Document YGy2xjMQ8vj37ybev84yb9nJN

SHARON BURGETT, et al. NO. 94 06691-D v;f c : 795? BARON & 3UDD IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS COUNIWFTfFD KEENE CORPORATION, et al. Defendants. 68TH JUDICIAlI DIS*M8c? 1956 } THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL BILL LONG 01ST. CLLRK, DALLAS CO- TEXAS OEPOTr OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Defendant The Okonite Company (hereinafter "Okonite") responds to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production as follows: I. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Okonite objects to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the extent they seek discovery in violation of the attorney/client communication and work-product exemption and/or seek answers which can only be answered by, and on behalf of, other persons and entities. Okonite also objects to these interrogatories to the extent they refer to "products containing asbestos fibers" and "asbestos products." Okonite predecessor companies never manufactured or sold asbestos products or products containing asbestos fibers. Predecessor Okonite companies did manufacture electrical cable. It is conceivable that some of the cable manufactured by predecessor companies contained a minimal amount of asbestos. Until Okonite THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 1 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 has knowledge of plaintiffs' contentions regarding exposure to predecessor Okonite companies' products, Okonite is unable to answer certain questions. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, and without waiving them, and in the interests of full discovery, Okonite, as it understands these interrogatories, makes the following responses: n. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND PREFACE Okonite is a New Jersey corporation, incorporated in 1979. The present Okonite Company did succeed to certain aspects of the business of the prior Okonite companies. These answers to interrogatories are given to the best of the ability of the present Okonite Company. In the following answers, the term "Okonite" used above refers to the present Okonite Company. The predecessor companies are referred to either as the "prior" or "predecessor" Okonite companies. No single person associated with Okonite has knowledge necessary to supply every answer required or requested by these interrogatories and a number of individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters addressed by these interrogatories are either deceased or are no longer employees of Okonite. Okonite continues its ongoing investigation to locate information regarding the subject matter of these interrogatories and reserves the right to supplement these interrogatory responses as may be necessary if, and when, such further information becomes available. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 2 232599.1/SP/KCM/U15/022896 in. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant of each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: No single person associated with Okonite has the knowledge necessary to supply every answer required or requested in the interrogatories. These answers are based on knowledge and information accumulated from incidental and general conversations over a period of years. It is not possible to identify each of these people and the specific information each may have provided. Nevertheless, these responses have been reviewed and verified by Frank Postma, former Vice-President of Marketing, The Okonite Company, 102 Hilltop Road, Ramsey, New Jersey. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your correct corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the address of your principal place of business, the name and address of the person or entity authorized to accept service of process on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas. ANSWER: Okonite objects to the term "do business'' as vague and ambiguous. Okonite further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks irrelevant information not calculated to THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER ` INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 3 232599.1/SP/KCM/1U5/C22896 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Okonite is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, and has its principal place of business at 102 Hilltop Road, Ramsey, New Jersey. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale of material containing asbestos fibers? If so, identify the location of the mine(s), the years of its operation, the type of asbestos mined and whether you sold any asbestos to any Defendants in the Dallas County asbestos litigation. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time manufactured or sold. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for the purposes of harassment. It seeks discovery of irrelevant information regarding times and places not at issue in this litigation and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Okonite further objects to this question because, as phrased, this question is improper and misleading. Predecessor Okonite companies did not manufacture products containing asbestos fibers. Predecessor Okonite companies did manufacture certain cable types containing asbestos which was always saturated THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 4 232599.1/SP/KCM/1115/022S96 or encapsulated. Without waiving such objections, and to the extent this interrogatory seeks information regarding the "manufacture" of "products containing asbestos", Okonite has no records indicating sales of asbestos-containing products by any predecessor company. The present Okonite company is aware that predecessor companies manufactured and sold highlyengineered electrical cables of various kinds. A small number of these various cables, estimated to be less than one percent of all the cables manufactured by Okonite predecessors, may have contained asbestos. The vast majority of all electrical cables manufactured by Okonite predecessor companies did not contain asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time marketed or sold. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, in that Okonite is unable to determine what meaning Plaintiffs give to the phrase "identify by name each product. . . It also seeks discovery of irrelevant information which is not calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving such objections, and assuming Plaintiffs seek the nature and types of products sold by predecessor companies which may have contained asbestos, predecessor companies only sold electrical wire and cable. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If the answer to one or more of the last three interrogatories is in the affirmative or lists any products, state as to each named product the following: THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 5 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 A. As to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. B. The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each product mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold. D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market. E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage of asbestos put in each product. F. The date each of the products was removed from the market and no longer sold or distributed and the reason or reasons therefor. G. The date asbestos was removed from such products, if ever, and the reasons therefor. H. A description of the physical appearance of each of the named products. I. A detailed description of the intended uses of the named products. J. Identify the last year that you sold each asbestos-containing product. ANSWER: See PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND PREFACE and Response to Interrogatory Number 4. Okonite has no records indicating the manufacture or sale of any asbestos-containing products by the present Okonite company or any predecessor Okonite company. Without waving any objection, Okonite responds as follows: THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 6 232599. l/SP/KCM/1115/022896 (A) See Response to Interrogatory Number 4. (B) Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for the purposes of harassment. Without waiving such objections, and assuming that Plaintiffs seek the name of the manufacturer which manufactured Okonite cable, it is Okonite. (C) Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for the purposes of harassment. Further, it seeks irrelevant information which is not calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving such objections, Okonite is informed and believes that predecessor companies may have used the name "Okobestos" for some wire and cable products containing asbestos. (D) Unknown. (E) Only chiysotile asbestos was used in components of Okonite predecessors wire and cable. Generally, asbestos, if used at all, would have comprised less than approximately one percent of the overall components of the cable. (F) Okonite objects to this subpart on the grounds it is vague and ambiguous, in that it assumes that products were "removed from the market." Without waiving such objection, Okonite believes that its predecessor ceased producing any products containing asbestos in approximately 1975. (G) See Response to (F). Okonite predecessor companies ceased manufacturing wire and cable containing asbestos because they could not compete in the market. (H) Physical appearance of the wire and cable products depended upon the specifications of each customer. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 7 232599.1/SP/KCM/U1S/G22896 (I) Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for the purposes, of harassment, in that is requires Okonite to speculate as to what use customers made of its products following their manufacture and delivery. It also seeks information which is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving such objections, predecessor companies' cable which may have contained asbestos was intended for use in circuits for electricity distribution. (J) See Response to (F). INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the design, preparation, or introduction into the market of the products listed in interrogatory No. 6 still exist? If so, state: A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where the documents are currently located. ANSWER: Okonite is informed and believes that it has no such documents in its possession. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Before distributing, selling, or placing the products listed in your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3*6 into the streams of commerce, were any tests conducted to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER ` INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 8 232599.1/SP/KCM/UIS/022896 A. The names of the products tested and the date of each test. B. The name, address, and job title of each person conducting the tests or involved with conducting the tests. C. The results of the tests. ANSWER: See Objections and Responses to Interrogatory No. II which are incorporated by reference in answer to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the testing of the products referred to in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: See Objections and Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 8, which are incorporated by reference in answer to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Did Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies make any design changes or modifications as a result of those tests described in responses to Interrogatory No. 8? