Document NeVQqjoNXeJbOvorqVBzzd1VE

Castleman File: US Gypsum w/c = with cover letter or memo If DATE = 0, undated 9 fit*CD-ROM Document #:USG 5^ Month/Year / __ published article from trade journal __ published advertisement from trade journal __ government inspection results __ unpublished or internal report __ unpublished presentation from conference __ newspaper article __ letter __ memorandum __ industry warning labels __ industry sales literature __ industry recommended practices __ meeting agenda __ minutes __ attendee list __ legal filing of defense __ legal filing of plaintiff __ BC notes /_ I < ^*1 -- / 1 1 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) SS : 2 COUNTY OF KEtRSHAW ) A 3 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINE, COUNTY OF KERSHAW IN* THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 4 KERSHAW COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 5) Plaintiff, ) 6) vs. ) Nc 85-CP-28-58 7 W.R. GRACE AND CO., et al . , ) ) 8) Defendants . ) 9 1C 11 1 2 The deposition of SUZANNE KAY TORREY, 1 3 taken in the above-entitled cause, before SUSAN M. 1 4 MARTINO, a Notary Public vithin and for the County 1 5 of Cook, State of Illinois, and a Certified 1 6 Shorthand Reporter of said state at 101 South Wacker 1 7 Drive, Chicago, Illinois, on the 29th day of July, 1 8 A. D. , 1 986 , at 9:30 a.m. 1S '--'-tT'ir? 20 lt 2 1 r L U ft -Jfiosj 2 2 SPlQt'i 23 24 \W//A Ji oCjc, ezj'x'oiznffe'uj and <zdfs.iocia.tzi,, One. iLcaqo, J[[inoii + (312) 782-8087 2 1 PRESENT 2 MR. DANIEL A. SPEIGHTS, (304 Lee Avenue, 3 Hampton, South Carolina 29924) 4 and 5 HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, PRINS & McCLAIN, (123 West Kansas, 6 Independence, Missouri 64050), by: MR. KENNETH B. McCLAIN, 7 appeared on behalf cf the Plaintiff; 8 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, 9 (2000 One Logan Square, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103), by: 1 0 MR. E. BARCLAY CALE, JR., 1 1 and 1 2 TURNER, FADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, (1801 Main Street, 1 3 Columbia, South Carolina 29202), by: MR. EDWIN P. MARTIN, 14 appeared on behalf of United States 1 5 Gypsum Company. 16 1 7 REPORTED BY: SUSAN M. MARTINO, C.S.R. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 mi?) 7F'>-R0B7 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS 3 SUZANNE KAY TORREY 4 By Nr. Speights 5 EXHIBITS 6 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 7 No . 1 8 NO . 2 9 NO . 3 1 0 NO . 4 1 1 NO . 5 1 2 NO . 6 1 3 No . 7 1 4 No . 8 1 5 No . 9 1 6 NO . 1 0 1 7 No . 1 1 1 8 No. 1 2 1 9 NO . 1 3 20 No . 1 4 2 1 No . 1 5 2 2 NOS . 1 6 and ' 7 2 3 Nos . 1 3 , 1 9 and 2 0 24 EXAMINATION 12 22 2S 26 29 30 31 43 49 50 66 67 73 77 79 82 83 0,'Vofj-z, <ed\>oin(j.,uj and <zdJi.sx>cLatti., One.. dniccuio, Ditincii (312) 7B2-B087 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- 1 1 (WHEREUPON, the witness was duly 2 sworn.) i 3 MR. SPEIGHTS: This deposition is taken 4 pursuant to notice and orders from the bench by the 5 Honorable John Hamilton Snith on July 2, 1986 and 6 July 22, 1986 which rulings are going to be 7 memorialized in a written order probably to be filed 8 this week. The deposition will be conducted in 9 accordance with the applicable rules of civil 1 0 procedure. 1 1 SUZANNE KAY TORREY, 1 2 called as a witness herein, having been first duly 1 3 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 1 4 EXAMINATION 1 5 BY MP. SPEIGHTS: 1 6 Q. Would you stare your full name, please? 1 7 A. Suzanne Kay, K-a-y, Torrey. 1 8 Q. What is ycur present address, Ms. Torrey? 1 9 A. 911 Gran, C-r-a-n, Evanston, Illinois. 2 0 Q. What is your business address? 2 1 A. 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois. 2 2 Q. I believe that's the corporate 23 headquarters of USG Corporation and U.S. Gypsum 24 Company, is than correct? Wa <Wo[fz, c^oi.e.nt'crg and ezdf-iioaiatLt, Om- {IhincLQo, Dlllnolt. $ (312)782-8087 5 1 A. It's the corporate headquarters of USG 2 Corporation. I'm not sure it's accurate any more to i 3 say it's the headquarters of United States Gypsum 4 Company. 5 Q. My understanding, Ms. Torrey, is that you 6 are a lawyer, is that correct? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. And from 1977 until the end of 1984, you 9 were a lawyer at the U.S. Gypsum Company? 1 0 A. Correct. 1 1 Q. From 1985 until present, you have been a 1 2 lawyer with USG Corporation? 1 3 A. That's correct. 1 4 Q_. USG Corporation is the parent company of 1 5 U.S, Gypsum Company? 1 6 A Yes. 1 7 Q During this period of time, from 1977 1 8 until the present, you have not been engaged in 1 9 private practice, is that correct? 20 A That's correct. 2 1 Q You are or have been a salaried employee 22 of the company or the two companies? 2 3 A. Yes. 24 Q. I want to specifically address the period /)?____ Hft and. <zdfzzocLatzi, One. a f'iiO) 7P9-P0S7 6 1 1977 until the end of 1984 when you were a lawyer 2 with U.S. Gypsum Company. i 3 What was your title or what were your 4 titles during that period of time? 5 A. During that period of time, I held the 6 title of attorney, senior litigation attorney and 7 senior attorney-1itigation. 8 Q. Who did you report to in those positions? 9 A. Thad Snell, general counsel. He held 1 0 various titles also during that period. 1 1 Q. Did Mr. Snell later become vice president 1 2 of the company? 1 3 A. I believe he was vice president throughout 1 4 that entire time. 1 5 Q. Was Mr. Snell the senior attorney employed 1 6 by U.S. Gypsum Company throughout that period of 1 7 time? 1 8 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. During that period of time, again, 'll 20 until the end of 1984, did you have any involvement 2 1 with asbestos litigation? 22 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. Would you describe to me generally what 24 your involvement was. ^Volfc, <^f\o ccruL <LTftoeLait:i, line. 'inoi e- f212'782-8087 1 A. When I started with the company in 1977, 2 there were about 12 related cases in Knoxville 3 called the Knoxville cases. 1 4 I was brought into the company to work 5 with litigation liled against or on behalf of the 6 company, and these 12 cases were assigned to me at 7 that time. 8 That number grew progressively over the 9 years and I ended up with involvement generally, 1 0 first exclusively in the personal injury area, later 1 1 exclusively or primarily in the property damage 1 2 asbestos litigation. 1 3 Q. The 12 cases filed in Knoxville were 1 4 personal injury cases? 1 5 A. Yes. 1 6 Q. Those would be cases in which somebody 1 7 claimed to have an asbestos disease as a result of 1 8 exposure to some U.S. Gypsum product or products? 1 9 A. Yes. 20 Q. When did the change take place where your 2 1 involvement, primary involvement went from 22 personal injury litigation to asbestos property 23 damage cases? 2 4 A . The shift was in the fall of 1521. From OVo[fz, and cOjtioziaiet, One.. P ti-nnn /Iff, nnli. {312'782-825/ 8 1 the period June of 1980 until the fall of 1981, I 2 was generally involved with both. But I was out cn i 3 maternity leave during the summer of 1981, and upon 4 my return a number of events coalesced and caused me 5 to spend the bulk of my time in the property damage 6 area. 7 Q. By property damage cases, are we referring 8 to cases filed by building owners such as school 9 districts against U.S. Gypsum Company seeking costs 1 0 associated with removal of asbestos-containing 1 1 products? 1 2 A. That's an accurate characterization, 1 3 although at the time, all of the cases were brought 1 4 cn behalf of school districts. 1 5 Q. Initially they were brought by school 1 6 districts a r. 6 later some nonschool districts brought 1 7 similar cases? 1 8 A. Thar's my understanding. That would have 1 9 occurred, I believe, after I no longer had 20 responsibi1ity for the cases. 2 1 Q. And when did that occur? 2 2 A. In August of 1984. 2 3 Q. Now, in connection wit: your duties 2 4 regarding asbestos litigation, both personal injury \W?#a uiUfa dhicaac and C (312} 7S3-3 ?S7 , jjnc. 9 1 and property damage, did you report to Mr. Snell? 2 A. Yes. " 3 Q. He was your boss? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Would it be fair to say that you met 6 regularly with him concerning the asbestos cases, 7 often many times a day? 8 A. I met with him as frequently as I felt the 9 situation required and sometimes it was daily or 1 0 several times during the day. Sometimes there would 1 1 be weeks in between. 1 2 Q. Are you familiar with a publication known 1 3 as the Asbestos Litigation Reporter? 1 4 A. Ye s , I am. 1 5 Q. Can you describe generally what the 1 6 Asbestos Litigation Reporter is? _ 1 7 A. It is a publication that comes out every 1 8 two weeks that purports to report on events 1 9 occurring in either the personal injury, the 20 property damage or the asbestos insurance-related 2 1 litigation. * 22 Q. Did you review the Asbestos Litigation 23 Reporter while you were involved with the personal - 2 4 injury and property damage asbestos cases? ^ WM Wotfc, <zrtj and crj-^Lociaiti., i.Inc. <2nUaoo, Dttinoii O (312) 7S2-80E 7 10 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you have an occasion in the late 1970s 3 to review the Asbestos Litigation Reporter which 4 reported on what has been generally referred :o as 5 the Sumner Simpson papers? 6 A. 1t was brought to my attention. We were 7 not a subscriber at that time. 8 Q. And did you at the time it was brought to 9 your attention review the publication where it 1 0 reported on the Sumner Simpson papers being located? 1 1 A. If you're asking me did I read the pieces 1 2 of paper that talked about that that were in the 1 3 Asbestos Litigation Reporter, yes, I did. 1 4 Q. Now, my understanding is that Sumner ,, 1 5 Simpson was the president of Raybestos Manhattan, 1 6 back in the 1930s. Is that also your understanding 1 7 a s we 11? - 1 8 A. Yes? 1 9 Q. And the Sumner papers included both 20 documents allegedly created by him and documents 2 1 allegedly created by one Vandiver Brown of Johns ~ 2 2 Manville, is that correct? 2 3 A . Yes. - 2 4 Q Now, included in that list -- strike th Hi'o/je, and <cdJ-i.^ocLat^^, dJnc. Ckicaao, Dtiincis. (312; 782-8087 11 1 Did you have an opportunity at that time to review a A 2 memorandum of agreement dated November 2C, 1936 3 printed in the Asbestos Litigation Fe porter? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. I show you a copy of this document and ask 6 if that is a copy of the memorandum of agreement 7 that you reviewed in the late 1970s in the Asbestos 8 Litigation Reporter? 9 A. I'm sorry, I started reading. What was 1 0 thequestion? . 1 1 MR. SPEIGHTS: Read it back, please. 1 2 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 1 3 by the reporter as requested.) 1 4 MR. CALE: Is the question whether the text -is 1 5 the same or whether this is actually the copy as' it 1 6 appeared in the Litigation Reporter? 1 7 MR. SPEIGHTS: My understanding is nothing 1 8 appears exactly as is in the Asbestos Litigation 1 9 Reporter because they have smaller print and tnev -- 20 but is this the text? . 2 1 BY THE WITNESS: * 2 2 A. This is the text, and I believe the 23 notations that are on these pieces of paper would J 2 4 not have appeared. Vofj-e., and CLcaao, CCtinoii 9 (312.' 762-eOS~- _ | I 1 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 2 Q. And which notations are you referring to? 3 A. There is a number in the upper righthand 4 corner 2-14, in the lower righthand corner, there 5 are various initials and numbers and the pages seem 6 to be identified as A, B and C. Each of the pages 7 bears what appears to be a Bates number stamp. 8 Q. Except for that, she text of this would.be 9 identical to what you read in the Asbestos 1 0 Litigation Reporter? 1 1 A. It conforms to my recollection, yes. 1 2 MR. SPEIGHTS: I would ask this document 1 3 previously marked as plaintiff's Exhibit 214 be 1 4 marked as an exhibit to this deposition as 1 5 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 . 1 6 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 1 7 Plaintiff's Deposition Exnibit No. 1, 1 8 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 1 9 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 20 off the record.) 2 1 MR. CALE: Let the record reflect that the 22 document that has now been marked as Plaintiff's 23 Exhibit No. 1 is not a copy of the memorandum of 24 agreement as it ap* p" eared in the Asbestos L-itiaatiorn ^XVoCfz, <zJ\)oi.z.n(j.'uj and czdj-tzociatzi., One. CfiLcaoo, jJ[[ir.oii 9 (312) 72-80: ~ 13 1 Reporter but, rather, a document obtained at some 2 other place at some other time. 3 But we agree that the text of Exhibit 1 4 conforms to the text of the memorandum of agreement 5 as it appeared in the litigation reporter. Is that 6 correct? 7 MR. SPEIGHTS: That's correct. And to avoid 8 any confusion, I will later forward counsel a copy 9 of the one that actually appeared in the Asbestos 1 0 Litigation Reporter, and we can discuss perhaps a 1 1 substitution of that copy for this copy. 1 2 MR. CALE: That would be perfectly agreeable. 1 3 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 1 4 Q. Ms. Torrey, would you agree with me that 1 5 the memorandum of agreement reflects that it was' 1 6 executed on behalf of United States Gypsum Company 1 7 by a Mr. Shaver, secretary-treasurer? - 1 8 A. That's what appears to be on that piece of 1 9 paper, yes. 20 Q. Would you agree with me that the agreement 2 1 reflects that those people who signed the agreement 2 2 agreed to fund certain animal experiments wif.i 23 asbestos dust to be performed by Dr. LeRoy Gardner-* 24 at Saranac Lake Laboratory in New Yarn? ,, WWA WoUft, and cdj-izvciaizi., C'ac. Chicago, OlLnoU ft (312)782-8087 14 1 MR. CALE: I'm going to object to that question f 2 only insofar as it is not all-inclusive. Obviously, 3 the memorandum of agreement first of all says that 4 it is pursuant to a meeting of brake lining 5 manufacturers of which U.S. Gypsum was never a brake 6 lining manufacturer. 7 It says that it is to be a three-year 8 study and a lot of other things which obviously we 9 think are material and important/ and I object to a 1 0 question that only focuses on a few of the 1 1 attributes that perhaps are obviously of interest to 1 2 you. 1 3 If we can, perhaps let the document speak 1 4 for itself or in some other way try to get at what 1 5 you would like to have the witness testify to. B"t 1 6 I would not want to have an incorrect or incomplete 1 7 characterization of the document in a deposition 1 8 form where you would simply ask her to agree to it 1 9 unless you then want me on crossing into the other 20 aspects of it. I would be willing to work that any 2 1 wayyouthinkisreasonable. * 22 MR. SPEIGHTS: I will be glad to rephrase the 2 3 question but I think you may have to go back and - 24 cross to try to clarify whatever points you need ;o \Wa tarui <^rf-i.iLOciatz*, One. Cku^ao, UCCino (312) 72-8CB7 15 1 clarify. 