Document QXGxkEBEQoKY0kdy9BZgMka6k

1:58PM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO RICHARD PETTIT, et. al., Plaintiff vs. THE SCOTTS COMPANY, et. al. Defendants ) CASE NO. 627995 ) ) BEVAN GROUP 15 ) ) JUDGE HARRY A. HANNA ) JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY ) JUSTICE FRANCES E. SWEENEY ) ) ASBESTOS DOCKET ) ) SEPARATE DEFENDANT ) AMERICAN OPTICAL ) CORPORATION'S ANSWERS ) TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST ) MASTER SET OF ) INTERROGATORIES ) PROPOUNDED TO ALL ) DEFENDANTS Pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, separate defendant American Optical Corporation ("American Optical") hereby responds to Plaintiffs' First Master Set of Interrogatories Propounded to All Defendants. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS American Optical Corporation and its predecessor, American Optical Company, have been in business since the late 1800s. Over the years, American Optical has manufactured and sold a variety of product lines designed for many different applications. It is American Optical's understanding that it has been sued in this case in its capacity as a manufacturer and marketer of asbestos-containing protective clothing products. The responses which follow are based upon this understanding. American Optical neither mined asbestos, nor has American Optical manufactured, processed, distributed, marketed or sold any asbestos-containing building products. Rather, American Optical constructed and assembled protective clothing products from various grades, weights and types of material which it purchased from various vendors over the years. American Optical's protective clothing product line included both non-asbestos-containing and asbestos-containing clothing. Specifically regarding asbestos-containing cloth, American Optical did not weave or otherwise fabricate the cloth. Instead, it purchased asbestos-containing cloth from numerous vendors over the years, and assembled it into the various asbestos-containing protective clothing items it sold. In September 1977, American Optical sold its clothing division to the Racine Glove Company. In the process, American Optical transferred the thenexisting inventory of products comprising the personal protective clothing line, the packaging used in the distrib ution of these products and its customer lists to the Racine Glove Company. American Optical retained few records relating to its asbestoscontaining protective clothing products. The following general objections are hereby incorporated into each and every answer hereinafter provided. A. American Optical objects to any discovery request that purports to impose upon American Optical any obligation not expressly set forth in the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. B. American Optical objects to the instructions and definitions supplied by plaintiff with regard to these discovery requests on the basis that these definitions are overly broad, vague and often inconsistent with the normal usage and meaning of such words, and that the instructions are overly broad, burdensome, and constitute an unreasonable expansion of the requests themselves. American Optical, therefore, has responded to the requests in a manner consistent with a normal understanding of the language used in the discovery requests and, to the extent necessary, to fairly and fully respond to the discovery requests. C. To the extent the discovery requests call for American Optical to characterize the state of knowledge or awareness of American Optical at any given time with regard to a particular fact, event or subject, American Optical can only respond to such requests, if at all, by stating on information and belief the degree of knowledge of a particular fact, event or subject as held by a specific person or people at a specific time. Such answer, if given, is not intended and should not be deemed to constitute an acknowledgment by American Optical that such knowledge is attributable to it as a corporation. D. American Optical also objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek information or materials which have been gathered or prepared in the course of litigation, or which are otherwise subject to the attorney-client privilege, protected by the attorney work product doctrine, the rule protecting materials prepared in anticipation of and/or in connection with litigation, and any other applicable privilege. American Optical further objects to these discovery requests to the extent these discovery requests seek or make inquiry into confidential, proprietary or trade secret information or materials. E. American Optical objects that these discovery requests seek discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, because the information sought is not limited to times or places where the alleged exposures of plaintiffs occurred. It is American Optical's understanding that the plaintiffs' alleged exposures to asbestos occurred while he was employed at The Scotts Company in Marysville, Ohio from 1968-1998. American Optical manufactured its line of protective clothing products which are the subject of plaintiffs' claims from approximately 1938 until September 1976. Accordingly, unless the context of the response indicates otherwise, American Optical's responses are limited to activities which took place in times and places which are reasonably related to plaintiffs' claimed exposures to American Optical's protective clothing line. F. American Optical states that these responses are accurate as of the date made. However, American Optical's investigation of information that may be responsive to these discovery requests is continuing, and American Optical reserves the right to supplement its responses when its investigation is complete. G. At the present time, American Optical has not conducted discovery or made a review of discovery conducted by other parties. American Optical reserves the right to supplement these responses upon completion of this review and of further discovery. H. American Optical does not concede that any of its responses to plaintiff's discovery requests are or will be admissible evidence at a trial of these actions, and American Optical does not waive any objection, on any ground, whether or not asserted herein, to the use of any such answer at trial. I. To the extent to which the information contained herein differs in any respect from any prior answer or response to discovery, these answers shall be deemed to update and supersede any prior answers or responses in any and all actions. CORPORATE NAME 1. For each Interrogatory below, please state the name and last known address of each person answering it, including whether he/she is employed by Defendant and if employed by Defendant include job title, length of time employed by Defendant and a year by year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine , or which was created, collected or compiled in preparation for or anticipation of litigation. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that the information used in answering these interrogatories was derived and assembled over the years by authorized employees and counsel for American Optical, both past and present; from information compiled from past and ongoing discussions with American Optical's former employees; from an ongoing review of the limited records available; and from the review of documents gathered by counsel for American Optical during the course of handling litigation on its behalf over the years. This information was gathered in a cumulative fashion for the overall purpose of litigation rather than on an individual question-by-question basis for this particular set of interrogatories. It is therefore not possible to identify by name each person who could be said to have answered these interrogatories. 1.1 Please identify all documents used, related to, or referred to in connection with the preparation of or answers to these Interrogatories and state the number of the Interrogatory and its subpart to each suc h document. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 1 above. 2. Please state whether or not Defendant is a corporation. If so, please state: (a) Your correct corporate name; (b) The state of your incorporation; (c) The address ofyour principal place of business; (d) Your registered agent for service in the state of Ohio; (e) For each Defendant claiming that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction, list year by year the total amount of income received by the Defendant from entities in Ohio, any and all years that Defendant, as defined, has been licensed to do business in Ohio, and any real property owned at any time by Defendant or its present or past subsidiaries. ANSWER: a. American Optical Corporation b. Delaware c. 80 Field Point Road, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830 d. American Optical has no registered agent for service in the state of Ohio. e. Not applicable. 3. State Defendant's complete corporate or business history, including dates of incorporation, mergers, consolidations, reincorporations, and the like. Also provide historical information regarding all predecessors, prior names, asset purchases, acquisitions or spin-offs. In addition: (a) if defendant or any of its predecessors or subsidiaries at any time purchased, assumed, or in any other manner acquired ANY of the assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity at any prior time engaged in any aspect of the placing of asbestos containing products into the stream of commerce or the insuring of asbestos related risks, then please state the following as to each acquisition; (b) the name or description of each corporation, entity or assets acquired by Defendant, that entity's state of incorporation and principal place of business, its date of in/corporation, and the name of Defendant at the time of acquisition; (c) the manner by which each such corporation, entity or interest therein, was acquired (e.g., merger, consolidation, change of name, stock sale, transfer or purchase of assets or product line); (d) the date of each such acquisition; (e) the state in which each such acquisition was effected; (f) the state law governing each such acquisition if specified by contract; (g) whether Defendant became legally responsible for the past torts of each such corporation or entity; (h) identify each document reflecting or related to the history and/or transaction(s) set forth in answer to this Interrogatory. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers each sub-part as follows: a. - g.: American Optical Corporation and its predecessor, American Optical Company, have been in business since the late 1800s. In 1938, American Optical Company purchased Safety Equipment Service Company of Cleveland, Ohio, a manufacturer of protective clothing products, some of which were fabricated in part from Underwriters Grade Chrysotile Asbestos Woven Cloth. In 1967, American Optical Corporation was incorporated. In 1976, American Optical discontinued manufacturing asbestos-containing personal protective clothing products. In July 1977, American Optical divested itself of its personal protective clothing line, which was purchased by the Racine Glove Company of Racine, Wisconsin. American Optical has insufficient information to respond further. See Preliminary Statement. h.: American Optical has limited records related to its sale of its personal protective clothing line to Racine Glove Company. By way of further answer, see attached documents. 