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The trade names of the products changed. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 9 232599.1/SP/KCM/ll 15/022896 B. The nature of the changes made and the date of such changes or modifications. C. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having caused a change to be made, or having made a change or modification. ANSWER: See Objections and Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 8, which are incorporated by reference in answer to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: After releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use of or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products tested and the dates of such tests. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests. C. The results of those tests. D. Whether, as a result of the tests, any products were removed from the market. E. The names of all products removed from the market as a result of these tests. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, as it assumes that a health hazard exists in the use of its predecessor's cable. Okonite does not have information from any source that indicates a danger from any of its or its predecessors products. There was no such health hazard. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 10 232599.l/SP/KCM/l I15/Q22896 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the potential health hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. The name of each product. B. A description of each document and how it relates to each product. C. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: See Objections and Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 11, which are hereby incorporated by reference in answer to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of the tests discussed in your response to Interrogatories No. 10 or 13? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products changed or modified. B. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having made a change or modification. C. The nature of the hazard or defect which resulted in such change or modification. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, in that the subject of its request, Interrogatories No. 10 and 13, do not refer to THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 11 232599.1/SP/KCM/ll 15/022896 testing. Indeed, the question is circular in reasoning in that it asks the responding party to refer to the very question being asked. Without clarification, Okonite is unable to respond to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material or any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of the asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No. 6? If so, state: A. The names of each relevant product. B. The exact wording of each warning statement on each printed material. C. A description of the printed material other than the warning statement. D. The method used to distribute the warning to persons likely to use the product. E. The date each warning was first issued, distributed, or placed on packaging. F. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning. G. The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof. H. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, i.e.. the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSWER: See PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND PREFACE and the Objections and Responses to Interrogatory Number 4, which are incorporated by reference to this Interrogatory. Okonite THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 12 232599.1/SP/KCM/1115/Q22896 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it inquires about asbestos-containing products which Okonite never manufactured. Moreover, Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, as it assumes that a health hazard exists in the use of its predecessor's cable. There was no such health hazard. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Before 1970, had you received notice that any individual or individuals, other than those Plaintiffs who have filed personal injury actions in Dallas County, Texas, is or are claiming or has or have claimed an injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company or any of its predecessors or subsidiaries before 1970? If so, state: A. The name and address of each claimant. B. The date of notice of each claim. C. A description of the claim. D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained. B. The name and address of each attorney who represents each individual making a claim. . F. The style and court number of each claim. G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. ANSWER: No. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER ' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 13 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Were your asbestos products distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled and/or sold by companies other than your own? If the answer is affirmative, list the names and addresses of each of those companies, and the products in question. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for purposes of harassment, in that it seeks discovery of irrelevant information regarding times and places not at issue in this litigation and which will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving such objections, Okonite does not possess any records of predecessor companies' sales of asbestos containing products to distributors which may have been sold to decedent's place of employment. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Did you or any of your predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries have any distributors or sales representatives of asbestos products in the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such distributor or sales representatives. B. The years in which such company or person distributed, marketed, or sold your products. C. What products were distributed, marketed, or sold and in what years. ANSWER: See Objections and Responses to Interrogatory No. 16 which are hereby incorporated by reference in answer to this Interrogatory. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 14 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 INTERROGATORY NO. 18: List each employee (including only physicians and/or hygienists) who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals and who has, had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of asbestos. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks irrelevant information that is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs were neither employed by Okonite nor present in any of its plants at any time. Events occurring in those plants during the production of Okonite products bear no relevance to the conditions allegedly experienced by Plaintiffs' decedent. Without waiving such objections, there were no such personnel. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so, state: A. The name of each such publication. B. The date of publication and the names of the author and publisher (if any). C. The date received by Defendant, if known. D. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 15 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for purposes of harassment. Okonite further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks irrelevant information that is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs were neither employed by Okonite nor present in any of its plants at any time. Events occurring in those plants during the production of Okonite products bear no relevance to the conditions allegedly experienced by Plaintiffs' decedent. Without waiving such objections, Okonite is unaware of any such materials. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of asbestos comprised of other manufacturers, miners, marketers, and/or sellers of asbestos products? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such association or organization. B. The dates during which Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors were members. C. The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations. D. Whether any of those publications are still in your possession, and if so: 1. A description of the publications, including the date. 2. The current location of such publications. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 16 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 3. The custodian of such publications. 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products listed in your answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 were manufactured, assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing, specifying which plants produced each item, the dates each plant is or was in operation, and the time span during which each, named item was produced or manufactured. ANSWER: Okonite is informed and believes that any wire and cable products manufactured by predecessor companies containing asbestos would have been manufactured at the Passaic, New Jersey plant. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes of marketing or advertising products containing asbestos? If so, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person or entity who prepared such materials. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials and their present location. C. The date the materials were prepared. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 17 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/CS2896 D. The media used to disseminate the sales materials. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for purposes of harassment. Okonite further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks irrelevant information that is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Have any written or printed materials or instructions of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents indicating how asbestos products should be used and maintained? If so, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person who prepared such materials or instructions or assisted in their preparation. B. The name, address and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials or instructions-and their present location. C. The dates of distribution or use and the manner in which such materials or instructions were distributed to purchasers of Defendant's products or those of its subsidiaries or predecessors. D. The year each such written material or instruction was prepared and disclosed to potential consumers. ANSWER: Okonite's predecessors manufactured highly engineered specialized wire and cable products, a small amount which may have contained asbestos. Okonite's customers, or the THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER ' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 18 232599.1/SP/KCM/ll 15/022896 industry in general, were integrally involved in providing specifications for both the design and manufacture of electrical cables. In general, predecessor companies provided some information on efficient methods of splicing cable. This information varied with each application, but Okonite has no information that it issued any particular instructions for any asbestos cable. