further questions. Thank you. Appreciate your 9 time. 10 A. No, I don't. 10 MS. PERRITANO: Thank you. Anna, I'm 11 Q. Does Warren have any process for updating 11 going to have a couple of follow-up questions. Can 12 its manuals to include more recent safety 12 we take like a five-minute break? I want to run to 13 information? 13 the ladies' room. 14 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, overbroad, 14 MS. KNUDSON: Sure. 15 beyond the scope. 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:40 p.m. 16 A. I do not know. 16 and we are going off the record. 17 Q. Did you ever see any process for that, for 17 (Short recess taken.) 18 improving - well, other than what's reflected in 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:49 p.m. 19 this memo, any process for making improvements in 19 and we are back on the record. 20 terms of safety recommendations and warnings in 21 Warren's manuals? 20 EXAMINATION 21 BY MS. PERRITANO: 22 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, beyond the 22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Doktor. 23 scope, assumes facts. 24 A. No, I have not. 23 A. Good afternoon. 24 Q. My name is Judy Perritano and I just have EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 23 (Pages 194 to 197) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 198 Page 200 1 a couple of questions for you. 1 part of your deposition about some drawings. Do you 2 Can you just tell us what it is that 2 recall that? 3 Warren manufactured? 3 A. Quite a few drawings. 4 A. Pumps. 4 Q. Right. And I think we marked a number of 5 Q. Did Warren manufacture gaskets? 5 them as exhibits in the case. The drawings included 6 A. No. 6 a list of components in the pumps, did they not? 7 Q. Did Warren manufacture packing? 7 A. Yes. 8 A. No, we didn't. 8 Q. And why were those components listed on 9 Q. Did Warren manufacture insulation? 9 the drawings? 10 A. No. 10 A. They made up all the parts for the pump to 11 Q. From where did Warren purchase the gaskets 11 operate. 12 and packings that it incorporated into its pumps? 12 Q. And did the Navy require that those 13 A, From third-party manufacturers. 13 components be listed? 14 Q. And we talked a little bit on the first 14 A. Yes. The drawings specifically called out 15 day of your deposition about some of the pumps that 15 each individual component and usually the materials 16 were sold for installation on some of the ships at 16 of construction and any specifications for those 17 issue in this case. Do you recall that? 17 particular materials. 18 A. Yes. 18 Q. And were the materials of construction 19 Q. And in some of those pumps, were there 19 materials that were specified by the Navy in the 20 some asbestos-containing components? 20 Navy specifications? 21 A. Yes. 21 A. Yes, they would be. 22 Q. And why were those asbestos-containing 22 Q. Is there a process for the approval of the 23 components incorporated into those pumps? 23 drawings that are associated with the pumps? 24 A. For the particular Navy pumps, the 24 A. Yes, the drawings would have to be Page 199 Page 201 1 specifications would require use of certain 1 submitted for approval to the Navy or the Naval 2 components in certain areas. And I think we also 2 shipyard who was building the particular ship. 3 saw that the components themselves carried Navy 3 Q. And could Warren manufacture the pump 4 Department or military specifications as well. 4 before the drawings were approved? 5 Q. Did Warren or the Navy specify the use of 5 A. No. 6 asbestos in those pumps? 6 Q. Were the pumps also inspected before they 7 A. The Navy -- 7 were shipped to the Navy? 8 MS. KNUDSON: Object to the form. Can you 8 A. Yes, either by the Navy directly, their 9 hear me? I just need to object to that question. 9 associate like SupShips or the shipyard themselves. 10 MS. PERRITANO: Yes, we can hear you. 10 Q. You were asked a lot of questions about 11 Anna. 11 repair parts. 12 MS. KNUDSON: Thanks. 12 A. Yes. 13 A. The Navy mil spec or Navy documents would 13 Q. And I think we interchanged the terms 14 specify materials to be used in those particular 14 between repair and replacement parts throughout the 15 products. 