Document QMJ6Jab4jvbqN7ZyzR4ab2Kj7

CAUSE NO. 00-03333-D JAMES WAYNE BANKS, ET AL VS. GAF CORPORATION, ET AL e IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 95th JUDICIAL DISTRICT EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED TO PREMISES DEFENDANTS TO: Plaintiff, James W. Banks, et al by and through his attorney of record, Leanne Jackson, BARON & BUDD, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. COMES NOW, EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION incorrectly sued as EXXON CORPORATION, one ofthe Defendants in the above styled cause, and makes and files its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Request for Admissions Propounded to Premises Defendants. Respectfully submitted, STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON, BISSELL & LEDYARD, L.L.P. 24594/183680 (jDavid W^Ledyard State Bar No. 1210940CT 14th Floor, San Jacinto Building Beaumont, Texas 77701-3255 (409)981-1000 FAX(409)981-1010 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, EXXON MOBIL OIL CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This will verify that a true and correct copy ofExxon Mobil Oil Corporation's Response to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Request for Production has been furnished to counsel for plaintiff, by certified mail, return receipt requested, and to all other known counsel ofrecord by regular U.S. Mail, on this 20th day of October, 2000. 24594/183680 2 B. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DEFINITIONS 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "Defendant", "you", "your", and "your company". To the extent the terms can be read to refer to Defendant's attorneys, any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any ofthese terms necessarily invades the work product privilege in violation of Rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 503 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. To the extent the terms are defined to include predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates, as well as present and former officers, directors, agents, employees and other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of the corporate defendant, any interrogatory or request for production utilizing these terms is so overly broad, and over burdensome as to make any request or interrogatory utilizing the term virtually impossible to answer. Further, to the extent the definition is defined to include any merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates, any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any of these terms is necessarily overly broad, over burdensome, and calls for material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs apparent attempt to place upon Defendant the burden to seek information from former officers, directors, agents and employees over whom Defendant no longer has dominion or control. Any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any ofthese terms is a "fishing expedition" in violation of Texas law as concerns discovery. 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "document", "documents", "written materials", or "printed matter" as the definition of those terms renders any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any of these terms overly broad, over burdensome, harassing, and reduces any such interrogatory or request for production to a "fishing expedition" in violation of Texas law concerning discovery. Defendant further objects to the definition of these terms as calling for the production ofmaterial or information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the definition of these terms to the extent it purports to include an obligation to locate and produce information or documentation which is no longer in the possession or control ofthis Defendant or from entities who are not parties to this cause of action. 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition ofthe words "meeting" or "meetings" as any interrogatory or request for production utilizing those terms is overly broad, and over burdensome in that it purports to require documentation or information concerning any casual or coincidental meeting. 4. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition ofthe term "years at issue" as the definition assumes that Plaintiff worked on the premises of Defendant for the entire period reflected in the definition, which is denied. Any request for admission or production utilizing this term is overly broad, burdensome and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Defendant objects to the stated definition of the terms "products containing asbestos fiber", "asbestos 24594/183680 3 containing products" and "asbestos products" on the grounds it is overly broad, vague and not limited to the matters made the basis of this lawsuit and therefore, seeks disclosure of information and/or the production of documentation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 24594/183680 4 DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories, state the name, address, job title, length oftime employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: These responses were prepared based on information gathered by defense counsel along with assistance of in-house counsel and other legal staff. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that Defendant ordered, purchased or otherwise acquired asbestos-containing products, asbestoscontaining friction products, and/ormachinery requiring the use ofasbestos or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on this Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, it is admitted that Defendant purchased certain asbestoscontaining products at certain times and for use in certain locations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 24594/183680 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products were utilized on Defendant's Premises between the years 1964 and 1987. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and overly broad and to the extent it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffwas allegedly on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff was allegedly present, nor the area(s)within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly present. Defendant objects to this request as the term "utilized" is vague, ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations in the context of this suit. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, it is admitted that Defendant utilized certain asbestos containing products at certain locations and at certain times. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Ifyou admit the foregoing request, please list all asbestos-containing products used at Defendant's Premises and for each product state the following: a. What these products were used for b. From whom these products were purchased c. Where these products were installed d. Specific persons or contractors who install these products e. The first year each product was no longer purchased and installed on Defendant's premises. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly was present on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly was present, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all ordering and sales documents pertaining to the purchase or acquisition of such asbestoscontainingproducts for use at Defendant's Premises, including but not limited to invoices, price quotations, purchase orders, requisitions, bills of lading, and other purchasing and/or shipping documents of the similar nature. 24594/183680 6 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly was present on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly was present, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly was present. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that during the time Plaintiffwas employed by Defendant, it was foreseeable that asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises would or could be removed, stripped, replaced or repaired at some time after installation. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because this request is vague, ambiguous and argumentative because the request assumes Plaintiff on Defendant's premises. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any area within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present and, therefore, is not relevant. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as Plaintiff was not an employee of this Defendant INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please state whether any asbestos-containing products in place or in use at Defendant's Premises have been abated at any time. a. If so, list each person or company that performed such abatement services (including address and telephone number) b. State the dates and locations of each abatement procedure; c. State which asbestos-containing products were abated. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the extent this interrogatory is not limited to premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor to the areas within Defendant's premises Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further this interrogatory is overly broad in that it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims are based. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 24594/183680 7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce all documents that in any way pertain to abatement ofasbestos-containing materials on Defendant's Premises, including but not limited to a removal plan or organized written criteria or schedule for the removal of asbestos at Defendant's Premises, and in operation and maintenance plan. RESPONSE: . Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the extent this request is not limited to premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked nor to the areas within Defendant's premises Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further Defendant objects to the phrase "operation and maintenance plan" as vague, ambiguous and, as such, renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that Plaintiffworked on premises owned by Defendant or by a predecessor-in-interest ofDefendant. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the extent this request is not limited to premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked nor to the areas within Defendant's premises Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further Defendant objects to the word "worked" as vague, ambiguous and, as such, renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. To the extent this request is intended to encompass all areas of Defendant's premises, including those where Plaintiff did not work, this request is overly broad and irrelevant. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the extent this request is not limited to premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked nor to the areas within Defendant's premises Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further Defendant objects to the word "worked" as vague, ambiguous and, as such, renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. 24594/183680 8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Ifyou admit the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your admission that Plaintiff was on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 6: Produce all records identifying contractors and/or the employees of contractors who were on your premises between the dates 1964 and 1987, including but not limited to sign-in-logs, gate records, visitor's logs, identification badge logs and procedures, and other documents of a similar nature. RESPONSE: ` Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: ' Produce all records pertaining to the methods and manner of identification of individuals entering and/or leaving your facilities, between the dates 1964 and 1987, including but not limited to fingerprinting or other methods of identifying contractor employees at your premises, and specifically including any fingerprinting or other records identifying the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises wherePlaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know PlaintifPs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify the contractors who worked on your premises between the years 1964 and 1987, and for each, state: a. The type of work performed by the contractor b. The dates such work was performed; c. Identify your employee responsible for monitoring, verifying, or instructing concerning these 24594/183680 9 services to be performed by such contractors. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce the contract documents pertaining to the contractors who performed services on Defendant's Premises between the years 1964 and 1987, including but not limited to invitations to bid, requests for proposals, bids, proposals, scope of work, specifications, blueprints, plans, acceptances, contracts, amendments, addenda, change orders, and other contract documents of a similar nature. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify each employee who was responsible for allowing contractor employees access to Defendant's Premises between the years 1964 and 1987. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: 24594/183680 10 Admit that Plaintiff worked on Defendant's Premises where Defendant used or applied asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the extent this request is not limited to premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked nor to the areas within Defendant's premises Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further Defendant objects to the word "worked" as vague, ambiguous and, as such, renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. To the extent this request is intended to encompass all areas of Defendant's premises, including those where Plaintiff did not work, this request is overly broad and irrelevant. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny at this time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Do you contend that Plaintiff was not exposed to asbestos while working at the Defendant's Premise(s)? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Further Defendant objects to the word "working" as vague, ambiguous in the context of this case. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Plaintiff, in the course and scope ofhis work as an employee ofan independent contractor, worked around Defendant's employees who were using and/or applying asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: 24594/183680 11 Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant further objects because the terms "his work", "worked around", and "employee of an independent contractor" are vague and ambiguous in the context of this case. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and overly broad and subject to multiple of interpretations. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's' premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects because the phrase "employee of an independent contractor" is vague and ambiguous in the context of this case. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Plaintiff worked on and/or around Defendant's Premises in areas where asbestos-containing products were installed, used, prepared for use, replaced or repaired, stored or loaded, unloaded or transported. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and overly broad and subject to multiple of interpretations. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant further objects because the phrase "Plaintiff worked" is vague and ambiguous in the context ofthis case. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that in 1964 Defendant was aware that airborne asbestos dust created a potential health hazard to those 24594/183680 12 who breathed such dust. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague and ambiguous in that the phrase "health hazard" as defined in Plaintiffs definitions is so overly broad that Defendant does not know which health hazard is being referred and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. Since "health hazards" often are dependent on the quantity of exposure, this request is vague and ambiguous because the quantity of exposure had not been defined. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant answers that it is impossible to know in an organization the size of this Defendant exactly what year it would have obtained this kind of information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that Defendant was aware of the presence of and/or use of asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises during the time period Plaintiff was working on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises. Defendant objects that Plaintiff has not sufficiently identified the periods of time or the location(s) within Plaintiffs facility where Plaintiffis alleging to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request because the phrase "was working" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant admits that it was aware that certain asbestoscontaining products were used at certain locations during certain periods of time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce any and all photographs or videographic depictions or films depicting the use by you or your employees of any safety precautions (such as containment areas, warning signs, etc.) taken to protect 24594/183680 13 bystanders from the hazards of airborne asbestos resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products by your employees at any locations. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know PlaintifPs allegations. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such terms as "hazards". Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify any and all warnings ever given by Defendant, if any, to Plaintiffs regarding the hazards of asbestos and the dangers inherent in the inhalation of asbestos fibers. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited to any area within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked and, therefore, is not relevant. Defendant further objects to the terms "hazards" and "dangers of asbestos and the dangers inherent inhalation" as vague and ambiguous and response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that Plaintiffwas not an employee of this Defendant and Plaintiff has not sufficiently established when he was on Defendant's premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce all such warnings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited to any area within Defendant's premises 24594/183680 14 where Plaintiff allegedly worked and, therefore, is not relevant. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that Plaintiffwas not an employee of this Defendant and Plaintiff has not sufficiently established when he was on Defendant's premises. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that Defendant did not distribute any literature or warnings of any kind to its employees during the period of time Plaintiffworked on Defendant's Premises regarding the potential health hazards to those who breathe airborne asbestos dust. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited to any area within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked and, therefore, is not relevant. Defendant further objects because it assumes Plaintiff worked at Defendant's premises. Defendant further objects because the terms "hazards"and "worked on Defendant's premises" are vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquire, Defendant is unable to admit or deny at this time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: If you deny the foregoing, produce all such warnings. RESPONSE: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe Defendant's safety policy as it relates to the use ofasbestos-containing materials atjob-sites where Defendant's employees were performing services. In your answer, please state: a. when, ifever, Defendant's employees were first warned about the hazards ofasbestos exposure; and b. ANSWER: what instructions, if any, were given to Defendant's employees on the identification of materials which might or did contain asbestos. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which 24594/183680 15 Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous in that the phrase "safety policy" is not defined and so overly broad that Defendant does not know which "safety policy" is being referred and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. In addition, Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it implies that Plaintiff was an employee of this Defendant and Plaintiff has not sufficiently established when he was even on Defendant's premises. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. IS: Produce all such safety policies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous in that the term "safety policy" is not defined and so overly broad that Defendant does not know which "safety policy" is being referred and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that Defendant consciously decided not to warn its employees of the dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: . Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Further Defendant objects to this request as it is argumentative. In addition, Defendant objects to the term "dangers" as vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving these objectives, Defendant denies this request. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do you contend that Defendant specifically warned Plaintiff about the hazards of asbestos and asbestoscontaining products? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: 24594/183680 16 Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know PlaintifPs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Describe all safety precautions taken by you or your employees (such as containment areas, warning signs, ventilation systems, evacuating the premises, etc.) for the protection ofbystanders (including but not limited to Plaintiffs) from the hazards resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products by your employees at any locations. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. To the extent this interrogatory seeks information unrelated to the subject matter of this lawsuit, the information sought is irrelevant. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know PlaintifPs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Have you ever provided safety equipment to persons working on Defendant's Premises? Ifso, please list the safety equipment provided and indicate: a. when the equipment was first provided b. to whom the equipment was provided . c. under what circumstances the equipment was provided d. Further, identify the person with the most knowledge of your "safety equipment" policies. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. To the extent this interrogatory seeks information unrelated to the subject matter of this lawsuit, the information sought is irrelevant. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has 24594/183680 17 not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that Defendant did not continuously provide face masks to contract employees working with or around asbestos from 1964-1987 for the purpose of protecting these employees from inhaling asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request insofar as it assumes Defendant had a duty to provide equipment to Plaintiff who worked at Defendant's premises as an expert in the field of asbestos insulation, the qualities and characteristics. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State in detail what tests have been conducted 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 asbestos-containing products in any ofyour facilities. Please state where and when these tests were conducted, by whom these tests were conducted, and the results of any such test. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the terms "tests" and "using" are not defined and so overly broad and Defendant does not know which "tests" is being referred and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that it does not have detailed knowledge of all tests conducted at the facilities over the years. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Do you contend that Defendant, Defendant's representatives, insurance carriers and/or agents performed any measurements and/or studies prior to 1964 to determine the quantity ofasbestos fibers in the air at Mobil Oil Corporation's facility? If the answer is anything other than"no", identify each and eveiy fact which supports 24594/183680 18 this contention. ANSWER: Defendant objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is not limited to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked and that the information sought is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such general terms as "studies." To the extent this interrogatory seeks information unrelated to the subject matter ofthis lawsuit, the information sought is irrelevant. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state each time any regulatory agency or other governing body has inspected the Defendant's premises to determine if health and safety regulations governing exposure to asbestos were being followed. Include in your response the date and results of each inspection, and state whether a written report was generated. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant further objects to the phases "regulatory agency" and "governing body" as vague and ambiguous in that they are not defined and so overly broad that Defendant does not know which "regulations" is being referred and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of these phrases. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that you did not erect containment barriers to prevent emission ofasbestos dust at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiffworked. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs 24594/183680 19 allegations. Withoutwaiving the foregoing objections, based on reasonable inquiry, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that you did not utilize engineering controls such as isolation or enclosure at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff worked. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, based on reasonable inquiry, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that you did not utilize ventilation or exhaust systems to divert dust at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff worked. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas 24594/183680 20 within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. This request is overly broad in thatPlaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing, based on reasonable inquiry, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that you did not utilize dust collection engineering controls to trap airborne asbestos dust at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff worked. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing, based on reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written as to every conceivable work site. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that you did not require your employees to handle, mix, apply, remove, cut or score asbestoscontaining products in a wet state to prevent emission ofairborne asbestos fibers at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff worked. 24594/183680 21 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing, based on reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written as to every conceivable work site. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that you did not evacuate the premises prior to the utilization of asbestos-containing materials at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "utilization". This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Withoutwaiving the foregoing, based on reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written as to every conceivable work site. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 24594/183680 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Have you ever warned workers on Defendant's Premises of the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products? If so, describe in detail the methods of such warnings, who you warned and when. Please include in your response a description of any written warnings relating to the hazards of asbestos in place at Defendant's Premises and state when the written warnings were installed, how many were installed, and whether they have been removed. ANSWER: . Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is not limited to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to this interrogatory the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such terms as "in place" and/or "hazards" relating to asbestos. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Have you ever had a policy requiring workers on Defendant's premises to use respirators? If so, please: a. state when this policy was implemented; b. describe this policy in detail; c. state to whom it applied (i.e. Defendant employees and contractor employees); d. and describe what types and brand names of respirators were required by you. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked, is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that the information sought is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use ofsuch general terms as "policy." To the extent this interrogatory seeks information unrelated to the subject matter of this lawsuit, the information sought is irrelevant. TRCP 192.3(a). This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: 24594/183680 23 Admit that you did not post warning, caution or hazard signs prior to the utilization of asbestos-containing materials by your employees at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "utilization". This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing, based on reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written as to every conceivable work site. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that you did not issue any warnings to others at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "using". This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing, based on reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written as to every conceivable work site. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. 24594/183680 24 RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Produce all documents reflecting payments made to contractors between the years 1964 and 1987, including Plaintiffs employer, including but not limited to invoices, bills, checkrequests, requisitions, canceled checks, or other documents of a similar nature reflecting payment for services rendered by Plaintiffs employer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited to the facilities at which Plaintiff claims to have been present nor to Plaintiff's employer. As such, this request is overly broad and overly burdensome and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that the use of asbestos-containing materials on Defendant's Premises created a substantial risk of injury. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have been present nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have been present. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the terms "use" and "substantial risk of injury. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant denies this request. . REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that between the years of 1964 and 1987, Defendant had to power to control Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad to the extent it is not limited in time or scope 24594/183680 25 to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details oftheir work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad to the extent it is not limited in time or scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details oftheir work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: 24594/183680 26 Admit that, between the years 1964 and 1987, Defendant had the power to manage the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: * Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad to the extent it is not limited in time or scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to manage the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad to the extent it is not limited in time or scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises atwhich Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to manage the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over 24594/183680 27 the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that, between the years of 1964 and 1987, Defendant had the power to direct the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to direct the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedlyworked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly 24594/183680 28 worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to direct the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that, between the years of 1964 and 1987, Defendant had the power to superintend the use or conditions of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedlyworked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to superintend the use or conditions ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: 24594/183680 29 If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to superintend the use or conditions ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know PlaintifPs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that, between the years of 1964 and 1987, Defendant had the power to restrict the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to restrict the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the 24594/183680 30 various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. . Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to regulate the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admit that, between the years of 1964 and 1987s, Defendant had the power to regulate the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 24594/183680 31 further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to regulate the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and overly broad and subject to multiple of interpretations. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to regulate the use or condition of Defendant's premises is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request call for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: 24594/183680 32 Admit that, between the years of 1964 and 1987, Defendant had the power to govern the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to govern the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to govern the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task 24594/183680 33 or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit that, between the years of 1964 and 1987, Defendant had the power to oversee the use or condition ' of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to oversee the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which 24594/183680 34 Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to oversee the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that, between the years of 1964 and 1987, Defendant had the power to administer the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. . RESPONSE: . Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. . Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to administer the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 33: 24594/183680 35 If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to administer the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that between the years of 1964 and 1987, Defendant controlled Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "controlled Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible withoutspeculation as to the meaning ofthe term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This 24594/183680 36 request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "controlled Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, . and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. . REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant managed the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises wherePlaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "managed the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this V. 24594/183680 37 particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "managed the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant directed the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. 