Document V8OXEoNdnN6z57a0OzxNL9Mo

( IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY MILTON W. BARTHOLOMY, Plaintiff, v. JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) Nos. 80-2-09710-5 ) ' 80-2-14801-0 ) ) ) ELAINE BARTHOLOMY Plaintiff, v. JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION,et al., Defendants. ___________________________________ ) ) ) RESPONSES OF TURNER & NEWALL ) PLC TO PLAINTIFF BARTHOLOMYS' ) THIRD INTERROGATORIES ) ) ) ) ) ) Pursuant to the Civil Rules for the Superior Court of the State of Washington, Turner & Newall PLC (sued herein as T'`"ner & Newall, Ltd. and as J.W. Roberts, Ltd.) (collectively "T&N") , provides the following responses to plaintiffs' Third Interrogatories: Preliminary Statement The form set of discovery requests to which T&N is now responding consists of 229 interrogatories, with 424 subparts, 40 dcrvment requests and 42 requests for admissions. Many of these discovery requests are repetitious. Although there is slight D-1060 variation in the format of many of the questions, they in fact often seek the very same information requested in earlier questions. The information sought covers a 63-year period, with particular emphasis on 1940 to 1946 and 1960 to 1964. Thus, T&N has been asked to uncover information concerning events that took place more than 20 and in some instances more than 40 years ago. T&N has made a good faith effort to respond to these discovery requests in light of the time constraints and in the context of the allegations concerning Mr. Bartholomy's exposure to Sprayed Limpet Asbestos during the period 1940 to 1946 and 1960 to 1964. The answers provided are to the best of T&N's present knowledge, information and belief, but in view of the time period covered and the time constraints involved, there may be in the future a need to amend the answers in light of newly-discovered informa tion. SECTION 1.0 INTERROGATORIES ' 1.01 Identify each person who prepared or participated in the preparation of answers to these interrogatories, and, as to each interrogatory, please state either at the conclusion of the answer thereto, or at the conclusion of all the answers, the names of the person who answered, supplied the information, and who drafted the answer. 2 ANSWER: T&N1s responses to these interrogatories were chiefly prepared by T&N's legal department under the supervision of J.M. Atkinson, Esq., Group Solicitor to T&N, and by T&N's American counsel. However, much of the information provided in these re sponses has been collected over a number of years by many individuals with personal knowledge of the facts or upon a review of records maintained in the regular course of business. 1.02 State: (a) Your correct corporate name; (b) The state of your incorporation; (c) The date of your incorporation; -- (d) The address of your principal place of business; (e) Whether or not you were registered to do business in the State of Washington during the Relevant Time, ("Rele vant Time" defined on page 5 as the period between January 1, 1942 and December 31, 1972); (f) Whether or not you are challenging service of process; (g) Your corporate purpose; (h) Identify the person(s) who incorporated defen dants; (i) Identify the custodian of the Articles of Incorpo ration and By-Laws of defendant. ,, ANSWER: Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (g) and (h): T&N is a company organized and existing under the laws of England, with its head office at Ashburton Road West, Trafford Park, Manchester, England. T&N's correct corporate name is Turner & Newall PLC. J.W. Roberts Limited is a subsidiary of T&N which since 1970 has existed in name only. T&N was incorporated on February 12, 1920, in order to acquire the shares and to amalgam ate the businesses of Turner Brothers Asbestos Co. Ltd., The 3 Washington Chemical Co. Ltd., Newalls Insulation Co. Ltd. and J. W. Roberts Ltd. The subscribers to the original memorandum of association, the English analogues to incorporators, were Sir Samuel Turner and F.S. Newall. Subsection (e): No. Subsection (f): in or around May 1983 T&N moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint upon the grounds that this Court lacked in personam jurisdiction over T&N. That motion was de nied . Subsection (i): Christopher J. Dodson, Esq., Turner & Newall PLC, Ashburton Road West, Trafford Park, Manchester, England. 1.03 State in what form, if any, business was conducted by you or your corporate predecessor prior to incorpo ration. ANSWER: T&N was incorporated on February 12, 1920, in order to acquire the shares and to amalgamate the businesses of Turner Brothers Asbestos Co. Ltd., The Washington Chemical Co. Ltd., Newalls Insulation Co. Ltd. and J. W. Roberts Ltd. Those businesses were all in existence prior to the formation of T&N. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. A.: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of each set of the By ,;s of defendant. . RESPONSE: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. B: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of 4 each set of the Articles of Incorporation of defendant and/or its corporate predecessors. RESPONSE: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 1.04 State when, if at all, defendant became a public corporation and made shares available to the public. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 1.05 Specify the initial capitalization of the defen dant . ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 1.06 Specify the amount of your dividends and net earnings for each year from the date of incorporation to the fis cal year preceding service of those interrogatories. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 1.07 Identify the custodian of any SEC or other documents relating to the establishing and/or maintaining of defendant's status as a public corporation. 5 \ ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 1.08 Identify each director of defendant from date of incorporation by name and last known address and dates of service. ANSWER: Sir Samuel Turner F.S. Newall Robert Turner Charles H. Turner Samuel Turner "(later Sir Samuel Turner) G.S. Newall H. Rupert Turner A.C. Roberts N.D. Newall Herbert Frood B.E. Williams larold Jones J. Carter Robert H. Turner W.N. Roberts C. S. Be11 G.H. Buxton 3.F. Jucker Sir Edmund Davis J.E.H. Lomas \.P. Strohmenger 3ir Harold G. Downer tf.W.F. Shepherd (later Sir Walker . Shepherd) i. Starkey i. Hanson i.G. Soothill Wilson -A. Smith '.A. Morling February 1920 February 1920 February 1920 February 1920 February 1920 - - - February 1920 February 1920 June 1920 November 1921 September 1925 June 1926 June 1926 July 1927 October 1928 November 1928 February 1929 February 1929 March 1929 February 1930 February 1930 March 1930 March 1930 November 1931 - - - - - - - - - - - - April 1937 October 1942 October 1942 October 1942 January 1949 November 1957 - - August 1924 June 1930 December 1928 February 1921 December 1955 December 1942 May 1945 December 1924 December 1927 March 1928 January 1944 January 1944 December 1931 December 1965 December 1941 January 1941 August 1929 December 1935 October 1938 September 1938 January 1943 May 1935 February 1959 June 1955 January 1958 February 1969 January 1957 May 1962 March 1967 6 J.A.E. Clogg C.H. Glassey W. Blakey John Waddell R.M. Bateman G.S. Sutcliffe Kenneth Neve Alan Russell J.H. Thomson H.D.S. Hardie S. Gibbs C.W. Newton P.W.C. Griffith D.W. Hills J.K. Shepherd November 1957 May 1961 August 1962 April 1963 November 1957 November 1957 September 1959 April 1962 August 1962 January 1967 May 1968 August 1968 November 1968 October 1969 October 1969 - - - - ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) March 1968 July 1961 April 1968 May 1968 directors 1970 1.09 Identify the custodian of the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors and Articles of Incorporation of defendant and/or its corporate predecessors. ANSWER: Christopher J. Dodson, Turner & Newall PLC Ashburton Road West Trafford Park Manchester, England Esq. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. C: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of each of the Articles of Incorporal- . of defendant and/or its corporate predecessors. RESPONSE: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. D: Pursuant to CR 34, 7 attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors referred to in the foregoing interrogatory. \ RESPONSE: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983, except to the extent that there is any reference to the health aspects of asbestos. T&N incorporates by reference its answers to interroga tories 1.34, 1.36, 2.15 and 4.01, which ask for essentially the same information. Further, T&N objects to this document request on the ground that it is burdensome, oppressive and overbroad. Plaintiff's limiting of this request came too late after the Order of Judge Carroll to reasonably expect T&N to be able to review the necessary documents in order to respond. 1.10 Identify each director known to you who served as a director, officer, employee, or consultant to any other business or co-defendant which manufactured, distributed, installed, or otherwise dealt with asbestos products. ANSWER: Without waiver of the following objections, T&N states that it is not aware that any T&N director ever served as a director, officer, employee or consultant to any other co defendant During the relevant time period only one director of T&N serve at any one time as a director of Keasbey & Mattison Company. During the relevant time period those directors were W.W.F. Shepherd and R.M. Bateman. To the extent that this inter rogatory goes beyond requesting the above information the inter rogatory is overbroad irrelevant and burdensome, in part because it does not seek material that would lead to the discovery of ad missible evidence. In any case the relationship between T&N and Keasbey & Mattison Company is irrelevant to the allegations of this action. See Hargrave v. Fibreboard Corp., 710 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1983). 8 In addition, T&N objects that this interrogatory is overbroad because the information sought is not in any way limit ed to activities which transpired in Washington, Alaska or Oregon during the period of Mr. Bartholomy's alleged exposure to asbestos. 1.11 As to the foregoing answer, list each such director, together with each such business, including the name and address thereof and the nature of its asbestos-related enter prise. ANSWER: Not applicable. - 1.12 State where defendant has maintained its principal offices, including its corporate headquarters, since its inception, including dates of such location. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 1.13 Does defendant maintain an organization table or tables? If you have answered this in the affirmative, identify the custodian of each table. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. E: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of each such identifed table or organization. 9 RESPONSE: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 1.14 Has defendant or any of its subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining, manufacturing, marketing or sale of material containing asbestos fibers? ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 1.15. 1.15 If the answer to the preceding interrogatry in the affirmative, state the following: (a) The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing and/or selling each of those products; (b) The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold; (c) The date each of the named products was placed on the market; (d) The date each of the named products was withdrawn from the market; (e) A description of the type and percentage of asbestos contained in each product; (f) A description of the physical appea of the named products; ue of each (g5 The sources of each ingredient; (h) Where each ingredient was obtained; (i) Where the ingredients were delivered; (j) When each ingredient was obtained; 10 (k) A detailed description of the intended uses of each of the products; (l) The date you controlled, purchased, or acquired any interest in any other corporation which mined, manufactured, marketed, supplied or sold asbestos containing products; (m) The manner of acquisition, including percentage of ownership; (n) The date of the sale of any such interest, or por tion of such interest and the purchaser; (o) The date any such predecessor or subsidiary corpo ration ceased doing business. ANSWER: T&N itself is not engaged in any manufacturing operations. It is a holding company, owning stock in a number of other companies both in the United Kingdom and overseas. T&N's headquarters is located in Manchester, England. J.W. Roberts Limited ("Roberts"), the T&N unit company relevant to the allegations of this action, was founded by Mr. J.W. Roberts in 1906. The principal business of Roberts for many years was the production and application of asbestos mattresses for the insulation of steam-powered locomotives and steam boiler equipment. Later, Roberts expanded into the manufacture of other products. In 1970, the operations of Roberts were taken over by another company owned by T&N. Since that time, Roberts has con tinued to exist only on paper. What follows is a history of Roberts' involvement w:> ' s asbestos and asbestos containing products. Asbestos is a form of rock which is mined in various parts of the world; the largest mines are in Southern Africa, Canada and the Soviet Union. Asbestos is a fibrous material, with qualities of strength, flexibility and heat-resistance that make it commercially valuable. Asbestos has been used since the late 1800's in high-temperature and low-temperature insulation products, in fireproofing materials, in acoustical products which absorb and deaden noise, in brake linings and other friction materials, and as a reinforcing agent in cement products. 11 Sprayed Limpet Asbestos The mattress-making done by Roberts was a time consuming and dusty job. In addition, mattresses and blocks {the other principal form of insulation used in the 1920's and 1930's) were heavy and ill-suited for covering machinery or boilers which were not flat or gently curved in shape. For these reasons, engineers at Roberts sought to develop a better method of apply ing insulation. In 1932, Norman L. Dolbey, a Roberts engineer, applied spray-painting techiques to asbestos insulation and invented a machine for spraying a mixture of specially-treated asbestos fibers and Portland cement onto surfaces of all shapes and sizes. In its applied state, this asbestos insulation product was called "Sprayed Limpet Asbestos". The Sprayed Limpet Asbestos system was originally used primarily as a method of soundproofing railway coaches. Other acoustical insulation products were too bulky and too heavy for effective use in railway cars. The process had two principal components: an insulating agent and an application device. The application device was a machine which sprayed specially-treated asbestos fibers onto a prepared surface. The machine as originally developed consisted of a bin into which the Limpet Asbestos was placed, a spiked belt at the bottom of the bin to separate and fluff the fibers, a fan to propel the fibers through a hose and nozzle, and a water attachment to dampen the fiber as it left the nozzle (or "spray gun"). The water attach ment completely surrounded the nozzle opening so that every fiber propelled from the gun would be moistened. The streams of fiber and water would meet approximately 9 inches from the gun, and the ^suiting spray would stick to the target surface at a distance r 18-20 inches. Sprayed Limpet Asbestos was originally sold only in its finished state; that is, Roberts personnel would apply the product themselves as specified by the customer. In response to demand for the product, Roberts began to license qualified insu lation companies to perform Sprayed Limpet Asbestos application. In 1934 Roberts licensed Keasbey & Mattison Company ("Keasbey"), of Ambler, Pennsylvania, to distribute Sprayed Lim pet Asbestos in the United States. Keasbey had been founded in 12 the late 19th century, and in 1934, Turner & Newall Limited purchased the shares of Keasbey. Keasbey was permitted to grant sub-licenses to companies with experience in insulation applica tion work. The distribution system for Sprayed Limpet Asbestos at this time operated as follows: Limpet Asbestos was made by Roberts in England. It was then sold and shipped by Roberts to Keasbey. Keasbey would then resell the product to its sub licensees. The spray machines, which were made by Roberts in England, were shipped to Keasbey, which would pay a rental fee for the use of the machine. Sub-licensees were charged a rental fee by Keasbey. Sales of Limpet Asbestos in the United States by Keasbey were disappointingly low in the 1930's and the beginning of World War II caused distribution problems. Roberts was unable to ship Limpet Asbestos or spray machines from England to the United States because of German submarine warfare. In any event, war time restrictions made it practically impossible for Roberts to ship any Limpet out of England during World War II. In 1962, Keasbey went out of business, selling off its assets to various purchasers. (A certificate of dissolution was issued by tie Secretary of State for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1967). Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corpora tion ("ACandS") entered into a licensing agreement with Roberts that same year, and it continued to be the exclusive licensee for Sprayed Limpet Asbestos in the United States until 1967. ACandS was also permitted to grant sub-licenses. When Keasbey went out of business and ACandS became Roberts' licensee for the sale of Limpet Asbestos in the United States, it was arranged by Roberts that certain employees of Keasbey would be hired by ACandS .to perform the same jobs as they had at Keasbey. It was important to Roberts that ACandS employ people who were trained by Roberts in the Limpet business. The method of distribution in the early 1960's was largely unchanged from what it had been when Keasbey was the li censee. Roberts sold the product to ACandS and shipped it to the ACandS warehouse in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. ACandS was in the insulation application business itself. ACandS would use Limpet Asbestos as needed, and the remainder it would resell to sublicensees. For the states of Washington, Alaska and Oregon during the period 1960 to 1964, one sublicensee of J.W. Roberts Limited was Acoustical and Fireproofing Company ("AAFCO"), which 13 was owned by Andrew Pashkowski. AAFCO carried out the application of Limpet on various structures at the Seattle World's Fair of 1962, including the Space Needle, the United States Department of Commerce Science Exhibit and the Alaska Exhibit. T&N does not know the names of Keasbey's sublicensees during the period 1940 to 1946. 1.16 Please identify by location and product produced each plant in which the products listed in the previous answer were manufactured and/or assembled, rebranded, or otherwise produced and for each plant state: (a) The dates each such plant was in operation; (b) The time span during which each named item was - produced; (c) The amount of each product, expressed in pounds or tons, which was produced by each plant during the Relevant Times; (d) The person(s) at each such plant in charge of pro ducing each such asbestos product; (e) The person(s) in charge of packaging each asbestos product; (f) The person(s) in charge of labeling each such product. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 1.17 During the Relevant Times, did you maintain or distribute manuals, instructions, dealer handbooks, or pricing information pertaining to the sale, use, installation or removal of asbestos or asbestos products? 14 ANSWER: Without waiver of the following objections, and subject to the limitations stated therein, T&N answers this interrogatory as follows: T&N is in possession of certain items which may fall within the general description set forth in this interrogatory and Interrogatory 1.19. See T&N's response to plaintiffs' re quest for production of documents dated June 2, 1983. To the ex tent that these documents exist, they are located at T&N's head quarters in Manchester, England. T&N's records do not indicate whether any such items were ever distributed, sent or otherwise made available in the states of Washington, Oregon or Alaska. Accordingly, T&N objects to the production of these documents upon the grounds that such production would be unduly burdensome, irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evi dence. However, the deposition testimony of Andrew Pashkowski (Pashkowski v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., et al.. No. 80-2-10774-7, Superior Court, King County) indicated that a representative of J.W. Roberts Limited visited Washington on occasion during the 1960's. See Deposition Transcript of Roy Edward Spavold, taken January 24, 1981, in Bond v. Atlas Asbestos Co. et al.. Civil Action No. 78-1345C(B) (E.D. Mo.), a copy of which T&N believes plaintiffs have in their possession. In light of the extensive activities of Mr. Pashkowski involving Limpet, it is not improba ble, although not certain, that Mr. Pashkowski had in his possession such documents. T&N objects to this interrogatory because it seeks large amounts of highly detailed information covering a 63-year period. T&N further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that even were it possible to supply such detailed' and voluminous information, the process of doing so would be unduly burdensome to T&N and would not further plaintiffs' discovery of information which is relev?' ' to the subject matter of this action. In addition, T&N . jects that this Interrogatory is overbroad be cause the information sought is not in any way limited to activities which transpired in Washington, Alaska or Oregon dur ing the period of Mr. Bartholomy's alleged exposure to asbestos. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. F: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of each such manual, instruction, dealer handbook, or pricing information. 15 RESPONSE: T&N objects to the production of such documents upon the grounds that they are wholly irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and not reasonably designed to lead to the discov ery of admissible evidence. T&N further objects that production of such documents, spanning a period of 63 years of T&N's histo ry, is unduly burdensome. Without waiver of the foregoing objections, T&N states that such documents have already been made available to plaintiffs in response to plaintiff's request for production of documents dated June 2, 1983. 1.18 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the present location of records or other such materials and the name and address of the custodian. ANSWER: J.M. Atkinson, Esq. Turner & Newall PLC Ashburton Road West Trafford Park Manchester, England 1.19 During the period of time from 1935 through present, were any sales material prepared by defendant or its agents for the purposes of marketing or advertising defendant's asbestos products anywhere in the United States? ANSWER: Yes. 1.20 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: 16 (a) The name and address of each person or entity who prepared the 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. Specify the names of the magazines, trade publications, cat alogs, trade shows and/or sales staff involved in the dissemination; (e) State whether any of the materials referred to in your answer to this interrogatory were mailed, circulated, distributed or otherwise made available in the states of Washington, and/or Oregon, and/or Alaska during the time period of January 1, 1942. ANSWER: (a-c) T&N is not at present aware whether any particular person at T&N has ever been exclusively assigned to prepare such sales materials. In any case, it is unlikely that any particular person v/as assigned to prepare sales materials ex clusively for the states of Washington, Oregon and Alaska. (d-e) Prior to 1964, T&N advertised for short periods in Asbestos Magazine, The Economist and The Fishing Gazette, and for not longer than three years printed a copy of its Chairman's Annual Statement once a year in Dunn's Review and in the New York Times. See also answer to Interrogatory 1.15. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. G: Pursuant to CP '4, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of each such item of sales or marketing information, including but not limited to books, movies, sales literature, training and/or marketing aids, and an index thereto. ' 17 RESPONSE: After a diligent search of T&N' s records, T&N was un able to find copies of the materials described in the answer to Interrogatory 1.19 (d-e). In any event, the publications referred to are publicly available to the plaintiffs. 1.21 State whether any of your agents, employees, man ufacturers, representatives, or dealers during the Relevant Times were instructed to advertise, solicit, sell or otherwise encourage the purchase of your asbestos products for use as a thermal insulating material in the construction, repair or reno vation of commercial or military ships. ANSWER: See Exhibit 1.21. 1.22 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the location of said promotional materials and the name and address of the custodian. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 1.21. In May and June ' '.962 Mr. Roy Spavold, an employee of J.W. Roberts Limited, visited the United States for, among other reasons, the purpose of promoting sales of Sprayed Limpet Asbestos. T&N's records indicate that during that time Mr. Spavold met with Mr. Pashkowski in Seattle. Mr. Pashkowski told Mr. Spavold that he hoped to be awarded a contract to use Limpet on the insulation of two ferry boats to be built for the State of Alaska. T&N knows of no other visits by its personnel to the states of Washington, Oregon or Alaska. 18 1.23 Identify the location, existence, and present stodian of any manuals, specifications, or instructional iterials pertaining to the use, installation or removal of Jbestos which were distributed or made available to purchasers : your products during the Relevant Times. SISWER: T&N has no knowledge of the location of any such items ther than those in its possession. As to those: J. M. Atkinson, Esq. Turner & Newall PLC Ashburton Road West Trafford Park Manchester, England 1.24 If asbestos or asbestos products were sold to or purchased from any of the other defendants in this suit, state: (a) The name of each such defendant(s); (b) The date(s) of sale, purchase or rebranding of each said product, including the amount and kind of materials sold or purchased, from said defendant(s) , speci fying trade names, for each year of the Relevant Times; (c) The name, address, and job classification of the individ el currently having possession of such records. ANSWER: The only defendant to which T&N sold Limpet was Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation. See answer to in terrogatory 1.25. 1.25 State the names and address of all distributors, dealers, agents or manufacturers' representatives of any of your 19 industrial asbestos thermal insulation products in the States of Washington, Oregon and Alaska during the period from January 1, 1942 through January 1, 1973 and for each such person you have identified, state the time periods each such person represented you. ANSWER: For the United States market J. W. Roberts Limited sold or distributed Sprayed Limpet Asbestos only to a single head li censee. Prior to 1962, Keasbey & Mattison Company was the head licensee of J.W. Roberts Limited and distributed Sprayed Limpet Asbestos in the United States. In 1962, 1963 and 1964 Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation was the head licensee of J.W. Roberts Limited. T&N does not know the names of Keasbey's sublicensees during the period 1940 to 1946. During the period 1960 to 1964, one sublicensee in the states of Washington, Oregon and Alaska was Acoustical and Fireproofing Company, which was owned by Andrew Pashkowski. 1.26 Have any asbestos products identified in your answer to Interrogatory No 1.15 been, or are any of such asbestos products now, distributed in interstate commerce? ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to-letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 1.27 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, state: The name and address of each company or other business entity, in the States of Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Alaska and Montana to which such product has been 20 distributed and the dates of the distribution, and the custodian of the records from which this information was ob tained. ANSWER: Not applicable. See response to Interrogatory 1.26. 1.28 During the period from January 1, 1940 to December 31, 1972, have you, directly or indirectly, sold, distributed, delivered, installed or consigned any asbestos insu lation products in the states of Washington, Oregon or Alaska to any of the following companies, including their predecessors or successors: (a) Asbestos Supply Company (1943-1949 and 1951-1958) (b) State Insulation Company (1954-1963); (c) Pacific Asbestos Company (1947-1949); (d) Owens-Corning Fiberglas Co. (1962-1965); (e) Fiberglass Engineering and Supply Co. (1962-1965) (f) E. J. Bar tells, Inc. (1946-19-. 1961-1972); 1950-1955, and (g) Armstrong Contracting and Supply Co. (1962-1963, 1973-1974); (h) Wyatt and Kipper (1964-1965, 1969-1971); (i) K. J. Barnett Co. (1966-1968); (j) Brower Co. (1943-1945); 21 (k) A, C & S, Inc., (1962-1963, 1974) ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 1.25. 1.29 If any portion of your answer to the preceding interrogatory was in the affirmative, state: (a) The name of the agency, company, facility, con tractor, subcontractor, or shipyard identified in Interroga tory No. 1.28 to whom you sold, distributed, delivered, installed or consigned asbestos products; (b) Whether sold by you directly or through an agent, manufacturers' representative, dealer or subsidiary; (c) The name and address of the agent, manufacturers' representative, dealer and/or subsidiary; (d) Specifically state the amount and kind of all asbestos products sold, distributed, delivered, installed or consigned to each facility referred to herein, stating in detail for each facility identified in Interrogatory No. 1.28 for every year during the Relevant Times: 1. The brand or trade name of the asbestos products which were delivered; 2. The date of delivery of the products; 3. The volume of sales for every month during the Releva- .imes for product facility expressed in pounds or tuns; 4. The dollar value of sales for every month during the Relevant Times for each product faciltity; (e) The ultimate purchaser or user of said products or the ship or hulls in which said products were used; (f) State the name and present address of the person or persons responsible for providing the answer to this in terrogatory. 22 ANSWER: ' See answer to interrogatory 1.25. 1.30 Identify by name, job title, current or last known address, and phone number the persons that your records show to be the purchasing agents for the companies or agencies listed in your answer to Interrogatory No 1.28 for each year dur ing the Relevant Times. ANSWER: T&N has no records which show who the purchasing agent for Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation was. However, on the basis of discovery in other asbestos cases, T&N believe that the following persons may have relevant information concern ing the purchase of Limpet by Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation: Charles Livingston, J. W. Liddell, Fred Gardner, A.C. Richardson and Don Thompson. 1.31 Identify each medical director of defendant by name, last known address, duration of service, and all previous and subsequent employers of each such medical director. ANSWER: T&N does not use the term "medical director." Medical officers of T&N or J.W. Roberts Limited during the years relevant to this action were Dr. H.M. Bateman (from prior to 1940 until approximately 1948); Dr. J.F. Knox (from prior to 1940 until 1965); Dr. W. Kerns (1965-66); Dr. H. Lewinsohn (after 1966). Dr. Knox is deceased. T&N does not know the address of Dr. Kerns. T&N believes that Dr. Lewinsohn resides in Connecticut. 1.32 Identify by name and address the custodian of the records of the various medical directors of defendant. 23 JSWER: J.M. Atkinson, Esq. Turner & Newall PLC Ashburton Road West Trafford Park Manchester, England . REQUESTION FOR PRODUCTION NO. H; Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of the most current curriculum vitae for each and every medical director named in answer to the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE: After reasonable investigation, T&N has been unable to locate any such items, except for the curriculum vitae of Dr. Lewinsohn which was an exhibit to the transcript of his depo sition taken in Bond v. Atlas Asbestos Co., supra. On informa tion and belief, plaintiffs have a copy of that transcript. 1.33 Have you at any time requested and/or received information from medical officers, hygienists, or other employees of your company pertaining to the possible existence of a rela tionship between asbestos exposure and disease, or to the risks or hazards to persons involved in the manufacture, installation, or use of products containing asbestos? ANSWER: Yes. 1.34 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: 24 (a) Identify the person(s) involved; (b) State the dates relevant to the collection or receipt of such information described above; (c) Describe in detail the nature of the study or in formation; (d) Identify all documents related to the study or in formation described above; (e) Identify the custodian of the documents identified in subpart (d) by name and address. ANSWER: During the decade of the 1920's, investigations were conducted by the Leeds Medical School and the Government Inspector of Factories at a factory in Leeds operated by J.W. Roberts Ltd. to determine whether workers in those factories were exposed to any health hazard because of asbestos dust in the air. No documents relating to these investigations have been found, but a 1963 document states that the results of those early inves tigations were "inconclusive." In 1930 a report was published in the United Kingdom by E.R.A. Merewether and C.W. Price stating that the heavy concen tration of asbestos dust in the air breathed by workers in asbestos textile factories caused a lung disease called asbestosis. T&N was aware of the report at or about the time of its publication. As a result of the Merewether and Price report, the British government established regulations in 1931 for the protection of factory workers who wr axposed to asbestos dust. The regulations required that workers, engaged in particular tasks wear air-filtering respirators to protect them from breathing asbestos dust. These regulations did not apply to workers other than factors workers. In 1932 Norman Dolbey, a J.W. Roberts Ltd. engineer, invented a machine for spraying specially-treated asbestos fibers on.o various surfaces to provide acoustical insulation. This process was patented under the name "Sprayed Limpet Asbestos." 25 Unlike the routine use of other asbestos-containing in sulation products, the spraying of Limpet resulted in the notice able release of asbestos fibers into the air in the immediate vi cinity of the sprayer. Recognizing the possible resultant risk to regular spray applicators, J.W. Roberts Ltd. required of its own workers and recommended to other users that respirators be used. This development occurred no later than the mid-1930's. Early in 1945, J.W. Roberts Ltd. created a formal course of training for Limpet operators. This became known as the Spray School. One aspect of the training provided was that respirators should always be worn by Limpet operators. At or about the same time, J.W. Roberts Ltd. engineers developed and patented devices to dampen the asbestos used in the Limpet process in order to better control the release of asbestos dust into the atmosphere. The first was a "pre-damping drum," which was a separate piece of equipment for moistening fiber. The second was a "continuous damping device" ultimately installed on every Limpet spray machine to ensure that the fiber was damp ened and dust reduced. In August 1945, J.W. Roberts Ltd. received a letter from the Chief Inspector of Factories expressing his concern that the use of asbestos, including sprayed products, in the shipbuilding and shiprepairing industry increased the number of persons exposed to a risk of asbestosis. T&N responded to this letter on October 4, 1945 in a letter to the Chief Inspector of Factories. T&N pointed out that the record of its subsidiary companies involved with insulation showed no hazard of asbestosis and that adequate precautions were being taken with the spray process through the use of respirators and the non-employment of juveniles. P >een 1944 and 1947 T&N sponsored research at the Post-Graduc. ^ Medical School in Hammersmith, England under the direction of Professor E.J. King. These experiments involved intra-trachael injection of asbestos fibers of different sizes into animals to determine the effect of size on the clearance of asbestos from the lungs. The results were not published, appar ently because of the illness and subsequent death of Professor King. Between 1950 and 1960 T&N sponsored research by Dr. J. Beattie at Cambridge University. This research, carried out in collaboration with T&N's then medical adviser, Dr. John Knox, concerned the retention of asbestos fibers in the human lungs. 26 The results of these studies were published in the American Medical Association Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Occupa tional Medicine in 1954 and in "Inhaled Particles and Vapours" (Pergamon Press) in 1961. Dr. Knox also collaborated with Dr. Richard Doll of Ox ford University in conducting a systematic study of the mortality experience of workers in one of T&N's asbestos textile factories. This study attempted to relate the causes of death of former fac tory workers to the duration and intensity of their occupational exposure to asbestos dust. In a paper published in 1955, Dr. Doll reported on the mortality in a group of 113 persons who had worked for at least 20 years in particular areas of the asbestos textile factory. He concluded that the excessive rate of bron chial carcinoma in these persons was occupationally-related. This report, entitled "Mortality from Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers," appeared in 12 British Journal of Industrial Medicine 81 (1955). A follow-up to this study was prepared in 1965 by Dr. Doll, Dr. Knox and Dr. I.D. Hill. In this latter study, the period of observation was extended to the end of 1961 and the scope of the research broadened to include men and women who had been employed since 1933 and had worked in particular areas of the factory at least 10 years. The report, entitled "Cohort Analysis of Changes in Incidence of Bronchial Carcinoma in a Tex tile Asbestos Factory" and published at 132 Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 526 (1965), concluded that the occupational risk of bronchial carcinoma in asbestos texitle factory workers had declined markedly in response to the hygiene standards im posed by the British Asbestos Industry Regulations of 1931. In 1957, Dr. Knox evaluated the safety of the Limpet spray process for J.W. Roberts Ltd. He observed a demonstration of the process and visited work sites to see the spraying operations. Dr. Knox took dust counts and concluded that the safety precautions being taken were adequate to control any pos sible hazard. Also in 1957 T&N joined two other English companies founding the Asbestosis Research Council, and thereafter relied to a large degree upon health-related research undertaken by that organization. . T&N itself conducted research regarding dust emission and dust control in the Limpet process. 27 r In 1960, Dr. Christopher Wagner and two other doctors published a report describing 33 cases of diffuse pleural mesothelioma in South Africa, all but one of which involved prob able exposure to crocidolite asbestos from Cape Province. T&N's medical adviser. Dr. Knox, became aware of this report in 1960. Dr. Knox supervised a program at J.W. Roberts Ltd. dur ing 1960 to screen all spray operators for asbestos-related health problems. In only one case was there an indication of asbestosis, and he was later certified by a medical panel as suf fering a 30% disability from that disease. In 1963, J.W. Roberts Ltd. issued a data sheet warning about potential health hazards if appropriate safety precautions, including the use of a respirator, were not taken. In July 1963 this notice was sent to the American licensee for Limpet, Armstrong Contracting & Supply Company, among others. In 1964, Dr. Knox and two T&N employees attended and presented papers at the New York Academy of Sciences conference on the biological effects of asbestos. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. .1: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according the above instructions a copy of all documents identified in your response to the preceding interroga tory. RESPONSE: Copies of the documents identified above have already been produced in response to Plaintiff's Request f<* 'Production of Documents dated June 2, 1983. 1.35 Have you at any time requested, received informa tion from, or participated in studies with persons outside your company pertaining to the possible existence of a relationship between asbestos exposure and disease, or to the risks and hazards to persons involved in the manufacture, installation or use of products containing asbestos? 