Document X75gD3Jg736J1YLm6kmry7ged

PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT rc IL029.ASB 02/28/89 STATE OF ILLINOIS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF MC LEAN CAROL ANN COOKE and JUDITH ANN O'NEAL, Special CoAdministrators for the Estate of Ben Smith, deceased and CAROL ANN COOKE, Individually, -Plaintiffs, vs. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 88 L 52 DEFENDANT, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT. OWFNS-TT.T.TWnTS tmf. PPgT.TMTNARY STAr Some of the events which may be relevant to the matters inquired about by Plaintiffs' Interrogatories apparently occurred more than thirty-five years ago. In addition, effective April 30, 1958, Owens-Illinois, Inc. disposed of the business involved in this action by way of sale of that business to Owens-Coming Fiberglam Corporation. Since that time, Owens-Illinois, Inc. has not engaged in any such business. It does not now and it has not since that sale manufactured, distributed or sold any asbestoscontaining products. As a result of the foregoing factors, many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which plaintiffs' interrogatories relate are deceased, or are otherwise unavailable to Owens-Illinois, Inc., and 1 l t ; 1989 (c investigations to date indicate that at least some documents which relate to matters inquired about by these interrogatories may have been transferred to Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation with the transfer of the business in question in 1958. OwensIllinois, Inc. is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate, confirm the transfer of, or confirm the absence of, such documents and is also engaged in a continuing investigation into the matters inquired about in these interrogatories. Unless otherwise stated in an answer to a specific interrogatory, the answers set out hereinafter are limited to the period during which Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactured asbestos-containing insulation products and to the facilities related to that business. The following is a part of and is incorporated by reference in every answer provided hereinafter: This answer is accurate as of the date made. However, Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s investigation is continuing, and Owens-Illinois, Inc. cannot exclude the possibility that it may be able to obtain more complete information or even information which indicates that the answer being supplied is incorrect. OwensIllinois, Inc. objects to answering this interrogatory in regard to any period of time other than the period during which it engaged in the business involved in this case which ended in mid-1958 or concerning any facility not related to that business, on the basis that any such answer would be irrelevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and would be burdensome and oppressive. Q. 1. Have these interrogatories been answered fully and in good faith to the extent of the actual knowledge and 2 rc information available to defendant, Owens-Illinois, Inc., its insurance carrier(s) and attorneys? A. 1. This defendant states that it has referred to the relevant business records of the Owens-Illinois Glass Company, which are still in the possession of Owens-Illinois, Inc., in connection with the preparation of answers to these interrogatories unless otherwise indicated. Q. corporation? 2. Is the defendant, Owens-Illinois, Inc., a If so, state: (a) The exact corporate name; (b) The state of incorporation; (c) The date of incorporation. A. 2. Yes. Owens-Illinois Glass Company was incorporated in the State of Ohio in 1929. Owens-Illinois Glass Company changed its name to Owens-Illinois, Inc. on April 28, 1965. Due to corporate restructuring in 1987, this defendant is now a Delaware corporation. The address of the principal place of business is One SeaGate, Toledo, Ohio 43666. Q. 3. State the name, current address, employer, and position with employer, of all individuals, other than members of the law firm representing defendant in this action, who assisted in the gathering of information or preparation of the answers to these interrogatories. A. 3. Arthur H. Smith, Assistant Secretary of Owens-Illinois, Inc., One SeaGate, Toledo, Ohio 43666. Q. 4. Has anyone obtained from any person a statement (whether oral or written, signed or unsigned) concerning the occurrence involved in this cause of action? so, state as to each statement: 3 If c( (a) The name and last known address of the persqn making the statement; (b) When, where and by whom the statement was taken; (c) Is there any tangible preservation of the statement, such as a document signed by the person making the statement, a tape-recording, a transcript or a memorandum purporting to reflect what was said? (d) If your answer to (c) is affirmative, state the name and address of the person having possession of the tangible preservation of the statement. A. 4. This defendant nor its local counsel is in possession of materials referred to in this interrogatory. This defendant reserves the right to supplement its response at any time in the future. Q. 5. Has any private firm or company adjuster been directed to investigate the occurrence or ask questions of persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the occurrence? If so, state the full name and address of each firm or adjuster. A. 5. This defendant nor its local counsel is in possession of materials referred to in this interrogatory. This defendant reserves the right to supplement its response at any time in the future. Q. 6. Do you have any information regarding Ben Smith's physical condition prior to his death