Document VJG8VLB08J30qdkDyzaQaxqdj
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
CAROLINE KRASZEWSKI and JOSEPH KRASZEWSKI,
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. 429668 (JUDGE HARRY A. HANNA)
-vs-
A-BEST PRODUCTS COMPANY, ET AL., :
Defendants.
RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT. IMPROPERLY DENOMINATED AS CINCINNATI GRINDERS. INC. INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUBSIDIARY OF MILACRON. INC., TO
PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO CINCINNATI GRINDERS, INC. INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUBSIDIARY OF
MILACRON, INC.
Defendant, improperly denominated as Cincinnati Grinders, Inc. Individually and as
Subsidiary of Milacron, Inc. ("Defendant"), hereby responds to Plaintiffs' Master Set of
Interrogatories (the "Interrogatories") as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information subject to the attorney-client privilege, information which constitutes work product and/or information which is not otherwise subject to discovery pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Local Rules of the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas and/or the Standing Order of the Cuyahoga County Asbestos Cases Special Docket.
2. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to impose obligations upon Defendant which exceed those imposed by the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. This action relates to an alleged specific product (asbestos-containing grinding wheels). Accordingly, to the extent that these Interrogatories seek information related to matters involving different products, said Interrogatories seek information not relevant or material to the subject matter of this action and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action.
4. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they contain vague, ambiguous, conclusory and/or undefined terms.
5. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are overly broad, unreasonable in scope, unduly burdensome, oppressive and/or require unreasonable expense.
6. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are susceptible to an interpretation that makes them not relevant, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unreasonable in scope, and/or unduly burdensome.
7. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information which is confidential, proprietary and/or which constitutes trade secrets.
8. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that is available from public records and thus, equally as available to Plaintiff as to Defendant on the grounds that any such Interrogatory is unreasonable, unduly burdensome and unnecessarily expensive.
9. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek production of documents containing personal and private information regarding present and/or former employees of Defendant.
2
10. Defendant objects to the scope of the Interrogatories to the extent that they are overbroad and burdensome in that they seek information that significantly pre- or post-dates Plaintiffs alleged injury and, as a result, Defendant will limit its production of documents to a reasonable time period prior to and after Plaintiffs alleged injury where applicable.
11. 11. Defendant's investigation of this action is continuing and thus Defendant reserves the right to supplement, modify or add to its responses to the Interrogatories, although Defendant does not hereby undertake to agree to do so except to the extent required by the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.
12. Defendant objects to the fact that Plaintiffs have propounded interrogatories in excess of the number allowed by the Civil Rules.
13. Defendant specifically incorporates these General Objections in each and every one of their objections and responses to each specific Interrogatory set forth below.
3
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1. For each Interrogatory below, please state the name and last known address of each person answering it, including whether he/she is employed by Defendant and if employed by Defendant include job title, length of time employed by Defendant and a year by year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant. ANSWER: Roger A. Gary (Employee of Defendant), 10506 State Rte. 48, Loveland, Ohio 45140. Employed by Defendant since 1973. 1973-1975: R&D Specialist; 1975-1977: Senior R&D Discipline; 1977-1978: Project Scientist; 1978-1985: Supervisor R & D; 1985-present: Manager of Research and Design.
1.1 Please identify all documents used, related to, or referred to in connection with the preparation of or answers to these Interrogatories and state the number of the Interrogatory and its subpart to each such document. ANSWER:
Objection. This interrogatory requests information protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privilege. In addition, the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiff. Without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents have been produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents. As such, please see responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents.
2. Please state whether or not Defendant is a corporation. If so, please state: (a) Your correct corporate name; (b) The state of your incorporation; (c) The address of your principal place of business; (d) Your registered agent for service in the state of Ohio;
4
(e) For each Defendant claiming that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction, list year by year the total amount of income received by Defendant from entities in Ohio, any and all years that Defendant, as defined, has been licensed to do business in Ohio, and any real property owned at any time by Defendant or its present or past subsidiaries.
ANSWER:
No. "Cincinnati Grinders, Inc." is not now and never has been an operating corporation. Cincinnati Milling and Grinding Machines, Inc. (an Ohio Corporation) merged with Cincinnati Lathe & Tool Company in 1970 and became Cincinnati Milacron Company, an Ohio Corporation). "Cincinnati Grinders, Inc." never did and does not now exist as an operating corporation.
3. State Defendant's complete corporate or business history, including dates of
incorporation, mergers, consolidations, reincorporations, and the like. Also provide historical
information regarding all predecessors, prior names, asset purchases, acquisitions or spin-offs.
In addition:
(a) if Defendant or any of its predecessors or subsidiaries at any time purchased, assumed, or in any other manner acquired ANY of the assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity at any prior time engaged in any aspect of the placing of asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce or the insuring of asbestos-related risks, then please state the following as to each acquisition:
(b) the name or description of each corporation, entity or assets acquired by Defendant, that entity's state of incorporation and principal place of business, its date of incorporation, and the name of Defendant at the time of acquisition;
(c) the manner by which each such corporation, entity or interest therein, was acquired (e.g., merger, consolidation, change of name, stock sale, transfer or purchase of assets or product line);
(d) the date of each such acquisition;
(e) the state in which each such acquisition was effected;
5
(f) the state law governing each such acquisition if specified by contract;
(g) whether Defendant became legally responsible for the past torts of each such corporation or entity;
(h) identify each document reflecting or related to the history and/or transaction(s) set forth in answer to this Interrogatory.
ANSWER:
Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, please refer to response to Interrogatory 2.