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claims made by Plaintiffs in these cases? If so, list the name of each insurance carrier, the amount of initial coverage, amount of coverage remaining at the present time, and the effective dates of each policy. (If properly answered, this Interrogatory need not be supplemented as to the remaining amount of coverage) ANSWER: This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial, outside the issues raised in the pleadings and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this defendant objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and intended merely for the purposes of harassment. Moreover, this defendant has been attempting to locate prior carriers, but has either no records or sketchy records, and is therefore experiencing difficulty in obtaining coverage from prior carriers. This defendant additionally objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that answering the interrogatory may give rise to assertions of prejudice, waiver, or estoppel in any such litigation. However, subject to these objections, and without waiving same, Okonite provides the following information: THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 19 232599.l/SP/KCM/ll 15/022896 INSURER Travelers Travelers Travelers DATES 05/15/71-06/01/72 06/01/82-06/01/73 06/01/73-07/01/75 Travelers 07/01/75-07/01/78 Travelers 07/01/78-07/01/85 Travelers 07/01/85-07/01/86 Travelers 07/01/86-07/01/92 POLICY NSL0961921 NSL0961937 NSL0961937 NSL133T6631 SLG133T6631 SLG133T6631 SLG133T6631 LIMITS $500,000 ea. occ $500,000 ea. occ $500,000 ea. occ $500,000 agg. $500,000 ea. occ $500,000 agg. $500,000 ea. occ $500,000 agg. $500,000 ea. occ $500,000 agg. Policies Contain Asbestos Exclusion INTERROGATORY NO. 25: As to the disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease. C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease and/or of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 20 232599.l/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it requests information not relevant to any issue in the case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, unlimited as to time and scope and intended merely for purpose of harassment. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: As to the disease lung cancer, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 21 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers, ANSWER: See objections and Responses to Interrogatory No. 25 which are hereby incorporated by reference to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: As to pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER: See Objections and Responses to Interrogatory No. 25 which are hereby incorporated by reference to this Interrogatory. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 22 232599.1 /SP/KCM/1115/022896 INTERROGATORY NO. 28: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. C. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. G. Who is the custodian of such information. H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, unlimited as to time and scope and intended merely for purpose of harassment. Without waiving such objections, over time it has become common knowledge that asbestos fibers other than chrysotile asbestos fibers may pose a health hazard for mesothelioma when inhaled in sufficient quantity. Okonite predecessor companies' product contained only chrysotile THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER ' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 23 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 fiber in minute quantities. Information concerning the health hazards associated with asbestos has been available in the media for many years. Okonite is unable to state with any particularity when it or its predecessors obtained such information. Moreover, Okonite is not aware of any articles or information indicating that fibers released, if any, from asbestos-containing wire and cable, pose a health hazard. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: As to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such diseases were caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. What cancers has the Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers? C. The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated with Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. G. Who is the custodian of such information. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 24 232599.1/SP/KCM/ll 15/022896 ANSWER: See Objections and Responses to Interrogatory No. 25 which are hereby incorporated by reference to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Does Defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactured or designed so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or exposed to them? If the answer is affirmative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys on which this answer is based. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence, namely that Okonite predecessor companies manufactured electrical cables which constituted a health hazard to workers installing or working in the vicinity of the same. Okonite understands that it is the Plaintiffs' obligation to establish that connection. Without waiving such objection, Okonite contends that any electrical cable manufactured by predecessor companies which may have contained asbestos did not pose a health hazard to workers installing or working in the vicinity of such cables. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Describe in detail the types of packages or packaging which Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies used for asbestos material or products, listing the dates each type of package was used, a physical description of each type of package, and providing a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 25 232599.1/SP/KCM/1115/022896 . ANSWER: Okonite did not sell "asbestos material" and its cables were not sold in packages. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos materials or asbestos products? If so, state, as to each such agreement: A. The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products. B. The trade name affixed to those products. C. The periods of time covered by each such agreement. D. The volume, in dollar amount, of each transaction. E. The initial purchaser of the products. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: List the name and address of each company from which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor purchased materials or asbestos products which Defendant sold or distributed in any form, stating the form of the materials, the dates of such purchases, and the ultimate disposal of such materials. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for purposes of harassment. Neither THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 26 232599.1/SP/KCM/ll 15/022896 Okonite nor predecessor companies have ever resold products or materials manufactured by other companies. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Does Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessor currently have possession of any writings or contracts on those rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to Interrogatory No. 32? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person having custody of each of those documents and their current location. B. A brief description of each such document, including the dates and the parties signatory. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Prior to 1968, did any person file a claim against a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he/she contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers? If so, provide: A. A list of the claims, including each claimant's name, address and the date each claim was filed, and including the caption and jurisdiction of the claim. B. The disease alleged in each such claim. C. A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim. D. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 27 232599. l/SP/KCM/1115/022896 ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiffs were neither employed by Okonite nor present in any of its plants at any time. Events occurring in those plants during the production of Okonite products bear no relevance to the conditions allegedly experienced by the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks irrelevant information and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes of coiporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? If so, for each such set of minutes, state: A. The dates of each such meeting. B. The general subject matter discussed at each meeting. C. Who was in attendance at each meeting. D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained. E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format. F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it requests information not relevant to any issue in the case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER ' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 28 232599.1/SP/KCM/ll 15/022896 unduly burdensome and intended merely for purpose of harassment. Without waiving such objections, Okonite is unaware of any such corporate minutes or records. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Do you or any of your subsidiaries, including foreign business entities, currently manufacture any products containing asbestos? If so, state: A. As to each product, whether such product is mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold. B. The names and addresses of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each of those products. C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold. D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market. E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product. F. A description of the physical appearance of each product and its packaging. G. A detailed description of the intended uses of each of the named products. H. Whether there are any warning labels on said products or containers regarding potential asbestos-related health hazards. ANSWER: No. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 29 232599.1 /SP/KCM/1115/022S96 INTERROGATORY NO. 38: State whether you or any of your predecessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies of invoices, shipping documents, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the mining, manufacture, marketing, sale or distribution of asbestos products. If so, state: A. The location of such documents. B. The name and address of the custodian of the documents. C. The format in which the documents are kept, i.e,. hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. D. In what form the documents can be accessed, by state, by product, etc., and if by product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for purposes of harassment, in that it seeks discovery of irrelevant information regarding times and places not at issue in this litigation and which will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving such objections, Okonite does not possess any records of sales of asbestos containing products to distributors which sold to decedent's place of employment. INTERROGATORY NO. 39: May you call company representatives as witnesses at the trial of any of these cases? If so, list: THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 30 232599.1 /SP/KCM/1115/022896 A. The name, address, and job title of each company representative who may be called. B. A summary of the testimony expected to be given by each such witness. C. List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs in that case. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory calls for attorney work product which is exempt from discovery under Rule 166b(3)(a), Tex. R. Civ. P., and because it is repetitive of prior discovery from plaintiffs. Without waiving this interrogatory, Okonite has not made any decision about calling any Okonite company representative, but has already listed persons with knowledge of relevant facts who may be called. Some of these persons were Okonite predecessor employees who may be called to testify. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Have Defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed, or contracted or supplied products containing asbestos? If so, for each such entity, state: A. Full and correct name; B. Principal place of business; THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 31 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 C. State of incorporation; D. Date of acquisition by Defendant; E. Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in the State of Texas; ANSWER: No. See corporate history previously produced in response to Plaintiffs' Master Request for Production. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Was each of your asbestos products generally expected to reach, or packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? If not, with respect to any such product, explain in what way the Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for the purposes of harassment, because it requires Okonite to speculate as to what use customers made of predecessor companies' products following manufacture and delivery. Further, Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, in that Okonite is unsure as to what meaning plaintiffs give to the phrase "substantial change in the condition in which it was sold". Without waiving such objections, Okonite is informed and believes that predecessor companies' cable was not modified prior to use by customers. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 32 232599.1/SP/KCM/ll 15/022896 INTERROGATORY NO. 42: For each asbestos-containing product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6, identify all foreseeable users such as insulators, helpers, pipefitters, welders, machinists, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, boilermakers, shipwrights and riggers, etc. of any of Defendant's asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for the purposes of harassment. Without waiving such objections, the only foreseeable users of predecessor companies' products were by skilled electricians. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Based upon the material contents of your asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, can such products be generally applied without liberating asbestos fibers into the air? A. If there is a different answer concerning different products manufactured, sold, distributed, or used by your company, then specify the different products by precise manufacturer's name and popular name. B. If there is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in which a particular product was used, then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you are referring to and year involved. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER * INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 33 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 ANSWER: Objection. Okonite understands and believes that predecessor companies' products were "applied without liberating asbestos fibers into the air." INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Was it a foreseeable use of your asbestos-containing products that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced at some time after installation? ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for the purposes of harassment, in that is requires Okonite to speculate as to what use customers made of its predecessor companies' products following manufacture and delivery. Without waiving such objections, use and application dictate whether predecessor companies' products need to be replaced. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Before 1970, did you or your subsidiaries or predecessors ever arrange for any labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company to go to job sites where your products were being used or installed to make or take dust level counts? If so, state when this procedure started, the purpose of such procedures, and all results of such procedures. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for purposes of harassment, in that it seeks discovery of irrelevant information regarding times and places not at issue in this litigation and THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 34 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 which will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving such objections, Okonite is unaware of any such testing performed at decedent's place of employment. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: If Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? ANSWER: Not applicable. See Objections and Responses to Interrogatory Number 45 which are hereby incorporated by reference to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Has your company or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies designed to assist in minimizing or eliminating the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use of your company's products? If so, give the following: A. Name of the person or firm conducting such studies; B. The date the studies began and the date they were completed; C. Any publication or other written dissemination of the results of the studies; D. The nature of any action to eliminate or minimiTe the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it inquires about asbestos-containing products which Okonite never manufactured. Moreover, Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 35 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 and ambiguous, as it assumes that a health hazard exists in the use of its predecessor's cable. Okonite does not have information from any source that indicates a danger from any of its or its predecessor's products. There was no such health hazard. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Does your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessors or subsidiaries ever had, a Research Department? If so, give the year such Research Department was established, and whether or not such Research Department has operated continuously since being established. State also: A. The amount of time and money expended each year on research concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products? B. What percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessors spend on research concerning the health effects of asbestos? C. State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities or such Research Department. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it requests information not relevant to any issue in the case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for the purposes of harassment. Finally, Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, in that the term "Research Department" is undefined. Without waiving such objections, Okonite THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 36 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 is informed and believes that its predecessors did not employ individuals who conducted "research concerning asbestos" or "research concerning the health effects of asbestos." INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Does your company have, or has it ever had, or have your predecessors or subsidiaries ever had, a Medical Department? If so, state: A. The year such Medical Department was established; B. Whether or not such Medical Department has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Medical Director or Medical Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department. ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it requests information not relevant to any issue in the case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and intended merely for the purposes of harassment. Without waiving such objections, there were no such personnel. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Did your company or its predecessors or subsidiaries ever place any warning directly on any of its asbestos-containing product or on their packaging. If so, identify the product(s) and year said warning was first applied. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 37 232599.1 /SP/KCM/1115/022896 ANSWER: See PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND PREFACE and Objections and Responses to Interrogatory Number 4 which are incorporated by reference in answer to this Interrogatory. Okonite further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it inquires about asbestos-containing products which Okonite never manufactured. Moreover, Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, as it assumes that a health hazard exists in the use of its predecessor's cable. There was no such health hazard. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Did your company or its predecessors or subsidiaries ever stamp or place the name of the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any of its asbestos-containing products? if so, please state the name brand names of such products, a description of such stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Has your company, or your predecessors or subsidiaries, ever devised a research plan to develop, or actually developed or had developed, a product which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for one or more of your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date that such research plan was begun and when such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER ' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 38 232S99.1/SP/KCMmi5/022896 ANSWER: Okonite is not aware of any such program developed by it or predecessor companies. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Did your company or its predecessors or subsidiaries ever recall any products containing asbestos from the market or stream of commerce? If so, state: A. All details of such recall; B. The name of the product recalled, including the reason for the recall and the names and current addresses of those individuals who determined that it should take place; C. The dates of recall; D. The purpose for the recall. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Before 1970, did you ever manufacture or sell products which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date such asbestos-free products were first placed on the market. ANSWER: See PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND PREFACE and Objections and Responses to Interrogatory Number 4 which are incorporated by reference in answer to this Interrogatory. Moreover, predecessor Okonite companies were never a significant factor in the market for cables containing asbestos. Okonite cables have continuously changed over the years, to take THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 39 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 advantage of and incorporate new technologies. It is possible that the few cables Okonite may have manufactured containing asbestos changed over time, but any such changes would have been brought about only by technological improvements, such as different design. Okonite does not have records that would enable it to list the changes or when they occurred with respect to cables which might have contained asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Have any products you identified in your response to Interrogatory Nos. 52 and 54 not performed as intended? Please list all such products that have not performed as intended. ANSWER: See Objections and Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 52 and 54 which are incorporated by reference in answer to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Did your company or its predecessors or subsidiaries ever make, order, or arrange for any industrial hygiene surveys regarding asbestos or asbestos-containing dust? If so, give the date of such surveys and state who, or what entity, was responsible for completion of such surveys. ANSWER: Okonite has not conducted or participated in any investigation, study, test, review or analysis concerning the effects of asbestos on the human body. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 40 232599-1/SP/KCM/ll 15/022896 INTERROGATORY NO. 57: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental industrial Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant or any predecessors or subsidiaries were first advised of such limits or concentrations; B. The name of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice; C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. ANSWER: Objection. As stated previously, Okonite does not have information from any source that indicates a danger from any of its or its predecessors' products and Okonite has never manufactured asbestos-containing products, therefore this Interrogatory is misleading. Without waiving these objections, in approximately 1975, an Okonite predecessor was notified by OSHA representatives that the presence of braider machines in its factories in Passaic, New Jersey required the installation of covers on the braiders, without regard to the frequency or use of such braiders. The Okonite predecessor had covers installed, despite the fact that it had either discontinued or was in the process of discontinuing the use of any asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Were the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory No. 57 for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone? THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 41 232599.1/SP/KCM/1115/022896 ANSWER: See Objections and Responses to Interrogatory No. 57 which are incorporated by reference in answer to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: State in detail what tests, if any. Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing your asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: See Objections and Responses to Interrogatory Number 56 which are incorporated by reference in answer to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Please state the following with respect to each expert witness you that you may call during trial of these cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you will call, including: (a) The name, address, and job classification of each such expert witness; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion; (d) Whether any person identified in subparagraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify each such document or report; (e) identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above; THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 42 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 (f) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. ANSWER: 1. Vittorio K. Argento, Ph.D., P.E. Environmental Engineering Services, 1226 North Cedar Ridge, Duncanville, Texas 75115. Dr. Argento is a professor at the University of Texas/Arlington and holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Science. He is also a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Texas. He will testify that the reasonably foreseeable use of Okonite's products did not create a health hazard. He has conducted his own separate independent research projects that measure the exposure of an electrician to asbestos while cutting, stripping and manipulating asbestos insulated wire and cable which was similar in construction to materials manufactured by Okonite and he is also familiar with other similar studies. He is of the opinion that such exposure, if any, does not result in, or increase the risk of, asbestos-related disease. He will also testify about the propriety and reasonableness of the testing procedures utilized in these studies. He will also testify regarding the historical evolution of the standards used to evaluate and quantify airborne particles, including asbestos, up to the present time and the application of OSHA regulations and similar standards. Dr. Argento will testify regarding the standards and specifications, both military and non-military, that wire and cable products must be manufactured in accordance with and the similarity of products manufactured pursuant to similar standards by different manufacturers. If called as a witness. Dr. Argento will be prepared to give an oral deposition concerning his opinions in this case. 2. Oscar Auerbach, M.D., College of Medicine & Dentistry, 100 Bergen Street, Newark, New Jersey 07103, is a licensed physician and pathologist and also a well-known researcher in the field of smoking and related diseases. He may be called to testify in this case on the effects of smoking on human physiology and concerning issues of his specialty as applicable to medical issues presented by this case. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER ' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 43 232599.1/SP/KCM/1115/Q22896 If this witness is to be called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon request by opposing counsel; Dr. Auerbach bills for deposition testimony at the rate of $1,500 day. 3. John E. Craighead, M.D., 1845 Four Winds Road, Ferrisburg, Vermont 05456, (802) 425-3480, is a licensed physician and a pathologist. He will testify regarding the etiology and epidemiology of mesothelioma and other asbestosrelated diseases. He will also be called to testify regarding the relative carcinogenicity of the various types of asbestos, their propensity to cause disease, and their friability in various asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products. He will also be called to testify regarding the historical evolution of the standards used to evaluate and quantify airborne particles, including asbestos, up to the present time and the application of OSHA regulations and similar standards and regarding the epidemiology and state-of-the-art relative to asbestos, asbestos-related diseases, asbestos-containing products, and asbestosrelated medicine. It is intended by this defendant that he will also review any available pathology in this case prior to giving testimony. If this witness is called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon reasonable request by opposing counsel; the witness is reimbursed for his time at the rate of $300 per hour (plus $150 per hour for travel time) for deposition testimony, with a minimum of $1,000.00 for deposition. 4. Douglas P. Fowler, Ph.D., Fowler Associates, 643 Bair Island Road, Suite 305, Redwood City, California 94063, is an industrial hygiene consultant. If called in this case, he would testify on industrial hygiene principles and standards, including but not limited to OSHA and ACGIH standards, the evolution and history of threshold limit values (TLVs) and permissible exposure limits (PELs), the relative toxicity of different types of asbestos, the relative friability of different asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products, and their propensity to cause disease, and on related issues. If this witness is called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon reasonable request by opposing counsel; the witness is reimbursed for his time at the rate of $125 per hour (four hours minimum charge) for deposition testimony. 5. Richard A. Guba, R.P.E., Pennsylvania and Delaware, 377 Eden Drive, Englewood, Florida 34223, may testify regarding his knowledge of the design, manufacture and use of asbestos wire and cable products, including those manufactured by The Okonite Company. He may testify regarding his own personal observations made of wire and cable product installation. Mr. Guba THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER . INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 44 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 may also testify regarding plaintiffs claims about the use of asbestos-containing wire and cable products and his own knowledge of such applications and the types of products that would be used in such situations. Mr. Guba may also testify regarding the standards and specifications, both military and non-military, that wire and cable products must be manufactured in accordance with, and the similarity of products manufactured pursuant to similar standards by different manufacturers. The basis for Mr. Guba's testimony will be his own personal experience through his working career and also military and commercial standards and specifications which are matters of public record. For documents provided to Mr. Guba for his review, see Plaintiffs medical records and Plaintiffs deposition which have been previously produced to or provided by plaintiffs counsel and the studies produced by defendants to plaintiffs counsel in prior disclosures, as well as plaintiffs responses to interrogatories, requests for production and admissions from plaintiffs. 6. Stephen Halpem, John J. McMullen Naval Architects, 5901 Christie Avenue, Suite 400, Emeryville, California, is a senior marine engineer whose professional and occupational background includes the planning, engineering and design of machinery and piping installations on ships of the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, Military Sealift Command, and commercial shipping companies. He has conducted extensive research into the historical use of asbestos-containing materials on board ships, and work practices in ship construction and repair. If called in this case, he would testify concerning the design and installation of piping and machinery on ships, the work practices in ship building and repair, and the use of asbestos-containing products in the marine industry. 7. Elliott Hinkes, M.D., 301 North Prairie Avenue, Suite 311, Inglewood, California 90301, is a licensed physician and an oncologist. If called in this case, he would testify on oncology, cancer and its causes, the etiology and epidemiology of asbestos-related diseases, treatment options for cancer patients, the cost of medical care for cancer patients, the nature and extent of the "dose" of asbestos one must have to cause disease, the latency periods for such diseases, and the related questions of increased risk of cancer and "fear of cancer" and how these concerns may relate to plaintiffs physical or mental condition, and concerning issues of his specialty as applicable to the medical issues presented by this case. If this witness is called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon reasonable request by opposing counsel; the witness is reimbursed for his time at the rate of $390 per hour for deposition testimony. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 45 232599. l/SP/KCM/1115/022896 8. William Hughson, M.D., University of California, San Diego, Occupational Health Center (H772A), 3916 Fourth Avenue, Suite 175, San Diego, California 92103, is a licensed physician and an epidemiologist. If called in this case, he would testify as to the relationship, if any, between exposure to asbestos and diseases claimed by the plaintiff or of which plaintiff claims a compensable fear. He may also testify about the nature, extent, and etiology of plaintiffs alleged disease, about state-of-the-art as reflected in his review of the medical and non medical literature, and concerning issues of his specialties as applicable to the issues presented by this case. If this witness is called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon reasonable request by opposing counsel; the witness is reimbursed for his time at the rate of $250 per hour ($500 minimum) for deposition testimony. 9. Edward B. Ilgren, M.D., 830 Montgomery Avenue, No. 503, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania 19010, is a licensed physician and pathologist. He will testify regarding the etiology and epidemiology of mesothelioma and other asbestosrelated diseases. He will also be called to testify regarding the relative carcinogenicity of the various types of asbestos, their propensity to cause disease, and their friability in various asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products. He will also be called to testify regarding the-historical evolution of the standards used to evaluate and quantify airborne particles, including asbestos, up to the present time and the application of OSHA regulations and similar standards and regarding the epidemiology and state-of-the-art relative to asbestos, asbestos-related diseases, asbestos-containing products, and asbestosrelated medicine. Dr. Ilgren is reimbursed for deposition testimony at the rate of $200 per hour. 10. Arthur M. Langer, Ph.D., Environmental Science Laboratory, Ingersoll Hall, Brooklyn college of the City of New York, Brooklyn, New York 11210, is a geologist and mineralogist. He will testify on die various aspects of the characteristics, conditions and behavior of asbestos fibers in various environments and matrices, the relative toxicity of different types of asbestos, and about the various scientific tools and methodologies relevant to the above. If witness is to be called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon request by opposing counsel. 11. Walter Lucianin, c/o The Okonite Company, 102 Hilltop Road, Ramsey, New Jersey 07466. Mr. Lucianin may testify regarding the manufacture and testing of all types of wire and cable, their uses and applications, and his personal observations of the cutting and stripping process. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 46 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 12. Carl Mangold, C.I.H., 3033 170th Place, S.E., Bellevue, Washington 98008, is a certified industrial hygienist. He has been a member of ACGIH since 1962, and of the American Industrial Hygiene Association since 1963, for which he served as President of the Pacific Northwest section in 1971. Mr. Mangold was a member of the Naval Industrial Hygiene Association until 1972, and served on the Aerosol Technology committee regarding asbestos between 1969 and 1973. Mr. Mangold worked for OSHA from 1972 to 1985, during the last nine years with OSHA, he was the Director of Western Industrial Hygiene. Since 1967, Mr. Mangold has written in excess of 15 articles concerning industrial hygiene. If called in this case, he would testify on industrial hygiene principles and standards, including but not limited to OSHA and ACGIH standards, the evolution and history of threshold limit values (TLVs) and permissible exposure limits (PELs), the relative toxicity of different types of asbestos, the relative friability of different asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products, and their propensity to cause disease, the environment of exposures in shipyards generally, and on related issues. Mr. Mangold is reimbursed for the time he spends in providing deposition testimony at the rate of $200 per hour. 13. Richard H. Martin, 2904 Sunset Drive West, Tacoma, Washington 98466, is an electrical designer and estimator for ship construction and repair and was formerly a journeyman marine electrician and foreman. Mr. Martin may testify regarding the job duties of a marine electrician and the types of products, including electrical wire and cable, that would have been used by a marine electrician. In addition, he may testify regarding the amount of asbestos-insulated wire and cable used in ship construction and repair, as well as the amount of time an electrician would spend cutting and removing insulation from wire and cable, and the methods and tools used. Mr. Martin may also testify regarding the design and installation of electrical equipment, and wire and cabling systems in ship construction and repair. 14. Kenneth Mathes, P.E., 2052 Baker Avenue, Schenectady, New York 12309, is an electrical insulation systems engineer specializing in the construction and insulation of wire and cable products. If called in this case, he would testify regarding the construction and insulation of wire and cable products, including those manufactured to government specifications and other industry standards. If this witness is to be called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition, concerning his opinions in this case, upon request of opposing counsel; Mr. Mathes bills for his deposition testimony at the rate of $750 per ,4ay.' ' THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 47 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 15. Fred H. Merrick, John J. McMullen Naval Architects, 5901 Christie Avenue, Suite 400, Emeryville, California, is a senior marine engineer whose professional and occupational background includes the planning, engineering and design of machinery and piping installations on ships of the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, Military Sealift Command, and commercial shipping companies. He has conducted extensive research into the historical use of asbestos-containing materials on board ships, and work practices in ship construction and repair. If called in this case, he would testily concerning the design and installation of piping and machinery on ships, the work practices in ship building and repair, and the use of asbestos-containing products in the marine industry. 16. Robert W. Morgan, M.D., Occupational Medicine, One Lagoon Drive, Suite 145, Redwood City, California 94065. If called in this case, he would testify as to the relationship, if any, between exposure to asbestos and diseases claimed by the plaintiff or of which plaintiff claims a compensable fear. He may also testify about the nature, extent, and etiology of plaintiffs alleged disease, about state-ofthe-art as reflected in his review of the medical and non-medical literature, and concerning issues of his specialties as applicable to the issues presented by this case.He may also testify, when applicable, as to the latency period for asbestosrelated diseases and the most likely injurious exposures. Dr. Morgan is prepared to give an oral deposition on his opinions in this case; Dr. Morgan's hourly deposition fee is $450.00. 17. M. Douglas Mueller, CIH, is the Vice President of BCM, Engineers, Inc., one Plymouth Meeting, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania 19462. He may be called to testify that reasonably foreseeable use of Okonite's products did not create a health hazard. His hourly rate for providing deposition testimony is not presently known to declarant, but will be disclosed immediately upon his information becoming available. If Mr. Mueller is called as a witness, he will be prepared to give an oral deposition on his opinions in this case. 18. JackE. Paterson, Ph.D., C.I.H., P.E., 2830 Via ViejasOeste, Alpine, California 91901, is a certified industrial hygienist. If called in this case, he would testify on industrial hygiene principles and standards including but not limited to, OSHA and ACGIH standards, the evolution and history of threshold limit values (TLVs) and permissible exposure limits (PELs), the relative toxicity of different types of asbestos, the relative friability of different asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products, and their propensity to cause disease, and on related issues. He may testify concerning the nature, extent, and etiology of various asbestos-related diseases. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL . OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 48 232599.1/SP/KCM/U15/022896 If this witness is called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon reasonable request by opposing counsel. This witness is reimbursed for his time for deposition testimony at the rate of $450 per hour, one-half day minimum. 19. Frank R. Postma, do The Okonite Company, 102 Hilltop Road, Ramsey, New Jersey 07446 may testify regarding his knowledge of the design, manufacture and use of asbestos wire and cable products, including those manufactured by The Okonite Company. He may testify regarding his own personal observations made of wire and cable product installation. Mr. Postma, may also testify regarding plaintiffs claims about the use of asbestos-containing wire and cable products and his own knowledge of such applications and the types of products that would be used in such situations. Mr. Postma may also testify regarding the standards and specifications, both military and non-military, that wire and cable products must be manufactured in accordance with, and the similarity of products manufactured pursuant to similar standards by different manufacturers. The basis for Mr. Postma's testimony will be his own personal experience through his working career and also military and commercial standards and specifications which are matters of public record. For documents provided to Mr. Postma for his review, see Plaintiffs medical records and Plaintiffs deposition which have been previously produced to or provided by plaintiffs counsel and the studies produced by defendants to plaintiffs counsel in prior disclosures, as well as plaintiffs responses to interrogatories, requests for production and admissions from plaintiffs. 20. James 0. Rasmussen, Ph.D., Chemistry and Industrial Hygiene, Inc., 4251 Kipling, Wheatridge, Colorado 80033, is an industrial hygiene consultant. If called in this case, he would testify on industrial hygiene principles and standards, including but not limited to OSHA and ACGIH standards, the evolution and history of threshold limit values (TLVs) and permissible exposure limits (PELs), the relative toxicity of different types of asbestos, the relative friability of different asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products, and their propensity to cause disease, and on related issues. He may testify concerning the nature, extent, and etiology of various asbestos-related diseases. - 21. v Hubert Russell, Morris Gurlanick and Associates, Inc., 620 Folsom Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94103, is a naval engineer. He has been contacted by attorneys for this defendant and has generally agreed to give testimony in this and other asbestos cases. If called in this case, he would testify on the uses of insulation products on ships, Naval regulations regarding same, the types of asbestos products required by various military or government specifications, and the nature and implications of such specifications or regulations. If this witness is called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 49 232599.1/SP/KCM/11I5/022896 opinions in this case upon reasonable request by opposing counsel; the witness is reimbursed for his time at the rate of $150 per hour for deposition testimony. 