2 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 3 Q. Ms. Torrey, would you agree with me that 4 the memorandum of agreement, among other things, 5 provides that the sponsors will fund certain animal 6 experiments with asbestos dust to be performed by 7 Dr. LeRoy Gardner of Saranac Lake, New York? 8 A. The document on its face says "The 9 undersigned hereby agree to underwrite certain 1 0 experiments with asbestos dust to be conducted by 1 1 Dr. LeRoy U. Gardner at the Saranac Laboratories, 1 2 Saranac Lake, New York." 1 3 I don't see a reference to animal 1 4 expe riments. 15 Q. Were there other references in the ' 1 6 Asbestos Litigation Reporter which reflected that 1 7 tnese were in fact animal studies to be performed by 1 8 Dr. Gardner? 1 9 A. At any time or at the same time? In the 20 Litigation Reporter? . 2 1 Q. During the period in the late 1970s, did 22 the Asbestos Litigation Reporter actually publish 2 3 three progress reports conducted pursuant to this ' 24 agreement which reflected that they were in fact r \W'/a nvcifz. <z/x>oi.znbz~uj anA ocuzts.i., fjnc. (2'.macr-, iJCtinois. ft (312) TSP-80B7 16 1 animal experiments? 2 A. There was published in Asbestos Litigation 3 Reporter to my recollection three progress reports 4 all of animal experiment work with asbestos done at . 5 Saranac Lake Laboratories by Dr. Gardner. 6 Whether those documents reflect in the 7 reporter that it was the result of the memorandum of 8 agreement, I simply don't recall one way or the - 9 other. I don't recall the specific recording of the 1 0 three progress reports and whether or not they . 1 1 referenced back to the memorandum of agreement. 1 2 Q. I understand. From your review of the 1 3 various progress reports and the other 1 4 correspondence produced in connection with the 1 5 Sumner Simpson papers and from your review of ' 1 6 various U.S. Gypsum Company documents and/or 1 7 documents of the law firm which represented U . S . 1 8 Gypsum over the years, would you agree with me that 1 9 this agreement funded experiments with animal - 20 experiments with asbestos dust and animals? Do we 2 1 have any dispute about that, Ms. Tcrrey? ^ 22 A. I'm having trouble with the way you're 23 wording the question. 2 4 Q. Let me try it again. 17 1 A. Thank you. 2 Q. I'm asking you now, in 1986, would you 3 agree with me from your review of various documents 4 since you first saw the memorandum of agreement, 5 that the memorandum of agreement did in fact fund 6 experiments with asbestos dust on animals? 7 MR. CALE: Let's go off the record for a moment 8 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had - 9 off the record between the witness r m 10 and Mr. Cale, out of the . 1 1 hearing of other counsel and the 1 2 court reporter.) 1 3 MR. SPEIGHTS: Let me rephrase the question. 1 4 MR. CALE: Why don't you do that. - 1 5 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: ' 1 6 Q. Ms. Tcrrey, would you agree with me that 1 7 the experiments with asbestos dust to be conducted 1 8 by Dr. Gardner referred to in Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, 1 9 the memorandum of agreement, included animal 20 experiments? 2 1 A. Yes, as I now know today. . * 22 Q. As you now know today? 2 3 A . Ye s . - 2 4 Q. Now, upon reviewing the memorandum of \W?/a <W/2 <z/^oizn(?.Tj and cznfiiocLatzi., fine. JCLCCLQO, CiCinoi e (3"2) ?<32-8087 18 1 agreement, did you discuss it with Mr. Snell? 2 A . I brought it to his attention sometime 3 after it was brought to my attention. 4 Q. Was Mr. Shaver in fact secretary-treasurer 5 of U . S . Gypsum Company back during that period of 6 t i me ? 7 A . That's my understanding, yes. 8 Q. And was Mr. Shaver later either Chairman 9 of the Board or President of U. Sr. Gypsum Company? 1 0 A. Yes. . 1 1 Q . And at that time, did Mr. Shaver still 1 2 maintain an office at the corporate headquarters at 1 3 101 South Wacker, albeit he was retired? 1 4 A. I'm sorry, at what time? 15 Q. At the time that you first saw the ' 1 6 memorandum of agreement and the time you discussed 1 7 it with M r . S n e 11 . - 1 8 A. And the question is did he maintain an 1 9 office 20 Q. Did Mr. Shaver still maintain an office, at 2 1 101 South Wacker at that time? 2 2 A . I believe he had the use of an office here. 23 W nether that's maintaining an office, I'm net surer * 2 4 Q. Would it be a fair statement to say tha* \WA& nvoCfc, izn.C'z'uj cl'uI Ck Lccuao, DiLinolt. * (312, 72-55f T , fine 19 1 the memorandum of agreement that you read in the 2 Asbestos Litigation Reporter and shared with Mr. 3 Snell was of interest to you and Mr. Snell? 4 MR. CALE: I think you can go ahead and answer 5 that one . 6 BY THE WITNESS: 7 A. Yes. 8 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: - 9 Q. Was any attempt made to interview Mr. 1 0 Shaver to determine whether that was his signature 1 1 on the memorandum of agreement? 1 2 MR. CALE: I'm going to object to that question 1 3 so we have a record here to the extent that any 1 4 knowledge that the witness has is based on hearsay 1 5 or the activities of other people. 1 6 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: .. 1 7 Q. Did you subsequently have a conversation 1 8 with Mr. Snell, vice president of U.S. Gypsum 1 9 Company, concerning an interview he had with Mr. 20 Shaver? 2 1 A Yes 2 2 Q Did Mr. Snell advise you that Mr. Shaver 2 3 stated that the signature or. the memorandum of 2 - agreement appeared to be his? r czfyo LE.n.&z'uj anA (Zy^iiocLakzi., Jnc. 20 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did that interview occur during that 3 general period of time 1979 to 1980? 4 A. Yes. I was also informed Mr. Shaver had 5 no recollection of the contents of the memorandum of 6 agreement or of the study it purported to fund 7 Q. Did you also become aware that Dr. Gardner 8 prepared a monograph on his study in the year 1943? 9 A. I'm sorry, what's the question? 1 0 Q. Did you become aware that Dr. Gardner 1 1 published a monograph concerning his experiments, 1 2 animal experiments with asbestos dust in 1943? 1 3 A. No . 1 4 Q. Have you ever seen a copy of Dr. Gardner's 1 5 1 9 4 3 monog raph? 1 6 A . No . 1 7 Q. Has anyone advise a you that Dr. Gardner 1 8 found in his an imal expe rim ents that certain animals 1 9 subject to t h e expe riments with asbestos dust were 20 dying of lung cance r ? 2 1 A . No . 22 Q . And that is true even today? 23 A . Tha * c correct. - 2 4 Q. Did you aatend t h e Lexington trial in , n Vo[fz, cofi^ozznljz'Uj anA czAf-zzoclakz* , Jnc. Ch icaco, DktinoU e (312)72-BC 7 21 1 April of 1984? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Ms. Torrey, shortly after you read the 4 memorandum of agreement in the Asbestos Litigation 5 Reporter, my understanding is that Donna Woodruff, a 6 paralegal working for you, located some documents at 7 1 C1 South Wacker, is that correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you recall when that was that she 1 0 located these documents? 1 1 A. She was working on a project for me to 1 2 gather some old releases unrelated to asbestos just 1 3 for general product liability questions, and in 1 4 January of 1980 came upon some boxes. 1 5 Q. Where were those documents or those boxes 1 6 found? ... 1 7 A. She informed me chat she found them in a 1 8 room located adjacent to the file room. 1 9 Q. And, again, that would have been at the 20 corporate headquarters at 101 South Wacker? , 2 1 A. That's correct. * 2 2 Q. And at that time, was your office located 2 3 at 101 South Packer? 24 A. Yes . ' ,, W'BiBk. an tfi, cJ^oi..n(j.x^ ond czdf~i.ijDcuitc, One. d-fiicaxso, dJ[[in.oii. O (3127S2-8087 22 1 Q. And was Mr. Snell's office located at 101 A 2 South Wacker? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did Ms. Woodruff bring you any docurents 5 from the box or boxes she located? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did you ever go down to the storage room 8 and review the boxes themselves in the storage room? 9 A. No. ^ 1 0 Q. Now, I understand that Ms. Woodruff 1 1 brought you at least three documents, would you 1 2 agree with that? 1 3 A. Yes, in the manila folders in which she 1 4 found them. - 1 5 Q. I show you a copy of what previously has 1 6 been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 20 and on another, 1 7 copy Plaintiff's Exhibit 1694 and ask if that isone 1 8 of the documents which she brought to you? 1 9 A. It conforms to my recollection. 20 MR. SPEIGHTS: I would ask that be marked as. 2 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. ~ 2 2 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 23 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No. 2, 2 4 for identification, as of 7-29-86..' WM H'Volft:, <cd\oicn(fcxo and cP~fi.iocia.tci., One. Ck.co.QC CCtinoii. C (3*2 T2-8087 23 1 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: A 2 Q. Ms. Torrey, Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 is a 3 letter from Vandiver Brown to J.S. Offut, and across 4 the top it reflects Johns-Manv i 11e Corporation with 5 the New York address. 6 Is this the Vandiver Brown or at least the 7 same name Vandiver Brown that we referred to earlier 8 as being general attorney for Johns-Manville - 9 Corporation? 1 0 MR. CALE: Before the witness answers, I have 1 1 to object to your characterization of what this 1 2 document is. 1 3 As the document shows, it is a copy 1 4 obviously typed on someone's typewriter, not on the 1 5 letterhead stationery of Johns-Manville Corporation, 1 6 and it appears at least to me to be some typist's, 1 7 rendition made with a typewriter of some document 1 8 that we do not have. 1 9 If you v;ill agree with that 20 characterization as opposed to the one that I think 2 1 you gave which is this is a copy of a letter, which 22 suggests that it's on original stationery, I think 2 3 she can answer the question or have it speak for - 24 itself. _ WWa <zrfoiznl?%g and dfiizaqo, d[[i-.oCi e (312}7".~ 3057 , dJne. 24 1 MR. SPEIGHTS: I'll choose none of those three. 2 a Ite r native s . 3 BY MR. SPEIGhTS : 4 Q. Ms. Torrey, what is that document. 5 Plaintiff's Exhibit 2? 6 A. I'm not sure how it if you want me to 7 answer that. What do you mean what is it? 8 Q. Would you describe what that document is, 9 please? 1 0 A. This document to me appears to be a typed 1 1 rendition, to use Mr. Cale's word, of a letter. It 1 2 is not the original. It has instead of letterhead 1 3 the name uohns-Manville typed on it. 1 4 It bears the word "Copy" on the top which 1 5 it's my understanding was a commonly used method'cf 1 6 making a copy of a document before there were 1 7 photocopy machines available. i 8 It is frcm an individual whose name 1 9 appears to be Vandiver Brown identified as general 2 0 attorney. It is addressed to J.S. Offut, assistant 2 1 to the president. United States Gypsum Company wifh 2 2 an address, re Dr. Gardner- asbestos dust experiment, 23 ar.d it reads, "Replying further to yours of April 1-9, 2 4 "937,.I am enclosing herewith copy of Dr. Gardner's Wtt cz^oi.e.n&z'iq anJ. c^-j-tLOCUxtzi., One. Cr.icaao, iJCL-.cls. G (3 7 2) 7 2-80S7 25 1 first progress report dated May 5, 1937." . t 2 I can only state to you what it says on 3 the letter. 4 Q. Thank you. Now, I next show you this 5 document and ask if this is also one of the 6 documents which you were shown by Ms. Woodruff in 7 early '80? 8 A. It appears to be the same document. I 9 haven't compared it word for word. I would point 1 0 out these are photocopies. The one I had was a .. 1 1 tissue copy. 1 2 That document also bears the word "Copy" i 3 on the top and, again, I would assume someone has 1 4 retyped that from something else. ~ 1 5 MR. SPEIGHTS: I would ask that that document 1 6 be marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. .. 1 7 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 1 8 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No. 3, 1 9 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 20 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: . 2 1 Q. What is the title of that document and f"n e 22 date of it, please? 23 A. It states "First Progress Report on - 2 4 Asbestosis Experiments at the Saranac Laboratory , ^ ^IVoZfe., <z/^otzn(jz%q anA ezrJ-iiocLatzi,, Qic. dhicaQO, dJ[[inoLt (312) 7B2-~ Z'S7 1 May 5, 1937." 2 Q. Now, is it my understanding that the 3 copies which Ms. Woodruff showed you of Plaintiff's 4 Exhibit 2, the letter from Vandiver Brown to J.S. 5 Offutt and Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, the first progress 6 report, were tissue copies? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. Next I'm going to show you a document Q which has been previously marked^as 1693 and ask if 1 0 you can identify -- I'm not asking for a description 11 yet, but just if you recognize that document? 1 2 A. I have seen this document. 1 3 MR. SPEIGHTS: I'm going to ask that be marked 1 4 as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4, letter from J.S. Offutt- to 1 5 G.G. King dated May 5, 1937. 1 6 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 1 7 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No.- 4, 1 8 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 1 9 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 2 0 Q You are awa re, Ms . To r r e y, that Mr. Smifh 2 1 has testi f i ed that this docu m e n t w a s also located "`To v 2 2 Ms. W o o d r uf f in 19 8 0? 23 A . I haven 1 t read Mr . Smith ' s c e p o sition in- 24 some time . I don' t know i f that's what h e testified Rlotfz, eZ.RotLn anJ. cRj-iioeLatoi., jjnc. Cr.Lc.aao, CJttinoLi ft (312) 7S2-BCB7 1 to or not. 2 Q. As I understand your recollection, you , 3 don't know whether this document was located in 1980 4 or 1984? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Okay. Would you describe this document to 7 me, please? 8 A. It is a letter from J.S. Offutt identified 9 as assistant to the president, addressed to Mr. G .D . 1 0 King, research manager, B.M.R. Laboratories, Chicago, 1 1 attention Mr. C.C. Scheutz. 1 2 Do you want me to read the body of the i 3 le tter? 1 4 Q. If you would. ,, 1 5 A. "The Saranac Laboratory of Saranac, New 1 6 York is making a three-year study of asbestosis. ' 1 7 They are investigating in particular the effect o.n 1 3 guinea pigs of breathing asbestos dust. 1 9 We understand that the dust being used is 20 composed of pure fibrous asbestos free from all 2 1 serpentine rock and other foreign particles, grourtd 22 as fine as possible anc then ball milled. it is 2 3 supplied by J o h n s-M a n v 111 e from their Canadian rr.ine-s 24 in the Danville section of she province of Quebec. c:f\0 tz.n&L'Uj and iiociazzi, JOne. dnicaac OilLnoLt (212) 72-S ^ 7 28 1 In order that we can interpret results . A 2 obtained, we would appreciate your advising us if 3 the various types of asbestos we use would vary in 4 chemical composition or physical characterstics when 5 ground and ball milled from the Johns-Manville 6 asbestos being used in this investigation." 