Document YGKebE0pJXJjkNkDeYqX5orQV

FILE NAME Kubota KUB DATE 2010 DOC KUB037 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Legal - Defendant Kubota's Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories Thomas C. Corless State Bar No. 100614 Aide C. Ontiveros State Bar No. 169629 WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 555 S. Flower Street Suite 2900 Los Angeles California 90071 Telephone 213 443-5100 Facsimile 213 443-5101 Attorneys for Defendant KUBOTA CORPORATION ECEIVER ECEIVER ECEIVER i} MAR 17 2010 } By = SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 RHODA EVANS and BOBBY EVANS ) Unlimited Civil Case ag 12 13 V. Plaintiffs eget! Case No BC 418867 me Action Filed July 29 2009 neat! Judge Conrad R. Aragon Dept. 49 See 14 ) DEFENDANT KUBOTA A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al 15 ee CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO nee PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL Defendants Sone INTERROGATORIES 16 eee em Trial Date 3/22/10 17 See Action Filed 7/29/09 18 19 PROPOUNDING PARTY : 20 RESPONDING PARTY : 21 SET NUMBER : 2222 Plaintiffs RHODA EVANS and BOBBY EVANS Defendant KUBOTA CORPORATION ONE 1 2222 Defendant KUBOTA CORPORATION hereby provides Responses to Plaintiff's Special 24 Interrogatories Propounded to Defendant Kubota Corporation Individually and as Successor 25 interest to Kubota Iron and Machinery Works and Kubota America as follows 26 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 27 Responding Party Defendant KUBOTA CORPORATION contends that many of these 28 interrogatories are objectionable as overly broad unduly burdensome not reasonably calculated DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence vague and ambiguous as applied to KUBOTA CORPORATION and inconsistent with the requirements of the California Code of Civil Procedure Accordingly KUBOTA CORPORATION has responded to the discovery as understood Further in attempting to respond KUBOTA CORPORATION is hampered by the passage of time Thus documents witnesses and evidence that may have helped KUBOTA CORPORATION to more completely respond to this discovery and defend itself in this litigation may no longer be in existence or available These responses are made solely for the purpose of litigation in Los Angeles County State of California To the extent applicable and expressly incorporated below the following objections are 10 incorporated in the response to each individual interrogatory 11 a KUBOTA CORPORATION objects generally to these interrogatories to the 12 extent they request information that is not within KUBOTA CORPORATION's possession 13 custody or control However KUBOTA CORPORATION has conducted a good faith 14 investigation and reasonable search for information with which to respond to these 15 interrogatories These responses are made on behalf of KUBOTA CORPORATION only with 16 regard to information existing during the time asbestos cement pipe was exported to the United 17 States from 1962 to 1975 18 b KUBOTA CORPORATION objects generally to these interrogatories to the 19 extent they request information directed towards products topics and issues beyond the 20 KUBOTA CORPORATION products about which plaintiffs make allegations on the grounds 21 that such interrogatories are overly broad unduly burdensome oppressive and request 22 information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and not reasonably 23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 24 c KUBOTA CORPORATION objects generally to these interrogatories to the 25 extent they request information protected by the attorney privilege and the attorney 26 product doctrine 27 In responding to this discovery KUBOTA CORPORATION has furnished information 28 that is now available which may include hearsay and other forms of information that are neither DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE reliable nor admissible as evidence In conducting its business KUBOTA CORPORATION has created documents that may have been kept in numerous different locations and may have 3 been moved from site to site As required by law these responses reflect all responsive 4 information identified by KUBOTA CORPORATION pursuant to a diligent search and 5 reasonable inquiry To the extent that any discovery requires more KUBOTA CORPORATION objects because the discovery requests KUBOTA CORPORATION to conduct a search beyond 6 the scope of permissible discovery contemplated by law and compliance with such requests would impose an undue burden on KUBOTA CORPORATION KUBOTA CORPORATION interprets these interrogatories as requesting information 10 that is not protected by the attorney privilege and the attorney product doctrine 11 KUBOTA CORPORATION provides the information in these responses solely for the purpose 12 of the present litigation KUBOTA CORPORATION expressly reserves all objections to the 13 attempted use of this information beyond the present forum complex asbestos litigation in Los 14 Angeles County 15 KUBOTA CORPORATION's investigation and discovery are ongoing KUBOTA 16 CORPORATION reserves the right to object to future discovery on the same or related matters 17 and does not waive any objection by providing the information reflected in these responses 18 KUBOTA CORPORATION further reserves the right to object to the admissibility of any of 19 these responses in whole or in part at trial in any action on any grounds including but not 20 limited to materiality relevance and privilege 21 Subject to the foregoing General Objections that are included without being individually 22 repeated in each of the following responses KUBOTA CORPORATION responds 23 KUBOTA'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 24 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.1 26 IDENTIFY the June 29 2005 announcement regarding the occurrence of many 27 occupational victims of asbestos as well as the victims asbestos dust from environmental 28 exposure around the Kanzaki plant 3 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 1 KUBOTA objects to this request as it invades the right to privacy of various individuals and their families is overly broad in scope unduly burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to information related to other containing products besides asbestos pressure pipe The requested information is also protected by a confidentiality provision Compromise agreements 6 and statements of sympathy are also protected by Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1160 8 Should KUBOTA be ordered to reveal such information said order will force KUBOTA to 9 breach its confidential contract with third parties This demand also requests information that 10 may be protected by the attorney and attorney work product privileges 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 2 12 IDENTIFY the approximately 75 former workers of the Kanzaki Plant developed 13 mesothelioma as a result of their exposure to the plant's containing products and have 14 died as a result of this fatal disease 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 2 16 KUBOTA objects to this request as it invades the right to privacy of various individuals 17 and their families is overly broad in scope unduly burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant 18 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to information 19 related to other containing products besides asbestos pressure pipe The 20 requested information is also protected by a confidentiality provision Compromise agreements 21 and statements of sympathy are also protected by Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1160 22 Should KUBOTA be ordered to reveal such information said order will force KUBOTA to 23 breach its confidential contract with third parties This demand also requests information that 24 may be protected by the attorney and attorney work product privileges 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 3 26 IDENTIFY the families you have compensated of deceased workers of the Kanzaki Plant 27 who developed mesothelioma as a result of their exposure to the plant's containing 28 products 4 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 3 KUBOTA objects to this request as it invades the right to privacy of various individuals and their families is overly broad in scope unduly burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to information related to other containing products besides asbestos pressure pipe The 6 requested information is also protected by a confidentiality provision Compromise agreements 7 and statements of sympathy are also protected by Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1160 8 Should KUBOTA be ordered to reveal such information said order will force KUBOTA to 9 breach its confidential contract with third parties This demand also requests information that 10 may be protected by the attorney and attorney work product privileges 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 4 12 Do YOU contend that residents of Arnagasaki City Japan did not develop mesothelioma 13 during and after the years the Kanzaki Plant produced containing products as a result of 14 exposure to the Kanzaki Plant's containing products 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 4 16 KUBOTA objects to this request as it invades the right to privacy of various individuals 17 and their families is overly broad in scope unduly burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant 18 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to information 19 related to other containing products besides asbestos pressure pipe The 20 requested information is also protected by a confidentiality provision Compromise agreements 21 and statements of sympathy are also protected by Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1160 22 Should KUBOTA be ordered to reveal such information said order will force KUBOTA to 23 breach its confidential contract with third parties This demand also requests information that 24 may be protected by the attorney and attorney work product privileges 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 5 26 If your response to Interrogatory No. 4 is anything other than an unqualified no state 27 all facts supporting YOUR contention 28 5 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 5 KUBOTA objects to this request as it invades the right to privacy of various individuals and their families is overly broad in scope unduly burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to information related to other containing products besides asbestos pressure pipe The requested information is also protected by a confidentiality provision Compromise agreements and statements of sympathy are also protected by Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1160 Should KUBOTA be