Document QgJNqJmjJMXymRoazqb44J9z6

V F-iTNEY Hardin. Kipp S* Szuch 163 MADISON AVENUE CN 1945 MORRISTOWN. NEW JERSEY 07960-1945 MORRISTOWN (201) 267-3333 NEW YORK (212) 926-0331 TELEX 64201* TELECOPIER (201) 267-3727 NEWARK OFFICE 33 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK. NEW JERSEY 07102 writer's direct dial number (201) 631- 4817 ROBERT P. NAZUEMUHST, JR. JOHN BARKER CHARLES R. HARDIN. JR. ROGER C. Ward JAMES C. PITNEY WILLIAM 0. HARDIN CLYDE A. SZUCH S. JOSEPH PORTUNATO OAVIO J. CONNOLLY. JR. WILLIAM H. HYATT, JR. LAWRENCE F. REILLY MURRAY J. LAUUCHT EDWARD P. LYNCH GERALD C. NEABV JOSEPH LUNiN RICHARD L. PLOTHIN TIMOTHY R. GREINER ROBERT I-. HOUSINGS HEAD FREDERICK L. WHITMER GREGORY C. RARLIMAN ROBERT G. ROSE Patrick J- McCarthy JOSEPH H. KOTT MARY LOU PARKER Paul e. graham J. MICHAEL NOLAN. JR. WARREN J- CASEY KEVIN J. O'OONNELL GLENN C. GEIGER DENNIS R. LA FlURA GAIL H. ALLYN HENRY NELSON MASSEY ELIZABETH C. FLANAGAN SEAN R. KELLY PATRICIA A. PICKREL WILLIAM P. SHELLEY JAMES H. FOSTER WILLIAM J. FRIEDMAN DAVID G. HARDIN DENNIS T. KEARNEY JANICE MONTANA H. GLENN TUCKER BARBARA E. SLACK JANE M. HARDIN HELEN E. HOENS BETTY ANN MCWILLIAMS BARBARA A. MOORE LAWRENCE J. NAGY KENNETH J. NORCROSS CHARLES QUINN EVELYN R. STORCH DINAH H. BOURNE DONALD W. KIEL CYNTHIA B. LUPO MARIE O. NAROINO JOEL M. ROSEN JOHN K. 3KRYPAK LORI J. BRAENOER JEFF ELLENTUCK THERESA OONAHUE EGLER KATHY A. LAWLER HARRIETT JANE OLSON ELIZABETH J. SHER LLOYO H. TUBMAN ERNEST J. CICCONI ANN V. CONReY michael J- Dunne JAMES H. FORTE KATHLEEN A. GREEN MARIE N. JACKSON EILEEN A. LINDSAY THOMAS J. MALMAN RICHARD J. MUMFORD OAVIO NIU KAREN M. PALMA JAMES O. RAY SCOTT A. SMITH KENNETH E. THOMPSON PETER G. VERNIERO MILLIE E. WILLIAMS IVETTE R. ALVAREZ MATTHEW J. BROAS JOSEPH W. COIRO HOPE S. CONE LAURAN S. o'alessio OAVIO P. DOYLE Jennifer chandler haugC DEBORAH HENNIGAN KNAPP STEVEN B. LARSEN ALAN G. LESNEWICH PATRICIA B. SANTELLE JAMES A. SCHRAGGER GREGG S. SODINI BETSY L. WEISS LAWRENCE H. WERTHEIM BARRY D. BERNSTEIN ERIN A. DOLAN KAREN GRECO-BUTA BENJAMIN E. MAGLUND JUSTIN M. MONAGHAN LINDA FARRELL WALKER ANOREA C. ZAVESKY February 6, 1987 Peter F. Davey, Esq. Union Carbide Corporation Law Department 39 Old Ridgebury Road Danbury, Connecticut 06817-0001 ^ p EBl 0 1987 Re: Memice v. PPG Industries , Inc. Dear Peter: Enclosed please find a copy of Claire Barile's letter of February 4, 1987 to Judge Mandak, wherein she asks for reconsideration of the Judge's Order directing the defendants to answer Interrogatory No. 10 by February 13. In a nutshell, she objects to the breadth of the Interrogatory and proposes that it not be answered at this time but, rather, that it be discussed at the court conference on February 17. This, of course, was the course you and I agreed to follow during our last telephone discussion, i.e., object to the question and raise it at the conference. I will advise you promptly when there is a reply from Judge Mandak. Sincerely, RLH:js Enclosure ROBERT L. HOLLINGSHEAD PRIVILEGED AND "CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" ucc 076753 /c * WILLIAM f. TOMRKINB WILLIAM . MCGUIRE, A. A. HOWARD o. WACHENFCLD FRANCIS X. CMAHAT GREGORY J.CABTANO WILLIAM J. McOCC DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH CLAIRE T. BARILC NO*CAT j. KELLY CHARLES K. MEUSE ROSCRT 9. RRICSTLEY WILLIAM S, WACHENFELO REX K. HARRIOTT WILLIAM J. ABOUT, JR. ROSCRT J. McGUIRL BRIAN C. MATTHEW* tompkins, McGuire & wachenfeld (A PARTNERSHIP IHClODIND A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION) COUNSELORS AT LAW 8*0 ROAD STREET NEWARK, N. J. 07102 NEWARK lion OSt'SOOO NEW TORN (1111 77S-RID4 CABLE ADDRESS "T MW LAW" TELEX: BIOS* TELECOPIER: (SOI) 6*1-8*68 WRITER'S DIRECT LIME - 5912 February 4, 1987 MICHAEL F. MASSIMINO STEVEN BACKFISCH MICHAEL r. NESTOR LORRAINE M. ARMENTI JAM CS H. HCALC OAVIO C. SCALCRA ELLEN N. CORSO ROBERT O. TOWEY JANYCC W. STAHL KELLY R. LCI0HT MARIANNE M. DEMARCO GREGORY M. GENNARO ROSEMARY A-JUSTCR or