7 Q. And that letter, I believe, is on United 8 States Gypsum Company letterhead? - 9 A. Yes. It also has the typed c.c.s on here, 1 0 and I seem to recall that other copies I have seen 1 1 had a check mark by the c.c., and there are file 1 2 notations on there inconsistent with United States 1 3 Gypsum Company filing systems. 1 4 Q. I next show you a document which has been 1 5 previously marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1698 and ask 1 6 if that is one of the documents which Ms. Woodruff 1 7 shewed you in early 198C? - 1 8 A. Again, without reading it through word by 1 9 word, it is a report of dust survey at National 20 Asbestos Company plant of United States Gypsum Cc. 2 i at Jersey City, New Jersey, and I assume it is whrft 22 we have been referring to as the Jersey City study 2 3 and that was shown tc me by Donna Woodruff in 1 9 8 0.- 2 4 MR. SPEIGHTS: I ask that be marked as y ^Votjc, cz/x>oicn-rzrj and <^rJ-*tocLat.i, fjne. (2hicac o, J[LinoLi O (312) 762-60S7 29 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. A 2 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 3 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No. 5, 4 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 5 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 6 Q. What is the date of the Jersey City study, 7 Ms. To r rey? 8 A. It states, made by the Saranac laboratory 9 May 25 through June 2, 1936. Re^ceived July 31, 1936. 1 0 I notice stapled to this are some other 1 1 materials that are not the Jersey City study. 1 2 MR. SPEIGHTS: Let's delete those. 1 3 MR. CALE: Sure. 14 MR. SPEIGHTS: Let's go off the record. 15 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had ' 16 off the record.) . 1 7 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 1 8 Q. Ms. Torrey, would you agree with me that 1 9 this study reflects a study by Dr. Gardner in 1935 20 of a plant formerly owned by National Asbestos . 2 1 Company, the assets of which were purchased by ~ 22 United States Gypsum Company? 2 3 A. Ye s . 2 4 Q. Did Dr. Gardner find -- ' v dVofrc, <dx>oi.e.n(jczj and cdf-iiLOciaiti., O'-z- Cfiia-jo, tJiLk'-.oii c (312) 7E3-F3ST 30 1 A. Excuse me. Some of the assets of which . t 2 were purchased. I don't know if it was all of the 3 assets . 4 Q. Did Dr. Gardner report in this study that 5 there were cases of asbestosis at this plant? 6 A. I haven't read that study in a long time. 7 If you want, I'm going to have to read it and find 8 it. If you want to point it out to me, I can agree o with you that that's what it says in there. 1 0 Q. Let me do it this way. I'm going to show 1 1 you another document previously marked as 1 2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1697 and ask if you are familiar 1 3 with that document? 1 4 A. I have seen this document. .. 1 5 MR. SPEIGHTS: I'm going to ask that be marked 1 6 as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6. ... 1 7 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 1 8 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No. 6, 1 9 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 20 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 2 1 Q. I'm going to show you another document riot 22 previously marked and ask if you are familiar with 2 3 That document? - 2 4 A. I'm familiar generally with the contents ^WoCfe., tzf^oi.cn&E.xcj and Latz.*, [}n.c.. dnlzaao, dJ[[incli (312) 7E2-8CS7 31 1 of the letter. Whether or not I heve in fact seen A 2 the letter before, I don't know. 3 MR. SPEIGHTS: I'm going to ask that that 4 letter be marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 7. 5 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 6 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No. 7, 7 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 8 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 9 Q. Now, to review where we are on the Jersey 1 0 City report, Exhibit 5 is the Jersey City report, 1 1 itself prepared by Dr. Gardner which was shown to 1 2 you by Ms. Woodruff in 1980? 1 3 A. Correct. 1 4 Q. Exhibit 6 is a letter from General Service 5 Manager, who I believe everyone agrees was Mr. 1 6 Parrish at that time, to W.L. Ready, cf August 13., 1 7 1936 which summarizes that report? - 1 8 A. It in part appears to summarize the report. 1 9 Q. And Plaintiff's Exhibit 7, a letter from 20 Mr. Par r i sl tc the law firm o f Scott MacLeisb & Fa 1k 2 1 dated A ug u s t 17, 1936, forwards a copy of the ~ 2 2 s umma rv and reoort to that 1 a w firm? 2 3 A. In part, it forwards a copy of that, yes r 2 4 Q. And also comments on the report itself?r nioffc, i.zn&zig and (2h.Lc.aao, <MincU (312) 762-808 ~ , dJnc. 33 1 not possible from their findings to establish the 2 maximum safe concentration of asbestos dust in the 3 air." 4 Q. To review because I may have confused the 5 record, what you acknowledge that Ms. Woodruff 6 showed you in early 1980 was the letter from 7 Vandiver Brown to J.S. Offutt, the first progress 8 report on asbestosis experiments at the Saranac 9 laboratory and the Jersey City report, those three 1 0 documents having been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 1 2, 3 and 5 ? 1 2 A. Thao's correct. 1 3 Q. Now, when you reviewed the documents, did 1 4 you discuss them with Mr. Snell or shortly - 1 5 thereafter? 1 6 A. I shewed them to him. I don't know if .we 1 7 discussed them as such. 1 8 Q. You don't know whether you discussed the 1 S details with him but you certainly discussed the 20 fact that the documents had been located with him? 2 1 A. 1 would characterize it that I brought Co 22 his attention that I had been shown these documents. Ii 23 Q. And you showed him the documents? - 2 4 A. That's correct. ,' WMa Cn/.h..c,a&c r'ff and cyfyiiocLatzi, fJnc. . (3:2; 7t2-eos7 32 1 A. I'm not sure if comments on the report is t 2 an accurate characterization, but I won't argue with 3 i t. 4 Q. Now, would you read for me the first two 5 paragraphs on the letter to Mr. Ready summarizing in 6 part the Jersey City report? 7 A. The first two paragraphs? 8 Q . Yes. 9 A. "We have a comprehensive report of dust 1 0 conditions in our Jersey City plant and a report on 1 1 the x-rays of the employees examined at that plant 1 2 by Dr. Gardner's organization. 1 3 In brief, the findings are: 1 4 1. Diagnosis of asbestosis for five 1 5 men. . 1 6 2. Possibly five additional men have 1 7 asbestosis but necessary to . 1 8 confirm by clinical correlation. 1 9 3. Serious asbestos dust hazard 20 under present operations." 2 1 Q. Now, I'm going to refer beck to t r. e rep or t 2 2 itself which Ms. Woodruff showed you in 1930 and ask i 23 you to read on page 4 the next to the Iasi paragra pui . ; 2 4 A. "The authors of the reoort conclude it is and c^dJ-iLonLatE-i, dJnc. dk.icaao, dikinoii (3121 762-80S7 34 1 Q. And that was sometime in early 1980? . t 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. I understand Mr. Snell made a decision 4 concerning these documents at that time, is that 5 correct? 6 A. Are you going to to ask me what the 7 decision is? Otherwise, I can't answer your 8 question exactly the way you've posed it. 9 Q. On that occasion in early 1980, did Mr. 1 0 Snell make a decision that these documents would ..not 1 1 be produced or revealed in response to discovery in 1 2 the asbestos cases? 1 3 A. Mr. Snell made a determination -- strike i 1 4 that. Mr. Snell made a decision that United States 1 5 Gypsum Company would respond in discovery to the- 1 6 extent of documents which were United States Gyps.um 1 7 Company documents and, therefore, were deemed - 1 8 verified.or with respect no information learned from 1 9 current or former United States Gypsum Company 20 employees. . 2 1 It was his opinion upon review of these * 22 documents that none of these three documents were 23 United States Gypsum Company documents maintained f-n I ?I 24 the ordinary course of business by United States ,, j QVotfz, <zJ^oizn(-rE.%j and czdj-itoaLatit, (^fiCcajo, (312) 782-808? 35 1 Gypsum Company and, further, that in his opinion, . A 2 they were documents of the Keck law firm. Since these were not United States Gypsum 4 Company documents, they were not responsive to 5 discovery requests in asbestos litigation. K I think to make the answer complete, I 7 should also point cut that the question of verifying 8 was the critical issue and that an attempt was made 9 to verify the information contained in these 1 0 documents through United States Gypsum Company 1 1 sources, either through documents that were J-.ited 1 2 States Gypsum Company documents or through current 1 3 or former United States Gypsum Company employees. 1 4 And in that regard, we undertook a rather 1 5 extensive search for information from, which to 1 6 verify the contents of these three documents. .. 1 7 Q. Ms. Tcrrey, because you are a lawyer, I 1 8 think you have moved to my second and third 1 9 questions, and my first question was simply was Mr. 20 Snell's bottom line decision that these documents., 2 1 absent something else, would not be produced in * 22 response to discovery in the personal injury or 2 3 property damage litigation? ' 2 4 A. I can't characterize it that way. It w ~ s W#AfA <1! '4=, is.nOs.TC] and (2flica4o, fJ-LlnoLt Q (312) 7(2-8087 {Jnc. 36 1 his judgment that the documents responsive to . . t 2 discovery would be United States Gypsum Company 3 documents, and it was his opinion that these die not 4 fall in that category. Therefore, they were not 5 produced. 6 Q. As a result of that meeting with Mr. Snell 7 was it understood that these documents. Plaintiff's 8 Exhibits 2, 3 and 5, would not be produced in - 9 response to discovery m the asbestos litigation 1 0 absent some ocher documentation? . 1 1 A. What was the first part of that question? 1 2 MR. SPEIGHTS: Read it back, please. 1 3 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 14 by the reporter as requested.) - 1 5 BY THE WITNESS: 1 6 A. I'm sorry. The only way I can state i 1 7 Mr. Speights, is that to the extent anything was 1 8 unde r stood at that time, what was understood 1 9 that in Mr. Snell's j udgment, the documents 2 0 were required to be produced in t he asbestos 2 1 litigation were United States Gypsum Company 2 2 documents or information acquired from current o 23 former United Spates Gypsum Company employee?.. 24 t- WiftfA czffotcnrs.zcj anA Clic ntr J-,' Lit n c l. L f ? * 2' '70-8r)87 , jjr. 37 1 were not United States Gypsum Company documents. . A 2 Therefore, they were not produced absent other 3 verification . 4 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 5 Q. And that's the case even though -- let's 6 take them in order. Exhibit 2 was a copy of a 7 letter from Mr. Brown of Johns-Manville to Mr. 8 Offutt, assistant tc the president of U.S. Gypsum- 9 Company; that is, the letter itself was not a letter 1 0 to or from any U.S. Gypsum attorney? ... 1 1 A. There is no U.S. Gypsum attorney on that 1 2 letter, that's correct. 1 3 Q . And the copy of the first progress report 1 4 of May 5, 1937, Exhibit 3 , wa s an attach it. ent to that 1 5 letter to Mr. Of futt of U.S. Gypsum Company? 1 6 A . Yes, and it b ears t he file notation of...the 1 7 Keck firm. - 1 8 Q. A handwritten note in the upper righthand 1 9 corner? 2 0 A. That's correc t , and it came out of a file 2 1 that bore the same not a t i o n . 22 Q And Exhibit 5 , the Jersey Ciuv study, 23 bears no mention thereon of any U.S. Gypsum lawyer? 2 4 A. Thau's my recollection . I would have tp iLnfjz-uj cmJ. crfi.toc.UiiE.i-, {Jnc. C.fiiza.qo, fJliinCi i 0 (312) ?'S2-8CS? 38 1 again, read it word for word to verify it, but 2 that's my recollection. r 3 Q. And indeed, the other correspondence would 4 reflect that the law firm got its copy of this study 5 from U.S. Gypsum? 6 A. But I didn't have that correspondence at 7 the time in the 1980 time frame. 8 Q. I understand that. But we now know that 9 the copy of this study given to the law firm came 1 0 from U.S. Gypsum, correct? 1 1 A. That's what the correspondence would 1 2 appear to suggest. 1 3 Q. Ms. Torrey, was this Mr. Snell's decision 1 4 or your decision? - 1 5 A. Mr. Snell's decision, to the extent: that, 1 6 again, I have characterised it as a judgment and..an 1 7 opinion. - 1 8 Q. It was Mr. Snell's judgment and opinion? 1 9 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. You would agree with me that these . 2 1 documents reflect on their face that somebody in the 2 2 company had notice, somebody in the ccrporate 23 structure, had notice of the things contained in ^ the 2 4 documents? _ WM <Woi Chicr.ao, and cdfiSuDciatzi, fJnc. e (2'2) 7<22-B27 39 1 A. I would agree with that statement today. A 2 I don't think I would have agreed with it in 1980. 3 Q. You would agree with me that if one of my 4 clients had documents in their files, they could not 5 legitimately protect them from discovery simply by 6 giving them to me as their attorney? 7 MR. CALE : I'm going to object to that question 8 and instruct her not to answer. I think that - 9 ciearlv is calling for her judgment as an attorney 1 0 to either agree with you or disagree with you as an 1 1 attorney as to what you might or might not opine to 1 2 a client. 1 3 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 1 4 Q. From the time you met with Mr. Snell in 1 5 early 1980 until the time you ceased working on 1 6 asbestos cases on August 20, '84, to your knowledge, 1 7 did O.S. Gypsum Company ever produce any one of 1 8 these three documents in any asbestos lawsuit. 1 9 eithe r personal injury or property damage? 20 A. The r e was a word missing in your que sti.on . 2 1 I assume you mean produced to any plaintiff? - 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. That1 s correct. I'm not aware th a t anv erf 24 those three doc umeats were ever or oduced du rin q " na - zra and cOJ-iiocLabzi, Or. Ck Ica-qo, HttinoU C {312) ?2-5Q8y 40 1 time f rame. 2 MR. CALE: Off the record. r 3 (WHEREUFON, discussion was had 4 off the record.) 5 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had.) 6 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 7 Q. Ms. Torrey, I understand one of the 8 justifications for not giving or providing copies of 9 those documents in discovery in , 1 9 8 0 was that you, 1 0 that is, the company wanted to conduct in your words 1 1 an extensive investigation to see what if any 1 2 confirming documents might exist? 