4. Please state whether or not Defendant has purchased, assumed, or in any other
manner acquired any of the assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity (such
corporations or entities being limited to those engaged in the mining, selling, manufacturing,
marketing or distribution of asbestos-containing products.) If so, please state the following:
(a) the name or description of each corporation, entity or assets acquired by Defendant, its state of incorporation and principal place of business, its date of incorporation, and the name of Defendant at the time of acquisition;
(b) the manner by which each such corporation, entity, or interest therein, was acquired (e.g. merger, consolidation, change of name, stock sale, transfer or purchase of assets or product line);
(c) the date of each such acquisition;
(d) the state in which each such acquisition was effected;
(e) the state law governing each such acquisition if specified by contract;
(f) whether Defendant became legally responsible for the past torts of each such corporation or entity;
(g) whether the acquisition concerned asbestos-containing products.
6
ANSWER: N/A.
4.1 For each corporation, other than the answering Defendant, that has at any time in the past been involved in the placing of asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce for which officers of the answering Defendant's corporation have also served as officers, directors or served in any managerial position while employed by the answering defendant, state:
(a) the name of the entity involved in the placing of asbestos products into the stream of commerce;
(b) the manner in which the entity was involved in the placing of asbestos containing products into the stream of commerce (i.e., mining, milling, manufacturing, distributing, installing, rebranding, etc.);
(c) the specific products placed into the stream of commerce by the entity, year by year and by brand or trade name;
(d) the name, positions and a brief description of the responsibilities of the person or persons serving the answering Defendant and the entity simultaneously, including the positions held with the entity and with the answering Defendant.
ANSWER: N/A.
5. Has Defendant ever engaged in the mining, manufacturing, selling, marketing, installation or distribution of asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the following:
7
(a) The name of the company engaged in the activity (whether it is Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, Defendant's subsidiary or some other entity related to Defendant);
(b) As to each product mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed, please state the following:
(1) The trade or brand name.
(2) Its identification number (model, serial number, etc.).
(3) The time period it was manufactured, mined, marketed, distributed or sold.
(4) Its physical description including color, general composition, and form.
(5) A detailed description of its intended use and purpose.
(6) A detailed description of the type package in which it was sold, listing the dates of each type of package used, a physical description of the package, and a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon.
(7) The percent of asbestos which it contained.
(8) The percent of asbestos by asbestos type (amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, chrysotile).
(c) The time period during which each of these products were on the market;
(d) The material components/ingredients of each such product, giving specific or approximate percentage both by weight and by volume of each material component/ingredient (this interrogatory is not limited to the asbestos component of the product but seeks information as to the nature, weight and volume of non-asbestos ingredients, as well) of each such product;
(e) How each of these asbestos-containing products can be distinguished from those of competitors;
8
(f) A description of the physical appearance of such product;
(g) A detailed description of the intended uses.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states the following:
a. Cincinnati Milling and Grinding Machines, Inc., Cincinnati Milacron Co., Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. and Cincinnati Milacron, Inc.
b. (1) There is no trade or brand name for the diamond grinding wheels. (2) N/A (3) Dates are approximations. Defendant stopped using cores which may have contained asbestos in 1978. Defendant did not begin making diamond grinding wheels until 1963, but it is unknown when asbestos was first used in the core after 1963. (4) Black phenolic resin grinding wheels which contained, upon customer demand, asbestos filler. (5) The asbestos filler supported the rim of the grinding wheel which contained diamond in resin matrix. (6) Unknown (7) Unknown (8) Unknown
c. See response to (b)(3) above. d. N/A e. Unknown f. See response to (b)(4) above. g. See response to (b)(5) above.
6. Does Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies claim that any patent would
cover any product listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please state the following:
(a) the date of each patent;
(b) The date same was issued;
(c) The number of each patent application that is pending.
9
ANSWER: No.
7. Have any of the products listed above in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 been altered in chemical composition since first being marketed? If so, please state the following:
(a) The trade name of each such product; (b) The date each such product was altered; (c) The nature of the alteration; (d) The reason for the alteration. ANSWER: Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states the following: Yes. a. There is not a trade name for the diamond grinding wheels. b. 1978 c. Stopped using asbestos in cores. d. To eliminate the use of asbestos-filled phenolics as a core material.
8. Have any of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 ever been marketed, distributed, packaged, labeled, and/or sold by any other company or business? If so, please state the following:
(a) The name and address of each such company. (b) The names and addresses of Defendant's distributors in Ohio, West
Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky since 1940. (c) The date of each sale.
10
(d) The name of the person at each location with whom your primarily dealt.
(e) A list of all asbestos-containing products that you sold to each location from 1945 to 1980.
(f) The amount of each asbestos product sold to each location during this period.
(g) Please identify all documents relating to this distributor for the particular location.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding distributors that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states the following: Defendant's grinding wheels were sold through distributors.- Strong, Carlisle & Hammond was the distributor for Gear Company of America during the time period in which asbestos-containing grinding wheels, if any, would have been sold. However, upon information and belief, Strong, Carlisle & Hammond ceased operating approximately fifteen years ago. Defendant does not have any documents responsive to this request.
8.01 Has Defendant ever purchased asbestos-containing products from any other
Defendant?
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, no.
11
8.02 If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is yes, please state the following: (a) name each Defendant from whom this Defendant purchased any asbestos-containing product; (b) list each product purchased from each co-Defendant; (c) list the dates of each purchase of asbestos-containing products from each co-Defendant.
ANSWER: N/A.
8.03 Has Defendant ever sold asbestos-containing products to any other Defendant? ANSWER:
Unknown.
8.04 If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is yes, please state the following: (a) name each Defendant to whom this Defendant sold any asbestos-containing product; (b) list each product sold to each co-Defendant; (c) list the dates of each sale of asbestos-containing products to each co-Defendant.
ANSWER: N/A.