ordered to reveal such information said order will force KUBOTA to breach its confidential contract with third parties This demand also requests information that 10 may be protected by the attorney and attorney work product privileges 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 6 12 If your response to Interrogatory No. 4 is anything other than an unqualified no 13 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 6 15 KUBOTA objects to this request as it invades the right to privacy of various individuals 16 and their families is overly broad in scope unduly burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant 17 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to information 18 related to other containing products besides asbestos pressure pipe The 19 requested information is also protected by a confidentiality provision Compromise agreements 20 and statements of sympathy are also protected by Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1160 21 Should KUBOTA be ordered to reveal such information said order will force KUBOTA to 22 breach its confidential contract with third parties This demand also requests information that 23 may be protected by the attorney and attorney work product privileges 24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 7 25 If your response to Interrogatory No. 4 is anything other than an unqualified no 26 IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention 27 28 6 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 7 KUBOTA objects to this request as it invades the right to privacy of various individuals and their families is overly broad in scope unduly burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant 4 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to information 5 related to other containing products besides asbestos pressure pipe The 5 requested information is also protected by a confidentiality provision Compromise agreements and statements of sympathy are also protected by Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1160 Should KUBOTA be ordered to reveal such information said order will force KUBOTA to breach its confidential contract with third parties This demand also requests information that 10 may be protected by the attorney and attorney work product privileges 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 8 12 IDENTIFY by the quantity the asbestos used at the Kanzaki Plant in the production of 13 asbestos water pipes and building material from 1962 through 1975 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 8 15 Objection The term building material is vague and ambiguous Otherwise unknown 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 9 17 IDENTIFY the documentation that you had regarding the HAZARDS ASSOCIATED 18 WITH ASBESTOS EXPOSURE and ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL from 1962 19 through 1975 20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 9 21 KUBOTO objects to this interrogatory as being vague ambiguous and unintelligible as to 22 time and scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 23 Without waiving said objections KUBOTA responds as follows 24 Through the passage of time the retirement and demise of its employees and through 25 standard company destruction policies potentially responsive documents and evidence have 26 been destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to more completely respond to this interrogatory 27 Shortly before its enactment KUBOTA became aware of a 1960 Japanese Pneumoconiosis Act 28 that addressed pneumoconiosis and asbestosis resulting from long term exposures to asbestos at DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE manufacturing facilities but not lung cancer or mesothelioma KUBOTA believes it first learned of asbestos related cancer and mesothelioma hazards shortly before promulgation of the 1975 Japanese Ordinance on Prevention of Hazards Caused by Specified Chemical Substances SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 10 IDENTIFY the precautionary equipment was available to YOU to protect YOUR 6 employees from HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS from 1962 7 through 1975 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 10 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 10 discovery of admissible evidence and is vague ambiguous and unintelligible as to the phrase 11 precautionary equipment Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections 12 KUBOTA responds as follows 13 Through the passage of time the retirement and demise of its employees and through 14 standard company destruction policies potentially responsive documents and evidence have 15 been destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to further respond to this interrogatory but 16 believes it first notified its employees working in its manufacturing plants and factories as to the 17 availability of respiratory protection in 1962 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 11 19 Do YOU contend that YOU offered protective respiratory equipment to employees at all 20 of your asbestos cement pipe manufacturing facilities from 1962 through 1975 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 11 22 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 23 discovery of admissible evidence and is vague ambiguous and unintelligible as to the phrase 24 protective respiratory equipment Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections 25 KUBOTA responds as follows 26 Through the passage of time the retirement and demise of its employees and through 27 standard company destruction policies potentially responsive documents and evidence have 28 been destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to respond to this interrogatory but believes it DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE first notified its employees working in its manufacturing plants and factories as to availability of respiratory protection in 1962 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 12 If your response to Interrogatory No. 11 is anything other than an unqualified no state all facts supporting YOUR contention RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 12 7 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 8 discovery of admissible evidence and is vague ambiguous and unintelligible as to the phrase 9 protective respiratory equipment Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections 10 KUBOTA responds as follows 11 Through the passage of time the retirement and demise of its employees and through 12 standard company destruction policies potentially responsive documents and evidence have 13 been destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to respond to this interrogatory but believes it 14 first notified its employees working in its manufacturing plants and factories as to the availability 15 of respiratory protection in 1962 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 13 17 If your response to Interrogatory No. 11 is anything other than an unqualified no 18 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 13 20 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 21 discovery of admissible evidence and is vague ambiguous and unintelligible as to the phrase 22 protective respiratory equipment Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections 23 KUBOTA responds as follows 24 Through the passage of time the retirement and demise of its employees and through 25 standard company destruction policies potentially responsive documents and evidence have 26 been destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to respond to this interrogatory but believes it 27 first notified its employees working in its manufacturing plants and factories as to the availability 28 of respiratory protection in 1962 9 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 14 If your response to Interrogatory No.11 is anything other than an unqualified no IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 14 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is vague ambiguous and unintelligible as to the phrase protective respiratory equipment Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows Through the passage of time the retirement and demise of its employees and through 10 standard company destruction policies potentially responsive documents and evidence have 11 been destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to respond to this interrogatory but believes it 12 first notified its employees working in its manufacturing plants and factories as to availability of 13 respiratory protection in 1962 14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 15 15 Do YOU contend that YOU provided consumers of your produced containing 16 products WARNINGS about the HAZARDS RELATED TO ASBESTOS EXPOSURE with the 17 ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU SOLD at any time from 1962 through 1975 18 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 15 19 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 20 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 21 amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA 22 responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during 23 the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos 24 cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard 25 company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed 26 KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this 27 basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall 28 Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of aVossKubota brochure In it one of the photos DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting tool The cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA So on this basis Yes SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 16 If your response to Interrogatory No. 15 is anything other than an unqualified no state full facts supporting YOUR contention RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 16 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 10 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 11 amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA 12 responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during 13 the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos 14 cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard 15 company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed 16 KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this 17 basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall 18 Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos 19 depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a 20 cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting 21 tool The cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an 