Document QJ111ZNvNVz5yr9xLY3aL3kRv

DECEIVED or'; NO. 94-CI-10078 BARON & BUDD IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS 285TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES TO: Mr. Russell W. Budd BARON & BUDD, P.C. The Centrum 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219 Suite 1100 Now comes the Defendant, GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, and files the following Answers to Plaintiffs' Master Set of Interrogatories heretofore propounded by Plaintiffs. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Some of the events which may be relevant to the matters inquired into by these Interrogatories occurred more than thirty-five (35) years ago. In addition, effective April 30, 1965, Georgia-Pacific acquired by merger, all the assets and liabilities of the Bestwall Gypsum Company, which manufactured asbestos-containing products, and Georgia-Pacific continued the manufacture, sale and/or distribution of such products until the cessation of the same at various times thereafter. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. It does not now manufacture, nor has it manufactured since 1977, any asbestos-containing products. As a result of the foregoing factors, many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which these Interrogatories relate are deceased or are otherwise unavailable to Georgia-pacific and investigations to date indicate that at least some documents which might relate to matters inquired into by these Interrogatories may have been destroyed pursuant to Georgia-Pacific'S or Bestwall Gypsum Company's normal record retention policy or are otherwise unable to be found. Georgia-Pacific is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate or confirm the absence of such documents and is also engaged in a continuing investigation with respect to the matters inquired into by these Interrogatories. Unless otherwise stated in an-Answer to a specific Interrogatory, the-Answers set out hereinafter are limited to the period of time during which Georgia-Pacific manufactured asbestos-containing products and to the facilities related to that business. The following is a part of and is incorporated by reference into every Answer provided hereafter: This Answer is accurate as of the date made. However, Georgia-Pacific'S investigation is continuing and Georgia-Pacific cannot exclude the possibility that it may be able to obtain more complete information or even information which indicates that the Answer being supplied is incorrect. Georgia-Pacific objects to answering to this Interrogatory in regard to any period of time other than the period during which it engaged in the manufacture of the asbestos-containing product (s) involved in this case, which ended in 1977, or concerning any facility not related to that business, on the basis that any such Answer would be irrelevant to the subject 2 matter of this case, would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and would be burdensome and oppressive. In addition, Georgia-Pacific objects to answering this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks documents and/or other information protected by the attorney work product or attorney-client privilege. ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES 1. State the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant of each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: The answers to these interrogatories were prepared by the Law Department of Georgia-Pacific after consultation and review of documents and information in its possession which has been drawn from various individuals and sources within the company. It is not possible to list each and every individual who contributed to the reserve of information. 2. State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your correct corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the address of your principal place of business, the name and address of the person or entity authorized to accept service of process on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific Corporation was incorporated in Georgia. Its principal place of business is 133 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia. Its registered agent is C.T. Corporation. It is authorized to do business in the State of Texas. 3. Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale of material containing asbestos fibers? If so, identify the location of the mine(s), the years of its operation, the type of asbestos mined and whether you sold any asbestos to any Defendants in the Bexar County asbestos litigation. 3 ANSWER: No. Neither Georgia-Pacific nor its predecessors have ever mined or sold raw asbestos. 4. Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time manufactured or sold. ANSWER: Defendant manufactured the following products that contained a small amount of asbestos: All Purpose Joint Compound; Bedding Compound; Central Mix; Drywall Adhesive; Joint Compound; Kalite; Laminating Compound-Ready Mix; Lite Acoustic; Patching Plaster; Ready Mix; Spackling Compound; Speed Set; Texture; Topping Compound; and Triple Duty Joint Compound. For products sold, see response to Interrogatory No. 5. 5. Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time marketed or sold. ANSWER:_ - Defendant sold the following which contained a small amount of asbestos: All Purpose Joint Compound; Bedding Compound; Central Mix; Drywall Adhesive; Joint Compound; Kalite; Laminating Compound-Ready Mix; Lite Acoustic; Patching Plaster; Ready Mix; Spackling Compound; Speed Set; Texture; Topping Compound; and Triple Duty Joint Compound. 6. If the answer to one or more of the last three interrogatories is in the affirmative or lists any products, state as to each named product the following: (a) As to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. (b) The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each product mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. (c) The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold. 4 (d) The date each of the named products was placed on the market. (e) A description of the physical (chemical composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage of asbestos put in each product. (f) The date each of the products was removed from the market and no longer sold or distributed and the reason or reasons therefor. (g) The date asbestos was removed from such products, if ever, and the reasons therefor. (h) A description of the physical appearance of each of the named products. (i) A detailed description of the intended uses of the named products. (j) Identify the last year asbestos-containing product. that you sold each ANSWER:- - All Purpose Joint Compound (a) Product was manufactured and sold by Defendant. (b) Georgia-Pacific or its predecessors. (c) All Purpose. (d) Georgia-Pacific first placed All Purpose Joint Compound on the market for national distribution in 1967. Prior to that time, All Purpose may have been available for sale in limited areas. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that All Purpose is a joint compound which contained 0 to 7% chrysotile asbestos. 5 (f) Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free All Purpose Joint Compound. (g) The first asbestos-free formula for All Purpose was in 1973. Asbestos was removed because an asbestos-free product was developed. (h) Dry. (i) This product is used to finish walls and ceilings. (j) The last year asbestos-containing All Purpose was sold was approximately 1977. Bedding Compound (a) Product was manufactured and sold by Defendant. (b) Georgia-Pacific or its predecessors. (c) Bedding Compound. (d) The first year that Georgia-Pacific or its predecessor sold Bedding Compound was 1956. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Bedding Compound was a joint compound which contained 0 to 7% chrysotile asbestos. (f) Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Bedding Compound. (g) The first asbestos-free formula for Bedding Compound was in 1973. Asbestos was removed because an asbestos-free product was developed. (h) Dry. (i) This product is used to finish walls and ceilings. (j) The last year asbestos-containing Bedding Compound was sold was approximately 1977. Central Mix (a) Product was manufactured and sold by Defendant. (b) Georgia-Pacific. (c) Central Mix. (d) 1970. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Central Mix was a joint compound which contained 3% to 7% chrysotile asbestos. (f) Manufacture of Central Mix ended in 1973. this product was discontinued is unknown. The reason (g) Central Mix was discontinued in 1973. replaced with an asbestos-free formula. It was not (h) Dry. - (i) This product was used to finish walls and ceilings. (j) The last year Central Mix was sold was 1973. Drvwall Adhesive (a) Product was manufactured and sold by Defendant. (b) Georgia-Pacific. (c) Drywall Adhesive. (d) 1972. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Drywall Adhesive was a drywall adhesive which contained 0.8% chrysotile asbestos. 7 (f) Manufacture of Drywall Adhesive ended in 1972. reason this product was discontinued is unknown. The (g) Drywall adhesive was discontinued in 1972. replaced with an asbestos-free formula. It was not (h) Dry. (i) Designed to adhere wallboard to wood studs. (j) 1972. Joint Compound (a) Product was manufactured and sold by Defendant. (b) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessors. (c) Joint Compound, Joint System. (d) The first year that Georgia-Pacific or its predecessor sold Joint Compound was 1956. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks - information which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Joint Compound was a joint compound which contained 0 to 6% chrysotile asbestos. (f) Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Joint Compound. (g) Asbestos was removed from Joint Compound in 1974. asbestos-free formula was introduced. An (h) Dry. (i) This product is used to finish walls and ceilings. (j) The last year asbestos-containing Joint Compound was sold was approximately 1977. Kalite (a) Manufactured and sold. 8 (b) Predecessor of Georgia-Pacific. (c) Kalite. (d) 1956. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Kalite was an acoustical plaster which contained 0 to 2.6% chrysotile asbestos. (f) Kalite was removed from the market in 1959 due to poor sales. (g) Kalite was removed from the market. manufactured without asbestos. It was not (h) Dry. (i) Acoustical plaster. (j) The last year asbestos-containing Kalite was sold was 1959. Laminating Compound-Ready Mix (a) This product was manufactured and sold by the Defendant. (b) Georgia-Pacific. (c) Laminating Compound-Ready Mix. (d) 1969. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Laminating Compound-Ready Mix was a laminating compound which contained 0 to 4% chrysotile asbestos. (f) Laminating Compound-Ready Mix was removed from the market in 1969. 9 (g) Laminating Compound-Ready Mix was removed from the market in 1969. It was not manufactured without asbestos. (h) Paste. (i) Laminate wallboard. (j) The last year asbestos-containing Compound-Ready Mix was sold was 1969. Lite Acoustic Laminating (a) This product was manufactured and sold by the Defendant. (b) Predecessor of Georgia-Pacific. . (c) Lite Acoustic. (d) 1958. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Lite Acoustic was an acoustical plaster which contained 25% to 29.09% chrysotil-e asbestos. (f) Manufacture of Lite Acoustic ended in 1964 due to poor sales. (g) Asbestos-containing Lite Acoustic was discontinued in 1964. It was not replaced with an asbestos-free formula. (h) Dry. (i) Acoustical plaster. (j) The last year asbestos-containing Lite Acoustic was sold was 1964. Patching Plaster (a) This product was manufactured and sold by the Defendant. (b) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. (c) Patching Plaster. 10 (i) Ready Mix is used to finish walls or ceilings. (j) The last year asbestos-containing Ready Mix was sold was 1977. Spackling Compound (a) This product was manufactured and sold by the Defendant. (b) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. (c) Spackling Compound. (d) 1956. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Spackling Compound was a joint compound which contained 5.5% chrysotile asbestos. (f) Spackling Compound was discontinued in 1970 or 1971 due to-a lack of market response and poor sales.- (g) Spackling Compound was discontinued in 1970 or 1971. No asbestos-free formula was introduced. (h) Dry. (i) Used to finish walls and ceilings. (j) The last year asbestos-containing Spackling Compound was sold was 1970-1971. Speed Set (a) This product was manufactured and sold by the Defendant. (b) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. (c) Speed Set. (d) 1963. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information 12 which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Speed Set was a joint compound which contained 0 to 6.75% chrysotile asbestos. (f) Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Speed Set. (g) Asbestos was removed from Speed Set in 1974. asbestos-free formula was developed. An (h) Dry. (i) Speed Set is used to finish walls or ceilings. (j) The last year asbestos-containing Speed Set was sold was 1974 . Texture (a) This product was manufactured and sold by the Defendant. (b) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. (c) Certex, Bestex, Texture. (d) 1956. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Texture was a texture which contained 0 to 15% chrysotile asbestos. (f) Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Texture. (g) The first asbestos-free Texture was introduced in 1972. Asbestos was removed because an asbestos-free product was developed. (h) Dry. (i) Texture is used to give a textured appearance to walls or ceilings. 13 (j) The last year asbestos-containing Texture was sold was approximately 1974. Topping Compound (a) This product was manufactured and sold by the Defendant. (b) Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor. (c) Topping. (d) 1956. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Topping Compound was a joint compound which contained 0 to 7% chrysotile asbestos. (f) Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Topping Compound. (g) Asbestos was removed from Topping Compound in 1973. An asbestos-free formula was developed. (h) Dry. (i) Topping Compound is used to finish walls or ceilings. (j) The last year asbestos-containing Topping Compound was sold was approximately 1977. Triple Duty Joint Compound (a) This product was manufactured and sold by the Defendant. (b) Georgia-Pacific. (c) Triple Duty. (d) 1965. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of Plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret, and is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving this 14 objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Triple Duty Joint Compound was a joint compound which contained 0 to 7% chrysotile asbestos. (f) Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Triple Duty Joint Compound. (g) Asbestos was removed from Triple Duty Joint Compound in 1974. An asbestos-free formula was developed. (h) Dry. (i) Triple Duty Joint Compound is used to finish walls or ceilings. (j) The last year asbestos-containing Triple Duty Joint Compound was sold was approximately 1977. Georgia-Pacific does not have specific product information concerning the small number of products containing asbestos which it sold but did not manufacture. 7. Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, - relating to the design, preparation, or introduction into the market of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 still exist? If so, state: (a) A description of each such document. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where the documents are currently located. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that documents concerning the development and introduction of the above-listed products exist and are in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific Law Department. 8. Before distributing, selling, or placing the products listed in your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 into the streams of commerce, were any tests conducted to determine the potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure 15 to, the materials such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The names of the products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person conducting the tests or involved with conducting the tests. (c) The results of the tests. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information concerning ingredients other than asbestos on the grounds that it is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that prior to the time it placed products that contained a small amount of asbestos on the market, Georgia-Pacific did not know or have reason to know that any ingredient in any product which it made was hazardous. To the best of our knowledge, Georgia-Pacific did not conduct medical tests. When Georgia-Pacific first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons using products similar to those manufactured by Georgia-Pacific, it began a reformulation program which resulted in the elimination of asbestos from its asbestos-containing products and/or removal of certain products from its product lines. 9. Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the testing of the products referred to in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: (a) A description of each such document. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory to the extent that prior to the time Georgia-Pacific placed products that contained a small amount of asbestos on the market, 16 Georgia-Pacific did not know or have reason to know that any ingredient in any product which it made was hazardous. To the best of our knowledge, Georgia-Pacific did not conduct medical tests. When Georgia-Pacific first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons appropriately using products similar to those manufactured by this Defendant, Georgia-Pacific immediately began a reformulation program to substitute asbestos in the products. 10. Did Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies make any design changes or modifications as a result of those tests described in responses to Interrogatory No. 8? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The trade names of the products changed. (b) The nature of the changes made and the date of such changes or modifications. (c) The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having caused a change to be made, or having made a change or modification. ANSWER: \ Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory to the extent that prior to the time Georgia-Pacific placed products that contained a small amount of asbestos on the market, Georgia-Pacific did not know or have reason to know that any ingredient in any product which it made was hazardous. When Georgia-Pacific first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons appropriately using products similar to those manufactured by this Defendant, it immediately began a reformulation program to substitute asbestos in its product. 