8.05 Has Defendant engaged in the manufacture and/or sale and/or distribution and/or marketing and/or supply and/or purchase and/or use of non-asbestos containing products for use in connection with temperatures above 125 Fahrenheit since 1930? If so, please state:
12
(a) the date such activity began; (b) the years during which such activity took place; (c) the date when such activity was terminated; (d) if such activity was terminated, the reason(s) why; (e) the geographical area into which you claim the product(s) were sold,
purchased, or used; (f) identify the organizational unit of Defendant so engaged; (g) the site(s) at which each such product was manufactured; (h) the material components of each such product, giving specific or
approximate percentage both by weight and by volume of each material component of each such product; (i) the temperature ranges for which each product(s) was intended to be used; (j) the product's generic name; (k) the product's trade or brand name; (l) the container in which the product was shipped (i.e., paper bags, cardboard boxes) including the size and amount of the container); (m) a description of any logos, writing impressions or identifying markings which appeared on the product, as well as a description of the package used, the dates that type of package was used, and any logos, product names, trademarks, etc. which appeared on the package; (n) whether the words "non-asbestos" or "asbestos free" were used on the package; (o) a detailed description of the intended method of preparation and application of the product; (p) a description of the physical appearance of the product, including size, shape, color and texture.
13
ANSWER:
Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, no.
8.06 Did Defendant ever market or distribute any asbestos-containing product
manufactured in whole or in part by someone else? If so, please state the following for each
such product:
(a) the name and address of the manufacturer;
(b) the product's trade and brand name;
(c) the organizational unit of Defendant who did so;
(d) date(s) beginning, ending and during which the marketing or distributing took place;
(e) whether the product was distributed through the same channels as those used for products manufactured by Defendant, and if not, please explain
the exact channels of distribution;
(f) ANSWER:
identify all documents relating the marketing or distribution.
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, Yes, the diamond grinding wheel contained asbestos-containing products manufactured by someone else.
a. Plenco (Plastics Engineering Company), 3518 Lakeshore Drive, Sheboygan, WI 53082-0758.
b. Plenco 397.
c. Consumable Products Division.
14
d. Unknown. e. The diamond grinding wheels were distributed through the same channels as
indicated above. f. None.
8.1 Does Defendant have reason to believe that any of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 were used at any of the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto? If your answer is "yes", please state:
(a) The basis of your answer. (b) Which of Defendant's asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory
No. 5 were used at each job site listed on Exhibit A. ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, Defendant has no sales documentation indicating that the asbestos-containing products, incorporated into diamond grinding wheels, were ever sold to the Gear Company of America.
8.2 For each company or business that Defendant knows may have marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold those products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please state the following as to each job site listed on Exhibit A:
(a) The name and address of each such company; (b) The date of each sale from Defendant to such other company; (c) The name of the person at each other company with whom Defendant
primarily dealt.
15
(d) Names and quantities of the asbestos-containing products that you marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974.
(e) Identify all documents relating to the sales to each such company.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant has no documents that indicate whether any company or business in fact marketed, distributed, installed and/or sold any asbestos-containing products mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed by Defendant. Nevertheless, Strong, Carlisle & Hammond was the sole distributor responsible for the Cleveland area while Defendant "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" the diamond grinding wheels. Upon information and belief, Strong, Carlisle & Hammond ceased operating in approximately 1986.
8.3 If you do not know any business that may have marketed, distributed, installed,
and/or sold the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 to any of the job sites listed on
Exhibit A, please state the names and last known addresses of those companies who Defendant
knows marketed, distributed, installed and/or sold their asbestos-containing products in Ohio
from 1950 to 1974. For each of those companies, please state the following:
(a) Name and address of each such company; (b) The dates of each sale from Defendant to such other company;
(c) The name of the person at each other company with whom Defendant
primarily dealt;
(d) The names of the asbestos-containing products that Defendant marketed,
distributed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974.
16
ANSWER: Defendant raises the same objections as raised in response to Interrogatory 8.2. Without
waiving said objections, See response to Interrogatory 8.2.
8.4 Does Defendant have records and/or any knowledge that reflect sales of their asbestos-containing products to any of the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto? If so, please state the following as to each job site listed on Exhibit A:
(a) The names and last known addresses of those people with such knowledge.
(b) The location of such records. ANSWER:
No.
9. Did Defendant or any of Defendant's distributors, as listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 8.1, 8.2, and/or 8.3 have sales representatives who specifically called on the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto, from 1945 to 1975? If your response is yes, as to each site listed on Exhibit A, please state the following:
(a) The name and last known address of each such representative and whether they are still employed by Defendant;
(b) The period of time they acted as your representative; (c) Their general responsibility as to each facility; (d) Whether that person is still alive; and (e) Any documents relating, referring or pertaining thereto.
17
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responds as follows: Unknown.
9.1 Identify all manager and sales personnel responsible for your sales or installation
of any asbestos-containing products in Ohio from 1930 to the present and state their position, last
known address and the local or regional office through which they were employed.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the time frame in this request, which is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responds as follows:
John Fisler (Territory Manager, still employed by Defendant), Bob Jones (Territory Manager, retired), Jalmer Johnson (Regional Manager, deceased).
10. Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract
business of applying or removing asbestos-containing products? If so, please state:
(a) The name of each subdivision;
(b) The full address of the home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business; and
(c) Whether said division or subsidiary conducted such business at any of the sites listed on Exhibit A from 1940 to 1975? If so, please state the following as to each job site listed on Exhibit A:
18
(1) The dates of such contracts; (2) The specific asbestos-containing products that were used or
removed in each contract. ANSWER:
Objection. Any information which might be obtained from this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, no.
11. Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying or removing asbestos-containing refractory? If so, please give the name of each subdivision, the full address of the home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business. ANSWER:
Objection. Any information which might be obtained from this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, no.
12. Please identify by location and product produced, each plant in which products listed in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5 have been manufactured and/or assembled and the dates said plants have been in operation. ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, the diamond grinding wheels were manufactured and/or assembled at Consumable Products Division, 3000 Disney (fka 4701
19
Marburg Avenue), Cincinnati, Ohio. The plant has been in existence at all times relevant to this lawsuit.