4. Please state whether or not the Defendant has purchased, assumed, or in any other manner acquired any of the assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity (such corporations or entities being limited to those engaged in the mining, selling, manufacturing, marketing or distribution of asbestos-containing products.) If so, please state the following: (a) the name or description of each corporation, entity or assets acquired by Defendant, its state of incorporation and principal place of business, its date of incorporation, and the name of Defendant at the time of acquisition; (b) the manner by which each such corporation, entity, or interest therein, was acquired (e.g. merger, consolidation, change of name, stock sale, transfer or purchase of assets or product line); (c) the date of each such acquisition; (d) the state in which each such acquisition was effected; (e) the state law governing each such acquisition if specified by contract; (f) whether Defendant became legally responsib le for the past torts of each such corporation or entity; (g) whether the acquisition concerned asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 3 above. 4.1 For each corporation, other than the answering defendant ("the entity"), that has at any time in the past been involved in the placing of asbestos containing products into the stream of commerce for which officers of the answering defendant's corporation have also served as officers, directors or served in any managerial position while employed by the answering defendant, state: (a) the name of the entity involved in the placing of asbestos products into the stream of commerce; (b) the manner in which the entity was involved in the placing of asbestos containing products into the stream of commerce (i.e., mining, milling, manufacturing, distributing, installing, rebranding, etc.); (c) the specific products placed into the stream of commerce by the entity year by year and by brand or trade name; (d) the name, positions and a brief description of the responsibilities of the person or persons serving the answering defendant and the entity simultaneously including the positions held with the entity and with the answering defendant. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it has no information responsive to this interrogatory. See Pre liminary Statement. EVER SELL ASBESTOS 5. Has Defendant ever engaged in the mining, manufacturing, selling, marketing, installation or distribution of asbestos-containing products (including equipment of any kind containing asbestos in any form)? If so, please state the following: (a) The name of the company engaged in the activity (whether it is Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary); (b) As to each product mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed, please state the following: 1. The trade or brand name. 2. Its identification number (model, serial number, etc.). 3. The time period it was manufactured, mined, marketed, distributed or sold. 4. Its physical description including color, general composition, and form. 5. A detailed description of its intended use and purpose. 6. A detailed description of the type package in which it was sold, listing the dates of each type of package used, a physical description of the package, and a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. 7. The percent of asbestos which it contained. 8. The percent of asbestos by asbestos type (amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite). (c) The time period during which each of these products were on the market; (d) The material components/ingredients of each such product, giving specific or approximate percentage both by weight and by volume of each material component/ingredient (this interrogatory is not limited to the asbestos component of the product but seeks information as to the nature, weight and volume of non-asbestos ingredients, as well) of each such product; (e) How each of these asbestos-containing product can be distinguished from those of competitors; (f) A description of the physical appearance of such product; (g) A detailed description of the intended uses. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not limited to times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing protective clothing product manufactured by AO. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers yes. American Optical further answers the sub-parts as follows: a. Subject to and without waiving the objections stated above, American Optical answers that it and its predecessor American Optical Company manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products. b. 1. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that certain of its protective clothing products were sold under the trade names "Kool Vent," "Silvabestos" and "Sturdy Weave." b. 2. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that, in lieu of responding to this interrogatory, it is providing a representative product catalog which lists its asbestos-containing protective clothing products, as well as their catalog numbers. b. 3. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that it sold asbestos-containing protective clothing products from approximately 1938 - 1976. American Optical has insufficient information to answer further. See Preliminary Statement. b. 4. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that, in lieu of responding to this interrogatory, it is providing a representative product catalog containing pictures and descriptions of its asbestos- containing protective clothing products. b. 5. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that, in lieu of responding to this interrogatory, it is providing a representative product catalog containing pictures and descriptions of its asbestos- containing protective clothing products, as well as their suggested uses. b. 6. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that it has insufficient information to answer this sub-part, because none of the packaging for its clothing products was retained after the sale of its protective clothing division. See Preliminary Statement. b. 7. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that at no time did it incorporate raw asbestos fibers into its protective clothing products. Rather, it assembled its asbestos -containing protective clothing from 1520HB underwriter's grade cloth, 10-474 asbestos cloth and 14H225 herringbone underwriter's grade doth, all of which were made from Chrysotile asbestos. The 1520HB underwriter's grade cloth and 10-474 asbestos cloth were specially treated to reduce lint and dust. The fibers in the 14H225 herringbone underwriter's grade cloth were treated with an acrylic resin. Each type of cloth also contained cotton. American Optical is presently unable to determine the asbestos/cotton ratio in the cloth, but its investigation is continuing. American Optical has insufficient knowledge to state which of these cloths were used to manufacture any specific product or products in its protective clothing line at any specific point in time. See Preliminary Statement. b. 8. See objections and answer to subpart b.7. to this interrogatory. c. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that it sold asbestos-containing clothing products from approximately 1938 - 1976. American Optical has insufficient information to answer further. See Preliminary Statement. d. See objections and answer to subpart b.7. to this interrogatory. e. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that certain of its protective clothing products bore its logo. See representative product catalog produced in response to this interrogatory. f. See objections and answer to subpart b.4. to this interrogatory. g. See objections and answer to subpart b.5 to this interrogatory. 6. Does Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies claim that any patent would cover any product listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please state the following: (a) The date of each patent; (b) The date same was issued; (c) The number of each patent application that is pending. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not limited to times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was exposed to an asbestos-containing protective clothing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it has insufficient information to respond to this interrogatory. See Preliminary Statement. 7. Have any of the products listed above in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 been altered in chemical composition since first being marketed? If so, please state the following: (a) The trade name of each such product; (b) The date each such product was altered; (c) The nature of the alteration; (d) The reason for the alteration. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to this discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not limited to times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was exposed to an asbestos-containing protective clothing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it ceased production of asbestos-containing clothing products in approximately August or September 1976. American Optical has insufficient information to answer further. See Preliminary Statement. 8. Have any of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 ever been marketed, distributed, packaged, labeled, and/or sold by any other company or business? If so, please state the following: (a) The name and address of each such company; (b) The names and address of Defendant's distributors in Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Georgia since 1940; (c) The date of each sale; (d) The name of the person at each location with whom you primarily dealt; (e) A list of all asbestos-containing products that you sold to each location from 1945 to 1980; (f) The amount of each asbestos product sold to each location during this period; (g) Please identify all documents relating to this distributor for the particular location. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that, in 1977, it sold its clothing line to Racine Glove Company. At that time, it transferred all of its customer lists to Racine Glove Company. Thus, it does not have records listing all of its distributors of its protective clothing products, and cannot answer this interrogatory. See Preliminary Statement. 8.01 Has this defendant ever purchased asbestos containing products from any other defendant? ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that, to the best of its knowledge, it has not purchased asbestos-containing products from any other defendant. See Preliminary Statement. 8.02 If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is yes, please state the following: (a) Name each defendant from whom this defendant purchased any asbestos containing product; (b) List each product purchased from each co-defendant; (c) List the dates of each purchase of asbestos-containing products from each co-defendant. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 8.01 above. 8.03 Has this defendant ever sold asbestos containing products to any other defendant? ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that, to the best of its knowledge, it has not sold asbestos-containing products to any other defendant. See Preliminary Statement. 8.04 If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is yes, please state the following: (a) Name each defendant to whom this defendant sold any asbestos containing product; (b) List each product sold to each co-defendant; (c) List the dates of each sale of asbestos-containing products to each co-defendant. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 8.03 above. 8.05 Has Defendant engaged in the manufacture and/or sale and/or distribution and/or marketing and/or supply and/or purchase and/or use of non-asbestos-containing products for use in connection with temperatures above 125 Fahrenheit since 1930. If so, please state: (a) The date such activity began; (b) The years during which such activity took place; (c) The date when such activity was terminated; (d) If such activity was terminated, the reason(s) why; (e) The geographical area into which you claim the product(s) were sold, purchased, or used; (f) Identify the organizational unit of defendant so engaged; (g) The site(s) at which each such product was manufactured; (h) The material components of each such product, giving specific or approximate percentage both by weight and by volume of each material component of each such product; (i) The temperature ranges for which each product(s) was intended to be used; (j) The product's generic name; (k) The product's trade or brand name; (l) The container in which the product was shipped (i.e., paper bags, cardboard boxes) including the size and amount of the container; (m) A description of any logos, writing impressions or identifying markings which appeared on the product, as well as a description of the package used, the dates that type of package was used, and any logos, product names, trademarks, etc. which appeared on the package; (n) whether the words "non-asbestos" or "asbestos free" were used on the package; (o) A detailed description of the intended method of preparation and application of the product; (p) A description of the physical appearance of the product, including size, shape, color and texture. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers each sub-part as follows: a. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that it began selling protective clothing products in approximately 1938. b. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that it sold protective clothing products from approximately 1938 September 1977. c. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that it no longer sold protective clothing products after September 1977. d. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that it sold its clothing line to Racine Glove Company. e. American Optical renews its objections as stated above. f. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical's answers that the name of the division was the Safety Products Division. g. American Optical renews its objections as stated above. h. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that its safety clothing products used for heat protection which did not contain asbestos were ma nufactured of a wide variety of materials, including but not limited to leather, cotton, cotton duck, and rayon. By way of further answer, American Optical attaches a representative catalog of its protective clothing products, which includes representative heat- and flame-resistant products made of materials other than asbestos. i. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that, in lieu of responding, it is attaching a representative product catalog. j. American Optical incorporates its objections stated above, and also objects specifically to this sub-part because it is unclear, vague and ambiguous, specifically the term "generic name." Subject to and without waiving its objections, American Optical answers that it manufactured heat- and flame-resistant protective clothing products which are commonly known by the generic names gloves, mittens, hand pads, leggings, spats, aprons, sleevelets, coats, pants, overalls, hoods and hats. k. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that certain of its heat- and flame-resistant products which did not contain asbestos were marketed under the trade name "Fyre-Free." l. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that it has insufficient information to answer this sub-part, because none of the packaging for its clothing products was retained after the sale of its protective clothing line. See Preliminary Statement. m. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that, in lieu of responding, it is attaching a representative product catalog which shows photographs of the logos and writings found on its heat- and flame-resistant products which did not contain asbestos. By way of further answer, see American Optical's answer to subsection l to this interrogatory. n. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that it has insufficient information to answer this sub-part, because none of the packaging for its clothing products was retained after the sale of its protective clothing line. See Preliminary Statement. o. This subsection is inapplicable to the use of protective clothing products, which are neither prepared nor applied. p. Subject to and without waiving its objections stated above, American Optical answers that, in lieu of responding, it is attaching a representative product catalog. 8.06 Did Defendant ever market or distribute any asbestos-containing product manufactured in whole or in part by someone else? If so, please state the following for each such product: (a) The name and address of the manufacturer; (b) The product's trade and brand name; (c) The organizational unit of Defendant who did so; (d) Date(s) beginning, ending and during which the marketing or distributing took place; (e) Whether the product was distributed through the same channels as those used for products manufactured by Defendant, and if not, please explain the exact channels of distribution; (f) Identify all documents relating the marketing or distribution. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory becaus e it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that in 1938, its predecessor, American Optical Company, purchased Safety Equipment Service Company of Cleveland, Ohio, a manufacturer of protective clothing products, some of which contained asbestos. Subsequently, it purchased asbestos-containing cloth from the following manufacturers for use in various safety clothing products over the years: American Asbestos Textile of Norristown, Pennsylvania, Raybestos-Manhattan of North Charleston, South Carolina, Southern Asbestos Company of Charlotte, North Carolina, and possibly Keasbey-Mattison, U.S. Rubber Company, and Carolina Asbestos. American Optical has insufficient information to respond further. See Preliminary Statement. 8.1 Does Defendant have reason to believe that any of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatories Nos. 5, 8.02 and 8.04 were used at any of the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto. If your answer is "yes", please state: (a) The basis of your answer; (b) Please state which of Defendant's asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 were used at each jobsite listed on Exhibit A. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous because Exhibit A to plaintiff's interrogatories does not indicate in any way during which years or in which locations at the facility plaintiff alleges exposure to any American Optical asbestos-containing product. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it calls for speculation because, regardless of any products that might have been sold, shipped or distributed to the job site listed on Exhibit A to these interrogatories, American Optical has no way of knowing whether any were actually present at the job site during the time periods when plaintiff actually worked at the job site. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it possesses limited distribution records for only a limited number of years. These records essentially show the names and addresses of customers to whom American Optical sold its protective clothing products and the annual dollar amount of sales to each. However, these records do not distinguish between sales of clothing that contained asbestos and sales of clothing that did not. Thus, these limited records cannot be used to determine whether any of American Optical's asbestos-containing protective clothing products were ever sold to any particular facility. Therefore, American Optical has no way to determine whether any of its asbestos-containing protective clothing products were ever used at the facility listed on Exhibit A to plaintiff's interrogatories during the years that each plaintiff worked at the facility. 8.2 For each company or business that Defendant knows may have marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold, those products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please state the following as to each jobsite listed on Exhibit A. (a) The name and address of each such company; (b) The date of each sale from Defendant to such other company; (c) The name of the person at each other company with whom Defendant primarily dealt; (d) Names and quantities of the asbestos-containing products that you marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974; (e) Please identify all documents relating to the sales to each such company. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 8 above. 8.3 If you do not know any business that may have marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 to any of the jobsites listed on Exhibit A, please state the names and last known addresses of those companies who Defendant knows marketed, distributed, installed and/or sold their asbestos-containing products in Ohio from 1950 to 1974. For each of those companies, please state the following: (a) Name and address of each such company; (b) The dates of each sale from Defendant to such other company; (c) The name of the person at each other company with whom Defendant primarily dealt; (d) The names of the asbestos-containing products that Defendant marketed, distributed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 8 above. 8.4 Does Defendant have records and/or any knowledge that reflects sales of their asbestos-containing products to any of the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto? If so, please state the following as to each jobsite listed on Exhibit A: (a) The names and last known addresses of those people with such knowledge; (b) The location of such records. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 8.1 above. 