15 deposition. What I would like to talk about are 16 Q. And what is a Navy mil spec? 16 parts that are sold at some point after the original 17 A. It's a specification that talks about 17 sale of the pump. Okay? 18 design of the products, talks about materials to be 18 A. Yes. 19 used, testing that will be done to the products, 19 Q. So when I use the term repair or 20 inspections that might be done, outside testing that 20 replacement, I'm talking about those types of parts. 21 would have to be performed. 21 Okay? 22 Q. And who prepared those specifications? 22 A. Yes. 23 A. The Navy would have. 24 Q. We talked a little bit during the first 23 Q. Can you describe for the jury the types of 24 repair or replacement parts that Warren sold? EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 24 (Pages 198 to 201) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 202 Page 204 1 A. They would typically be metal parts that 1 Q. So those related to industrial products? 2 we would manufacture at our facility, impellers, 2 A. Yes. 3 shafts, case rings, pistons, piston rings, 3 Q. And what types of repair or replacement 4 crossheads, bushings. Those types of items is what 4 parts were typically provided through the 5 we would normally supply to the Navy for aftermarket 5 distributor stock program? 6 parts. 6 A. It was usually power frames, cases, 7 Q. And you were asked some questions about 7 impellers, replacement shafts, bearings, things like 8 gaskets and packing as repair and replacement parts. 8 that. 9 Do you recall that? 9 Q. Metal parts? 10 A. Yes. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Under what circumstances would Warren 11 Q. You were also asked some questions today 12 provide gaskets and packing as repair and 12 about the product liability committee. You recall 13 replacement parts? 13 that? 14 A. If it was requested by the customer. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And was that typically requested by the 15 Q. And you mentioned a couple of times a 16 customer? 16 safety committee? 17 A. No. 17 A. Yes. 18 MS. KNUDSON: Object to the form of the 18 Q. Was the safety committee separate and 19 question as overly broad and vague. 19 apart from the product liability committee, as far 20 BY MS. PERRITANO: 20 as you know? 21 Q. You were shown a document during your 21 A. Yes. 22 first day of deposition that included some Navy 22 Q. And in looking through the various 23 requests for requisition of moneys for repair and 23 correspondence relating to the product liability 24 replacement parts. Do you recall that? 24 committee notes, did you see discussions where the Page 203 Page 205 1 A. Yes, I do. 1 safety committee was considering hazards related to 2 Q. And I think it was marked as Exhibit 2 pumps? 3 Number 21. There you go. 3 A. Yes. 4 A. Yes. 4 Q. And what types of hazards was the product 5 Q. Is that a Warren document? 5 liability committee considering? 6 A. No. 6 A. They're looking at things like electrical 7 Q. In looking over that document, is there 7 shock hazards, guards so people wouldn't get caught 8 any indication or suggestion in that document that 8 in the rotating machinery, things like that. 9 the repair or replacement parts that the Navy is 9 Q. And was the committee looking to provide 10 purchasing or seeking to purchase included any 10 warnings about those types of hazards? 11 gaskets or packing? 11 A. Yes. 12 A. No. It just talks about repair parts for 12 Q. And did you also see some discussion in 13 centrifugal, reciprocating, or rotary pumps. 13 the notes about asbestos-containing components that 14 Q. And those repair parts would have included 14 may have been used in some of the Warren pumps? 15 things like the metal parts that you described 15 A. Yes. 16 before? 16 Q. And what components would those have been? 17 A. Yes. 17 A. Packing and gasket material. 18 Q. You also mentioned the distribution stock 18 Q. And throughout the documents that you 19 process in response to a question in today's 19 reviewed, did you see indications as to the 20 deposition. Do you recall that? 20 committee's position or consideration of whether 21 A. Distributor stock, yes. 21 there was a hazard? 22 Q. And was there a program with the Navy? 22 A. The committee didn't think there was a 23 A. We did not have distributors for the Navy 23 hazard for those particular items as they were used 24 product, no. 24 in our pumps. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 25 (Pages 202 to 205) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 206 Page 208 1 Q. And the committee looked to a number of 1 - A. Yes. It was requested for Mr. Nordhausen 2 other entities to help it evaluate that issue, did 2 to do that. 3 it not? 3 Q. And what is the Hydraulic Institute? 4 A. Yes. 4 A. Hydraulic Institute is the organization 5 Q. And one of them that we spoke about today 5 who provides information to the pumping industry or 6 was Liberty Mutual? 6 pump manufacturers. It also lays down specific test 7 A. Yes. 7 requirements, some general information as to 8 Q. Now, attached to one of the Liberty Mutual 8 drawings, testing, those types of issues. 9 letters there was some information about asbestos. 9 Q. And did the Hydraulic Institute provide 10 Is that correct? 10 Warren with any information concerning any potential 11 A. There was two separate letters. One was a 11 hazards associated with gaskets and packing as used 12 health memo, I think -- hold on a minute -- 12 in Warren's products? 13 environmental health memo. There was also an 13 A. Yes. They had some information from one 14 article talking about substitute gasket material. 14 of, I think it was a gasket manufacturer. 15 And then there was a National Cancer Institute 15 Q. And what did the Hydraulic Institute 16 asbestos exposure memo as well. 16 advise Warren? 17 Q. And take a look for me, sir, at the 17 A. Because the asbestos was encapsulated as 18 National Cancer Institute asbestos exposure memo. 18 part of the process in making the gaskets, there 19 A. Yes. 19 should not be a hazard. 20 Q. And just for the record, I think that it 20 Q. And when approximately did Warren receive 21 is Bates-stamped 443619? 21 the information from the Hydraulic Institute? 22 A. Yes. 22 A. It was part of this same time frame, in 23 Q. And could you just identify which exhibit 23 1983, and as part of Mr. Nordhausen's request that 24 it is part of? 24 he respond. Page 207 Page 209 1 A. I think it was part of two exhibits. 1 Q. I am going to show you a document and ask 2 Looks like it was part of Exhibit 22-J and 22-K. 2 if this is a copy of the letter sent to the 3 Q. Is there a discussion in this document 3 Hydraulic Institute. 4 about the different forms of asbestos? 4 A. Yes. 5 A. Different forms of asbestos, different 5 Q. And what is the date on that, sir? 6 types of issues relating to some of the physical 6 A. This is May 24, 1983. 7 side effects or potential side effects from asbestos 7 MS. PERRITANO: Let's mark that as the 8 as well. 8 next exhibit, please. 9 Q. And does the document also on Bates 443622 9 (Doktor Deposition Exhibit 29 marked for 10 refer to asbestos bonded in finished products? 10 identification.) 11 A. Yes, it does. 11 BY MS. PERRITANO: 12 Q. And could you read that into the record, 12 Q. And let me show you another document, sir, 13 please? 13 and ask you if you can identify that for the record, 14 A. "Asbestos bonded in finished products is 14 please. 15 not a risk to health as long as the product is not 15 A. It appears that it's a response to the 16 damaged or disturbed in such a way as to free fibers 16 executive committee, Subject: Product liability, 17 into the air." 17 and it talks about a response with a material safety 18 Q. And was the asbestos that was included in 18 data sheet where they talk about the information 19 the gaskets and packing in a bonded form? 19 from Durabla that talks about the encapsulated form 20 A. Yes. 20 of the gasket material. 21 Q. And in your review of the product 21 Q. And is there a conclusion in there about 22 liability committee information, did you see that 22 the hazard, sir? 23 the product liability committee also sought the 24 input of the Hydraulic Institute? 23 A. "Please note that it would seem that since 24 the asbestos is in encapsulated form, there is no EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 26 (Pages 206 to 209) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 210 Page 212 1 problem in using this material." 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And that relates to the gaskets and 2 Q. And you said that Warren did not - Strike 3 packing that were in your pumps? 3 that. Why didn't Warren put a warning on the pump? 4 A. Yes. 4 A. If we're talking about - 5 Q. And is this a copy of the material safety 5 MS. KNUDSON: Object to the form of the 6 data sheet that was included with the letter? 