1 3 A. That's correct. 1 4 Q. Now, as I understand the position of U ,, S . 1 5 Gypsum Company today, you believe that the documents, 1 6 these later documents I referred to, such as the.. 1 7 Parrish letter and the letter to Mr. Ready, were 1 8 actually part or contained in the boxes found by Ms. 1 9 Woodruff in 1980, is that correct? 2 0 A. You have been provided with some memoranda 2 1 that Donna Woodruff wrote me, the reasonable A 22 inference from which is that these -- the three Keck 2 3 boxes were found by her in 1980. Does that answer J 24 vcur question? r 0- Voifc., iznljc-iq one <zrj-i.icc.LaUi, {Jrc. dnicaao, r212 41 1 Q Yes . And, of course. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 7 -- excuse me, Plaintiff's Exhibit 6, a letter to 3 Mr. Ready summarizing the Jersey City report, and 4 Plaintiff's Exhibit 7, the letter from Mr. Parrish 5 forwarding the Ready letter on the Jersey City 6 report to the Reck firm were found in those boxes, 7 later found in those boxes? 8 A. Yes, but I was not aware of them being in 9 those boxes until 1984. , r' 1 0 Q. I understand that. My question is, in 1 1 your extensive search or investigation, did you ever 1 2 go through the boxes which Ms. Woodruff found in 1 3 1980? 1 4 A. No, because I don't know what boxes --at 1 5 that time, I did not know what boxes she had found 1 6 when we tried to go back through. I knew that she 1 7 had found one box, the so-called department 198 1 8 silicosis box, which was transferred to the legal 1 9 department at about the time she discovered it. 20 She discovered that box at the same time 2 1 that I now know she discovered the other three. ' 2 2 That box has been continuously maintained in the 23 legal department since approximately January, 1 9 8 0 2 4 That box bears the notation box 1 of 2. driitaQO, iJitincii ^ (212) 7''c2-B0S 42 1 When we tried to go back and find box 2 of 2 2, which I always assumed was the box out of which 3 these materials had come., we couldn't find box 2 of 4 2. 5 Q. Well, let's clarify th ;t because I d~ n ' t 6 want the record to be confused. 7 One box which Ms. Wocdruff found which was 8 not a law firm box was taken to the legal department? 9 A. Correct. v 1 0 Q. And you don't know whether these three 1 1 documents we have been referring to were from that 1 2 box or the other three boxes? You don't know 1 3 whether Plaintiff's Exhibits 5, 2 and 3 came from 1 4 that box or some other box or boxes? 1 5 A. During the period sometime in the summer 1 6 of 1980, vhnich was after Donna Woodruff had left,us, 1 7 through the perica 1984, I had a reco1lection that 1 8 Donna had found t w o boxe s , had one of t hem in the 1 9 depart me nt . 20 It bore a label that said box 1 of 2 fr.om 2 1 w h i c h I could inf e r there was a second be x . W e * 2 2 never could find that second box. It was not until 2 3 1 9 8 4 that I knew of the existence of the chree - so-called Keck boxes. It was not until recently , dfiicaQO, iJCCmo is e (3*2' 7S2 ~oe~ 43 1 when the three Woodruff memoranda were located that A 2 I know or became aware of the fact that tne three 3 boxes found in 1984 were the same three boxes 4 :pparently -- were the same boxes that Donna had 5 found in 1980. 6 Q. I'm afraid we're getting ahead of 7 ourselves. I'm going to ask you about 1984 in 8 awhile. But I want to try to focus our attention.on 9 1960. ' 1 0 In 1980, Ms. Woodruff located among other 1 1 things one box which was transferred to the legal 1 2 department? 1 3 A . That's correct. 1 4 Q. Okay. Additionally, Ms. Woodruff sent,.you 1 5 a memorandum in 1980 which reflected that she 1 6 located three boxes of documents, correct? 17 A. May I see which memorandum you're . 1 8 referring to? This memorandum suggests she found 1 9 three bores in 1980. 20 MR. SPEIGHTS: I am going to ask that be marked 2 1 c~. 0 ju 2 2 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 2 3 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhicit No. 3-, 2 4 for identification, as of "-29-55.) ^Wotfz, ccfi^oi.e.n.&z'uj and c^rj-izociatEi., One. Chi.za.qo, OLiinoii (2 " 2] 122-2021 44 1 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 2 Q. Now my question is, first, in your t 3 extensive search to see whether there were 4 confirming documents, for whatever reason, you did 5 not nor do you know of anyone who went through the 6 three boxes referred to in Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 7 until 1984? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. In addition, in your extensive search for 1 0 several years, no one thoroughly went through the 1 1 box which Ms. Woodruff brought to the legal 1 2 department? 1 3 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. Yes, that's correct? . 1 5 A. Yes, that's correct. 16 Q. Now, we are still in1 9 8 0 . Ithink we'., 1 7 have gone through Ms. Woodruff'sdiscovery. I - 1 8 believe in 1980 also that the first lawsuit was 1 9 filed against 13.S. Gypsum by building owners 2 0 regarding asbestos-containing materialsin its . 2 1 building, is that your recollection? ^ 2 2 A. The Cinnaminson School District case was -- filed in 1980. 24 i Q. Thau was a New Jersey school district? ^ mwA and c^d-iioc-Latzi., One. (2fziccLQo, DiL^nolt ft (312) 72-30S^ 45 1 A.Correct. . 2 Q. What was the product at issue in the New 3 Jersey case? 4 A. I have not read that complaint in many 5 years, but I seem to recall that the complaint 6 itself referenced Audicote. 7 Q. That was an acoustical plaster made by 8 United States Gypsum Company in previous years? - 9 A. Correct. 1 0 Q. Was Audicote the most named product in the 1 1 lawsuits against USG, the property damage lawsuits 1 2 against USG during the period you were involved? 1 3 A. Oh, I can't state that because I never did 1 4 a count of the complaints of how many had the word 1 5 Audicote in them. ' 1 6 Q. Audicote was an acoustical plaster sold, by 1 7 U.S. Gypsum sold from sometime in the '50s into 1 8 early 1970s? 1 9 A . Co r rect 2 0 Q . And it was the subject of other lawsuits 2 1 besides the New J ersey lawsuit? JL. 2 2 A . At some point in time, yes. 2 3 Q. Now, my understanding is that in 2 4 connection with that lawsuit in 1980, you went \WAiA <W/*, czf^oiLLnfjzTa cmJ. C.iicaoo, jJCuncis 0 (312/ 7e2-~?S7 , jr,c. 46 1 the research department and met with at least two . A 2 gentlemen concerning the product Audicote, is that 3 correct? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. And on that occasion, did you check out e the original laboratory files maintained at the 7 research department on Audicote? 8 A. At my request, I was given what I - 9 understood to be the working fil^es maintained by the 1 0 plasters laboratory relating to Audicote. . 1 1 y. How many files were there; what size was 1 2 the -- what quantity were given to you? 1 3 A. I recall that the paper was organized into 1 4 files for a size paper eight-and-a-half by eleven 1 5 and that the total volume of file folders would be 1 6 about three quarters of a file drawer. 1 7 Q. Would you agree with me that if you 1 8 stacked them cn top of each other, they would be 1 9 about three feet in height? 2 0 A . That ' s cor rect . . 2 1 Q Now, these were hard copies, weren't they? 2 2 A . That 1 s cor rect. 23 Q. And m a n y o f them were research reports * 2 4 which were also on microfilm? 0 Vo[fz, <zVx>JZ.nrzxj and t^dzivcLatzi, 0,c. Chica.no, OtL.in.oiL (312} 72-8C37 47 1 A That's correc t 2 Q. But the hard copies also included 3 memoranda and handwritten notes which would not he 4 on microfilm, is that correct? 5 A. It is correct that I recall that there 6 would be memoranda and handwritten notes on those 7 files, and it is correct that those materials would 8 not be on microfilm. 9 Q. What did you do with the hard copies of 1 0 these files? 1 1 A. I brought them back to my office. 1 2 Q. And that still was 101 South Wacker? 1 3 A. That's correct. 14 Q. And for some period of time, you ,, 1 5 maintained them in your individual office? . 1 6 A . That'1 s correct. 1 7 Q Now , let me move to 1981. I believe 1 8 that's when you told me that your prircipal joe 1 9 beginning in 1981 was coordinating U.S. Gypsum's 20 defense to asbestos property damage cases? 2 1 A. Yes, beginning ir. the fall of 1981 cf tee 2 2 my return from maternity leave. 2 3 0. And in than capacity, you continued to ' 2 4 reoor: :o Mr. Snell? 'cdz., cL.^otzn ,and czOaocuitzi One. Cki-uao, OiUr.cii e (3:2} 72-SCS7 48 1 A. That's correct, except for there was a 2 period of time in 1984 when Mr. Leisten was 3 associate general counsel and at that time I 4 formally repotted to him. 5 Q. The following year in 1982, my 6 understanding was you located some internal 7 operating bulletins, is that correct? 8 A. Ye s . 9 Q. Can you tell us what an internal operating 1 0 bulletin is? 1 1 A. Well, let's back up. I knew about 1 2 operating bulletins probably in 1977 or 1978. I did 1 3 not learn of operating bulletins in 1982. 1 4 Q. What are operating bulletins? 1 5 A. Operating bulletins are of numerous types. 1 6 It's a generic term relating to bulletins which are 1 7 historically maintained by the company relating to 1 8 such things as production methods, plant safety, 1 9 plant operations, product formulations, marketing 20 information. I'm forgetting a category. . 2 1 Q. In any event, they are internal document's 22 within U.S. Gypsum Company? 2 3 A. That's correct. ' 2 4 Q. And I show yon a copy of a memorandum f;on \W47a <W/2 and adfi.iociats.1, dJnc. Cf-.L CCLQO, DCCir.oii c (312' 7S2-S0S7 49 1 S.K. Torrey to T.S. Snell dated March 24, '82 and 2 ask if you recognize that document? 3 A. I have seen this document recently. 4 MR. SPEIGHTS: I would ask that be marked as 5 Plaintiff's Exhibit 9. 6 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 7 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No. 9 8 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 9 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 1 0 Q. The document consists of three pages 1 1 Would you agree with me that that document reflects 1 2 that in 1982, you reviewed, among others, operating 1 3 bulletins dated 1943, 1948 and 1954? 1 4 MR. CALE: Can we take a minute? 1 5 MR. SPEIGHTS: Sure. ' 1 6 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 1 7 off the record between the witness 1 8 and Mr. Cale, out of the 1 9 hearinc of other counsel and the 20 court reporter.) 2 1 MR. CALE: Okay. 2 2 3 Y THE WITNESS: 23 A. Can you read the question back, please? 24 (WHEREUPON record w r e aa 50 1 by the reporter as requested.) 2 BY THE WITNESS: 3 A. Yes. 4 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 5 Q. I show you a two-page operating bulletin 6 dated August 24, 1943, No. 2-5 and ask you if that 7 is the '43 bulletin referred to in that memorandum? 8 A. Yes. 9 MR. SPEIGHTS: I would ask. r'that be marked as 1 0 Plaintiff's Exhibit 10, consisting of two pages, 1 1 operating bulletin. 1 2 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 1 3 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No. 10, 1 4 for identification, as of 7--29--86.) 1 5 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 1 6 Q. In your memorandum to Mr. Snell I believe 1 7 you quoted from the 1943 bulletin, is than correct? 1 8 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. Would you read that quote, please? 2 0 A. As revealed in the memorandum, it state.s, 2 1 "It is recommended that before any applicant for * 2 2 employment is hired, the history of his previous 2 3 employment be fully developed. If there is a _ ' 24 questionable history of exposure to asbestos or _ UWa ni'cf/i, icn&c'uj arul criticcLate-i, fjnc. (2nicaqo, iJffinoii G (3". 2 7G2-8387 51 1 silica dust or an indicated partial lung disability. A 2 such as tuberculosis, the applicant should not be 3 employed until satisfactorily passing a medical 4 examination. Such a medical examination shall 5 include the taking of chest x-rays and their 6 interpretation by Saranac Laboratories as set forth 7 in bulletin 4-5." 8 That concludes the quote from the bulletin. 9 Q. And then I believe -- I would request that 1 0 you read the last paragraph on page 2. 1 1 A. The last paragraph on page 2 states, 1 2 "I believe these documents are sufficient to impute 1 3 to the corporation some knowledge of the 1 4 relationship between exposure to asbestos and 1 5 development of some disease. Accordingly. I nelieve 1 6 we are going to have to disclose this in future 1 7 answers to interrogatories depending obviously on 1 8 the precise wording of the interrogatory." 1 9 Q. I'm now going to show you a document also 2 0 entitled, "Elimination of Dusty Conditions" dated. 2 1 October 4, 1937 and ask you if you recognize that 1 22 document? 2 3 A. Do I recognize it? - 2 4 Q. Yes. Dave you seen it before? czRo i.cn(jz.zj and czdJ-aocLatci., One. filCMo, DiLncU (312) 762-eos^ 5 1 A. I have no idea . . f 2 Q. You are familiar with operating bulletins 3 that does reflect that it is an operating bulletin 4 of U.S. Gypsum Company, doesn't it? 5 A. Yes, it is. 6 Q. Is that a predecessor bulletin to 7 Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 which you just read from? 8 A. No, at least not based on the bulletin 9 number. 1 0 Q. I believe that - 1 1 A. And you said a predecessor? What's the 1 2 date on that one? 1 3 Q. 1937. 1 4 A. Well, the two bulletins have the same 1 5 title. My reason for saying that one is not a 1 6 predecessor of the other is based solely on the 1 7 bulletin numbe r. 1 8 Q. Well, I believe you also note in your 1 9 memorandum that the previous operating bulletin, 2 0 that is, the immediately previous one, had not been 2 1 located. 2 2 A . N o No . We ha v e not 1 o c a t e d 4 2 3 don't know t h a t 4- 5 is th 0 p r e d e c e s s o r t o ^ I s oner 2 4 4-5 is r 9 f 9 r e n ced in 111 qu o t e d pa r a g r a p' WM WoCf*, xa and. cdfocLatzi., Cfuzaao, {JLtinoit. t (312) ?2`G067 53 1 Q. Is that 4-5? 2 A. No, that's 4-5-1. 3 Q. So that's not the same as the 4-5 referred 4 to in this? 5 A. I would have to go back through all of 6 them, but I am assuming that there is a 4-5 separate 7 from 4-5-1. 8 Q. Now, I also believe -- we are up to 1982, 9 Ms. Torrey. I also believe in 1982 that other 1 0 lawsuits were filed against U.S. Gypsum Company on 1 1 behalf of building owners. 1 2 A. I recall one, possibly two in 1982. 1 3 Q. And then in 1983, some other lawsuits were 1 4 filed on behalf of building owners? .. 1 5 A. Since -- continuously since 1982, there 1 6 have been suits filed. .. 1 7 Q. And among those cases filed in 1982 and 1 8 the first half of 1983 would have been Lexington, 1 9 South Carolina, Greenville, South Carolina, 2 0 Huntsville, Alabama and Spartanburg, South Carolina? 