11. After releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use of or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The names of the products tested and the dates of such tests. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests. 17 (c) The results of those tests. (d) Whether, as a result of the tests, any products were removed from the market. (e) The names of all products removed from the market as a result of these tests. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory to the extent that prior to the time Georgia-Pacific placed products that contained a small amount of asbestos on the market, Georgia-Pacific did not know or have reason to know that any ingredient in any product which it made was hazardous. To the best of our knowledge, Georgia-Pacific did not conduct medical tests. When Georgia-Pacific first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons appropriately using products similar to those manufactured by this Defendant, Georgia-Pacific immediately began a reformulation program to substitute asbestos in the products. 12. Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or-character, relating to the potential health hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: . (a) The name of each product. (b) A description of each document and how it relates to each product. (c) The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: To the best of this Defendant's information, prior to the release of the products it manufactured for sale to the public, Georgia-Pacific had no information to indicate that any of its asbestos-containing products presented a health hazard. When Georgia-Pacific received information to indicate a potential health hazard with respect to the appropriate use of products utilized in the building construction industry, Georgia-Pacific began to eliminate asbestos from its products and/or placed caution labels on such products. As of 1977, 18 Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. 13. Did Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of the tests discussed in your response to Interrogatory No. 10 or 13? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The names of the products changed or modified. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having made a change or modification. (c) The nature of the hazard or defect which resulted in such change or modification. ANSWER: To the best of this Defendant's information, prior to the release of the products it manufactured for sale to the public, Georgia-Pacific had no information to indicate that any of its asbestos-containing products presented a health hazard, when Georgia-Pacific received information to indicate a potential health hazard with respect to the appropriate use of products utilized in the building construction industry, Georgia-Pacific began to eliminate asbestos from its products and/or placed caution labels on such products. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. 14. Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material or any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of the asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No. 6? If so, state: (a) The names of each relevant product. (b) The exact wording of each warning statement on each printed material. (c) A description of the printed material other than the warning statement. 19 (d) The method used to distribute the warning to persons likely to use the product. (e) The date each warning was first issued, distributed, or placed on packaging. (f) The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning. (g) The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof. (h) The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, i.e.. the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSWER: In 1973, Georgia-Pacific placed caution labels on products it manufactured which contained small amounts of asbestos. Those caution labels were worded, in accordance with the recommendations of OSHA, as follows: CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS. - AVOID CREATING DUST. BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY-HARM. Where appropriate, the following language appeared: WHEN MIXING OR SANDING, USE APPROVED RESPIRATOR OR USE APPROVED RESPIRATOR WHEN SANDING. Georgia-Pacific is presently investigating the methods by which it distributed other information concerning products containing asbestos. This response will be supplemented when specific information is identified. All presently available information concerning cautions is in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific Law Department. 15. Before 1970, had you received notice that any individual or individuals, other than those Plaintiffs who have filed personal injury actions in Texas State Courts is or are claiming or has or have claimed an injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company or any of its predecessors or subsidiaries before 1970? If so, state: 20 (a) The name and address of each claimant. (b) The date of notice of each claim. (c) A description of the claim. (d) The type of injuries allegedly sustained. (e) The name and address of each attorney who represents each individual making a claim. (f) The style and court number of each claim. (g) The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. ANSWER: No. Before 1970, no personal injury actions were filed against Georgia-Pacific alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. 16. Were your asbestos products distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled and/or sold by companies other than your own? If the answer is affirmative, list the names and addresses of each of those companies, and the products in question. ANSWER: ' See Georgia-Pacific'S answer to Interrogatory No. 4. 17. Did you or any of your predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries have any distributors or sales representatives of asbestos products in the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia? If so, state: (a) The name and address of each such distributor or sales representatives. (b) The years in which such company or person distributed, marketed, or sold your products. (c) What products were distributed, marketed, or sold and in what years. 21 ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific products/ including the small number of products that used to contain asbestos are distributed by the Georgia-Pacific Distribution Division which has branches in . each of these states. Now and for some time, Georgia-Pacific's Distribution Division has not sold any products that contain asbestos. 18. List each employee (including only physicians and/or hygienists) who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals and who has, had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of asbestos. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific has never employed a full-time or part-time physician or medical officer as part of its corporate or divisional staff. Georgia-Pacific has on occasion consulted with physicians regarding employee health matters in regard to various facilities. At present, Georgia-Pacific has a full-time nurse employed at its headquarters -in Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia-Pacific has hired three industrial hygienists. Donald Olson was hired in January 1979 and was replaced by Steven Tochilin in October 1982. Mr. Tochilin was replaced by Rudi Fillingen in April 1988. All have been assigned to corporate headquarters. 19. Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so, state: (a) The name of each such publication. (b) The date of publication and the names of the author and publisher (if any). (c) The date received by Defendant, if known. (d) The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. 22 ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, ambiguous, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it does not specify the time period to which it refers, and the question fails to address the time when any such documents, if any, came into the possession of Georgia-Pacific. In addition, the interrogatory may assume a disputed fact that Georgia-Pacific products are hazardous. Subject thereto, Georgia-Pacific will make available any such documents, if any exist in Georgia-Pacific's records, at a time and place mutually agreed upon. 20. Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of asbestos comprised of other manufacturers, miners, marketers, and/or sellers of asbestos products? If so, state: (a) The name and address of each such association or organization. (b) The dates during which Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors were members. (c) The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations. (d) Whether any of those publications are still in your possession, and if so: (i) A description of the publications, including the date. (ii) The current location of such publications. (iii) The custodian of such publications. (iv) The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. 