Document XB4JDjokBee0bdR8ZvLqkyXJ

No. A153112 DONALD WOODROW DEVINE, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, etal., Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 58TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION TO: THOMAS BARIA, by and through his counsel of record, Kimberly Shauck, Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. Pursuant to Rules 120a, 166b and 169 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company ("ICRRCo.") hereby files its Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting to Jurisdiction. Thomas R/Peters GUNDLACH, LEE, EGGMANN, BOYLE & ROESSLER 5000 West Main Street, P.O. Box 23560 Belleville, IL 62223-0560 Telephone: (618)277-9000 Scott P. Hazen BROWN McCARROLL & OAKS HARTLINE 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75201-6929 (214)999-6100 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ILLINOIS CENTRAL CORPORATION and ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS Subject to and without waiving its current or any future special appearances, ICRRCo. makes this preliminary statement and these objections: ICRRCo. currently has a special appearance motion pending in a case in Dallas County, Texas. That case involves a plaintiffwho is a resident of a state other than Texas. Each and every objection, response or matter contained in these responses and answers is made strictly subject to and without waiving any pending special appearance motion. To the extent that ICRRCo. is named and served as a party in future cases in Texas, these responses shall also be subject to and without waiving any future special appearance motions. ICRRCo. expressly objects to each and every discovery request to the extent that it seeks any information in those cases wherein a special appearance is pending for the reason that such discovery requests are not related to any special appearance motion or likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in a special appearance hearing. ICRRCo. does not own or control any railroad track in Texas. ICRRCo. will provide substantive responses to those requests related to jurisdictional issues as they relate to those Plaintiffs who have sued ICRRCo. However, ICRRCo. objects to each and every discovery request and/or interrogatory to the extent that it is unrestricted as to subject, time and geography on the grounds that such requests/interrogatories are unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably related to the discovery ofjurisdictional evidence related to such claims. -2- n. GENERAL OR [QNS 1. ICRRCo. further objects to each and every discovery request, interrogatory and request for admission to the extent that they require ICRRCo. to search through all corporate documents on the ground that such requests are clearly overly board, unduly burdensome, exceptionally expensive, and not reasonably related to the discovery of evidence relevant to the claims of Plaintiffs claiming injury arising out of alleged exposure while employed by ICRRCo. 2. ICRRCo. further objects to those requests as a whole, since they seek matters which are privileged under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Texas Rules of Civil Evidence, including, but not limited to, information and matters precluded by the attomey/client privilege, attomey/work product exemption and the party communications privilege. 3. ICRRCo. further objects to the definitions set forth at the beginning of Plaintiffs' requests as an improper attempt to give meanings to ordinary English words that are contrary to their. accepted meanings and which render the requests ambiguous, overly broad and/or undulyburdensome to answer. 4. ICRRCo. further objects to Plaintiffs' requests as vague since they are not limited to the time and location when and where Plaintiffs were allegedly employed by ICRRCo.. 5. ICRRCo. expressly incorporates each and every general objection and preliminary statement into its response to each interrogatory, subject to and without waiving its special appearance motion objecting to jurisdiction. 6. ICRRCo. objects to any request relating to any topic other thanjurisdiction, as it has a special appearance on file in this matter and inquiries beyond the issue ofjurisdiction are unduly burdensome on defendant in that it has insufficient contacts with Texas. -3- SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, job title, length oftime employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list ofall positions, titles, orjobs held while working for Defendant of each person who supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: Charles Garrett, Risk Manager Illinois Central Railroad Co. 2921 Horn Lake Road Memphis, Tennessee 38109 Employment Tenure: In excess of20 years See deposition ofAugust 21,1997 for additional information. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant incorporates its previously filed response to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State the full and proper business name and address of the* Defendant State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your corporate name, the state ofyour incorporation, the address ofyour principal place of business, the name and address ofthe person or entity authorized to accept service ofprocess on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas, maintained a registered agent in Texas, engaged in business in Texas or recruited or hired employees in Texas. ANSWER: Subject to defendant's special appearance and preliminary and general objections, and without waiving same: Illinois Central Railroad Company is a corporation incorporated in the State of Illinois. Its principal place ofbusiness is 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Chicago, IL 606115504. It has no person or entity authorized to accept service ofprocess in Texas and is not required to do so. It has never held a Certificate ofAuthority to do business in Texas and is not required to do so. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant incorporates its previously filed response to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: With regard to each policy of liability insurance intended to provide coverage to Defendant, its agents and/or employees for the liability in connection with the allegations such as those delineated in Plaintiffs Original and Amended Petitions including, but not limited to, all primary and excess policies covering the Defendant for such liability, state the name and address of each carrier. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. -4- Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that it cannot answer this interrogatory in that the phrase "intended to provide coverage" is not limited in time or to any individual or entity. Defendant does state that it does not have any insurance policies in its possession regarding Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railway Company. With respect to Illinois Central Railroad Company, Defendant has in its possession and has provided for inspection by Plaintiff approximately 54 binders of policies relating to the years 1957 through 1985, reflecting in excess of 165 insurance companies. See summary document produced on August21,1997. Illinois Central Railroad Company initiated litigation against these companies which resulted in a settlement. See Illinois Centred Railroad Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al. Civ. Action No. 91 L 91 WLB (Asbestos). INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State whether you contend that the Plaintiffhas done anything or failed to do anything that constitutes contributory negligence. If so, please describe the basis of. your contention and what evidence exists to support that contention. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that plaintiffhas not yet been produced for deposition, nor has plaintiffresponded to the mast set ofinterrogatories such that defendant could be able to respond to this interrogatory. However, it is believed that plaintiff smoked. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State whether you contend that the Plaintiffhas done or failed to do anything that constitutes a Mure to mitigate damages. Ifso, please describe the basis ofyour contention and what evidence exists to support that contention. -5- ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters'privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Terms and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant is currently unaware of anything Plaintiff has failed to do to mitigate damages. See response to previous interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: List each and every place of work and job assignment ofthe Plaintiff which he held during his employment with Defendant and describe in detail the duties, involved in each ofthe job assignments. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states see personnel file produced under separate cover dated January 27,1998. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Describe in detail how asbestos containingproducts were used by railroad workers on Defendant's railroad(s) during the period of Plaintiffs employment by Defendant ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. -6- Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that, based upon plaintiff's personnel file, it is unable to determine how plaintiffwould have used or come in contact with asbestos-containing products. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe in detail where asbestos containing products were used by railroad workers on Defendant's railroad(s) during the period ofPlaintiffs employment by Defendant ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness, statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ.P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, see response to Interrogatory #7. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: If you have alleged in your answer that Plaintiff's injuries and/or damages were caused by some other injury, disease or condition, either pre-existing or unrelated to and arising after or in conjunction with the Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos-containing products, please describe in detail such pre-existing or subsequent disease, injury or condition. For each alleged other injury, disease or condition, identify all evidence upon which you base this contention. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xb); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. -7- Defendant further objects to this intenogatoiy for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the stfope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant asserts that it disputes that plaintiff suffers any injury or damage related to asbestos. Defendant requests and expects an IME in close proximity of plaintiffs deposition, consistent with past practice, which will more particularly detail whether plaintiff suffers from any lung condition and, if so, the potential causes of any such condition. Further, plaintiffs personnel and medical files, previously produced, detail a history. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please state the name of each and every person having knowledge of facts relevant to this action including most recent address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeach and every person, known to Defendant's agents, including, but not limited to: A. Identification ofasbestos-containing products or type ofproducts to which Plaintiff was exposed or facts disputing the identification ofthese products; B. Plaintiffs damages, injuries and/or facts disputing Plaintiffs damages and/or injuries; C. The negligence of any person or entity, other than Defendant, which Defendant contends was a cause ofPlaintiffs injuries and/or damages; and D. Each ofdefendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed answer. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. The request for persons with facts "relevant to this action" is so broad so as to render this interrogatory meaningless, and additional witnesses may be uncovered when plaintiffresponds to the master discovery or produces plaintiff for deposition. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, defendant notes the following may have relevant information: -8- George Whisenhant (see disclosure in Bethel v. 1C for facts known and address). Burt Clark, Mobile, Alabama, former employee in the Purchasing & Material Department ofthe Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railway Company and later Illinois Central Railroad Company. He began his employment in 1950. Jim McClure, Master Mechanic at Friscati beginning 1969, retired and believed to be living in or around Mobile, Alabama. F.T. McMeans, address unknown. W. C. Gray, Master Mechanic at Friscati yard until 1969, address unknown. Curtis Howell, Yard Switchman, allegedly between 1955-1961 at north and south yards (see deposition). Charles Bethel, Storehouse Clerk, 1947-1982 at Friscati and Porter Yards (see deposition). INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify documents or things, including x-rays, MCI's, CT-scans or other materials, which will be used at time of trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each ofDefendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states see personnel and medical files. Additional materials may be identified after plaintiffanswers discovery, is examined and is deposed. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify the names and addresses ofall individuals Defendant may call as an expert witness(es) at trial, and for each individual, please state: A. The subject matter on which the witness is expected to testify, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, the substance of the facts and opinions to which the -9- witness intends to testify on the Defendant's behalf and a summary of the grounds for each opinion, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case; B. All factual observations, test results, supporting data, learned treatise (books, general articles,texts or other publications) and opinions which the witness has generated, been provided, intends to use, and/or may use to support his/her opinions and conclusions relative to the case whereupon which the witness has or will base his/her testimony in this matter, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case. The identity, address andjob classification ofeach consulting expert whose opinions or data have been referred to and/or relied upon by the expert witness, and the complete title and author of each learned treatise referred to and/or relied upon by the witness for information and/or corroborating his/her opinions regarding file subject matter ofthis lawsuit; C. Whether any person identified in subparagraph B above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and ifso, identify each such document or report, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group; D. Identify all documents or other materials, including but not limited to x-rays, pathology, CT-scans, you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph B above, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group; E. Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph B above. Alternatively, in lieu ofsaid response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list ofpublications to your answers. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that it expects to call one or more ofthe experts listed in its disclosures served in Bethel v. /C, as well as an examining physician and plaintiffs treating physicians. Plaintiff has yet to provide defendant with any information on his treating physicians nor have consents been provided for defendant to independently obtain this information. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify all persons, entities, agencies or others, whether governmental (state or federal) or private, who participated in any investigation ofthe claims made the basis ofthis lawsuit. -10- ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that the only "investigation" ofPlaintiffs claims were made by Defendant and/or counsel, which "investigation" is privileged pursuant to the work product and attomey/client privileges. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state whether Defendant or any successor or predecessor was ever a member ofthe Railroad Claims Registry, and if so, please state the years Defendant was a member; the years ofattendance at and involvement in the Railroad Claims Registry Meetings; the name, job classification, address and telephone number ofeach and every agent and/or representative and/or employee ofDefendant attending each and every Railroad Claims Registry Meeting and the year that agent and/or representative and/or employee ofDefendant attended the meeting; and the. location of the Railroad Claims Registry Meeting for each year attended by Defendant ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that, without further information, it cannot determine what the "Railroad Claims Registry" is such that further answer to this interrogatory can be made. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please state whether Defendant or any successor or predecessor ever attended or sent an agent on its behalf to any of the Association of American Railroads and American Railway Association meetings from 1930 to the present, and if so, please state the yearn of attendance; the location of the meeting; the name, address, job classification and telephone number of each and every agent and/or employee and/or representative ofDefendant attending each -11- and every Association ofAmerican Railroads and American Railway Association meeting and the exact year of attendance. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states it has no knowledge regarding whether the Gulf Mobile & Ohio Railway Co. was a member of or attended meetings of* the AAR or ARA other than that information disclosed in plaintiff's identified exhibits regarding" the AAR or ARA. Illinois Central Railroad Co. joined the ARA in 1934. Between that time and 1986 when Baria left its employ, Illinois Central Railroad Co. has no information regarding attendance ofmeetings other than that contained in Plaintiff's identified exhibits regarding the AAR or ARA. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Before 1980, did Defendant receive notice that any individual who at any time was employed by the Defendant claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, state: A. The name and address of each claimant; B. The date of notice of each claim; C. A description ofthe claim; D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained by each claimant; E. The name and address of each attorney who represented each individual making a claim; F. The style and court number of each claim; G. The disposition ofeach claim that has been settled or taken to judgment; H. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness -12- statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states no. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Before 1980, did Defendant receive notice that any individual- who at any time was employed by any Railroad claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, state: A. The name and address ofeach claimant; B. The date ofnotice of each claim; C. A description of the claim; D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained by each claimant; E. The name and address of each attorney who represented each individual making a claim; F. The style and court number ofeach claim; G. The disposition ofeach claim that has been settled or taken to judgment; H. The name, address and title ofthe person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xb); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, -13- therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Has Defendant at any time published, distributed or displayed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, warning signs or statements, packaging or other written material ofany kind or character containing any warning concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products and/or exposure to airborne asbestos? Ifso, state: A. The exact wording ofeach warning statement and a description ofthe material upon, which the warning was printed; B. The method(s) used to distribute the materials to persons likely to use the asbestoscontaining products or likely to be exposed to airborne asbestos; C. The date each warning was first issued or distributed; D. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning statements and/or written materials; E. The current location ofany such printed material and the custodian thereof; F. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, i.e., the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. -14- Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, and limited to the time period prior to 1986 when plaintiff left Defendant's employ. Defendant states unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Did Defendant install, replace, use, repair, assemble, transport or store, either as an original appurtenance ofthe railroad or placed in/on the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad, any asbestos-containing products during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant? If so, identify: A. By name and number each of Defendant's railroad(s), whether operating or in railyards, upon which the asbestos-containing produces) were installed, repaired, used, stored or transported during the time Plaintiffworked for Defendant; B. The particular type ofasbestos-containing produces); C. The trade or brand name of each ofthe asbestos-containing products; D. The years during which each named asbestos product was applied, stored, used, repaired, installed or transported either as an original appurtenance ofthe railroad or. placed on/in the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad(s); E. The dates ofany removal or abatement of such asbestos-containing products, from Defendant's railroad(s). ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. -15- Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states limited to Beauregard Yard, Defendant states "unknown." Should plaintiff provide additional information regarding relevant work locations, defendant would again supplement its response to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 20; Did any entities or persons at Defendant's direction, whether direct or indirect, including but not limited to contractors and subcontractors install, replace, use, repair, assemble, transport or store, either as an original appurtenance ofthe railroad or placed in/on the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad, any asbestos-containing products during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant? If so, identify: A. By name and number each of Defendant's railroad(s), whether operating or in railyards, upon which the asbestos-containing produces) were installed, repaired, used, stored or transported during the time Plaintiffworked for Defendant; B. The particular type of asbestos-containing product(s); C. The trade or brand name of each ofthe asbestos-containing products; D. The years during which each named asbestos product was applied, stored, used, repaired, installed or transported either as an original appurtenance ofthe railroad or placed on/in the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad(s);. E. The dates ofany removal or abatement of such asbestos-containing products, fromDefendant's railroad(s). ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, see response to Interrogatory #19. -16- INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Ifthe answer to any portion of the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative and/or if any asbestos-containing products are identified in response to such interrogatory, state the following as to each identified product: A. The name(s) of the railroad workers repairing, replacing or using each asbestoscontaining product on Defendant's railroad(s) during Plaintiffs period of employment by Defendant; B. A description ofthe physical appearance of each of the named asbestos-containing products; C. A detailed description ofthe uses ofthe named asbestos-containing products; D. A detailed description of the areas on Defendant's railroad where such asbestos- containing products were installed, replaced or used. A. By name and number each of Defendant's railroad(s), whether operating or in railyards, upon which the asbestos-containing produces) were installed, repaired, used, stored or transported during the time Plaintiffworked for Defendant; B. The particular type ofasbestos-containing produces); C. The trade or brand name of each ofthe asbestos-containing products; D. The years during which each named asbestos product was applied, stored, used, repaired, installed or transported either as an original appurtenance ofthe railroad or. placed on/in the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad(s); E. The dates ofany removal or abatement ofsuch asbestos-containing products, from Defendant's railroad(s). ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R, Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. -17- Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, see responses to Interrogatories #19 and 20. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Has Defendant or any other entity at the direction ofDefendant, contracted with another entity for the acquisition, ordering, purchasing, supplying or distributing of asbestos-containing products, at any time prior to or during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant? If so, identify: A. Each of Defendant's railroad components by name and number for which the asbestos-containing products were ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant; B. The particular type of asbestos-containing products acquired; C. The trade or brand name of each of those asbestos-containing products ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; D. The years such asbestos-containing products were acquired, ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed by Defendant; E. The dates of any removal or abatement of asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant, hereby incorporates its preliminary statement'and general objections. Defendant further objects toanswering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that it purchased products which may have contained asbestos consistent with materials purchased by other railroads during the time periods plaintiffwas employed by Illinois Central Railroad Co. -18- INTERROGATORY NO._23: If your answer to any portion ofthe preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, or if any asbestos-containing products are identified in response to that interrogatory, state the following as to each product: A. The name(s) of the company(ies), entities), manufacturers) from which the asbestos-containing products were acquired, ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; B. The date(s) each asbestos-containing product was ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; C. A description ofthe physical appearance of each ofthe named asbestos-containing products; D. A detailed description ofthe uses ofthe named asbestos-containing products; E. Identify the last year that Defendant ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed each identified asbestos-containing product ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege,. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witnessstatement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, see response to Interrogatory #22. INTERROGATORY N0.24: State whether Defendant maintained from 1950 through the present copies ofinvoices, shipping receipts, bills oflading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the purchase or acquisition of asbestos-containing products. If so, state: A. The location of such documents; B. The name and address ofthe custodian ofthe documents; -19- C. The format in which the documents are kept, i.e., hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc.; D. In what form the documents can be accessed. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that its seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the pah of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that it has no such documents in its possession. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Identify all persons, including name, address and telephone number, who provided and/or conducted or were responsible for conducting any type of safety training, during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is. -20- therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that with respect to the Gulf Mobile & Ohio Railway Co., "unknown." Illinois Central Railroad Co. had a safety department which provided training and materials throughout all operation ofdefendant's railroad. Numerous employees, including its foremen, had responsibility for safety training. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: At any time prior to 1980 did Defendant or anyone at the - direction of Defendant conduct an investigation, survey or other process to identify the primary emission sources of airborne asbestos fibers and/or to asses and/or sample for the detection of, the quantify o or threshold limit value ofairborne asbestos fibers in relation to Defendant's railroad? If so, please identify with particularity the entity and/or persons conducting such investigations), survey(s) or test(s) the dates conducted and the results. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery virile Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. -21- Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Did Defendant ever arrange for any labor agency, insurance company, government agency, inspectors or anyone from your company to go into any of Defendant's railway cars) and/or engine(s) and/or locomotive(s) and/or roundhouses and/or shops to take dust level counts related to asbestos dust? If so, identify with particularity the party(ies) conducting such procedures), the dates conducted, the purpose of such procedure(s), and all results of such procedure(s). ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks, information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege,Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states that limited to plaintiffs employment from 1947 to 1986, unknown. INTERROGATORY NQ. 28: Did Defendant obtain facts, knowledge or information from any industry, insurance company, governmental agency, union, and/or any other entity regarding the -22- potential health effects and/or health hazards created for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust? If so, please list all sources of such information and the dates received. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of. permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, and limited to the time period prior to 1986, Defendant states, "unknown," except for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, or collected in anticipation of litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: List each person who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians (including those physicians who would have been responsible for conducting physicals, evaluations or screening ofDefendant's employees) and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals who has had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of airborne asbestos dust ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness -23- statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states: With respect to the Gulf Mobile & Ohio Railway Co., "unknown." Illinois Central Railroad Co. employed the following Chief Medical Officers for the years indicated: G. Dondall (1935-48) W.W. Leake (1948-51) Ernest Olsen (1951-69) Harry Hunter (1969-74) Philip L. Campagna (Acting ChiefMedical Officer on at lest May 11,1971) William Hand (1974-77) Thomas Davidson (1977-86) Dennis Ignatz (1986-87) Addresses of the above persons is unknown, it is believed each person was officed in Chicago, Illinois. The position was abolished in 1987. Further, Defendant never hired an individual with the job title "industrial hygienist." INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health ofhuman beings? If so, state: A. The name of each such publication; B. The date ofpublication and the names ofthe author and published (ifany); C. The date received by Defendant; -24- D. The name, job title, and address ofeach person who currently has possession of each publication and it present location. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of. permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, defendant states "no," other than materials collected in anticipation of litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Has Defendant at any time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards ofairborne asbestos? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such association or organization; B. The dates during which Defendant was a member; C. The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any ofthe named associations or organizations; D. Whether any ofthose publications are still in your possession, and if so: 1. A description ofthe publications, including the date; 2. The current location of such publications; 3. The custodian of such publication; 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. -25- ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad,burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, defendant states none other than organizations referred to in documents already produced by plaintiff or defendant in this case. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: As to the disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. How Defendant became aware ofthe existence ofthe disease; C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects ofthe disease; D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form; F. Who is the custodian of such information; G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers alone or in conjunction with second hand smoke. -26- ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, * burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part " of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, "unknown." Defendant further states that first asbestosis claim filed against it occurred in 1982. See deposition of Charles Garrett. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: As to the disease lung cancer, state: A. The date on which Defendant first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware ofthe disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure; C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form; F. Who is the custodian of such information; G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. -27- ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad,, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the partof Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states unknown. Defendant further states that the first lung cancer claim filed against it occurred in 1983. See deposition of Charles Garrett. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A. The date on which Defendant first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation ofasbestos dust and fibers; C. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware ofthe disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos; D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form; G. Who is the custodian of such information; H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. -28- ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad,, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the partof Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, "unknown." Defendant further states that the first mesothelioma claim filed against it occurred in 1982. See deposition of Charles Garrett INTERROGATORY NO. 35: As to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer and/or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The type ofcancer and the date on which Defendant first learned that such diseases were caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans; B. What cancers has the Defendant become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers; C. The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation; D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects ofasbestos exposure; E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form; G. Who is the custodian of such information; -29- ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xb); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad,burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part" of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that medical science does not yet agree that gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer are caused by inhalation ofasbestos fibers, nor is defendant aware ofany other cancer caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. See deposition of Charles Garrett. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Did Defendant maintain written minutes ofcorporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? If so, for each such set of minutes, state: A. The dates of each such meeting; B. The general subject matter discussed at each meeting; C. Who was in attendance at each meeting; D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained; E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format; F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and ifso, the names and job titles ofthose individuals. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to -30- answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states, none known. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Does Defendant intend to call a company representative as a witness at the trial ofthis case? If so, list: A. The name, address, and job title ofeach company representative who may be called; B. A summary ofthe testimony expected to be given by each such witness; C. List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style ofthe case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs) in that case. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because ofits breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xd); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible -31- evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope ofpermissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, unknown at this time. If any such witness is called, it is likely to be Charles Garrett. See deposition. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Does your company have, or has it ever had, a Medical- Department or Medical Section? If so, state: A. the year such Medical Department or Section was established; B. Whether or not such Medical Department or Section has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head ofyour Medical Department or Section year by year, beginning with the first year of its existence and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department or Section. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporated its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)<b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. -32- Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discoveiy. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatoiy as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states, see answer to Interrogatory #29. Defendant further states that it has no writtenjob description related to its Chief Medical Officers. INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Please state whether written warnings were placed at any locations adjacent to or near asbestos in place on Defendant's railroad(s), at anytime from 1930 to the present. If so, please describe with specificity such signs, including size, color, wording, etc. Additionally, please state the number of such signs that were installed and indicate the specific - location of each such sign and the dates such sign was at that location. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is . overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections, Defendant states, unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Does your company have, or has it ever had, a Safety -33- Department? If so, state: A. The year such Safety Department was established; B. Whether or not such Safety Department has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head ofyour Safety Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Safety Director or Safety Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Safety Department. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a` reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, yes. Further information is currently being investigated, and if uncovered. Defendant will supplement this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Please state whether a medical monitoring program, medical examination program or other medical surveillance was provided to your employees and specifically to Plaintiff. If so, please indicate what records of such program, examination or surveillance concerning Plaintiffexist at this time, including but not limited to, reports, x-rays and medical notes. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness -34- statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states: Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Co. required pre-employment and return to work physicals for its employees. Gulf Mobile & Ohio Railway Co. policies are unknown. With respect to plaintiff, defendant has no medical information other than that produced to plaintiff on January 27,1997 or obtained directly from plaintiffs counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Please state whether Defendant has at any time provided safety equipment to the Plaintiff and/or the railroad workers of Defendant present at any time during Plaintiffs employment by Defendant for protection against the inhalation ofairborne asbestos dust, including but not limited to masks, respirators, other breathing devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, etc. For each such item of equipment, please indicate when such item was first provided, under what circumstances, and the name, address and telephone number ofthe person most knowledgeable concerning such provision. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. -35- Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. _ Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states it has provided employees with hard hats, goggles, gloves, shoes and breathing protective equipment including cloth masks, black rubber respirators with filters fitting the nose and mouth and face masks with filters. Defendant is unaware as to what specific equipment was provided on the Gulf Mobile & Ohio Railway Co., but states that such equipment would most likely be housed in the stores department such that Charles Bethel and/or Burt Clark should have knowledge regarding the information sought in this interrogatory. Defendant further incorporates the deposition of CharlesBethel in response to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Please state whether Defendant ever agreed by contract, agreement, negotiation, collective bargaining or otherwise, to provide masks to Plaintiff and other crew members and/or employees ofDefendant working with or around asbestos products. If so, please state verbatim the specific agreement or contract and/or other document by which Defendant agreed to provide such masks. Include the date the agreement was entered into, the period oftime covered by the agreement and the parties to the agreement. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. -36- Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states none known. INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Please state the precise state and/or federal regulations, laws, statutes, or other authority pertaining to industrial hygiene or worker safety and health that governed, regulated, controlled and/or were applicable to airborne asbestos exposure in your operations and/or in relation to Defendant's railroad. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for die reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information whichis irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible* evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states: Federal Employer's Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. 51 etseq. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Please describe each and every occasion during the past thirty years when any regulatory agency or other governing body inspected Defendant's railroad to ascertain whether health and safety regulations were being followed or adhered to, including the date of such inspection and/or meeting, the results, and whether a written report was produced. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. -37- Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant is unaware of any regulatory agency inspecting Beauregard Yard. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: Please state whether any asbestos-containing products in place or in use on Defendant's railroad, has been removed or abated at any time from 1965 to the present If so, please answer the following: A. List each and every abatement company or other contractor involved with the removal ofasbestos, including address and telephone number, dates ofsuch removal, and whether a contract for such removal exists; B. Indicate the total amount in dollars spent by Defendant to abate or remove asbestos from the railroads; C. State whether any "removal plan" or organized written criteria or other document related to asbestos removal on the railroad(s) was ever prepared by Defendant; D. State whether corporate documents discussing or relating generally to the removal of asbestos are in existence and, if so, where they are maintained; E. State precise dates and locations when and where such removal or abatement took place for each railroad. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for die reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xa); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. -38- Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states that while it has abated or removed asbestos-containing materials on its railroad, it is not aware ofany abatement orremoval of such materials at Beauregard Yard. Ifplaintiffwould provide information regarding any~ buildings at or near Beauregard Yard in which he worked or other relevant locations other than the yard at Beauregard where he worked, defendant would again supplement its response to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 47: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant was first advised of such limits or concentrations; B. The name ofthe employee or official of the company receiving such advice; C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. -39- Defendant-further objects to this interrogatory for the_reason~that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Please state whether and when Defendant received a copy of the Fleischer/Drinker Report published in 1945/1946. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3Xc); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount oftime and expense on the part ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation ofTex. R. Civ. P. 168. Subject to and without waiving its previous objections. Defendant states, unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Please describe all actions taken by Defendant to comply with the Boiler Inspection Act, previously 45 U.S.CV 23 during the past thirty-five (35) years, now designated at 49 U.S.C. 20701, et seq. -40- ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itselfto a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad,burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the parr ofDefendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. -41- No. A153112 DONALD WOODROW DEVINE, etal., Plaintiffs, vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, etal., Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 58TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT VERIFICATION BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared CHARLES G. GARRETT, who after being sworn, stated upon his oath that he is the Risk Manager of Illinois Central Railroad Company and as such is authorized to verify Defendant Illinois Central Railroad' Company's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set ofInterrogatories Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting to Jurisdiction, and states that he has read and understands the same, and that all statements contained in the aforementioned supplemental responses are within his personal knowledge and are true and correct ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY BY CHARLES G. GARRETT Risk Manager SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 2&L day of to certify which witness may hand and seal of office. 1998, ------ *dntkLsk&&' PAULA J.FUHLER Notary Public, State ofIllinois - My Commission Expires 8/10/99 ____________________ Notary Public inland for the State of NotaryExpirationDate *&flO /ff No. A153112 DONALD WOODROW DEVINE, et al.. Plaintiffs, vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, etal., Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 58TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy of the foregoing Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting" to Jurisdiction was forwarded via Federal Express to the below-listed counsel on January 28, 1998: Ms. Kimberly Shauck Baron & Budd, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, IX 75219 GUNDLACH, LEE, EGGMANN, BOYLE & ROESSLER 5000 West Main St, Box 23560 Belleville, IL 62223-0560 (618)277-9000 (618) 277-4594 FAX