Document X8zd27RnKBM73Qez7Qg3VY14w

1 MICHAEL C. OSBORNE (State Bar #95839) DRYDEN/ MARGOLES, SCHIMANECK, 2 KELLY & WAIT One California Street, Suite 2600 3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 362-6715 4 5 Attorneys for Defendant CAPCO PIPE COMPANY, INC. 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 IN RE COMPLEX ASBESTOS LITIGATION 11 12 )DEFENDANT CAPCO PIPE COMPANY'S )SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO )PLAINTIFFS' STANDARD )INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS 13 PROPOUNDING PARTIES: 14 RESPONDING PARTY: 15 SET NUMBER: 16 ASBESTOS PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT CAPCO PIPE COMPANY, INC. ONE (GENERAL ORDER NO. 129] [FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES] 17 Defendant Capco Pipe Company, Inc. ("Capco"), hereby supplements 18 its responses to the San Francisco General Order No. 129 Plaintiffs' 19 Standard Interrogatories to Defendants. With the exception of the 20 first of the following supplemental responses, Capco's responses here 21 provide supplemental information requested by the law firm of Brayton 22 Harley Curtis. A copy of those requests, dated August 28, 1998, is 23 attached hereto as Exhibit A. 24 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 13 AND 14 25 For a short period of time in the late 1960's, Capco was a member 26 of the Asbestos Cement Products Association ("ACPA"), a trade 1 organization that was dissolved in 1970, prior to the 1971 formation 2 of the Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers Association .("ACPPA"). 3 Publications received from the ACPA may have included a booklet 4 entitled "Recommended Practices For Fabricating, Handling and Applying 5 Asbestos-Cement Products in the Building and Construction Industries," 6 which is a booklet known to have been published by that organization, 7 but a copy of which has not been found among Capco's documents at this 8 time. ACPA committees or subcommittees in which, it is believed, a 9 Capco representative participated included the Health and Safety 10 Council and the In Plant Environmental Control Subcommittee. 11 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15 12 Prior to 1973, Capco did not receive any documents containing 13 results or conclusions of any studies and/or tests conducted by Bonsib 14 for Standard Oil of New Jersey relating to asbestos exposure in the 15 workplace or the human health consequences of exposure to asbestos. 16 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16 17 Prior to 1973, Capco did not receive a copy or any portion of any 18 studies and/or tests conducted by any insurance company including but 19 not limited to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Aetna Insurance 20 relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or the human health 21 consequences of exposure to asbestos. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17 23 It is unlikely that "this defendant prior to 1973 received any 24 documents containing results or conclusions of any studies and/or 25 tests conducted by any laboratory including but not limited to the 26 Saranac Laboratory relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or -2- 1 the human health consequences of exposure to asbestos/" to the extent 2 such research was before Capco was founded in 1963. In particular, 3 the Saranac Laboratory asbestos research reportedly occurred during 4 the 1930's through the 1950's, long before Capco was founded. 5 However, by the time Capco was founded, it was well known that 6 excessive exposure to asbestos dust was harmful to the lungs. As for 7 laboratory research since Capco was founded in 1963, Capco would have 8 received information regarding such research to the extent it was 9 reported in the press, including such publications as newsletters of 10 organizations such as the Asbestos Information Association of North 11 America, noted in Capco's Response to Interrogatory No. 14. 