24594/183680 38 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "directed the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "directed the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the 24594/183680 39 contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admit that, between the years of 1964 and 1987, Defendant superintended the use or conditions of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "superintended the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. 24594/183680 40 Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "superintended the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant restricted the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "restricted the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 24594/183680 41 further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "restricted the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant regulated the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "regulated the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. 24594/183680 42 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "regulated the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant governed the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "governed the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to 24594/183680 43 take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "governed the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Admit that, between the years of 1964 and 1987, Defendant oversaw the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly-broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which 24594/183680 44 Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "oversaw the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "oversaw the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various Helds in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. 24594/183680 45 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admit that, between the years of 1964 and 1987, Defendant administered the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "administered the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "administered the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task 24594/183680 46 or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: . Admit that Defendant retained some control over the manner in which Plaintiffs work was performed. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked and worked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify whatworkwas performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiff's work" vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe phrase. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "retained some control" is vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details oftheir work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer, present, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: 24594/183680 47 If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. ' Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked and worked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what workwas performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiffs work" vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe phrase. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "retained some control" is vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Do you contend that at no time between the years of 1964 and 1987, Defendant did not have the right to advise or, ifnecessary, control the activities ofemployees of contractors, working on the premises ofMobil Oil Corporation facility, who were engaged in activities which could be potentially hazardous to either themselves or to the employees of Defendant? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory in that this interrogatory calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this interrogatory the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a 24594/183680 48 response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such terms as "hazardous". Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type ofhealth injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant respond as follows: Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on their premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of the work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractors' employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: ' Admit that Defendant retained some control over the manner in which Plaintiffs employer performed the work requested by the Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what workwas performed, thereby making the phrase "Plaintiffs employer" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe phrase. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "retained some control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: 24594/183680 49 If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendantobjects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for production to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what workwas performed, thereby making the phrase "Plaintiffs employer" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the phrase "retained some control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, ifnot all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that Plaintiff was not entirely free to do the work on Defendant's Premises in his own way. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what work he allegedly performed on Defendant's premises, thereby making the phrase "entirely free do the work on Defendant's premises in his own way" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, 24594/183680 50 or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant denies this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiffdoes not specify what work he allegedly performed on Defendant's premises, thereby making the phrase "entirely free do the work onDefendant's premises in his own way" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: Admit that Plaintiffs employer was not entirely free to do the work requested by Defendant on Defendant's Premises in its own way. RESPONSE: 24594/183680 51 Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and overly broad and subject to multiple of interpretations. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify his employer or what work Defendant requested his employer perform, thereby making the phrases "do the work requested" and "entirely free do the work on Defendant's premises in his own way" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe phrases. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify his employer or what work Defendant requested his employer perform, thereby making the phrases "do the work requested" and "entirely free do the work on Defendant's premises in his own way" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe phrases. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. 24594/183680 52 Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admit that asbestos-containing gaskets were installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, it is admitted that asbestos-containing gaskets were installed at certain locations and at certain times. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that asbestos-containing pipe covering was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, it is admitted that asbestos containing pipe covering was installed at certain locations and at certain times. 24594/183680 53 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: . Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that asbestos-containing boilers were installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, it is admitted that asbestos containing boilers were installed at certain locations and at certain times. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: . Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: Admit that asbestos-containing fireproofing was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 24594/183680 54 Without waiving the foregoing objections, it is admitted that asbestos containing fire proofing was installed at certain locations and at certain times. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: Admit that asbestos-containing joint compound was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing, it is admitted that asbestos containing joint compound was installed at certain locations and at certain times. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: Admit that asbestos-containing insulation was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 24594/183680 55 further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing, it is admitted that asbestos containing insulation was installed at certain locations and at certain times. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admit that such installation was done under your direction, supervision, and/or control. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "such installation" and "your direction, supervision and/or control" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant are unable to admit or deny. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial, including but not limited to all documents identifying the entities or individuals who directed, supervised, 24594/183680 56 and/or controlled such installation activities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "such installation" and "your direction, supervision and/or control" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please state the first year you learned that persons could suffer physical injury through the inhalation of asbestos fibers and how Defendant became aware of the existence of asbestos hazards. ANSWER: ' Defendant objects to this interrogatory in that this interrogatory calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this interrogatory the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use ofsuch terms as "inhalation", "hazards", and/or "injury" and/or "physical injury" relating to asbestos. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Produce all documents that indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings. 24594/183680 57 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, this request includes terms used therein which are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe terms. Plaintifffails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: Admit that you supervised the health and safety procedures implemented by contractors working on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify which contractor was his employer or what work was performed by that contractor, thereby making the phrases "health and safety practices" and "implemented by contractors" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrases. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "supervised" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety 24594/183680 58 would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: Admit that you supervised the health and safety practices implemented by Plaintiffs employer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify his employer or what work was performed by his employer, thereby making the phrase phrases "health and safety practices" and "implemented by Plaintiff's employer" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "you supervised" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, ifnot all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: Admit that you did not protect the Plaintiff from exposure to asbestos on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: 24594/183680 59 Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to request for admission to the extent that the term "protect" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know PlaintifPs allegations. Without waiving the these objections, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Produce all documents supporting the legal theories and factual bases of your defenses set forth in your response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure under Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure 194.2, subparagraph (c). RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the request as premature and a violation of the attorney work product privilege. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce documents and trial exhibits as required by the TRCP. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Do you contend that Plaintiffs exposure to asbestos at Defendant's Premises was not a substantial contributing factor in causing his asbestos-related injury? Ifthe answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: ' Defendant objects to this interrogatory insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises and that he was exposed to asbestos, which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant objects to the phrase "substantial contributing factor" as vague and ambiguous and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 24594/183680 60 Without waiving the foregoing objections, yes. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: Admit that Plaintiffs exposure to asbestos at Defendant's Premises was a substantial contributing factor in causing his asbestos-related injury. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that the phrases "Plaintiffs exposure" and "substantial contributing factor" and "asbestos-related injury" are vague, indefinite and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that the phrases "Plaintiffs exposure" and "substantial contributing factor" and "asbestos-related injury" are vague, indefinite and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: Admit that Defendant did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk of asbestos-related injury. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. 24594/183680 61 .<9^, Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. It is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have been present, nor to the specific areas where Plaintiff claims to have been present. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk of asbestos-related injury" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: Admit that Defendant did not reduce or eliminate the unreasonable risk ofharm posed by the use ofasbestoscontaining products at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. It is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have been present, nor to the specific areas where Plaintiff claims to have been present. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "reduce or eliminate the unreasonable risk of harm posed by the use ofasbestos-containing products" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: 24594/183680 62 Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. It is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have been present, nor to the specific areas where Plaintiff claims to have been present. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "unreasonable risk of harm" and "use" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57: Admit that Defendant's failure to reduce or eliminate the risk ofharm to Plaintiffwas a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs asbestos-related injury. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises and that he was exposed to asbestos [or that Plaintiff has an asbestos related inquiry], which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "reduce or eliminate the risk of harm to Plaintiffwas a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs asbestos-related injury" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises and that he was exposed to asbestos or that Plaintiff has an asbestos related inquiry], which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff 24594/183680 63 is inquiring. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: If you contend that while at the premises on which you or your employees were working with asbestoscontaining materials, Plaintiff was not exposed to sufficient quantities of asbestos dust to produce the disease(s) complained of, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises, which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Plaintiff has not identified any specific work site or time periods in which he worked on Defendant's premises and; therefore, Defendant is unable to respond at this time. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Ifyou contend that Plaintiff is suffering from an asbestos disease as a result of exposures other than asbestos dust at the premises on which you or your employees were working with asbestos-containing materials, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises, which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. At this time. Defendant do not contend that Mr. Banks has an asbestos-related injury and discovery is continuing as to what asbestos exposures he may have had on other premises. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: If you contend that Plaintiff does not suffer from the asbestos-related disease(s) complained of, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant has not yet have enough information to finalize contentions. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: If you contend that Plaintiff was not exposed to asbestos dust at the premises on which you or your 24594/183680 64 employees were working with asbestos-containing materials, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Plaintiff has not identified any specific work site or time periods in which he worked on Defendant's premises and; therefore, Defendant are unable to respond at this time. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Produce all documents used, referred to or relied upon in answering any Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: Produce any and all documents and other tangible things which refer to the document retention (and/or destruction) policy ofDefendant, including the following: a. Any document retention and/or destruction policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. b. Any record retention and/or destruction, dumping, or purging policies for Defendant that pertain to documents andrecords created, maintained or storedby electronic and/ormagnetic means, including but not limited to records that have been microfilmed, microfiched, imaged, scanned, or stored on tapes, disks, diskettes, CD-rom, databases, etc. or on or within any computer hardware, backup system, download system, file dumping or other system ofinformation management, whether on-site or off-site, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions thatreferred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. It is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "fishing expedition". It calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 24594/183680 65 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: Produce any and all documentation, including but not limited to lists, inventories, indices, databases orprint outs thereof, archives, storage inventories, logs, or other search aids that refer or relate to the existence, extent, type, organization, filing system, method of access or retrieval, and/or location of Defendant's documents (maintained or stored on-site or off-site) described in the preceding paragraphs. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. It is not limited by time dr location and constitutes a "fishing expedition". It calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 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 ofhuman beings? If so, identify the individuals who received, maintained, reviewed, or disseminated the information contained in such written materials. ' ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. It is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "fishing expedition". It calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: Produce the written materials referred to in the interrogatory above. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. It is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "fishing expedition". It calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REOUEST-FOR ADMISSION NO. 58: Admit that Plaintifffiled suit against Defendant within two (2) years ofthe date ofdiscovering his asbestosrelated condition or the existence of any asbestos-related causes of action. 24594/183680 66 RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59: Admit that Defendant is liable for Plaintiffs asbestos related illness. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60: Admit that asbestos is still in use and/or in place on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a time period of the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the phrase "in use and/or in place" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Withoutwaiving the foregoing objections, Defendant admits that there still are products which contain asbestos in them none of which result in employee or contractor exposure. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61: Admit that Defendant no longer uses asbestos on its Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant admits that there still are products which contain asbestos in them none of which result in employee or contractor exposure. 24594/183680 67 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1972. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63: . Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1973. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1974. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff 24594/183680 68 has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1975. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1976. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 67: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1977. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad 24594/183680 69 and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 68: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1978. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1979. RESPONSE: ' Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 70: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1980. RESPONSE: 24594/183680 70 Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1981. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1982. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 73: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1983. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term 24594/183680 71 "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1984. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 75: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1985. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1986. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is 24594/183680 72 inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1987. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1988. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos-containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67: Produce all documents that reflect, indicate or in anyway relate to communications between you and any manufacturer of asbestos-containing products concerning or related to the asbestos contained in such 24594/183680 73 products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this requests for production to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and not limited to the facilities where Plaintiffallegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to this requests for production to the extent it seeks information, the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney/client privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68: Produce all documents disseminated or published by any trade association that contain information relating to the hazards of asbestos and all documents which refer to such documents. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based, and it is not limited to the facilities where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use ofsuch terms as "hazards". Plaintifffails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to the production ofdocuments which are protected by the attorney/client or other privilege. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69: Produce all documents, thatrelate to any inspections by any regulatory agency for the purpose ofascertaining whether health or safety regulations were being followed or adhered to at any of your plants. This request specifically seeks any and all such documentation referring to dust hazards, including but not limited to asbestos in your plants. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). 24594/183680 74 Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based, and it is not limited to the facilities where Plaintiff worked. Defendant also objects to this request in that it is not limited to health and safety regulations dealing with asbestos. In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information which is a matter of public record or otherwise available to Plaintiffwithout imposing a burden on Defendant. Defendant objects to the extent this request seeks information the subject ofwhich is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: Produce all safety meeting minutes or other documents, that refer to the dangers ofasbestos safety measures to be used in the vicinity of asbestos at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to the extent this request seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71: Produce all contracts, or other documents that relate to abatement of asbestos at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 24594/183680 75 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72: Produce all contracts, or other documents that relate to the installation of asbestos products at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73: Produce all documents that in any way reflect a removal plan or organized written criteria or schedule for the removal of asbestos at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74: Produce all documents related to the medical condition ofPlaintiffat anytime during his work at Defendant's Premises. This request specifically includes any and all x-rays, x-ray reports, medical notes and/or medical records of any kind, annual physical forms, and employment records relating to Plaintiffs health. RESPONSE: 24594/183680 76 Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it seeks information the subject ofwhich is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP192.5. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75: Produce Plaintiffs entire personnel file from Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant has no personnel file on Plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76: Produce all documents that reflect the layout ofDefendant's Premises, including the location and dimensions of all buildings and the location and placement of asbestos-containing products. , RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary information and/or trade secrets. In addition, this request seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77: Produce all documents containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that many ofthe terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such terms as "exposure" and/or "injury" or "possibility ofinjury" relating to asbestos. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). 