23 ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific was a member of the Gypsum Association, a trade organization which dealt primarily with issues relating to gypsum-based products. This organization did from time to time address issues relating to the use of gypsum-based products. Minutes of meetings of some Gypsum Association meetings, found in Georgia-Pacific's files, are in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific Law Department. 21. Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products listed in your answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 were manufactured, assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing, specifying which plants produced each item, the dates each plant is or was in operation, and the time span during which each named item was produced or manufactured. ANSWER: The plant in Acme, Texas, has been in operation from 1956 through the present. It manufactured Joint Systems, Lite Acoustic and Kalite, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. The Blue Rapids, Kansas, plant has been in operation from 1956 through the present. It manufactured Joint Systems and Lite Acoustic, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. The Ford Dodge, Iowa, plant has been in operation from 1956 through the present. It manufactured Joint Systems and Lite Acoustic, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. The Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant has been in operation from 1956 through the present. It manufactured Lite Acoustic, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. The Sigurd, Utah, plant has been in operation from 1956 through the present. It manufactured Joint Systems and Lite Acoustic, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. The Brunswick, Georgia, plant has been in operation from 1959 through the present. It manufactured Joint Systems and Lite Acoustic, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. 24 The Chicago, Illinois, plant has been in operation from 1967 through the present. It manufactured Joint Systems, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. The Marietta, Georgia, plant has been in operation from 1969 through the present. It manufactured Joint Systems, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. The Milford, Virginia, plant has been in operation from 1974 through the present. It manufactured Joint Systems, in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. 22. Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes of marketing or advertising products containing asbestos? If so, state: (a) The name, address, and job title of each person or entity who prepared such materials. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials and their present location. (c) The date the materials were prepared. - (d) The. media used to disseminate the sales materials. ANSWER: For each product manufactured by Georgia-Pacific which contained a small amount of asbestos, printed sales literature was prepared at the time the product was made. The literature found in Georgia-Pacific's files is currently in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific Law Department. 23. Have any written or printed materials or instructions of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents indicating how asbestos products should be used and maintained? If so, state: (a) The name, address, and job title of each person who prepared such materials or instructions or assisted in their preparation. 25 (b) The name, address and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials or instructions and their present location. (c) The dates of distribution or use and the manner in which such materials or instructions were distributed to purchasers of Defendant's products or those of its subsidiaries or predecessors. (d) The year each such written material or instruction was prepared and disclosed to potential consumers. ANSWER: For each product manufactured by Georgia-Pacific which contained a small amount of asbestos, instructions on use of the product was printed on the packaging and in brochures. The materials found in Georgia-Pacific's files are currently in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific Law Department. 24. Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claims made by Plaintiffs in these cases? If so, list the name of each insurance carrier, the amount of initial coverage, amount of coverage remaining at the present time, and the effective dates of each policy. (If properly answered, this Interrogatory need not be supplemented as to the remaining, amount of coverage) . ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that the preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden upon Georgia-Pacific. Without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it is uncertain as to its insurance coverage for Plaintiffs' claims, in that issues relating to such coverage have not yet been fully resolved with Georgia-Pacific's carriers and, further, does not have sufficient facts to determine which, if any, of Georgia-Pacific's carriers should provide coverage for Plaintiffs' claims. 25. As to the disease asbestosis, state: 26 (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. (b) How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease. (c) Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease and/or of asbestos exposure. (d) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (e) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. (f) Who is the custodian of such information. (g) The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, seeks medical conclusions, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Further, the interrogatory requests information which goes well beyond the standard of knowledge and care required of Georgia-Pacific under Texas law in that it requests information regarding circumstances which have no applicability to the types of products manufactured by this Defendant or the circumstances reasonably anticipated for users of this Defendant's products. Without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons using products similar to those manufactured by Georgia-Pacific in 1970. Georgia-Pacific began a reformulation program which resulted in the elimination of asbestos from its asbestos-containing products and/or removal of certain products from its product lines. It is believed that the first persons to receive such information were Glenn Wilson, Charles W. Lehnert and M.F. Fink. Georgia-Pacific has no independent medical expertise regarding the specific health effects of asbestos, however, Georgia-Pacific is aware of 27 information provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration which relates to a causal connection with asbestos (see 29 C.F.R. 1926, 58 appendices H-I). 26. As to the disease lung cancer, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. (b) How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure. (c) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of the asbestos exposure. (d) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (e) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form. - (f) Who. is the custodian of such information. (g) The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad,, seeks medical conclusions, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Further, the interrogatory requests information which goes well beyond the standard of knowledge and care required of Georgia-Pacific under Texas law in that it requests information regarding circumstances which have no applicability to the types of products manufactured by this Defendant or the circumstances reasonably anticipated for users of this Defendant's products. Without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons appropriately using its products in the building construction industry in 1970 and immediately began a 28 reformulation program to substitute asbestos from the products. It is believed that the first persons to receive such information were Glenn Wilson, Charles W. Lehnert and M.F. Fink. Georgia-Pacific has no independent medical expertise regarding the specific health effects of asbestos, however, Georgia-Pacific is aware of information provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration which relates to a causal connection with asbestos (see 29 C.F.R. 1926, 58 appendices H-I). 27. As to pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. (b) How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure. (c) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of the asbestos exposure. (d) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (e) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form. (f) Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, seeks medical conclusions, is argumentative and assumes there is such a disease recognized by the medical community, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Further, the interrogatory requests information which goes well beyond the standard of knowledge and care required of Georgia-Pacific under Texas law in that it requests information regarding circumstances which have no applicability to the types of products manufactured by this Defendant or the circumstances reasonably anticipated for 29 users of this Defendant's products. Without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons appropriately using its products in the building construction industry in 1970 and immediately began a reformulation program to substitute asbestos from the products. It is believed that the first persons to receive such information were Glenn Wilson, Charles W. Lehnert and M.F. Fink. Georgia-Pacific has no independent medical expertise regarding the specific health effects of asbestos, however, Georgia-Pacific is aware of information provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration which relates to a causal connection with asbestos (see 29 C.F.R. 1926, 58 appendices H-I). 