12 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21 13 Capco conducted tests of ambient air asbestos dust levels at its 14 two A/C pipe manufacturing plants periodically as required by OSHA 15 regulations promulgated in 1972 et seq. That was a matter of OSHA 16 regulatory compliance, but the data is irrelevant here because the 17 plaintiffs in these California actions did not work at those plants, 18 and by that time it was well known that excessive exposure to asbestos 19 dust was harmful to the lungs. It would be very time consuming to 20 attempt to identify "each" such test, because the testing included 21 such things as personal monitoring data for numerous individual 22 employee worksites. However, in general the available records 23 indicate that the periodic testing was conducted at the two respective 24 plants every six months or more often, with samples known to have been 25 taken at least as often as during the months noted below; there may 26 well have been additional monitoring dates not readily identifiable -3- 1 at this time. The time frame for responses to these interrogatories 2 is through 1985/ but Capco closed its Ragland plant in .1982. The 3 monitoring was generally conducted by the plant safety engineer, using 4 the membrane filter technology required by OSHA, with the samples sent 5 to an outside laboratory to perform the dust counts. 6 Regarding Capco's Ragland, Alabama plant, various records 7 indicate such testing was conducted during the following months: 8 March 1972, September 1972, April 1973, November 1973, April 1974, 9 June 1974, November 1974, April 1975, December 1975, January 1976, 10 March 1976, June 1977, November 1977, December 1977, March 1978, July 11 1978, September 1978, October 1978, December 1978, February 1979, 12 August 1979, January 1980, June 1980, August 1980, November 1980, 13 December 1980. 14 Regarding Capco's Van Buren, Arkansas plant, various records 15 indicate such testing was conducted during the following months: 16 February 1973, April 1973, May 1973, September 1973, November 1973, 17 January 1974, March 1974, April 1974, October 1974, November 1974, 18 December 1974, January 1975, March 1975, May 1975, February 1976, 19 August 1976, December 1976, May 1977, June 1977, September 1977, 20 December 1977, February 1978, December 1978, June 1979, January 1980, 21 February 1980, August 1980, February 1981, August 1981, February 1982, 22 August 1982, February 1983, August 1983, February 1984, March 1985, 23 August 1985. 24 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22 25 Capco caused no such tests to be conducted. Capco was, however, 26 a member of the Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers Association ("ACPPA"), r REET -4- 1 and the ACPPA did "cause to be conducted" studies regarding ambient 2 air asbestos dust levels involved with the handling and installation 3 of asbestos cement pipe. The reports of those two Equitable 4 Environmental Health studies conducted for the ACPPA, both dated in 5 1977, have been identified in Capco's Response to Interrogatory No. 6 19. 7 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26 8 At this time Capco continues to lack "insurance available to 9 cover [potential] judgments(s)" in asbestos litigation. 10 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29 11 Capco never marketed raw asbestos. The companies from whom Capco 12 purchased raw asbestos are identified in Capco's Response to 13 Interrogatory No. 31. Capco notes the following in further response 14 to Interrogatory No. 29 subparts A through I, as requested: 15 A. Capco never milled or marketed raw asbestos between 1930 and 16 1985. 17 B Capco never placed on the market or marketed raw asbestos. 18 C. Capco never produced or recalled raw asbestos. 19 D. Capco never marketed any types or grades of raw asbestos. 20 E. Capco never color coded, marked or packaged raw asbestos. 21 F. Capco never marketed raw asbestos for any intended use. 22 G. Capco never marketed raw asbestos pursuant to a U.S. 23 Government list. 24 H. Capco never sold raw asbestos. 25 I. Capco never sold, shipped or distributed raw asbestos. 26 // r REET -5- 1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31 2 Capco's only asbestos-containing products were: (1) asbestos 3 cement underground water pressure pipe, and (2) asbestos cement 4 underground non-pressure sewer pipe (also suitable for underground 5 storm drains) . Those were two types of pipe, not three, but both were 6 essentially the same product, i.e., asbestos cement underground pipe, 7 which was joined together using an underground and water-tight type 8 of coupling unit. However, pressure pipe was made to withstand water 9 pumped under pressure and so was thicker-walled; the smallest size 10 pressure pipe Capco made was four inches (4") inside diameter, while 11 the smallest size underground sewer pipe Capco made was six inches 12 (6") inside diameter. In other respects, for both the interrogatory 13 responses are the same, unless otherwise noted. 