9. Did Defendant or any of Defendant's distributors, as listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 8.1, 8.2, and/or 8.3 have sales representatives who specifically called on the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto, from 1945 to 1975? If your response is yes, as to each site listed on Exhibit A, please state the following: (a) The name and last known address of each such representative and whether they are still employed by Defendant; (b) The period of time they acted as your representative; (c) Their general responsibility as to each facility; (d) Whether that person is still alive; and (e) Any documents relating, referring or pertaining thereto. ANSWER: See objections and answers to interrogatory numbers 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 above. 9.1 Identify all managers and sales personnel responsible for your sales or installation of any asbestos-containing products in Ohio from 1930 to the present and state their position, last known address and the local or regional office through which they were employed. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical is informed and believes that J.L. Wells was the sales representative responsible for the area which included Ohio during the period 1966 1970. For the reasons set forth in its Preliminary Statement, American Optical has insufficient information to answer further. 10. Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying or removing asbestos-containing products? If so, please state: (a) The name of each subdivision; (b) The full address of the home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business; and (c) Whether said division or subsidiary conducted such business at any of the sites listed on Exhibit A, from 1940 to 1975? If so, please state the following as to each jobsite listed on Exhibit A: (1) The dates of such contracts; (2) The specific asbestos-containing products that were used ore removed in each contract. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers no. 11. Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying or removing asbestos-containing refractory? If so, please give the name of each subdivision, the full address of the home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was were ever exposed to any asbestos containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers no. 12. Please identify by location and product produced, each plant in which products listed in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5 have been manufactured and/or assembled and the dates said plants have been in operation. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. 13. Has Defendant, at any time, entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as a buyer or a seller, concerning any asbestos-containing products and/or materials? If so, please state: (a) The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products under such agreement; (b) The trade name affixed to such products; (c) The periods of time covered by each such agreement; (d) The volume (in dollars amounts) of each such transaction; (e) The purchaser of such products; (f) Does Defendant currently have in its possession any of the writings or contracts concerning such rebranding agreement? ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it has insufficient information to respond to this interrogatory. See Preliminary Statement. 13.1 Have you ever owned or operated a business or portion thereof which engaged in construction, erection or tear out of furnaces, pipes, boilers, turbines, lehrs, ovens, kilns, etc.? If so, please state: (a) the same of said business; (b) the date of commencing business and cessation of business, if applicable; (c) type of construction or tear out performed; (d) state whether said business installed or supplied asbestoscontaining products on the furnaces, pipes, boilers, turbines, lehrs, etc., i.e., gaskets, pipecovering, block, cement, rope, cloth, clothes, etc., containing asbestos, asbestos pipe, board, etc.; (e) state the trade name and/or manufacturer of any asbestoscontaining product which you installed or supplied to any site on Exhibit A. (f) provide the dates for the applicable construction, installation or tear-out project. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers no. 13.2 Do you have within your custody, possession, or control any packages that presently or formerly packaged asbestos-containing products or were produced for the purpose of packaging asbestos-containing products contemporaneous with your manufacture sale or distribution of such asbestos-containing products? If so, provide the following: (a) a description of each such package; (b) the present location and custodian of each such package; (c) the date or approximate date on which each such package was produced. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers no. See also objections and answers to interrogatory number 5 subpart b.6. above. INFORMATION ABOUT DESIGN/TESTING 14. What is the name, address and job title of each individual who participated in the design and preparation of manufacturing specifications for each such product listed above in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it has insufficient information to answer this interrogatory. See Preliminary Statement. 15. As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please describe how each product was to be cut, shaped, scribed, mixed and applied on the job. (In answering this question, give particular reference as to whether or not the materials were to be sawed or cut on the job, blown into confined areas, mixed with water in a cement or paste.) ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that this interrogatory is inapplicable to it because its protective clothing products were not cut, shaped, scribed, mixed or applied. 16. Based upon the material contents of the asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, please state which products listed in Interrogatories No. 5, 8.02 or 8.04 could be applied by a worker without creating dust. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that this interrogatory is inapplicable to it because its protective clothing products were not applied. 17. Do any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character now exist relating to the design and preparation of the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please: (a) List each such written material or document; (b) Identify the person or persons presently in possession of each such document; (c) State where each such document is located. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that the only such documents remaining in existence are selected product development reports. But for the reasons set forth in its Preliminary Statement, American Optical has no way to ascertain whether any of the subject items were ever, in fact, marketed. 18. Prior to releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 for sale and usage, were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said products to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state: (a) The name of the products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; (c) The results of such tests. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it is not aware of any such tests. See Preliminary Statement. 18.1 Prior to releasing any products for sale and usage (whether asbestos- containing or not), were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said products to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state: (a) The name of the products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; (c) The results of such tests. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it is not aware of any such tests. See Preliminary Statement. 19. Does Defendant have or control any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character relating to the testing of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 hereinabove? (a) Identify each such written material or document; (b) Identify each person who presently has possession of each such document; (c) State where each such document is located. ANSWER: See objections and answers to interrogatory numbers 17 and 18 above. 20. Were any design changes or modifications made as a result of such tests listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 18 hereinabove? If so, please state: (a) The trade name of the product changed or modified; (b) The nature of the change made and the date of such changes or modifications; (c) The name, address, and job classification of each person in charge of making a change. ANSWER: See objections and answers to interrogatory numbers 17 and 18 above. 21. After releasing for sale, distribution or marketing the products listed in answer to Interrogatories No. 5 or 8.02, did Defendant conduct any tests (either on animals or humans) to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of said materials and/or products? (a) The names of the products tested and the dates of said tests; (b) The name, address, and job classification of each person and/or agency conducting said tests; (c) The results of said tests; (d) Whether, as a result of any tests conducted, any products were removed from the market; (e) The names of all products removed from the market as a result of said tests. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it has insufficient information with which to answer. See Preliminary Statement. 22. Has Defendant ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies concerning the effects of the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers on workers or other persons applying, using and/or working around any of the asbestos products manufactured, sold, distributed and/or relabelled for distribution by you or your predecessor? If so, please state: (a) The dates and nature of such studies; (b) The names and addresses of persons conducting such studies; (c) The purpose of such studies; (d) Identify and list those persons to whom such reports were given and the date of such dissemination; (e) State any publication or other written dissemination of the results of such studies; (f) State the nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; and (g) Attach a copy of reports based upon such studies. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it is not aware of any such studies. See Preliminary Statement. INFORMATION ABOUT SAFETY 23. Before placing in the market the asbestos-containing products that Defendant, mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed on the market, did Defendant make or cause to be made, any studies to determine whether their asbestos-containing products would be hazardous to people? If so, please state: (a) The date of said studies; (b) What studies were done; and (c) The titles of each study. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it is not aware of any such studies. See Preliminary Statement. 