13. Has Defendant, at any time, entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as a buyer or a seller, concerning any asbestos-containing products and/or materials? If so, please state:
(a) The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products under such agreement;
(b) The trade name affixed to such products; (c) The periods of time covered by each such agreement; (d) The volume (in dollar amounts) of each such transaction; (e) The purchaser of such products; (f) Does Defendant currently have in its possession any of the writings or
contracts concerning such rebranding agreement? ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was. never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, unknown.
13.1 Have you ever owned or operated a business or portion thereof which engaged in construction, erection or tear-out of furnaces, pipes, boilers, turbines, lehrs, ovens, kilns, etc? If so, please state:
(a) the name of said business; (b) the date of commencing business and cessation of business, if applicable;
20
(c) type of construction or tear-out performed; (d) state whether said business installed or supplied asbestos-containing
products on the furnaces, pipes, boilers, turbines, lehrs, etc., i.e., gaskets, pipecovering, block, cement, rope, cloth, clothes, etc., containing asbestos, asbestos pipe, board, etc.; (e) state the trade name and/or manufacturer of any asbestos-containing product which you installed or supplied to any site on Exhibit A. (f) provide the dates for the applicable construction, installation or tear-out project. ANSWER: Objection. Any information which might be obtained from this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, no.
13.2 Do you have within your custody, possession, or control any packages that presently or formerly packaged asbestos-containing products or were produced for the purpose of packaging asbestos-containing products contemporaneous with your manufacture sale or distribution of such asbestos-containing products? If so, provide the following:
(a) a description of each such package; (b) the present location and custodian of each such package; (c) the date or approximate date on which each such package was produced. ANSWER: Objection. Any information which might be obtained from this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, no.
21
14. What is the name, address and job title of each individual who participated in the
design and preparation of manufacturing specifications for each such product listed above in
answer to Interrogatory No. 5?
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, no specific information is available. Lab employees would have been involved, but no specific individuals are known except an individual named Bob McKee.
15. As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please describe how
each product was to be cut, shaped, scribed, mixed and applied on the job. In answering this
question, give particular reference as to whether or not the materials were to be sawed or cut on
the job, blown into confined areas, mixed with water in a cement or paste.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant's diamond grinding wheels were made with asbestos-containing products upon customer request. Defendant's diamond grinding wheels are designed to grind parts with the outer rim, which is not comprised of asbestos-containing products. The core was the only part of the diamond grinding wheels which potentially would be comprised of asbestos-containing products. The core was solely a support mechanism for the grinding rim. The core was not designed to be "cut, shaped, mixed and applied on the job."
22
16. Based upon the material contents of the asbestos-containing products, the method
of manufacturing, and the method of application, please state which products listed in
Interrogatory No. 5 could be applied by a worker without creating dust.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection. Defendant responds as follows: The only part of the diamond grinding wheels that was potentially comprised of asbestos-containing products was the core. All diamond grinding wheels would be applied by a worker without the core coming in contact with the product being ground. Accordingly, the core would not create dust.
17. Do any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda,
specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character
now exist relating to the design and preparation of the products listed in answer to Interrogatory
No. 5? If so, please:
(a) List each such written material or document;
(b) Identify the person or persons presently in possession of each such document;
(c) State where each such document is located.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, business records have been produced
23
from which this request can be answered. As such, please see responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents.
18. Prior to releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 for sale and usage, were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said products to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state:
(a) The name of the product tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who
conducted such tests; (c) The results of such tests. ANSWER: Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Rraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, no.
18.1 Prior to releasing any products for sale and usage (whether asbestos-containing or not), were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said products to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state:
(a) The name of the products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who
conducted such tests; (c) The results of such tests.
24
ANSWER: Defendant raises the same objections as listed in response to interrogatory 18. Without
waiving said objection, no.
19. Does Defendant have or control any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendation, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character relating to the testing of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 hereinabove?
(a) Identify each such written material or document; (b) Identify each person who presently has possession of each such document; (c) State where each such document is located. ANSWER: Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, W" manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, business records have been produced from which this.request can be answered. As such, see Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents.
20. Were any design changes or modification made as a result of such tests listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 18 hereinabove? If so, please state:
(a) The trade name of the product changed or modified; (b) The nature of the change made and the date of such changes or
modifications; (c) The name, address, and job classification of each person in charge of
making a change.
25
ANSWER: Defendant raises the same objections as raised in response to interrogatory 18. Without
waiving said objections, no.
21. After releasing for sale, distribution or marketing the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5, did Defendant conduct any tests (either on animals or humans) to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of said materials and/or products?
(a) The names of the products tested and the dates of said tests; (b) The name, address, and job classification of each person and/or agency
conducting said tests; (c) The results of said tests; (d) Whether, as a result of any tests conducted, any products were removed
from the market; (e) The names of all products removed from the market as a result of said
tests. ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, no.
22. Has Defendant ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies concerning the effects of the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers on workers or other persons applying, using and/or working around any of the asbestos products manufactured, sold, distributed and/or relabeled for distribution by your or your predecessor? If so, please state:
26
(a) The dates and nature of such studies; (b) The names and addresses of persons conducting such studies; (c) The purpose of such studies; (d) Identify and list those persons to whom such reports were given and the
date of such dissemination; (e) State any publication or other written dissemination of the results of such
studies; (f) State the nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of
asbestos dust fibers; and (g) Attach a copy of reports based upon such studies. ANSWER: Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, none.
23. Before placing in the market the asbestos-containing products that Defendant, mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed on the market, did Defendant make or cause to be made, any studies to determine whether their asbestos-containing products would be hazardous to people? If so, please state:
(a) The date of said studies; (b) What studies were done; and (c) The titles of each study.
27
ANSWER: Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline
Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, no.