24594/183680 77 This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78: Produce all photographs of asbestos products in place or asbestos-containing products being fabricated or utilized at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this requests for production to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary information and/or trade secrets. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79: Produce all photographs of warning signs or warning statements which are or have been in place at Defendant's Premises in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this requests for production to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary information and/or trade secrets. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: Produce all documents relating to any individuals claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos at Defendant's Premises, including, but not limited to, workers compensation claims. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities at which Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 24594/183680 78 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81: Produce all documents, including but not limited to, corporate minutes, which mention the hazards or potential hazards of asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such terms as "hazards", and/or "potential hazards" relating to asbestos. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests. TRCP 192.3(a). In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82: Produce all documents, including invoices, shipping receipts, bills of lading and purchase orders, related to the purchase of asbestos-containing products for use at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83: Produce all documents relating to inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company or hired by your company, that included the taking or measuring of "dust counts". RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for 24594/183680 79 information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84: In the event that Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts or measurements ofany ofits plants or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, produce any documents, memoranda, or other writings that in any way reflect the results of such studies or counts and actions taken as a result of such counts or studies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiffallegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 85: Produce all reports, writings (whetherpublished or unpublished) and/or other documentation written, created and/or edited by any ofyour experts that in any way pertain to asbestos and the hazards and/or diseases that may result therefrom. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that many ofthe terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such terms as "hazards" and/or "diseases" relating to asbestos. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 24594/183680 80 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86: Produce all documents which will be used at the time of trial, including all potential exhibits and those documents which may be used to cross-examine other witnesses or in rebuttal, and which you contend are relevant to any of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's most recently filed Answer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it is overly broad and burdensome and seeks information, the subject ofwhich is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege. Defendant will identify witnesses and trial exhibits at such time as the court may require. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 87: Produce documents between Defendant and any ofits worker's compensation carriers regarding the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based, and it is not limited to the facilities where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such terms as "hazards" relating to asbestos. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: Produce a copy of all regulations, orders, rules and/or policies which have been used relating to the safety of the Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: ' Defendantobjects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs 24594/183680 81 claims against Defendant are based. Defendant also objects to this request in that it is not limited to health and safety regulations dealing with asbestos. Defendant objects to the production ofdocuments which are protected by the attorney/client self audit/self critical analysis, or other privilege. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89: Produce all documents which contain complaints by employees ofthe Defendant's Premises regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Defendant also objects to this request in that it is not limited to health and safety regulations dealing with asbestos. Defendant objects to the production ofdocuments which are protected by the attorney/client self audit/self critical analysis, or other privilege. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 90: Produce all documents which contain complaints by Union representatives ofDefendant's Premises regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: ' Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Defendant also objects to this request in that it is not limited to health and safety regulations dealing with asbestos. Defendant objects to the production ofdocuments which are protected by the attorney/client self audit/self critical analysis, or other privilege. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 91: Produce all documents, organizational charts or rosters which identify the members of the management at the Defendant's Premises and their areas of responsibility during the time period of Plaintiffs work at Defendant's Premises. 24594/183680 82 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TRCP 192.3(a). Plaintiff has not formally indicated the time period he claims to have been present at Defendant' facilities. Defendant assume the period of time was from 1961 to 1964 and will search for organizational charts and rosters during those years. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 92: Produce all documents which evidence Defendant's, net worth, including but not limited to all" 10-K" forms filed for the last five (5) years. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, vague, and unduly burdensome with which to comply. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know PlaintifPs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 93: Produce all documents which evidence Defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale, or transfer ofownership of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence TRCP 192.3(a). This request is overly broad in that Plaintiffhas not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know PlaintifPs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 94: Produce all indemnity agreements, assignments of liability, subrogation agreements and other similar documents relating to Defendant's Premises and liabilities arising from said ownership. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence TRCP 192.3(a). This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided 24594/183680 83 any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 95: Produce all contracts pertaining to work done by contractors at Defendant's facility. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based. Defendant also objects to this request in that it is not limited to contractors dealing with asbestos. Defendantobjects to the production ofdocuments which are protected by the attorney/client self audit/self critical analysis, or other privilege. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 96: Please produce any printed material produced or published by Defendant containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos? RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, vague, irrelevant and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based, and it is not limited to the facilities where Plaintiff worked. Defendant objects to the production of documents which are protected by the attorney/client or other privilege. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 97: Produce all documents and other tangible things relating to the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 98: If you content that you did not own or control the facility(ies) during any time period that Plaintiff worked (or believes he worked) at the facility(ies), please produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that include the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment ofthe facility(ies); such documentation to include, by way 24594/183680 84 ofexample and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 1 OK reports or other state or federal agency filings, or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits of your corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the request as overly broad, irrelevant and the terms "own or control" as vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects because this request is not limited to a relevant time period. Defendant further objects because the request is outside the scope of TRCP 192.3 and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. 24594/183680 85