28 ANSWER: Yes. 1.36 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: (a) Identify the person(s) involved; (b) State the dates relevant to the collection or receipt of such information described above; (c) Describe in detail the nature of the study or in formation; (d) Identify all documents related to the study or in formation described above; (e) Identify the custodian of the documents identified in subpart (d) by name and address. ANSWER: Yes. The studies that T&N has participated in or has been aware of include: E.R.A. Merewether and C.W. Price, Report on Effects of Asbestos Dust on the Lungs and Dust Suppression in the Asbestos Industry (H.M.S.O. 1930) ; J. F. Knox and'j. Beattie, "Distribution of mineral particles and fibres in the ling after exposure to asbestos dust," ljD A.M.A. Archives of Ind. Hyg and Occ. Med. (1954); J.F. Knox and J. Beattie, "Mineral content of the lungs after exposure to asbest'- dust," 10 A.M.A. Archives of Ind. Hyg. and Occ. Med. (1954); R Doll, "Mortality From Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers," 12 Brit. J. Ind. Med. (1955); W.P. Bamblin, "Dust Control in the Asbestos Textile Industry," 2 Ann. Occ. Hyg. (1959); R.S. Doll, "Occupational Lung Cancer -- A Review," 16 Brit. J. Ind. Med. ( 1959 ) . J. Beattie, "The Asbestos Body,"^Inhaled Particles and Vapours 1 (Oxford 1960) (Pergamon Press 1961); J. Beattie and J.F. Knox, "Studies on mineral content and particle size distri bution in the lungs of asbestos textile workers," Inhaled Parti cles and Vapours 1_ (Oxford 1960) (Pergamon Press 1961); S. Holmes and C.G. Addingley, "Dust sampling and counting problems in the 29 asbestos industry," International Congress on Asbestosis {Caen 1964); J.F. Knox, "Asbestosis - general and epidemiological," International Congress on Asbestosis (Caen 1964); P.C. Elwood and A.L. Cochrane, "A follow-up study of workers from an asbestos factory," 21 Brit. J. Ind. Med. (1964); J.F. Knox, R.S. Doll and I.D. Hill, "Cohort analysis of changes in bronchial carcinoma in a textile asbestos factory," 132 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. (1965); D.W. Hills, "Economics of dust control," 132 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. (1965); S. Holmes, "Developments in Dust Sampling and Counting Techniques in the Asbestos Industry," 132 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. (1965); I.D. Hill, R.S. Doll and J.F. Knox, rmortality among asbestos workder," 59 Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. (1966); B.O.H.S. Com mittee on Hygiene Standards, "Hygiene standards for chrysotile asbestos dust," 11 Ann. Occ. Hyg. (1968); J.F. Knox, S. Holmes, R.S. Doll and I.D. Hill, "Mortality from lung cancer and other causes among workers in an asbestos textile factory," 25 Brit. J. Ind. Med. (1968); J.C. Byrom, A.A. Hodgson and S. Holmes, "A dust survey carried out in buildings incorporating asbestos-based materials in their constructions," 12 Ann. Occ. Hyg. (1969); V. Timbrell and S. Holmes, "Suggestions for criteria for sampling asbestos dust," Proc. Pneumoconiosis Conference (Johnannesburg 1969) (Oxford Univ. Press 1970); S. Holmes, "Statement on asbestos hazards and their prevention," I.L.O. Conference on Safety and Health in Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing (Helsinki 1971); S. Holmes, "The Asbestos Regulations, 1969", Industrial Safety (November 1971); S. Holmes, "Safe use of asbestos plactics," Composites (March 1972); S. Holmes, "The sampling and analysis of airborne asbestos dust," XVII International Congress on Occupational Health, (Buenos Aires 1972); W.P. Howard, "Sprayed asbestos insulation," Insulation (Jan./Feb. 1972); A.L. Rickards, "Estimation of trace amounts of chrysotile asbestos by x-ray diffraction," 44 Anal. Chem. (1972); H.C. Lewinsohn and S. Holmes, "Asbestos occupational health factors in the United King dom," Ciba-Geigy Review (1972); H.C. Lewinsohn, "The medical sur veillance of asbestos workers," 92 Roy Soc. Health J. (1972); ..L. Rickards, "Estimation of submicrogram quantities of chrysotile asbestos by electron microscopy," 45 Anal, Chem. (1973); S. Holmes, "The measurement of asbestos dust," 33 StaubReinhalt Luft (1973); S. Holmes, "Sampling methods," Biological Effects of Asbestos (IARC Lyon 1973); S. Holmes, "Environmental data in industry," Biological Effects of Asbestos (-IARC Lyon 1973); W.J. Smither and H.C. Lewinsohn, "Asbestosis in textile manufacturing," Biological- Effects of Asbestos (IARC Lyon 1973); I. Harness, "Airborne asbestos dust evaluation," 16 Ann. Occ. Hyg. (1973); H.C. Lewinsohn, "Health hazard's of asbestos: a review of recent trends," 24_ J. Soc. Occ. Med. (1974); H.C. Lewinsohn, "Early malignant changes in pleural plagues due to 30 asestos exposure: a case report," 68 Brit. J. Pis. Chest. (1974); J. Peto, "Report to the Advisory Committee on Asbestos" (1976); S.T. Beckett, R.K. Hey, R. Hirst, R.D. Hunt, J.L. Jarvis and A.L. Rickards, "a comparison of airborne asbestos fibre counting with and without a eyepiece graticule," 19_ Ann. Occ. Hyg. (1976); H.C. Lewinsohn, "Asbestosis - a diagnostic enigma," 19 Amer. J. Occ. Med. (1977); J. Peto, R.S. Doll, S.V. Howard, L.J. Kinlen and H.C. Lewinsohn, "A mortality study among workers in an English asbestos factory," 34_ Brit. J. Ind. Med. (1977 ); J. Peto, "The hygiene standard for chrysotile asbestos," Lancet (March 4, 1978); A.L. Rickards, "The routine monitoring of air borne asbestos in an occupational environment," 21. Ann. Occ. Hvg. (1978); G. Berry, J.C. Gilson, S. Holmes, H.C. Lewinsohn and S.A. Roach, "Asbestosis: a study of dose-response relationships in an asbestos textile factory," 3_6 Brit. J. Ind. Med. (1979). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. J: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents identified in your response to the preceding inter rogatory. RESPONSE: The documents identified above, to the extent that T&N is in possession of them, will be made available to the plain tiffs. 1.37 Do you have or have you ever had person(s) in your employ who were charged with responsibility for monitoring the state of current domestic or foreign knowledge of the safety and health aspects of your industry? 31 ANSWER: All employees of the T&N unit companies dealing with asbestos are expected to be aware of the health aspects of asbestos. See T&N's answers to interrogatories 1.34 and 1.36. 1.38 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: (a) Identify all such person(s) with names and addresses; (b) State the dates of service of each such person(s); (c) State the formal title, if any, of the person(s) described above; - (d) Identify all documents relevant to the posi' tion/person described above. ANSWER: In light of T&N's response to interrogatory 1.37, this request is unreasonable, burdensome and not reasonably designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. K: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents identified in subparagraph (d) above. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. L: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents identified in subparagraph (d) above. 32 RESPONSE: Not applicable. 1.39 Describe your record retention program from 1935 to the present date and state: (a) Where said records are kept; (b) Description of indexes; (c) Location and existence of written materials con cerning your program and date of adoption; (d) The information contained in such records; (e) The length of time said purchase, bid, shipping and/or sale records are maintained by your company. ANSWER: T&N does not believe that it had a formal document re tention policy before 1963, the last date of Mr. Bartholomy's alleged exposure to any product of T&N. Since the commencement of asbestos litigation in the United States, however, it has been T&N's policy to ensure that documents which may be relevant to asbestos litigation in the United States are retained. 1.40 Did the defendant at any time assign', license or otherwise allow any of their asbestos materials, products, trade marks or co; .ghts to be used by any person, firm or corpora tion? ANSWER: Yes. 1.41 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: 33 (a) The name of the product, trademark or copyright so assigned or licensed; (b) The time period of the assignment or license; (c) The nature of the assignment or license (whether exclusive or not). (d) The terms and conditions of each such agreement (you may attach said material to these interrogatory answers). ANSWER; See answers to interrogatories 1.27 and 1.28. 1.42 At the time of such assignment or license, was there any agreement between the parties concerning liability in the event of future claims or litigations concerning the product? ANSWER; Yes. 1.43 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative; (a) The nature and substance of such agreement; (b) The location of said agreement and/or copies. ANSWER; T&N has already produced a copy of the agreement between J.W. Roberts Limited and Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation in response to plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents dated June 2, 1983. 1.44 State the location of your national territory of 34 Alaska, Oregon and Washington State warehouse, warehouse facilities or distribution centers for your asbestos products during the Relevant Times. ANSWER: Upon present information and belief T&N states that it had no such warehouse facilities or distribution centers. Also see response to interrogatory 1.25. 1.45 Specify the corporate relationship between you and local dealers and/or manufacturer's representatives of asbestos products who sold products containing your corporate identification or trademark during each year of the Relevant Times. ANSWER: Without waiver of the following objections, T&N answers this interrogatory as follows: See answer to interrogatory 1.25. T&N has not owned, directly or indirectly, any of the stock of Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation, now known as ACandS Inc. In 1934 T&N purchased a majority of the capital stock of Keasbey & Mattison Company. From 1938 until 1951, T&N directly owned all such capital stock, from 1951 to.1962 (when Keasbey went out of business and the head licensee was assigned to Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation), T&N indirectly owned all such capital stock. In any case, T&N'S relationship to Keasbey & Mattison Company is irrelevant to the issues of this case. See Hargrave v. Fibreboard Corp., 710 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1983) . T&N objects to this interrogatory because it seeks large amounts of highly detailed information covering a 63-year period. T&N further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that even were it possible to supply such detailed and voluminous information, the process of doing so would be unduly burdensome to T&N and would not further plaintiffs' discovery of information which is relevant to the subject matter of this action. In 35 addition, T&N objects that this interrogatory is overbroad because the information sought is not in any way limited to activities which transpired in Washington, Alaska or Oregon dur ing the period of Mr. Bartholomy's alleged exposure to asbestos. SECTION 2.0 2.01 Does defendant or any of its subsidiary companies claim that any patent would cover any product listed in Interrog atory No. 1.15? ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 2.02 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, for each of the products, please state: (a) The number of each patent and the date it was is sued; or . (b) The number of each patent application that is pending and the date it was filed. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to.letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 2.03 Have any of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 1.15 been altered in chemical composition since first being marketed? 36 ANSWER: Yes. 2.04 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state: (a) The trade name of each of those products; (b) The date each of the named products was altered; (c) The nature of the alteration; (d) The reason for the alteration. ANSWER: The principal change in the chemical composition of Sprayed Limpet Asbestos during the period of its use was the in troduction of mineral oil to the Limpet mixture. Mineral oil was added after tests had shown that this was a very effective means of suppressing dust. This change in the Limpet mixture was in troduced in or about 1948. 2.05 State the name, address, and job title of each person who participated in the design and preparation of manufacturing specifications for each product listed in Interrog atory No. 1.15. AN See answer to interrogatory 1.15. 2.06 Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character relating to the design and preparation of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 1.15 now exist? 37 ANSWER: Yes. 2.07 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory iss.- in the affirmative: (a) List each document; d; (b) State the name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each dcument, and where the documents are presently located. . ANSWER: Documents from which plaintiffs could derive the infor mation sought by this interrogatory have been made available in ;> response to plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents dated; June 2, 1983. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. M: Pursuant to CR 34, you : are hereby requested to produce and or make available for inspec-, tion and copying all such correspondence or other material per taining to your answer supplied in the previous interrogatory. . RESPONSE: Documents relating to the manufacture and application of Sprayed Limpet Asbestos have, already been made available pur suant to p' .tiffs' request for production date June 2, 1983. To the exteiic that this request requires further production, T&N objects to it as burdensome, repetitive, overbroad and irrele vant . 2.08 Before releasing the products listed in Interrog atory No. 1.15 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of the asbestos materials contained in those products? - Ls 38 ANSWER: 2.15. See answers to interrogatories 1.21, 1.34, 1.36 and \ 2.09 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) The names of the products tested; (b) the name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests; (c) The results of those tests. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 2.08. 2.10 Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character relating to the testing of the named products now exist? ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 2.08. 2.11 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) List each document; (b) State the name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possessin of each document, and where it is presently located. 39 ANSWER: (a) See answer to interrogatory 2.08. (b) J.M. Atkinson, Esq. Turner & Newall PLC Asburton Road West Trafford Park Manchester, England REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. N: Pursuant to CR 34, you are hereby requested to produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents identified in your response to the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE: Such documents have been made available in response to plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents dated June 2, 1983. To the extent that this request requires further produc tion, T&N objects to it as burdensome, repetitive, overbroad and irrelevant. 2.12 Did defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of the tests referred to in Interrogatory No. 2.08? ANSWER: -' See answer to interrogatory 2.08. 2.13 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) The trade names of the products changed; (b) The nature of the changes made; 40 (c) The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having made a change. . ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 2.08. 2.14 After releasing the products listed in Interroga tory No. 1.15 to the public, were any tests conducted on them or were any on-site inspections conducted to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of the asbestos materials contained in those products? . ANSWER: Yes. 2.15 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) The names of the products tested; (b) the name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests; (c) The results of those tests. ANSWER: In 1931, the British government established regulations for the protection of factory workers who were exposed to asbestos dust. An important medical report had been published in 1930 by E.R.A. Merewether and C.W. Price, stating that asbestos factory workers were liable to contract a lung disease called asbestosis due to the heavy concentration of asbestos dust they were breathing. The regulations required that workers engaged in particular tasks, such as unloading or mixing asbestos fibers, had to wear air-filtering respirators to protect them from such lung problems. 41 Insulation workers, that is, men who applied the insu lation products made by the factory workers, were not included within these Asbestos Regulations. However, because a certain amount of dust did result from spraying Limpet Asbestos, respirators became a standard item of equipment for Limpet Asbestos sprayers in the mid-1930's. Requiring respirator use and training applicants and supervisors were only two of the safety precautions taken by Roberts. In the 1940's, it was discovered by Roberts' research department that the addition of a small amount of oil to the Lim pet formula would help to suppress dust. The formulation was changed to incorporate this discovery. Robert's research department looked for other ways to suppress dust from Limpet. It discovered that dampening the Lim pet Asbestos before it was placed in the spray machine helped re duce dust. A separate piece of equipment was invented for this purpose, which was called the "Pre-Damping Drum." The Pre Damping Drum was made available to all licensees of the Limpet process. Because the Pre-Damping Drum was bulky and required extra labor, many applicators declined to use it. Roberts then improved the spray machine itself by adding a "continuous damping device." This was a bar, placed inside the feeding hopper, which would trickle water into the hopper to pre-dampen fibers. This device was added to every spray machine, including those in the United States. Roberts worked closely with the British government over the years to ensure that all necessary safety precautions were being taken. In 1940, the head of the British Factory Inspectorate, Dr. McLaughlin, was given a demonstration of the rImpet Asbestos application system by Roberts. Several years later, in 1945, the government sent a letter to insulation or application companies, including Roberts, stating the ogvernment's concern that spraying asbestos on board ships could create a health hazard. T&N investigated the experi ence of its subsidiaries which employed sprayers, and was able to respond that it had no claims by any sprayer for asbestos-related disease. In 1950, a report was issued by the Factory Inspectorate after two senior staff members visited Roberts' spray sites and took dust counts. No restrictions were imposed. 42 Finally, Roberts communicated the latest information concerning the proper use of the Sprayed Limpet Asbestos process to its licensees. For example, Information Sheets and Data Sheets published by Roberts were mailed to Roberts' licensees, including Keasbey and ACandS. T&N believes that those Documents were also mailed by Roberts' Licensees to sub-licensees. Data Sheet No. 6/1/A, which was published in May, 1963 and received by ACandS, specifically warned of the need to insure that respirators were being worn by people working with Limpet. 2.16 Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character relating to the potential health hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 1.15 now exist? ANSWER: See answers to interrogatories 1.34, 1.36 and 2.15. 2.17 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) Name each product; (b) List each document; (c) State the name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possessin of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 2.16. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 0: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of each such document or test. 43 RESPONSE: Such documents have been made available in response to plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents dated June 2, 1983. To that the extent this request requires further produc tion, T&N objects to it as burdensome, repetitive, overbroad and irrelevant. 2.18 Did defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of those tests? ANSWER: Yes. 2.19 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) The names of the products changed. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having made a change. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 1.15. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. P: Pursuant to CR 34, you are hereby requested to produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents per .ling to design changes as identified in your response to the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE: Such documents have been made available in response to plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents dated June 2, 1983. To the extent that this request requires further produc tion, T&N objects to it as burdensome, repetitive, overbroad and irrelevant. 