24. Please state whether or not Defendant ever conducted or caused to be conducted any tests in the field (where asbestos-containing products were applied, removed or utilized) to determine the nature and extent of asbestos dust and/or fiber exposure to insulators, applicators, fellow employees, or other workers removing and/or tearing out asbestos-containing products, and/or other workers in the vicinity thereof? If o, please identify:
(a) The date, place and nature of each and every test; (b) The particular asbestos-containing products to which each test applied; (c) The results of each test with particular reference to the number of asbestos
fibers per cubic centimeter of air found at each site; and (d) The persons to whom the results said tests were given and the date of such
dissemination. ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, no.
28
25. Please state whether or not Defendant ever obtained any knowledge concerning
the likelihood of asbestos being hazardous to human health. If so, please state:
(a) When Defendant first became aware of the hazardous potential of asbestos dust and asbestos fibers;
(b) The manner in which the Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies first obtained this knowledge and became aware of said hazards and from what source this information was obtained;
(c) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company, or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects;
(d) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form.
(e) The name, address and job classification of the custodian of such information.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, it is unknown when Defendant became aware generally of "the likelihood of asbestos being hazardous to human health." With respect to potential hazards with asbestos-containing cores of grinding wheels, Defendant states that it was never informed or aware that such'products, if properly used, would create a safety hazard. Further answering, please see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents.
26. Please state when Defendant first became aware of the possible association
between inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers and the contraction of asbestosis and cancers
including, but not limited to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, renal cancer, lymphoma,
lung cancer and mesothelioma. As to each disease or condition, please state the source of that
29
information, including a description of all tests conducted relative to the possibility of such a
relationship.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, unknown.
27. Please identify all physicians, industrial hygienists, and other employees
(including their names and addresses) who were employed, retained or otherwise engaged by
Defendant for research, investigation or study concerning asbestos or asbestos-related diseases.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, Kettering Laboratories (University of Cincinnati) was retained to analyze testing which was performed as indicated above.
28. As to each person who acted in a medical advisory capacity (as it relates in any
way to asbestos) to Defendant, please list their name, the date individual acted in this capacity,
and that person's current address and job title.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is
30
overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, unknown.
29. Please state if any medical officer or industrial hygienist or medical consultant
ever made at any time any recommendations and/or suggestions to Defendant pertaining to the
risks or hazards to persons involved in the manufacture or use of asbestos products and, if so,
please state when, by whom or to whom such recommendations and/or suggestions were made
and the substance of each recommendation.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, unknown.
30. Please state the scientific and/or medical periodicals to which Defendant, its
medical department, research department, industrial hygiene divisions, engineering department
or consulting physicians subscribed between 1945 and 1975.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, unknown.
31
30.1 Please state whether Defendant, its medical officer or industrial hygienist or
medical consultant or physicians were ever involved in testing or received literature or
correspondence from the Mellon Institute.
ANSWER:
Defendant raises the same objections raised in response to Interrogatory 30. Without waiving said objections, unknown.
30.2 Has Defendant, or any engineer, industrial hygienist or physician in Defendant's
employ been a member in any professional group, trade group or any of the following groups:
American Ceramics Society Asbestos Textile Institute National Insulation Manufacturers Association Thermal Insulation Manufacturer Association Quebec Asbestos Mining Association Asbestos Information Association Industrial Health Foundation Industrial Hygiene Foundation Iron and Steel Institute National Safety Counsel Refractories Institute Air Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc. Sprayed Mineral Fiber Association American Society of Mechanical Engineers
If the answer is yes, state the following:
(a) The name of the group or groups in which Defendant or individual(s) were members;
(b) The name and position individual(s) within the Defendant, as defined, who were members;
(c) The years Defendant or individual(s) were members of the groups;
(d) Whether Defendant paid the individual(s) dues or membership fees or reimbursed the individual(s) for dues or membership fees in the group.
32
ANSWER:
Objection. This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, several of Defendant's employees belong to American Ceramics Society. In addition, it is believed that Defendant had a corporate membership to the American Ceramics Society in 1992, 1993 and 1996.
31. State in detail what test, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity,
quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust, fibers or particles to which workers were
exposed while using, working with and/or around, installing and/or applying your asbestos-
containing products.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, tests were conducted on February 16, 1974 and January 22,1977 to determine concentration of airborne asbestos dust in the diamond room using procedures recommended by OSHA. Those tests demonstrate that the diamond room was within OSHA compliance levels.
32. For each test described in Interrogatory No. 31, please give the name of the
person conducting the test, the date of the test, and attach true copies of any documents,
including but not limited to, reports, findings or memoranda concerning such tests or studies.
ANSWER:
Defendant raises the same objections raised in response to Interrogatory 31. Without waiving said objections, please see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production ofDocuments.
33
33. Please state the year that Defendant was first advised of either threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and state the name of the employee/official of the company receiving such advice. ANSWER:
Defendant does not know when, if ever, it was "first advised of either threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists."
33.1 State whether Defendant at any time conducted, caused to be conducted, or had conducted on any job site, or at any of Defendant's plants or buildings, any air sampling, duct counts, dust observations, dust sampling tests or other activities to determine air quality. If your answer is in the affirmative, please indicate:
(a) the date of any such air samples, tests, or activities; (b) by whom such activities were performed; (c) where such activities were performed; (d) the results of any such activities. ANSWER: Defendant raises the same objections as raised in response to interrogatory 31. Without waiving said objections, please see response to interrogatories 31 and 32.
34. Does defendant maintain a library dealing with industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and engineering and/or research? If so, state:
(a) The date each such library was established; (b) The location of each library;
34
(c) The name(s) of the librarian(s) since 1930;
(d) List all journals subscribed to by you concerning asbestos, industrial hygiene, medicine, safety, and/or engineering;
(e) ANSWER:
List all books and articles dealing with asbestos and asbestos-related diseases and the date acquired.
Objection. This request is unduly burdensome, overly broad and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving said objection, no.