2 1 A. I recall specifically that Lexington w as- 22 served cn United States G'-psum Company the day after 23 M an v ills filed bankruptcy which would put it, I 1 - 2 4 believe, at August 26, '82. y VoCft, and czdJ-*iocuikz, Jnc. Chicago, DL.Ln.oii. (312) 7S2-S087 54 1 The other cases you mentioned were filed r- 2 sometime thereafter. Whether it was late '82 or 3 early '83, I would have to check the records. 4 Q. In any event, as a result of these cases, 5 U.S. Gypsum had to respond to various discovery 6 requests? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And those discovery requests included both 9 requests for U.S. Gypsum documents and written 1 0 interrogatories or questions to U.S. Gypsum Comnany 1 1 by the school districts? 1 2 A. Yes. 1 3 Q. You coordinated the responses to tn.is 1 4 discovery? - 1 5 A. That's correct. 1 6 Q. In response to this discovery, did you., 1 7 reveal or produce any of the three exhibits which 1 8 you reviewed in 1980 that Ms. Woodruff presented to 1 9 you, that is, either the letter from Mr. Brown to 20 Mr. Offutt cr the first progress report or Dr. _ 2 1 Gardner's study of the Jersey City plant? ^ 2 2 A. I'm having troubling with your question 2 3 only because I believe you asked did I ever cause to 2 4 be oroduced anv of these thre-. . The answer to that <w/l and nicaao, iJfiincis # (312) 7*82-3087 , One. 55 1 is no, I did not cause any of these three to be 2 produced . r- 3 If the question is have any of these three 4 ever been produced, I don't know the circumstances 5 of their being produced to you in Spartanburg 6 because I believe they were produced in response to 7 discovery. And Spartanburg would have been filed at 8 about the same time as your other cases. - 9 Q. Let me rephrase the question. 1 G In responses to discovery in 1983 in any 1 1 of these four cases, Lexington, Greenville, 1 2 Huntsville or Spartanburg, did you either produce or 1 3 refer to the three documents which Ms. Woodruff 1 4 presented to you in 1980, that is, the Brown to - 1 5 Offutt letter, the first progress report or the New 1 6 Jersey study performed by Dr. Gardner? .. 1 7 A. If we refer specifically to any of these 1 8 three documents in any discovery filed in those 1 9 cases in 1983, the answer is no. 2 0 Q. Now, I go not want to review the entire. .4 2 1 discovery cf those three cases. 2 2 A . Thank you. 2 3 Q. But I would ask you to read ^' 24 interrogatory 77 and the answer in the Greenville, ^Votjz, <zfx>oicn(je.xj and czdfzzoclatzi, {Jne. CL icaco, Oiiir.cii $ (312) 7&2-S05'? 56 1 case and request No. 10 and the response in the 2 Greenville case. 3 A. Well, you are showing me something that is 4 not -- 5 Q. I can show you the actual discovery if you 6 would like. 7 A. I'll read what's here and you have t: 8 represent that that's what it is. I don't know what 9 it is, but I'll read it. 1 0 Q. No, I'll just get it out then. Ms. Torrey, 1 1 I show you the O.S. Gypsum Company's responses to 1 2 plaintiff's first set of interrogatories in the 1 3 Greenville case, dated or verified on June 28, 1983. 1 4 I ask you to read interrogatory 77 -- it's not - 1 5 necessary to read the subparts -- and U.S. Gypsum 1 6 Company's response to that interrogatory. 17 A. Question 77 without the subpart - 1 8 states, "Did you direct to be performed, sponsor, 1 9 finance or receive the results of any studies or 20 tests peformed by the Saranac Lake Laboratory or the 2 1 Trudeau Foundation relating to asbestos exposure and 22 i r s effect cn human 1 i f e . If so, identify." 23 The respon s a i r "None of which t his - 2 4 G ~ fencant is curren: ly awar e . " V WWfA and cpdiiocuxtzz, dJnc. CPiicaQo, Ollinoii (3 72,' 7&2-SQS7 57 1 Q. In addition to that, I believe that 2 Greenville served requests to produce on U.S. Gypsum 3 Do you recall that? 4 A. I don't specifically recall it. I'm sure 5 you did. 6 Q. Do you recognize this order of judge 7 Wilkins? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And I believe Judge Wilkins on page 3 1 0 quotes request No. 10 and the response, agreed? 1 1 A. That's what it appears to be, yes. 1 2 Q. Would you read the request to produce 10 1 3 and U.S. Gypsum Company's response? 1 4 A. It states, "Any and all other records,, 1 5 correspondence, minutes or other documents of this 1 6 defendant including all subsidiaries, divisions and 1 7 predecessor entities wherein the potential health 1 8 effects cf asbestos have been discussed." 1 9 Response, "Documents responsive to this 20 request have recently been found and will be . 2 1 forwarded to plaintiff's attorney." i 22 Q. Now, in response, my understanding is, 23 again, you did not produce the documents located by i 2 4 Ms. Woodruff in 1980 because of the judgment Mr. r and czdfi.LOciatci., One. Cki.za.Q0. aCLr.oli O (312} 72-BC57 18 1 Snell made at that time? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Additionally, you did not produce the 1943 4 operating bulletin that we have now marked as 5 Plaintiff s Exhibit 10, is that correct? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. You do not know whether you produced the * 4 3 8 bulletin or not? 9 A. In any discovery? 1 0 Q. No, in response to that request to produce 1 1 in 1983. 1 2 A. Oh, in '83. I don't believe so. 1 3 Q. Additionally, Ms. Torrev, in 1583, 1 4 sometime during the middle of that year, these three 1 5 documents, Exhibits 2, 3 and 5, found by Ms. ' 1 6 Woodruff in 1 5 8 0 , were transferred from U.S. Gyps.um's 1 7 headquarters, is that correct? 1 6 A . Yes. - 1 9 Q. My understanding is from 1980 when they 20 were discovered until sometime around June or July, 2 1 1983, they were located or maintained in the legaT 22 department at U.S. Gypsum's headquarters an 101 2 3 South W a c ; e r, Chicago? 24 I A . That's correct, in the file folders in ,, Hi c[fz, <zf\oi.e.rz(j.%j and LtOGUltLi. , One ChUaao, Uit.noii e (2 ` 21 7B2-SCB7 59 1 which they were given to me. . 2 Q. Sometime during that period, you directed 3 another attorney in the U.S. Gypsum Company 1 legal 4 department to carry them to the Keck firm which had 5 represented you over the years -- represented U.S. 6 Gypsum over the years? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Was any inventory made of what was - 9 actually carried over there? 1 0 A. Wo. 1 1 Q. Was any cover letter prepared which 1 2 accompanied the documents or which followed up on 1 3 the transfer? 1 4 A. No. - 1 5 Q. Was there any chain of custody document 1 6 executed when you transferred these to the Keck f.irm? 1 7 A. None of which I am aware. - 1 8 Q. Was there any receipt slip executed over 1 9 at the Keck firm signing for the documents? 20 A. I don't know whether one was or not. I. 2 1 have not seen one. I don't know if they have soml 22 internal system that they may have maintained. 23 Q. It's also my understanding that those - 24 documents remained over there throughout ore t i m e y - - OVodfz, ^oi-zindzztj and. cOtiX>eiats.< , One. Ckiceuio, OOLtincii. (3*2) 7&2-S0S7 60 1 throughout the balance of your time as the - A 2 coordinator of the property damage litigation, that 3 is, until August of 1984, is that correct? 4 A. I don't personally knew what the Keck firm 5 did with the documents. I requested that they be 6 maintained as they would any of their other 7 historical client files. I had no reason to ask for 8 the documents or to request to see the documents or 9 have to have anything to do withr the documents 1 0 during the remaining time I was involved the 1 1 asbestos litigation. 1 2 Q. You do recognize now, however, that the 1 3 actual copy of Exhibit 2, the letter from Vandiver 1 4 Brown to J.S. Offutt, and the letter from -- and-the 1 5 first progress report attached tc that letter have 1 6 not been located? . 1 7 A. I have been told that the tissue copy I 1 8 recall sending -- that I recall I had which is the 1 9 one I sent back has not been located. 20 Q. Additionally in 1983, you discovered th.at -- 2 1 or beginning in 1983, you no longer could locate the 22 research documents or. Audicote that we discussed 2 3 05.r3.i0r? 2 4 A. That's correct. That happened in March,of \W/h4 <11 c(i c, c:^>oizn(jz'u] and z^diiocLata, dJnc. eCLC CLO Of CJ[Cine it (312) 7S2-BC37 61 1 1 983 . 2 Q. And as of this date in 1986, those folders 3 approximately three feet high have not been located 4 to your knowledge? 5 A. In the last year, year and a quarter, I 6 have been shown a number of folders for my opinion 7 as to whether any of these in fact were any of the 8 documents that I had relating to the co-called - 9 Audicote working files in 1 9 80 . , 1 0 One file conforms to my recollection of 1 1 what those files looked like, but I cannot 1 2 positively confirm that any of these which I have 1 3 been shown in fact were those that I had. 1 4 Q. When were you shown this one that conforms? 1 5 A. I recall being shown it two weeks ago when 1 6 it conformed to my recollection. I may have been 1 7 shown that same one earlier in this same time pe r i o d 1 8 I just de s c ribed . But as of about two weeks ago , it 1 9 looked to me when I saw it t hat it conformed to m v 20 recollection. 2 1 Q . Who showed it to you? 2 2 A . My former secret ary. 2 3 Q. Was it one file folder? 2 4 A . Cor r e c t . - 0,Vo[f-, <zfx?c*zn(-re.,uj curd cr~fi.cziatzi., One. dkiccuso, Ditinoii 6 (2'2} 7s2-S?57 62 1 Q. Did she indicate that it was pulled from a 2 group? A 3 A . I'm not sure. It was in the legal 4 department. It was on the sixth floor. 5 MR. SPEIGHTS: Mr. Cale, I paused hoping that 6 you would volunteer to go get that file or whatever 7 files I have been seeking since 1983. I don't want 8 to have to return and repeat this process. Is that 9 available? ' 1 0 MR. CALE: It is available. In fact, it is in 1 1 the document production system of the company, i.e., 1 2 those documents that are regularly made available. 1 3 Why don't we -- I'm just trying to think for a 1 4 minute. 1 5 Let's take a break and let me confer with 1 6 counsel and see where we go on that one. _ 17 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had . 1 8 off the record.) 1 9 MR. SPEIGHTS: Let's go back on the record. 2 0 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 2 1 Q. Ms. Torrey, during the break, counsel has 2: one file folder, less than an inch thick 23 green color marked Aucicote. 1- /'>. ~A s t h i s the file fo leer v o u were r" cs f - r ^ ' nQ \W/ii <w/t and arJ-iLocLatzi, dJnc. Cr.tzaao, iJffir.ois (312)782-8037 63 1 to that conforms at least in part to what you recall 2 as being the way the research documents were set up? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You don't know whether this is one of the 5 three-foot stack or not? 6 A. I can't confirm it positivelv. J | 7 Q. And your recollection, I believe, is that 1 e the file folders that you got in 1980 from the - 9 research department were blue inv_color? 1 0 A. That's correct. . 1 1 Q. And you don't know to this day anything 1 2 about either the balance of the three-foot stack or 1 3 the three-foot stack itself, if this is not one of 1 4 the stack? - 1 5 A. That's correct. ' . 1 6 MR. CALE : Obviously, subject tc all the thijics i 1 7 that she has testified tc on this subject in her - 1 8 prior deposition in this case. 1 9 MR. SPEIGHTS: I'm gcing to a sk that counsel 20 provide me a copy o f everything i n this file folder 2 1 and the copy of the file folder it self. ~ 2 2 MR . CALE: It will be dene. 23 MR . SPEIGHTS: If possible, T would like t c - 2 4 have one thing done today to giv rn 0 some ir. i g t c QVoff-z. and <zdfnocLatz, jnc. CnUaac, D[ur.cii O (3'2] '7S2-8CS7 6r 1 read on the airplane. 2 MR. CALE: We'11 try. ` 3 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 4 Q. Ms. Torrey, I think we have talked up to 5 now the period 1979 up through 1983. I want to talk 6 to you a few minutes about 1984. 7 You are aware that Judge Wilkins in the 8 Greenville case conducted a hearing on the . 9 defendant's responses to discovery from January 9, r- . 1 0 1 9 84 ? 1 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. I believe your local counsel provided you 1 3 a copy of the ruling made by Judge Wilkins at that 1 4 hearing? _ 1 5 A. I was provided a portion of the transcript 1 6 which contained that rule, yes. 1 7 Q. I show you this document and ask you if it 1 8 is a portion of a transcript you were provided? 1 9 A. It appears to be. 20 Q. Insofar as as Judge Wilkins's ruling 2 1 apt 1 ie s to notice documents, I would ask y o u t o r e^ad 2 2 that rul i ng w h i c h I h a v e I b e 1 ieve brack e:ed f o r you. 23 A. T he po r t i o n you have bracketed r O GQ 3 as .. 2 4 ^~ /-\ X1 '-i- c w s , " W h i 1 e I h a v e con side v* o < ~ r b ^ b 'i h i nc wQ r l' WWa nio/Jt, cddoizn.&z.'Uj and cdfitocLatzi, dine. ft 7C^iltaao, )[[inoii. (3 2} '782-SCS7 65 1 place all the parties on notice that this order is 2 being issued with the court's full understanding and 3 intent to apply rule 37(B)(2)(C) to any offending 4 party of this order which will include the court 5 entering a default judgment or dismissing the action 6 against the offending party. 7 There must be a time where these matters 8 are laid to rest and you get on to new business and 9 the business of resolving this controversy. 1 0 All the defendants shall answer within...30 1 1 days. I might add the court is going to review the 1 2 responding answers with its interpretation of good 1 3 faith, reasonable effort to comply and will not deal 1 4 nor allow justification to be based on semantics.. 15 All defendants shall answer this 1 6 interrogatory that the court propounds which is .. 1 7 perhaps a combination of numbers that have already 1 8 been propounded. The date that the company or its 1 9 officers or its agents or its employees to the best 20 of that company's ability must state the date that 2 1 these individuals received information written or i 22 oral, first became aware of, first became suspicious 2 3 of the fact that asbestos may be a harmful substan c*e 24 and all similar information since that first cate., cJ^oi.e.nbz'i^ and czdfi.olatz, {]n.c cacc c (3*2' 7 2-80S 7 66 1 This includes information acquired 2 individually by the company, its officers, agents, 3 en.ployees and information that was generally known 4 in the industry. It also includes any facts, any 5 data, any reports, any opinions which tend to 6 support the belief that asbestos is a harmful 7 product to health." 8 MR. SPEIGHTS: I'm going to ask that be marked 9 as Plaintiff's Exhibit 11. , 1 0 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 1 1 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No. 11 1 2 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 1 3 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 1 4 Q. Now, in response to that court order, did 1 5 you coordinate the U.S. Gypsum Company response? - 1 6 A Yes, I coordinated it. 1 7 Q. Did you and, I think, Mr. Smith in fact 1 8 prepare the first draft of it? 1 9 A. Yes. 2 0 Q. Did you consult with Mr. Snell concerning 2 1 the response? 