22. Terry Stobbe, Ph.D., C.I.H., 322 Watts Street, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, is an industrial hygienist and a professor in the occupational Health & Safety Engineering Graduate Program at West Virginia University who received his B.S. in Industrial Engineering in 1968 from Northwestern and his M.S.E., M.S., and Ph.D. at the University of Michigan in 1974, 1977, and 1982, respectively. He will testify that the use of Okonite's products did not create a health hazard. He will testify regarding an electrician's exposure, if any, to asbestos from wire and cable, the analysis and results, for industrial hygiene purposes, of friable asbestos in occupational and other settings and compare the relative risks of inhalation of asbestos fibers that may be released from wire and cable as compared to other asbestos products. He will also testify regarding the historical evolution of the standards used to evaluate and quantify airborne particles, including asbestos, up to the present time including, but not limited to, OSHA and ACGIH standards, the evolution and history of threshold limit values (TLVs) and permissible exposure limits (PELs), the relative toxicity of different types of asbestos, the relative friability of different asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products, and their propensity to cause disease, and on related issues. He may testify concerning die nature, extent, and etiology of various asbestos-related diseases. Dr. Stobbe will testify regarding the standards and specifications, both military and non-military, that wire and cable products must be manufactured in accordance with and the similarity of products manufactured pursuant to similar standards by different manufacturers. For documents provided to Dr. Stobbe for his review, see Plaintiffs medical records and Plaintiff's deposition which have been previously produced to or provided by plaintiffs-counsel and the studies produced by defendants by plaintiffs counsel in prior disclosures, as well as plaintiffs responses to interrogatories, requests for production and admissions from plaintiffs. If called as a witness, Dr. Stobbe will be prepared to give an oral deposition concerning his opinions on this case. 23. Raymond J. Wyland, 1001 Sylmar Avenue, No. 196, Clovis, California 93612 1671, is a retired journeyman marine electrician and electrical designer for ship construction and repair. Mr. Wyland may testify regarding the job duties of marine electrician and the types of products, including electrical wire and cable, that would have been used by a marine electrician. In addition, he may testify regarding the general working conditions of a marine electrician, as well as the amount of time an electrician would spend cutting and removing insulation from wire and cable and the methods and tools used. Mr. Wyland may also testify THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 50 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 regarding the design and installation of electrical equipment, and wire and cabling systems in ship construction and repair. INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge of facts relevant to these cases involving, but not limited to: (a) identification of asbestos-containing products to which each and every individual Plaintiff, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, allegedly was exposed or facts disputing the identification of asbestos-containing products in this case. (b) Each and every individual Plaintiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged damages, injuries and/or facts disputing each and every Plaintiffs alleged damages and/or injuries; (c) the negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of each and every individual Plaintiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged injuries and/or damages; (d) each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last riled Answer in each of these cases. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 51 232599.1/SP/KCM/1U5/022&96 ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is violative of the attorney- client communication privilege and attorney work product doctrine pursuant to Rule 503, Tex. R. Evid. and Rule 166b(3)(a), Tex. R. Civ. P. Without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant answers as follows: 1. Vittorio K. Argento, Ph.D., P.E. Environmental Engineering Services, 1226 North Cedar Ridge, Duncanville, Texas 75115. Dr. Argento is a professor at the University of Texas/Arlington and holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Science. He is also a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Texas. He will testify that the reasonably foreseeable use of Okonite's products did not create a health hazard. He has conducted his own separate independent research projects that measure the exposure of an electrician to asbestos while cutting, stripping and manipulating asbestos insulated wire and cable which was similar in construction to materials manufactured by Okonite and he is also familiar with other similar studies. He is of the opinion that such exposure, if any, does not result in, or increase the risk of, asbestos-related disease. He will also testify about the propriety and reasonableness of the testing procedures utilized in these studies. He will also testify regarding the historical evolution of the standards used to evaluate and quantify airborne particles, including asbestos, up to the present time and the application of OSHA regulations and similar standards. Dr. Argento will testify regarding the standards and specifications, both military and non-military, that wire and cable products must be manufactured in accordance with and the similarity of products manufactured pursuant to similar standards by different manufacturers. If called as a witness. Dr. Argento will be prepared to give an oral deposition concerning his opinions in this case. 2. Oscar Auerbach, M.D., College of Medicine & Dentistry, 100 Bergen Street, Newark, New Jersey 07103, is a licensed physician and pathologist and also a well-known researcher in the field of smoking and related diseases. He may be called to testify in this case on the effects of smoking on human physiology and concerning issues of his specialty as applicable to medical issues presented by this case. If this witness is to be called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon request by opposing counsel; Dr. Auerbach bills for deposition testimony at the rate of $1,500 day. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 52 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 3. John E. Craighead, M.D., 1845 Four Winds Road, Ferrisbuig, Vermont 05456, (802) 425-3480, is a licensed physician and a pathologist. He will testily regarding the etiology and epidemiology of mesothelioma and other asbestosrelated diseases. He will also be called to testify regarding the relative carcinogenicity of the various types of asbestos, their propensity to cause disease, and their friability in various asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products. He will also be called to testify regarding the historical evolution of the standards used to evaluate and quantify airborne particles, including asbestos, up to the present time and the application of OSHA regulations and similar standards and regarding the epidemiology and state-of-the-art relative to asbestos, asbestos-related diseases, asbestos-containing products, and asbestosrelated medicine. It is intended by this defendant that he will also review any available pathology in this case prior to giving testimony. If this witness is called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon reasonable request by opposing counsel; the witness is reimbursed for his time at the rate of $300 per hour (plus $150 per hour for travel time) for deposition testimony, with a minimum of $1,000.00 for deposition. 4. Douglas P. Fowler, Ph.D., Fowler Associates, 643 Bair Island Road, Suite 305, Redwood City, California 94063, is an industrial hygiene consultant. If called in this case, he would testify on industrial hygiene principles and standards, including but not limited to OSHA and ACGIH standards, the evolution and history of threshold limit values (TLVs) and permissible exposure limits (PELs), the relative toxicity of different types of asbestos, the relative friability of different asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products, and their propensity to cause disease, and on related issues. If this witness is called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon reasonable request by opposing counsel; the witness is reimbursed for his time at the rate of $125 per hc :r (four hours minimum charge) for deposition testimony. 5. Richard A. Guba, R.P.E., Pennsylvania and Delaware, 377 Eden Drive, Englewood, Florida 34223, may testify regarding his knowledge of the design, manufacture and use of asbestos wire and cable products, including those manufactured by The Okonite Company. He may testify regarding his own personal observations made of wire and cable product installation. Mr. Guba may also testify regarding plaintiff's claims about the use of asbestos-containing wire and cable products and his own knowledge of such applications and the types of products that would be used in such situations. Mr. Guba may also testify regarding the standards and specifications, both military and non-military, that THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER ' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 53 232599.l/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 wire and cable products must be manufactured in accordance with, and the similarity of products manufactured pursuant to similar standards by different manufacturers. The basis for Mr. Guba's testimony will be his own personal experience through his working career and also military and commercial standards and specifications which are matters of public record. For documents provided to Mr. Guba for his review, see Plaintiffs medical records and Plaintiffs deposition which have been previously produced to or provided by plaintiff's counsel and the studies produced by defendants to plaintiffs counsel in prior disclosures, as well as plaintiffs responses to interrogatories, requests for production and admissions from plaintiffs. 6. Stephen Halpem, John J. McMullen Naval Architects, 5901 Christie Avenue, Suite 400, Emeryville, California, is a senior marine engineer whose professional and occupational background includes the planning, engineering and design of machinery and piping installations on ships of the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, Military Sealift Command, and commercial shipping companies. He has conducted extensive research into the historical use of asbestos-containing materials on board ships, and work practices in ship construction and repair. If called in this case, he would testify concerning the design and installation of piping and machinery on ships, the work practices in ship building and repair, and the use of asbestos-containing products in the marine industry. 