22 oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 17 24 If your response to Interrogatory No. 15 is anything other than an unqualified no 25 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 26 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 17 27 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 28 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during 3 the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed 6 KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this 7 basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a 10 cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting 11 tool The cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an 12 oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 18 14 If your response to Interrogatory No.15 is anything other than an unqualified no 15 IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 18 17 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 18 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 19 amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA 20 responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during 21 the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos 22 cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard 23 company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed 24 KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this 25 basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall | 26 Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos 27 depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a 28 cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE tool The cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 19 IDENTIFY any WARNINGS on any packaging or product itself associated with ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU provided to consumers of your produced containing products from 1962 through 1975 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 19 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 10 amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA 11 responds as follows 12 As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 13 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe 14 division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record 15 destruction policies potentially responsive documents and evidence have been destroyed 16 KUBOTA lacks sufficient information to fully respond to this interrogatory Although 17 KUBOTA does not have information that such warnings were issued with its asbestos cement 18 pressure pipe supplied to the U.S. from 1962 to 1975 Plaintiff Bobby Brown would have 19 received relevant warnings from other parties including but not limited to Certainteed Johns- 20 Manville and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 2 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 20 22 Do YOU contend that YOU provided WARNINGS about the HAZARDS RELATED TO 23 ASBESTOS EXPOSURE with the ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU SOLD to 24 VOSS at any time from 1962 through 1975 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 20 26 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 27 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 28 13 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos depicts a 10 VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a cutting tool 11 VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting tool The 12 cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an oral 13 conversation between Voss and KUBOTA Also Plaintiff Bobby Brown would have received 14 relevant warnings from other parties including but not limited to Certainteed Manville 15 and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 21 17 If your response to Interrogatory No. 20 is anything other than an unqualified no state 18 all facts supporting YOUR contention 19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 21 20 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 21 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 22 amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA 23 responds as follows 24 As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 25 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe 26 division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record 27 destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed KUBOTA lacks 28 sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this basis cannot DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting tool The cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA Also Plaintiff Bobby Brown would have received relevant warnings from other parties including but not limited to Certainteed Manville and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 22 10 If your response to Interrogatory No. 20 is anything other than an unqualified no 11 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 22 13 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 14 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 15 amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA 16 responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during 17 the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos 18 cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard 19 company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed 20 KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this 21 basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall 22 Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos 23 depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a 24 cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting 25 tool The cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an 26 oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA Also Plaintiff Bobby Brown would have 27 received relevant warnings from other parties including but not limited to Certainteed Johns- 28 Manville and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 23 If your response to Interrogatory No. 20 is anything other than an unqualified no IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 23 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos 10 cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard 11 company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed 12 KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this 13 basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall 14 Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos 15 depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a 16 cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting 17 tool The cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an 18 oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 24 20 21 Do YOU contend that YOU provided WARNINGS about the HAZARDS RELATED TO - ASBESTOS EXPOSURE with the ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU SOLD to the 22 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 1975 23 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 24 24 Objection KUBOTA objects to this request as it is overly broad in scope unduly 25 burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 26 discovery of admissible evidence as to information related to other containing products 27 besides asbestos pressure pipe This request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA 28 or VOSS sold or supplied any containing material to Los Angeles Department of Water DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE and Power of Los Angeles CA at any time from 1962 to 1975. Without waiving these objections KUBOTA responds as follows 3 Not applicable as there is no evidence that KUBOTA supplied or delivered any asbestos cement pressure pipe to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 1975 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 25 6 If your response to Interrogatory No. 24 is anything other than an unqualified no state all facts supporting YOUR contention RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 25 10 Not applicable as there is no evidence that KUBOTA supplied or delivered any asbestos 11 cement pressure pipe to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 12 1975 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 26 14 If your response to Interrogatory No. 24 is anything other than an unqualified no 15 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 26 17 1 LADWP's Production of Documents dated 2/1/10 attached as Exhibit 35 to the 18 Deposition Transcript of LADWP's Person Most Knowledgeable Daniel Davis III 19 dated 2/4/10 20 2 Deposition Transcript of LADWP's Person Most Knowledgeable Daniel Davis III 21 dated 2/4/10 and 2/5/10 Volumes 1 and 2 with Exhibits 22 23 3 Deposition Transcript of LADWP's Person Most Knowledgeable Alvaro Sanchez 24 dated 2/5/10 and 2/8/10 Volume 1 and 2 with Exhibits 25 4 Deposition Transcript of LADWP's Person Most Knowledgeable Rhoda 26 Lukjaniec dated 2/8/10 with Exhibits 27 5 Deposition Transcript of Albert Groth dated January 28 and 27 2010 and Exhibits 28 17 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE and 6 Deposition Transcript of Arthur H. Voss dated 1/31/07 taken in Superior Court County of San Francisco Case No. 972662 entitled Paul Roach v Abex Corporation et al which was previously produced as Tab 4.21 in KUBOTA's production of documents related to the Deposition of KUBOTA's Person Most Knowledgeable taken on December 12 2007 in the Webber v A.H. Voss litigation and is already in the possession of plaintiffs counsel Investigation and discovery are continuing and KUBOTA reserves its rights to amend 10 this response 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 27 12 If your response to Interrogatory No. 24 is anything other than an unqualified no 13 IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORYNO 27 15 Bobby Evans Albert Groth Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's Persons 16 Most Knowledgeable Daniel Davis Alvaro Sanchez Rhoda Lukjaniec and Arthur H. Voss 17 Plaintiffs are in possession of the contact information and address for each of the persons with 18 the exception of Mr. Voss who is deceased 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 28 20 Do YOU contend that YOU were unaware of the asbestos fiber release that occurred 21 when ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS YOU manufactured and supplied to VOSS 22 were cut with a power saw at any time from 1962 through 1975 23 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 28 24 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 25 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 26 amounts of dust This interrogatory is also vague ambiguous and unintelligible as to time 27 Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows 28 18 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting tool The 10 cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an oral 11 conversation between Voss and KUBOTA So on this basis No. 