2 2 A. Yes, briefly. 2 3 Q. I show you this document and ask you 24 is the response which U.S. Gvosum Company / 67 1 again in response to Judge Wilkins's ruling which 2 you have just read into the record? 3 A. Yes, it appears to be. 4 MR. SPEIGHTS : I ask that be marked as 5 plaintiff's Exhibit 12. 6 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 7 Plaintiff's Deposi :ion Exhibit No. 12, 8 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 9 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: ' 1 0 Q. Would you read the first two paragraphs of 1 1 zhat response? 1 2 A. "United States Gypsum Company (hereinafter 1 3 called 'USG') responds to the 'notice1 i nterroga tory 1 4 propounded by the Honorable William w. Wilkins on 1 5 January 9, 1984 as follows: 1 6 A thorough review of USG files and _ 1 7 records which could be identified as possibility . 1 8 containing information encompassed by this 1 9 interrogatory reveals that on or about September 3, 20 1948, is the earliest documented date upon which USG 2 1 or any of its officers, employees or agents in an- z z individual or corporate capacity first became Z _1 suspicious c r aware that asbestos may be a harmful 24 WMa <W/i, cddoze.n&zia and czrj-zzocLatzz, dJnc. C-icaoo, * r3T2,' 7e2-S087 68 1 Q. Now, Ms. Torrey, would you agree with me 2 that you did not reveal the letter from Mr. Brown to 3 Mr. Offutt of 1937 or the first progress report or 4 the Jersey City study prepared by Dr. Gardner in 5 1936 in response to the court's interrogatory? 6 A. Those documents were not produced or 7 identified in response to the court's interrogatory, 8 correct. 9 Q. Did you specifically discuss with Mr. 1 0 Snell whether he should revisit the issue of whether 1 1 these documents should be revealed in light of Judge 1 2 Wilkins' ruling? 1 3 A. I gave Mr. Snell a copy of the draft: 1 4 response which had been prepared along with copies 1 5 of the documents we were proposing to identify a r. d 1 6 produce and raised with him the question of the K.eck 1 7 documents. - 1 8 Q. And was Mr. Snell's position the same, 1 9 that is, that those documents should not be revealed? 2 0 A. His position was the same, that the proper 2 1 response on behalf of the company would include A 2 2 documents which were United States Gypsum Company 23 documents, and that in his opinion, again, these - 2 4 were not United States Gypsum Company d o c u m e r. n s . y WM OVotfz, czf^oi.c.n(jg,xcj cuzJ. czOitoeLatei., One.. CkiCQ.QO, Utllr.cU (312) 782-S08? 69 1 Q. And, again, that was his judgment? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Did you provide or refer to the 1943 4 operating bulletin in response o Judge Wilkins' 5 notice interrogatory? 6 A. It does not appear on the list, no. 7 Q. Additionally on the second page, you refer 8 to the Saranac study or the memorandum of agreement. 9 1 0 tome? Would you read that part of the paragraph . 1 1 A. "Additionally, USG is aware of a 1 2 'memorandum of agreement' dated November 20, 1936 1 3 produced in other litigation which suggests that USG 1 4 may have contributed to a study conducted by Dr. - 1 5 LeRoy Gardner at Saranac Lake Laboratory commencing 1 6 in 1936. Howeve r, a s indicated on the listing, U.S 1 7 could not confirm whe ther or to what extent it may 1 8 have part icipared i n the study or received the 1 9 findings. 2 0 Q. Now, I believe shortly after that you 2 1 stated earlier you attended the trial of rhe 2 2 Lexington case in South Carolina? 2 3 Yes. 2 4 Q. And cur xs <zfx?o*zn(;zXj and czrfaocLata, dh.Lc.ciQo, d.dr.ois (312) ~S2-8CE7 70 1 attorneys attempted to introduce the memorandum of 2 agreement and the certain reports of Dr. Gardner. 3 Do you recall that? 4 A. I recall that you attempted to introduce 5 in the '36 agreement. Which of the other documents 6 you attempted to introduce, I do not recall. 7 Q. Would you agree with me that U.S. Gypsum's 8 local counsel while you were present resisted any, 9 connection between U.S. Gypsum and Saranac during ' 1 0 that trial? 1 1 A . No . 1 2 Q. You would not agree with that? 1 3 A. No, I would not. If you would like to 1 4 show me a transcript of the trial proceedings and 1 5 refresh my memory, I would be happy to review it, 1 6 but that's not my recollection of the discussion at 1 7 the trial. 1 3 Q . Well, I don't have a transcript with me, 1 9 but I'll certainly discuss that with Morgan, Lewis & 20 Bockius counsel who were also counsel at the 2 1 Lexington trial. 22 In addition to Judge Wilkins' notice *- 2 3 interrogatory, I believe Greenville followed up w i tit 24 a special interrogatory inquiring as :: where the n VoCfz, zxa and cdj LEOciaiE*, <3nc. dfiizaso, iJitinoLi. (312} 78^-S CS 7 1 documents that were produced had been found? 2 A . Yes. 3 Q. Is that a copy of chat special 4 interrogatory and U.S. Gypsum Company's response? 5 A. Before we get to this, I feel constrained 6 to point out since you're trying to create a clear 7 record, the question you raised to me about the 8 Lexington trial was did we dispute any connection 9 with Saranac. I am disputing your - r characterizatio.n 1 0 of what the controversy was. ' 1 1 You certainly -- plaintiff's attorneys for 1 2 Lexington certainly attempted to introduce the 1 3 memorandum of agreement and other documents in at 1 4 trial. But I think you need to refer to what the. 1 5 argument was as to the basis of United States Gypsum 1 6 Company's objection and its argument. j 1 7 Q. Would you agree with me that during that 1 8 trial and indeed prior to that trial, U.S. Gypsum 1 9 did not acknowledge any past relationship with 20 Saranac in the '30s or the '40s? 2 1 A. Net witr. respect to asbestos, and the A 2 2 Questions that w e r e po sea were always related 2 3 asbestos. The que stion you're raising is any 2 4 relationship w i t n Saranac wnat soever, n rN. +* x -- rn Hi 'otjs., ziq and cadtLocLaiti., {Jnc. ^C!f~.ica.ac, dJiLtncii 3 7 2' 7 S2-8CS7 72 1 asbestos. A 2 Q. Okay. Let's get the question straight. 3 Would you agree with nr. e that during the 4 trial of the Lexington case, Lexington's attorneys 5 attempted to introduce a connection between U.S. 6 Gypsum and Saranac in regard to asbestos studies? 7 A. The plaintiff's attorneys for Lexington 8 attempted to introduce into evidence the memorandum 9 of agreement, and I seem to recall certain other 1 0 documents relating to the Sumner Simpson papers and 1 1 perhaps the entire Sumner Simpson file. 1 2 Q. Which dealt with asbestos? 1 3 A. Relating to asbestos. 1 4 Q. Anc would you also agree with me that U.S. 1 5 Gypsum's attorneys at the trial of the Lexington' 1 6 case with you in attendance did not acknowledge any 1 7 past relationship between U.S. Gypsum arc Saranac in 1 8 regards to asbestos? 1 9 A. The legal objection raised that I recall 20 was one of authentication of the documents you were 2 1 attempting to introduce into evidence. * 22 Q. For what other reason weald you agree that 2 3 U.S. Gypsum did not acknowledge any past ^' 2 4 relationship between Saranac and U.S. Gypsum, insofar 0,Vo[je., zzq and adfi-u^ciatzi, fjne. (1nicaac, Oil-ncit. '3 7 2] ?SCS 73 1 as asbestos ? 2 A. That question I can't respond to without 3 referring to the transcript. I recall that the 4 basis cf the objection was one of authentication of 5 the documents and it was limited to that issue. 6 Q. Now, let me review, because we kind of got 7 off base. On January 9, Judge Wilkins issued his 8 interrogatory which USG responded to in early - 9 February. Lexington, I believe,,, was tried in early 1 0 April, is that your recollection? 1 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. On April 23, U.S. Gypsum responded to the 1 3 special interrogatory whicn Greenville served on 1 4 U.S. Gypsum asking about the source of the documents 1 5 it had produced, correct? ' 1 6 A. Yes. . 1 7 MR. SPEIGHTS: I'm going to ask that this 1 8 interrogatory, special interrogatory and U.S. Gypsum's 1 9 response be marked collectively as Plaintiff's 20 Exhibit 13. . 2 1 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 2 2 Plaintiff's Deoosition Exhibit No. 13, ~ it[ 2 3 for identification, as of 7-29-86.)' | 2 4 3Y MR. SPEIGHTS: ,,I -Vo[jz, cfioie.nfjz'u} and cd'fi.ix)ciatz, {Jnc. Ckicazo, flt (312} TS2-9C87 74 1 Q. Did you coordinate this response, that is, 2 to the special interrogatory? 3 A. No, I didn't. I was aware of it and I 4 reviewed it, but -- in the broad sense, I 5 coordinated it, but I didn't prepare it. 6 Q. Would you agree with me that this document 7 reflects that USG did not conduct a review in detail 8 of the box found by Donna Woodruff and brought tc 9 the legal department until after. Judge Wilkins' 1 0 order of January 9, 1984? ... 1 1 A. I think the only way I can respond to that 1 2 is by reading that portion of the response. "The 1 3 order entered by this court was far oroader than 1 4 discovery previously responded to by this defendant. 1 5 Because of its breadth, this defendant was required 1 6 to seek to determine the existence of files not .. 1 7 previously known to exist and to search through many 1 8 files net previously reviewed. This explains the 1 9 production of documents herein which this defendant 20 believes not fall within plaintiff's previous , 2 1 discovery requests. * 2 2 The existence cf a box containing the 23 following documents 'was determined by ( a } Donna - 2 4 Woodruff, USG paralegal or ( b approximately ,, WM c^X>oi.nl'sz^ and czrj-tzezLatzz Cr.^-aac, ?[LnoU (3 12) 7f 1 -SOS7 75 1 January/February( 1980. This box (C) was clearly 2 marked as pertaining solely to silicosis in the USG 3 corporate files storage facility located at 101 4 South Kacker Drive. 5 The file within which the documents were 6 located was (D) a box of insurance department papers, 7 specifically entitled' Miscellaneous Workman's 8 Compensation Data - Silicosis Cases. ' The 9 custodian of the documents at the time they were 1 0 located was (e) Dorothy Littlejohn, files. 1 1 Because this box was clearly labeled 1 2 'silicosis' they were never revealed in detail for i 3 information relating to asbestos until this 1 4 defendant undertook a more extensive review of . 1 5 documents in order to comply as fully as possible 1 6 with Judge Wilkins' order and therefore included,, 1 7 tnis box in its search.'1 1 8 Q And that search of the box was made - 1 9 sometime in early 1984? 20 A Yes 2 1 Q And that books contained some of Mr 2 2 Kipp's papers? 2 3 A There are saners in there which I recall 24 and I would have to refer to the i i s - i n ^ f Vi' 76 1 either sent to or authored by Mr. Kipp. I would not 2 characterize them as Mr. Kipp's papers. 3 Q. Would you read that paragraph for me? 4 A. "Shortly before his death in 1980, C.P. 5 Kipp then manager insurance stated that USG was not 6 a member of the Asbestos Cement Producers 7 Association although he had attended a few meetings 8 for his personal information only. - 9 A search was made for these documents in 1 0 February, 1984 by S.K. Torrey specifically for the 1 1 purpose of responding to the notice interrogatories 1 2 heretofore propounded." 1 3 Q. Now, 1 want to refer back to -- 1 4 A. Excuse me, but the question you posed to 1 5 me was were the Kipp papers -- the Kipp file in' 1 6 that bo. .. 17 Q. I understand that was the orevious - 1 8 question. 1 9 A. A11 right. 20 Q. And you responded to it and then I asked 2 1 you to read another section of this order which 't 2 2 refers to Kipp papers as wall. 23 A ,u1 2 4 No' r w WM <11 <o[fz., iznljcicj and cd-fi.iocia.tzL, One. CnUa.00, DiLncit e (312: 7C2-82S7 77 1 which is the March 24, 1982 memo from you to Mr. 2 Snell and ask you to read that paragraph. 3 A. "Finally, as I showed you, there is 4 correspondence in some old files maintained by the 5 insurance department that Mr. Kipp in 1953 embarked 6 upon a project to gather articles concerning 7 asbestosis . " 8 Q. In addition to that special interrogatory, 9 I believe Judge Wilkins issued an other order after 1 0 the Lexington trial in April of 1984. Do you recall 1 1 tha t ? 1 2 A. Yes. 1 3 Q. And that is what is sometimes been 1 4 referred to as an encompassment order? 1 5 A. Yes. 1 6 Q . Is that a copy of that order? 1 7 A . Yes. 1 8 MR. SPEIGHTS: I would ask that be marked as 1 9 Exhibit 14. 2 0 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 2 1 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit So.i14, 2 2 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 23 3Y MR. SPEIGHTS: 2 4 rru se n cnarac - W#/a nir[ft, izn&z.'uj and czdJ-**ccLat.i, One. (2fzicc.cc, JLiinoLt (312) ?'S2-8GS7 78 1 order without reading it and if you feel compelled 2 to read it, that's fine. 3 Would you agree with me that Judge Wilkins 4 required -- strike that. Would you read paragraph 2 5 of that order, please? 6 A. "The defendant shall on cr before May 14, 7 1984 file their final responses to the plaintiff's 8 request to produce documents together with a 9 statement verified by the parti e^s specifically 1 0 setting forth the encompassment of the search, the 1 1 person or persons who participated in the search and 1 2 the identification of all documents for which they 1 3 claim privilege." 1 4 Q. In response to that, did you personally 1 5 file an affidavit in compliance with -- o - strike 1 6 that . .. 1 7 In response to Judge Wilkins' order in or 1 8 around April 25, 1984 marked as Exhibit 14, did you 1 9 prepare and file an affidavit? 20 A . Yes. 21 Q Is that a copy cf the affidavit? X 2 2 A . In part. 2 3 MR . SPEIGHTS: Let's co off the record a r. i r. d ^ -3 . 2 4 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had OrVofrz, and czrj- Cnizaac, dJ^.tr.cti 0 (312' 7'32-SOB'7 i.Jnc. 79 1 off the record.) 2 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 3 Q. Is that a copy of the affidavit you filed 4 in response to Judge Wilkins' order? 5 A. Yes. 6 MR. SPEIGHTS: I ask that be marked as 7 Plaintiff's Exhibit 15. 8 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 9 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No. 15, 1 0 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 1 1 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 1 2 Q. I would ask you to read paragraph 9. 1 3 A. "At present, no other documents have beer, 1 4 located responsive to plaintiff's request to produce 1 5 dated January 13, 1983 as qualified by outstanding 1 6 objections and excluding privileged documents, if. 1 7 any, and as already disclosed in United States - 1 8 Gypsum Company's supplemental responses or 1 9 previously produced to plaintiff's counsel without 20 formal supplementation ether than the attached which 2 1 was located recently." ' 2 2 Q. Now, at chat time had you, by that I mean, 2 3 you, U.S. Gypsum, produced either Plainniff's ' 2 4 Exhibit 2, the Brown no Gffutt letter , Plaintiff ' = n Vo [j-t, and. Cf:U CLCO, JJ Liino it (2*2] 7'32-t 80 1 Exhibit 3, the first progress report, or Plaintiff's 2 Exhibit 5, the Jersey City study of Dr. Gardner? 