35. Did Defendant in the 1920's or 1930's commission, or participate in the arrangements with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for studies at the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, concerning the effect of inhalation or ingestion of asbestos fibers upon human and/or animal bodies. ANSWER:
No.
36. When was Defendant first aware of report of studies of the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, entitled "Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust in the Lungs of Asbestos Workers" by A.J. Lanza, Assistant Medical Director published in the J. Public Health Report, vol. 50, No. 1, dated January 4,1935 ("Lanza Report")? ANSWER:
Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection, Defendant is not aware of such reports of studies.
35
36.1 Did Defendant ever contract with Saranac Laboratories to study the hazards of any dust producing product manufactured by you (whether asbestos-containing or not)? If so, identify by date and author all documents concerning or any way related to such study. ANSWER:
Defendant raises the same objections as raised in response to interrogatory 36. Without waiving said objections, no.
36.2 Did Defendant ever contract with Saranac Laboratories to analyze dust of products? If so, identify by date and author all documents concerning or any way related to such analysis. ANSWER:
Defendant raises the same objections as raised in response to interrogatory 36. Without waiving said objections, no.
37. Please state whether Defendant at any time has been a member of any "trade organization" or "trade association" composed of other manufacturers, miners, distributors, and/or sellers of asbestos-containing products and, if so, please identify the name and address of each such association or organization, the dates of membership, and the names of any publications issued or written by such association or organization. ANSWER:
Objection. This request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, Defendant has no knowledge of any such memberships.
36
38. With respect to each trade organization or association listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 37, please state whether the minutes of the group's meetings and any correspondence between the members of such groups concerning the hazards of asbestos exposure are available. ANSWER:
Defendant raises the same objections as raised in response to interrogatory 37. Without waiving said objections, see response to interrogatory 37.
39. Please identify by name the technical and trade association periodicals to which Defendant subscribed, and state whether Defendant had knowledge of any articles being printed, or withheld from printing, in said periodicals pertaining to the potential hazards of asbestos. If so, please state the following:
(a) The title of each such article; (b) The periodical in which each such article was published; (c) The date each such article was published; (d) A detailed explanation of the reason for withholding any such article for
printing; (e) Produce documentation which refers, alludes or mentions articles which
were for publication.
ANSWER: Objection. This request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, Defendant has no records, documents or knowledge from which to answer this interrogatory.
37
40. Please state whether, prior to 1975, Defendant sponsored, or attended any meeting, seminar, conference, convention or legislative hearing where the subject of occupational health and exposure to asbestos was discussed and, if so, please state the date and place of such meeting and the name and address of any speakers or participants. ANSWER:
Objection. This request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, unknown.
41. As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please state whether Defendant, at any time, published and/or distributed any printed materials, including but not limited to brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packagings or other written materials of any kind or character that contain any warnings, cautions, caveats or directions concerning the possible health effects of the products on a person. If so, please state as to each product:
(a) The name of each relevant product; (b) The wording of each such warning; (c) A description of each such printed material; (d) The method used to distribute the warning to persons who are likely to use
the products; (e) The date each such warning was issued; (f) Whether any warning accompanied any of your asbestos-containing
products' sales literature, handout or pamphlets; (g) Please attach a copy of the warning and date said warning was issued; (h) The name, address, and job classification of each person who presently
has possession of the above-described documents;
38
(i) The name or names and addresses of the company who provided, produced, or manufactured the boxes or containers on which the warning appeared and dates these boxes with the warnings appeared.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection. Defendant has produced business records in response to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents from which this information can be gathered. As such, please see responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents.
42. Has sales material been prepared by Defendant or its agents for purposes of
marketing or advertising the asbestos products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so.
please state:
(a) The name and address of each person or entity who prepared same;
(b) The name, address and job title of each person who presently has possession of same;
(c) The date same was prepared;
(d) The media used to disseminate the sales material.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, unknown.
39
43. Has any written material of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant, Defendant's predecessor or any of Defendant's subsidiary companies or their agents indicating how the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 should be used or maintained by the ultimate user or those working in facilities or at job sites where the product was used, installed or removed, including, but not limited to, those sites listed on the job site list attached as Exhibit A? If so, please state the following:
(a) The name, address and job classification of each person who prepared same;
(b) The name, address and job classification of each person who presently has possession of same;
(c) The dates and manner in which said material was distribute to purchasers of the products in answer to Interrogatory No. 5.
ANSWER: Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline
Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, yes. Documents entitled "Grinding Wheel Application Guide" and "What You Need to Know to Sell Cincinnati Diamond Grinding Wheels" are potentially responsive to this request. Further answering, unknown.
44. Was any written material of any kind prepared by Defendant and distributed to those individuals listed in response to Interrogatory No. 9? If so, please state the following:
(a) Identify the written material by content and date; (b) To whom was it delivered.
40
ANSWER:
Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, correspondence with distributors was doubtless generated. However, no such documentation is in the possession, custody or control of Defendant.
45. Does Defendant contend that asbestos-containing products can be manufactured
so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or around, installing or
applying same? If so, please state the following:
(a) The date that Defendant first determined that another product could be used in place of asbestos;
(b) The chemical of the substitute;
(c) Whether the substitute is suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used;
(d) Whether Defendant used the substitute for asbestos to 1971;
(e) Whether Defendant ever used the substitute for asbestos for high or low heat insulation.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection. Defendant responds as follows:
a. Asbestos-containing products were eliminated from use in 1978, when Plenco 552 (non-asbestos containing) was put to use in place of Plenco 397 (asbestos-containing).
b. See response to subsection a above. c. Yes. d. Unknown. e. No.
41
46. Did Defendant give any warnings to any individuals at the sites listed on Exhibit
A, including any individuals who owned, operated, or managed the facilities at the sites listed on
Exhibit A, regarding the potential health hazards of any product listed in response to
Interrogatory No. 5. If yes, please state:
(a) Name of person most knowledgeable about this communication.