14 D. The precise chemical composition of Capco asbestos cement 15 underground pipe varied according to the hydrostatic strength and 16 crush strength required of the pipe, and also varied somewhat over 17 time. However, in general the pipe was composed, by weight, of about 18 50% Portland cement, about 35% silica sand, and from 10 to 20 % 19 asbestos depending on the strength required, with more asbestos used 20 for pipe requiring greater strength. In addition, water was a 21 component of the wet cement used in forming the pipe, but following 22 drying and oven curing only a small amount of water would have 23 remained in the pipe. 24 E. Further details as to the "physical appearance and nature," 25 including response to the supplemental request for details as to the 26 "size, shape, length and diameter" of Capco's asbestos cement -6- 1 underground pipe, are as follows. Water pressure pipe included two 2 sub-varieties known as transmission pipe (to convey water under 3 pressure from its source to a point of distribution), and distribution 4 pipe (such as for use under the streets of a community). The sizes 5 of Capco's asbestos cement underground water pressure pipe (including 6 together distribution pipe and transmission pipe) were inside 7 diameters of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21 and 24 inches. 8 The pipe was made in a number of strength classes according to the 9 maximum operating pressure to be used; there were three strength 10 classes of distribution pipe (100, 150 or 200 pounds per square inch), 11 with higher strength classes for transmission pipe (T-30, T-35, T-40, 12 T-45, T-50, T-60, T-70, T-80, and T-90, i.e., respectively 300 through 13 900 pounds per square inch). The sizes of Capco's asbestos cement 14 non-pressure sewer pipe were inside diameters of 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 15 16, 18, 20, 21, and 24 inches, and the pipe was made in strength 16 classes according to the crush strength required (i.e., 2400, 3300, 17 4000 or 5000 pounds per linear foot). Capco made both its pressure 18 pipe and non-pressure pipe in standard 13 foot lengths, with half 19 lengths, quarter lengths and special order lengths also available. 20 The lengths of pipe were cylindrical in shape, and at the factory were 21 precisely machine-tapered at the ends to fit into water-tight 22 underground A/C pipe couplings. Each length of pipe sold was provided 23 with a coupling; inside the coupling two rubber ring gaskets were used 24 to ensure a water-tight seal when the lengths of pipe were connected. 25 G. The referenced "U.S. Government's 'Qualified Products List'" 26 presumably would have included asbestos cement underground pipe. -7- 1 because there were federal specifications for such pipe: (1) Federal 2 Specification SS-P-351c for Asbestos Cement Pressure Pipe (1968, 3 superseding prior editions of that specification), and (2) Federal 4 Specification SS-P-331c for Asbestos Cement Non-pressure Sewer Pipe 5 (1967, superseding prior editions of that specification). 6 I & J. The burden of making a compilation, abstract, etc. of 7 Capco's California customer cards would be substantially the same for 8 plaintiffs' counsel or defense counsel. Several years ago Capco 9 supplied the Brayton Harley Curtis law firm with copies of Capco's 10 California customer cards, in alphabetical order; the customer cards 11 indicate dates and dollar amounts of sales to each customer. Copies 12 of those records are also available to other plaintiffs' counsel on 13 request, as noted in Capco's initial Response to Interrogatory No. 31 14 (I & J) . 15 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47 16 Capco first warned its employees that exposure to asbestos could 17 be hazardous to human health at its inception in 1965. 18 A. The first warnings were oral. 19 B. There are no documents that contain the first oral warnings. 20 C. Not applicable. 21 D. Workers were generally advised that excessive exposure to 22 asbestos dust could cause lung disease. 23 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 53 24 Any and all Capco shipments through ports in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA, 25 like other Capco shipments by sea, were specially packaged for 26 shipment in one of two ways, either: (1) containerized - if the pipe -8- 1 was to be containerized, it was trussed up on pallets the right size 2 to fit into the containers; or (2) roll on/ roll off - whereby the 3 trailer portion of a flatbed truck, loaded with pipe, was driven onto 4 the ship, the cab departed, and at the port of arrival another truck 5 cab would drive the truckload shipment to its worksite destination. 