44 2.20 State with reference to the following when you contend that you were first aware that products existed that could be used in place of asbestos and/or the products that contained asbestos: (a) Stating the use of asbestos in question; (b) .The time of such awareness on your part; (c) the name and address of the custodian of all documents concerning this question. ANSWER: On information and belief it was known at least as early as 1879 (prior to the formation of T&N) that other sub stances, including cotton, could be used in place of asbestoscontaining materials for high-temperature engineering applica tions . 2.21 Identify all documents pertaining in any way to your answer to the foregoing interrogatory. RESPONSE: The information requested is contained in Turner & Newall Limited : The first fifty years. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Q: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents identified in your response to the preceding inter rogatory. RESPONSE: T&N believes that plaintiffs have in their possession of a copy of Turner & Newall Limited: The first fifty years. 45 2.22 Did defendant or any of its predecessors mine, manufacture, produce, sell or distribute any asbestos products which were listed and qualified in the "Military Qualified Products List of Products Qualified Under Military Specifica tions" (MILSPEC)? . ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 2.23 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the following: (a) For each year in which products were submitted or tested for MILSPEC approval state the division of your com pany or the supervisor or individuals who were responsible for each such activity for each year from 1937 through 1982; (b', The location of any correspondence or other writ ten material pertaining to testing or qualification refer ences for such products. (c) For each year of the Relevant Times, list each of your industrial thermal insulation products which met "MILSPEC" qualifications and for each such product the exact military specifications the product allegedly met. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Rt Pursuant to CR 34, you are hereby requested to produce and/or make available for inspec tion or copying all such correspondence or other documentary 46 evidence as defined in the Instructions pertaining to answers supplied in the previous interrogatory. RESPONSE: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 2.24 For each asbestos product mined, produced, manufactured, or distributed by you which qualified under MILSPEC, state for each year said product was produced. manufactured, mined or sold, state: -- (a) The manufacturer's designation of the product, the MILSPEC identification name and number, and the non-MILSPEC brand name; (b) The test or qualification reference number; (c) The address of the facility which produced such product and state the exact time periods which each "MILSPEC" product was producted at each such facility; (d) Specify the chemical distinction, if any, between the product qualified under MILSPEC and each product which was commercially sld, manufactured or distributed by you to non-military or non-governmental users of the product. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 47 SECTION 3.0 3.01 Did you provide instruction and/or warnings con cerning the potential health hazards of asbestos exposure to plaintiffs' employers listed on page 18 (question 1.28), during the Relevant Time period when Mr. Bartholomy was working for that employer? ANSWER: T&N warned its own employees, the only persons over whom it had authority, of the health risks associated with expo sure to asbestos dust in various ways, including but not limited to, posting the Government Regulations governing the asbestos in dustry in the United Kingdom, giving its employees annual physi cal examinations, which included a chest x-ray, the presence of dust extraction equipment, dust counts, the availability of respirators, oral and written statements. The process of giving warnings to other users of asbestos, including sophisticated users such as Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation, includes making contributions to the state of medical knowledge. From at least as early as the 1920s when Drs. Merewether and Price studied the conditions at one of T&N1s plants, T&N has, among other things, sponsored re search into, among other things, the health effects of exposure to asbestos dust and methods of dust counting. This research was published and made available to all who would use asbestos or who would be interested in this subject, including without limitation the management and employees of Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation. . Prior to 1964, T&N believes that it did not affix warn ing labels to any of its asbestos products. With respect to Lim pet, T&N refers to its answers to interrogatories 1.15, 1.34, 1.36 and 2.15. 3.02 If the answer to the proceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the following: 48 (a) Identify the employer; (b) Whether the employer was expected or requested to transfer the instructions and/or warnings to its employees such as plaintiff; (c) The date(s) you provided instructions and/or warn ings to the plaintiff's employer; (d) To whom the instructions and/or warnings to the plaintiff's employer; (e) The manner in which the instructions and/or warn ings were transmitted to plaintiff's employers (i.e., orally, printed, pamphlets, printed on carton, etc.); (f) The precise wording used in the instructions and/or warnings or in lieu thereof attach an authenticated copy of the instructions and/or warnings. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.01. 3.03 Did you provide instructions and/or warnings con cerning the potential health hazards of asbestos exposure to plaintiff and/or his co-workers at each of the job sites listed in plaintiff's answers to Eagle-Picher's First Set of Interrogatories, attached as pages 42(a), 42(b) and 42(c)? ANSWER: ( ' See answer to interrogatory 3.01. [The following list was included in plaintiff Batholomy's Third Interrogatories.]1 1. Asbestos Supply Company Portland, Oregon 49 b. Willamette Iron and Steel, Portland, Oregon c. 9/2/52 to 7/1/46, and off and on from 1946 through 1948, I think 2. Asbestos Supply Company Portland, Oregon b. various office buildings, schools and indistrial plants around Portland alcohol plant, Springfield, Oregon (2 months) State Office Bldg., Salem {1--2 months) Treatment Hospital, Salem (4-5 months) deaf school (6 weeks) c. 1947-1949 3. Asbestos Supply Company Portland, Oregon b. Pool and McGonagle repair yard, Portland Oregon (one month) c. 1944 (approx.) 4. Asbestos Supply Company Portland, Oregon b. Birdseye-Snider plants in Woodburne, Oregon and Walla Walla, Washington (one month each) c. 1947 (approx.) 5. Asbestos Supply Company Portland, Oregon b. Albina Shipyards c. 1944-1945 6. Asbestos Supply -pany Portland, Oregon b. Commercial Shipyards, Portland, Oregon c. during and immediately after World War II 7. Pacific Asbestos Co., Portland, Oregon b. see below c. 1948-1949 b. Veteran's Hospital, Portland, OR (one month) Corvallis Junior High School (6 weeks) 50 Pope & Talbot sawmill at West Fir, Oregon (2 months) various office buildings, schools and industrial plants around Portland National Biscuit Co., Portland, OR (used Monoblock) *Klamath Falls-Henley School (6 weeks) 8 . E. J . Bartells (hereinafter "Bartells") b. Oregon shipyards: conversion of victory ships to Caribbean liners (1947-1948; one year). King Salmon, Alaska radar site (1951; 6 months) barracks at Ft. Eilison, Alaska (1 month) barracks at Ft. Richardson, Alaska (1 month) boiler and garage facilities, Glen Allen, Alaska (3-4 months) Todd shipyards (Aug. 1962-spring 1963) Ketchikan pulp mill (1968) Juneau Hospital (1972; 8 months) Adak Naval Base (1970-1971; 8 months) Portland asylum (1947-1948) boilers at Ft. Richardson and Elemdorff, Alaska various other jobs around Anchorage, Portland and Seattle Vancouver shipyards (WWII) pad shop of Bartells in Seattle pad shop of Bartells in Portland (amosite blankets, etc.) Tacoma, Washington, McCord Air Force Base and various other jobs (1952) University Hospital, Seattle (lagging cloth) several jobs in Salem, Or (1947-1948; 2 weeks to 2 months) Hillside School, Salem cannery, Salem Salem Brewery Salem Jr. High School elementary school in North Salem woolen mill east of Salem b. Rayonier Pulp Mill, Tacoma, WA . Aberdeen pulp mill, Aberdeen, WA Big Delta Air Force Base (housing; 6 weeks) Big Delta AFB (library) Ketchikan pulp mill (approx. 1966-1967; 51 2 months), recovery boilers Georgia Pacific hardwood plant, Coos Bay, OR c. 1947-1948; 1951-1955; 1962-1968; 1970-1972 9. Fiberglass Engineering & Supply Co. b. Lockheed Shipyards (circa 1964 and 1974), Seattle Kena, Alaska oil refinery (3-4 months) various jobs around Anchorage, up until 3/26/64 milk handling facilities, Wausilla, Alaska White-Allis site, Wausilla, Alaska Anchorage area: hangars, schools, experimental farms, recovery boiler in Palmer Alaska school at Palmer, Alaska c. 1963-1964 10. State Insulation Company (Alaska corporation, dissolved) b. removing insulation on manhle covering and repair at Ft. Richardson, Alaska (3 months) Bureau of Indian Affairs schools radar site at Site Point, Alaska (8 months) Bethel AFB radar site (8 months) buildings and schools in Anchorage, Kenai and Fairbanks barracks buildings at Ft. Richardson repair work at Elmendorff AFB c. 1955-1962 approximately 11. Armstrong Contracting & Supply, later A. C. & S., Tukwila, WA . b. Ketchikan pulp mill Sitka pulp mill Sitka 1974, tear out job at Alaska Lumber & Pulp c. 1963 12. Wyatt & Kipper b. & c. 1965, Tu Due power plant near Saigon, Vietnam, 8 months 1969-1970, Anbarli, near Istanbul, Turkey, 12 months electric power generator 52 13. K. J. Barnett Co. b. office buildings and schools in Renton area c. 1967-1968 14. Brower Co., Seattle, WA b. Astoria, Oregon naval housing (utilidoors) c. 1944 or 1945 3.04 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the following: (a) To date(s) you provided instructions and/or warn ings to each plaintiff and/or his co-workers; - (b) Who prepared the instructions and/or warnings; (c) To whom the instructions and/or warnings were addressed; (d) The manner in which the instructions and/or warn ings were transmitted to plaintiff's and/or his co-workers (i.e., orally, printed, pamphlets, printed on carton, etc.}; (e) The precise wording used in the instructions and/or warnings or in lieu thereof attach an authenticated copy of the instructions and/or warnings. ANSWER: See answers to interrogatories 3.01 and 3.03. 3.05 Did you provide instructions and/or warnings con cerning the potential health hazards of asbestos exposure to any persons at Mr. Bartholomy's job sites during the time period dur ing which plaintiff was employed at each job site listed in In terrogatory No. 3.03? 53 ANSWER: See answers to interrogatories 3.01 and 3.03. 3.06 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the following: (a) The date(s) you provided instructions and/or warn ings to plaintiff and/or his co-workers; (b) Who prepared the instructions and/or warnings; (c) To whom the instructions and/or warnings were addressed; (d) The manner in which the instructions and/or warn ings were transmitted to plaintiff and/or his co-workers - (i.e., orally, printed, pamphlets, printed on carton, etc.); (e) The precise wording used in the instructions and/or warnings or in lieu thereof attach an authenticated copy of the instructions and/or warnings. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.01. 3.07 Did you at any time place any kind of an instruction or warning label on any container, shipping^ tag, in voice or product of any kind which purported to warn a user of your product of danger of using the asbestos? ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.01. 3.08 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: 54 (a) The exact wording of each such warning, notice or instruction; (b) The time period each such warning was used; (c) Who prepared the instructions or warnings; ANSWER: . ' See answer to interrogatory 3.01. 3.09 For each asbestos product you have identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 1.15, state the time period during which each such product was shipped or sold in a container which purported to have a warning label affixed thereto and state the exact wording of each such label or notice. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.01. 3.10 If the warning or instructions changed at any time, state: (a) The reasons for each change; (b) The time periods of each change; (c) The change in wording; (d) The identity of the person responsible for the change. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.01. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. S: Pursuant to CR 34, 55 attach or produce according to the above instructions an authenticated copy of each warning label or notice used on any product sold, manufactured or distributed by you. RESPONSE: Not applicable. See answer to interrogatory 3.01 3.11 Did you provide respirators to Mr. Bartholomy's employers or persons at plaintiff's jobsites during the time period plaintiff was employed at each. ANSWER: It was the responsibility of plaintiff's employers to provide Mr. Bartholomy with respirators. In "scheduled" areas as defined by British Government regulations in 1931, T&N required its employees, the only persons over whom it has authority, to wear respirators, which are provided by T&N. T&N also refers to J.W. Roberts Data Sheet No. 6/1/A, published May 1963, and received by ACandS. See answer to interrogatory 2.15. 3.12 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the following: (a) The date(s) respirators were provided; (b) To whom the respirators were provided; (c) The type of respirators provided; (d) The instructions and/or warnings provided with respirators, if any. ANSWER: Not applicable. 56 3.13 Did you receive any comments or complaints con cerning asbestos dust and/or asbestos health hazards from any persons who were co-employees or employed at Mr. Bartholomy's jobsites during the time period Mr. Bartholomy was employed as described above. ANSWER: T&N does not believe so. 3.14 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the following: (a) The name and address of the person commenting or complaining; . (b) The precise wording of the comment and/or com plaint; (c) The date the comment and/or complaint was received by you; (d) What action, if any, was taken in response to the 'comment and/or complaint? ANSWER: Not applicable 3.15 Did you receive notice of any workmen's compensa tion claims alleging injury as a result of asbestos exposure? 57 ANSWER: Subject to the following objections T&N answers as follows: The entire system of compensation of employees for industrial disease differs in the United Kingdom from that in the United States. In 1948 the United Kingdom repealed its workmen's compensation legislation. T&N has already set forth its awareness of the biological effects of asbestos, which goes back at least to 1930 with the publication of the Merewether and Price study. (T&N hereby incorporates its answers to interrogatories 1.34, 1.36, 2.15 and 4.01). In light of these answers, T&N objects to this interrogatory as repetitive, burdensome, and ir relevant to the issues in this case, which concern Mr. Bartholomy's alleged exposure to Limpet in the 1940's and early 1960's. In addition, T&N objects that to disclose informa tion concerning its workers would violate their rights to priva cy. In particular, it would be contrary to accepted principles of medical practice and ethics to make these disclosures. Moreover, the substance of this information has already been made available to plaintiffs. As part of its efforts to disseminate information concerning the biological effects of asbestos, T&N has made its factories available to researchers. 3.16 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the following for each year from the date of your incorporation: (a) The name and address of each claimant; (b) The date you received notice; (c) The state in which the claim was filed; (d) The injury alleged in the claim; (e) The outcome of the claim (i.e., settled, dis missed , etc.) . ANSWER: Not applicable. 58 3.17 State the total number of product liability, third party cases which have been filed naming you as a party de fendant, in which it was alleged in any way that your asbestos bearing products caused harm. ANSWER: Without waiver of the following objections, T&N has received the following complaints from or on behalf of the fol lowing plaintiffs filed in Washington, Alaska and Oregon: Washington: Roy Albro James Andrews Margie Armstrong Milton Bartholomy Clarence Baker Philo Barton Harold Burley Evert Chapin Virginia Dana Richard Henry Doyle Charles Fischer Richard Gaynor Roy Gochnour Don Harris Marvin Hilstrom Frank Johnson William Kinsman Richard Kuhlmey George LaFontaine Donald MacDonald Peter Majewski Bernard Manning Andrew pashkowski Richard Paysano Robert Rado Arnold Ratliff Marcellus Sautter Paul Smith Ruth Steinback Lester Sturgeoh ' 59 <u cr Obie Varnado Helen Wadley Leslie Wall Wilbert Wilson Ralph Woolstenhulme In re: Kitsap County Asbestos Cases In re: Kings County Asbestos Cases laska: None. reqon: None. com: Court papers in the above-named actions may be obtained David B. Bukey, Esq. Roberts & Shefelman 4100 Seafirst Fifth Avenue Plaza 800 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-1818 The first products liability lawsuit against T&N in the nited Sttes in which a plaintiff's injury was alleged to have en caused by exposure to a T&N product was brought in September 77. Since then thousands of complaints have been served on , most of which contain boiler-plate allegations of liability nd injury. In any event, these complaints were served on T&N our teen years after Mr. Bartholomy alleged that he was last xposed to a product of T&N. Thus, information concerning these awsuits is irrelevant to any issue in this action. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks further inormation, T&N objects on the grounds that even were it possible o supply such detailed and voluminous informal"'' ", the process f doing so would be unduly burdensome to T&N a. j would not urther plaintiffs' discovery of information which is relevant to he subject matter of this action. . 3.18 Of that number of cases identified in answer to nterrogatory No. 3.13, state the percentage or number of cases n which you alleged in answer to the complaint or by way of af- irmative defense that: 60 r' ` r % r (a) Plaintiff or plaintiff's decedent had in any way either contributed to their own harm by their own negli gence; (b) Had knowingly assumed the risk of that harm; (c) Plaintiff voluntarily consented to those risks alleged to be associated with exposure to asbestos. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. A: Over 10,000 cases de scribed in Interrogatory No. 3.13 are pending or have been filed naming you as a defendant. RESPONSE: Denied. 3.19 When were you first served with a summons and complaint in which it was alleged that asbestos-related damages were sustained by a third party as a result of alleged exposure to an asbestos product manufactured or distributed by you? ANSWER: ' See answer to interrogatory 3.17. 3.20 State the court, cause number, attorney identifi cation , and ultimate resolution of such lawsuit identified above. 61 ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.17. 3.21 For each and every year of the Relevant Time, state the number of such suits which were served upon you. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.17. 3.22 Identify by name and address the person or persons who act as corporate custodian of documents pertaining to the third party litigation in which asbestos-related damage is alleged. ANSWER: John M. Atkinson, Esq. Turner & Newall PLC Ashburton Road West Trafford Park Manchester, England 3.23 When was defendant first served with a third party summons and complaint in which it was alleged then or later that a plaintiff or a plaintiff's decedent sustained mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by you? 62 .unSWER ; See answer to interrogatory 3.17. 3.24 State the court, cause number, attorney identifi cation, and ultimate resolution of such lawsuit identified above. ANSWER: . See answer to interrogatory 3.17. 3.25 For each and every year of the Relevant Times, state the number of such suits which were served upon you. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.17. 3.26 State the total number of lawsuits in which mesothelioma is alleged as a result of exposure to your product which are now pending and in which you are named as a defendant. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 3.27 Identify by name and address the y .son or persons who act as corporate custodian of documents pertaining to the third party litigation in which mesothelioma is alleged. 63 ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 3.28 When was defendant first served with a summons and complaint in which it was then or later alleged that a plain tiff or plaintiff's decedent sustained lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by you? ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.17. 