6 question. It's very vague. 7 A. Yes, it was. 7 A. If we're talking about asbestos packing 8 Q. And that is from who, sir? 8 and gaskets, again, they concluded there was no 9 A. The Durabla Manufacturing Company. 9 hazard. If it was some other kind of warning, it 10 MS. PERRITANO: Let's mark that group, the 10 would be for operation of the pump as we saw earlier 11 letter and -- is it a two-page document? 11 with the warning label. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 Q. So to the extent that Warren concluded 13 MS. PERRITANO: -- and the two-page 13 there was a hazard associated with a particular use 14 material safety data sheet as the next exhibit, 14 of the pump, what would Warren do? 15 please. 15 A. They would put a warning label or identify 16 (Doktor Deposition Exhibit 30 marked for 16 it in some way. 17 identification.) 17 Q. You talked during the first day of your 18 BY MS. PERRITANO: 18 deposition about a couple of different types of 19 Q. In addition to seeking the input of the 19 pumps. I think we talked about a reciprocating pump 20 Hydraulic Institute, did Warren also separately seek 20 and a centrifugal pump. Do you recall that? 21 out information from the gasket and packing 21 A. Yes. 22 manufacturers? 22 Q. And can you just briefly tell the jury 23 A. Yes. 23 what the difference is between a reciprocating and a 24 Q. And what information did Warren receive 24 centrifugal pump? Page 211 Page 213 1 from the gasket and packing manufacturers? 1 A. Well, the easiest way to explain a 2 A. It was similar to this, that in 2 reciprocating pump is people can think of watching 3 encapsulated form, that gasket material was not a 3 Little House on the Prairie where they used to go 4 hazard; and even at the level that the gasket 4 out to the wellhead and actually, you know, move a 5 material was manufactured, there was no hazard. 5 handle up and down to get water out of the well. 6 Q. And when you say gasket material, does 6 Well, that handle was connected to a plunger that 7 that include packing also? 7 pulled water up from the well, and that was really a 8 A. Yes. 8 hand-operated reciprocating pump. The ones that we 9 Q. Now, following the information that Warren 9 talked about the other day were steam reciprocating 10 received including the information from Liberty 10 pumps where instead of you actually moving the 11 Mutual, the Hydraulic Institute and the gasket and 11 piston up and down, there's a steam piston that gets 12 packing manufacturers, did the committee again 12 actuated and moves that water piston up and down to 13 discuss the use of asbestos-containing gaskets and 13 pump the fluid. 14 packing in pumps? 14 A centrifugal pump, the easiest way to 15 A. Yes. 15 think about that is when you were a little kid, you 16 Q. And did the committee reach any conclusion 16 had a little pinwheel on a stick that when the wind 17 concerning whether it thought there was a hazard 17 blew, it would turn the pinwheel. Well, if you kind 18 associated with the gaskets and packing after it had 18 of take that same pinwheel and let a motor or a 19 received all this information? 19 turbine turn it and let water flow in where the wind 20 A. It was the same conclusion: that as used 20 would actually flow in, the centrifugal force of 21 in our pumps, there would be no hazard. 21 that motor spinning that pinwheel causes centrifugal 22 Q. You were asked a question earlier today 22 force and we can force the fluid down the pipe. So 23 about whether Warren could have put a warning on a 23 that's a centrifugal pump, something that's rotating 24 pump. Do you recall that? 24 very fast. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 27 (Pages 210 to 213) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 214 Page 216 1 Q. Both centrifugal and reciprocating pumps 1 where the steam end of that pump is? 2 were sold for installation on some of the ships that 2 A. This area up in here. 3 we were discussing during the first day of your 3 Q. So that's up at the top of the pump? 4 deposition. Correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 A. Yes. 5 Q. It's a vertical pump? 6 Q. And I would like to focus for a minute, 6 A. Yes. 7 sir, on the reciprocating pumps. 