6 Neither method involved longshoremen handling lengths of pipe. 7 In regard to the task of attempting to locate any and all bills 8 of lading that potentially could identify shipments that may have gone 9 through ports in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA, following preliminary review it 10 is apparent that the task would be very time consuming. If 11 plaintiffs' counsel would like to attempt the task, retained boxes of 12 old Capco invoice records are included among somewhat more than 700 13 boxes of Capco documents retained in storage under the custody of 14 Porzio, Bromberg and Newman. Pursuant to C.C.P. 2030(f)(2), 15 plaintiffs' counsel may make arrangements to inspect such invoice 16 records. The boxes of documents are marked according to the respective 17 sources from which they were acquired at or about the time Capco went 18 out of business. 19 DATED: 20 October 27, 1998 DRYDEN, MARGOLES, SCHIMANECK, KELLY & WAIT 21 By: lAA/pAhlA /9/l/uJL 22 Michael C. Osborne Attorneys for Defendant 23 Capco Pipe Company, Inc. 24 25 26 -9- / ALAV R. BRAYTON Philip A. Harley FxanoneS. Curtis OfCoutud i --dcrt L. Purcell James Ceagan AKVE W. Braude Robert M. Brown N ^ BRAYTON HARLEY CURTIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Novato Office 222 Rush Lauding Road P.O.Box 2109 Novato, California 94948 Telephone: (415) 898-1555 Facsimile: (415) 898-1247 El Seeundo Office Telephone: (310) 727-1900 Sender's Fax Number (415)898-3261 QftAKVBlTOOaMftCACRXLMATMOOettAS MYMUCAfTANON AASONM.OAV1S uuiemcwiM 0*TO A. 0QNA1NO ALUSOH). FAtaOCU jtpmam w, nom*cr, ITAXUAAVBUXRmfSOCJLSt UX8NI CHUM) fIituCyUvC.tjUUCDKoSON CVlSAYXTUOMNIWK.MSOIT jhcnp.xcnc JOAWSLX.UK$Of( August 28,1998 YMCMOC1UUQQUNUUGHCOSLCJNJiS.CnMtUAMWAamOMananJotUlO. >Tvutt jMKoXAmLimLnY*flSAmNaMCsCMoMCnUCKOIWNAM OOAJOF<ffUCNLOM*Q*C JAMES LOUftftlA* joskua o oonnz MOMQUP.I. AUTTCK IMISTTH* *. SlNGUTQK urmuncicTsUoAuNoNmom ItMOTHY 1 WALTON Michael C. Osborne, Esq. Dryden, Margoles, Schimaneck, Kelly & Wait One California Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 RE: In re: Complex Asbestos Litigation Your Client Capco Pipe Company, Inc. Dear Mr. Osborne: AUG 3 i tsss DRYDEN, MARGOLES. SCHIMANECK, HARTMAN & KELLY The purpose of this letter is to "meet and confer" pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030(1) regarding the responses ofyour client's, Capco Pipe Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Capco"), responses to General Order 129 ("GO 129") Standard Plaintiffs Interrogatories to Defendants. Just as with any discovery request. Plaintiffs arc entitled to all relevant discovery that is itselfadmissible and appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. C.C.P. 2017(a). Defendant's answers must be as complete and straightforward as the information available to defendant permits. C.C.P. 2030(f)(1). Furthermore, ifCapco does not have personal knowledge sufficient to fully respond to the interrogatory, C.C.P. 2030(f)(1) requires a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations. The following interrogatories fall short of the requirements ofthe Discovery Act and GO 129. I am hereby requesting supplemental answers which are fully responsive to the interrogatories and which address the concerns I have set forth below. DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES Detailed discussion of those interrogatory responses to which Plaintiffs are requesting amended or supplemental responses follows. JLADOCSaZNDSCAlCOOSBORNEMAC Michael C. Osborne, Esq. August 28,1998 INTERROGATORY NO. 15 Page 2 This interrogatory asks whether your client, prior to 1973, received any documents relating to the studies conducted by Bonsib for Standard Oil ofNew Jersey and, if so, requests specific information as to those documents. Capco responds, "Not to Capco's knowledge." The answer is incomplete. IfCapco does not have personal knowledge sufficient to fully respond to the interrogatory, C.C.P. 2030 (f)(1) requires a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations. Please the response accordingly. INTERROCATORYNO. 