Document VjMrrBk8v9oEy6d3JGqBByYG8

FILE NAME: Uniroyal (UNIR) DATE: 1996 Mar 28 DOC#: UNIR102 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Uniroyal's Response to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories CIRCUIT COURT, STATE OF MISSOURI TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (CITY OF ST. LOUIS) Plaintiffs, VS. ACANDS, INC., ET AL. Defendants. UNIROYAL, INC.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT UNIROYAL. INC. Pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, Uniroyal, Inc. (Uniroyal), responds to the interrogatories propounded by Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs' Discovery) as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 7 1. Uniroyal objects to the disclosure of lawyer-client privileged communications. 2. Uniroyal objects to the disclosure of work product. 3. Uniroyal objects to the Definitions section of Plaintiffs' Discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and oppressive and exceeds the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Uniroyal objects to any interrogatory which seeks information about any asbestos containing products it may have manufactured or sold because the plaintiffs have not produced any evidence of exposure to any Uniroyal or United States Rubber Company asbestos containing products. i i i r i i i i r i i T riiirtf frn ittr^ ito a iri^ ii rr~Tr .;r ` 'i,. ,, m ASBMCV#1/lNTERR0G/FLBaa PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Each of the requests responded to here refers to defendant Uniroyal as "Defendant," "you," or "your". Unless otherwise expressly stated in these responses or properly called for by a specific request, the responses to these requests are given with the understanding that the terms "Uniroyal," "defendant," "you," "your," "your business" and "predecessor" refer to the entity(ies) which operated under the following names: Uniroyal, Inc. and United States Rubber Company, Standard Equipment Company, Inc., and Marine Specialty Company. Uniroyal filed a certificate of dissolution with the Secretary of State of New Jersey on December 2, 1986. It has not engaged in any business since that time, it has no employees and it exists solely for the purpose of winding up its affairs. Consequently, much of the information requested in these requests, if it ever was in the possession or control of Uniroyal, is no longer available. Despite these limitations, after reasonable search and inquiry, Uniroyal has made good faith responses to these interrogatories based upon what information is available and in keeping with the nature of these interrogatories. However, the above-mentioned limitations on Uniroyal's information have required that each of the following responses is based only on the information and belief of the person verifying these responses. This preliminary statement is incorporated as a portion of each and every response herein. 2 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify the person answering these interrogatories on behalf of Defendant. RESPONSE: Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Uniroyal's answers are based on an ongoing review of Uniroyal's documents and information obtained from ongoing discussions with various Uniroyal personnel over a period of years. The information contained herein has been assembled by employees and counsel for Uniroyal over many years time. It is not possible to reconstruct each step taken to gather this information, to identify by name each person who could be said to have furnished the information upon which an answer is based in whole or in part, or to identify all documents that may have provided information upon which an answer is based in whole or in part. Uniroyal reserves the right to amend these answers on the basis of any further information that is obtained. INTERROGATORY NO. 2 : Has the person answering these interrogatories made reasonable inquiry of all available sources of information such that Plaintiff may rely upon these answers as the truthful and complete answers made on behalf of this Defendant? List any and all such sources of information relied upon in answering these interrogatories, including, but not limited to, identifying any and all records or documents reviewed and person providing information. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1. 3 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa INTERROGATORY NO. 3: State the following concerning this Defendant: (a) Full and correct name; (b) The form in which Defendant presently conducts business (i.e. corporation, partnership, proprietorship, etc.); (c) Identify any and all predecessors and related companies as defined above; (d) Any and all other forms in which defendant has conducted business at any time, and the date(s) when business was conducted in each form; (e) Any and all other names by which Defendant has been known or under which Defendant conducted business, at any time, and the date(s) during which Defendant has been known by and/or conducted business, under each such name; (f) Defendant's principal place of business; (g) Defendant's present state of incorporation or state in which Defendant is registered as a partnership, association, etc., whichever is applicable; if Defendant has, at any time, been incorporated or registered in a different state, identify which state and when; (h) Most recent date of incorporation or reincorporation, and any and all prior date(s) of incorporation or reincorporation; (i) Whether this Defendant is authorized to transact business in the State of Missouri and, if so, the date such authority was first issued and last renewed; (j) If this Defendant has an agent, representative or place of business in 7 Missouri, identify such agent, representative, or place of business; and, (k) If this Defendant has an agent for service in the State of Missouri, identify the registered agent. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and the information sought is beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Uniroyal, organized as a New Jersey corporation in 1892 under the name of United States Rubber Company, filed a certificate of dissolution with the Secretary of 4 ASBM0/#1/JNTERR0G/FLBaa State of New Jersey on December 2, 1986. INTERROGATORY NO. 4 : Has Defendant been sued under its correct legal name? If not, state the correct legal name of Defendant and provide the information requested in No. 3 above concerning the defendant as correctly named. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify any and all persons or entities which own, or at any time have owned, more than a 10% interest in this Defendant, and for each such person or entity identified, state the date(s) during which said person or entity owned more than a 10% interest in Defendant and the specific type and amount of interest owned. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 6 : Identify any and all corporations, companies, businesses and/or joint ventures in which this Defendant owns, or at any time has owned, more than a 10% interest. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as 5 ASBMO/#1/lNTERROG/FLBaa well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 7 : With respect to each corporation, company, business or joint venture identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6 state: (a) The type of business, conducted by such related company; (b) The past and present business relationship(s) between said related company and Defendant; (c) The nature of the products or services which Defendant has sold to, or purchased from, said related company; (d) Whether or not said related company advertises or has advertised products or services supplied by Defendant; (e) Whether or not said related company sells or has sold Defendant's products or services within the State of Missouri and, if so, the approximate value of those sales from 1930 to date; (f) Whether or not said related company pays taxes of any type to the State of Missouri or to any political subdivision thereof and, if so, the type of taxes paid; (g) Whether or not Defendant controls or has controlled, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, said related company's advertising; and, (h) The identity of any past or present officer or director of Defendant who, at any time, served as an officer or director of said related company. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: List all directors and officers of Defendant from 1940 to date and for each state all positions held and the date(s) during which each position was held. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. 6 A S B M 0/#1 /IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: State whether any of Defendants' present or former officers or directors ever served (whether before, during or after becoming Defendants' officer or director) as an officer or director of any other company, corporation or business which manufactured, sold or distributed asbestos or asbestos-containing products and, if so, please: (a) Identify each officer and director of Defendant, who served as such other company's officer or director; and (b) Identify each company, corporation or business for which each such officer or director served, each position held by such officer or director for such other company, corporation or business, and the time periods each position was held. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Has Defendant ever acquired, through purchase, reorganization or merger, another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed or contracted to apply, asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products? 7 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0G /F L B aa RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and the information sought is beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 10 is "Yes," with respect to each such predecessor: (a) State its full and correct name; (b) State its principal place of business; (c) State its State of incorporation; (d) State its date and manner of acquisition by Defendant; (e) Whether this predecessor was, at any time, authorized to transact business in the State of Missouri; and (f) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the acquisition. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Has Defendant ever acquired from another corporation, company, or business, by any means other than those specified in Interrogatory No. 10, assets or rights to manufacture, sell, distribute or apply asbestos or asbestos-containing products? RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 10. - INTERROGATORY NO. 13: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 12 is "Yes," with respect to each such acquisition: 8 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0G /F L B aa (a) State the full and correct name of the company from which such assets or rights were acquired; (b) State the principal place of business of the company from which said assets or rights were acquired; (c) Describe the assets or rights acquired, including the specific asbestoscontaining products to which said assets or rights related; and (d) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the transaction. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Other than any transaction identified in response to Interrogatories Nos. 10-13, has this Defendant ever been involved, in any capacity, including but not limited to, seller, transferor, grantor, franchisor, licensor, buyer, transferee, grantee, franchisee or subject of the transaction, in any transaction, of any kind, concerning any of the following: (a) the purchase/sale or transfer of ownership of a corporation, company or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed or contracted to apply asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products; or (b) the purchase/sale or transfer of ownership of the assets or rights to manufacture, sell, distribute or apply asbestos or asbestos-containing products; or (c) the purchase/sale or transfer of liabilities arising out of the manufacture, sale, processing, distribution or application of asbestos or asbestoscontaining products. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: If the answer to any sub-part of Interrogatory No. 14 is "Yes," with respect to each such transaction: (a) Identify all parties to the transaction; (b) Identify the subject matter of the transaction; (c) State the date of the transaction; and, (d) Identify any and all documents, referring to, relating to or reflecting the transaction. 9 A S B M 0/*1/IN T E R R 0 G /FLB a a RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 14. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: State the first and last dates on which any asbestos-containing product was manufactured by: (a) Defendant; (b) each and every predecessor; and, (c) each and every related company. RESPONSE: Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Uniroyal manufactured asbestos yarns, fabrics and tapes that contained asbestos from approximately 1941 until approximately 1976. Uniroyal manufactured various mechanical rubber goods containing asbestos from a date unknown until sometime prior to 1972. Uniroyal manufactured asbestos-containing rocket motor shields from 1959 to 1985. Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: State the first and last dates on which any asbestos-containing product was specified, sold, distributed, applied and/or installed within the United States by: (a) Defendant; (b) each and every predecessor; and, (c) each and every related company. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: State the last date on which Defendant or any related company specified, sold, distributed, applied and/or installed any asbestos- 10 ASBMCWI/INTERROG/FLBaa containing product outside the United States and identify by brand or trade name the products so specified, sold, distributed, applied and/or installed. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO, 19: Identify by full and complete trade name, any and all asbestos-containing products as defined above, which this Defendant, any related company, or any predecessor(s) has, at any time: (a) Designed; (b) Manufactured; (c) Processed; (d) Sold; (e) Distributed; (f) Applied; (g) Installed; (h) Patented; (i) Specified; or (j) Relabeled. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: With respect to each asbestos-containing product listed for each subpart of Interrogatory No. 19: (a) Identify the specific company (Defendant, predecessor, related company) which designed, manufactured, processed, specified, sold, distributed, applied, installed, patented or relabeled such product; (b) State the year in which Defendant, its related company or its predecessor first designed, manufactured, processed, specified, sold, distributed, applied, installed, patented or relabeled such product; and, (c) State the year in which the Defendant, its related company or predecessor last designed, manufactured, processed, specified, sold, distributed, applied, installed, patented or relabeled such product. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 16. 11 A S B M 0/#1 /lN T E R R 0G /F L B aa INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Were any of the products, which were listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19 as having been specified, sold, distributed, applied or installed by Defendant, its predecessor or related company(ies), purchased from another company and relabelled for sale or distribution by Defendant, its predecessors or related companies? If so, identify those products, and with respect to each: (a) Identify the company from which Defendant, its predecessor or related company purchased the product; and, (b) Identify the company which manufactured the product; and, (c) State the date(s) during which said relabelled product was sold, distributed or applied. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Has this Defendant, at any time, applied, contracted to apply, installed or engaged in the business of applying or installing,- asbestos-containing products? If so: (a) State the date(s) on which or during which Defendant applied, contracted to apply, installed or engaged in the business of applying or installing asbestos-containing products; (b) Identify any and all sites within the State of Missouri at which Defendant applied, installed or contracted to apply or install asbestos-containing products, and for each such site: (i) State whether the products you applied, installed or contracted to apply or install were included as part of the project's contract price or whether you applied the products that were provided at the worksite; (ii) Identify by manufacturer and trade name each and every asbestos-containing product applied or installed; (iii) State the date(s) during which said application or installation took place; (iv) Identify the employee(s) of Defendant who was (were) in charge of the job; 12 A S B M 0/#1 /!N TE R R 0G /F LB aa (v) Identify the person or entity for which the products were applied or installed; and (vi) Identify all documents relating to such contract, application or installation. RESPONSE: Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Based on information and belief, no. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Has this Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, ever engaged in the business of mining asbestos? If so: (a) Identify which company(ies) whether (Defendant, predecessor or related company) engaged in said business; (b) State the date(s) during which each said company engaged in such business; (c) State each and every location at which such mining was done; (d) Identify each and every officer, employee and/or agent of said company who, at any time was in charge of each mining operation; and, (e) Identify each and every entity, if any, to which said company sold the asbestos which was mined. RESPONSE: Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Uniroyal has never been a miner of asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Has this Defendant, any predecessor or any related company ever purchased and resold raw asbestos? If so, with respect to each such purchase and resale: (a) State the date(s) of the transaction; (b) Identify any and all parties from which the raw asbestos was purchased; and, (c) Identify any and all parties to which the raw asbestos was sold. 13 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa RESPONSE: Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Based on information and belief, Uniroyal has never been in the business of mining, milling or selling raw asbestos fiber. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Identify each and every source from which Defendant, any predecessor or related company, obtained raw asbestos and/or asbestos-containing material used by Defendant, any predecessor or related company, to manufacture or process any product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Is Defendant or any related company, as of the date of answering these interrogatories, still manufacturing, specifying, selling, distributing, applying or installing any asbestos-containing product? If so, give the brand/trade names of such products, type and percentage of asbestos in such product, and the date on which Defendant or any related company first manufactured, specified, sold, distributed, applied or installed said products. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 16. 14 ASBM0/#1/INTERR0G/FLBaa INTERROGATORY NO. 27: With respect to each and every product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19, provide a full and complete description of the package in which the product was sold, including, but not limited to, type of package, size, color and writings thereon. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Cloth was generally packaged in rolls up to five feet wide and approximately 50-100 yards long. Each roll was covered by burlap, or, in later years, at a date unknown, Uniroyal began to enclose such burlap bags in polyurethane bags to facilitate shipment in handling and to protect the product against moisture. The burlap bag may have had the company name, style number, weight and customer's name stencilled on it. Uniroyal has no information regarding the specific wording or size of writing on the bags. Some rolls may have been shipped in individual boxes. Furthermore, Uniroyal has no documents or other information to enable it to describe packaging of other products which may have contained asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: For each subpart below, state whether or not, to Defendant's knowledge, any items as described therein presently exist and, if so, identify any and all such existing items and state the present location of each: (a) any product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19, including, but not limited to, any sample, part or piece thereof; 15 ASBMO/#1/lNTERROG/FLBaa (b) any package of the type in which any or all of the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19 were or would have been sold, including, but not limited to, any partial package; (c) any catalogue, brochure, sales literature or like item referring to, relating to or reflecting any or all of the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19; (d) any picture, drawing, photograph or like representation of the items described in subparts (a), (b) and/or (c) of this Interrogatory. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Did Defendant, any related company or any predecessor ever stamp or otherwise place (including affixing tags or labels) a company name, initials, or any identifying logo on any of the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19? RESPONSE: Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: See Response to Interrogatory No. 27. Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 19 is "Yes," identify each and every such product upon which such name, initials or identifying logo appeared and for each such product identified: (a) Describe each and every name, initials or identifying logo appearing on said product, at any time, by stating the wording, lettering, symbols, size, color and manner in which it was stamped, placed or affixed to said product; (b) State the date(s) during which each such name, initials, or identifying logo appeared on said product; and (c) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the 16 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa stamping, placing or affixing of names, initials or logos to said product, including, but not limited to, any pictures, photographs or like representations of such names, initials or logos. RESPONSE: Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 27. Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Was each of the asbestos-containing products listed in. response to Interrogatory No. 19 generally expected to reach, or was each packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 31 is "No" with respect to any product(s), explain in what manner Defendant claims said product(s) were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the consumer or user. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 31. 17 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa INTERROGATORY NO. 33: With respect to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19, state whether, based upon the material contents, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, such product could generally be applied or installed without liberating asbestos fibers? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Unlroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Based upon information and belief, and the information contained in Uniroyal's Response to Interrogatory No. 43, Uniroyal's textile products could be generally applied by an insulator without liberating asbestos fibers in excess of the then existing threshold limit value, or comparable OSHA standard. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: With respect to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19, was it a foreseeable use of said product that it might have to be removed, stripped or replaced at any time after application or installation? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Based upon information and belief, Uniroyal's products were properly constructed for their intended use, and application. Based upon information and belief about the intended use of Uniroyal's asbestos textile products, those products were not intended to be removed, stripped, or replaced after installation. However, 18 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa without knowing the circumstances under which a Uniroyal product was applied, Uniroyal could not determine whether it would be foreseeable whether its products would be removed, stripped, or replaced. Based on information and belief, none of the plaintiffs in this case used or were exposed to any Uniroyal product. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Identify each person who participated in the design and/or preparation of manufacturing specifications for each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Because Uniroyal is a dissolved corporation and has no employees, such information is presently unknown to Uniroyal, except to the extent that it may be contained in Uniroyal's documents which may be reviewed pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Identify any and all documents, including, but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, blueprints, formulas, patterns and designs, referring to, relating to or reflecting the design, preparation, application and/or installation of each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil 19 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0G /F L B aa Procedure. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: With respect to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19, state: (a) The type of asbestos contained in the product as it was first manufactured; (b) The percentage of asbestos contained in the product as it was first manufactured; (c) Any modification to the product which altered the percentage or type of asbestos in the product and the dates of such modification; (d) The source of asbestos in each product; (e) The color, physical characteristics, and appearance of each product; (f) Any and all other names under which the product was sold, at any time; (g) The number and date of each patent or patent application for each product; (h) If the product continued to be produced after the deletion of asbestos, all reasons why the asbestos was deleted, the identity of the person(s) who made the decision to delete the asbestos, and the date the product was first produced without the asbestos; (i) If the product is no longer produced, all reasons it was discontinued, the identity of the person(s) who made the decision to discontinue the product, the brand name of the replacement product, and the date the replacement product first went into production; and (j) The reasons why asbestos was used as an ingredient in each such product. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review 20 ASBM0/#1 /INTERROG/FLBaa pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Identify any and all facilities at which Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time, manufactured or processed asbestos-containing products, or processed raw asbestos. For each such facilities identified: (a) State the date(s) which said facilities was owned and/or operated by Defendant, any predecessor or any related company; (b) State the date(s) during which asbestos-containing products and/or raw asbestos were manufactured or processed, at said facility; and, (c) Identify each person serving as the manager or supervisor of said facility has been owned and/or operated by Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, and state the date(s) of the tenure as manager or supervisor for each. RESPONSE: Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Hogansville Plant, Hogansville, Georgia (1942-1976); Passaic Plant, Passaic, New Jersey (? - 1972); Mishawaka Plant, Mishawaka, Indiana (1959-1985). INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Identify any and all entities to which Defendant, any predecessor or related company sold, distributed or otherwise provided any type of asbestos-containing product, including, but not limited to, the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Identify any and all persons known by you to have any knowledge concerning the manufacture, sale, distribution, possession, 21 ASBMOtM/INTERROG/FLBaa application, installation or use of the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Because Uniroyal is a dissolved corporation and has no employees, such information is presently unknown to Uniroyal, except to the extent that it may be contained in Uniroyal's documents which may be reviewed pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time, designed, manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, supplied, applied, installed or contracted to apply or install any product which contained vermiculite? RESPONSE: Subject to, and without waiving the foregoin general objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Based on information and belief, no. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 41 is "Yes," identify by brand/trade name any and all such products which contained vermiculite and for each: (a) State the date(s) during which said product contained vermiculite; (b) State, in percentage terms, the amount of vermiculite contained in the product; (c) Identify the source of the vermiculite used in the product; 22 ASBM0/#1/INTERR0G/FLBaa (d) Identify the specific company (Defendant, predecessor, related company) which designed, manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, applied, installed or patented such product; (e) State the year in which Defendant, its related company or its predecessor first designed, manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, applied, installed or patented such product; (f) State the year in which the Defendant, its related company or predecessor last designed, manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, applied, installed or patented such product; (g) State whether any sample, part or piece of such product is still in existence; and (h) Identify all documents relating to such product, including, but not limited to, any package, brochure, catalog, picture, photograph or like representation of the product or packaging. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 41. INTERROGATORY NO, 43: With respect to the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42, did Defendant, any predecessor or related company or the manufacturer of the products ever conduct tests of any kind on any or all of said products concerning possible or potential health hazards involved in its use or in the use of materials contained therein? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Uniroyal manufactured textiles containing asbestos from 1941 to 1976, and did not believe that the intended use of its finished products posed an unreasonable health hazard. Uniroyal does not know at this time if the products were tested by the United States government, military, or the War Production Board, prior to its directive that Uniroyal increase the manufacture asbestos textiles. Based upon information 23 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa and belief, during the 1970's, Avondale Shipyard caused dust counts to be taken during operations involving asbestos cloth believed to be manufactued by Uniroyal. All fiber counts were well below the then recognized threshold limit value, or comparable OSHA standard. Uniroyal does not believe that the results would have significantly differred had the tests been conducted at any other time or location. INTERROGATORY NO. 44: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 43 is "Yes," with respect to each product tested: (a) State the location where the test was performed; (b) Identify each and every individual who conducted or participated in said tests; . (c) Describe the results of said test; (d) State the date or dates upon which said tests was conducted; (e) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said test or the results thereof; and (f) Identify each and every individual who received a copy of any document referring to, relating to or reflecting the results of said test. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 43. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Did any person, including but not limited to, an officer, agent or employee of Defendant, any predecessor or related company recommend any design changes as a result of any test referenced in your response to the preceding interrogatory? RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 43. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 45 is "Yes," with respect to each such recommended design change: (a) State the product or products involved; (b) State the test or tests involved; 24 A S B M 0/#1 /IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa (c) State the nature of the change recommended; (d) Identify the person(s) making the recommendation; (e) State the nature and effective date of any change made; and (f) Identify each and every person who participated in the decision to make or not make the recommended design change. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 43. INTERROGATORY NO. 47 : Identify any and all persons employed by Defendant, its predecessor or related company at any time from 1940 to date as an industrial hygienist or in a similar position. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 48. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Identify any and all persons or entities, other than the employees listed above, which provided industrial hygienic or similar services or information to, or for the benefit of, this Defendant, at any time from 1940 to date, including, but not limited to, employees of, or anyone retained by, any predecessor or related company. RESPONSE: Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Uniroyal admits that during the years that Uniroyal commercially produced textiles containing asbestos, Uniroyal retained the services of a number of consultants, including, but not limited to, W.L.C. Hemeon, Dr. Anthony J. Lanza, Dr. Kenneth Lynch, Dr. Eugene Pendergrass, Dr. H.W. Grady, Dr. John Knox, and Dr. John G. Wells, for the purpose 25 ASBM0/#1/INTERR0G/FLBaa of studying and improving the dust control and medical program at Uniroyal's Hogansville facility. The results and findings of their work are contained in Uniroyal's documents. In addition, the documents show, among other things, that Uniroyal hired Dr. J.F. Wolfsie as its first medical director in 1964. He served in that capacity until 1971. Dr. Dexter Forbes served from 1971 to 1985. The medical directors' duties were varied, but included the coordination of a comprehensive company-wide health promotional program. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Does Defendant have, or has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company ever had, a Research Department? If so: (a) State when such department was established, and whether or not such department has operated continuously since being established; (b) State how much Defendant, its predecessor and/or related company expended each year on research; (c) State the percentage of said expenditure which was for research concerning the health affects of asbestos; _ (d) Identify the person(s) in charge of such department throughout its existence; and (e) Identify the person(s) in charge of any asbestos-related research conducted by such department throughout the years. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 48. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Did Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any medical department or industrial hygiene division thereof, maintain a medical and/or scientific library at any time from 1940 to the present? If so: (a) State the dates such library existed; (b) State the number of volumes maintained therein; (c) State the number of employees, part-time or full-time, assigned to the maintenance of said library; and (d) Identify the person(s) within the corporate structure to whom said library 26 ASBM0/#1/INTERR0G/FLBaa employees reported throughout the existence of the library. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 48. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Identify any and all scientific or medical periodicals to which Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any medical department or industrial hygiene division thereof, subscribed from 1940 to the present, and for each periodical state the dates of such subscriptions. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Uniroyal has no record or information which would enable it answer this interrogatory other then to state that upon information and belief, Uniroyal subscribed at one time to National Safety Council News. Journal of Industrial Hygiene, and the British Journal of Industrial Medicine and Environmental Research. Of course, Uniroyal may have received other articles from either various consultants retained by Uniroyal or trade organizations. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time since 1940: (a) been a member of a medical and/or scientific library or library association? (b) been a member of any organization or association which maintained a medical and/or scientific library? (c) been a member of any organization or association through which members obtained the use of, or access to, a medical and/or scientific 27 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa library? RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 51. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: If your answer to any subpart of Interrogatory No. 52 is "Yes": (a) Identify the library(ies) involved and state the years during which Defendant, its predecessor or related company was a member of, or otherwise had use of or access to said library; and (b) If applicable, identify the organization or association through which Defendant, its predecessor or related company, obtained the use of or access to, such library(ies). RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 51. INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any person or entity acting on behalf thereof, including but not limited to, any insurance company, at any time, conducted any industrial hygiene surveys concerning any product identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42, _ including, but not limited to, surveys concerning the manufacture, processing, application, installation, use and/or removal of said products? RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 48. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 54 is "Yes," with respect to each such survey: (a) Identify the product(s) which was used in the survey; (b) Identify any and all person(s), firm(s) or entity(ies) conducting or participating in the conducting of said survey; (c) State the date(s) of said survey; (d) Describe the methodology, results and conclusions of said survey; (e) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to, or reflecting said survey or the results and conclusions thereof; and, 28 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa (f) Identify any and all persons to whom such document may have been sent. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 48. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any person or entity acting on behalf thereof, including but not limited to any insurance company, at any time, gone into any area where any product identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 was being manufactured, used, applied or installed to perform a dust level count or similar test? RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 43. INTERROGATORY NO. 57: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 56 is "Yes," identify each such count or test performed, by stating when and where it was conducted, and with respect to each count or test so identified: (a) Identify the product being manufactured, used, applied or installed; _ (b) Identity each and every person who conducted, participated in conducting, or analyzed the results of, said count or test; (c) State the purpose of said count or test; (d) State what, if any, actions were taken in response to the results of said count or test; and (e) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said count or test, including, but not limited to, any actions taken in response to the results of such count or test. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 43. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any person or entity acting on behalf thereof, at any time, conducted any study(ies), of any kind, concerning the effects of the inhalation of asbestos dust or asbestos fibers on one using or being exposed to asbestos or any asbestos- 29 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa containing product, including, but not limited to, those identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42? RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 43 and 48. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 58 is "Yes," with respect to each such study: (a) Describe the nature of said study, including, but not limited to, the purpose and objectives of the study, the product(s) involved, the date(s) conducted, the methodology employed and the results reached, both raw data and conclusions; (b) Identify any and all entities and/or persons conducting said study or participating in the conducting of said study; (c) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said study, including but not limited to reports (both interim and final), notes, memoranda, work papers, data compilations and surveys; (d) Identify any and all directors, officers, agents or employees of Defendant who participated in the decision to have the study conducted; and, (e) Identify any and all entities and/or person who received a copy of any document referring to, relating to or reflecting the results or conclusions reached. - RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 43 and 48. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Did Defendant, its predecessor or related company, take any action as a result of any study or studies set forth in response to Interrogatory Nos. 56 and 58? If so, identify each and every study which resulted in some action being taken, and: (a) Describe the actions taken, including the effective date of said actions; (b) Identify any and all persons, including, but not limited to, directors, officers, agents and employees of Defendant who participated in the decision to undertake said actions; and (c) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said actions, or any subsequent modification or discussion of the same. 30 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0 G /F L B a a RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 43 and 48. INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Has Defendant, any predecessor, or any related company, or any person or entity acting on behalf thereof, at any time, conducted any study(ies) designed to minimize or eliminate the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those using, handling or exposed to any product listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42? RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 43 and 48. INTERROGATORY NO. 62: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 61 is "Yes," with respect to each such study: (a) Identify the product involved; (b) Identify the person(s) and/or entity(ies) conducting said study; (c) State the date said study began and the date on which it was completed; (d) Identify any and all persons, including, but not limited to, directors, officers, agents or employees of Defendant, who participated in the decision to have said study conducted; (e) Describe the nature of said study; (f) Describe the nature of any action to eliminate or minimize inhalation of asbestos dust or asbestos fibers undertaken as a result of said study; (g) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said study or the results thereof; and, (h) Identify any and all person receiving a copy of any document referring to, relating to or reflecting the results or conclusions of said study. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 43 and 48. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: Did Defendant, any related company, or any predecessor at any time, give to persons, who would be applying and/or removing any of the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42, any instructions or guidelines concerning precautions, warnings, procedures, and/or 31 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa methods to use, in order to safely apply or remove such products? If so, describe such instructions, state to whom they were given, state the dates they were given, and describe the manner in which they were given. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as well as vague and ambiguous. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Upon information and belief, beginning in approximately 1972 until the discontinuance of its asbestos textile business in 1976, Uniroyal placed a warning label on those asbestos textile products requiring such a label. Upon information and belief, the wording of such label followed the language of the applicable OSHA regulation and was never amended. With respect to rocket motor insulation, pursuant to contract requirement, every box of such insulation in the period 1982-1985 contained a label stating: "Caution. Contains Asbestos Fibers - Avoid Creating Dust - Breathing Asbestos Dust May Cause Serious Bodily Harm." It is presently not known whether any such labels were contained on mechanical rubber goods. INTERROGATORY NO. 64: Did Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time, place any warning signs or labels on the containers in which any of the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 were packaged? RESPONSE: Subject to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal answers as 32 A S B M 0/#1 /IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa follows: Upon information and belief, beginning in approximately 1972 until the discontinuance of its asbestos textile business in 1976, Uniroyal placed a warning label on those asbestos textile products requiring such a label. Upon information and belief, the wording of such label followed the language of the applicable OSHA regulation and was never amended. With respect to rocket motor insulation, pursuant to contract requirement, every box of such insulation in the period 1982-1985 contained a label stating: "Caution. Contains Asbestos Fibers - Avoid Creating Dust - Breathing Asbestos Dust May Cause Serious Bodily Harm." It is presently not known whether any such labels were contained on mechanical rubber goods. INTERROGATORY NO. 65: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 64 is "Yes," identify each and every product upon which such a warning was placed, and with respect to each such product identified: (a) State the date on which any order directing that a warning be placed on said product first issued; (b) Identify any and all persons participating in the decision to issue that order; (c) State the first date on which such warning was actually placed on said product; (d) State the first date on which such product accompanied by such warning was first sold, distributed or installed; (e) State the exact wording of this first warning; (f) State the exact location and size of this first warning as it appeared on said product; (g) Identify any and all persons who participated in any phase of the drafting or design of said first warning, including, but not limited to, those who performed the actual drafting and design work, those who reviewed the work, those who edited the work and those who approved the warning; 33 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa (h) State why you placed such warning on said product, including, but not limited to, whether you placed such warning on said product because you received a directive, command, suggestion, legal opinion, or any type of communication (written or otherwise) from any person, firm, corporation, governmental agency, committee, association, attorney or institute; and (i) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting, said warning, its drafting, and/or the decision to place the warning on said product, including, but not limited to, any communication as described in subpart (h) of this Interrogatory. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 64. INTERROGATORY NO. 66: With respect to each product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 65 as having been accompanied by a warning, state whether, subsequent to the first warning describe above, any different warning was ever placed upon said product. Any alteration, change or modification in the language, wording, capitalization, punctuation, style of type or printing, size, color, or location on the package or container, of the warning constitutes a different warning. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 64 and 65. INTERROGATORY NO. 67: With respect to each different warning which accompanied each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 65: (a) State the date on which any order directing that such different warning be placed on said product first issued; (b) Identify any and all persons participating in the decision to issue that order; (c) State the first date on which such different warning was actually placed on said product; (d) State the first date on which such product accompanied by such different warning was sold, distributed or installed; (e) Describe, with specificity, any and all changes, modifications or differences between the different warning and the prior warnings(s); (f) Identify any and all persons who participated in any phase of the 34 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0G /F L B aa drafting or design of such different warning, including, but not limited to, those who performed the actual drafting and design work, those who reviewed the work, those who edited the work and those who approved the different warning; (g) State why you placed such different warning on said product, including, but not limited to, whether you placed such different warning on said product because you received a directive, command, suggestion, legal opinion, or any type of communication (written or otherwise) from any person, firm, corporation, governmental agency, committee, association, attorney or institute; and (h) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting, said different warning, its drafting, and/or the decision to place the different warning on said product. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 64 and 65. INTERROGATORY NO. 68: Prior to the date on which Defendant first directed that a warning accompany any product identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42, did any person, firm, organization or other entity, within or without your employ, suggest, recommend, counsel, advise, or otherwise indicate in any manner, that a warning should accompany any or all such products or asbestos-containing products generally? RESPONSE: Subject to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Because Uniroyal is a dissolved corporation and has no employees, it is impossible to ascertain exactly when or what it learned about potential hazard of excessive asbestos exposure or the conditions under which a potential hazard would exist. Uniroyal was generally aware that prolonged high exposure of its textile worker employees to certain asbestos fibers could pose a potential health hazard. The work 35 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa done by Uniroyal's consultant, Dr. John G. Wells, was related to textile workers. Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 69: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 68 is "Yes," with respect to each such suggestion, recommendation, counseling, advice or other indication: (a) Identify the person(s) and/or entity(ies) giving the same; (b) State the date(s) on which the same was given; (c) Identify any and all person receiving notice of the same; (d) Describe what, if any, action Defendant took in response to or upon the same; and . (e) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the same, or any action taken thereon or in response thereto. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 68. INTERROGATORY NO. 70: Did Defendant, any predecessor, or any related company ever place any warning directly upon any of the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42? RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 64. INTERROGATORY NO. 71: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 70 is "Yes," identify each and every product upon which such a warning was placed and for each such product identified: (a) State, verbatim, each and every warning which ever appeared on said product; (b) State the size, color and location of each such warning and describe the manner in which it was placed upon the product; (c) State the dates on which each such warning first and last appeared in said product; and, 36 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa (d) Identity any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the placing of any warning directly upon said products, including, but not limited to, decisions not to place such a warning. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 64. INTERROGATORY NO. 72: Did any warning of any type concerning the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 ever appear in any sales literature or other materials distributed or provided by Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, to the purchasers, consumers and/or users of such products? RESPONSE: Subject to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Because Uniroyal is a dissolved corporation and has no employees, it is impossible to ascertain exactly when or what it learned about potential hazard of excessive asbestos exposure or the conditions under which a potential hazard would exist. Uniroyal was generally aware that prolonged high exposure of its textile worker employees to certain asbestos fibers could pose a potential health hazard. The work done by UniroyaPs consultant, Dr. John G. Wells, was related to textile workers. Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 73: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 72 is "Yes," identify each and every item of sales literature or other materials in which such a warning appeared, and for each item so identified: (a) State the date on which said item was first provided to distributors, sellers, purchasers, consumers or users; 37 ASBM0/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa (b) List the products discussed in the literature; (c) Identify any and all other sales literature concerning the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 which was provided to distributors, sellers, purchasers, consumers or users after the above date and which contained no warning. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 72. INTERROGATORY NO. 74: Does Defendant or any related company have any of the following in its possession, custody or control: (a) any package, container, label or item of sales literature which Defendant claims constitutes or contains any warning which ever accompanies any product listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42? (b) any picture, photograph or like reproductive representation of any item described in subpart (a)? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 75: State the year that Defendant or any predecessor(s) was first advised of either threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust, promulgated by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and identify the specific person(s) receiving such advise, and any and all documents communicating such advise. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects 38 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Uniroyal was aware that the State of Georgia and others, including the ACGIH, recommend a TLV of 5 mppcf for asbestos. Documents related to this inquiry, if any, will be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules'of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 76: State whether such threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations referred to in Interrogatory No. 75 involved TOTAL dust or just asbestos dust? RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 75. INTERROGATORY NO. 77: Describe, in detail, any and all tests, if any, conducted by Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or anyone acting on behalf thereof, concerning the quantity, quality or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which applicators or consumers of asbestos-containing products were exposed while using any product identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42, including: (a) The product being used; (b) Identify any and all person(s), firm(s) or entity(ies) conducting or participating in the conducting of said test; (c) State the date(s) of said test; (d) Describe the methodology, results and conclusions of said test; (e) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating or reflecting said test or the results and conclusions thereof; and, (f) Identify any and all persons to whom any document referring to, relating to or reflecting the results or conclusions of said test was sent. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects 39 A S B M 0/*1 /IN T E R R 0 G /F L B a a to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 78: Did Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time, directly advise the owners or management employees of any worksite in which it sold or applied any product listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42, of threshold limit values for exposure to asbestos dust recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist? If so, state the date or dates that you so advised each such owner or employees, the manner in which you advised such owner or employee and the name of each such owner or employee. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Uniroyal was aware that the State of Georgia and others, including the ACGIH, recommend a TLV of 5 mppcf for asbestos. Documents related to this inquiry, if any, will be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 79: State the date on which any official of Defendant 40 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa or its predecessor(s) first had knowledge, notice, information or understanding that exposure to asbestos would, could or might cause each of the following diseases: (a) Pleural disease; (b) Asbestosis; (c) Mesothelioma; (d) Lung cancer; (e) Any other forms of cancer. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Because Uniroyal is a dissolved corporation and has no employees, it is impossible to ascertain exactly when or what it learned about potential hazard of excessive asbestos exposure or the conditions under which a potential hazard would exist. Uniroyal was generally aware that prolonged high exposure of its textile worker employees to certain asbestos fibers could pose a potential health hazard. The work done by Unroyal's consultant, Dr. John G. Wells, was related to textile workers. Uniroyal manufactured textiles containing asbestos from 1941 to 1976, and did not believe that the use of its finished products posed an unreasonable health hazard. Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review 41 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 80: With respect to each disease set forth in Interrogatory No. 79: (a) Identify the official who first obtained the knowledge, notice, information or understanding to which the interrogatory refers; (b) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting such knowledge, notice, information or understanding; and, (c) Describe what, if any, action said official, Defendant, any predecessor or any related company took in response to such knowledge, notice, information or understanding. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 79. INTERROGATORY NO. 81: Is Defendant aware, or does Defendant possess knowledge or information concerning, a causal connection between exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products and: (a) pleural disease? (b) asbestosis? (c) lung cancer? (d) mesothelioma? (e) other cancer? RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 79. INTERROGATORY NO. 82: For each subpart of Interrogatory No. 81 to which you answered "Yes": (a) Describe when and how Defendant first obtained knowledge, or information concerning such connection; (b) If such knowledge or information was obtained by attendance at any conference, lecture, convention, symposium or meeting, identify such meeting, any and all persons attending, and any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the meeting; (c) If knowledge was obtained from medical or scientific studies, or work, published or unpublished, identify the same. 42 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 79 and 81. INTERROGATORY NO. 83: With regard to any knowledge or information obtained subsequent to that identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 82(a), identify any and all documents or communications (oral and/or written) concerning the causal connection between exposure to asbestos-containing or asbestos products and any disease, which were sent to, or received by, Defendant, and identify any and all persons conveying and/or receiving such communications. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 79 and 81. INTERROGATORY NO. 84: As to any knowledge or information referred to in Interrogatories 79-83, did Defendant, at any time, educate or inform its employees, distributors, purchasers or any persons working in the vicinity where any asbestoscontaining product was being applied or installed as to the hazards known to Defendant or about which Defendant had information, and as to the safety precautions necessary to guard against cancer and other diseases arising from the use and handling of the products identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defense of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the 43 ASBM0/#1 /INTERROG/FLBaa discovery of admissible evidence; and on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows; Uniroyal is unable to ascertain information responsive to this interrogatory. Uniroyal manufactured textiles containing asbestos from 1941 to 1976, and did not believe that the use of its finished products posed an unreasonable health hazard. Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 85: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 84 is "Yes," identify each such occasion on which Defendant so educated or informed its employees, distributors or purchasers, as follows: (a) Identify the person or parties which you educated or informed; (b) State when, where and in what manner they were educated or informed; (c) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the communication or other dissemination of such information; and (d) Identify any and all persons who so educated or informed said employees, distributors, purchasers or persons working in the vicinity of application or who participated in the same in any way, including, but not limited to, assembling, drafting, writing, rewriting, preparing or conveying such information in any format. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 84. INTERROGATORY NO. 86: Did Defendant or any predecessor entity perform, direct to be performed, finance in whole or in part, sponsor in whole or in part or receive the results of, any studies or tests concerning the relationship between asbestos exposure and asbestosis, cancer and/or mesothelioma? 44 ASBM0/#1/INTERR0G/FLBaa RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 48. INTERROGATORY NO. 87: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 86 is "Yes," with respect to each such study or test: (a) State the nature of the involvement (performed, directed it to be performed, financed, sponsored, received results, etc.); (b) State when, where and at what intervals said study was performed; (c) Identify any and all persons, firms or entities which performed said study; (d) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating or reflecting said study or the results thereof; and (e) State all means by which the results of said study were disseminated including, if applicable, publication; and identify any and all persons who received said results and any and all publications in which said results appeared. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 48 and 86. INTERROGATORY NO. 88: Did Defendant at any time during the period that the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 were manufactured, sold, applied or installed, inform any purchaser or user of said products that such products could cause cancer, asbestosis, and/or other serious diseases? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defense of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers 45 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0G /F L B aa as follows: Uniroyal is unable to ascertain information responsive to this interrogatory. Uniroyal manufactured textiles containing asbestos from 1941 to 1976, and did not believe that the use of its finished products posed an unreasonable health hazard. Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42. INTERROGATORY NO. 89: Did Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any workers' compensation insurance carrier thereof, ever have any claim for lung diseases or death from lung disease, whether directly or indirectly attributed to asbestosis, mesothelioma, lung cancer, or exposure to asbestoscontaining products? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Uniroyal also objects to producing confidential documents. Furthermore, Uniroyal ceased the manufacture of the products to which plaintiffs claim exposure by 1976. Accordingly, Uniroyal objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information related to claims of the type described in this interrogatory filed subsequent to 1976. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: A worker's compensation claim was made against Uniroyal in 1955 by one of its employees engaged in manufacture of asbestos-containing textile products. Two 46 ASBM0/#1 /INTERROG/FLBaa claims were filed in 1959. One claim was filed in 1961. Two claims were filed in 1964. One claim each in 1966, 1968, 1972, and 1974-76. Based on current information, Uniroyal is unaware that claims for lung cancer, mesothelioma or other cancers were ever made. INTERROGATORY NO. 90: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 89 is "Yes," with respect to each such claim: (a) Identify the claimant; (b) Identify the entity against which the claim was filed; (c) State the date upon which the claim was filed; (d) List the location(s) at which claimant was exposed to asbestos; (e) Identify each and every board, administrative body, commission or court which handled or reviewed said claim and state the style and cause number applicable to said claim before each such body; (0 Identify the disease alleged by claimant; (g) State the final disposition of the claim including any and all benefits paid, and the entity making such payments; (h) If different from the date on which the claim was filed, state the date on which Defendant first had notice of the claim; and, (i) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said claim. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 89. INTERROGATORY NO. 91: How many past or present employees of Defendant, its predecessors or related companies are known by you to be suffering from, to have suffered from, or to have suffered deaths caused by: (a) asbestosis? (b) lung cancer? (c) mesothelioma? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of discovery 47 ASBM0/#1/INTERR0G/FLBaa permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Response to Interrogatory No. 89. INTERROGATORY NO. 92: For each employee referenced in your answer to Interrogatory No. 91, state the date that Defendant first knew, or had notice or information, that such past or present employee was suffering, or had suffered from: (a) asbestosis; (b) lung cancer; (c) mesothelioma. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 89 and 91. INTERROGATORY NO. 93: Identify any and all material safety data sheets concerning the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 prepared, at any time, by, or on behalf of, Defendant, any predecessor or any related company. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Based on information and belief, none. INTERROGATORY NO. 94: Identify any and all trade organizations, associations, or other entities, including but not limited to American Textile Institute (ATI), Asbestos Information Association (AIA), Industrial Health Foundation or Industrial Hygiene Foundation (IHF), National Insulation Manufacturers Assn. (NIMA), 48 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa National Insulation Contractors Assn. (NICA), National Safety Council (NSC), American Ceramics Society (ACS), National Building Materials Distributors Assn. (NIA), Sprayed Mineral Fiber Manufacturers Assn. (SMFMA), Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Assn. (TIMA), Quebec Asbestos Mining Assn. (QAMA), to which Defendant, any predecessor or any related company has belonged or in which any or all of the same have participated since 1925, and state the applicable dates of such membership or participation. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Uniroyal was a member of the ATI from 1960 to 1975. Uniroyal has not discovered in review of its files, any documents or other information that would indicate that Uniroyal was ever a member of the American Standards Association (ASA). Plaintiffs attorneys in other asbestos litigation have provided to Uniroyal a document which purports to reflect that United States Rubber Company (Uniroyal) was a member of the ASA from 1945 to 1946. This document was a photocopy and no original document or photocopy has been found the Uniroyal files. Uniroyal has not discovered in review of its files, any documents or other information that would indicate that Uniroyal was ever a member of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation (IHF). Plaintiffs attorneys in other asbestos litigation have 49 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa provided to Uniroyal a document which purports to reflect that United States Rubber Company (Uniroyal) was a member of the IHF in 1959. However, the document also contains lists of IHF membership from 1936 to 1981. Uniroyal is not found on any annual membership list from 1936 to 1981 except for the 1959 list. This document was a photocopy and no original or photocopy has been found in the Uniroyal files. Uniroyal has not discovered in review of its files, any documents or other information that would indicate that Uniroyal was ever a member of the National Safety Council (NSC). Plaintiffs' attorneys in other asbestos litigation have provided to Uniroyal a document which purports to reflect that Uniroyal, or an employee of Uniroyal, was at one time a member of the NSC. This document was a photocopy and no original document or photocopy has been found the Uniroyal files. Based upon information and belief, Uniroyal is unaware of any memberships in the other organizations described. INTERROGATORY NO. 95: Identify any and all persons attending, on behalf of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, any meetings, seminars or symposiums held by the trade organizations, associations, or other entities identified in response to Interrogatory No. 94. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 94. INTERROGATORY NO. 96: Did any officer, employee, agent or representative of Defendant, of any predecessor, or of any related company, serve, at any time, as: (a) an officer, director or official of any trade organization, association or entity identified in response to Interrogatory No. 94? 50 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa (b) a member of any committee or subcommittee of any trade organization, association or entity identified in response to Interrogatory No. 94? (c) the chair of any committee or subcommittee of any trade organization, association or entity identified in response to Interrogatory No. 94? (d) the representative or liaison for any trade organization, association or entity identified in response to Interrogatory No. 94 to any other trade organization, association or entity, including, but not limited to. A.T.I., I.H.F., N.I.M.A., A.I.A., N.I.C.A., T.I.M.A., Q.A.M.A., N.A.C., N.S.C., A.C.S, N.B.M.D.A., N.I.A., S.M.F.M.A.? RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 94. INTERROGATORY NO. 97: For each subpart of Interrogatory No. 96 to which your answer is "Yes," identify each and every person serving in such capacity and: (a) state the trade organization, association or entity for which such service was rendered; (b) specify the capacity of service, including identifying any specific committee, subcommittee or other trade organizations, associations or entities involved; and, (c) state the applicable dates of service. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 94. INTERROGATORY NO. 98: Identify any and all documents which Defendant, its predecessor(s) or any related company submitted to, or received from, the organizations listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 94 and/or 97: (a) which refer to, relate to or reflect the subject of asbestos; (b) which refer to, relate to or reflect a relationship between asbestos exposure and any disease; and/or (c) which refer to, relate to or reflect the placement or providing of warnings with respect to hazardous products. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 94. INTERROGATORY NO. 99: Identify any and all documents including, but not limited to, minutes, bulletins or reports, created by, or on behalf of, any trade 51 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0G /F L B aa organization, association or entity listed in response to Interrogatory No. 94 and/or 97 or any committee, subcommittee or subgroup thereof; (a) which refer to, relate to or reflect the subject ofasbestos; (b) which refer to, relate to or reflect a relationship between asbestos exposure and any disease; or (c) which refer to, relate to or reflect the placement or providing of warnings with respect to hazardous products. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 94. INTERROGATORY NO. 100: Identify any and all documents including, but not limited to, minutes, bulletins or reports, received by, or on behalf of, any trade organization, association or entity listed in response to Interrogatory No. 94 and/or 97 or any committee, subcommittee or subgroup thereof; (a) which refer to, relate to or reflect the subject of asbestos; (b) which refer to, relate to or reflect a relationship between asbestos exposure and any disease; or (c) which refer to, relate to or reflect the placement or providing of warnings with respect to hazardous products. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 94. INTERROGATORY NO. 101: Identify any and all agreements, oral or written, between or among Defendant, any of the other defendants in this lawsuit, any organization, association or other entity including, but not limited to. those identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 94 and/or any medical or scientific foundations, relating to the standardization of: (a) Specifications for asbestos cloth products; (b) Specifications for paper or burlap bags, or other packaging to be used for the transport and/or storage of asbestos cement; (c) Warning or caution labels to be applied to asbestos products and/or 52 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0 G /F L B a a their packaging, cartons, containers, or boxes; (d) Methods of dissemination of public relations information to defendant's purchasers, advertisers, distributors, factory workers, contractors, insulators, users, consumers of asbestos products and/or the general public; (e) Safety equipment and/or protective clothing to be utilized while handling defendant's asbestos products; (f) Medical programs to be offered or sponsored by defendant. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 94. INTERROGATORY NO. 102: Did Defendant, any predecessor or related company, direct to be performed, sponsor in whole or in part, finance in whole or in part, receive the results of, or become aware of, any studies or tests performed by the Saranac Lake Laboratory of the Trudeau Foundation relating to asbestos exposure and its effects upon human health? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Based upon information and belief, such information is presently unknown to Uniroyal, except to the extent that it may be contained in Uniroyal's documents. However, a representative of Uniroyal was in attendance at the 1955 Saranac Conference. According to testimony given by plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Gerritt Schepers, 53 A S B M 0/#1 /lN T E R R 0G /F L B aa all attendees received a copy of a book allegedly containing studies conducted at Saranac Lake. Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 103: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 102 is "Yes": (a) Identify any and all documents received by Defendant, its predecessor(s), or a related company referring to, relating to or reflecting any findings or results of those studies or tests, and state the date upon which each was first received; (b) Identify any and all communications (oral or written), between Defendant, its predecessor(s) or a related company and Saranac personnel, including but not limited to Gerrit W.H. Schepers, M.D.; (c) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the Saranac studies received or submitted by Defendant, its predecessor(s) or a related company either directly, through related or predecessor companies, through other companies, or through any trade associations, organizations or other entities; and (d) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting recommendations or findings of such studies relating to: (1) Adequacy or inadequacy of threshold limit values; (2) Substitution of materials other than asbestos to be used in the insulation process. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 102. INTERROGATORY NO. 104: With respect to each subject listed below, state whether said subject was, at any time, discussed at a meeting of the board of directors of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company: (a) The sale and/or marketing of any asbestos-containing product, including, but not limited to, the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42; (b) The health hazards resulting from exposure to asbestos, including, but not limited to, exposure resulting from the use, application or removal of asbestos-containing products; (c) The placement or possible placement of warning labels on asbestoscontaining products or their packages, or in sales literature, therefore 54 ASBMCWM/lNTERROG/FLBaa including, but not limited to, the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42; and (d) Any test, survey, study or similar matter concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products, including, but not limited to, the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Because Uniroyal is a dissolved corporation and has no employees, such information is presently unknown to Uniroyal, except to the extent that it may be contained in Uniroyal's documents which may be reviewed pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 105: If your answer to any one or more of the subparts of Interrogatory No. 104 is "Yes," then with respect to each subpart for which you answered "Yes": (a) Identify each and every board meeting at which said subject was discussed by stating the date(s) on which, and the location(s) at which, each meeting was held; (b) Identify any and all person present at each such meeting; and, (c) Identify any and all documents, including, but not limited to, minutes, referring to, relating to, or reflecting each such meeting. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 104. INTERROGATORY NO. 106: Identify any and all seminars, symposiums, conferences or like gatherings attended by any officer, agent or representative of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at which the subject of asbestos, the health hazards of asbestos exposure, or the placement or providing of 55 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0G /F L B aa warnings was discussed. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Because Uniroyal is a dissolved corporation and has no employees, such information is presently unknown to Uniroyal, except to the extent that it may be contained in UniroyaPs documents which may be reviewed pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 107: Identify any and all documents, including, but not limited to, notes, reports, minutes or bulletins, which refer to, relate to or reflect any meeting identified in response to Interrogatory No. 106. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 106. INTERROGATORY NO. 108: With respect to each job site set forth below: (i) identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the purchase, sale, delivery, use, application or ordering, of any of the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 by, for, to or at said site; and, (ii) identify any and all persons known by Defendant to have knowledge concerning the same: (a) Anheuser Busch Brewery, St. Louis, MO (b) Monsanto-Carondolet Plant, St. Louis, MO (c) Monsanto-Queeney Plant, St. Louis, MO (d) Monsanto-Krummrich Plant, Sauget, IL (e) Falstaff Brewery, St. Louis, MO (f) General Motors Corp., St. Louis, MO RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects 56 ASBM0/#1/INTERR0G/FLBaa to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Based on information and belief, none. INTERROGATORY NO. 109: Identify any and all companies, located within a 100 mile radius of St. Louis, Missouri, including, but not limited to, distributors, suppliers or contractors, known by you to have purchased, received, sold, distributed, applied or otherwise used, at any time, any or all of the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. INTERROGATORY NO. 110: Other than these cases, has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, every appeared as a defendant in any lawsuit involving a claim or claims based upon allegations of injury, impairment, disease or death caused by exposure to asbestos from asbestos-containing products? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 111: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 110 is "Yes," 57 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0G /F L B aa identify each such lawsuit as follows: (a) Identify the plaintiffs); (b) Identify all other defendants; (c) State when and where the case was filed; (d) Identify each court in which the case was heard or is pending, including appeals, and state the style and cause number of the case in each court; and, (e) State the current status of the case if it remains pending or, if the case has been disposed of, state the final disposition. ` RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 110. INTERROGATORY NO. 112: In any lawsuit, as described in Interrogatory No. 111, has Defendant been subject to sanctions, a contempt citation or similar action for failing, or refusing to comply with, any court order, for discovery fraud, or for the failure to provide complete, accurate and truthful responses to discovery? RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 110. INTERROGATORY NO. 113: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 112 is "Yea," with respect to each such occasion described: (a) Identify the lawsuit involved, the court which imposed the sanctions or issued the contempt citation, and any other court which reviewed the same; (b) Describe the violation for which sanctions or contempt was imposed; (c) If the violation involved the failure or refusal to produce any document(s), identify any and all such documents; (d) If the violation involved any failure to truthfully answer or to respond to interrogatories, identify any and all such interrogatories and your response thereto, including the person answering on your behalf; (e) State the present status or final disposition of the matter, which ever is applicable; and, (f) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said matter, including, but not limited to, pleadings, exhibits and court orders. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 110 and 112. 58 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0G /F L B aa INTERROGATORY NO. 114: Identify any and all expert witnesses who have testified on behalf of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company in any case listed in response to Interrogatory No. 111. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 115: Identify any and all present or former directors, officers, employees or agents of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, who have testified on behalf of or against Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, in any of the lawsuits listed in response to Interrogatory No. 111, other than persons who testified as plaintiffs in their own cases. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 116: Identify any and all present for former directors, 59 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa officers, employees or agents of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, other than persons appearing as adverse parties, who have testified against Defendant, any predecessor or any related company in any proceeding involving the subject of asbestos, including, but not limited to, workers' compensation hearings, or any hearing before any government body. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 117: With respect to your answers to Interrogatory Nos. 114, 115 and 116, identify any and all documents, including, but not limited to, transcripts or notes of testimony, referring to, relating to or reflecting the testimony of such expert witnesses or employees. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Nos. 114, 115 and 116. INTERROGATORY NO. 118: Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, ever been cited, warned, fined, sanctioned or otherwise officially written up for, any violation of a federal, state or local statute, law, rule, ordinance, code, administrative order, executive order, or the like, by any federal, state or local governmental entity, which violation concerned asbestos in any way? 60 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0 G /F L B a a RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 119: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 118 is "Yes," with respect to each such violation: (a) Identify the governmental entity issuing the citation, warning, fine, sanction or write-up; (b) State the date of the citation, warning, fine, sanction or write-up; (c) Describe the violation and state the date(s) during which it occurred; (d) Identify the statute, law, rule, ordinance, code or order to which the violation related; (e) State what, if any, specific fine, penalty, or sanction was imposed; (f) State the date in which and the manner in which said violation was corrected; (g) Identify any and all officials of Defendant, its predecessor or its related company having knowledge or notice of said violation and state the date on which said knowledge or notice was received; and, (h) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said violation. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 118. INTERROGATORY NO. 120: Has any federal, state or local government entity, at any time, conducted any inspection, test or survey concerning asbestos or asbestos exposure at any facility where the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 were manufactured, processed, applied, used or 61 A S B M 0/#1 /IN TE R R 0 G /F LB a a removed? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Documents responsive to this inquiry, if any, may be made available for review pursuant to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 121: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 120 is "Yes," then with respect to each such inspection, test or survey: (a) Identify the governmental entity conducting the same; (b) State the date(s) on which the same was conducted; (c) Describe the nature of the inspection, test or survey including, but not limited to, the results or conclusions thereof; and, (d) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the same. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 120. INTERROGATORY NO. 122: Identify: (a) Any expert whom you intend to call as a witness; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; (d) A summary of the grounds for each opinion; (e) The address of such person and field of expertise; (f) Identify and produce each treatise, article or text upon which the expert will rely in testifying. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects 62 A S B M 0/#1/lN TE R R 0G /F LB aa to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Uniroyal will identify its expert and fact witnesses, and their expected area of testimony, in accordance with the Court's scheduling and case management orders. INTERROGATORY NO. 123: Are there any policies of insurance which provide, or might provide, coverage on behalf of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company for the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs' complaints? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 124: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 123 is 'Yes," identify each such policy of insurance as follows: (a) Identify the insurer(s); (b) Identify the insured(s); (c) State the date on which the policy was first purchased and the date on which the policy expired or was terminated; (d) Describe the coverage provided, including, but not limited to, the time period over which the policy applied, the nature of the acts, omissions and injuries covered, and whether the policy provides primary or excess coverage; and (e) State the dollar limits of the coverage provided, including, if applicable, the "per person" limitations and "per occurrence" limitation. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 123. 63 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa INTERROGATORY NO. 125: With respect to each policy described in response to Interrogatory No. 124, state: (a) the dollar amount of coverage which remains unexpended; and (b) whether any dispute exists between insurer and insured with respect to coverage. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 123. INTERROGATORY NO. 126: Other than the policies of insurance described in response to Interrogatory No. 124, do there exist any agreements providing for the benefit of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, complete or partial indemnification for any or all expenses incurred with respect to any or all of these cases, including, but not limited to, judgments, settlements, costs, experts' fees and/or attorneys' fees? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 127: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 126 is "Yes," for each such agreement: (a) Identify all parties to the agreement and state the capacity of each such party (i.e., indemnitor, indemnitee, etc.); (b) State the terms of the agreement, including the nature of the expenses covered and, if applicable, any limitations on payment, reimbursement or 64 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa indemnification; and (c) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said agreement. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 126. INTERROGATORY NO. 128: Was this Defendant ever allowed to use the trademark or logo of any other company, including but not limited to, its predecessor or related company, on any products Defendant sold, distributed or installed, and if so, please state: (a) The trademark or logo used by you; (b) The company allowing such use of its trademark or logo; (c) The time period such use was allowed; (d) Whether such use was by written, verbal or implied agreement; (e) Each and every product such trademark or logo was placed upon; (f) Identify all documents which refer to, relate to or reflect the use of such trademark or logo. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Uniroyal answers as follows: Based on information and belief, no. INTERROGATORY NO. 129: From 1940 to present, state whether Defendant and/or any predecessor or related company ever provided workers' compensation, health, accident and disability and/or life insurance coverage for its employees, and if so: (a) Identify each insurance carrier which provided workers' compensation, health, accident and disability and/or life insurance coverage to your employees and the dates such coverage was provided by each such carrier; 65 ASBMO/#1/INTERROG/FLBaa (b) State whether such insurance carrier(s) ever conducted any dust counts or studies, industrial hygiene surveys or other tests relating to any asbestos-containing products that Defendant's employees may have been working with or around; and, (c) If your response to subpart (b) hereof is in the affirmative, please indicate the date of each such count, study, survey or other test and identify all documents relating thereto. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 130: State the following on an annual, state-by-state basis (beginning in the first year any asbestos-relating personal injury case was filed against Defendant): (a) the number of asbestos-related personal injury cases filed against Defendant; ; (b) the number of asbestos-related personal injury cases pending against Defendant (as of year's end); and, (c) the number of asbestos-related personal injury cases resolved as to Defendant (during that year) broken down by the number settled, dismissed or disposed of by summary judgment, plaintiff verdicts and defense verdicts. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 66 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa INTERROGATORY NO. 131: With regard to the cases settled by Defendant in each of the above years: (a) State, for each year, the total dollar amount which Defendant agreed to pay in settlement; and, (b) State, for each year, the total dollar amount actually paid by or on behalf of Defendant in settlement. RESPONSE: In addition to th foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 132: With regard to all plaintiff verdicts against Defendant in each of the above years: - (a) State, for each year, the total amount of such verdicts, with compensatory and punitive damages stated separately; and, (b) State, for each year, the total dollar amount actually paid by or on behalf of Defendant pursuant to judgments, with compensatory and punitive damages separately stated. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 67 ASBM0/#1/INTERR0G/FLBaa INTERROGATORY NO. 133: With respect to each of the above years, state the total dollar amounts paid by or on behalf of Defendant for each of the following items: (a) cost of defense with respect to asbestos-related personal injury cases; and, (b) any and all internal administrative expenses associated with the asbestos-related personal injury cases. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 134: If the source of funds for the payment of all orT just part of any item for any year as set forth in responses to Interrogatory Nos. 131 133 was a person or entity other than Defendant itself, identify each and every such item and for each: (a) Identify the person(s) and/or entity(ies) indemnifying, reimbursing, or paying on behalf of, Defendant; (b) State the dollar amount of the payment by such person(s) and/or entity(ies); and, (c) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said payment including, but not limited to, any and all agreements under which such person(s) and/or entity(ies) assumed the obligation for said payment. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects 68 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0G /F L B aa to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 135: State the total number of asbestos-related personal injury cases pending against Defendant as of this date. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 136: State the total dollar amount of unpaid judgments in asbestos-related personal injury cases pending against Defendant as of this date, with compensatory and punitive damages separately stated. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear 69 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0 G /F L B a a reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 137: State the total amounts, to date, paid by or on behalf of Defendant for each of the following, with respect to asbestos-related personal injury cases: (a) punitive damages judgments; (b) compensatory damages judgments; (c) settlements; (d) cost of defense; and, (e) internal administrative costs. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 138: Has any officer, director, employee or agent of Defendant, at any time, made or issued a statement regarding the effect of asbestosrelated personal injury claims upon the business, cash flow, value or net worth of Defendant? If so: (a) Identify each and every such statement by the maker, the date made and the forum in which the statement was presented; and, (b) Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting each such statement. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as 70 A S B M 0/#1/IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 139: Has the corporation issued any stock or other securities? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 140: If so, state: (a) The date of such issuance; (b) The classes and series of stock and other securities; (c) The stated value and total paid in capital for each such class and series. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 139. INTERROGATORY NO. 141: Does the Defendant corporation own any of its own issued stock as "treasury" stock? If so, describe the nature of and the consideration paid for the corporation's acquisition of its own stock. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as 71 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0 G /F L B a a well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 142: Does any person or entity hold any options to acquire stock of the Defendant corporation from the corporation's "treasury" stock? If so, please describe the nature and details of any such options. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 143: During the period 1985 to 1995, inclusive, for each year, state: (a) The name of each member of the board of directors of the Defendant corporation; (b) The name and position of each officer of the Defendant corporation; (c) The salary, wages or bonuses received, and the nature of any non monetary remuneration and the monetary value thereof, for each year of service, for each of such persons. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil 72 A S B M 0/#1/lN TE R R 0G /F LB aa RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 146: Has anything been given to any stockholder, member of the board of directors, or officer of the corporation, or members of their families, other than by way of salary, wages or bonuses, such as, without limitation, retirement or pension benefits, insurance benefits, corporate automobiles or expense accounts, loans or gifts? If so, provide any and all details, such as, without limitation, the name of the person receiving the same, the date, what was given, the approximate value and whether the Defendant corporation received any consideration for that which was given. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 74 ASBM0/#1/INTERR0G/FLBaa INTERROGATORY NO. 147: Does the Defendant corporation own and/or maintain any life insurance policies on any of its stockholders, directors, officers or any other party? If so, for each such policy, please state the name of the insurance company, the policy number, the beneficiary, the anticipated death benefit, the current cash surrender value, and any other pertinent information. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 148: Did the Defendant corporation, during the period 1985 to 1995, inclusive, prepare or cause to be prepared a balance sheet, profit and loss statement, financial statement or similar document? If so, identify any and all such documents. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear 75 A S B M 0/*1/IN T E R R 0G /F L B a a reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 149: For the statements identified in response to Interrogatory No. 148, did the Defendant corporation employ the services of a Certified Public Accountant? If so, state the name and address of each C.P.A. employed, the period(s) for which they were employed, and a description of all services performed by each C.P.A., including without limitation the preparation of any certified financial statements. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 148. INTERROGATORY NO. 150: During the period 1985 to 1995, has the Defendant corporation created any funds for surplus capital, depreciation, depletion, contingencies, or any other fund? If so, identify each fund by name, the date on which it was created, and the current amount in said fund. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 151: Has the Defendant corporation prepared any 76 ASBM0/#1/INTERR0G/FLBaa business plans or financial projections related to future operations of the corporation? If so, please state what statements were prepared, by whom the statements were prepared, to whom the statements were distributed or presented, and for what purpose(s) were the statements prepared and/or distributed? RESPONSE: In additiop to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 152: Do the financial statements for the Defendant corporation for the period 1985 to 1995 accurately reflect the operating performance of the corporation in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also 77 A S B M 0/*1/lN T E R R 0G /FLB aa Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 153: Do any of the financial statements referred to above contain any extraordinary and/or non-recurring items of income and/or expense? If so, please list each and every such item, a description of its source or cause, an explanation of how it arose and why it is a non-recurring item, its dollar amount, and its effect on the financial statement on which it is presented. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 154: For each source of cash or cash equivalents not reflected in the Defendant corporation's Profit and Loss Statements for the period 1985 to 1995, please state the source, nature, amounts, and any further relevant details regarding said sources. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised 78 A S B M 0/#1 /IN TE R R 0G /F LB aa by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 155: For each use of cash or cash equivalents not reflected in the Defendant corporation's Profit and Loss Statements for the period 1985 to 1995, please state the description, nature, amounts, and any further relevant details regarding said use. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 156: For each source or use of funds of the Defendant corporation related to loans or repayment of loans, please provide all details on any such loans which were with related parties or on non-market rate terms. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil 79 ASBM0/#1/INTERR0G/FLBaa Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 157: To the extent not previously disclosed in these interrogatories, please detail any and all transactions between the Defendant corporation and any related company. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 158: Do the balance sheets, financial statements, and/or other similar statements for the Defendant corporation for the period 1985 to 1995 accurately reflect the assets, liabilities and net worth of the Defendant corporation in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as 80 A S B M 0/#1 /IN TE R R 0 G /F LB a a well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. ,, INTERROGATORY NO. 159: Did the Defendant corporation for the period 1985 to 1995, inclusive, prepare or cause to be prepared, any adjusted financial statements or balance sheets which reflect assets and liabilities at their Current Fair Market Value as opposed to their basis for book and/or tax purposes? RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 160: Do any of the Defendant corporation's assets or liabilities have a fair market value different than the value reflected on the corporation's balance sheet, financial statements, or other similar documents? If so, please identify all said assets and/or liabilities, their current fair market value, and the means or methodology of determining said market value. 81 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0G /F L B aa RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 161: Does the Defendant corporation own or have the right to any patents, copyrights, intangible assets, or other assets which are not reflected on the balance sheets or financial statements referenced herein? If so, please describe details regarding said assets, their value, and how said value was determined. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 162: Does the Defendant corporation own or have the right to any other property which is currently being held by another person or entity? 82 A S B M 0/#1 /!N T E R R 0G /F L B aa If so, please provide details for each and every such asset. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 163: Has the Defendant corporation during the period 1985 to 1995, inclusive, transferred or received any property or asset for less than full market value? If so, please provide details for each and every such transaction. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 164: Is the Defendant corporation involved in any pending litigation, either as plaintiff or defendant, or is the Defendant corporation aware of any other contingent assets or liabilities not previously disclosed herein, 83 A S B M 0/#1 /IN T E R R 0G /F L B aa which would affect the Defendant corporation's profit and loss, financial statements, balance sheet, or net worth? If so, please provide details for each and every such item. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 165: Did the Defendant corporation, during the period 1985 to 1995, inclusive, ever declare and/or pay cash or stock dividends? If so, please state the date and the amount of each dividend declared and/or paid. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 166: Does the Defendant corporation owe to any 84 A S B M 0/*1/IN T E R R O G /F L B aa person any cumulative dividends which have not been declared and paid? If so, please provide detailed information concerning same. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of. Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO, 167: Has the Defendant corporation determined its net worth, value, or fair market value? If so, please state: (a) What did the Defendant corporation determine to be the net worth, value or fair market value; (b) What factors and evidence were considered in making this determination; (c) How were said factors and evidence evaluated in making this determination; (d) What calculations were performed in making this determination; (e) Has the valuation of any asset, or group of assets, been discounted, and if so, what was the reason for the discount and the method used to determine the discount; and, (f) How the intangible assets of the Corporation were valued. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as . well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised 85 ASBM0/#1/INTERR0G/FLBaa by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 168: Has the Defendant corporation made any representation or statement of the value or net worth of the corporation or any group of its assets to any outside entity or person? If so, please state: (a) To whom such representation was made? (b) The purpose of making such representation. (c) If the statement or representation was different than one of the values solicited in Interrogatory No. 167, please provide all information requested in Interrogatory No. 167 with regard to this representation or statement. RESPONSE: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Uniroyal objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as well as beyond the scope of discovery permissible under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure in that it does not seek discovery of a matter relevant to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of any party and the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 3. 86 Respectfully submitted, GALLOP, JOHNSON & NEUMAN, L.C. Kurtis B. Reeg #276, John T. Walsh #33 101 S. Hanley, Suite St. Louis, MO 63105 (314) 862-1200 F. Lee Bowie, III FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS & KRUTZ 1200 One Jackson Place 188 East Capitol Street P.O. Box 22608 Jackson, MS 39255-2608 Attorneys for Defendant, Uniroyal, Inc. VERIFICATION STATE OF CONNECTICUT COUNTY OF NEW HAVEN Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority in and for the above county and state, the within named Donald W. Ware who, first being duly sworn, stated under oath that he is Assistant Controller of Uniroyal, Inc.; that he is authorized to execute this verification on behalf of Uniroyal, Inc.; that the factual information in the above answers to interrogatories is based on information provided to him by others; and that the factual information in the above answers to interrogatories is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. DONALD A. WARE Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the / g j A day of c}7 \a .A -c J \ 1996. My Commission Expires: r 2+12/7