other than that information furnished you by the plaintiffs' counsel? If so, state the nature of that information, the name and address of its source, and if documentary in nature, who now has each. 4 cc A. 6. This defendant nor its local counsel is in possession of materials referred to in this interrogatory. This defendant reserves the right to supplement its response at any time in the future. Q. 7. Do you have any information regarding Carol Cooke's physical condition other than that information furnished you by plaintiffs' counsel? If so, state the nature of that information, the name and address of its source, and if documentary in nature, who now has each. A. 7. This defendant nor its local counsel is in possession of materials referred to in this interrogatory. This defendant reserves the right to supplement its response at any time in the future. Q. 8. Were any photos taken of Ben Smith? If so, state the total number of photos, the date of each photo, each subject, and who has each. A. 8. This defendant nor its local counsel is in possession of materials referred to in this interrogatory. This defendant reserves the right to supplement its response at any time in the future. Q. 9. Were any photos taken of Carol Cooke? If so, state the total number of photos, the date of each photo, each subject, and who has each. A. 9. This defendant nor its local counsel is in possession of materials referred to in this interrogatory. This defendant reserves the right to supplement its response at any time in the future. 5 (( Q. 10. Were you named or covered under any policy of liability insurance, effective on the date of the occurrence, which may be construed to provide coverage for any claim stated in the Complaint? If so, as to each policy, state: (a) Thename of the company; (b) The policy number; (c) The effective period; (d) The maximum liability limits for: (1) Injury to any one person; (2) Aggregate personal injury limits; (e) What amounts, if any, have previously been paid under the policy which in the opinion of the carrier reduces the coverage available. (f) Whether the carrier denied coverage or tendered a defense under a reservation of rights; (g) Whether the policy provides for any retained risk, or deductible amount for which defendant remains responsible, and, if so, state the amount for injury to one person, and the aggregate personal injury amount. A. 10. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks irrelevant and immaterial information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Expressly reserving and without waiving its objections, and subject to them, this defendant states that the issues surrounding its insurance coverage for asbestos claims are complex. Because of disputes over possible insurance coverage, this defendant has engaged in litigation against certain insurance carriers which may provide coverage for asbestos claims. One such lawsuit resulted in a decision of the United States District Court of the District of Columbia in OwensIllinois. Inc, v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. 597 F.Supp. 1515 (D.D.C. 1984). 6 (( The litigation between this defendant and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. has been settled. The terms and conditions of the settlement agreement are confidential, and as a consequence, the parties are precluded from disclosing the terms or contents of the agreement. Litigation with other insurance carriers is ongoing. Q. 11. Which, if any, of the carriers listed in your answer to the preceding interrogatory are providing a defense to this suit? A. 11. Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 10. Q. 12. Identify those expert witnesses (as defined in Supreme Court Rule 220(a)(1)) from whom you may offer opinion testimony at trial, and for each such expert, state: (a) His name, current address, telephone number, occupation, and employer; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) His conclusions and opinions and the bases therefore; (d) His qualifications, including all formal education subsequent to high school, a history of his employment and the citation to each of his published writings; (e) The amount paid, or agreed to be paid to him, specifying his hourly rate of compensation; (f) Whether such expert has testified, either at deposition or at trial, and if yes, state for each case: (1) The first-named plaintiff and first-named defendant; (2) The court in which filed and the cause number; 7 r( testimony was given; reporter; of the testimony. (3) The date and place the (4) The name and address of the (5) Whether you have a transcript A. 12. The identity of expert witnesses to be called at trial is not known at the present time. This defendant reserves the right to designate at a later date expert witnesses to be used at trial. Q. 13. Has defendant ever had one or more persons whose primary responsibility included looking after or monitoring the health of defendant's employees, such as a medical director? If so, state the following as to each person who has held this position: (a) The name and address of the person; (b) The name of the position he or she held; (c) The dates during which he or she held the position; (d) The address of his or her office during the time he or she held the position; (e) State whether there was a written job description for that position at that time; (f) If there was a written job description, set forth the words of the description or attach a copy hereto. A. 13. Charles Shook, M.D., deceased, employed from March 25, 1946 until June 30, 1960 was the Medical Director during the period in which this defendant manufactured, sold or distributed asbestos-containing products. 