ceuNicL WILLIAM T. WACHENFELD RAYMOND W. TROY Hon. Nicholas G. Mandak Assignment Judge Superior Court of New Jersey Passaic County Court House Paterson, New Jersey 07505 Re: Memice v. PPG Industries, et al. Docket No. L-20509-86_________________ Dear Judge Mandak: As the result of a number of motions and arguments before Your Honor on December 19, 1986, in the above entitled matter, and subsequent correspondence to Your Honor from plaintiff's counsel and from several defense counsel, including myself, specifically directed to Your Honor's ruling that ten simple interrogatories be served by plaintiff's counsel, to be answered by all defendants. Your Honor entered an Order on January 16, 1987, directing that all defendants answer four of the interrogatories served by plaintiff by Friday, February 13, 1987. This matter is scheduled for Case Management Conference before Your Honor on Tuesday, February 17, 1987. On behalf of the defendants represented by this office, who are identified on the schedule annexed to this correspondence, and having telephoned Your Honor's Chambers to determine the best manner in which to bring this issue to Your Honor's attention, I direct this correspondence to Your Honor to request that the ruling embodied in your Order of January 16, 1987, be modified as to one interrogatory only. The problem is with interrogatory No. 10. That interrogatory was directed to be answered by Your Honor, UCC 076754 TOMPKINS. McGUIRE & WACHENFELD Hon. Nicholas G. Mandak February 4, 1987 Page 2. together with interrogatories 5, 6, and 9. Interrogatories 5 and 6 seek substantive information concerning each defendant*s supply of the chemical at issue in this matter (vinyl chloride monomer or VCM) to the employer of the decedent (Pantasote Company). I believe that these questions are consistent with Your Honor's rulings. Question No. 9, while arguably beyond the strict scope of permissible inquiry for the ten simple questions, seeks information relevant to each defendant's involvement or lack of involvement in the claim and the litigation. That question seeks each defendant's position with regard to supply, manufacture or distribution of "VCM which caused plaintiff's injury." Question No. 10, however, seeks information from each defendant as to the supply of "any chemicals to the Pantasote Company, Passaic facility, from 1960 to 1983." Defendants object to this question on two bases, and feel it imperative to bring this matter to Your Honor's attention for reconsideration. The first basis for objection is a substantive one. Plaintiff's claim is that the decedent developed and died from a particular disease (angiosarcoma) as the result of his exposure to a particular chemical (vinyl chloride monomer). No other claim is made. All defendants are named as manufacturers, distributors, or suppliers of vinyl chloride monomer. Interrogatories 5, 6, and 9, which seek information as to manufacture, distribution and supply of vinyl chloride monomer to decedent's employer are, therefore, the relevant questions. Question 10 goes far beyond the scope of any claim made in this case. Plaintiff has named as defendants all known alleged manufacturers of vinyl chloride monomer. It is not alleged by plaintiff that each defendant supplied vinyl chloride monomer to the employer, Pantasote Company. Rather, it is alleged that vinyl chloride monomer was supplied to Pantasote from among the defendants. The defendants must now "prove the negative," that is, come forth with information as to their supply of vinyl chloride monomer to Pantasote Company, to demonstrate whether they should or should not be parties to this litigation. In your rulings on December 19, 1986, and in your Order of January 16, 1987, Your Honor has directed that this be done, and each defendant, in answering questions 5, 6, and 9 of plaintiff's interrogatories will be providing this information. With question 10, however, each defendant, most not proper UCC 076755 TOMPKINS. McGUIRE & WACHENFELD