24. Please state whether or not Defendant ever conducted or caused to be conducted any tests in the field (where asbestos-containing products were applied, removed or utilized) to determine the nature and extent of asbestos dust and/or fiber exposure to insulators, applicators, fellow employees, or other workers removing and/or tearing out asbestos-containing products, and/or other workers in the vicinity thereof? If so, please identify: (a) The date, place and nature of each and every test; (b) The particular asbestos-containing products to which each test applied; (c) The results of each test with particular reference to the number of asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air found at each site; and (d) The persons to whom the results said tests were given and the date of such dissemination. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it is not aware of any such tests. See Preliminary Statement. 25. Please state whether or not Defendant ever obtained any knowledge concerning the likelihood of asbestos being hazardous to human health. If so, please state: (a) When Defendant first became aware of the hazardous potential of asbestos dust and asbestos fibers; (b) The manner in which the Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies first obtained this knowledge and became aware of said hazards and from what source this information was obtained; (c) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company, or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; (d) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. (e) The name, address and job classification of the custodian of such information. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, particularly in that it seeks to inquire about the corpo rate state of knowledge, which can only exist thro ugh the knowledge of individuals. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory as argumentative in that it assumes as fact the existence of a relationship between all types of exposure to all types of asbestos and the development of lung cancer, mesothelioma and/or other cancers, which assumption American Optical is unwilling to make. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that she was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous, among other reasons because it does not identify the particular type of asbestos in question, the type of product (if any) in which the asbestos was contained, or the manner in which the asbestos was used, and also because the term "hazardous to human health" is vague, ambiguous and undefine d. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, or which were created, collected or compiled in preparation for or anticipation of litigation. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it is American Optical's understanding that by the late 1960s, certain of its employees had become aware of studies by Dr. Irving Selikoff concerning the development of disease in insulation workers. American Optical was then aware that inhalation of asbestoscontaining dust in excess of established TLVs over a prolonged period of time could in some instances contribute to the development of certain lung diseases. American Optical has insufficient information to answer further. See Preliminary Statement. 26. Please state when Defendant first became aware of the possible association between inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers and the contraction of asbestosis and cancers including, but not limited to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, renal cancer, lymphoma, lung cancer and mesothelioma. As to each disease or condition, please state the source of that information, including a description of all tests conducted relative to the possibility of such a relationship. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 25 above. 27. Please identify all physicians, industrial hygienists, and other employees (including their names and addresses) who were employed, retained or otherwise engaged by Defendant for research, investigation or study concerning asbestos or asbestos-related diseases. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it has not employed a physician or biological scientist for at least the last 15 years. Prior to that time, American Optical employed Dr. Roger Allen of Sturbridge, MA and Dr. Phillip Wessling, now deceased. Additionally, employees of American Optical occasionally consulted with Dr. Edward Gaensler, a respiratory disease specialist in Boston, and Dr. Leslie Silverman, an industrial hygienist with the Harvard School of Public Health in the late 1960s to early 1970s. American Optical has no further information on the role or contributions of any of these individuals. American Optical is therefore unable to answer further. See Preliminary Statement. 28. As to each person who acted in a medical advisory capacity (as it relates in any way to asbestos) to Defendant, please list their name, the date individual acted in this capacity, and that person's current address and job title. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 27 above. 29. Please state if any medical officer or industrial hygienist or medical consultant ever made at any time any recommendations and/or suggestions to Defendant pertaining to the risks or hazards to persons involved in the manufacture or use of asbestos products and, if so, please state when, by whom or to whom such recommendations and/or suggestions were made and the substance of each recommendation. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 27 above. 30. Please state the scientific and/or medical periodicals to which Defendant, its medical department, research department, industrial hygiene divisions, engineering department or consulting physicians subscribed between 1945 and 1975. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, or which was created, collected or compiled in preparation for or anticipation of litigation. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that, at various times, either it or certain of its employees subscribed to the AMA's Archives of Industrial Medicine , American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, AMA Journal, Occupational Safety and Health Hazards, and National Safety News. American Optical has insufficient information to respond further. See Preliminary Statement. 30.1 Please state whether Defendant, its medical officer or industrial hygienist or medical consultant or physicians were ever involved in testing or received literature or correspondence from the Mellon Institute. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it is not aware of any of its employees or consultants participating in and testing or receiving any literature or correspondence from the Mellon Institute. See Preliminary Statement. 30.2 Has any engineer, industrial hygienist or physician in your employ been a member in any professional group, trade group or any of the following groups: Asbestos Textile Institute National Insulation Manufacturers Association Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association Quebec Asbestos Mining Association Asbestos Information Association Industrial Health Foundation Industrial Hygiene Foundation Iron and Steel Institute National Safety Counsel Refractories Institute Air Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc. Sprayed Mineral Fiber Association If the answer is yes, state the following: (a) The name of the group or groups in which the individual(s) were members; (b) The name and position individual(s) within the Defendant, as defined, who were members; (c) The years the individual(s) were members of the groups; (d) Whether the Defendant paid the individual(s) dues or membership fees or reimbursed the individual(s) for dues or membership fees in the group. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because by its terms, it is not limited to trade organizations directly related to the use of asbestos or the manufacture of asbestos -containing products, because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that, at various times, either it or certain of its employees were members of The National Safety Council, The American Industrial Hygiene Association, The Industrial Safety Equipment Organization and The American Ceramics Society. American Optical has insufficient information to answer further. See Preliminary Statement. 31. State in detail what test, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit vdues of asbestos dust, fibers or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with and/or around, installing and/or applying your asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical responds that upon information and belief, it conducted air sampling at its manufacturing facility in Putnam, CT, the results of which showed numbers well-below the TLVs at the time. American Optical has insufficient information to respond further. 32. For each test described in Interrogatory No. 31, please give the name of the person conducting the test, the date of the test, and attach true copies of any documents, including but not limited to, reports, findings or memoranda concerning such tests or studies. ANSWER See objections and answer to interrogatory number 31. 33. Please state the year that Defendant was first advised of either threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and state the name of the employee/official of the company receiving such advice. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, particularly in that it seeks to inquire about the corporate state of knowledge, which can only exist thro ugh the knowledge of individuals. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous, among other reasons because the term "asbestos dust" is ambiguous and misleading. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it became aware of threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of total dust and/or asbestos dust by at least the late 1960s. American Optical has insufficient information to answer further. See Preliminary Statement. 33.1 State whether this defendant at any time caused to be conducted on any jobsite, any air sampling, dust counts, tests or other activities to determine air quality or worker safety. If' your answer is in the affirmative, please indicate: (a) the date of any such air samples, tests, or activities; (b) by whom such activities were performed; (c) where such activities were performed; (d) the results of any such activities. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory No. 31. 34. Does Defendant maintain a library dealing with industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and engineering and/or research? If so, state: (a) The date each such library was established; (b) The location of each library; (c) The name(s) of the librarian(s) since 1930; (d) List all journals subscribed to by you concerning asbestos, industrial hygiene, medicine, safety, and/or engineering; (e) List all books and articles dealing with asbestos and asbestosrelated diseases and the date acquired. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to plaintiffs' asbestos-related claims against American Optical, or to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, or which was created, collected or compiled in preparation for or anticipation of litigation. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it has no information that it maintained a medical library. American Optical has no information that it maintained a formal or informal library containing discoverable information relevant to plaintiff's asbestos-related claims against it. See Preliminary Statement. 