8 (( This defendant's chief medical officer is responsible for assuring and promoting preventive and corrective medical programs, services and practices to protect and preserve employee health and productivity throughout Owens-Illinois, Inc. The individual in this position develops, organizes, introduces and implements pre-employment and periodic examinations as well as new health programs in order to insure the continued well being of defendant's employees in a safe and healthy environment. The person in this position is also responsible for the quality of medical services at Owens-Illinois locations. This defendant's medical director was located in Toledo, Ohio. However, this defendant believes that his duties would have included a regular inspection of all this defendant's facilities. Q. 14. Has defendant ever directed or contributed money toward a study of the effects of asbestos exposure upon the health of some or all of its employees? If so, state the following as to each such study: (a) The description or title of the study? (b) The dates during which it was made; (c) The location or locations of the plants at which the employees were employed? (d) The number of employees studied; (e) Brief description of the study; (f) Whether any of the results were reported into written form, and if so, who now has a copy of the report. A. 14. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958 and does not have any records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer this interrogatory. During May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at 9 rr Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information relating to the substance of this interrogatory. This defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie.' However, these copies constitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this defendant has not copied. They are available through Winne, Banta, Rizzi, Hetherington & Basralian, 25 E. Salem Street, Hackensack, New Jersey. This defendant also has reason to believe that plaintiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. Other documents possibly relating to this interrogatory may have been produced by OwensCorning Fiberglas Corporation in the asbestos litigation. Those documents found at Saranac Lake and at OwensComing Fiberglas Corporation and elsewhere, indicate that during the period of time when Owens-Illinois was in the business of manufacturing asbestos-containing products, the state of government, industrial hygiene and medical community knowledge was that there was a recognized safe exposure level for asbestos dust and that persons installing insulation were not exposed to excessive or hazardous levels of asbestos dust. The foregoing documents also indicate that Kaylo plant employees were x-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disease; that this defendant made appropriate efforts to provide ventilation and to control the emissions of all dust omitted during the manufacturing process within recognized safe levels of exposure, including the use of respirators in some instances, dust collection equipment and other devices as necessary; and that therefore during the period in which this defendant was in the business of manufacturing Kaylo it had no reason to believe that the foreseeable use of Kaylo would create a hazard to users. 10 f( The documents produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation indicate that the September, 1955 publication in the A.M.A. Archives of Industrial Health was a publication of inhalation experiments. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks the production of documents, such documents, as outlined in this response, have not been found as part of this defendant's records and, to the extent that this defendant is in possession of copies of documents, it possesses copies only of documents collected in preparation for litigation. This defendant objects to producing the same. The documents are available from their proper source. Q. 15. Have there been any studies of the effect of asbestos exposure upon the health of any of defendant's employees? If so, state: (a) The description or title of the study; (b) The dates during which it was made; (c) The location or locations of the plants at which the employees were employed; (d) The number of employees studied; (e) Brief description of the study; (f) Whether any of the results were reported into written form, and if so, who now has a copy of the report. A. 15. This defendant incorporates as its response the answer to Interrogatory No. 14. Q. 31. List the following information for each claim brought against defendant by a present or former contract-unit employee of defendant or the spouse or child of a deceased such employee alleging a disease or condition of ill-being caused by asbestos: (a) The name and address of the person alleged to be diseased or in a condition of ill-being; 11 (( (b) When the alleged disease or condition of ill-being began; (c) The circumstances' under which the employee is alleged to have come into contact with asbestos; (d) Whether the person is represented by an attorney, and if so, the name and address of his attorney; (e) The agency where the claim was filed, the docket number of the claim and the date the claim was filed. A. 31. This defendant has not engaged in sufficient discovery to enable it to answer this interrogatory. This defendant reserves the right to assert any allegations related to the subject matter of this interrogatory at any time in the future. Q. 17. List the following information for each claim, not identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, brought against defendant by a present or former employee of plaintiff or the spouse or child of a deceased employee alleging a disease or condition of ill-being caused by asbestos: (a) The name and address of the person alleged to be diseased or in a condition of ill-being; (b) . When the alleged disease or condition of ill-being began; (c) The circumstances under which the employee is alleged to have come into contact with asbestos; (d) Whether the person is represented by an attorney, and if so, the name and address of his attorney; (e) The agency where the claim was filed, the docket number of the claim and the date the claim was filed. A. 17. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the 12 (( discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. Q. 18. List the following information for each claim or report, not identified in your answer to the two preceding interrogatories, alleging a disease or condition of ill-being caused by asbestos or an asbestos-containing product sold by defendant: (a) The name and address of the person alleged to be diseased or in a condition of ill-being; (b) When the alleged disease or condition of ill-being began; (c) The circumstances under which the person is alleged to have come into contact with asbestos sold by you; (d) Whether the person is represented by an attorney, and if so, the name and address of his attorney; (e) Whether the claim has resulted in a lawsuit against you, and if so, the court where suit was filed, the docket number of the suit, and the date the suit was filed. A. 18. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. Q. 19. List the following information regarding each document (as defined in Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(1)) authorized by an employee of defendant in the course of his employment, dealing in whole or in part with the consequences of exposure to asbestos: (a) Name, title or other means of identification of the document; 13 r( (b) Name, position at time document authored, and current address, position and employer of each author of the document; (c) Date prepared or published; (d) The name and address of the entity responsible for its publication and/or distribution; (e) If available in typewritten or printed form, the number of pages. A. 19. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. Q. 20. When did defendant first sell asbestos or products containing asbestos? A. 20. Owens-Illinois Glass Company began limited pilot plant operations involving the production of "Kaylo" asbestos-containing products in 1943. It began the manufacture of commercial quantities of "Kaylo" asbestos-containing products in about 1948 and continued such manufacture until about April 30, 1958. Q. 21. Does defendant still sell asbestos or products containing asbestos? If not, when did defendant stop selling? A. 21. No. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. It does not now, and it has not since that time, manufactured, sold or distributed any asbestos-containing products. 14 (( Q. 22. List the following information about each different type (as opposed to different sizes of the same type) of asbestos containing building and/or insulation product manufactured or sold by defendant: (a) Brand or trade name; (b) Description; (c) Uses defendant recommended of it; (d) Asbestos content; (e) Dates of manufactureand/or sale. A. 22. (a) Kaylo and Kaylo-20. (b) The asbestos-containing products manufactured by this defendant were intended to be used for industrial high temperature thermal insulation such as pipe covering and block insulation, and to increase fireproofing and fire protection and for insulation through use as a roof deck or fireproof material or door core material. (c) The asbestos-containing products manufactured by this defendant were intended to be used for industrial high temperature thermal insulation such as pipe covering and block insulation, and to increase fireproofing and fire protection and for insulation through use as a roof deck or fireproof material or door core material. (d) This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products in 1958. Its investigation as to the composition of each such product, including the type of asbestos contained therein (i.e., amosite or chrysotile) and the quantitative percentage of asbestos, is continuing, although this defendant now believes that this defendant's commercially produced asbestos-containing products were hydrous calcium silicates containing between 13% and approximately 20% asbestos. Chrysotile asbestos was the primary type apparently used. Amosite was used to a lesser extent. 15 c( (e) Owens-Illinois Glass Company began limited pilot plant operations involving the production of "Kaylo" asbestos-containing products in 1943^ It began the manufacture of commercial quantities of "Kaylo" asbestoscontaining products in about 1948 and continued such manufacture until about April 30, 1958. Q. 23. Has defendant, at any time since it began selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products, issued a warning concerning the consequences of exposure to asbestos, which warning was intended by defendant to reach those persons who would breath or ingest asbestos or asbestos-containing products during their distribution and/or use? If so, state as to each such warning: (a) The language of the warning; (b) Date first issued or distributed; (c) Date last issued or distributed; (d) The method of communication or distribution used; (e) The name, position at that time, and current address, position and employer of each person ordering or recommending the warning. A. 23. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. However, it does not appear that any warning concerning asbestos was given in that it does not appear that this defendant had reason to believe that the use of its products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm. Q. 24. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the following as to the first 16 V( information defendant received that exposure to asbestos caused disease: (a) The form in which it was received, e.g., orally, in writing; (b) If orally, the name and address of the person from whom received; (c) If the information was received in written form, give the author, title of the document, and date of the document; (d) The name and address of the employee or employees who received the information; (e) Briefly describe the information. A. 24. Not applicable. Interrogatory No. 23. Refer to answer to Q. 25. If your answer to the second preceding interrogatory was affirmative, list the name and address of each employee who was responsible to investigate whether: (a) The warnings were reaching the persons who were breathing and/or ingesting the asbestos from the asbestos-containing products; (b) The warnings were being read by the persons who were breathing and/or ingesting the asbestos from the asbestos-containing products; (c) The warnings were being understood by the persons who were breathing and/or ingesting the asbestos from the asbestos-containing products; (d) The warnings were being heeded by the persons who were breathing and/or ingesting the asbestos from the asbestos-containing products. A. 25. Not applicable. Interrogatory No. 24. Refer to answer to 17 (( Q. 26. List the following information regarding each instance where an employee of defendant testified (at deposition or trial) in asbestos disease litigation: (a) Name of employee; (b) Date and place testimony was given; (c) First named plaintiff and defendant, case number and court in which pending; (d) Name and address or reporter; (e) Whether you have a transcript of the testimony. A. 26. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant is aware that the following present or former employees have testified at trial or by deposition in asbestos-related litigation: Edward C. Ames Robert Grim Richard L. Grimmie David Innis William Justice John Pershing John Rhoads June Welser Everett Shuman Willis G. Hazard Richard R. Beck 10/8/79, 1/10/80, 2/12/81, 3/26/81 iand 10/7/81. 9/6 & 7/84 (trial), 10/11/84 (trial), and 7/1/87 (trial) 7/10/79, 10/24/79 (trial) and 10/29/79 (trial). 9/27/83. 7/11/79 and 5/3/82. 7/26/79. 7/11/79. 7/11/79. 4/26/79, 6/12/79, 7/15/80, 8/19/80, and 3/4/81. 2/11/81, 3/27/81, 12/14/81 , 1/27/82. 4/1/81. 18 ( Samuel F. Schillaci George N. Bates, M.D. Thomas A. Meehan, Esq. 4/7/81, 7/31/81 (trial), 11/9/81 (trial), 11/17/81, 4/26-27/82, 6/4/84, 8/28/84, 9/6/84, 11/14/84, 2/5/85, 3/4/85 '(trial), 4/30/85, 12/19/85 (trial), 10/8/86, 4/10/87 (trial), 6/25/87 (trial), 11/4/87 (trial), 1/20/88 (trial), 10/15/88 (trial), 11/22/88 (trial), 11/29/88 (trial), 12/8/88 (trial), and 12/15/88 (trial). 4/6/81. 8/3/81 (trial), 11/9/81 (trial), 12/15/83, 1/16/84, 8/28/84, 6/4/84, and 11/13/84. Effective April 30, 1958, this defendant sold its asbestos-containing product manufacturing division to OwensCorning Fiberglas corporation. At that time certain employees who worked in the division, some of whom are mentioned above, transferred to Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation. These individuals have been deposed with regard to asbestos-related litigation involving Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation. This defendant objects to the production of copies of the transcripts of these depositions on the basis that said transcripts are filed with various courts around the country, they are therefore matters of public record, and therefore plaintiffs have equal access to such documents. Defendant reserves the right to advance additional arguments against the production of such documents if and when plaintiffs file a request for production. Q. 27. List the following information regarding each instance where an individual whom you had listed, retained or called as an expert witness testified (at deposition or trial) in asbestos disease litigation: (a) Name of employee; (b) Date and place of testimony was given; 19 (( (c) First named plaintiff and defendant, case number and court in which pending; (d) Name and address bf reporter; (e) Whether you have a transcript of the testimony. A. 27. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad and seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Q. 28. List the name and address of all international unions and local unions which have represented employees of defendant while the employees were using asbestoscontaining products or were being exposed to asbestos, and indicate the address of the plant or group of employees represented and the date of such representation. A. 28. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 29. Did any of the unions listed in your answer to the previous interrogatory ever instruct, advise or caution your employees on the safe handling of asbestos or precautions to 20 (( be taken when working in airborne asbestos? If so, please state for each instruction, advice or warning: (a) The name and address of the union and person instructing, advising or warning your employees; (b) The method and content of the instruction, advice or warning; (c) The dates of the instruction, advice or warning; (d) Whether the union ever promulgated, recommended or bargained for any regulations, standards or guidelines concerning the safe handling of asbestos or precautions to be taken when working in airborne asbestos. A. 29. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 30. State the following as to the first information defendant or its corporate predecessor(s), received that exposure to asbestos caused disease. (a) The form in which it was received, e.g., orally, in writing; (b) The name and address of the employee or employees who received the information; (c) Briefly describe the information; (d) If the information was received in written form, give the author and the title of the document; (e) The date the information was received. A. 30. To the extent this interrogatory inquires as to asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by other defendants, this defendant states that it does not have any records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer 21 ( this interrogatory, nor can it locate any present employees with knowledge thereof. Insofar as this interrogatory inquires as to asbestoscontaining products manufactured by this defendant, this defendant states that it ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products effective April 30, 1958 and has not engaged in any such business since. During May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information relating to the substance of this interrogatory. This defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies constitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this defendant has not copied. This defendant also has reason to believe that plaintiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. They are available through Winne, Banta, Rizzi, Hetherington & Basralian, 25 E. Salem Street, Hackensack, New Jersey. Other documents possibly relating to this interrogatory may have been produced by OwensComing Fiberglas Corporation. Those documents indicate that experiments referred to in the documents produced by Mr. Logie were published in an AMA publication in September, 1955. As with the documents produced by Mr. Logie, the documents produced by Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation have not been found as part of this defendant's records. The foregoing documents indicate that during the time in which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products, its products contained a relatively small proportion of asbestos when compared 22 (( to other asbestos-containing products in use during and prior to the same period of time. It appears that this defendant's employees at its asbestos product manufacturing plants were xrayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disease, although in the course of their employment they were exposed to the raw materials of this defendant's products as well as the dust of the finished product. Furthermore, these documents indicate that there were no worker's compensation claims filed by its employees for asbestos-related diseases. It was this defendant's understanding of the state of medical and industrial hygiene knowledge that exposure to asbestos in excessive amounts over a prolonged period of time (years), in the conditions typically experienced in factories, workshops, and possibly mines and mills could lead to the potential hazard of contracting a disease known as asbestosis. However, the state of medical and industrial hygiene knowledge was also to the effect that there was a safe level (threshold limit value) of asbestos to which a person could be exposed without risk of injury. This defendant was aware of the threshold limit value for asbestos as published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in the 1940's and 1950's through publications by the Industrial Hygiene Foundation, ACGIH and from the above referenced "Logie" and "OCF" documents. In addition, it appears that an employee of this defendant subscribed to and received the Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology which contained in January, 1946 an article published by the Navy entitled, "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels," by Fleischer, viles, Gade and Drinker. This article stated that persons who worked as insulators in shipyards were not exposed and did not work in conditions similar to those experienced in factories, workshops, mines and mills, and were not exposed to levels of asbestos above the recognized safe limits. Therefore, the 23 (( article concluded that such persons were not engaged in a hazardous occupation. From the foregoing papers, reports and articles, this defendant had no reason to believe that exposure to its asbestoscontaining products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm to users. This defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery and the case warrant. This defendant has reason to believe that plaintiff's' counsel is in possession of a substantial library of asbestos-related literature containing articles that defendant may wish to rely upon. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks the production of documents, such documents, as outlined in this response, have not been found as part of this defendant's records and, to the extent that this defendant is in possession of copies of documents, it possesses copies only of documents collected in preparation for litigation. This defendant objects to producing the same. The documents are available from their proper source. Q. 31. Does defendant have information that Ben Smith was told anything about the relationship between asbestos exposure and health? If so, state the following: (a) When he was told; (b) Where he was told; (c) By whom he was told; (d) Who was present at the time; (e) What was said. A. 31. This defendant nor its local counsel is in possession of materials referred to in this interrogatory. This defendant reserves the right to supplement its response at any time in the future. Q. 32. Does defendant have information that Carol 24 c( Cooke was told anything about the relationship between asbestos exposure and health? If so, state the following: (a) When she was toldr (b) Where she was told; (c) By whom she was told; (d) Who was present at the time; (e) What was said. A. 32. This defendant nor its local counsel is in possession of materials referred to in this interrogatory. This defendant reserves the right to supplement its response at any time in the future. Q. 33. Did defendant ever suggest or recommend that persons using or exposed to the dust from defendant's asbestoscontaining products might or should use any device to reduce exposure to, or inhalation of, asbestos dust or fibers? If so, please state for each and every such suggestion or recommendation: (a) Date, time and place when each such suggestion or recommendation was made; (b) Identify each person present when such suggestion or recommendation was made to or received by plaintiff; (c) Identify each person receiving same or similar suggestion or recommendation; (d) Exact wording and content of such suggestion or recommendation; (e) Whether such suggestions or recommendation was written or oral, and (1) If written, please identify in detail each such writing; (2) If oral, identify all persons involved and details as to the manner in which each such suggestion or recommendation was presented; 25 (( (f) Type, make and model of each device referred to in each such suggestion or recommendation. (Source: GAF's Int. 58 in Reed. 83 L 68.) A. 33. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 34. Did defendant ever suggest or recommend that persons using or exposed to the dust from defendant's asbestos- containing products might or should take any special precautions due to the presence of asbestos dust or fibers on their clothes or their persons to reduce exposure to, or inhalation of, asbestos dust or fibers by members of their households? If so, please state for each and every such suggestion or recommendation: (a) Date, time and place when each such suggestion or recommendation was made; (b) Identify each person present when such suggestion or recommendation was made to or received by plaintiff; (c) Identify each person receiving same or similar suggestion or recommendation; (d) Exact wording and content of such suggestion or recommendation; (e) Whether such suggestions or recommendation was written or oral, and (1) If written, please identify in detail each such writing; (2) If oral, identify all persons involved and details as to the manner in which each such suggestion or recommendation was presented. 26 I( A. 34. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 35. List the name and present address of all persons who have been a director in defendant from 1950 to the present and list the dates during which the person was a director. A. 35. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad and seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Q. 36. List the name and current address of each person who has held any of the following offices in defendant from 1950 to the present and also list the office held and the inclusive date during which the office was held: President; Vice-President; Secretary; and Treasurer. A. 36. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad and seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Q. 37. During the 1950's and 60's were there in effect within defendant, or at the site where employees of defendant were using or working near asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by defendant any rules, regulations or other requirements concerning the safe and proper manner of using asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by defendant? 27 (( If yes, please state for each rule, regulation or other requirement: (a) The name, number pr otherwise identify the rule, regulation or other requirement; (b) When the rule, regulation or other requirement was promulgated; (c) The content of the rule, regulation or other requirement; (d) Whether defendant fully enforced the rule, regulation or other requirement; (e) If defendant did not fully enforce the rule, regulation or other requirement, why not? A. 37. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 38. Identify by title and date of publication each catalog, advertising brochure, one-half page or larger advertisement, or similar document which you have published regarding asbestos or products containing asbestos available from defendant or its corporate predecessors. A. 38. Refer to Exhibit I. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to further answer this interrogatory. Q. 39. Did any employee or agent of defendant or its corporate predecessor send or receive any correspondence concerning safety hazards or safety precautions related to exposure to asbestos. A. 39. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This 28 t defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 40. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, state as to each correspondence, the name and address of the person signing the correspondence, the date thereof, and to whom the correspondence was addressed. A. 40. Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 39. Q. 41. During the period from 1951-1973 did defendant have a national, regional, or local sales office whose responsibility included serving the state of Illinois or areas within the State of Illinois? If yes, state the following: (a) Where the sales office was located; (b) The name and current address of the head of that sales office; (c) The name, position title, and last known address of the person whose responsibility it was to cover the area which included Illinois. A. 41. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad and seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Q. 42. During the period from 1951-1973 which of defendant's employees were responsible for marketing defendant's products for the area which included Illinois? As to each individual who held such a position, state the following: (a) His name and last known address; (b) The name of the position he held; (c) The dates during which he held the position; 29 ( (d) The address of his office during the time he held the position. A. 42. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad and seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Q. 43. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 213(3), identify and give the location of those persons, not previously disclosed, having knowledge of facts relevant to how or why the occurrence of exposure described in the Complaint took place. A. 43. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in mid-1958, and has been unable to locate any present employees with knowledge relevant to this litigation. However, the following former employees may have some information relevant to issues in this litigation: Richard R. Beck, 4418 Sheri Lane, Toledo, OH 43614; Everett Shuman, 307 S. Corl Street, State College, PA; Samuel F. Schillaci, 5780 Strathmore Lane, Dublin, OH 43017; and Willis G. Hazard, 3609 Mapleway Drive, Toledo, OH 43614. Q. 44. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 213(e), identify and give the location of those persons, not previously disclosed, having knowledge of facts relevant to the nature and extent of: (1) Carol Cooke's injury; (2) The loss sustained by Ben Smith's next of kin. A. 44. This defendant nor its local counsel i6 in possession of materials referred to in this interrogatory. This 30 c defendant reserves the right to supplement its response at any time ,in the future. 31 ( AFFIDAVIT ( STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF LUCAS ) )SS: ) A. H. SMITH, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is an Assistant Secretary of OwensIllinois, Inc., a defendant herein; that as such he is authorized to make an Affidavit on its behalf; and that the facts set forth in the foregoing DEFENDANT, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. SWORN TO before me and subscribed this ! ^ day A. H. SMITH SHIK1FY J. StOCZYNSKI Notary Public, Slate of Ohio My Commiuion Expire* Oct. 15, 1992 c( PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument vas served upon the attorneys of record of all parties to the above cause by enclosing same in an envelope with postage fully prepaid, and by depositing said envelope In a United States Post Office mail box in Peoria, Illinois on ^ ________, 198^ , addressed to such attorneys at their business address as disclosed by the pleadings of record herein. COPY MAILED TO: See attached service list HCYU RO*STC. VOKLKCR ft AU.EN mm * *NCY9 AT LAW tWlTt AOO jtrrtASON ** gic0**0 CO*'A ILLINOIS 09 oomi r* 0400 VJ89 c( 4 E 5800, Carol Ann Cooke, and Judith Ann O'Neal, Special Co-Administrators Estate of Ben Smith, Deceased and Carol Ann Cooke, Individually COOKE - COOKE.E IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT McLEAN COUNTY, NO. 88 L 52 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS James Valker P.O. Box 3455 Bloomington, IL 61702-3455 ATTORNEYS FOR A & H INSULATION Edward J. Matushek, III HASKELL & PERRIN 200 V. Adams St. - Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Gregory C. Kndpp SAINT & AMBROSE, P.C. 5th Floor - Suite A 200 V. Front St. Bloomington, IL 61701 ATTORNEYS FOR ABEX CORPORATION Robert V. Scott SVAIN, HARTSHORN & SCOTT 1806 Savings Center Tower 411 Hamilton Blvd. Peoria, IL 61602 V.R. GRACE & CO.' Bret S. Babcock DAVIS & MORGAN 1125 First National Bank Bldg. Peoria, IL 61602 EAGLE-PICHER Lloyd E. Williams WILLIAMS & MONTGOMERY 20 N. Wacker Dr. - Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 ATTORNEYS FOR RAYMARK and CKL0TEX Fred B. Moore LIVINGSTON, BARGER, BRANDT & SCHR0EDER 115 W. Jefferson St. - Suite 400 P.O. Box 3457 Bloomington, IL 61702-3457 *' 4 t 5ttuu, Carol Ann C^~''.e (. Raymond H. Modesitt PATRICK, WILKINSON, GOELLER & MODESITT 333 Ohio St. P.0. Box 1567 Terre Haute, IN 47808 ATTORNEYS FOR SPRINKMANN SONS COUP., GATKE CORPORATION and EMPIRE ACE James A. Carter HAFELE, THIEMAW & ASSOCIATES 717 First National Bank Building Peoria, IL 61602 OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS Robert L. Martier LUNDBLAD & BAKER 401 S. LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60605 GARL0CK Anthony G. Barone BURDITT, BOWLES, RADZIUS & RUBERRY 333 V. Wacker Dr. - Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60606 CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS CENTRAL INDUSTRIES, INC. and ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY William R. Gavin Gundlach, Lee, Eggmann, Boyle & Roessler 5000 W. Main St. Box 692 Belleville, IL 62222 ATTORNEYS FOR BRAND INSULATIONS, INC. Corey P. O'Dell KURNIK, CIPOLLA, STEPHENSON, BARASHA AND O'DELL, LTD. 120 W. Eastman - Suite 302 Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Don C. Hammer Hayes, Schneider, Hammer, Miles & Cox 202 N. Center St. P.0. Box 3067 Bloomington, IL 61702 ATTORNEYS FOR FLINTKOTK Francis A. Spina Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess 2100 Manchester Road - Suite 950 Wheaton, IL 60187 i 2