3 A. No . 4 Q. At that time, did you list or at any time 5 before had you listed any of those three documents 6 as being privileged? 7 A. No . 8 C- At that time, had you provided a copy of 9 the 1943 operating bulletin whic^h we have previously 1 0 marked? 1 1 A. No . 1 2 Q. What is the date of that affidavit, please, 1 3 Miss Tor rey? 1 4 A. May 25th, 1984. 1 5 Q. I believe within several weeks, that the 1 6 boxes which you now believe Ms. Woodruff originally 1 7 located in 1980 were located by an attorney working 1 8 under you at the time? 1 9 A. Gary Smith, an attorney in the department, 20 found in the warehouse somewhere in the period June 2 1 15th to June 20th, '84 three boxes which we now A 22 believe based coon the recently-found Donna Woodruff 2 3 memo to have seen found by her in 1980. _" r 24 Q. And in those three boxes, among ocher ,, WM oi I cz/^os.snL's.'i^ and (2fiicaao, LJHindi 6 (312) 7S2-S0S7 jjnc. 81 1 things, were located Plaintiff's Exhibits 6 and 7, A 2 that is, the summary of the Jersey City report and 3 the letter forwarding the summary and the report to 4 the law firm? 5 A. I have been told that. 6 Q. i'm going to show you another document 7 dated September 16, 1936 and ask whether that was 8 also located in the three boxes? . 9 A. I don't know from personal knowledge. I 1 0 believe that that's where is it came from. I have 1 1 been told that, but I don't know. 1 2 Q. Let me give you a series of five documents 1 3 and ask if it is your understanding that those five 1 4 documents were-- , 1 5 A. I think I have to first point out that 1 6 when the boxes were discovered, once Gary had 1 7 pointed out to me the existence of the Jersey City 1 8 study and I confirmed that it was the Jersey City 1 9 study, I did not tnorougnly review the contents of 20 the box. 2 1 I pretty much stopped at that point. So I 2 2 really don't have personal knowledge of tieir 2 3 contents. I nave been told mat there was some - 2 4 corresoncence in t h 6 s 6 00x05 rrolsoino 00 so *00 sort WM and do hiatal, Unc. (2*2^ 7>z2-z(z' 82 1 of a lawsuit that didn't directly involve the . . A 2 company. 3 I assume that these are thos- and it came 4 out of the boxes, but I don't know that personally. 5 MR. SPEIGHTS: I'm going to have them marked 6 and if we can not work out a stipulation later. I'll 7 independently deal with the situation. But since I 8 have shown them to you, I want to mark them for the 9 record and I ask thev be marked .as follows: 1 0 Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 is a letter from 1 1 C.C. Scharwath to H.R. Barrett. It's noted at the 1 2 top, "Copy, United States Gypsum Company" dated 1 3 September 16, 1937. 1 4 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 1 5 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No. 16, 1 6 for identification, as of 7-29 -8 6 .,.) 17 MR. SPEIGHTS: Exhibit 17, a letter from - 1 8 Assistant To President to J.A. Scharwath on U.S. 1 9 Gypsum Company letterhead dated September 29, 1937. 2 0 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 2 1 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No.*17, 2 2 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 2 3 MR. SPEIGHTS: Exhibit 18, a letter from J.S.- 2 4 Offutt, Assistant to President, to Scott, MacLeis^. & <W/, cRote.nC'%j and. cdJ-LiocLatz-i, One. Ct.Uaso, UiU-ioU r312; 72-S??7 83 1 Falk which we have been referring to as the Keck law 2 firm, on U.S. Gypsum Company letterhead dated 3 September 29, 1937. 4 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 5 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No. 18, 6 for identification, as of 7-29-86., 7 MR. SPEIGHTS: Exhibit 19 is a letter from John 8 J. Cuneo Cuneo of Jersey City, to the Keck law firm 9 dated October 8,' 1937. ." - 1 0 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 1 1 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No. 19, 1 2 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 1 3 MR. SPEGIHTS: Exhibit 20 is a letter frcm an 1 4 unidentified source unless otherwise identified in 1 5 the body to John J. Cuneo dated October 28, 1937'. 1 6 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 1 7 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit No.- 20, 1 8 for identification, as of 7-29-86.) 1 9 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 2 0 Q. Would you agree with me from reading these 2 1 documents that they report an allegation that ^ 2 2 someone who was a bookkeeper at the Jersey City 23 plant sustained asb st osis? ' 2 4 A. I didn't read them that carefully. Wo u1p aVoCft, cz/^oi.zn.L's.'uj and ftCniza.cc. CaincU (312! ^32-ZZB~ , dJnc. 84 1 it be easier if I just read this paragraph? 2 Q. Yes, just do that. 3 A. "For my dad, ask if you would care to help 4 him with a review of the Gypsum Company's experience 5 with silicosis or asbestosis. Recall that you had 6 told me about several cases that the company had and 7 he now has a suit against him by a former assistant 8 bookkeeper of the old National Asbestos Company 9 whose desk at least more than 200 feet away from any 1 0 other machinery as well as being segregated in the 1 1 office from the factory." 1 2 MR. SPEIGHTS: Let me take a break just a 1 3 minute . I believe that's going to be all. 14 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had.) 1 5 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 1 6 C. Miss Torrey, I understand that on August 1 7 20, 1984, you ceased any involvement with the 1 8 defense of asbestosis, either personal injury or 1 9 property damage? 2 0 A. Ye s . . 21 Q. And prior to that date, you did not i 22 supplement or amend your affidavit filed with Judge 2 3 Wilkins? ' 2 4 A. There 'was no supplementation or r <zJx>oi.zn&zxcj and <zrfi&ociats.i., One. Oit^noii. Q (3'2} 72-S057 85 1 modification of the affidavit, that's correct. 2 Q. And tc your knowledge, there was no 3 supplementation or modification to the responses to 4 discovery. Judge Wilkins' discovery between the time 5 you filed those in the spring of '84 until August 2C, 6 1 9 84 ? 7 A . There was none filed, no. 8 MR SPEIGHTS: Thank you. Tnat's all I have. 9 MR CALE: I have a few questions. 1 0 EXAMINATION 1 1 BY MR. CALE: 1 2 Q. Ms. Torrey, I would ask you again to look 1 3 at the series of documents that counsel has marked 1 4 Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 through Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 5 20 and direct your attention to the document ' 1 6 Plaintiff's Exhibit 20 which I believe is the . - 1 7 response of someone to Mr. John J . Cuneo, the - 1 8 attorney for Mr. Scharwach replying to his letter of 1 9 October 8th which was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 0 19, and I would ask you if you would read into th.e 2 1 record just the first sentence of the beginning * 2 2 paragraph on page 2 of that letter? 23 A . "We have not had o c c a s i c r. t c defend any ' 2 4 case brouohr for a s b e s t c s i s which is c'a of the t*o WM a Votfi, Cmzatc, L txnc.l (Zr-liLOciatzi., {3n.c. 86 1 recognized diseases resulting from the breathing of 2 dangerous dust, the other being silicosis." 3 Q. Thank you. 4 MR. SPEIGHTS: Could I ask the date of that? 5 BY MR. CALE: 6 Q. Also on this exhibit, are there initials 7 of the author of that letter and the typist? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And what are those initials? 1 0 A. CMP and the typist's initials are IC. ._ 1 1 Q. And is the letter to which that is a 1 2 response Plaintiff's Exhibit 19 addressed to Charles 1 3 M. Price whose initials are CMP? 1 4 A. Y e s . - 1 5 MR. SPEIGHTS: Would you mind her stating the 1 6 date of that letter before you move to another 1 7 subject? . 1 8 3 Y MR. CALE: 1 9 Q. Could you tell us the date of that letter, 2 0 please, Exhibit 20? . 2 1 A. October 2 8 , 1 9 3 7 . J" 2 2 Q. To your knowledge, by the way, was John J. 2 3 Cuneo of 921 Bergen Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey 24 an attorney wording Ur.ioed Soanes C-vi Comoro, y ? <zJx!otcr,(jz.'uj and <zdfi.i~ocLatz*, {Jnc.. Ct.Uaao, kJkhr.cU e (312) 7E2-S0S7 87 1 A . I'm no aware that he was 2 Q. I now show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 which 3 we have referred to as the Jersey City study and I 4 believe plaintiff's counsel had you read into the 5 record a paragraph appearing on page 4 which reads 6 as follows: "The authors of the report conclude i 7 that it is not possible from their findings to 8 establish the maximum safe concentration of asbestos 9 dust in the air." 1 0 Following that paragraph, there is another 1 1 paragraph in the report on page 5 and I would ask 1 2 that you read the first full paragraph on page 5 of 1 3 that report. 1 4 A. "While asbestosis may be a milder type of 1 5 fibrosis than is silicosis, it does not appear from 1 6 the studies mentioned above that a standard for a 1 7 safe concentration of asbestos dust would permit a 1 8 greater concentration than the value already given 1 9 for free silica dust. It is quite possible that the 2 0 safe limit might be even lower for asbestos than for 21 For present, it would seem beet to attempt 2 3 keen he concentration of asbestos dust less th err. 2 4 t n a n a 11ion particles per cubic foot of air r ^llcLj-z, and cOf-<u>ciaizi, One. dhlzciQo, Ij-tincii r3l2J 7S2-S027 88 1 counted by light field examination." 2 Q. Counsel also had asked about the Lexington 3 trial and position of the company at that trial with 4 respect to its relationship with Saranac Lake 5 Laboratory? 6 A . Yes. 7 Q. At the time of the Lexington trial, had a 8 copy of the 1949 final report of the asbestos 9 studies done at Saranac Lake beenr < identified and 1 0 provided to plaintiff's counsel? 1 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. And in what case was that final report 1 3 provided? 1 4 A. Greenville. 1 5 Q. And that was prior to the trial of the' 1 6 Lexington case? 1 7 A. Yes. - 1 8 Q. In connection with the questions about the 1 9 finding of certain of the documents that have been 20 identified here by Donna Woodruff in 1980, were you 2 1 at that time in the process of responding to any ~ 2 2 d i s c o v e ry requests in property damage litigation? 2 3 A . No . - 2 4 Q find were chose documents an that time v W'Ml m off,, and cdfmecLatz*, dine d1 !n. n n dJitinoil C f2 1 2 ' 7B 2-3 02 89 1 required to be produced pursuant to any discovery 2 requests in property damage litigation? 3 A. No . 4 Q. Referring now to Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 5 which is your memorandum to Mr. Snell discussing 6 certain operating bulletins of the company, I would 7 direct your attention to the second page of that 8 memorandum and ask you to read into the record the 9 second full paragraph? 1 0 A. "The second bulletin which has surfaced is 1 1 another operating bulletin which is labeled 1 2 hazardous chemical used in paint manufacture. It is 1 3 Nc. 602 and was promulgated on 8-11-48. The 1 4 historical file copy carries the notation 'expired' 1 5 by the section which refers to asbestos." 16 Q. Are you familiar with that bulletin? . 1 7 A. Yes, I am. 1 8 Q. Can you tell us in essence what it states? 1 9 A With respect to asbest os, i t on the 20 le f tha nd column states the term a s b e s t o s and in 2 1 n e x t c olumn, purports to discuss the a i s e a s e 2 2 re suit i n g and I believe contains lan.g urge t o the 23 a f o f prole nged exposure to treat h i n g a s b 9 S - 2 4 a u S "t, c a n cause a disabling long condi tier k n o w n ^['VoLjz, ccRoi.e.nfjs.'Uj and c^diiociatzi, jjnc. z7r ----- nrt . * n-o' 7co..ood7 90 1 asbe stos i s . . 2 Q. Was that document provided voluntarily by 3 the company in response to a discovery request 4 served in asbestos property damage litigation? 5 A . Yes. 6 Q. And can you tell us approximately when 7 that document was first produced to any plaintiff in 8 the property damage asbestos litigation? 9 A. June,1983. . 1 0 Q. And do you know in which case and to which 1 1 plaintiff's counsel that document was produced? 1 2 A. I believe it was Greenville Lexington, bur 1 3 we could check the records. 1 4 Q. Who would counsel have been in that case 1 5 for the plaintiff? ' 1 6 A. Mr. Speights. .. 1 7 Q. And was that prior to judge Wilkins 1 8 entering his notice interrogatory? - 1 9 A. Yes. 20 Q. And by approximately how many months? . 2 1 A. Six,seven. * 2 2 Q. Counsel referred to the documents than 2 3 appeared in the Asbestos L'tication Reporter and I - 2 4 oeiieve reores a p r- a / na: r e o o Q VoLj-z, rp.;.. and <cdft$>cuit.i, One. rtrr,, tt mi?1 7P.r-PCS7 91 1 late '70s, the 1936 memorandum agreement and three 2 progress reports were included and reported on. Do 3 you recall the questions regarding that subject? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Do you recall the dates of those progress 6 reports that were reported in the Asbestos 7 Litigation Reporter at the time the 1936 memorandum 8 agreement was published? - 9 A. I believe they were all 1937. 1 0 Q. To your knowledge, was the 1943 monograph 1 1 that counsel has referred to reported in the 1 2 Asbestos Litigation Reporter as one of those 1 3 progress reports? 14 A. As one of the progress reports, no. 1 5 Q. To your knowledge, has a copy of the 1943 1 6 monograph ever been located in any United States 1 7 Gypsum company file? 1 8 A. I nave never seen the 1943 monograph. I 1 9 have never been told that it was found in any United 2 0 Snates Gypsum Company file. I certainly never found 21 2 2 Q. R e f e r r in g to t r1 e 19 3 6 ag r e e me n m , does chat 2 3 agreement i nd i ca t e how 11is agree m e n t came into beirrg? 2 4 A . Well f the second pa r a g r a p h s t a t e s,r and Ir 'm WM cz/x'oi.znlsLTXj and c^rfitoziatzi, <3r.c. Cnicaac, OtLr.a (312)712-8087 92 1 reading "The general nature of these experiments 2 and the cost thereof were explained at a meeting of 3 certain brake lining manufacturers held in New York 4 City on November 19, 1936." 5 Q. Has United States Gypsum Company to your 6 knowledge ever manufactured brake linings? 7 A. No . 8 Q. And does the memorandum agreement indicate 9 the period of time that the experiments are to be 1 0 underwritten by the signatories to that agreement? 1 1 A . The next paragraph states "for a period of 1 2 three y; a r s . " 1 3 Q. And the date of the agreement is what? 1 4 A. November 20, 1936. - 1 5 Q. And three years from that date would be 1 6 what? 1 7 A. November 20, 1939. 