7 Q. And the pump end of the pump is where, 8 A. Yes. 8 sir? 9 Q. And what I would like to do is show you a 9 A. It's down this area here. 10 document Bates-numbered WA-RS-00456 and ask you if 10 Q. Now, during the first day of your 11 you can identify that for the record, please. 11 deposition you were asked some questions about some 12 A. It's identified as Warren Pumps drawing 12 insulation that was associated with that particular 13 BS-1195, assembly, list of spares and material, 6 by 13 pump. Do you recall that? 14 9 by 12 vertical single fire and bilge pump. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And was that a reciprocating pump? 15 Q. Can you show the jury where the insulation 16 A. Yes. 16 was located? 17 Q. And was the fire and bilge pump one of the 17 A. It would be up in this area here. 18 pumps that was sold for installation on some of the 18 Q. So up at the top end of the pump? 19 ships at issue in this case? 19 A. Yes. 20 A. Yes. 20 Q. And was there any insulation on the pump 21 Q. Now I would like to show you what is a - 21 or bottom end of the pump? 22 Well, let me back up for a minute. Towards the 22 A. Not down here, no. 23 bottom of that drawing there is a schematic. Do you 23 Q. Can you show the jury where the pump 24 see that? 24 piston is located? Page 215 Page 217 1 A. Yes. 1 A. It's down here. 2 Q. And what does that schematic depict? 2 Q. Is that inside the pump end of the pump? 3 A. It's basically a cutaway of the pump, like 3 A. Yes. 4 somebody sliced the pump right down the middle. 4 Q. And where is the pump piston packing 5 Q. And I would like to show you a blowup of 5 located? 6 that schematic and ask you if that is the same 6 A. That is these little X boxes marked down 7 thing, only blown up on a cardboard board. 7 here. 8 A. Yes. It's that lower portion of the 8 Q. Why don't I give you a pink highlighter 9 drawing. 9 and you can highlight for us on the diagram where 10 Q. Okay. Could you hold that up for the 10 that is located. 11 jury, please? 11 A. (Witness complied.) 12 A. Sure. (Witness complied.) 12 MS. KNUDSON: Judy, how much more time are 13 Q. And that is the cutaway of a steam 13 you anticipating going? 14 reciprocating pump? 14 MS. PERRITANO: About three minutes. 15 A. Yes. 15 A. It's this little pink area down here. 16 Q. Does that cutaway indicate where the steam 16 Q. Okay. In order to remove the pump piston 17 end and the pump end of the steam reciprocating pump 17 packing, do you have to remove the insulation on the 18 are located? 18 steam end of the pump? 19 A. Yes, it does. 19 A. No. 20 MS. PERRITANO: Could I ask the 20 Q. Can you just - 21 videographer to just make sure that we zoom in on 21 MS. KNUDSON: Object to the form of the 22 that. 22 question. Object to the form of the question. 23 BY MS. PERRITANO: 23 BY MS. PERRITANO: 24 Q. Could you point out for the jury, please, 24 Q. Can you describe for the jury how you EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 28 (Pages 214 to 217) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 218 Page 220 1 would remove the pump piston packing from the pump 1 Q. Thank you. I just want to circle back -- 2 end of the pump? 2 I'm done with that, sir. I just want to circle back 3 MS. KNUDSON: Object to the form of the 3 for one minute to a question that I forgot to ask. 4 question. 4 You looked for aftermarket parts for the 5 A. What you would do is, you would disconnect 5 pumps that were sold to the various ships at issue 6 the linkage in this area here. There's a couple 6 in this case. Correct? 7 bolts that hold what we call the crosshead together, 7 A. Yes. 8 which links the steam rod and the pump piston rod. 8 Q. And did you find any record showing any 9 If you take that apart, this pump piston rod and the 9 sales of any asbestos-containing components for any 10 pump just in itself will drop to the bottom of the 10 of the pumps on any of the ships at issue in this 11 pump. You can remove this lower cylinder cover, 11 case? 12 drop that whole assembly out the bottom. Then you 12 A. No. 13 can easily take these nuts off, get to the packing 13 Q. And so that's aftermarket. Correct? 14 on a bench or on the deckplate. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And do you have to disturb any insulation 15 MS. PERRITANO: Thank you, sir. I have no 16 to do that? 16 further questions. 