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 29 13 If your response to Interrogatory No. 28 is anything other than an unqualified no state 14 all facts supporting YOUR contention 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 29 16 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 17 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 18 amounts of dust This interrogatory is also vague ambiguous and unintelligible as to time 19 Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows As 20 KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 years 21 potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe division of 22 Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record destruction 23 policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed KUBOTA lacks sufficient 24 information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this basis cannot respond further 25 In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall Waters plaintiffs counsel 26 received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos depicts a VOSS employee 27 protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a cutting tool VOSS required its 28 employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting tool The cutting tool used water DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 30 If your response to Interrogatory No. 28 is anything other than an unqualified no IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 30 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to amounts of dust This interrogatory is also vague ambiguous and unintelligible as to time 10 Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows As 11 KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 years 12 potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe division of 13 Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record destruction 14 policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed KUBOTA lacks sufficient 15 information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this basis cannot respond further 16 In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall Waters plaintiffs counsel 17 received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos depicts a VOSS employee 18 protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a cutting tool VOSS required its 19 employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting tool The cutting tool used water 20 at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an oral conversation between Voss and | 21 KUBOTA 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 31 23 If your response to Interrogatory No. 28 is anything other than an unqualified no 24 IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 31 26 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 27 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 28 amounts of dust This interrogatory is also vague ambiguous and unintelligible as to time DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a cutting tool VOSS required its 10 employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting tool The cutting tool used water 11 at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an oral conversation between Voss and 12 KUBOTA 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 32 14 IDENTIFY the quantity of ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE YOU sold to VOSS from 1962 15 through 1975 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 32 17 Unknown As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the 18 ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos 19 cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard 20 company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed 21 KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this 22 basis cannot respond further 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 33 24 Do YOU contend that you did not have an exclusive distribution agreement with VOSS 25 under which VOSS SOLD KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE in California from 1962 26 through 1975 27 28 21 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 33 KUBOTA responds as follows Through the passage of time the retirement and demise of its employees and through standard company destruction policies potentially responsive documents and evidence have been destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to further respond : to this interrogatory SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 34 If your response to Interrogatory No. 33 is anything other than an unqualified no state all facts supporting YOUR contention RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 34 10 KUBOTA responds as follows Through the passage of time the retirement and demise 11 of its employees and through standard company destruction policies potentially responsive 12 documents and evidence have been destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to further respond : 13 to this interrogatory 14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 35 15 If your response to Interrogatory No. 33 is anything other than an unqualified no 16 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 35 18 - KUBOTA responds as follows Through the passage of time the retirement and demise 19 of its employees and through standard company destruction policies potentially responsive 20 documents and evidence have been destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to further respond 21 to this interrogatory 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 36 | 23 If your response to Interrogatory No. 33 is anything other than an unqualified no 24 IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 36 26 KUBOTA responds as follows Through the passage of time the retirement and demise 27 of its employees and through standard company destruction policies potentially responsive 28 22 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE documents and evidence have been destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to further respond to this interrogatory SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 37 4 IDENTIFY the ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE YOU supplied to VOSS from 1962 through 5 1975 6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 37 7 KUBOTA responds that the subject asbestos cement pipe had the following composition Portland cement silica and asbestos The quantitative percentage of asbestos approximated % The type of asbestos was Crocidolite and Chrysotile Kubota's asbestos 10 cement pipe met the current standards and specifications of the American Waterworks 11 Association C400-64T and latest revisions thereof Federal Specifications for Asbestos 12 Pipe 35La American Society for Testing Materials C296-65 Type II and Underwriters 13 Laboratories Inc. Kubota's asbestos cement pipe was available in the following lengths as 14 stated in the Kubota brochure that has been previously produced 15 Pipe Diameter Full Length Half Length Quarter Length MOA 16 2 in 17 3-4 in 8 ft 10 ft 4ft 5 ft 2ft ... ft 18 4-12 in 13 ft 6ft ... ft 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 38 20 Did YOU provide any warnings to VOSS related to YOUR containing pipe 21 from 1962 through 1975 22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 38 23 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 24 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 25 amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA | 26 responds as follows 27 As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 28 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting tool The cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA So on this basis Yes 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 39 11 IDENTIFY the fiber type and quantity of asbestos in the ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE 12 that YOU SOLD TO VOSS from 1962 through 1975 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 39 14 KUBOTA responds that the subject cement pipe had the following composition Portland 15 cement silica and asbestos The quantitative percentage of asbestos approximated % The type 16 of asbestos was Crocidolite and Chrysotile 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 40 18 IDENTIFY any KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE with logos including but not 19 limited to Voss on a triangle and Kubota underneath the triangle from 1962 through 20 1975 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 40 22 KUBOTA responds as follows Through the passage of time the retirement and demise 23 of its employees and through standard company destruction policies potentially responsive 24 documents and evidence have been destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to further respond 25 to this interrogatory 26 27 28 24 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 41 Do YOU contend that you informed VOSS to warn users of KUBOTA ASBETOS 3 CEMENT PIPE to use RESPIRATORY PROTECTION when working with KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE from 1962 through 1975 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 41 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 7 to specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during 10 the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos 11 cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard 12 company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed 13 KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this 14 basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall 15 Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos 16 depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a 17 cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting 18 tool The cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an 19 oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA So on this basis Yes 20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 42 21 If your response to Interrogatory No. 41 is anything other than an unqualified no state 22 all facts supporting YOUR contention 23 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 42 24 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 25 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 26 amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA 27 responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during 28 the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos 6 depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a 7 cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting 8 tool The cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an 9 oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 43 11 If your response to Interrogatory No. 41 is anything other than an unqualified no 12 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 43 14 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 15 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 16 amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA 17 responds as follows 18 As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 19 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe 20 division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record 21 destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed KUBOTA lacks 22 sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this basis cannot 23 respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall Waters 24 plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos depicts a 25 VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a cutting tool 26 VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting tool The 27 cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an oral 28 conversation between Voss and KUBOTA 26 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 44 If your response to Interrogatory No. 41 is anything other than an unqualified no IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 44 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos 10 cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard 11 company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed 12 KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this 13 basis cannot respond further other than to identify Arthur H. Voss Randall Waters Robert 14 Arbizo and Bonifacio Lesso 15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 45 16 Do YOU contend that you informed VOSS to warn users of KUBOTA ASBESTOS 17 CEMENT PIPE to use RESPIRATORY PROTECTION when cutting KUBOTA ASBESTOS 18 CEMENT PIPE from 1962 through 1975 19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 45 20 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 21 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 22 amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA 23 responds as follows 24 As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 25 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe 26 division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record 27 destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed KUBOTA lacks 28 sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this basis cannot DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting tool The cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA So on this basis Yes SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 46 If your response to Interrogatory No. 45 is anything other than an unqualified no state all facts supporting YOUR contention 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 46 11 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 12 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 13 amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA 14 responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during 15 the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos 16 cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard 17 company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed 18 KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this 19 basis cannot respond further In addition at a deposition of a former VOSS employee Randall 20 Waters plaintiffs counsel received a copy of a Kubota brochure In it one of the photos 21 depicts a VOSS employee protected by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a 22 cutting tool VOSS required its employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting 23 tool The cutting tool used water at the point of operation The evidence does not preclude an 24 oral conversation between Voss and KUBOTA 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 47 26 If your response to Interrogatory No. 45 is anything other than an unqualified no 27 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 28 28 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 47 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased the sale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this 10 basis cannot respond further other than the following 11 KUBOTA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and has previously 12 produced any responsive documents in its possession custody or control that were created prior 13 to December 31 1975 and are related to asbestos pressure pipe The responsive 14 documents were produced as Tabs 1.10 and 1.10 in KUBOTA's production of documents 15 related to the Deposition of KUBOTA's Person Most Knowledgeable taken on December 12 16 2007 in the Webber v A.H. Voss litigation including a Kubota brochure and a photo of 17 cutting tool One of the photos in the Kubota brochure depicts a VOSS employee protected 18 by goggles gloves and a face mask while working at a cutting tool VOSS required its 19 employees to wear protective equipment while using a cutting tool The cutting tool used water 20 at the point of operation 21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 48 22 If your response to Interrogatory No. 45 is anything other than an unqualified no 23 IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention 24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 48 25 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 26 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 27 amounts of dust Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA 28 responds as follows As KUBOTA ceased thesale of asbestos cement pipe in 1975 and during DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE the ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses have left the employ of the asbestos cement pipe division of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents have been destroyed KUBOTA lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to this interrogatory and on this basis cannot respond further other than to identify Arthur H. Voss Randall Waters Robert Arbizo and Bonifacio Lesso SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 49 IDENTIFY the printed warnings regarding asbestos dust which were on the bags of any asbestos fiber you were supplied for the production of KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE 10 from 1962 through 1975 11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 49 12 KUBOTA is not aware of any such warnings 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 50 14 IDENTIFY the entities that supplied YOU with the asbestos in you ASBESTOS 15 CEMENT PIPE from 1962 through 1975 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 50 17 KUBOTA purchased refined raw asbestos from Manville via Tokyo Kogyi Boeki 18 Shokai Manville's sole agent in Japan among unknown others 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 51 20 IDENTIFY by fiber type and quantity the asbestos in your ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE 21 from 1962 through 1975 22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 51 23 KUBOTA responds that the subject cement pipe had the following composition Portland 24 cement silica and asbestos The quantitative percentage of asbestos approximated 18 The type 25 of asbestos was Crocidolite and Chrysotile 26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 52 27 Do YOU contend that YOU did not cause Plaintiff to be exposed to asbestos 28 30 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 52 Objection KUBOTA objects to this request as it is overly broad in scope unduly burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to information related to other containing products besides asbestos pressure pipe This request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA or VOSS sold or supplied any containing material to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power of Los Angeles CA at any time from 1962 to 1975. Without waiving these objections KUBOTA responds as follows Not applicable as there is no evidence that KUBOTA supplied or delivered any asbestos 10 cement pressure pipe to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 11 1975 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 53 13 If your response to Interrogatory No. 52 is anything other than an unqualified no state 14 all facts supporting YOUR contention 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 53 16 Objection KUBOTA objects to this request as it is overly broad in scope unduly 17 burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 18 discovery of admissible evidence as to information related to other containing products 19 besides asbestos pressure pipe This request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA 20 or VOSS sold or supplied any containing material to Los Angeles Department of Water 21 and Power of Los Angeles CA at any time from 1962 to 1975. Without waiving these 22 objections KUBOTA responds as follows 23 Not applicable as there is no evidence that KUBOTA supplied or delivered any asbestos 24 cement pressure pipe to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 25 1975 26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 54 27 If your response to Interrogatory No. 52 is anything other than an unqualified no 28 IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 54 Objection KUBOTA objects to this request as it is overly broad in scope unduly burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to information related to other containing products besides asbestos pressure pipe This request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA or VOSS sold or supplied any containing material to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power of Los Angeles CA at any time from 1962 to 1975. Without waiving these objections KUBOTA responds as follows Not applicable as there is no evidence that KUBOTA supplied or delivered any asbestos 10 cement pressure pipe to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 11 1975 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 55 13 If your response to Interrogatory No. 52 anything other than an unqualified no 14 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 55 16 1 LADWP's Production of Documents dated 2/1/10 attached as Exhibit 35 to the 17 Deposition Transcript of LADWP's Person Most Knowledgeable Daniel Davis III dated 18 2/4/10 19 2 Deposition Transcript of LADWP's Person Most Knowledgeable Daniel Davis III 20 dated 2/4/10 and 2/5/10 Volumes 1 and 2 with Exhibits 21 22 3 Deposition Transcript of LADWP's Person Most Knowledgeable Alvaro Sanchez 23 dated 2/5/10 and 2/8/10 Volume 1 and 2 with Exhibits 24 4 Deposition Transcript of LADWP's Person Most