1 8 MR CALE: Could we excuse ourselves? I onlv 1 9 have one more question. I just want to make sure 20 that we agree to get into it. 2 1 % SPEIGHTS: You want to talk to her? , 2 2 MR CALE: I just want to her -- 2 3 MR SPEIGHTS: I'm about as liberal as anybody 2 4 I know, bun I jusr don't think it's pro: ;r to chap WM ^Wo~:z, and cdf-ttocLazzi., Dnc C'urUwO, L.' ^^`nc it t (312' ^2*5 S'? 93 "1 1 with the witness while you have got her under 2 examination. I can't physically stop you. 3 MR. CALE: Oh, I know. Okay. Let's just go 4 off the record for a minute. 5 MR. SPEIGHTS: Sure. 6 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 7 off the record. ) 6 BY MR. CALE: - S Q. Ms. Torrey, counsel has established that 1 0 at the time the answers were filed to Judge Wilkins' 1 1 notice interrogatory, the 1934 operating bulletin 1 2 with respect to dusty conditions was not identified 1 3 in the list of documents provided. 1 4 A. Yes . - 1 5 Q. Can you tell us why that was not included 1 6 as best you can recall? . 17 A. I didn't realize at the time I was - 1 8 preparing the responses that that bulletin existed. 1 9 I had a paralegal assisting me and I asked that she 20 secure all the bulletins on the x-ray program, ana I 2 1 spec ifically r e c all asking her to make sure that 22 had them all and t 0 verity that w e had them all 2 3 she informed m e that we had the m all a r. d w e orod 24 t h e m . <W/i ^Roi.s.n&z'Uj cmJ. (2fc.Lc.cu3o, 2Jfc[i.noLi, Q (3". 2j 762-S337 , One. 94 1 Looking at the '43 bulletin now, I see it 2 bears a different bulletin number and I can A ' 3 understand why it may not have been given to her 4 when she asked for all of the x-ray bulletins. 5 There was no intent on our part not tc produce it. 6 I simply had forgotten about the memo. If I had 7 known, I would have produced them irrespective of 8 the aate . _ 9 Q. Am 1 correct that as of the date of the ' 1 0 answers to the notice interrogatory, united States 1 1 Gypsum had already some seven months before provided 1 2 a document showing notice certain hazards of 1 3 asbestos as early as :948? 1 4 A. Yes, and the `54 memorandum also refer re d 1 5 to in that memorandum was produced in response as to 1 6 the notice interrogatory. 1 7 Q . Turning tc 1983 when I believe you 1 8 testified that at least the documents marked as 1 9 Plaintiff's Exhibits 3 -- excuse me -- 2, 3 and 5 20 which are the letter from Mr. Brown to Mr. Offutt, 2 1 the first progress report and the Jersey City stu c>y , 2 2 that they were returned to the Keck, firm, do you 2 3 recall that? 2 4 n7 . T_' co bc , 1 `Tio/P <=/?<> / and azdJ-iLociatci., Jnc. u Cnicac o, Z.Uncii - (3*2; 72'S232 95 1 Q. And could you tell us why they were 2 referred to the Keck firm? 3 A. I was requested by Mr. Snell to have them 4 returned because they were Keck documents. They 5 were not documents of United States Gypsum Company 6 and he felt they belonged with the law firm. 7 Q. And I think you also testified that there 8 was no inventory prepared of those documents when 9 they were returned to the Keck firm nor any 1 0 transmittal letter nor any receipt of which you are 1 1 aware, is that correct? i 1 2 A. That's correct. 1 3 Q. And can you tell us why no documents of 1 4 that type were prepared? _ 1 5 A. Because these were law firm documents . 1 6 being returned to the law firm as their documents, I 1 7 saw no need to retain an inventory of what of theirs 1 8 I had had previously in my possession. No 1 9 transmittal letter was prepared because we i 2 0 frequently dealt with the firm on a telepnone basis 2 1 and that was done in this instance. They knew to* 22 expect it. 2 3 I did not ask that a receiot be prepa 2 4 i nc <z^X>oinL7.zj and t^rj-tiocLaizi <Jr.c. Cnicatjo, e (2 7 2} 712-3027 96 1 knew they were coming. There was no reason to 2 suggest they weren't going to make it there and 3 because they were their documents, I didn't need a 4 receipt for them. 5 Q. During the period that you were 6 responsible for or coordinating the responses to 7 discovery requests in the property damage asbestos 8 litigation, were all of the answers filed by United 9 States Gypsum Company filed in good faith and in 1 0 conformity with the legal judgment of the counsel 1 1 answering them as they interpreted the request being 1 2 made? 1 3 A. Yes. 14 Q. And finally, wi th respec t to you r 1 5 af fidavit in response to the court 's enccmpassment 1 6 interroga torv is that a truthful affidavit? ,, 1 7 A . Yes. 1 8 MR . CAGE: I have no further questions. 1 9 EXAMINATION (Resumed.) 2 0 EY MR. SPEIGHTS: 2 1 0. Ms. Torrey, interrogatory 77 in the 2 2 G r eenviile case and i n the Le x i ng ton c a 2 3 5 z ated "Did y o u *j. -- - e c t t 0 be pe r f o r m e d , 2 4 c ; nance or r e c e V-- o res ult c o f any s \WA?a a i'oifs, tzfyOinn.fjE.xa cirui crfttQciaiEi., (Jnc. Iu (2 7 2' 762-2227 97 1 tests performed by the Saranac Lake Laboratory or 2 the Trudeau Foundation relating to asbestos exposure 3 and its effect on human life, and the answer was "None 4 of which this defendant is currently aware." 5 My understanding is one reason you did not 6 reveal the Brown to Offutt letter and the first 7 progress report was based upon Mr. Snell's judgment 8 that they did not have to be produced. Is that 9 cor rect? . 1 0 A. As I have stated it, yes. i 1 Q. In addition to that, United States Gypsum 1 2 took the position that they did not have to reveal 1 3 such documents because they referred to animal 1 4 studies and the interrogatory referred to asbestos 1 5 exposure and its effect on human life. 1 6 A. That was a position taken at the time fhat 17 answer was drafted. That was one of the positions, i 1 8 yes. 1 9 Q. Is that one of the positions United States 20 Gypsum took in good faith? . 2 1 A. Y e s . A 2 2 Q. You would agree with me, Ms. Terre y, -.hat 2 3 Saranac was not testing animals tc see the effects - 2 4 on animals, that is, we weren't trying to save the H$^ <zf^oi.crc'Uj and ciatzi., One. (2f.ica.GO, 22ifir.o 9 !'3'2,'7c2- SOB7 98 1 rat population of the world, were we? 2 A. 1 don't know, Mr. Speights. I have stated 3 what the position of the company was in 1983. In 4 the intervening years, it has been n:ade clear tha . 5 quote unquote semantic differences would no longer 6 be tolerated. 7 I believe that question and that answer in 8 part falls into what has now been termed semantic - 9 differences. There is nothing more I can state on 1 0 the subject . . 1 1 Q. You would agree with me that we were 1 2 testing rats to determine ultimately the effects of 1 3 asbestos on humans? 1 4 A. I believe I previously testified that I 1 5 knew it was a rat study or guinea pigs or some ' 1 6 animal and that at least in part, one of the reasons 1 7 for the study was to determine if the effect was - one 1 8 of a chemical property or a physical property. 1 9 Q. Because of our concern as to what it might i 2 0 do to human beings? . 2 1 That would have to be the next step. 22 Q . Ms. Tor r e y , I t h ink you have testified 2 3 upo n 0X3.!?:! fi t i o n by M r . 2a 1e that y" ou provided th* e 2 4 19 4 8 bulletin 3, s ear iy a s 1 9 8 3 ? Six. `dVoffs, z/ffoisnlisic and. <zdfi.iLOcLats.it fjnc. I <J dn.za-oo, Ott'.-xoii * (312: 72-SCS? 99 1 A Yes 2 Q. And U.S. Gypsum in fact took the position 3 with Judge Wilkins that 1948 was the earliest date 4 documented date upon which USG had notice of the 5 health effects of asbestos? 6 A. Based upon the information I had available 7 to me and which I recalled at the time, that was the 8 earliest date we could verify from company sources 9 as I have defined company sources. 1 0 Q. But the 1943 document discusses asbestos? 1 1 A . Yes, it does . 1 2 Q. The 1943 document also discusses Saranac, 1 3 doesn't it? 1 4 A. I believe it does. - 15 Q. And the 1948 document nor the 1954 - 1 6 document discuss Saranac, do they? , 1 7 A. Well, the '43 document talks about sending 1 8 preemployment physical information to Saranac for 1 9 evaluation. That's a different aspect of Saranac 2 0 than the '36 agreement on animal studies. . 2 1 Q. The 1943 document at least documents th"t 22 U.S. Gypsum was using Saranac to review ins x-rays? 23 A. May I see it? 2 4 Q. Here it is. _ CZu*.co, ^iLnoi 1 00 1 MR. CALE: Why don't you read it into the 2 record? 3 BY TEE WITNESS: 4 A. The '43 bulletin contains the statement, 5 "Such a medical examination," which is referring to 6 preemployment physicals, "shall include the taking 7 of chest x-rays and interpretation by Saranac 8 Laboratories as set forth in bulletin 4-5," which, 9 bulletin I believe I testified we could not then 1 0 find. Frankly, I don't know if it's ever been found. 1 1 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 1 2 Q. And one of the reasons that you had sent 1 3 or u.S. Gypsum Company would send x-rays to Saranac 1 4 was to see if the person had a past exposure to 1 5 asoestos, correct? 1 6 A. That's a question? 17 Q . Yes. Wasn't tha: one of the reasons? I 1 8 MR. CALE: I don't think that's a full question 1 9 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 20 Q i'asn1 t the reason at least one of the 2 1 reasons tor sen; ing x-rays to Saranac -- strike r.tat 2 2 W ssr. 1 one of the circumstances which 2 3 x-ravs would be send to Saranac, a situation where,a 2 4 oe r so n was r.ire c r ootanriallv would be hired with d'nicaQo. rfff, anA crJ-zzoc-Lo-tEt. {Jna. i 0 (2"' 7c?-?:s7 101 1 a questionable history of exposure to asbestos? f 2 MR. CALE: Object to that question. It's a ` 3 double question. It's the difference between 4 employees and preemployment examinations and I think 5 your question encompassed both. 6 MR. SPEIGHTS: I'll rephrase it. 7 BY MR. SPEIGHTS: 8 Q. Doesn't that bulletin require that persons 9 before they are hired who have a previous exposure' 'r 1 0 to asbestos have x-rays taken and examined by ' 1 1 Saranac? 1 2 A. Let me read the bulletin. I have no 1 3 independent knowledge of the contents of the 1 4 bulletin. It states "It is recommended than before 1 5 any applicant for employment is hired, the history 1 6 of his previous employment be fully developed. if 1 7 there is a questionable history of exposure to _ 1 8 asbestos or silica dust or an indicated partial lung 1 9 disabilities such as TB, the applicant should not be 20 employed until satisfactorily passing a medical 2 1 examination. Such a medical exam, i nation shall 22 include the taking of chest x-rays and their 2 3 interpretation tv Saranac Laboratories as set forth. 24 'otic, rt. and cdJ-*ix>cLatz< , fjn nrr 1 02 1 Q. And, again, the 1948 bulletin and the .1954 A 2 bulletin do not refer to Saranac? 3 A. It's an entirely different bulletin. 4 Q. I understand that. But the bulletins you 5 did supply in 1983 and early 1984 did not refer to 6 Saranac for whatever reason? 7 A. I!ll take your word for it that they don't 8 refer to Saranac. I don't recall that they do. 9 Q. I believe you stated upon questioning by 1 0 Mr. Cale and earlier under my questions that the,, 1 1 issue at the Lexington trial concerning the 1 2 memorandum of agreement was one of authentication? 1 3 A. I'm sorry. Would you just restate what 1 4 youjustsaid? - 15 MR. SPEIGHTS: Read it back, please. ' 16 (WHEREUPON, the record was read .. 17 by the reporter as requested.) - 1 8 BY THE WITNESS: 1 9 A. Yes. 20 BY MR. SPEIGHTS; . 2 1 Q. Did you reveal during the Lexington trial 22 that Mr. Snell had interviewed Mr. Shaver as to 2 3 whether or not that was Mr. Shaver's sic nature? ' 24 nto/^jr, tz/^oi..nz~uj and dfiicazc, dJl^incis ttociaie-i., On ' 2' 7?2-SC'S' 1 03 1 argument. 2 MR. SPEIGHTS: Thank you. That's all I have. 3 Let me ask one thing just as a postscript. I really 4 don't want it as part of the deposition. Is this 5 one file now that's been furnished on the research 6 the same general format as the stack of files? 7 THE WITNESS: In general, yes. 8 FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 04 1 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) SS : 2 COUNTY OF C KERSHAW ) 3 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, COUNTY OF KERSHAW IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 4 KERSHAW COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 5) Plaintiff , ) 6 vs . ) ) No. 85-CP-28-58 7) W.R. GRACE AND CO. , ef al . , ) 8 )- Defend: nts . ) 9 1 0 I hereby certify that I have read the 1 1 foregoing transcript of my deposition given at the 1 2 time and place aforesaid, consisting of Pages 1 to 1 3 103 inclusive, and I do again subscribe and m a * e 1 4 oath that the same is a true, correct and complete 1 5 transcript of my deposition so giver, as aforesaid, 1 6 and includes changes, if any, so made by me. ,, 17 SUZANNE KAY TORREY ' 18 1 9 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this cay 20 of , A.D. 1 9 8 . 21 Norarv Public 22 , a 23 24 \WA7a (2fiicaoo, cmA c^rJ-isocLatzi, jjnc. (312) 7'82-c OS'7 1 05 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS : 2 COUNTY OF C 0 0 K ) _* 3 I, SUSAN M. MARTINO, a Notary Public 4 within and for the County of Cook, State of 5 Illinois, and a Certified Shorthand Reporter of said 6 state, do hereby certify: 7 That previous to the commencement of the 8 examination of the witness, the witness was duly - 9 sworn to testify the whole truth concerning the 1 0 matters herein; ... 1 1 That the foregoing deposition transcript 1 2 was reported stenographically by me, was thereafter 1 3 reduced to typewriting under my personal cirection 1 4 and constitutes a true record of the testimony given 1 5 and the proceedings had; ' 1 6 That the said deposition was taken before 1 7 me at the time and place specified; - 1 8 That the reading and signing by the 1 9 witness of the deposition transcript was agreed upcn 2 C as stated herein; . 2 1 That I am net a relative or employee ori 22 attorney or counsel, nor a relative or employee of 23 such attorney or counsel for any of the parties - 2 4 hereto, nor interested directly or indirectly in the and <^di.tociaizi., {Jnc. .Lcclqo, iJiLinoii # (212) 72-2C57 DEPOSITION DESIGNATION OF ROBERT H. TAYLOR Deposition Taken in School District of Independence Missouri No. 30 v. United States Gypsum Co., et al.f No. CV 84-05334 (Mo. Ci r. Ct. July 25, 1986). i Page 3 7 17 18 19 20 22 23 26 27 28 29 35 38 57 71 72 76 77 Lines - 15-25 2-14 22-25 1-2, 4 6-8, 13 1-12 18-25 1-8 23-5 1-25 1-1, 23 1 17-19 21-23 16-22 16-25 1 12-25 1 1 06 1 outcome of this action. 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my 3 hand and affix my seal of office at Chicago, 4 Illinois, this ^ day of 5 1 9 86 . 6 7 8 9 Notary Public Cook C c jj r. t y , Illinois. My commission expires February 7, 1987; 10 1 1 C.S.R. Certificate No. 84-1990. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ^WoCjz, land cTTiiocsafsi, f]nc. rCt L CO.Q o