16 This interrogatory asks whether your client, prior to 1973, received any ofthe studies conducted by any insurance company relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace and, if so, requests specific information as to those documents. Capco responds, "Not to Capco's knowledge." The answer is incomplete. If Capco does not have personal knowledge sufficient to fully respond to the interrogatory, C.C.P. 2030 (f)(1) requires a reasonable and good frith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations. Please amend the response accordingly. INTERROGATORY NO. 17 This interrogatory requests information as to whether your client, prior to 1973, received any documents relating to any studies or tests conducted by any laboratory, including but not limited to the Saranac Laboratory, relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace and, if so, requests specific information as to those documents. Capco responds, "Not to Capco's knowledge." The answer is incomplete. If Capco does not have personal knowledge sufficient to fully respond to the interrogatory, C.C.P. 2030 (f)(1) requires a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations. Please amend the response accordingly. INTERROGATORY NO. 21 This interrogatory asks whether your client conducted any tests and/or studies of ambient asbestos dust created during the manufacture, etc. of asbestos-containing products and, ifso, specifics as to such testing. Capco responds that it conducted tests "periodically" at two manufacturing facilities. ltfDOCTDUS'CAPCOW5BOMlEM*C /""N Michael C. Osborne, Esq. August 28,1998 Page 3 This response is incomplete and nonresponsive, as subpart B requires the date of each test. Please provide a supplemental response which answers the interrogatory in a complete and straightforward manner. INTERROGATORY NO, 22 This interrogatory asks whether your client conducted any test and/or studies on ambient asbestos dust levels at any location where asbestos-containing products were installed, titilirari or removed and, ifso, specific information as to the first five tests and/or studies. Capco responds, "Sec response to Interrogatory No. 19." The answer is incomplete to the extent that Capco's response to Interrogatory No. 19 does not answer Interrogatory No. 22. Please provide a supplemental response which answers the interrogatory in a complete and straightforward manner. INTERROGATORY NO. 26 This interrogatory requests specific information as to insurance available to your client to coverjudgments) entered against it in asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits. Capco responds, "Capco is currently attempting to secure insurance coverage through negotiations with and threatened litigation against former insurers, but does not at this time have assurance of coverage." The answer is incomplete. Defendant fails to respond completely to subparts A through D. C.C.P. 2030(f)(1) requires a reasonable and good faith effort to fully answer the interrogatories. I believe your client has had ample opportunity to complete its investigation. If new information has been discovered, your client must supplement its response. Otherwise, please amend the response to either delete the "discovery is continuing" language or provide a date certain within the next 30 days as to when discovery will be completed. Please amend the response accordingly. INTERROGATORY NO. 29 Ifyour client's response to Interrogatory No. 28 is in the affirmative, Interrogatory No. 29 requires specificity as to each activity with regard to raw asbestos. Capco responds, "Not applicable. As noted previously, Capco imported raw asbestos only for its own use; Capco did not market the raw asbestos to others." The answer is incomplete based on Capco1 s affirmative response to Interrogatory No. 28. Defendant fails to respond completely to subparts A through I. Please amend the response accordingly. KADOCS\OEniNDS'CAKOVOSVOMIE>(AC Michael C Osbomc, Esq. August 28, 1998 tntfrrot.atoryno.31 Page 4 If your client's answer to Interrogatory No. 30 is in the affirmative. Interrogatory No. 31 requests specific information as to your client's activities with regard to asbestos-containing products. Capco responds generally with regard to asbestos-containing pressure pipe, storm drain pipe, and sewer pipe. The answer is incomplete as described more particularly below. Generally, Capco must respond to each subpart for each ofits three products. As to subpart D, please provide the chemical composition of each type of pipe. Also, this subpart calls for the entire chemical composition and not merely the percentage of asbestos. As to subpart E, please provide details as to the size, shape, length, and diameter offered by Capco for each type ofpipe. As to subpart G, ifCapco does not have personal knowledge sufficient to fully respond to the interrogatory, C.CJ. 2030 (fXl) requires a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations. As to subparts I and I, under C.C.P. 2030(f)(2), defendants may allow the interrogating party to inspect and copy the records in question. However, this option is allowed only ifdie answer would necessitate die preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, etc. ofthe document, and