3.29 State the court, cause number, attorney identifi cation, and ultimate resolution of such lawsuit identified above. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.17. 3.30 For each and every year of the Relevant Times, state the number of such suits which were served upon you. ANSWER: . See answer to interrogatory 3.17. 3.31 State the total number of lawsuits in which lung cancer is alleged as a result of exposure to your product which are now pending and in which you are named as a defendant. 64 ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 3.32 Identify by name and address the person or persons who act as corporate custodian of documents pertaining to the third party litigation in which lung cancer is alleged. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 3.33 When was defendant first served with a summons and complaint in which it was then or later alleged that a plain tiff or plaintiff's decedent sustained cancer other than lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by you? ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 3.34 Identify the type of cancer alleged then or later in the third party claim identified above, and the person who , acts as custodian of documents pertaining to such third party claims. 65 ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 3.35 State in detail the court, cause number, attorney identification, and ultimate resolution of such lawsuit identi fied above. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 3.36 For each and every year of the Relevant Times, state the number of such suits which were served upon you. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 3.37 State the total number of lawsuits which cancer (other than lung cancer) is alleged as a result of exposure to your product which are now pending and in which you are named as a defendant. ' ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 3.38 When was defendant first served with a summons and complaint in which it was then or later alleged that a plain tiff or plaintiff's decedent sustained asbestosis as a result of exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by you? 66 ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.17. 3.39 State in detail the court, cause number, attorney identification, and ultimate resolution of such lawsuit identi fied above. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.17. 3.40 For each and every year of the Relevant Times, state the number of such suits which were served upon you. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.17. 3.41 State the total number of lawsuits in which as- bestosis is alleged as a result of exposure to your product which are now pending and in which you are named as a defendant. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatn-v 3.17. 3.42 Identify by name and address the person who acts as corporate custodian of documents pertaining to the third party litigation in which asbestosis is alleged. 67 ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.22. 3.43 In any case in which you were/are involved as de fendant in a third party suit where asbestos-related damage was then or later alleged, have you initiated: (a) Cross-complaints against co-defendants; (b) Independent suits against any of the following: 1. United States government; 2. A union or unions; 3. Any cigarette or tobacco manufacturer. ANSWER: x Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 3.44 If your answer to any part of the preceding in terrogatory was ip the affirmative, for each such case state in detail: (a) The claim number, cause number, court, parties to the .'igation; \ (b) Attorneys representing the parties to litigation; (c) The date the litigation was initiated; (d) The ultimate disposition of said cross-complaint or claim and contention for each and every person or persons identified in your response to this interrogatory. 68 ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 3.45 Do you retain records of the worker's compensa tion or third party claims described in the foregoing interrogatories? ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 3.15. 3.46 Identify with name and address the corporate cus todian of records concerning claims of workers. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 3.22. 3.47 If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3.41 is in the affirmative, identify the records referred to in your re sponse to that interrogatory. . ANSWER: . . Not applicable. 3.48 If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3.41 is in the affirmative, describe in detail the manner in which informa tion on these claims is kept, including information as to analysis or summary of claims. 69 ANSWER: Not applicable. 3.49 Identify all documents relating to the informa tion kept on worker's compensation claims. ANSWER: ' Not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. T: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. B: You were aware as early as 1900 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compen sation claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. RESPONSE: Not applicable; TS.N did not exist prior to 1920. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. C: You were aware as early as 1910 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compen sation claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. 70 RESPONSE: Not applicable; T&N did not exist prior to 1920. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. D: You were aware as early as 1920 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compen sation claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. E: You were aware as early as 1930 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compen sation claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. RESPONSE: Objection. See answer to interrogatory 3.15. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. F: You were aware as early as 1940 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compen sation claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. RESPONSE: Objection. See answer to interrogatory 3.15. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. G: ou were aware as early as 1950 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's 71 compensation claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. RESPONSE; ' Objection. See answer to interrogatory 3.15. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. H: You were aware as early as 1960 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compen sation claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. RESPONSE: Objection. See answer to interrogatory 3.15. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. I; You were aware as early as 1965 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compen sation claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. RESPONSE: ' Objection. See answer to interrogatory 3.15. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. J: You were aware as early as 1970 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compen sation claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. 72 RESPONSE: Objection. See answer to interrogatory 3.15. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. K: You were aware as early as 1975 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compen sation claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. RESPONSE: Objection. See answer to interrogatory 3.15. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. L: You were aware as early as 1979 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compen sation claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. RESPONSE: Objection. See answer to interrogatory 3.15. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. M: You were aware as early as 1980 that one or more individuals had filed workmen's compen sation claims alleging injury or disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed at one or more of your facilities. RESPONSE: Objection. See answer to interrogatory 3.15. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. U: Pursuant to OR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions annual 73 summaries of compensation claims analyzed by nature of claims, lost time, disposition, and the like. RESPONSE: Objection. See answer to interrogatory 3.15. SECTION 4.0 4.01 State when defendant first made physical examina tions available to employees exposed to asbestos, with references including but not limited to: (a) The nature of such physical examination program; (b) Whether such program is/was optional or mandatory; (c) The location(s) of such physical examination pro grams ; (d) The dates of service of such programs; (e) The name and address of the custodian of all documents relating to the establishment of physical examina tion programs; (f) The highest level of management (name and posi tion) who participated i^ e decision to institute such program(s). ANSWER: (a-d) IN 1970 Dr. Hilton C. Lewinsohn, then Chief Med ical Officer of the T&N unit company now known as TBA Industrial Products Limited, conducted a survey of the medical surveillance conducted by T&N of its employees exposed to asbestos. In 1972 Dr. Lewinsohn's article outlining the historical background of medical surveillance and describing the current state of medical surveillance based upon the 1970 survey was published in the Royal Society of Health Journal. This article offers a detailed 74 analysis of many of the questions asked by plaintiffs in section 4.0 of these discovery requests. T&N therefore has annexed the Lewinsohn article in its entirety as Exhibit 4.01 to these re sponses and has made repeated reference to the article in its answers and responses to this section. (e) J.M. Atkinson, Esq. Turner & Newall PLC Ashburton Road West Trafford Park Manchester, England (f) Chairmen of the Board of Directors: Sir Walker Shepherd R.G. Soothill Sir Ralph Bateman S. Gibbs 4.02 If the nature of such physical examination pro grams has been modified at any site or at any time, state: (a) The date such modifications occurred; (b) The location of the modified programs; (c) The substance of the change; (d) The reason for the modification of that program; (e The name and address of the custodian of all documents relating to such modification. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 4.01. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. V: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions all documents pertaining in any way to your response to the preceding interrogatory. 75 RESPONSE: See answer to interrogatory 4.01. 4.03 Does or did defendant provide pulmonary function tests on its asbestos-exposed workers? ANSWER: Yes. 4.04 If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) The nature of such program(s); (b) Whether such program was optional or mandatory; if mandatory, when it became so; (c) The location(s) of such program(s); (d) The date of service of such program(s); (e) If any of the program(s) have undergone modifica tion, the nature and dates of such modification; (f) The custodian (by name, address and position) of records of such pulmonary function test program(s); (g) The highest level of management (by name, address and position) who participated in the decision to institute such program(s). ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 4.01. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. W: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of 76 the records pertaining in any way to the implementation of the previously identified pulmonary function test programs. RESPONSE: See answer to interrogatory 4.01. 4.05 For each and every such test identified above, describe the method by which the results of such testing was made available to the employees. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 4.01. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. N: Results of the tests identified above were not always available to the tested employ ees . RESPONSE: Denied. 4.06 With reference to the pulmonary function testing program described in your answer to Interrogat- -v No. 4.04, state the frequency (e.g., tests per year or per month) such tests were administered to individual employees (and if frequency varies by categories of employee or if testing policy was modified, indi cate when and where the modifications occurred and by what categories). 77 ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 4.01. 4.07 Did you ever institute a program of chest x-rays for asbestos-exposed workers? ANSWER: Yes. 4.08 If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) The nature of such program(s); (b) Whether such program was optional or mandatory; if mandatory, when it became so; (c) The location(s) of such program(s); (d) The date of service of such program(s); (e) If any of the program(s) have undergone modifica tion, the nature and dates of such modification; (f) The custodian (by name, address and position) of records of such x-ray test program(s); (g) The highest level of management (by name, address and position) > participated in the decision to institute such program(s,. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 4.01. 4.09 For each and every such program identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 4.08, describe in detail the method by which the results of such testing was made available to the employees. 78 RESPONSE: See answer to interrogatory 4.01. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. X: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of the records of the implementation of the afore-identified chest x-ray programs. ANSWER: Copies of E.R.A. Merewether and C.W. Price, "Report on the effect of Asbestos Dust on the Lungs and Dust Suppression in the Asbestos Industry" (1930) and of the The Asbestos Industry Regulations of 1931 have been produced. 4.10 Did defendant ever institute a safety program other than pulmonary function tests and X-ray exams for its asbestos-exposed workers? ANSWER: Yes. 4.11 If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: ' (a) The nature of such program(s); (b) Whether such program was optional or mandatory; if mandatory, when it became so; (c) The location(s) of such program(s); (d) The date of service of such program(s); (e) If any of the program(s) have undergone modifica tion, the nature and dates of such modification; 79 (f) The custodian (by name, address and position) of records of such x-ray test program(s); (g) The highest level of management (by name, address and position) who participated in the decision to institute such program(s). ANSWER: (a-e) See answer to interrogatory 4.01. (f) J.M. Atkinson, Esq. Turner & Newall PLC Ashburton Road West Trafford Park Manchester, England (g) Chairmen of the Board of Directors: Sir Walker Shepherd R.G. Soothill Sir Ralph Bateman Steven Gibbs 4.12 For each and every program identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 4.11, describe in detail the method by which the results of such testing was made available to the employees. ANSWER: * See answer to interrogatory 4.01 and response to Re- quest for Production No. X. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 0: Results of the program identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 4.11 were not always made available to the tested employee. 80 RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Y: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of the records of the implementation of the afore-identified chest safety program. RESPONSE: T&N objects to this discovery request because it seeks large amounts of highly detailed information covering a 63-year period. T&N further objects to this request on the grounds that even were it possible to supply such detailed and voluminous in formation, the process of doing so would be unduly burdensome to T&N and would not further plaintiffs' discovery of information which is relevant to the subject matter of this action. In addition, T&N objects that this request is overbroad and irrele vant because the information sought is not in any way limited to activities which transpired in Washington, Alaska or Oregon dur ing the period of Mr. Bartholomy's alleged exposure to asbestos. See also answer to interrogatory 3.15. 4.13 Did defendant ever institute a no-smoking program for its asbestos-exposed workers? ANSWER: Although T&N did not institute a formal no-smoking pro gram, T&N has always encouraged its employees, the only persons over whom it had control, not to smoke by for example making available to them information warning of the increased danger of disease for workers who smoked and were exposed to asbestos. 4.14 If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: 81 (a) The nature of such program(s); (b) Whether such program was optional or mandatory; if mandatory, when it became so; (c) The location(s) of such program(s); (d) The date of service of such program(s); (e) If any of the program(s) have undergone modifica tion, the nature and dates of such modification; (f) The custodian (by name, address and position) of records of such x-ray test program(s); (g) The highest level of management (by name, address and position) who participated in the decision to institute such program(s). ANSWER: Not applicable. 4.15 Identify all records which pertain to the imple mentation of the above-described program(s). ANSWER: No such records exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Z: Pursuant to CR 34, attach > . produce according to the above instructions a copy of the records of the implementation of the above-identified no smoking programs. 82 RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. P: Prior to 1900, dust counts, air sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted at one or more of your facilities where products containing asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or asbestos fiber concentrations in the air. RESPONSE: Not applicable; T&N did not exist prior to 1920. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. Q: Prior to 1910, dust counts, air sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted at one or more of your facilities where products containing asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or asbestos fiber concentrations in the air. RESPONSE: Not applicable; T&N did not exist prior to 1920. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. R: Prior to 1920, dust counts, air sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted at one or more of your facilities where products containing asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or asbestos fiber concentrations in the air. 83 RESPONSE: Not applicable; T&N did not exist prior to 1920. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. S: Prior to 1930, dust counts, air sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted at one or more of your facilities where products containing asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or asbestos fiber concentrations in the air. RESPONSE: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, T: Prior to 1940, dust counts, air sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted at one or more of your facilities where products containing asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or asbestos fiber concentrations in the air. RESPONSE: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. U: Prior t, 1950, dust counts, air sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted at one or more of your facilities where products containing asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or asbestos fiber concentrations in the air. 84 RESPONSE: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. V: Prior to 1960, dust counts, air sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted at one or more of your facilities where products containing asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or asbestos fiber concentrations in the air. RESPONSE: . Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. W; Prior to 1970, dust counts, air sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted at one or more of your facilities where products containing asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or asbestos fiber concentrations in the air. RESPONSE: Admit. REQUEST Fu ADMISSION NO. X: Prior to 1979, dust counts, air sampling surveys, or other types of studies or tests were conducted at one or more of your facilities where products containing asbestos were manufactured to determine the levels of dust or asbestos fiber concentrations in the air. 85 RESPONSE: Admit. 4.16 Was defendant ever involved in a suit or claim by an individual (or a union on behalf of an individual) instituted to gain access to the medical or exposure records of defendant's employees? ANSWER: I Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.17 If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) When such a suit occurred; (b) The attorneys involved in representing each party, together with the cause number and court where filed; (c) The individual and/or union involved; (d) The nature of the medical records in question; (e) Identify the custodian (by name, address, and po sition) of records relating to the above subject. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. AA: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all records relating to the above subject. 86 RESPONSE: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.18 Does defendant now, or have you in the past, ever contributed money or other support toward the research of the bi ological effects of asbestos? ANSWER: Yes. 4.19 If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) The date(s) of such contribution; (b) The substance, either monetary amount or other, of such contribution; (c) The receipient of such contribution by name, address, and affiliation for study; (d) Identify by name, address and title the person or persons in highest responsibility post for such a decision to contribute toward such research; (e) Identify all documents which pertain to the deci sion to contribute to such' research; (f) Identify the name and address of the custodian of all documents relating to such research. ANSWER: See answers to interrogatories 1.34, 1.36 and 2.15. The principal focus in the United Kingdom of research on the bio logical effects of asbestos has been the Asbestosis Research Council, of which T&N has been a number since the founding of that organization in 1957. 87 REQUEST FOR ACfflSslaN NO. BB: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions all documents relating to the research identified in response to In terrogatory No. 4.18. RESPONSE: Although not relevant after 1963, the following is a list of published papers on the work of the Asbestosis Research Council as of 1977, all of which are publicly available: 1. "Dissolution of Chrysotile Asbestos in water, Acid and Alkali", Clark S G and Holt P F, Nature, 185, 237, 1960. 2. "A Dust-Feed Mechanism Suitable for Fibrous Dusts", Holt P F and Young D K, Ann Occ Hyg, 2, 249, 1960. 3. "Studies of the Chemical Properties of Chrysotile in Relation to Asbestosis", Clark S G and Holt P F, Ann Occ Hyg, 2, 22, 1961. 4. "Studies of Mineral Content and Particle Size Distribu tion in the Lungs of Asbestos Textile Workers", Beattie J and Knox J F. "Inhaled Particles and Vapours", Pergamon Press, Ed Davies C N 1, 1961. 5. "The Asbestos Body", Beattie J. "Inhaled Particles and Vapours" Pergamon Press, Ed Davies C N 1, 1961. 6. "Experimental Asbestos^j in Rats", Holt P F, Mills J and Young D K, Report on Munster Conference, April, 1962. 7. "An Electron Microscope Study of the Effect of Asbestos Dust on the Lung", Davis J M G, Brit Journ Exp Path, 44, 454, 1963. 8. "The Ultra-Structural Changes that occur during the transformation of Lung Macrophages to Giant Cells and Fibroblasts in Experimental Asbestosis", Davis J M G, Brit Journ Exp Path, 44, 568, 1963. 88 9. "The Early Effects of Chrysotile Asbestos Dust on the Rat Lung", Holt P F, Mills J and Young D K, Journ Path & Bact, 87, 15, 1964. 10. "The Ultra-Structure of Asbestos Bodies from Guinea Pig Lungs", Brit Journ Exp Path, 45, 634, 1964. 11. "The Ultra-Structure of Asbestos Bodies from Human Lungs", Davis J M G, Brit Journ Exp Path, 45, 642, 1964. 12. "Experimental Asbestosis in Guinea-pigs", Holt P F and Mills J, Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress on Occupational Health, Madrid, Excerpta Medica Foundation 1964, p. 481. 13. "The Physical and Molecular Structure of Asbestos", Gaze R, Ann NY Acad Sci, 132, 23,. 1965. 14. "Experimental Asbestosis with Four Types of Fibres: Im portance of Small Particles", Holt PF, Mills J and Young D K, Ann NY acad Sci, 132, 87, 1965. 15. "Electron Microscope Studies of Asbestosis in Man and Animals", Davis J M G, Ann Ny Acad Sci, 132, 98, 1965. 16. "Secular Changes in Asbestosis in an Asbestos Factory", Smither W J, Ann NY Acad Sci, 132, 166, 1965. 17. "Developments in Dust Sampling and Counting Techniques in the Asbestos Industry", Holmes S, Ann NY Acad Sci, 132, 288, 1965. lr "Dust Measurement and Monitoring in the Asbestos Indus try", Addingley C G, Ann NY Acad Sci, 132, 298, 1965. 19. "Economics of Dust Control", Hills D W, Ann NY Acad Sci, 132, 322, 1965. 20. "Routine Lung Function Studies on 830 Employees in an Asbestos Processing Factory", Hunt R, Ann NY Acad Sci, 132, 406, 1965. 21. "The Discriminant Value of Pulmonary Function Tests in Asbestosis", Thomson M L, Pelzer A M and Smither W J, Ann NY Acad Sci, 132, 421 1965. 89 22. "Cohort Analysis of Changes in Incidence of Bronchial Carcinoma in a Textile Asbestos Factory", Knox J F, Doll R S and Hill I D, Ann Ny Acad Sci, 132, 526, 1965. 23. "Asbestos Dust and its Measurement", Addingley C G, Ann Occ Hyg, 9, 73, 1966. 24. "Experimental Asbestosis in the Guinea-pig", Holt P F, Mills J and Young D K, Jnl of Pathology and Bacteriolo gy, 92, 185, 1966. 25. "The Protein Coating of Asbestos Bodies", Blount M, Holt P F and Leach A A, Biochemical Journal, 101, 204, 1966. 26. "Interaction of poly-2-vinvylpyridine 1-oxide with Silicic acid". Holt P F and Nasrallah E T, Nature, 11, 878, 1966. 27. "Asbestosis: The Significance of Asbestos Bodies", Holt P F, Proceedings XV International Congress on Oc cupational Health, 263, 1966. 28. "Chemical and Pathological Changes in the Development of Asbestosis", Botham S K and Holt P F, Fortschritte der Staublungenforschung, 489, 1967. 29. "The Mechanism of Production of Asbestos Bodies from Anthophyllite Fibres", Holt P F, Young D K, Jnl Path and Bact, 93, 696, 1967. 30. "The Structure of Guinea-Pig Lung Maintained in Organ Culture", Davis J M G, Brit J Exp Path, 48, 371, 1967. 31. "The Effects of Chrysotile Asbestos Dust on Lung Macrophages Maintained in Organ Culture", Davis J M G, Brit J Exp Path, 48, 379, 1967. 32. "Interaction of some polyvinylpridine oxides with silicic acid and its relationship to their ability to inhibit silica fibrosis". Holt P F, Lindsay H and Nasrallah E T, Nature, 216, 611, 1967. 33. "The interaction of poly-2-vinylpridine 1-oxide and poly-4-vinylpridine 1-oxide with monosilicic acid", HOIt P F and Nasrallah E T, Jnl Chemical Society, 400, 1968. . 90 34. "The Mechanism of Formation of Asbestos Bodies", Botham S K and Holt P F, Jnl Path and Bact, 96, 443, 1968. 35. "Pulmonary Ferruginous Bodies", Gross P, De Treville R T P, Cralley L, Davis J M G, Arch Pathology, 85, 539, 1968. 36. "A Dust Survey carried out in Buildings incorporating asbestos-based materials in their construction", Byrom J C, Hodgson A A and Holmes S, Ann Occ Hyg, 12, 141, 1969. 37. "Poly (alkylvinylpridine 1-oxides) and corresponding alkylpridine oxides: electronic spectra and interac tion with silicic acid". Holt P F and Lindsay H J, Chemical Society (B), 54, 1969. 38. "Alkylpridine oxide monolayers as analogues of poly (vinylpridine oxides): a study of the interaction of heptadecyl-pryridine oxides with monosilicic acid". Holt P F and Nasrallah E T J, Chemical Society, 823, 1969. 39. "Isotactic and syndiotactic poly (2-vinylpyridine 1-oxide) and 2-vinylpyridine oxide-2-n-propenylpyridine odixe copolymer: nuclear magnetic resonnance, and ul traviolet spectra, viscosities and reactions with silicic acid". Holt P F and Lindsay H J, Chemical Soci ety C, 1012, 1969. 40. "Ferruginous Bodies in Guinea Pigs", Davies J M G, Ar chives of Pathology, 89, 364, 1970. 41. "Asbestos Dusts as a Nucleation Centr' *n Calcificaton of old fibrous tissue lesions", Davii> . M G, Experimen tal and Molesular Pathology, 12, 133, 1970. 42. "Long term fibrogenic effects of Chrysotile and Crocidolite Asbestos Dusts injected into the pleural cavity of experimental animals", Davis J M G, Brit Jnl Experimental Pathology, 51, 617, 1970. 43. "Circulating Rheumatoid and Antinuclear Factors in Asbestos Workers", Turner-Warwick M and Parkes E R, Brit Med Jnl, 3, 492, 1970. 91 44. "Hazard Indices, Sampling Strategies in British Asbestos Factories and Standards for Asbestos Dust", Addingly C G, Proceedings Pneumonoconiosis Conference Johannesburg, 1969, OUP 1970. 45. "Some Observations on Asbestosis in a Factory Popula tion", Smither W J, Proceedings Pneumoconiosis Confer ence Johannesburg, 1969, OUP 1970. 46. "Suggestions for Criteria for Sampling Asbestos Dust", Timbrell V and Holmes S, Proceedings Pneumoconiosis Conference Johannesburg, 1969 OUP 1970. 47. "Further observations on the ultrastructure and chemis try of the formation of Asbestos Bodies", Davis J M G, Exp Mol Path, 13, 356, 1970. 48. "Epithelial outgrowth from lung tissue following intrapleural injection of asbestos dust in experimental animals", Davis J M G, Int Jnl Cancer, 7, 238, 1971. 49. "Effect of chrysotile and acid-treated chrysotile on macrophage cultures", Beck E G, Holt P F and Nasrallah E T, Brit Jnl Ind Med, 28, 179, 1971. 50. "Polyvinylpridine oxides in pneumoconiosis research", Holt P F, Brit Jnl Ind Med, 28, 72, 1971. 51. "The development of glass fibre bodies in the lungs of guinea pigs", Botham S K and Holt P F, Jnl Path, 103, 149, 1971. 52. "The development of asbestos bodies on amosite, chrysotile crocidolite fibres in guinea pig lungs", Botham S K a.id Holt P F, Jnl Path, 195, 159, 1971. 53. "The association of phagocytosed asbestos dust with lysosome enzymes", Smith B A and Davis J M G, Jnl Path, 105, 153, 1971. 54. "The Fibrogenic effect of mineral dust injected into the pleural cavities of mice", Davis J M G, Brit J Exp Path, 53, 190, 1972. 55. "Sampling methods", Holmes S, "Biological Effects of Asbestos", IARC, Lyon, 1973. 92 56. "Environmental data in industry". Holmes S, 'Biological Effects of Asbestos', IARC, Lyon, 1973. 57. "Asbestosis in textile manufacturing", Smither W J and Lewinsohn H C, 'Biological Effects of Asbestos', IARC, Lyon 1973. 58. "Arc ferruginous bodies an indication of atmospheric pollution by asbestos", Davis J M G and Gross P, 'Bio logical Effects of Asbestos', IARC, Lyon, 1973. 59. "Airborne asbestos dust evaluation". Harness I, Annals Occup Hyg, 16, 397, 1973. 60. "The evaluation of airborne asbestos fibres using a scanning electron microscope", Beckett S T, Annals Occup Hyg, 16, 405, 1973. 61. "An electron microscope study of the response of mesothelial cells to the intrapleural injection of asbestos dust", Davis J M G, Brit Jnl Exp Path, 55, 64, 1974. 62. "Histogensis and fine structure of peritoneal tumours produced in animals by injection of asbestos", Davis J M G, Jnl Nat Cancer Inst, 52, 1823, 1974. 63. "Ultrastructure of human mesotheliomas", Davis J M G, Jnl Nat Cancer Inst, 52, 1715, 1974. 64. "Intra-laboratory comparisons of the counting of asbestos fibres samples on membrane filters", Beckett S T and Attfield M D., Annals Occup Hyg, 17, 85, 1974. 65. "Penetration of cells by asbestos fibres", Davis J M G, Bolton R E and Garrett J, Env Health Perspec, 9, 225, 1974. 66. "Ingested mineral fibres: do they penetrate tissue and cause cancer?", Gross P, Davis J M G and others. Arch Env Health, 29, 341, 1974. 67. "The generation and evaluation of UICC asbestos clouds in animal exposure chambers", Beckett S T, Annals Occup Hyg, 18, 187, 1975. 93 .68 "The use of infrared spectrophotometry for the estima tion of small quantities of single varieties of UICC asbestos", Beckett S T, Middleton A P and Dodgson J, Annals Occup Hyg, 18, 313, 1975. 69. "A comparison of airborne asbestos fibre counting with and without an eyepiece graticule", Beckett S T and others, Annals Occup Hyg, 19, 69, 1976. The following is a list of publications of the Asbestosis Research Council, copies of which T&N upon reasonable notice will endeavor to obtain for plaintiffs: Codes of Practice For Handling Consignments of Asbestos Fibre. For Handling and Disposal of Asbestos Waste Materials. Technical Notes 1. The Measurement of Airborne Asbestos Dust by the Mem brane Filter Method. 2. Dust Sampling Procedures for use with the Asbestos Reg ulations . Control and Safety Guides 1. Protective Equipment in the Asbestos Industry (Respira tory Equipment and Protective Clothing). 2. The Application of Sprayed Asbestos Coatings. 3. Stripping and Fitting of Asbestos-containing Thermal insulation. 4. Asbestos Textile Products, CAF/Asbestos Beater Jointings and Asbestos Millboard. 5. Asbestos-based Materials for the Building and Shipbuilding Industries and Electrical and Engineering Insulation. 6. Handling, Storage, Transportation and Discharging of Asbestos Fibre into Manufacturing Processes. 94 7. Control of Dust by Exhaust Ventilation. 8. Asbestos-based Friction Materials and Asbestosreinforced Resinous Moulded Materials. 9. The Cleaning of Premises and Plant in Accordance with the Absestos Regulations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. Y: You conducted or caused to be conducted no tests before 1900 on your products containing asbestos to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particle might be harmful to human beings if inhaled. RESPONSE: Not applicable; T&N did not exist prior to 1920. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: You conducted or caused to be conducted no tests before 1910 on your products containing asbestos to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be harmful to human beings if inhaled. RESPONSE: Not applicable; T&N did not exist prior to 1920. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, .a: You conducted or caused to be conducted no tests before 1920 on your products containing asbestos to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be harmful to human beings if inhaled. . 95 RESPONSE: Not applicable; T&N did not exist prior to 1920. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. BB: You conducted or caused to be conducted no tests before 1930 on your products containing asbestos to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be harmful to human beings if inhaled. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. CC: You conducted or caused to be conducted no tests before 1940 on your products containing asbestos to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be harmful to human beings if inhaled. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. DP: You conducted or caused to be conducted no tests before 1950 on your products containing asbestos to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be harmful to human beings if inhaled. RESPONSE: Denied. ' REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. EE: You conducted or caused to be conducted no tests before 1960 on your products containing 96 asbestos to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be harmful to human beings if inhaled. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. FF: You conducted or caused to be conducted no tests before 1970 on your products containing asbestos to determine whether asbestos or asbestos particles might be harmful to human beings if inhaled. RESPONSE: Denied. 4.20 State in detail when you first became aware of the existence of articles on the subject of the relationship between asbestos exposure and; (a) asbestosis; (b) lung cancer; (c) . mesothelioma; (d) forms of cancer other than lung cancer. ANSWER: Asbestosis was generally recognized as an industrial disease under some circumstances following the publication of E.R.A. Merewether, M.D. and C.W. Price, Report on Effects of Asbestos Dust on the Lungs and Dust Suppression in the Asbestos Industry (1930). A connection between asbestos dust exposure and lung cancer was further discussed in the study by R.D. Doll, "Mortality from Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers", 12 Brit. J. Ind. Med. (1955). In the publications of J.C. Wagner, C.A. 97 Seggs, and P. Marchand, "Diffuse Pleural Mesothelioma and Asbestos Exposure in the North Western Cape Providence" 17 Brit. J. Ind. Med. 260 (1960) and M. Newhouse and H. Thompson, "Epidemiology of Mesothelial Tumors in the London Areas," 132 Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci. 579 (1965), 22 Brit, J. Ind. Med. 261 (1965), it was postulated that there may be some connection between exposure to asbestos dust and mesothelioma. 4.21 For each disease mentioned in subparts a-d of the preceding interrogatory, state in what manner you gained awareness of each. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 4.20. 4.22 Identify all documents which pertain in any way to your answer to the preceding interrogatory. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 4.20. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. CC: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents identified in response to the preceding interroga tory. ,, RESPONSE: 'Each such document is available to the public. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. GG: You were aware as early as 1900 of research, studies and/or articles indicating a causal connection between asbestos exposure and 98 (a) asbestosis; (b) lung cancer; (c) mesothelioma; (d) forms of cancer other than lung cancer. RESPONSE: Not applicable; T&N did not exist prior to 1920. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. HH: You were aware as early as 1910 of research, studies and/or articles indicating a casual connection between asbestos exposure and (e) asbestosis; (f) lung cancer; (g) mesothelioma; (h) forms of cancer other than lung cancer. RESPONSE: Not applicable; T&N did not exist prior to 1920. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. II: You were aware as early as 1920 of research, studies and/or articles indicating a casual connection between asbestos exposure and (i) asbestosis; (j) lung cancer; (k) mesothelioma; (l) forms of cancer other than lung cancer. 99 RESPONSE: See answer to Interrogatory 4.20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. JJ: You were aware as early as 1930 of research, studies and/or articles indicating a casual connection between asbestos exposure and (m) asbestosis; (n) lung cancer; (o) mesothelioma; (p) forms of cancer other than lung cancer. RESPONSE: See answer to interrogatory 4.20. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. KK: You were aware as early as 1940 of research, studies and/or articles indicating a casual connection between asbestos exposure and (q) asbestosis; (r) lung cancer; (s) mesothelioma; (t) forms of cancer other than lung cancer. RESPONSE: See answer to interrogatory 4.20. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. LL: You were aware as early as 1950 of research, studies and/or articles indicating a casual connection between asbestos exposure and 100 (u) asbestosis; (v) lung cancer; (w) mesothelioma; (x) forms of cancer other than lung cancer. RESPONSE: See answer to interrogatory 4.20. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. MM: You were aware as early as 1960 of research, studies and/or articles indicating a casual connection between asbestos exposure and (y) asbestosis; (z) lung cancer; (a) mesothelioma; (b) forms of cancer other than lung cancer. RESPONSE: See answer to interrogatory 4.20. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. NN: You were aware as early as 1970 of research, studies and/or articles indicating a causal connection between asbestos exposure and (c) asbestosis; (d) lung cancer; (e) mesothelioma; (f) forms of cancer other than lung cancer. 101 RESPONSE: See answer to interrogatory 4.20. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 00: You were aware as early as 1950 of research, studies and/or articles indicating a casual connection between asbestos exposure and (g) asbestosis; (h) lung cancer; (i) mesothelioma; (j) forms of cancer other than lung cancer. RESPONSE: See answer to interrogatory 4.20. 4.23 State when you first recognized the bargaining rights of the Asbestos Workers Union, also known as the Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers Union. RESPONSE: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. . 4.24 Identify each and every union recognized by you, and state: (a) The name of each such union; (b) The region(s) in which it is recognized; (c) Date of its recognition; (d) Percentage of defendant's employees known to be members of such union. 102 ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.25 If you have recognized any union, state in de tail: (a) Which unions defendant has cooperated with; (b) Dates of cooperation; (c) The nature of the cooperation; (d) The substance of the programs organized; (e) The administrators of each such program. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.26 State when health benefits were first given to defendant's employees, including but not limited to: (a) management; (b) factory workers; f c) distributors. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.27 Have you ever lobbied for or participated in the lobbying for, or in the creation of, governmental/legislative remedies for asbestos-related lung diseases? 103 ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.28 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state in detail: (a) The form such lobbying took; (b) All person(s) acting on behalf of defendant; (c) The amount of moonies spent on the above lobbying; (d) The intended and actual results of such lobbying. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.29 Were you involved in any stage of the preparation of the bill H.R. 2740 introduced by Millicent Fenwick, Republican-New Jersey, in the House of Representatives? ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.30 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, identify: (a) The manner in which defendant was involved; (b) The person(s) so involved; (c) The time spent in contribution to the creation of the Fenwick bill; 104 (d) All documents generated by your involvement in the preparation of H.R. 2740. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. DP: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents identified in subpart (d) of your answer to the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.31 Was defendant involved in any aspect or stage of preparation of the Senate bill, S. 2847, introduced by Senator Hart, Democrat-Colorado, to the Senate of the United States? ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.32 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, identify and describe in detail: (a) The manner in which defendant was involved; (b) The person(s) so involved; (c) The time spent in contribution to the creation of the Hart bill; 105 ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.33 With respect to liability insurance, identify each and every insurance policy actually, potentially or arguably effective for each year after the founding defendant. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.34 For each insurance policy identified in your answer to the above interrogatory, state: (a) The name of the insurance company; (b) The policy number of each; (c) The name and address of the agent who sold the in surance policy; (d) The dollar limits of coverage and scope of cover age for liability of each such insurance policy and the de ductibles of each such insurance policy; (e) Effective date and expiration date of each such insurance policy; (f) The named insured; (g) The name, address, and title of the employee of the insurance company and/or agent who has supervisory re sponsibility for plaintiff's claims in this litigation; (h) Subsequent to the issuance of each policy or policies identified in the preceding interrogatory, was the original policy amended, changed, or otherwise modified? (i) If so, for each modification for each such policy, identify: 106 .1 The substance of the modification; .2 The date it became effective. ANSWER; Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.35 Has a claim or suit involving policy limits, re served rights, or disputed coverage been initiated against any of the insurance companies identified in your answer to the preced ing interrogatory? ANSWER; Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.36 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) The insurance company(ies) against who the claim or lawsuit has been initiated; (b) The date upon which it was initiated; (c) The contentions therein; (d) The claim number, cause number, court, parties to the litigation, attorneys representing the parties to the litigation, and any other identifying information, including but not limited to the disposition of such litigation, claim or contention. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 107 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. EE: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents which pertain in any way to your answers to the preceding insurance interrogatories. RESPONSE: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.37 Identify any other disputed matters with respect to any other insurance policies, including but not limited to: (a) The name of the insurance company; (b) The policy number; (c) The contentions of the respective parties; (d) The identity of the attorneys with relationship to each contention; (e) The dates of each such contention; when initiated, and if relevant, when resolved; (f) The substance of the resolution. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.38 Do you have or have you had liability coverage other than that previously identified, such as umbrella or excess liability policies or secondary policies or self-insurance re serve pools? 108 ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.39 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state for each: (a) The name of the insurance company; (b) The policy number and other identification; (c) The name, address, telephone number, job title or capacity of the agent who sold the insurance; (d) The dollar limits of coverage and scope of cover age for liability; (e) Effective date and expiration; (f) Dollar limits of coverage and scope of coverage for any medical or personal injury protection or benefits, and whether same is available to plaintiffs and under what conditions; (g) The name, address, and title of the employee who has supervisory responsibility for the disposition of plain tiff' s claims. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. FF: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents which pertain in any way to your answer to the foregoing interrogatory. 109 RESPONSE: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.40 Identify all trade publications that have been subscribed to by your employers or agents, including all such publications for which you have paid employee subscription. ANSWER: As framed, this Interrogatory is incomprehensible. 4.41 Identify all manufacturers' and/or chemists' as sociation publications your company has subscribed to or received from 1920 to the present. ANSWER: To the best of T&N's information and belief, its medi cal directors or its industrial hygienists subscribed to the fol lowing scientific journals or publications prior to 1965: Adhesive Age Analytical Abstracts (including The Analyst) Analytical ChemistryAnr . of Occupational Hygiene Applied Plastics Applied Spectroscopy Applied Statistics Archives of Environmental Health Asbestos Asbestos Bulletin Automobile Engineer Automotive Design Engineering Biometrika British Chemical Engineering British Communications & Electronics British Journal of Applied Physics British Journal of Industrial Medicine 110 British Packer British Petroleum Equipment News British Plastics British Plastics & Rubber British Plastics Federation Abstracts British Plastics Federation Bulletin British Railways Research Division Monthly Review of Technical Literature British Standards Institution News Building Engineer Bulletin of the Institute of Physics Caterer & Hotel Keeper Catering Management Ceramic Bulletin Chemical Abstracts: Applied Chemistry, Macroraolecular and Physical Chemistry Sections Chemical Engineering Chemical & Engineering News Chemical Processing Chemical Society Journal Chemical Society: Quarterly Reviews Chemical Trade Journal Chemistry and Industry Chemistry in Britain Colliery Guardian Commercial Motor Control Corrosion Technology Data Processing Derwent British Patent Abstracts Economy Review Electrical Engineering Abstracts Electrical Research Association Bulletin of Abstracts Electrical Review Electronic Engineering Engineer Engineer's Digest Engineering and Boilerhouse Review Engineering Materials and Design Engineering News . Engineering Quality Farm Mechanisation Fire Fire Protection and Accident Prevention Review Fluid Handling __ Fuel Efficiency News 111 Garage and Motor Agent German Patent Abstracts Glass Glass Industry Glass Technology Gumni und Asbest Heating & Ventilating Engineer Indian Rubber Journal Industrial Chemist Industrial Electronics Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Analytical, Fundamentals, Process Design and Development, and Products Research and Development Industrial Equipment News Industrial Handling Industrial Quality Control Instrument and Control Engineering Instrument Engineer Instrument Practice Instrument Review Insulation Insulation Journal Institute of Rubber Industry Transactions International Journal of Abstracts International Journal of Abstracts on Statistical methods in Industry International Plastics Engineering Ironmonger's Builder's Merchant & Metal Trades Journal for Industrial Nurses Journal of American Ceramic Society Journal of American Chemical Society Journal of Applied Chemistry Journal of Applied Physics Journal of Applied Polymer Science Journal of Chromotography Journal of the Institute of British Launderers Journal of the Institute of Metals Journal of Institution of Electrical Engineers Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids Journal of Polymer Science Journal of Scientific Instruments Journal of the Textiles Institute Kunststoffe Laboratory Practice Lapis Laundry and Cleaning 112 Machining Mass Production Material Handling Engineering Materials in Design Engineering (plus Manual) Materials Research and Standards Mechanical Handling Merchant Shipper Metal Powder Report Metallurgical Abstracts Metallurgical Reviews Metallurgist The Microscope Modern Plastics Monthly Digest of Statistics Motor Industry Research Association Bulletin Nature New Scientist Nursing Mirror Occupational Hygiene Abstracts Oil and Colour Chemists Association Journal Oil and Gas Journal Operational Research Quarterly Packaging News Paint Oil and Colour Trades Journal Petroleum Press Service Petroleum Times Physical Society Proceedings Physics and Chemistry of Glasses Plastics Plastics Design and Processing Plastics Institute Transactions Plastics & Rubber Weekly Plastics Technology Powder Metallurgy Power Laundry Power Equipment News Power and Works Engineering Precision Metal Moulding Proceedings of American Society for Testing Materials Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Process Control and Automation Product Engineering Production Engineering Research Association Bulletin Production Equipment Digest 113 Production Technology Pumping Quality Engineer Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics Railway and Shipping Journal Railway Research & Engineering News: Abstracts Section B Reinforced Plastics Reinforced Plastics (U.S.A.) Research and Development Resin News Rheology Abstracts Royal Society Proceedings Rubber Age Rubber and Plastics Age Rubber and Plastics Research Association Abstracts and Bulletin Rubber Chemistry and Technology Rubber Developments Rubber Journal Rubber Statistical Bulletin Rubber World Science Abstracts Scientific Lubrication Shell Aviation News Shipbuilder and Marine Engine Builder Shirley Institute Bulletin Shirley Institute Summary Society of Production Engineers Journal Society of Production Engineers Transactions Soviet Inventions Illustrated Soviet Plastics . Soviet Rubber Technology Statistical Theory and Methods Abstracts Steel and Coal Technology of the Textile Institute (U.S.S.R.) Textile Manufacturer Textile Praxis (Eng. Ed.) Textile Recorder . Textile Weekly Textile World Thermal Analysis Review Time and Motion Study Times Review of Industry and Technology Times Review of Science 114 Trade Marks Journal Transactions of American Society of Lubrication Engineers ; : Transport Management ' Waste Trade Journal Wear ~ t Welding and Metal Fabrication " Wool Industry Research Association Bulletin : T&N has no records that show when it initially 'subscribed to any of these publications. * 4.42 Identify all medical journals or other such pub lications that your company has subscribed to or received from 1920 to present. ANSWER: t al During some or all of the time from 1920 to the present, T&N subscribed to the following publications: -t Annals of Occupational Hygiene ci American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal /i: Archives of Environmental Health J British Medical Journal ' British Journal of Diseases of the Chest Chest Journal of Occupational Medicine Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine Journal of The Society of Occupational Medicine Lancet Thorax . 4.43 Identify all organizations connected with the asbestos products industry which your company has belonged to, participated in and/or financially supported from 1920 to the present. 115 ISWER: See response to Interrogatory 4.19, 4.44 and 4.45. To le extent that this interrogatory calls for T&N's membership in rganizations not engaged in research concerning the biological ffects of asbestos, not concerning the United States or after 963 (the date of Mr. Bartholomy's last alleged exposure to Lim- 2t), T&N objects that the interrogatory is overbroad, burden.-,.., ome, and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible,.evi:-' ence. ~ c-`- 4.44 Did your company or any of your employees, r gents, personnel, director or officers ever belong to, par tic-i- ate in or financially support the Asbestos Textile Institute? NSWER: ' Yes. 4.45 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is n the affirmative, state: ~ (a) The date(s) of such membership, participation or financial support; (b) The nature of your company's relationship with the Asbestos Textile Institute; (c) The name(s), address(es) and nature of duties of the person(s) in your company with any responsibilities regarding the Asbestc extile Institute; (d) In what committee(s) of the Asbestos Textile Institute your company or persons in your company partici pate; (e) Whether any documents pertaining to such member ship, participation or financial support exist, and if so, identify the custodian of such documents. 116 and disease as set forth in the responses to interrogatories 1.34, 1.36, 2.15, 3.01 and 4.01. To the extent, if any, that this interrogatory may require a further answer, T&N objects on the grounds that it is repetitive, burdensome and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4.48 Identify all persons in your company who are del egated to attend asbestos or asbestos product safety hearings or meetings, or be familiar with asbestos or asbestos product safe ty. ANSWER: All persons at the unit companies of T&N dealing with asbestos are required to be familiar with asbestos or asbestos product safety. 4.49 Has any buyer or user of any asbestos product manufactured or distributed by you even been given instructions by anyone to discontinue using such asbestos product? ANSWER: Not during the period of Mr. Bartholomy's alleged expo sure to asbestos. 4.50 If the answer .to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: (a) Identify the date of such instructions; (b) Identify the buyer or user; (c) State the reason(s) for such instructions being given; (d) Identify the person(s) giving such instructions to the buyer or user; (e) If written, identify the custodian of such instructions. 118 ANSWER: Not applicable. 4.51 Have you ever engaged in any joint venture or co operative arrangement with any company, corporation, or other business entity concerning the manufacture or distribution of asbestos or any asbestos product, including but not limited to, any technical assistance arrangement, any research regarding asbestos or asbestos products or any marketing arrangement? ANSWER: ' J.W. Roberts sold Limpet in the United States to a single head licensee. Prior to 1962, Keasbey & Mattison Company was the head licensee; for the period 1960 to 1964 ACandS was the head licensee. See also answer to interrogatory 1.15. 4.52 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) The date(s) of any such joint venture or coopera tive arrangement; (b) With what busines entity you engaged in any such joint venture or cooperative arrangement; (c) Describe in detail the nature of any such jo. c. venture or cooperative arrangement; (d) Whether any documents exist regarding any such joint venture or cooperative arrangement, and if so, state: 1. The date(s) of any such documents; 2. The custodian or possessor of any such documents. 119 ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 4.51. 4.53 When did you first learn in any manner or from any source that asbestos or asbestos products are hazardous or dangerous to the health of persons? ANSWER: T&N was aware of the report of E.R.A. Merewether and C.W. Price contemporaneously with its publication. That report begins as follows: "This Report is based upon the data obtained in an extensive investigation during the years 1928 and 1929. The inquiry was initiated by the Factory Department of the Home Office following the discovery in February, 1928, of a case of nontubercular fibrosis of the lungs in an asbestos worker, of sufficient severity to necessitate treatment in hospital (Seiler's Case). "Prior to this, this Department had knowledge of only two deaths of asbestos workers, about whom there was expert opinion that the inhalation of asbestos dust had at least contributed to, if not caused, the fatal outcome. The first of these, now referred to as the 'Montague Murray Case,' occurred in 1900, but all that is known concerning it is contained in the ev' >ce given by Dr. Montague Murray in 1906, b-iore the Departmental Committee on Compensation for Industrial Diseases. In this case post mortem examination confirmed the clinical diagnosis of extensive non-tubercular pulmonary fibrosis. The second (Cooke's Case) occurred in 1924. Here, although Cooke and Stuart McDonald were of the opinion that the lungs showed a progressive dust fibrosis together with a chronic tuberculous infection, the etiological re lationship between the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibrosis of the lungs would have been strengthened by the absence of a tuberculous in fection. , 120 "An early survey of the industry in 1910-11 by the Department did not disclose any evidence of the existence of a serious health hazard in the industry, but some experiments on animals conducted in 1912 by Professor J.M. Beattie of Sheffield University for the Department showed that the inhalation of asbestos dust will cause a mild degree of fibrosis. "When, therefore, investigation of Seiler's Case showed that other industrial and infective causes of fibrosis could be definitely excluded, the necessity of deciding whether the supervention of this disease in an asbestos worker was an ex ceptional occurrence, or evidence of a grave health risk in the industry, was apparent and the investigation referred to was undertaken." T&N cannot say for certain what knowledge concerning the health aspects of asbestos it had prior to that study. 4.54 From whom did you learn the information taken from the answer to Interrogatory No. 4.53? ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 4.53. 4.55 State what documents reflect the information given in answer to Interrogatory No. 4.53, their date and the pres .c custodians of said records. ANSWER: See answer to interrogatory 4.53. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. GG: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents which pertain in any way to your answer to the foregoing interrogatory. 121 RESPONSE: A copy of E.R.A. Merewether and C.W. Price, Report on Effects of Asbestos Dust on the Lungs and Dust Suppression in the Asbestos Industry (1930) has been produced. 4.56 ;Has any asbestos or asbestos product manufactured or distributed by you ever been utilized or supplied by you for use in any power generating plants? ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.57 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) When such asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (b) Identify by trade name, brand name, common name, product designation and type what asbestos or asbestos were so utilized or supplied; (c) In what manner and for what purposes such asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (d) The name and address of each such power generating plant; (e) Whether any written or other records of any kind pertaining to such use or supply exist, and if so, identify the custodian or possessor of such record. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 122 4.58 Has any asbestos or asbestos product manufactured or distributed by you ever been utilized or supplied by you for use in any schools or other educational institutions? ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.59 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) When such asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (b) Identify by trade name, brand name, common name, product designation and type what asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (c) In what manner and for what purposes such asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (d) The name and address of each such school or other education institution; (e) Whether any written or other records of any kind pertaining to such use or supply exist, and if so, identify the custodian or possessor of such record. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.60 Has any asbestos or asbestos product manufactured or distributed by you ever been utilized or supplied by you for use in any hospitals? 123 f ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.61 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) When such asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (b) Identify by trade name, brand name, common name, product designation and type what asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (c) In what manner and for what purposes such asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (d) The name and address of each such hospital; (e) Whether any written or other records of any kind pertaining to such use or supply exist, and if so, identify the custodian or possessor of such record. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.62 Has any asbestos or asbestos product manufactured or distributed by you ever been utilized or supplied by you fr" use in any commercial buildings? ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. ' 4.63 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: 124 (a) When such asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (b) Identify by trade name, brand name, common name, product designation and type what asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (c) In what manner and for what purposes such asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (d) The name and address of each such commercial building; (e) Whether any written or other records of any kind pertaining to such use or supply exist, and if so, identify the custodian or possessor of such record. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. 4.64 Has any asbestos or asbestos product manufactured or distributed by you ever been utilized or supplied by you for use in any dwellings? ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. ' 4.64 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) When such asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (b) Identify by trade name, brand name, common name, product designation and type what asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; 125 (c) In what manner and for what purposes such asbestos or asbestos products were so utilized or supplied; (d) The name and address of each such dwelling; (e) Whether any written or other records of any kind pertaining to such use or supply exist, and if so, identify the custodian or possessor of such record. ANSWER: Withdrawn pursuant to letter from plaintiff's counsel dated September 12, 1983. SECTION 5.0 5.01 Do you contend that any other party defendants in this litigation caused or contributed to the damage or damages sustained by plaintiff or plaintiff's decedent? ANSWER: Yes. 5.02 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: -- - (a) Identify each such party; (b) State the manner and means of such contribution; (c) Indicate the. quantification thereof in percentage terms; (d) Identify each document which supports such a con tention, including the custodian thereof; (e) Identify each person(s) who has/have knowledge concerning such contribution by name, address, phone number, and relationship to defendant. , 126 ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death. At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of that review and of further discovery. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. HH: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents identified in your answer to the foregoing inter rogatory. RESPONSE: See answer to interrogatory 5.02. 5.03 Do you contend that any person, business or enti ty not a party to this litigation contributed to the damage or damages to plaintiff or plaintiff's decedent? ANSWER: Yes. 5.04 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: (a) Identify each such party; (b) State the manner and means of such contribution; (c) Indicate the quantification thereof in percentage terms; (d) Identify each document which supports such a con- tention, including the custodian thereof; 127 (e) Identify each person(s) who has/have knowledge concerning such contribution by name, address, phone number, and relationship to defendant. ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece- dent's death, At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. II: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions a copy of all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE: See response to interrogatory 5.04. 5.05 Do you contend that plaintiff or plaintiff's de cedent contributed to his or her own harm? ANSWER: Yes. 5.06 If your answer to the precedin'- ' nter rogatory is in the affirmative: (a) Specifically indicate the nature of the conduct? (b) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue; (c) Identify any eye-witness or other person who has information of any kind concerning such contention. 128 ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece- dent's death, At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. 5.07 Do you contend that Mr. Bartholomy or any named defendant voluntarily and/or knowingly assumed the risk of an asbestos related injury? ANSWER: Yes. 5.08 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: (a) Specifically identify who voluntarily and/or know ingly assumed the risk of an asbestos related injury. (b) Specifically indicate the nature of the conduct; (c) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue; "- (d) Identify any eye-witness or other person who has information of any kind concerning such contention. ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's decedent's death, At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. 129 T&N.refers plainitffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. 5.09 Do you contend that the plaintiff's asbestos re lated injuries were caused or contributed to, in whole or in party, by improper and/or negligent actions of any of Mr. Bartholomy's fellow servants? ANSWER: . Yes. 5.10 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: (a) Specifically indicate the nature of the conduct; (b) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue; (c) Identify any eye-witness or other person who has information of any kind concerning such contention. (d) Identify the fellow servant(s) whom you claim caused or contributed to Mr. Bartholomy's injuries. ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death. At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. 130 5.11 Do you contend that Mr. Bartholomy or Mrs. Bartholomy failed to use reasonable precautions for his or her own safety or otherwise failed to mitigate or minimize his or her damages? ANSWER: _ Yes. 5.12 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: (a) Specifically indicate the nature of the conduct; (b) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue; (c) Identify any eye-witness or other person who has information of any kind concerning such contention. ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death. At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. -- T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in thiaction. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. 5.13 Do you contend that Mr. Bartholomy used asbestos products in an unforseen, unexpected or unintended manner, and/or misused your products? 131 ANSWER: Yes. 5.14 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: (a) Specifically indicate the nature of the conduct; (b) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue; (c) Identify any eye-witness or other person who has information of any kind concerning such contention. ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death. At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. 5.15 Do you contend that Mr. Bartholomy or any other person materially altered your asbestos products prior to their use by Mr. Bartholomy? ANSWER: Yes. 5.16 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: 132 (a) Specifically indicate the nature of the conduct; (b) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue; (c) Identify any eye-witness or other person who has information of any kind concerning such contention. (d) Identify who materially altered your asbestos products prior to their use by Mr. Bartholomy. ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece- dent's death, At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. 5.17 Do you contend that the damages sustained by each plaintiff was caused by third parties not named as parties in this action? ANSWER: es. 5.18 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative: (a) Specifically indicate the nature of the conduct; (b) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue; (c) Identify any eye-witness or other person who has information of any kind concerning such contention. 133 (d) Identify who materially altered your asbestos products prior to their use by Mr. Bartholomy. ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death. At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. 5.19(a) Do you contend that the plaintiff voluntarily and/or knowingly assumed the risk of an asbestos related injury? ANSWER: Yes. 5.19(b) If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, indicate the exact reasons why you believe that Mr. Bartholomy voluntarily and/or knowingly assumed the risk of an asbestos related injury. ANSWER: ' T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death. At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. 134 5.20 Do you contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction over you on the grounds that there is an insufficiency of process or an insufficiency of service of process? ANSWER: Yes. 5.21 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, indicate the exact reasons why you believe that process has been insufficient and/or why the service of process was insufficient. ANSWER: T&N moved to dismiss the complaint herein upon the ground that this court lacked _in personam jurisdiction over T&N. That motion was denied. 5.22 Do you contend that Mr. Bartholomy and/or Mrs. Bartholomy failed to commence the action herein within the time required by the applicable statute of limitations? ANSWER: ' '~ Yes. 5.23 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state exactly which statute of limitations you are relying upon for that defense and the date of commence ment of the statute of limitations with respect to plaintiffs Bartholomys' claim. 135 ANSWER: action. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this 5.24 Do you contend that the plaintiffs Bartholomys' claim against you is barred by any doctrine of laches and/or waiver and/or estoppel? ANSWER: Yes. 5.25 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, specify the facts, circumstances, documents or other circumstances upon which you rely for that defense. ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's decedent's death, At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has inform- n concerning this contention. 5.26 Do you contend that the claim of plaintiffs Bartholomy has been barred by state and/or federal industrial in surance and/or worker's compensation laws? 136 ANSWER: Yes 5.27 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative for the Bartholomys' claim, specify the appli cable state and/or federal industrial insurance law and/or worker's compensation law upon which you rely and specify the facts, circumstances, documents and or other evidence upon which you rely for this defense. ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death. At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. 5.28 Do you contend that your sales and distribution of asbestos products were consistent with the state-of-the-art, v industry practice or custom, general scientific and/or medical' knowledge and standards existing at any particular time pertinent to this lawsuit? 137 ANSWER: Yes. 5.29 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, for the Bartholomys' claim and for the years of exposure identified in Answers to Interrogatories filed by Mr. Bartholomy, state: (a) The facts and circumstances upon which you rely; (b) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue; (c) Identify any eye-witness who has information of any kind concerning such a contention. ANSWER: As set forth in T&N's answers to other interrogatories in this case, T&N believes that it took all precautions it reasonably could have taken to ensure the health and safety of those who used its products. 5.30 Do you contend that the claim of plaintiffs Bartholomy against you is barred by "mandatory government _ contract specifications"? ANSWER: Yes. 5.31 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirative: (a) Identify the regulation, statute or contract spec ification upon which you rely; 138 (b) Identify each document which in any way bears upon this issue; (c) Identify any eye-witness who has any information of any kind concernin such a contention; (d) Identify the products to which Mr. Bartholomy was exposed which were allegedly supplied pursuant to such spec ifications . ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death. At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. 5.32 Do you contend that the claim of plaintiffs Bartholomy is barred by improper venue and/or lack of ju risdiction? ANSWER: _ Yes. 5.33 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, indicate the reasons why you assert there is improper venue and/of lack of jurisdiction. 139 ANSWER: T&N moved to dismiss the complaint herein upon the ground that this court lacked _in personam jurisdiction over T&N. That motion was denied. 5.34 List any person with knowledge of facts material to this case, including any persons you presently consider may be called as witnesses at trial, whose names, addresses, occupations and telephone numbers have not been previously disclosed in this case. ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece- dent's death, At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. 5.35 List the names, addresses, occupations, professional ' lifications and telephone numbers of all expert witnesses whom you will call at trial of this case, and further state: (a) The subject matter upon which each such witness is expected to testify; (b) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; (c) A summary of the grounds for each such opinion. 140 ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death. At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. See T&N's witness list already served and filed in this case. 5.36 Identify each document reviewed and/or generated by each expert identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5.35 in connection with this specific litigation. ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death. At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. See T&N's witness list already served and filed in this case. 5.37 Identify each document reviewed and/or generated by each expert identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5.35 in connection with any asbestos claim or lawsuit. 141 ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death. At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. See T&N's witness list already served and filed in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. JJ: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce according to the above instructions all documents identified in your response to Interrogatories No. 5.36 and 5.37. RESPONSE: Not applicable 5.38 With respect to each expert identified above: (a) Indicate the total number of claims or lawsuits for which said expert has been retained; (b) Identify the person(s) responsible for se deci sion to retain; (c) Identify the trial court, worker's compensation cause number or other information which identifies where any sworn testimony (including affidavits, depositions or other testimony) was given; (d) State in detail the nature of such testimony. ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death. At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's 142 joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. See T&N's witness list already served and filed in this case. 5.39 Have you, your attorneys or agents, any written, otherwise recorded, or oral statements from any witnesses or person who have or claim to have any knowledge of facts relevant to or arising out of this lawsuit? If so, for each such state ment: (a) Identify each person, with name and address, mak ing the statement; (b) Identify each statement; (c) Identify each person, with name and address, at whose request such statement was made; (d) Identify each person, with name and address, wo prepared such statement; (e) Identify each person, with name and address, now in possession of each statement. ... ANSWER: T&N was joined in this action after plaintiff's dece dent's death.- At the present time T&N has not completed its review of the discovery conducted by other parties prior to T&N's joinder. T&N reserves the right to supplement this response upon completion of this review and of further discovery. T&N refers plaintiffs to T&N's answer filed in this action. T&N is at present not aware of any eyewitness or other person who has information concerning this contention. See T&N's witness list already served and filed in this case. 143 5.40 .Have you conducted or cause to be conducted any surveillance or investigation of any of the facts pertaining to this lawsuit? ANSWER: Yes. 5.41 If your answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) Who was investigated or surveilled; (b) Who conducted such surveillance; (c) The form of the reporting of such investigation or surveillance; (d) Identify all tapes, reports, photos, statements and the like so generated; (e) Identify the name and address of the custodian of the tapes, reports, photos, statements, etc., referred to in your answer to subpart (d). ANSWER: '' T&N conducted an investigation of its own files in order to answer these interrogatories and to respond to plain tiffs' complaint herein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. KK: Pursuant to CR 34, attach or produce to the above instructions all tapes, reports, photos, statements or other documents and the like identified or related to Interrogatories No. 5.01 - 5.41 144 RESPONSE: Not applicable. 5.42 In any jurisdiction, state or federal, have you entered into any agreement, oral or written, formal or informal, that you will not settle an asbestos products liability personal injury lawsuit without the prior written consent or agreement of any other co-defendant in that lawsuit? ANSWER: No. 5.43 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) The state(s) or federal court districts in which you have entered into such agreements; (b) The cause number, case names, and forum(s) in which the agreement(s) was made; (c) The names of the persons, including lawyers, claims adjusters, supervisors, or other organizations with whom you have entered into such agreements; (d) The terms and conditions of the agreements, including the market share of any and all defendants who have entered into such agreements. ANSWER: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODOCTION NO. LL: Pursuant to CR 34, you are hereby requested to produce for inspection and copying any and all agreements referred to in the answer to the preceding interrogatory. 145 RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, MM: You are hereby re quested pursuant to CR 34 to produce for inspection and copying any and all sales records pertaining to the sale, delivery, or use of your asbestos products at the facilities identified in answer to interrogatory No. 1.15. RESPONSE: After reasonable investigation, T&N believes that no such documents exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. NN: Pursuant to CR 34, you are hereby requested to produce or make available for inspection and copying all documentary evidence of any kind which you intend to make use of in any trial su. ,ct to the King County Style Order. RESPONSE: After reasonable investigation, T&N believes that no such documents exist. 146 5.44 Have you or any organization of which you are a member retained any person, firm, or corporation to perform "opinion survey", "juror research", or other analyses pertaining to the attitudes, opinions, or knowledge or any prospective jurors or prospective jury panel for any case subject to this order? ANSWER: No. 5.45 If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: (a) The name of the person, firm, or corporation you have retained; (b) The date that you or any organization of which you are a membger retained such firm; (c) The instructions you gave to such person, firm, or corporation; (d) The results of that survey or study. ANSWER: Not applicable. 5.46 State whether or not you have ever made any asbestos containing canisters or filters for use in respirators or masks. If you have made such filters, state: (a) The brand name and type of filter; (b) The years of production; 147 (c) The location of any documents or materials per taining to the production, distribution, or advertising informa tion concerning said filters, respirators and/or masks. ANSWER: No. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 00: Pursuant to CR 34, produce such study or report for inspection and copying in the office of plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to the instructions in these interrogatories. RESPONSE: Not applicable. Dated: Seattle, Washington September 23, 1983 ROBERTS & SHEFELMAN Bv MJLJT** David B. Bukey ^ By. Ross C. Baker Attorneys for Defendant Turner & Newall PLC 4100 Seafirst Fifth Avenue Plaza 800 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104-3178 Telephone: (206) 622-1818 148 GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND ) : MANCHESTER, ENGLAND ) ss. : I, J.M. ATKINSON, make oath and say as follows: I am the Group Solicitor to Turner & Newall PLC. I have read the foregoing Responses of Turner & Newall PLC to Plaintiff Bartholomys' Third Interrogatories and said Responses are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, infor mation and belief. J.M. Atkinson On this day of , 1983, J.M. Atkinson ap peared before me, swore to and executed the foregoing responses to interrogatories. Notary Public 149