Knowledgeable Rhoda Lukjanied 25 dated 2/8/10 with Exhibits 26 5 Deposition Transcript of Albert Groth dated January 28 and 27 2010 and Exhibits 27 and 28 32 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE 6 Deposition Transcript of Arthur H. Voss dated 1/31/07 taken in Superior Court County of San Francisco Case No. 972662 entitled Paul Roach v Abex Corporation et al which was previously produced as Tab 4.21 in KUBOTA's production of documents related to the Deposition of KUBOTA's Person Most Knowledgeable taken on December 12 2007 in the Webber v A.H. Voss litigation and is already in the possession of plaintiffs counsel Investigation and discovery are continuing and KUBOTA reserves its rights to amend this response 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 56 11 Do you contend that Plaintiff Rhoda Evans does not have asbestos mesothelioma 12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 56 13 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 14 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 15 amounts of dust 16 Without waiving said objection KUBOTA responds that it lacks sufficient information to 17 respond to this interrogatory Investigation and discovery are continuing and KUBOTA reserves 18 its right to amend this response 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 57 20 If your response to Interrogatory No. 56 is anything other than an unqualified no state 21 dl facts supporting YOUR contention 22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 57 23 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 24 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 25 amounts of dust Without waiving said objection KUBOTA responds that it lacks sufficient 26 information to respond to this interrogatory 27 28 33 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 58 If your response to Interrogatory No. 56 is anything other than an unqualified no IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 58 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to amounts of dust Without waiving said objection KUBOTA responds that it lacks sufficient information to respond to this interrogatory SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 59 10 If your response to Interrogatory No. 56 is anything other than an unqualified no 11 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 59 13 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 14 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 15 amounts of dust Without waiving said objection KUBOTA responds that it lacks sufficient 16 information to respond to this interrogatory 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 60 18 Do YOU contend that any entity including any bankrupt entity or trust other than those 19 named in the Complaint are liable for Plaintiffs alleged damages 20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 60 21 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 22 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 23 amounts of dust Without waiving said objection KUBOTA responds that it lacks sufficient 24 information to respond to this interrogatory other than Manville Investigation and 25 discovery is continuing and KUBOTA reserves its right to amend this response 26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 61 27 If YOUR answer to interrogatory No. 60 was anything than an unqualified no state all 28 facts that support YOUR contention 34 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 61 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to amounts of dust Without waiving said objection KUBOTA responds that it lacks sufficient in formation to respond to this interrogatory with regard to other entities other than Manville With regard to Manville Bobby Evans and Albert Groth testified that during the relevant period the majority of asbestos cement pipe at the subject Los Angeles Department of Water and Power yard was manufactured by either Manville or Certainteed This testimony is supported by the deposition testimony of Los Angeles Department of Water and 10 Power's Persons Most Knowledgeable Daniel Davis Alvaro Sanchez and Rhoda Lukjaniec and 11 Exhibits thereto 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 62 13 If YOUR answer to interrogatory No. 60 was anything than an unqualified no 14 DENTIFY all individuals that support YOUR contention 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 62 16 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 17 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 18 amounts of dust Without waiving said objection KUBOTA responds that it lacks sufficient 19 information to respond to this interrogatory other than the following 20 Bobby Evans Albert Groth Charles Reuben Daniel Davis Alvaro Sanchez and Rhoda 21 Lukjaniec whose contact information and addresses are known to plaintiffs and Arthur H. Voss 22 deceased 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 63 If YOUR answer to interrogatory No. 60 was anything than an unqualified no 24 DENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 63 26 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence 27 specifically that utilizing KUBOTA Asbestos Pressure Pipe would expose workers to 28 35 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE amounts of dust Without waiving said objection KUBOTA responds that it lacks sufficient information to respond to this interrogatory other than the following 1 LADWP's Production of Documents dated 2/1/10 attached as Exhibit 35 to the Deposition Transcript of LADWP's Person Most Knowledgeable Daniel Davis III dated 2/4/10 2 Deposition Transcript of LADWP's Person Most Knowledgeable Daniel Davis III dated 2/4/10 and 2/5/10 Volumes 1 and 2 with Exhibits 3 Deposition Transcript of LADWP's Person Most Knowledgeable Alvaro Sanchez 10 dated 2/5/10 and 2/8/10 Volume 1 and 2 with Exhibits 11 4 Deposition Transcript of LADWP's Person Most Knowledgeable Rhoda Lukjaniec 12 dated 2/8/10 with Exhibits 13 5 Deposition Transcript of Albert Groth dated January 28 and 27 2010 and Exhibits 14 and 15 6 Deposition Transcript of Arthur H. Voss dated 1/31/07 taken in Superior Court 16 17 County of San Francisco Case No. 972662 entitled Paul Roach v Abex Corporation et 18 al which was previously produced as Tab 4.21 in KUBOTA's production of 19 documents related to the Deposition of KUBOTA's Person Most Knowledgeable taken 20 on December 12 2007 in the Webber v A.H. Voss litigation and is already in the 222 possession of plaintiffs counsel 222 7 Deposition Transcript of Takashi Arimori dated 9/30/96 taken in Superior Court 222 222 County of San Francisco Case Nos 973070 969634 969946 971564 972983 969749 222 953659 and 972662 with Exhibits 222 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 64 27 Do YOU contend that materials Mr. Evans worked with or around did not contain 28 ASBESTOS? 36 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 64 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as being vague ambiguous unintelligible and undefined as to the meaning of the term materials and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence It is obvious that some of the materials which Mr. Evans worked with or around would not have contained asbestos SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 65 If your response to Interrogatory No. 64 is anything other than an unqualified no state dl facts supporting YOUR contention RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 65 10 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as being vague ambiguous unintelligible and 11 undefined as to the meaning of the term materials and is not reasonably calculated to lead to 12 the discovery of admissible evidence It is obvious that some of the materials which Mr. Evans 13 worked with or around would not have contained asbestos 14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 66 15 If your response to Interrogatory No 64 is anything other than an unqualified no 16 IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 66 18 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as being vague ambiguous unintelligible and 19 undefined as to the meaning of the term materials and is not reasonably calculated to lead to 20 the discovery of admissible evidence It is obvious that some of the materials which Mr. Evans 21 worked with or around would not have contained asbestos 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 67 23 If your response to Interrogatory No. 64 anything other than an unqualified no 24 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 67 26 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as being vague ambiguous unintelligible and 27 undefined as to the meaning of the term materials and is not reasonably calculated to lead to 28 37 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE the discovery of admissible evidence It is obvious that some of the materials which Mr. Evans worked with or around would not have contained asbestos SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 68 - IDENTIFY all depositions taken of any of YOUR current or former EMPLOYEES in any asbestos personal injury or wrongful death action RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 68 Objection This interrogatory requests information that is protected from disclosure by a confidentiality agreement and the privacy rights of third parties and their families Without waiving these objections KUBOTA responds as follows 10 1 Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable Keisuke Sezaki dated December 12 2007 11 in the Webber v A. H. Voss litigation However Mr. Sezaki's deposition is unsigned and cannot 12 be used in any other litigation based on the California Code of Civil Procedure General Orders 13 related to former testimony and a confidentiality agreement 14 2 Deposition of Takashi Arimori dated 9/30/96 taken in Superior Court County of San 15 Francisco Case Nos 973070 969634 969946 971564 972983 969749 953659 and 972662 16 with Exhibits 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 69 18 IDENTIFY any and all ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU SOLD between 19 the years 1965 and 1992 inclusive 20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROG^ TORYNO 69 21 KUBOTA objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad in scope and 22 time irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as 23 it potentially includes products not sold in the United States products sold after 1975 and 24 products other than asbestos cement pressure pipe 25 Without waiving said objections KUBOTA responds that it manufactured and sold in the 26 U.S. asbestos pressure pipe from 1962 to 1975 only 27 28 38 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 70 IDENTIFY any and all MANUFACTURERS of the ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU SOLD between the years 1965 and 1992 inclusive RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 70 KUBOTA objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad in scope and time and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it potentially includes products not sold in the United States and products sold after 1975 and products other than asbestos cement pressure pipe Without waiving said objections KUBOTA responds that it manufactured and sold its 10 asbestos pressure pipe from 1962 to 1975 in the United States There is no evidence 11 discovered to date that KUBOTA delivered or supplied any asbestos cement pressure pipe to the 12 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time between 1965 and 1992 13 14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 71 15 IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR SALES of ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL 16 to VOSS between the years 1965 and 1992 inclusive 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 71 18 KUBOTA objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad in scope and 19 time and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Subject to 20 the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows 21 Through the passage of time the retirement and demise of its employees and through 22 standard company destruction policies potentially responsive documents and evidence have 23 been destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to respond to this interrogatory However | 24 KUBOTA believes it sold asbestos pressure pipe to Voss from 1962 to 1975 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 72 26 IDENTIFY any and all information concerning the MANUFACTURERS of the 27 ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU SOLD to VOSS between the years 1965 and 28 1992 inclusive 39 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 72 KUBOTA objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad in scope and time irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving said objections KUBOTA responds that it manufactured its own asbestoscement pressure pipe and sold it to Voss from 1962 to 1975 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 73 IDENTIFY any and all distribution agreements YOU entered into with VOSS regarding the SALE of ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL between the years 1965 and 1992 inclusive 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 73 11 KUBOTA objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad in scope and 12 time irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 13 Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as follows 14 Through the passage of time the retirement and demise of its employees and through standard 15 company destruction policies potentially responsive documents and evidence have been 16 destroyed therefore KUBOTA is unable to respond to this interrogatory However KUBOTA 17 believes it sold asbestos pressure pipe to Voss from 1962 to 1975 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 74 19 Do you contend you did not sell ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL to VOSS 20 between the years 1965 and 1992 inclusive 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 74 22 Yes KUBOTA sold asbestos pressure pipe to Voss from 1962 to 1975 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 75 24 If your response to Interrogatory No. 81 is anything other than an unqualified no state 25 all facts supporting YOUR contention 26 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 75 27 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as being vague ambiguous and unintelligible as 28 Interrogatory No. 81 does not call for a yes no 40 response DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 76 If your response to Interrogatory No. 81 is anything other than an unqualified no IDENTIFY by address and phone number all individuals who support YOUR contention RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 76 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as being vague ambiguous and unintelligible as Interrogatory No. 81 does not call for a yes or no response SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 77 If your response to Interrogatory No. 81 anything other than an unqualified no IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 77 11 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as being vague ambiguous and unintelligible as 12 Interrogatory No. 81 does not call for a yes or no response 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 78 14 IDENTIFY any and all information regarding YOUR knowledge of HAZARDS 15 ASSOCIATED WITH ASBESTOS EXPOSURE and ASBESTOS CONTAINING 16 MATERIAL 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 78 18 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad in scope vague ambiguous 19 and unintelligible as to time and not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible 20 evidence Subject to the foregoing and without waiving its objections KUBOTA responds as 21 follows 2222 Through the passage of time the retirement and demise of its employees KUBOTA is 2222 unable to completely respond to the interrogatory but shortly before its enactment KUBOTA 2222 became aware of a 1960 Japanese Pneumoconiosis Act that addressed pneumoconiosis and 2222 asbestosis resulting from long term exposures to asbestos at manufacturing facilities but not lung 26 cancer or mesothelioma KUBOTA believes it first learned of asbestos related cancer and 27 mesothelioma hazards shortly before promulgation of the 1975 Japanese Ordinance on 28 Prevention of Hazards Caused by Specified Chemical Substances DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 79 IDENTIFY any and all information regarding when YOU first learned about the 3 HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH ASBESTOS EXPOSURE RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 79 KUBOTA responds as follows Through the passage of time the retirement and demise of its employees and through standard company destruction policies potentially responsive 7 documents and evidence have been destroyed KUBOTA is therefore unable to completely respond to this interrogatory but shortly before its enactment KUBOTA became aware of a 1960 Japanese Pneumoconiosis Act that addressed pneumoconiosis and asbestosis resulting from 10 long term exposures to asbestos at manufacturing facilities but not lung cancer or mesothelioma 11 KUBOTA believes it first learned of asbestos related cancer and mesothelioma hazards shortly 12 before promulgation of the 1975 Japanese Ordinance on Prevention of Hazards Caused by 13 Specified Chemical Substances 14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 80 15 IDENTIFY how many workers compensation claims YOU have received relating to an 16 asbestos disease 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 80 18 KUBOTA objects to this request as it invades the right to privacy of third parties and 19 their families is overly broad in scope unduly burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant and 20 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to any KUBOTA 21 business documents created after December 31 1975 and as to information related to other 22 containing products besides asbestos pressure pipe The requested documents 23 are also protected by a confidentiality provision Compromise agreements and statements of 24 sympathy are also protected by Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1160. Should KUBOTA be 25 ordered to produce such documentation said order will force KUBOTA to breach its confidential 26 contract with third parties This demand also requests documents that may be protected by the 27 attorney and attorney work product privileges 28 42 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 81 IDENTIFY when YOU first received a workers compensation claim relating to an asbestos disease RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 81 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as being unduly burdensome and oppressive Without waiving said objections KUBOTA responds as follows In or about 1980 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 82 IDENTIFY information regarding any workers compensation claims relating to an 10 asbestos disease YOU have received 11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 82 12 KUBOTA objects to this request as it invades the right to privacy of various individuals 13 and their families is overly broad in scope and time unduly burdensome oppressive harassing 14 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to information 15 related to other containing products besides asbestos pressure pipe The 16 requested information is also protected by a confidentiality provision Compromise agreements 17 and statements of sympathy are also protected by Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1160 18 Should KUBOTA be ordered to reveal such information said order will force KUBOTA to 19 breach its confidential contract with third parties This demand also requests information that 20 may be protected by the attorney and attorney work product privileges 21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 83 22 IDENTIFY YOUR membership in any organization that discussed the HAZARDS 23 ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS 24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 83 25 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad in scope and time and 26 because KUBOTA would not necessarily know about all discussions various organizations 27 may have had Without waiving said objections KUBOTA responds that it is not aware of any 28 such memberships 43 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 84 IDENTIFY information regarding YOUR corporate history RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 84 4 KUBOTA objects to this request as it is overly broad in scope unduly burdensome 5 oppressive harassing irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 6 admissible evidence as to any KUBOTA business documents created after December 31 1975 7 and as to information related to other containing products besides asbestos pressure pipe The demand requests documents that are equally available to Plaintiffs This 10 demand also requests documents that may be protected by the attorney and attorney work 11 product privileges Without waiving these objections KUBOTA responds as follows 12 KUBOTA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and has previously 13 produced any responsive documents in its possession custody or control that were created prior 14 to December 31 1975 and are related to asbestos pressure pipe The responsive 15 documents were produced as Tab 1.1 in KUBOTA's