28. As to the disease mesothelioma, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. (b) The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. (c) How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. (d) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of the asbestos exposure. (e) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (f) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form. (g) Who is the custodian of such information. (h) Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. 30 ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, seeks medical conclusions, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Further, the interrogatory requests information which goes well beyond the standard of knowledge and care required of Georgia-Pacific under Texas law in that it requests information regarding circumstances which have no applicability to the types of products manufactured by this Defendant or the circumstances reasonably anticipated for users of this Defendant's products. Without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons appropriately using its products in the building construction industry in 1970 and immediately began a reformulation program to substitute asbestos from the products. It is believed that the first persons to receive such information were Glenn Wilson, Charles W. Lehnert and M.F. Fink. Georgia-Pacific has no independent medical expertise regarding the specific health effects of asbestos, however, Georgia-Pacific is aware of information provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration which relates to a causal connection with asbestos (see 29 C.F.R. 1926, 58 appendices H-I). - 29. As to gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer, state: (a) The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such diseases were caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. (b) What cancers has the Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers? (c) The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation. (d) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects of the asbestos exposure. (e) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. 31 (f) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form. (g) Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, seeks medical conclusions, assumes facts not in evidence and/or not recognized by the medical community, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Further, the interrogatory requests information which goes well beyond the standard of knowledge and care required of Georgia-Pacific under Texas law in that it requests information regarding circumstances which have no applicability to the types of products manufactured by this Defendant or the circumstances reasonably anticipated for users of this Defendant's products. Without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons appropriately using its products in the building construction industry in 1970 and immediately began a reformulation program to substitute asbestos from the products. It is believed that the first persons to receive such information were Glenn Wilson, Charles W. Lehnert and M.F. Fink. Georgia-Pacific does not have independent medical expertise concerning the specific health effects of asbestos exposure, however, Georgia-Pacific does not believe that it has been shown convincingly that asbestos exposure causes gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer. 30. Does Defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactured or designed so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or exposed to them? If the answer is affirmative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys on which this answer is based. ANSWER: When Georgia-Pacific first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to people using products similar to those manufactured by Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific immediately began a reformulation program to substitute asbestos from its products. Now, no Georgia-Pacific products contain asbestos . 32 31. Describe in detail the types of packages or packaging which Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies used for asbestos material or products, listing the dates each type of package was used, a physical description of each type of package, and providing a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific used bags, boxes and cans throughout the time the products were sold. The labels contained the brand and product names. 32. Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos materials or asbestos products? If so, state, as to each such agreement: (a) The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products. (b) The trade name affixed to those products. (c) The periods of time covered by each such agreement. (d) The. volume, in dollar amount, of each transaction. (e) The initial purchaser of the products. ANSWER: In the mid 1960's and early 1970's, Georgia-Pacific sold some asbestos-containing products to Johns-Manville, Flintkote Corporation and Big Horn. Such products would have been sold under the buyer's label. 33. List the name and address of each company from which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor purchased materials or asbestos products which Defendant sold or distributed in any form, stating the form of the materials, the dates of such purchases, and the ultimate disposal of such materials. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information concerning materials other than asbestos. Without waiving these objections, raw asbestos was 33 purchased at various times from Union Carbide (1970-1977), Johns-Manville (1956-1976) and Phillip Carey (1970-1977). It was used in the manufacture of products which contained small amounts of asbestos. 34. Does Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessor currently have possession of any writings or contracts on those rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to Interrogatory No. 32? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The name, address, and job title of each person having custody of each of those documents and their current location. (b) A brief description of each such document, including the dates and the parties signatory. ANSWER: All records relating to Georgia-Pacific's manufacture of asbestos-containing products are in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific Law Department. 35. Prior to 1968, did any person file a claim against a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any of- its or its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he/she contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers? If so, provide: (a) A list of the claims, including each claimant's name, address and the date each claim was filed, and including the caption and jurisdiction of the claim. (b) The disease alleged in each such claim. (c) A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim. (d) The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Prior to 1968, no worker's compensation claims were filed against Georgia-Pacific alleging contraction of a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers. 36. Did Defendant or any of its or its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which 34 reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? If so, for each such set of minutes, state: (a) The dates of each such meeting. (b) The general subject matter discussed at each meeting. (c) Who was in attendance at each meeting. (d) Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained. (e) By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format. (f) whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, nd if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to the extent this interrogatory is unduly broad. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of our knowledge, there were no discussions regarding asbestos that were held at board meetings during the specified time period. 37. Do you or any of your subsidiaries, including foreign business entities, currently manufacture any products containing asbestos? If so, state: (a) As to each product, whether such product is mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold. (b) The names and addresses of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each of those products. (c) The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. (d) The date each of the named products was placed on the market. (e) A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product. 35 (f) A description of the physical appearance of each product and its packaging. (g) A detailed description of the intended uses of each of the named products. (h) Whether there are any warning labels on said products or containers regarding potential asbestos-related health hazards. ANSWER: No. Since 1977, neither Georgia-Pacific nor any of its subsidiaries have made any products that contain asbestos. 