(b) Name of person at the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto most knowledgeable about this communication.
(c) Dates of each communication.
ANSWER:
(d)
Contents of each communication.
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, unknown.
47. Did any person prior to 1970, file a claim against any Workers' Compensation carrier covering Defendant alleging that he or she contracted a disease as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, please state the following:
(a) A list of each such claim by claimant's name, date filed, the caption and jurisdiction involved;
(b) The disease alleged in each such claim; (0 A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim; and (d) The name, address and job classification of the person or persons having
custody of the record pertaining to each such claim.
42
ANSWER:
Objection. This request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the extent that any of the information requested is privileged or confidential. Without waiving said objection, no.
47.1 Please identify all documents concerning or in any way related to any decisions
made by you to cease manufacturing asbestos-containing products.
ANSWER:
Objection. This request is overly broad unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the extent that any such information requested is protected by attorney-client and/or work product privilege. Without waiving said objections, see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents.
47.2 Has any person or company from which you purchased asbestos-containing
products ever issued a recall of their products or taken any action to take those products off the
market after said products were in your possession? If so, provide:
(a) the date of said recall;
(b) the name of the company which issued the recall;
(c) a copy of the recall.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, not to Defendant's knowledge.
43
47.3 State what action, if any, you have ever taken since 1930 to minimize or eliminate
any risk of occupational disease or pneumoconiosis to those at any time engaged in the
manufacture or production of asbestos-containing products.
ANSWER:
Objection. This request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant specifically objects to the time frame included in this request. Without waiving said objections, Defendant conducted medical monitoring of employees exposed to asbestos dust. Further answering, Defendant has produced business records from which information responsive to this request can be obtained. As such, please see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents.
47.4 State what action, if any, you have ever taken since 1930 to minimize or eliminate
any risk of occupational disease or pneumoconiosis to those at any time engaged in the use, as
distinguished from the manufacture, or exposed to the use of asbestos-containing or industrial
insulation products or who were otherwise exposed to asbestos-containing or industrial
insulation products.
(a) describe such action;
(b) state when such action was taken;
(c) state what written material exists related to such action;
(d) state the names, job titles and last known address of the individuals who undertook such actions.
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for
44
information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, see response to interrogatory 47.3. Further answering, there was no exposure to airborne asbestos dust encountered simply from using the diamond grinding wheels as described throughout the above responses.
48. Did Defendant receive notice prior to 1968 that any person was claiming injury or had sustained an abnormal x-ray reading as a result of using asbestos products manufactured, sold, installed, and/or distributed by Defendant? If so, please state:
(a) The name and address of each claimant; (b) The date of notice of each claim; (c) A description of the claim; (d) The type of injuries allegedly sustained; (e) The name and address of each attorney representing the individuals
making such claims; (f) The style and court number of each such claim; (g) The resolution of each claim. ANSWER: Objection. This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Defendant further objects to the request of confidential and/or privileged information. Without waiving this objection, Defendant has no such knowledge.
48.1 Describe the method by which you have maintained records concerning the manufacture, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery and/or installation or tear-out of each of asbestos-containing products. For each description provide the following:
45
(a) each present and former company or corporate department, division or subdivision responsible for maintaining such records;
(b) the manner in which the records are kept (e.g., boxes, computer tape, microfilm, etc.);
(c) the inclusive dates of any such manufacture, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery, and/or installation or tear-out which such record keeping system covers;
(d) the present location at which all such record are maintained; (e) the identity of each person employed by you at any time from 1930 to the
present who is or was responsible for the collection and maintenance of such records. ANSWER:
Defendant maintains sales and purchasing records for, at most, ten years in accordance with standard record retention policy.
48.2 State whether any records concerning the manufacture, sale, supply, distribution, advertising, delivery, use or installation or tear-out of asbestos-containing products have been destroyed or discarded and if so, indicate:
(a) the date and location of such destruction or discard; (b) the custodian and location of such records prior to their destruction or
discard and the identity of each employee, representative, official or agent who ordered, authorized or supervised such destruction or discard. ANSWER:
All records were destroyed according to normal operating procedures, in accordance with the standard record retention policy. No further information is available from which to answer this request.
48.3 For all documents, other than invoices, work orders and/or purchase orders, which relate to matters relevant to all the preceding interrogatories:
46
(a) Is there any kind of index for the documents? (b) How many pages is the index of documents? (c) How many documents are referred to in the index? (d) Is the index maintained in electronic format (i.e., database, word
processing or other computerized format)? (e) What manner of electronic format is used? ANSWER: No.
48.4 For all invoices, work orders and/or purchase orders, which relate to matters relevant to all the preceding interrogatories:
(a) Is there any kind of index for the documents? (b) How many pages is the index of documents? (c) How many documents are referred to in the index? (d) Is the index maintained in electronic format (i.e. database, word
processing or other computerized format)? (e) What manner of electronic format is used? ANSWER: No such invoices, work orders and/or purchase orders are in the possession, custody or control of the Defendant.
49. Has Defendant obtained statements from any witnesses including Plaintiffs? If so, please:
(a) list each witness who has given a statement and the name, address, and job title of each person having custody of any such statement.
ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory calls for information potentially protected by the attorney-
client and/or work-product privilege. Without waiving said objections, no.
50. Do you contend the Plaintiff/Decedent improperly used those products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please set forth in detail in what respect the product was improperly used. ANSWER:
Objection. Discovery in this matter is still on-going. At present, Defendant has no knowledge from which to answer this request. Defendant will supplement at such time that any such information becomes available. Further answering, based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, it appears at this time that Plaintiff properly used the grinding wheels allegedly sold by Defendant. In so doing, Plaintiff did not grind into the core, which would prevent any asbestos dust from being produced, assuming that Plaintiff utilized a grinding wheel with a core and that core contained asbestos, which, of course, Plaintiff testified was not the case since the only grinding wheels she used did not contain a core.