the burden or expense of making it would be substantially the same for Plaintiffs as for defendants. In addition, the documents from which the answer may be derived must be described with sufficient particularity that they can be located and identified. C.C.P. 2030(f)(2). Defendant has not made a proper showing ofburden, nor have die responsive documents been sufficiently described. Defendants must do so before making recourse to C.C.P. 2030(0(2). INTERROGATORY NO. 47 This interrogatory asks when your client first warned its employees that exposure to asbestos could be hazardous to human health and the specifics of said warnings. Capco responds with regard to signs and booklets. Defendant fails to respond completely to subparts B through C. Please amend the response accordingly. KADOCS\DCrENDSAPCOOSBOMJEM*C Michael C. Osborne, Esq. August 28,1998 INTERROGATORY NO. S3 Page 5 This interrogatory asks whether your client, from 1930 to 1985, ever imported, exported, shipped, etc. raw asbestos or asbestos-containing products into or out of any port in the geographic area and, if so, the specifics of such shipment. Capco responds, "In the 1970's and early 1980's Capco had a number of sales ofA/C underground pipe to several customers in Hawaii, some ofwhich shipments may have gone through ports in die GEOGRAPHIC AREA. A search for the relevant bills oflading will be conducted on request to Ponrio, Bromberg & Newman." The answer is incomplete. The interrogatory requires specific information as to documents, and defendants must provide this information in a straightforward manner Please amend the response accordingly. In accordance with both the stated goals and clear language of GO 129 and C.CJP. 2030, please provide verified amended or supplemental responses which completely and thoroughly answer the interrogatories enumerated above on or beforAeptember 28,1998. I am available to discuss the issues raised in this letter with you and to riiwicc extensions of time if such are to be deemed necessary, and I would prefer to resolve this matter short ofcourt intervention. I look forward to hearing from you and hope we can reach an amenable resolution of this matter. Very truly yours, AMB:cks/ap cc: Alan R. Brayton Harry F. Wartnick JCADOCS'CErCNDSCAKOOSBOKSEAUC Sent by: ASARCO 212 510 1952; 10/30/98 1:17PM;Jfef&r #437;Page 2/2 VERIFICATION I, Carmen D. Gonzalez, am the Secretary of CAPCO PIPE COMPANY, INC., and am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. I have read the foregoing, CAPCO'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' STANDARD INTERROGATORIES TO ALL DEFENDANTS, and know the contents thereof. I am informed and believe that the matters stated therein are true, and on that ground certify or declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the same are true and correct. 3Executed at New York, New York, this O* day of _________, 1998. SI7911 j 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 The undersigned declares: I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. I am employed in the county 3 where this service occurs. My business address is One California Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, California 94111. On the date 4 shown below I served the following document: 5 DEFENDANT CAPCO PIPE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAITNIFFS' STANDARD INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS 6 by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope and 7 served in the manner described below to the interested parties herein and addressed to: 8 Richard A. Brody, Esq. Anne M. Bandis 9 WARTNICK,, CHABER, HAROWITZ Brayton Harley Curtis SMITH & TIGERMAN 222 Rush Landing Road 10 101 California Street, 22nd P.O. Box 2109 Floor Novato, CA 94948 11 San Francisco, CA 94111 12 ____ 13 14 15 16 x____ 17 MAIL: I caused such envelope(s) to be deposited in the mail at my business address, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the addressee(s) designated. I am readily familiar with the business' practice of collecting and processing correspondence to be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. HAND DELIVERY: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s) designated. 18 ____ 19 BY OVERNIGHT COURIER SERVICE: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered via overnight courier service to the addressee(s) designated. 20 ____ 21 (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. 22 ____ 23 (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 24 Executed on October 30, 1998, at San Francisco, California. tkfWJl&AAs . 25 NOREEN REDDIN 26