Hon. Nicholas G. Mandak February 4, 1987 Page 3. parties to this litigation, will be put to the additional burden of searching all records for all chemicals for a twenty-three year period to provide information as to. whether any chemical was ever supplied to Pantasote Company. The defendants are, for the most part, major, multi-national chemical companies. They number thousands of chemicals among their products. The burden involved in answering question No. 10 is enormous. Before imposing this burden on the defendants, it is respectfully requested that plaintiff should be compelled to make a showing as to the relevance of this information, and that plaintiff should further be compelled, at the very least, to name any specific additional chemicals about which inquiry could or should be made. Without this information, plaintiff is on a "fishing expedition," and defendants must look for "a needle in a haystack." The second objection, while following from the first, is more practical in nature. All defendants have been aware from the institution of the litigation that the claim is one of exposure to vinyl chloride monomer at the Pantasote Company. All are, therefore, in a position to respond quickly and within the time constraints set by Your Honor to inquiries regarding the supply of vinyl chloride monomer to Pantasote Company. The logistics of checking additional records for "any chemical" within the constraints imposed, so that answers must be provided by February 13, 1987, make compliance impossible for many of the defendants. Should Your Honor determine that question No. 10, as presently drawn or as modified, must be answered by all defendants, an enlargement of the time period within which an answer is required is respectfully sought. In an effort to arrive at an appropriate arrangement and accommodation with respect to question No. 10, I have conferred by telephone with plaintiff's counsel. He has refused any accommodation, but has consented to my bringing the issue to Your Honor's attention in this correspondence. I respectfully suggest that an appropriate manner in which to accommodate the defendants' objections with regard to question No. 10, while not impeding the orderly progress of case management, would be to require defendants to answer questions 5, 6, and 9 by February 13, 1987, as set forth in Your Honor's Order, but to defer the obligation to answer question 10 so that the issue of question No. 10 can be discussed at the Case Management Conference before Your Honor on February 17, 1987. Alternatively, this office is prepared to move on short uCC 016156 TOMPKINS. MCGUIRE & WACHENFELD Hon. Nicholas G. Mandak February 4, 1987 Page 4. notice for a protective order with regard to question No. 10. We are also prepared, should Your Honor so instruct, to file appropriate motion papers for a protective order to be returnable on February 17 so that the issue is formally before Your Honor on that date. Should there be any other procedure that Your Honor may wish to follow, we will, of course, proceed as you direct. The issue is one of significant concern and import to the defendants, and I respectfully request that Your Honor take that factor into consideration in determining how we should proceed on this issue. I am, of course, directing a copy of this correspondence to plaintiff's counsel, as well as to all other defense counsel. I thank Your Honor for your attention to this matter. Respectfully yours, Claire T. Barile For TOMPKINS, McGUIRE & WACHENFELD CTB/mm cc: S. Robert Princiotto, Esq. All Defense Counsel UCC 076757 Memice v. PPG Industries, et als. SCHEDULE A Defendants represented by Tompkins, McGuire PPG Industries, Inc. Georgia Gulf Corporation Uniroyal Inc. Shell Oil Company The Dow Chemical Company Conoco, Inc. Formosa Plastics Corporation U.S.A. Georgia-Pacific Corporation Allied Corporation Stauffer Chemical Company Diamond Shamrock Corporation Tenneco Inc. Air Products and Chemicals Inc. Ethyl Corporation Wachenfeld UCC 076758