38. State whether you or any of your predecessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies of invoices, shipping documents, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the mining, manufacture, marketing, sale or distribution of asbestos products. If so, state: (a) The location of such documents. (b) The name and address of the custodian of the documents. (c) The. format in which the documents are kept, i ,e. . hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. (d) In what form the documents can be assessed, i ,e. . by state, by product, etc., and if by product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific never mined asbestos. Sales and other business records pertaining to all products, including the few which contained small amounts of asbestos were maintained. A diligent effort has been made to gather these records. They are in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific Law Department and are maintained in the manner in which they were kept in the ordinary course of business. 39. Will you call company representatives as witnesses at the trial of any of these cases? If so, list: (a) The name, address, and job title of each company representative who may be called. 36 (b) A summary of the testimony expected to be given by each such witness. (c) List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs in that case. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney work product immunity, third-party communications privilege and investigative privilege pursuant to Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and further asks Georgia-Pacific to engage in speculation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Georgia-Pacific may call company representatives at trial but cannot presently identify the individuals who may be called. Georgia-Pacific reserves the right to supplement its responses to this interrogatory. 40. Have Defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, processes, distributed, or contracted or supplied products containing asbestos? If so, for each such entity, state: (a) Full and correct name; (b) Principal place of business; (c) State of incorporation; (d) Date of acquisition by Defendant; (e) Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in the State of Texas. ANSWER: (a) Bestwall Gypsum Company. (b) Paoli, Pennsylvania. (c) Maryland. 37 (d) April 30, 1965. (e) Yes. 41. Was each of your asbestos products generally expected to reach, or packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? If not, with respect to any such product, explain in what way the Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific believes its products were not expected to be altered before reaching the consumer. 42. For each asbestos-containing product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6, identify all foreseeable users such as insulators, helpers, pipefitters, welders, machinists, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, boilermakers, shipwrights and riggers, etc. of any of Defendant's asbestos-containing products. . - ANSWER: . Drywall finishers were the foreseeable users of Georgia-Pacific'S products which contained a small amount of asbestos. Insulators, helpers, pipefitters, welders, machinists, boiler makers, shipwrights, and riggers were not foreseeable users, and could not have properly used any Georgia-Pacific asbestos-containing products in the ordinary course of their type of work. 43. Based upon the material contents of your asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, can such products be generally applied without liberating asbestos fibers into the air? (a) If there is a different answer concerning different products manufactured, sold, distributed, or used by your company, then specify the different products by precise manufacturer's name and popular name. (b) If there is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in which a particular product was used, 38 then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you are referring to and year involved. ANSWER: Yes. Georgia-Pacific believes that its products which contained a small amount of asbestos did not release asbestos fibers when applied. 44. Was it a foreseeable use of your asbestos-containing products that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced at some time after installation? ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Removal replacement or stripping is not a "use." Georgia-Pacific'S products which contained a small amount of asbestos were intended to be used as a finish to walls or ceilings. 45. Before 1970, did you or your subsidiaries or predecessor(s) ever arrange for any labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company to go t-o job sites where your products were being used or installed to make or take dust level counts? If so, state when this procedure started, the purpose of such procedures, and all results of such procedures. ANSWER: No. To the best of our knowledge, Georgia-Pacific did not arrange any dust level counts on job sites prior to 1970. 46. If Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 45. 47. Has your company or its or its subsidiaries or predecessor(s) ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies designed to assist in minimizing or eliminating the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use of your company's products? If so, give the following: 39 (a) Name of the person or firm conducting such studies; (b) The date the studies beganand the date completed; they were (c) Any publication or other written dissemination of the results of the studies; (d) The nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers. ANSWER: Defendant is continuing to gather such information and reserves the right to supplement its response to this interrogatory when this information is compiled. 48. Does your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiariesever had, a Research Department? If so, give the year such Research Department was established, and whether or not such Research Department has operated continuously since being established. State also: (a) The amount of time and money expended each year on researchconcerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products? (b) What percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessor(s) spend on research concerning the health effects of asbestos? (c) State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities or (sic) such Research Department. ANSWER: Defendant's Gypsum Division Research & Development Department was involved primarily in product development, including laboratory and field testing, of a technical nature and as such was not involved specifically in the study of the medical or health effects of any raw material. However, had the members of such department been advised by a raw material supplier or other source of an alleged hazard associated with raw materials being used, such information would have been transmitted to appropriate persons within the company. It would be impossible at this point to determine the total time or money spent exclusively in asbestos-containing product related research. 40 49. Does your company have, or has it ever had, or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a Medical Department? If so, state: (a) The year such Medical Department was established; (b) Whether or not such Medical Department has operated continuously since being established; (c) The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Medical Director or Medical Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; (d) State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department. ANSWER: To the best of our knowledge, Georgia-Pacific has never had its own internal medical department. 50. Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever place any warning directly on any of its asbestos-containing product-or on their packaging. If so, identify the product(s) and year said warning was first applied. ANSWER: ' Caution labels concerning asbestos were placed on packaging for Georgia-Pacific asbestos-containing products in 1973. 51. Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever stamp or place the name of the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any of its asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the name brand names of such products, a description of such stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. ANSWER: No. Georgia-Pacific did not place any name or logo on its asbestos-containing products. 52. Has your company, or your predecessor (s) or subsidiaries, ever devised a research plan to develop, or actually developed or had developed, a product which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for one or more of your 41 asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date that such research plan was begun and when such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. ANSWER: In 1970, Georgia-Pacific began a reformulation program to substitute asbestos from its asbestos-containing products. The first asbestos-free formula was introduced onto the market in 1972 and additional asbestos-free products were introduced thereafter. 53. Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever recall any products containing asbestos from the market or stream of commerce? If so, state: (a) All details of such recall; (b) The name of the product recalled, including the reason for the recall and the names and current addresses of those individuals who determined that it should take place,- (c) The dates of recall; (d) The purpose for the recall. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific is not aware of any such recall. 54. Before 1970, did you ever manufacture or sell products which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date such asbestos-free products were first placed on the market. ANSWER: No. There were no substitutes for asbestos-containing products like those manufactured by Georgia-Pacific prior to 1970. 55. Have any products you identified in your Interrogatory Nos. 52 and 54 not performed Please list all such products that have not intended. response to as intended? performed as 42 ANSWER: During product development, Georgia-Pacific researchers worked toward solving a variety of performance problems involving products manufactured without asbestos. Defendant is continuing to gather such information and reserves the right to supplement its response to this interrogatory when this information is compiled. 56. Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever make, order, or arrange for any industrial hygiene surveys regarding asbestos or asbestos-containing dust? If so, give the date of such surveys and state who, or what entity, was responsible for completion of such surveys. ANSWER: Defendant is continuing to gather such information and reserves the right to supplement its response to this interrogatory when this information is compiled. 57. As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: - (a) The. year in which Defendant or any predecessor(s) or subsidiaries were first advised of such limits or concentrations; (b) The name of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice; (c) How Defendant received notice of such limits concentrations. ANSWER: or Georgia-Pacific is unable to state when or how it first became aware of threshold limit values for asbestos dust or total dust recommended by the American Conference of Governments Industrial Hygienists. 58. Were the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory No. 63 for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone? 43 ANSWSK: Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory No. 57. 59. State in detail what tests, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing your asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific manufactured a few products which contained small amounts of chrysotile asbestos. When Georgia-Pacific first heard information which suggested that there might be a potential health hazard to persons using products similar to those manufactured by Georgia-Pacific, it began a reformulation program which resulted in the elimination of asbestos from its asbestos-containing products and/or removal of certain products from its product lines. Further, Georgia-Pacific, as a member of the Gypsum Association, received information from that association's study of the nature and extent of exposure to asbestos by persons reasonably expected to be using such products. 60. Please state the following with respect to each expert witness you that you (sic) may call during trial of these cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you will call, including: (a) The name, address, and job classification of each such expert witness,- (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion,- (d) Whether any person identified in subparagraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify each such document or report; (e) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above; 44 (f) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information concerning expert witnesses other than those whom it will call to testify at trial and exceeds the scope of Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states it has not identified any experts which it will call, however, it reserves the right to supplement its response to this interrogatory. 61. Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge of facts relevant to these cases involving, but not limited to: (a) Identification of asbestos-containing products to which each and every individual Plaintiff, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, allegedly was exposed or facts disputing the identification of asbestos-containing products in this case. (b) Each and every individual Plaintiff's, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged damages, injuries and/or facts disputing each and every Plaintiff's alleged damages and/or injuries; (c) The negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of each and every individual Plaintiff's, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged injuries and/or damages; (d) Each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed Answer in each of these cases. 45 ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is protected by attorney-client privilege or work product prepared in anticipation of litigation, the investigative privilege and/or the third-party communications privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, discovery has not been conducted yet in individual Plaintiff's cases to whom these Master Interrogatories pertain. Therefore, Georgia-Pacific is unable to respond to these interrogatories as to any particular Plaintiff. 62. Please identify documents which will be used at time of trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is protected by attorney-client privilege or work product prepared in anticipation of litigation, and further seeks information not subject to discovery pursuant to the investigative and third-party communications privilege set forth in Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and also asks Georgia-Pacific to engage in speculation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it has not identified documents which it will introduce at the trial of this lawsuit. 63. When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels", published in January, 1946 in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene & Toxicology, and authored by W. Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al ("the Fleischer-Drinker Report")? (a) Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; (b) Please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Fleischer-Drinker" study prior to 1968; (c) Please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; 46 (d) Please identify the name(s) and address(es) of any person(s) who can verify your above response; (e) Did Defendant ever rely on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; (f) If so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 63(a) above; (g) If your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above? ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific has been unable to find any information that states when this report was received. 64. When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy of-the article entitled "A Study of Asbestos in the Asbestos Textile Industry", published in 1938 in Public Health Bill, No. 241, U.S. Public Health Service and authored by W. (c) Dreessen ("the Dreessen Report")? (a) Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; (b) Please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Dreessen" study prior to 1968; (c) Please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; (d) Please identify the name(s) and address(es) of any person (s) who can verify your above response,- (e) Did Defendant ever rely on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk of asbestosrelated health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; 47 (f) If so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 63(a) above; (g) If your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Dreessen report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63 (e) above? ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific has been unable to find any information that states when this article was received. Respectfully submitted. J. MICHAEL MYERS State Bar No. 14760800)^' Direct Line; (210) 731-6309 BALL & WEED, P.C. - A Professional Corporation Trinity Plata II, Suite 500 745 East Mulberry San Antonio, Texas 78212 (210) 731-6300 Telecopier No. (210) 731-6499 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION 48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleadings has been sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to: Mr. Russell W. Budd BARON & BUDD, P.C. The Centrum 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219 Suite 1100 and by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to all other known counsel of record on this the / *7 fw day of October, 1994. J."MICHAEL MYERS JMM/cb/89242 49 NO. 94-CI-10078 BARON & BUDD IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS 285TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO: Mr. Russell W. Budd BARON & BUDD, P.C. The Centrum 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219 Suite 1100 Now comes Defendant, GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, and files its Responses to Requests for Production propounded by Plaintiffs: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Some of the events which may be relevant to the matters inquired into by these Requests for Production occurred more than thirty-five (35) years ago. In addition, effective April 30, 1965, Georgia-Pacific acquired by merger, all the assets and liabilities of the Bestwall Gypsum Company, which manufactured asbestos-containing products, and Georgia-Pacific continued the manufacture, sale and/or distribution of such products until the cessation of the same at various times thereafter. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. It does not now manufacture, nor has it manufactured since 1977, any asbestos-containing products. As a result of the foregoing factors, many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which these Requests for Production relate are deceased or are otherwise unavailable to Georgia-Pacific and investigations to date indicate that at lease some documents which might relate to matters inquired into by these Requests for Production may have been destroyed pursuant to Georgia-Pacific's or Bestwall Gypsum Company's normal record retention policy or are otherwise unable to be found. Georgia-Pacific is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate or confirm the absence of such documents and is also engaged in a continuing investigation with respect to the matters inquired into by these Requests for Production. Unless otherwise stated in a response to a specific Request for Production, -the Replies set out hereinafter are limited to the period of .time during which Georgia-Pacific manufactured asbestos-containing products and to the facilities related to that business. The following is a part of and is incorporated by reference into every response provided hereinafter: This response is accurate as of the date made. However, Georgia-Pacific's investigation is continuing and Georgia-Pacific cannot exclude the possibility that it may be able to obtain more complete information or even information which indicates that the response being supplied is incorrect. Georgia-Pacific objects to responding to this Request for Production in regard to any period of time other than the period during which it engaged in the manufacture of the asbestos-containing product(s) involved in this case, which ended in 1977, or concerning any facility not related to that business, on the basis that any such response would be irrelevant to the subject matter of this case, would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 2 evidence, and would be burdensome and oppressive. In addition, Georgia-Pacific objects to responding to this Request for Production to the extent that it seeks documents and/or other information protected by the attorney work product or attorney-client privilege. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1. Please produce a true and correct copy of each photograph of each asbestos-containing product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 4. RESPONSE: Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that documents will be made available for Plaintiffs' inspection at a mutually agreed upon time and place. 2. Please produce any diagrams or schematics indicating, stating or detailing the existence of any of your subsidiaries, predecessors, or divisions as defined on Page 1 of these Interrogatories and Request for Production. RESPONSE: Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. Without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that to the best of our knowledge, no such diagram or schematic exists. 3. Please produce copies of all reports of Defendants' experts and any and all documents relied upon by such experts. RESPONSE: Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to the extent that this Request seeks production of documents protected by the consulting expert privilege under Rule 166b(3) (b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Georgia-Pacific will present its testifying experts in this case for deposition, and produce its reports at said time. 3 Respectfully submitted, J. MICHAEL MYERS State Bar No. 14760800 Direct Line: (210) 731-6309 BALL & WEED, P.C. A Professional Corporation 745 East Mulberry, Suite 500 San Antonio, Texas 78212 (210) 731-6300 Telecopier No. (210) 731-6499 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to: Mr. Russell W. Budd BARON & BUDD, P.C. The Centrum . 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219 Suite 1100 - and by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to all other known counsel of record on this the ^ *?C- day of October, 1994. JMM/cb/89254 4 RECEIVED NO. 94-CI-10078 BARON & BUDD IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS 285TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO: Mr. Russell W. Budd BARON & BUDD, P.C. The Centrum 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219 Suite 1100 Now comes Defendant, GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, and files its Responses to Requests for Production propounded by Plaintiffs-. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Some of the events which may be relevant to the matters inquired into by these Requests for Production occurred more than thirty-five (35) years ago. In addition, effective April 30, 1965, Georgia-Pacific acquired by merger, all the assets and liabilities of the Bestwall Gypsum Company, which manufactured asbestos-containing products, and Georgia-Pacific continued the manufacture, sale and/or distribution of such products until the cessation of the same at various times thereafter. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. It does not now manufacture, nor has it manufactured since 1977, any asbestos-containing products. As a result of the foregoing factors, many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which these Requests for Production relate are deceased or are otherwise unavailable to Georgia-Pacific and investigations to date indicate that at lease some documents which might relate to matters inquired into by these Requests for Production may have been destroyed pursuant to Georgia-Pacific's or Bestwall Gypsum Company's normal record retention policy or are otherwise unable to be found. Georgia-Pacific is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate or confirm the absence of such documents and is also engaged in a continuing investigation with respect to the matters inquired into by these Requests for Production. Unless otherwise stated in a response to a specific Request for Production, -the Replies set out hereinafter are limited to the period of .time during which Georgia-Pacific manufactured asbestos-containing products and to the facilities related to that business. The following is a part of and is incorporated by reference into every response provided hereinafter: This response is accurate as of the date made. However, Georgia-Pacific's investigation is continuing and Georgia-Pacific cannot exclude the possibility that it may be able to obtain more complete information or even information which indicates that the response being supplied is incorrect. Georgia-Pacific objects to responding to this Request for Production in regard to any period of time other than the period during which it engaged in the manufacture of the asbestos-containing product(s) involved in this case, which ended in 1977, or concerning any facility not related to that business, on the basis that any such response would be irrelevant to the subject matter of this case, would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 2 evidence, and would be burdensome and oppressive. In addition, Georgia-Pacific objects to responding to this Request for Production to the extent that it seeks documents and/or other information protected by the attorney work product or attorney-client privilege. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1. Please produce a true and correct copy of each photograph of each asbestos-containing product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 4. RESPONSE: Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that documents will be made available for Plaintiffs' inspection at a mutually agreed upon time and place. 2. Please produce any diagrams or schematics indicating, stating or detailing the existence of any of your subsidiaries, predecessors, or divisions as defined on Page 1 of these Interrogatories and Request for Production. RESPONSE: Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. Without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that to the best of our knowledge, no such diagram or schematic exists. 3. Please produce copies of all reports of Defendants' experts and any and all documents relied upon by such experts. RESPONSE: Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to the extent that this Request seeks production of documents protected by the consulting expert privilege under Rule 166b(3)(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Georgia-Pacific will present its testifying experts in this case for deposition, and produce its reports at said time. 3 Respectfully submitted, J. MICHAEL MYERS State Bar No. 14760800 Direct Line: (210) 731-6309 BALL & WEED, P.C. A Professional Corporation 745 East Mulberry, Suite 500 San Antonio, Texas 78212 (210) 731-6300 Telecopier No. (210) 731-6499 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to: Mr. Russell W. Budd BARON & BUDD, P.C. The Centrum . 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219 Suite 1100 - and by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to all other known counsel of record on this the ^ 7day of October, 1994. MICHAEL MYERS JMM/cb/89254 4