51. As to the sites listed on Exhibit A, and as to each Plaintiff/Decedent, please state whether Defendant contends that there was any substance other than asbestos which contributed to or caused Plaintiff/Decedent's injuries. If your answer is yes, please state the following:
(a) The facts upon which you rely; (b) The identity of the sources upon which you rely which substantiate these
facts. ANSWER:
Objection. Discovery in this matter is still on-going. At present, Defendant has no knowledge from which to answer this request. Defendant will supplement at such time that any such information becomes available.
48
52. Would any respirator, mask or other breathing devices prevent inhalation of the
asbestos dust and fibers contained in products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so,
state:
(a) When the respirator was sold;
(b) A detailed description of such respirator or other breathing devices, including name of manufacturer and model number;
(c) The basis of your claim that such respirators or other breathing devices will prevent the inhalation of such dust and fibers;
(d) Identify any tests performed regarding the efficaciousness of such respirators and other breathing devices in preventing the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers including date, title, author and number;
(e) List all documents which mention, allude or refer to tests performed on breathing devices which prevented the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers.
ANSWER:
vqggr
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff was not exposed to any asbestos fibers from Defendant's product, as the only asbestos-containing product was contained in the core of the grinding wheel, which was not used in the process of grinding but, instead, only used to support the rim, which was the grinding apparatus. Nevertheless, it is possible that if Plaintiff utilized a grinding wheel containing an asbestos core, which she did not, then a respirator, mask, or other breathing device may have prevented inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers, if such asbestos core created asbestos dust or fibers, which it would not if used properly and in the manner described by Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski.
53. Does Defendant expect to call expert witnesses at the trial of this case? If so,
please state the following:
(a) Their identity and last known address;
49
(b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify;
(c) The expert's specific conclusion and specific opinions and the specific basis therefore;
(d) The expert's qualifications to render the opinions set forth above;
(e) Whether any person identified in sub-paragraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify such document or report;
(f) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to sub-paragraph (a) above; and
(g) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treaties, article, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answer.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant will identify expert witnesses in accordance with the standing order, local rules, Ohio Civil Rules and any court scheduling orders.
54. Please state the name and last known address of each expert witness who is not
retained or employed for that purpose who is an employee of Defendant and will render an
opinion within his expertise at the time of trial.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant will identify expert witnesses in accordance with the standing order, local rules, Ohio Civil Rules and any court scheduling orders. Defendant further objects to the request of confidential/privileged "consulting" experts.
55. Does Defendant admit that service of process was properly had on it in these
cases? If not, please state why.
50
ANSWER: Yes.
55.1 For each and every affirmative defense asserted in Defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, or the cross-claims or counter-claims of any party against Defendant, state:
(a) the facts upon which Defendant relies for each and every affirmative defense;
(b) each and every document which will be offered to prove each and every affirmative defense;
(c) each and every witness who will testify in support of each and every affirmative defense; and
(d) the substance and subject matter of the anticipated testimony of each witness identified in the preceding response.
ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
56. Does Defendant have policies of insurance that might cover the claims that have been made by Plaintiffs herein?
(a) If so, please list the name of each insurance carrier who may have coverage, the amount of such coverage, and the dates of each such policy.
ANSWER: Will timely supplement.
56.1 Has Defendant ever been involved in any litigation concerning potential insurance coverage for asbestos products liability matters? If so, please state:
51
(a) the case caption, court and date of filing of each case in which you have been involved;
(b) whether you were Plaintiff or Defendant; (c) a brief statement of the issues; (d) identify by date, author and recipient(s), (including recipients of carbon
copies) all documents listed as exhibits by either party in this litigation; (e) identify by deponent and date all individuals who were deposed in these
cases; (f) identify by date, author and recipient(s) all documents that have been
placed on a protective order in such litigation; (g) identify all expert witnesses retained for use at trial in any of the above
litigation by name, address and telephone number. ANSWER:
Objection. This request calls for potentially confidential and/or privileged information. In addition, the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiff. Without waiving said objection, no.
57. Please state the name and address of each person who has knowledge ofrelevant facts regarding claims and defenses of this lawsuit. ANSWER:
Objection. Discovery is still progressing, and new individuals may come to light. Further answering, and without waiving said objection, please see preceding responses.
58. State the last date that Defendant sold, distributed, manufactured, installed, and/or otherwise placed asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce.
52
ANSWER:
Objection. Based upon Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski's deposition testimony, Caroline Kraszewski was never exposed to any asbestos-containing grinding wheels "mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed" by Defendant. As such, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects to the request for information regarding asbestos-containing products that did not come into contact with Plaintiff, Caroline Kraszewski. Without waiving this objection, see response to interrogatory 5.
As to all objections:
OF COUNSEL: Michael K. Yarbrough (0023054) FROST BROWN TODD LLC One Columbus, Suite 1000 10 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-3467 614-464-1211 Fax: 614-464-1737
Scott D. Phillips
Respectfully submitted,
Scott D. Phillips (0043654) Monica H. Norris (0071078) FROST BROWN TODD LLC 2200 PNC Center 201 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-4182 513-651-6800 Fax: 513-651-6981 Trial Attorneys for Cincinnati Grinders, Inc.,
Individually and as Subsidiary of Milacron, Inc.
53
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following by
facsimile and ordinary mail on July o\, 2001:
Ladd R. Gibke, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 FAX: (214)520-1181
Susan L. Bozorth, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 30 Overbrook Blvd., Suite F Monroe, Ohio 45050 FAX:
CINlibrary/1081253.1
VERIFICATION
STATE OF OHIO
)
) SS:
COUNTY OF HAMILTON )
Roger Gary, being first duly cautioned and sworn, deposes and says of his own knowledge that the foregoing answers to interrogatories are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Roger Gary
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Ohio, this day of July, 2001.
Notary Public