Document Rjj6XwkL0vzj3Q5y5xmaNaJOE

INTERROGATORY NO. 76: State whether such threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations referred to in Interrogatory No. 75 involved TOTAL dust or just asbestos dust? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 76: Abex objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, unduly burdensome, compound, vague and ambiguous and calls for speculation. Abex also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information or materials it purports to seek lack relevance to the issues arising in these cases and are not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent it purports to seek information or materials regarding the working conditions of Abex employees, this interrogatory is further objected to on the grounds that such information or materials lack relevance to the issues arising in these cases and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Abex objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it assumes the truth of matters not established or matters not in evidence. Abex also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is speculative inasmuch as it fails to distinguish among raw asbestos, asbestos contained in building insulation products and/or asbestos-containing automotive friction products, and/or among the different types of asbestos fibers. Because the asbestos fiber contained in Abex's asbestos-containing automotive friction products was chrysotile, the only type of asbestos Abex ever used for product production, which was resin-bonded and encapsulated, proper use of such products did not create or contribute to any adverse health effects. -174-