17 A. No. You've worked - 17 MS. KNUDSON: Judy, I have a couple of 18 MS. KNUDSON : Object to the form of the 18 follow-ups in light of the visual aids that were 19 question. Mr. Doktor, please wait for me to get my 19 just used. 20 objection in. 20 FURTHER EXAMINATION 21 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. 21 BY MS. KNUDSON: 22 A. No, you'd just be working on the pump end 22 Q. Mr. Doktor, when you -- 23 of this pump. 23 MS. PERRITANO: Do you want him to pull it 24 Q. And what if you can't get the piston out 24 up? Do you want him to show it? Page 219 Page 221 1 the bottom end of the pump? 1 MS. KNUDSON: No, that's okay. I just 2 MS. KNUDSON: Object to the form of the 2 want to ask him: 3 question, calls for speculation, lacks foundation. 3 BY MS. KNUDSON: 4 A. An alternate way to get to this packing is 4 Q. Ms. Perritano asked you a few questions 5 to move the pistons to their full height or to the 5 about the drawing of the fire and bilge pumps, with 6 top of their stroke and then you can actually remove 6 you providing a factual testimony description about 7 this top cylinder head, slide it up as far as it'll 7 how you personally would go about accessing some of 8 go, and that will bring the piston somewhere toward 8 the parts in the pump end of the pump or the water 9 the top of the cylinder but not quite to the top, 9 end of the pump? 10 and then you'd have to work from the top in to take 10 A. It was based on my experience as a field 11 this bolt off and the top plate to get to the 11 service engineer and how it would be done in the 12 packing and reinstall it. 12 field. 13 Q. And the top that you're referring to is 13 Q. And that's a question of fact. Right? 14 the top of which portion of the pump? 14 A. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 15 MS. KNUDSON: Object to the form. 15 that. 16 BY MS. PERRITANO: 16 Q. Well, you were providing factual testimony 17 Q. The pump end or the steam end? 17 from your perspective about how that pump would be 18 MS. KNUDSON: Same objection. 18 worked on. Right? 19 A. It would be this top pump cylinder plate 19 A. Yes. 20 right here. 20 Q. Do you recall some of Ms. Perritano's 21 Q. And which end of the pump is that located 21 questions about the recommendations that Warren 22 on? 22 received from the Hydraulic Institute? 23 MS. KNUDSON: Object to the form. 23 A. Yes. 24 A. That's on the pump end. 24 Q. I have a question, which is: Why did EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 29 (Pages 218 to 221) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 222 Page 224 1 asbestos packing and gaskets in Warren's pumps need 1 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, calls for 2 to be replaced over time? 2 speculation, beyond the scope. 3 A. Packing was a replaceable part. The place 3 A. It would deform It a little bit, not that 4 that it's located runs in very close proximity and 4 much. Again, it wasn't necessarily a catastrophic 5 up against the rotating shaft or the reciprocating 5 or major degradation of the piece of equipment. 6 shaft and it will wear over time depending on how 6 MS. KNUDSON: That's all I have. 7 it's installed and how it's maintained. So, again, 7 MS. PERRITANO: I think we're done, Anna. 8 it does need replacement. Gaskets would probably 8 MS. KNUDSON: Okay. Well, thank you very 9 only be replaced if you did something internal to 9 much. Appreciate th e -- 10 the pump at some major overhaul cycle or period of 10 THE WITNESS: Did we want to mark - ? 11 years after the pump was installed because it wasn't 11 MS. PERRITANO: Oh, wait, yes, we have to 12 performing properly. 12 mark something. Go ahead. I'm sorry. What are you 13 Q. So packing needed to be replaced, 13 going to say? 14 including asbestos packing, because it would wear 14 MS. KNUDSON: Judy, are we off the record? 15 out. Right? 15 MS. PERRITANO: No, I have to mark 16 A. It was considered a wearing part. 16 something on the record first. So do you want me to 17 Q. And it would wear out in part because it 17 do that? 18 would break down. Right? 18 MS. KNUDSON: Okay. 19 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, assumes facts, 19 MS. PERRITANO: Anna, do you want to mark 20 calls for speculation. 20 the board? 21 A. It may break down if it wasn't tightened 21 THE WITNESS: Put both of these in as an 22 properly. But a lot of times it just would get 22 exhibit? 