production of documents related to the 16 Deposition of KUBOTA's Person Most Knowledgeable taken on December 12 2007 in the 17 18 Webber v A.H. Voss litigation and are already in the possession of plaintiffs counsel 19 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad in scope and time unduly 20 burdensome oppressive and harassing and vague ambiguous and unintelligible as to what | 21 information is sought 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 85 23 IDENTIFY information regarding YOUR DOCUMENT RETENTION POLICY 24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 85 25 KUBOTA objects to this request as it is overly broad in scope unduly burdensome 26 oppressive harassing irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 27 admissible evidence as to any KUBOTA business documents created after December 31 1975 28 and as to information related to other containing products besides asbestos DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE pressure pipe This demand requests documents which are equally available to Plaintiffs This demand also requests documents that may be protected by the attorney and attorney work product privileges Without waiving these objections KUBOTA responds as follows KUBOTA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and has previously produced any responsive documents which are in its possession custody or control that were created prior to December 31 1975 and are related to asbestos pressure pipe The responsive documents were produced as Tab 1.8 in KUBOTA's production of documents related to the Deposition of KUBOTA's Person Most Knowledgeable taken on December 12 2007 in the Webber v A.H. Voss litigation and are already in the possession of plaintiffs counsel 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 86 11 IDENTIFY all correspondence between YOU and the Familian Corporation between 12 1965 and 1992 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 86 14 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in scope and time and not 15 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving said 16 objections KUBOTA responds as follows Through the passage of time the retirement and 17 demise of its employees and through standard company destruction policies potentially 18 responsive documents and evidence have been destroyed Without waiving said objections 19 KUBOTA responds as follows 20 KUBOTA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and is not in 21 possession custody or control of the requested documents nor are they known to exist 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 87 23 IDENTIFY all correspondence between YOU and the Los Angeles Department of Water 24 and Power between 1965 and 1992 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 87 26 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in scope and time and not 27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving said 28 objections KUBOTA responds as follows Through the passage of time the retirement and DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE demise of its employees and through standard company destruction policies potentially responsive documents and evidence have been destroyed Without waiving said objections KUBOTA responds as follows KUBOTA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and is not in possession custody or control of the requested documents nor are they known to exist SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 88 IDENTIFY any asbestos WARNINGS that YOU placed on any packaging associated with ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL at any time RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 88 10 KUBOTA objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad in scope and 11 time and duplicates Interrogatory No. 19 and is therefore oppressive harassing and unduly 12 burdensome 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 89 14 IDENTIFY any WARNINGS that YOU provided with YOUR sales of ASBESTOS 15 CONTAINING MATERIAL between 1965 and 1992 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 89 17 KUBOTA objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad in scope and 18 time duplicates Interrogatories Nos 15-18 and is therefore oppressive harassing and unduly 19 burdensome 20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 90 21 IDENTIFY any ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL that YOU have in YOUR 22 possession 23 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 90 24 KUBOTA objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad in scope vague 25 ambiguous unintelligible and not defining as to the phrase asbestos containing material as 26 used in this context is unduly burdensome oppressive and harassing irrelevant and is not 27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 28 46 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 91 IDENTIFY any WARNINGS about the HAZARDS RELATED TO ASBESTOS EXPOSURE YOU provided with the ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU SOLD between the years 1965 and 1992 inclusive RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 91 KUBOTA objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad in scope and time duplicative of Interrogatories No. 15-18 20-23 38 41-48 and 88 and is therefore oppressive harassing and unduly burdensome SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 92 10 IDENTIFY any WARNINGS provided to the Los Angeles Department of Water and 11 Power between the years 1965 and 1992 inclusive 12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 92 13 Objection KUBOTA objects to this request as it is overly broad in scope unduly 14 burdensome oppressive harassing irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 15 discovery of admissible evidence as to information related to other containing products 16 besides asbestos pressure pipe This request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA 17 or VOSS sold or supplied any containing material to Los Angeles Department of Water 18 and Power of Los Angeles CA at any time from 1962 to 1975. Without waiving these 19 objections KUBOTA responds as follows 20 Not applicable as there is no evidence that KUBOTA supplied or delivered any asbestos 21 cement pressure pipe to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 22 1975 23 Dated March 15 2010 24 WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP Jide C. 25 By Ontivenes 26 Thomas C. Corless Aide C. Ontiveros 27 Attorneys for Defendant KUBOTA CORPORATION 47 28 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE 1 VERIFICATION 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I have read the foregoing DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES 4 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES and know its contents 5 I am Masahiko Uchino Legal Department for KUBOTA CORPORATION a party to 6 this action entitled Rhoda Evans v A. W. Chesterton et al LASC Case No. BC 418867 and am 8 authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf and I make this verification for that 9 reason I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the 10 foregoing document are true 1111 Executed on March 15 2010 at Osaka Japan 1312 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 13 foregoing is true and correct 14 1515 177879275 177879275 1616 177879275 1717 18 1919 2222 22 22 2222 2322 2424 25 2625 2727 2828 48 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 880127.2 PROOF OF SERVICE 1013a CCP STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles State of California I am over the age of 18 4 and not a party to the within action my business address is 555 South Flower Street 29th Floor Los Angeles California 90071 5 6 On March 15 2010 I caused the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL 7 INTERROGATORIES SET ONE to be served on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in seal envelopes addressed as follows 8 9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 10 BY FACSIMILE I caused said document to be telephonically transmitted to each addressee's telecopier Fax number as noted on Proof of Service List 11 AND 12 13 X 14 15 16 BY MAIL I caused such envelope fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at Los Angeles California I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence or mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles California in the ordinary course of business I am aware that on motion of the party served service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit 17 ] 18 19 0 222 222 BY OVERNIGHT EXPRESS I caused said document to be picked up by U.S. Federal Express Services for overnight delivery to the offices of the addressees listed on the Service List BY HAND PERSONAL SERVICE I caused said document to be personally delivered by a attorney service to the addressee as noted on the Service list 222 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct 222 Executed on March 15 2010 Los Angeles California 222 25 Va a 22 Irene Guzman 22 28 SERVICE LIST RHODA EVANS et al v KUBOTA CORPORATION et al Case No BC418867 Our File No 00495.06997 Jeffrey A. Kaiser Esq T. Scott Hames Esq LEVIN SIMES KAISER & GORNICK LLP 44 Montgomery Street 36th Floor San Francisco California 94104 6 ORIGINAL 7 K Gates LLP 8 Four Embarcadero Center Suite 1200 San Francisco CA 94111 9 COPY Attorneys for Plaintiffs RHODA EVANS and BOBBY EVANS Tel 415 646-7160 - Fax 415 981-1270 Attorneys for Crane Co. Individually & as successor to Chapman Valve Co. Tel 415 882-8200 - Fax 415 882-8220 10 11 Corinne Orquiola Esq LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 12 221 North Figueroa Street Suite 1200 Los Angeles CA 90012 13 COPY Attorneys for Advocate Mines Limited Tel 213 250-1800 - Fax 213 580-7942 orquiola@lbbslaw.com 14 William J. Sayers Esq Attorneys for Certain Corporation Farah S. Nicol Esq 15 Mary McKelvey Esq Tel 213 688-1000 - Fax 213 243-6330 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP mmckelvey@mckennalong.com 16 300 S. Grand Avenue Suite 1400 Los Angeles CA 90071 17 COPY 18 Carmen A. Trutanich Esq 19 Pamela L. McFarlane Esq Eskel Solomon Esq 20 111 North Hope Street Suite 340 P.O. Box 51111 2222 Los Angeles CA 90051 2222 COPY Attorneys for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Tel 213 367-4640-4534 367-4640-4534 - Fax 213 367-4588 Maggie Flores - Secretary Pamela.mcfarlane@ladwp.com Eskel.solomon@ladwp.com 2222 R. Gregory Amudson Esq Seymour B. Everett Esq 2222 WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN 5000 Birch Street Suite 8500 25 Newport Beach CA 92660 26 COPY 27 Associated Counsel for City of Los Angeles Acting by and through the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles Tel 949 757-4500 - Fax 949 757-4550 gamudson@wshblaw.com severett@wshblaw.com 28