35. Did Defendant in the 1920's or 1930's commission, or participate in the arrangements with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for studies at the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, concerning the effect of inhalation or ingestion of asbestos fibers upon human and/or animal bodies. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to plaintiffs' asbestos-related claims against American Optical, to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it did not begin to manufacture asbestoscontaining protective clothing products until approximately 1938. American Optical further answers that it has no information that, in 1938 or 1939, it participated or entered into arrangements with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company or Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, concerning any of its asbestos-containing protective clothing products. See Preliminary Statement. 36. When was Defendant first aware of reports of studies of the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, entitled "Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust in the Lungs of Asbestos Workers" by A.J. Lanza, Assistant Medical Director published in the J. Public Health Report, Vol. 50, No. 1, dated January 4, 1935 ("Lanza Report")? ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory be cause it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, particularly in that it seeks to inquire about the corporate state of knowledge, which can only exist thro ugh the knowledge of individuals. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to plaintiffs' claims against American Optical, to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, to the type of exposure to asbestos alleged by plaintiff, and also because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos -containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that, considering its present state of knowledge, information and belief, it cannot determine when it first became aware of this study. Additionally, it has no record of when an individual employed by it may have learned of this study. See Preliminary Statement. 36.1 Did you ever contract with Saranac Laboratories to study the hazards of any dust producing product manufactured by you (whether asbestos containing or not)? If so, identify by date and author all documents concerning or any way related to such study. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to plaintiffs' asbestos-related claims against American Optical, to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it its argumentative, specifically because it assumes that American Optical manufactured an asbestos-containing product that produced dust. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it has no information that it ever contracted with Saranac Laboratories regarding any of its asbestos-containing protective clothing products. See Preliminary Statement. 36.2 Did you ever contract with Saranac Laboratories to analyze dust or products? If so, identify by date and author all documents concerning or any way related to such analysis. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 36.1 above. 37. Please state whether the Defendant at any time has been a member of any "trade organization" or "trade association" composed by other manufacturers, miners, distributors, and/or sellers of asbestos-containing products and, if so, please identify the name and address of each such association or organization, the dates of membership, and the names of any publications issued or written by such association or organization. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 30.2 above. 38. With respect to each trade organization or association listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 37, please state whether the minutes of the group's meetings and any correspondence between the members of such groups concerning the hazards of asbestos exposure are available. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, among other reasons because it seeks discovery of information which was never in the possession, custody or control of American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it has no information regarding any such meeting minutes or correspondence. See Preliminary Statement. 39. Please identify by name the technical and trade association periodicals to which the Defendant subscribed, and state whether Defendant had knowledge of any articles being printed, or withheld from printing, in said periodicals pertaining to the potential hazards of asbestos. If so, please state the following: (a) The title of each such article; (b) The periodical in which each such article was published; (c) The date each such article was published; (d) A detailed explanation of the reason for withholding any such article for printing; (e) Produce documentation which refers, alludes or mentions articles which were withheld for publication. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 30 above. By way of further answer, American Optical has no information that any article in any of the journals to which it or its employees subscribed ever withheld from printing any articles related to asbestos. 40. Please state whether, prior to 1975, the Defendant sponsored, or attended any meeting, seminar, conference, convention or legislative hearing where the subject of occupational health and exposure to asbestos was discussed and, if so, please state the date and place of such meeting and the name and address of any speakers or participants. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff have produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical responds that it has insufficient information to answer. See Preliminary Statement. WARNINGS/SALES PROMOTION 41. As to each product listed in response to Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 8.02, please state whether Defendant, at any time, published and/or distributed any printed materials, including but not limited to brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packagings or other written materials of any kind or character that contain any warnings, cautions, caveats or directions concerning the possible health effects of the products on a person. If so, please state as to each product: (a) The name of each relevant product; (b) The wording of each such warning; (c) A description of each such printed material; (d) The method used to distribute the warning to persons who are likely to use the products; (e) The date each such warning was issued; (f) Whether any warning accompanied any of your asbestoscontaining products' sales literature, handout or pamphlets; (g) Please attach a copy of the warning and date said warning was issued; (h) The name, address, and job classification of each person who presently has possession of the above-described documents; (i) The name or names and addresses of the company who provided, produced, or manufactured the boxes or containers on which the warning appeared and dates these boxes with the warnings appeared. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical is informed and believes its protective clothing products did not release asbestos fibers which posed hazards to the wearers of said products during their normal use. Therefore, there was no reason for any such warning. 42. Has sales material been prepared by Defendant or its agents for purposes of marketing or advertising the asbestos products listed in answer to Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 8.02? If so, please state: (a) The name and address of each person or entity who prepared same; (b) The name, address and job title of each person who presently has possession of same; (c) The date same was prepared; (d) The media used to disseminate the sales material. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that product catalogs and other materials were prepared regularly to market its asbestos-containing and non-asbestoscontaining protective clothing products. American Optical has insufficient information to answer further. See Preliminary Statement. 43. Has any written material of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant, Defendant's predecessor or any of Defendant's subsidiary companies or their agents indicating how the products listed in answer to Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 8.02 should be used or maintained by the ultimate user or those working in facilities or at jobsites where the product was used, installed or removed, including, but not limited to, those sites listed on the jobsite list attached as Exhibit A. If so, please state the following: (a) The name, address and job classification of each person who prepared same; (b) The name, address and job classification of each person who presently has possession of same; (c) The dates and manner in which said material was distributed to purchasers of the products in answer to Interrogatory No. 5. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous because plaintiff has not provided specific years during which she alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products at the facility listed on Exhibit A to these interrogatories. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it calls for speculation because, regardless of any products that might have been sold, shipped or distributed to the job sites listed on Exhibit A to these interrogatories, American Optical has no way of knowing whether any were actually present at the job site during the time periods when plaintiff actually worked at the job site. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that some of its product catalogs and other materials contained brief descriptions of the suggested uses for its asbestoscontaining and non-asbestos-containing protective clothing products. American Optical has insufficient information to answer further. See Preliminary Statement. 44. Was any written material of any kind prepared by Defendant and distributed to those individuals listed in response to Interrogatory No. 9? If so, please state the following: (a) Identify the written material by content and date; (b) To whom was it delivered. ANSWER: See objections and answer to interrogatory number 9 above. By way of further answer, American Optical answers that it has insufficient information to answer further. See Preliminary Statement. 45. Does Defendant contend that asbestos-containing products can be manufactured so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or around, installing or applying same? If so, please state the following: (a) The date that Defendant first determined that another product could be used in place of asbestos; (b) The chemical of the substitute; (c) Whether the substitute is suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used; (d) Whether Defendant used the substitute for asbestos to 1971; (e) Whether Defendant ever used the substitute for asbestos for high or low heat insulation. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous, among other reasons because its sub-parts do not seem to relate to the primary question asked, and because the interrogatory is unclear and cannot be answered. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos containing product manufactured by American Optical. 46. Did Defendant give any warnings to any individuals at the sites listed on Exhibit A, including any individuals who owned, operated, or managed the facilities at the sites listed on Exhibit A, regarding the potential health hazards of any product listed in response to Interrogatories Nos. 5, and 8.02. If yes, please state: (a) Name of person most knowledgeable about this communication. (b) Name of person at the sites listed on Exhibit 1, attached hereto most knowledgeable about this communication. (c) Dates of each communication. (d) Contents of each communication. ANSWER: See objections and answers to interrogatory numbers 41 and 8.1 above. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous because plaintiff has not provided specific years during which he alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products at the facility listed on Exhibit A to these interrogatories. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it calls for speculation because, regardless of any products that might have be en sold, shipped or distributed to the job sites listed on Exhibit A to these interrogatories, American Optical has no way of knowing whether any were actually present at the job sites during the time periods when plaintiff actually worked at the job sites. KNOWLEDGE OF PREVIOUS INJURIES 47. Did any person prior to 1970, file a claim against any Workers' Compensation carrier covering Defendant alleging that he or she contracted a disease as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, please state the following: (a) A list of each such claim by claimant's name, date filed, the caption and jurisdiction involved; (b) The disease alleged in each such claim; (c) A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim; and (d) The name, address and job classification of the person or persons having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to plaintiff's asbestos-related claims against American Optical, to the type of exposure to asbestos alleged by plaintiff, to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it has no information regarding any workers' compensation claim filed against it prior to 1970. See Preliminary Statement. 47.1 Please identify all documents concerning or in any way related to any decisions made by you to cease manufacturing asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to plaintiff's asbestos-related claims against American Optical, to the type of exposure to asbestos alleged by plaintiff, to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers identifying a memorandum dated June 24, 1976 from E.W. Heywood and supporting documentation. 47.2 Has any person or company from which you purchased asbestos containing products ever issued a recall of their products or taken any action to take those products off the market after said products were in your possession? If so, provide: (a) the date of said recall; (b) the name of the company which issued the recall; (c) a copy of the recall. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailoredto plaintiff's asbestos-related claims against American Optical, to the type of exposure to asbestos alleged by plaintiff, to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it is unaware of any such recall. See Preliminary Stateme nt. 47.3 State what action, if any, you have ever taken since 1930 to minimize or eliminate any risk of occupational disease or pneumoconiosis to those at any time engaged in the manufacture or production of asbestos-containing products. ANSWER American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to plaintiff's asbestos-related claims against American Optical, to the type of exposure to asbestos alleged by plaintiff, to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. 47.4 State what action, if any, you have ever taken since 1930 to minimize or eliminate any risk of occupational disease or pneumoconiosis to those at any time engaged in the use, as distinguished from the manufacture, or exposed to the use of asbestos-containing or industrial insulation products or who were otherwise exposed to asbestos-containing or industrial insulation products. (a) describe such action; (b) state when such action was taken; (c) state what written material exists related to such action; (d) state the names, job titles and last known address of the individuals who undertook such actions. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to plaintiff's asbestos-related claims against American Optical, to the type of exposure to asbestos alleged by plaintiff, to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. 48. Did Defendant receive notice prior to 1968 that any person was claiming injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured, sold, installed, and/or distributed by Defendant? If so, please state: (a) The name and address of each claimant; (b) The date of notice of each claim; (c) A description of the claim; (d) The type of injuries allegedly sustained; (e) The name and address of each attorney representing the individuals making such claims; (f) The style and court number of each such claim; (g) The resolution of each claim. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to plaintiff's asbestos-related claims against American Optical, to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it has no information regarding any such claim brought against it prior to 1968. See Preliminary Statement. 48.1 Describe the method by which you have maintained records concerning the manufacturer, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery and/or installation or tear-out of each of asbestos-containing products. For each description provide the following: (a) each present and former company or corporate department, division or subdivision responsible for maintaining such records; (b) the manner in which the records are kept (e.g., boxes, computer tape, microfilm, etc.); (c) the inclusive dates of any such manufacturer, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery, and/or installation or tearout which such record keeping system covers; (d) the present location at which all such records are maintained; (e) the identity of each person employed by you at any time from 1930 to the present who is or was responsible for the collection and maintenance of such records. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, or which was created, collected or compiled in preparation for or anticipation of litigation. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that in September 1977, American Optical sold its protective clothing line, and transferred the majority of its documents to the Racine Glove Company. Thus, after that date, it has not maintained any records concerning its asbestos-containing protective clothing products in the ordinary course of business. However, certain limited documents were discovered through the years during investigations of asbestos claims brought against it. Those documents are primarily in paper form, and are currently in possession of counsel. American Optical has insufficient information to respond further. See Preliminary Statement. 48.2 State whether any records concerning the manufacture, sale, supply, distribution, advertising, delivery, use or installation or tear-out of asbestos-containing products have been destroyed or discarded and if so, indicate: (a) the date and location of such destruction or discard; (b) the custodian and location of such records prior to their destruction or discard and the identity of each employee, representative, official or agent who ordered, authorized or supervised such destruction or discard. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, or which was created, collected or compiled in preparation for or anticipation of litigation. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical responds that in September 1977, American Optical sold its protective clothing line, and transferred the majority of its documents to the Racine Glove Company. American Optical has insufficient information to respond further. See Preliminary Statement. 48.3 For all documents, other than invoices, work orders and/or purchase orders, which relate to matters relevant to the all the preceding interrogatories: (a) Is there any kind of index for the documents? (b) How many pages is the index of documents? (c) How many documents are referred to in the index? (d) Is the index maintained in electronic format (i.e. database, word processing or other computerized format)? (e) What manner of electronic format is used? ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, or which was created, collected or compiled in preparation for or anticipation of litigation. 48.4 For all invoices, work orders and/or purchase orders, which relate to matters relevant to the all the preceding interrogatories: (a) Is there any kind of index for the documents? (b) How many pages is the index of documents? (c) How many documents are referred to in the index? (d) Is the index maintained in electronic format (i.e. database, word processing or other computerized format)? (e) What manner of electronic format is used? ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, or which was created, collected or compiled in preparation for or anticipation of litigation. PLAINTIFF/DECEDENT 49. Has Defendant obtained statement from any witnesses including the Plaintiffs? If so, please: (a) list each witness who has given a statement and the name, address, and job title of each person having custody of any such statement. ANSWER: American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestoscontaining products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving this objection, American Optical answers that, other than depositions previously taken in plaintiff's case, no. 50. Do you contend that the Plaintiff/Decedent improperly used those products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please set out in detail in what respect the product was improperly used. ANSWER: American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not na rrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestoscontaining products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving this objection, American Optical answers that it is continuing to investigate the facts of plaintiff's case. American Optical will supplement its response to this interrogatory when its investigation is complete, if its investigation reveals information pertinent to this interrogatory. 51. As to the sites listed on Exhibit A, and as to each Plaintiff/Decedent, please state whether Defendant contends that there was any substance other than asbestos which contributed or caused Plaintiff/Decedent's injuries. If your answer is yes, please state the following: (a) The facts upon which you rely; (b) The identity of the sources upon which you rely which substantiate these facts. ANSWER: American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestoscontaining products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous because plaintiff has not provided specific years during which he alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products at the facility listed on Exhibit A to these interrogatories. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it calls for speculation because, regardless of any products that might have been sold, shipped or distributed to the job sites listed on Exhibit A to these interrogatories, American Optical has no way of knowing whether any were actually present at the job sites during the time periods when plaintiff actually worked at the job sites. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it is continuing to investigate the facts of plaintiff's case. American Optical will supplement its response to this interrogatory when its investigation is complete, if its investigation reveals information pertinent to this interrogatory. RESPIRATORS 52. Would any respirator, mask or other breathing devices prevent inhalation of the asbestos dust and fibers contained in products listed in answer to Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 8.02? If so, state: (a) When the respirator was sold; (b) A detailed description of such respirator or other breathing devices, including name of manufacturer and model number; (c) The basis of your claim that such respirators or other breathing devices will prevent the inhalation of such dust and fibers; (d) Identify any tests performed regarding the efficaciousness of such respirators and other breathing devices in preventing the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers including date, title, author and number; (e) List all documents which mention, allude or refer to tests performed on breathing devices which prevented the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this request for production because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this request for production because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to plaintiff's asbestos-related claims against American Optical as a producer of asbestos -containing protective clothing products, because it is not limited to times and places where plaintiff allege exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was exposed to an asbestos-containing protective clothing product manufactured by American Optical. 53. Does Defendant expect to call expert witnesses at the trial of this case? If so, please state the following: (a) Their identity, last known address; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The expert's specific conclusion and specific opinions and the specific basis therefore; (d) The expert's qualifications to render the opinions set forth above; (e) Whether any person identified in sub-paragraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify such document or report; (f) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to sub-paragraph (a) above; and (g) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treaties, article, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu, of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answer. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this request for production because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, among other reasons because it seeks discovery of documents which were never in the possession or control of American Optical. American Optical also objects to this request for production because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to plaintiff's asbestos-related claims against American Optical as a producer of asbestos-containing protective clothing products, because it is not limited to times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was exposed to an asbestos-containing protective clothing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical answers that it has not yet determined its experts in these cases, thus it cannot respond at this time. American Optical will provide expert reports as required in this Court's Case Management Order and the local rules of this Court. 54. Please state the name and last know address of each expert witness who is not retained or employed for that purpose who is an employee of Defendant and will render an opinion within his expertise at the time of trial. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this request for production because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, among other reasons because it seeks discovery of documents which were never in the possession or control of American Optical. American Optical also objects to this request for production because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to plaintiff's asbestos-related claims against American Optical as a producer of asbestos-containing protective clothing products, because it is not limited to times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was exposed to an asbestos-containing protective clothing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical responds that it has not yet determined its experts in these cases, thus it cannot respond at this time. American Optical will provide expert reports as required in this Court's Case Management Order and the local rules of this Court. 55. Does Defendant admit that service of process was properly had on it in these cases? If not, please state why. ANSWER: American Optical is a party the case identified in the caption above. To the best of its knowledge, American Optical has been served with process the case identified in the caption above. 55.1 For each and every affirmative defense asserted in the answering defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, the Cross-Claims or Counter-Claims of any party against this answering defendant state: (a) the facts upon which the answering defendant relies for each and every affirmative defense; (b) each and every document which will be offered to prove each and every affirmative defense; and (c) each and every witness who will testify in support of each and every affirmative defense. (d) the substance and subject matter of the anticipated testimony of each witness identified in the preceding response. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine , or which was created, collected or compiled in preparation for or anticipation of litigation. Subject to and without waiving these objections, American Optical responds that, under the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Rules of the General Division and the standing Case Management Order governing all asbestos cases in Cuyahoga County, American Optical's appearance in these cases constitutes an allegation of all affirmative defenses and a claim for indemnification and contribution from any other party. Thus, American Optical did not specifically assert any particular affirmative defenses in this case. American Optical is still determining which affirmative defenses are applicable to each of these cases, if any. 56. Does Defendant have policies of insurance that might cover the claims that have been made by the Plaintiffs herein? (a) If so, please list the name of each insurance carrier who may have coverage, the amount of such coverage, and the dates of each such policy. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome, and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 56.1 Have you ever been involved in any litigation concerning potential insurance coverage for asbestos products liability matters? If so, please state: (a) the case caption, court and date of filing of each case in which you have been involved; (b) whether you were plaintiff or defendant; (c) a brief statement of the issues; (d) identify by date, author and recipient(s), (including recipients of carbon copies) all documents listed as exhibits by either party in this litigation; (e) identify by deponent and date all individuals who were deposed in these cases; (f) identify by date, author and recipient(s) all documents that have been placed on a protective order in such litigation; (g) identify all expert witnesses retained for use at trial in any of the above litigation by name, address and telephone number. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome, and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this Interrogatory because it irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 57. Please state the name and address of each person who has knowledge of relevant facts regarding claims and defenses of this lawsuit. ANSWER: American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos- containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Subject to and without waiving this objection, American Optical answers that it is continuing to investigate the facts of plaintiff's case. American Optical will supplement its response to this interrogatory when its investigation is complete, if such investigation reveals information responsive to this interrogatory. 58. State the last date that this Defendant sold, distributed, manufactured, installed, used and/or otherwise placed asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce. ANSWER: See objections and answers to interrogatory numbers 3 and 5 above, as well as the Preliminary Statement. 59. Please state the geographical limits, if any, by state in which you conducted business for the manufacture, sale, distribution, use or installation of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. If you had discrete geographical limits within a state, please state the county or counties in which you conducted business for that particular state or states. If there were time limitations for such geographical limitations, please state the time period for each geographical location. ANSWER: American Optical objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. American Optical also objects to this interrogatory because it seeks discovery of information which is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, among other reasons because it is not narrowly tailored to the times and places where plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products, and because plaintiff has produced no evidence purporting to show that he was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by American Optical. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Halle M. Hebert_____________ JEFFREY A. HEALY (0059833) HALLE M. HEBERT (007264l) TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP 1150 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1475 (216)592-5000 (216) 592-5009(FAX) jhealy@tuckerellis.com hhebert@tuckerellis.com Attorneys for Defendant American Optical Corporation CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing Separate Defendant American Optical Corporation's Answers To Plaintiff's First Master Set of Interrogatories Propounded To Defendants has been served on plaintiff electronically this 12th day of November, 2008. Imanage.1022997.1 /s/ Halle M. Hebert_____________ JEFFREY A. HEALY (0059833) HALLE M. HEBERT (0072641) TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP 1150 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1475 (216)592-5000 (216) 592-5009(FAX) jhealy@tuckerellis.com hhebert@tuckerellis.com Attorneys for Defendant American Optical Corporation