23 overcompressed and just couldn't be used any longer. 23 MS. PERRITANO: Well, yeah. I mean, I 24 Q. Have you ever seen asbestos packing from a 24 could have a piece-of-paper copy made of this and we Page 223 Page 225 1 Warren pump that needed to be replaced, have you 1 could just substitute that, if that's okay with you, 2 ever seen that kind of packing fall apart? 2 or we can mark the board. But if we mark the board, 3 A. I've replaced packing in various Warren 3 what do you want to do with the board? Because we 4 pumps. I don't know if it was asbestos or not, but 4 can't give it to poor Ed, because he doesn't want 5 I have never seen it fall apart. I've pulled it out 5 it. 6 as complete rings when I did the changeout. 6 MS. KNUDSON: I'm fine with you marking 7 Q. Were those rings damaged at all? 7 the board and if you just want to send it to us, 8 MS. PERRITANO: Objection. 8 we'll keep everything. 9 A. Other than the packing hook or the removal 9 MS. PERRITANO: That's fine. Okay. 10 tool that I used to take it out, they were pretty 10 So, just so the record is clear, Ed 11 much intact. I didn't really see any degradation to 11 Varallo, who is our stenographer, will send you the 12 it. 12 transcript and all of the original exhibits, less 13 Q. What about the part that you used with the 13 the board, and I will send you the board. Is that 14 tool to pull it out, what kind of degradation would 14 okay? 15 take place? 15 MS. KNUDSON: That's fine. 16 MS. PERRITANO: Objection, calls for 16 MS. PERRITANO: Okay. So let's mark as 17 speculation, beyond the scope. 17 the next exhibit, we will mark as Exhibit 31-A the 18 A. It would just be deformed because it was 18 drawing with Bates number -- 19 basically like a corkscrew where you'd twist it in 19 THE WITNESS: WA-RS-00456. 20 to make sure it'd bite into the packing before you 20 MS. PERRITANO: And then as 31-B the 21 pulled it out. 21 blowup board of the schematic on the drawing. Is 22 Q. And so the process of removing packing 22 that okay? 23 that you needed to replace actually resulted in 23 MS. KNUDSON: That's fine. 24 altering the shape and form of the packing. Right? 24 MS. PERRITANO: Okay, cool. And with EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 30 (Pages 222 to 225) Roland Doktor Volume II October 12, 2012 Page 226 Page 228 1 that, I think we are off the record. 2 MS. KNUDSON: Okay, great. 1 WITNESS: Roland R. Doktor 2 DATE: October 12, 2012 [Volume 2] 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:21 p.m. 3 CASE: Roland L. Stevens and Shirley J. Stevens 4 and we are off the record. 4 v. CBS Corporation, et al. 5 (Deposition concluded at 2:21 p.m.) 5 6 6 7 7 DISTRIBUTION TO COUNSEL The original signature 8 8 page/errata sheet was sent to Judith A. Perritano, 9 9 Esq., to obtain signature from the deponent. When 10 10 signed, please forward same to Anna D. Knudson, Esq. 11 11 for inclusion with the original of the deposition 12 12 transcript. 13 13 14 14 15 15 WITNESS INSTRUCTIONS After reading the transcript 16 16 of your deposition, please note any change or 17 17 correction and the reason for it on the errata 18 18 sheet. DO NOT make any notations on the transcript 19 19 itself. Use additional sheets if necessary. 20 20 21 21 22 22 SIGN AND DATE THE ERRATA SHEET and return it, along 23 23 with the transcript, to your counsel. 24 24 Page 227 l 2 COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION J*2 4 I, J. Edward Varallo, RMR, CRR, Registered 5 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in the 6 Commonwealth of Massachusetts (my commission expires 7 12/24/2015), hereby certify that the deposition of 8 Roland R. Doktor taken on October 12, 2012, in the 9 matter of Roland L. Stevens and Shirley J. Stevens 10 v. CBS Corporation, et al. was stenographically 11 recorded by me and transcribed; and that the oath of 12 the deponent continued from a previous date. 13 I certify that the deposition transcript 14 produced by me is true and accurate to the best of 15 my ability. 16 I certify further that I am not counsel, 17 attorney, or relative of any party litigant, and 18 have no interest, financial or otherwise, in the 19 outcome of this suit. 20 21 22 23 24 DATED: 10/22/2012 J. Edward Varallo EPPLEY COURT REPORTING, LLC 508.478.9795 31 (Pages 226 to 228)