7. Elliott Hinkes, ,M.D., 301 North Prairie Avenue, Suite 311, Inglewood, California 90301, is a licensed physician and an oncologist. If called in this case, he would testify on oncology, cancer and its causes, the etiology and epidemiology of asbestos-related diseases, treatment options for cancer patients, the cost of medical care for cancer patients, the nature and extent of the "dose" of asbestos one must have to cause disease, the latency periods for such diseases, and the related questions of increased risk of cancer and "fear of cancer" and how these concerns may relate to plaintiffs physical or mental condition, and concerning issues of his specialty as applicable to the medical issues presented by this case. If this witness is called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon reasonable request by opposing counsel; the witness is reimbursed for his time at the rate of $390 per hour for deposition testimony. 8. William Hughson, M.D., University of California, San Diego, Occupational Health Center (H772A), 3916 Fourth Avenue, Suite 175, San Diego, California 92103, is a licensed physician and an epidemiologist. If called in this case, he would testify as to the relationship, if any, between exposure to asbestos and diseases claimed by the plaintiff or of which plaintiff claims a compensable fear. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 54 232599. l/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 He may also testify about the nature, extent, and etiology of plaintiffs alleged disease, about state-of-the-art as reflected in his review of the medical and non medical literature, and concerning issues of his specialties as applicable to the issues presented by this case. If this witness is called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon reasonable request by opposing counsel; the witness is reimbursed for his time at the rate of $250 per hour ($500 minimum) for deposition testimony. 9. Edward B. Ilgren, M.D., 830 Montgomery Avenue, No. 503, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania 19010, is a licensed physician and pathologist. He will testify regarding the etiology and epidemiology of mesothelioma and other asbestosrelated diseases. He will also be called to testify regarding the relative carcinogenicity of the various types of asbestos, their propensity to cause disease, and their friability in various asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products. He will also be called to testify regarding the-historical evolution of the standards used to evaluate and quantify airborne particles, including asbestos, up to the present time and the application of OSHA regulations and similar standards and regarding the epidemiology and state-of-the-art relative to asbestos, asbestos-related diseases, asbestos-containing products, and asbestosrelated medicine. Dr. Ilgren is reimbursed for deposition testimony at the rate of $200 per hour. 10. Arthur M. Langer, Ph.D., Environmental Science Laboratory, Ingersoll Hall, Brooklyn college of the City of New York, Brooklyn, New York 11210, is a geologist and mineralogist. He will testify on the various aspects of the characteristics, conditions and behavior of asbestos fibers in various environments and matrices, the relative toxicity of different types of asbestos, and about the various scientific tools and methodologies relevant to the above. If witness is to be called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon request by opposing counsel. 11. Walter Lucianin, c/o The Okonite Company, 102 Hilltop Road, Ramsey, New Jersey 07466. Mr. Lucianin may testify regarding the manufacture and testing of all types of wire and cable, their uses and applications, and his personal observations of the cutting and stripping process. 12. Carl Mangold, C.I.H., 3033 170th Place, S.E-.; Bellevue, Washington 98008, is a certified industrial hygienist. He has been a member of ACGIH since 1962, and of the American Industrial Hygiene Association since 1963, for which he served as President of the Pacific Northwest section in 1971. Mr. Mangold was THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 55 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 a member of the Naval Industrial Hygiene Association until 1972, and served on the Aerosol Technology committee regarding asbestos between 1969 and 1973. Mr. Mangold worked for OSHA from 1972 to 1985, during the last nine years with OSHA, he was the Director of Western Industrial Hygiene. Since 1967, Mr. Mangold has written in excess of 15 articles concerning industrial hygiene. If called in this case, he would testify on industrial hygiene principles and standards, including but not limited to OSHA and ACGIH standards, the evolution and history of threshold limit values (TLVs) and permissible exposure limits (PELs), the relative toxicity of different types of asbestos, the relative friability of different asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products, and their propensity to cause disease, the environment of exposures in shipyards generally, and on related issues. Mr. Mangold is reimbursed for the time he spends in providing deposition testimony at the rate of $200 per hour. 13. Richard H. Martin, 2904 Sunset Drive West, Tacoma, Washington 98466, is an electrical designer and estimator for ship construction and repair and was formerly a journeyman marine electrician and foreman. Mr. Martin may testify regarding die job duties of a marine electrician and the types of products, including electrical wire and cable, that would have been used by a marine electrician. In addition, he may testify regarding the amount of asbestos-insulated wire and cable used in ship construction and repair, as well as the amount of time an electrician would spend cutting and removing insulation from wire and cable, and the methods and tools used. Mr. Martin may also testify regarding the design and installation of electrical equipment, and wire and cabling systems in ship construction and repair. 14. Kenneth Mathes, P.E., 2052 Baker Avenue, Schenectady, New York 12309, is an electrical insulation systems engineer specializing in the construction and insulation of wire and cable products. If called in this case, he would testify regarding the construction and insulation of wire and cable products, including those manufactured to government specifications and other industry standards. If this witness is to be called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition, concerning his opinions in this case, upon request of opposing counsel; Mr. Mathes bills for his deposition testimony at the rate of $750 per day. 15. Fred H. Merrick, John J. McMullen Naval Architects, 5901 Christie Avenue, Suite 400, Emeryville, California, is a senior marine engineer whose professional and occupational background includes the planning, engineering and design of machinery and piping installations on ships of the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 56 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 Military Sealift Command, and commercial shipping companies. He has conducted extensive research into the historical use of asbestos-containing materials on board ships, and work practices in ship construction and repair. If called in this case, he would testify concerning the design and installation of piping and machinery on ships, the work practices in ship building and repair, and the use of asbestos-containing products in the marine industry. 16. Robert W. Morgan, M.D., Occupational Medicine, One Lagoon Drive, Suite 145, Redwood City, California 94065. If called in this case, he would testify as to the relationship, if any, between exposure to asbestos and diseases claimed by the plaintiff or of which plaintiff claims a compensable fear. He may also testify about the nature, extent, and etiology of plaintiffs alleged disease, about state-ofthe-art as reflected in his review of the medical and non-medical literature, and concerning issues of his specialties as applicable to the issues presented by this case.He may also testify, when applicable, as to the latency period for asbestosrelated diseases and the most likely injurious exposures. Dr. Morgan is prepared to give an oral deposition on his opinions in this case; Dr. Morgan's hourly deposition fee is $450.00. 17. M. Douglas Mueller, CIH, is the Vice President of BCM, Engineers, Inc., one Plymouth Meeting, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania 19462. He may be called to testify that reasonably foreseeable use of Okonite's products did not create a health hazard. His hourly rate for providing deposition testimony is not presently known to declarant, but will be disclosed immediately upon his information becoming available. If Mr. Mueller is called as a witness, he will be prepared to give an oral deposition on his opinions in this case. 18. JackE. Paterson, Ph.D., C.I.H., P.E., 2830 Via Viejas Oeste, Alpine, California 91901, is a certified industrial hygienist. If called in this case, he would testify on industrial hygiene principles and standards including but not limited to, OSHA and ACGIH standards, the evolution and history of threshold limit values (TLVs) and permissible exposure limits (PELs), the relative toxicity of different types of asbestos, the relative friability of different asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products, and their propensity to cause disease, and on related issues. He may testify concerning the nature, extent, and etiology of various asbestos-related diseases. If this witness is called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon reasonable request by opposing counsel. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 57 232599. l/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 This witness is reimbursed for his time for deposition testimony at the rate of $450 per hour, one-half day minimum. 19. Frank R, Postma, c/o The Okonite Company, 102 Hilltop Road, Ramsey, New Jersey 07446 may testify regarding his knowledge of the design, manufacture and use of asbestos wire and cable products, including those manufactured by The Okonite Company. He may testify regarding his own personal observations made of wire and cable product installation. Mr. Postma, may also testify regarding plaintiffs claims about the use of asbestos-containing wire and cable products and his own knowledge of such applications and the types of products that would be used in such situations. Mr. Postma may also testify regarding the standards and specifications, both military and non-military, that wire and cable products must be manufactured in accordance with, and the similarity of products manufactured pursuant to similar standards by different manufacturers. The basis for Mr. Postma's testimony will be his own personal experience through his working career and also military and commercial standards and specifications which are matters of public record. For documents provided to Mr. Postma for his review, see Plaintiffs medical records and Plaintiffs deposition which have been previously produced to or provided by plaintiffs counsel and the studies produced by defendants to plaintiffs counsel in prior disclosures, as well as plaintiffs responses to interrogatories, requests for production and admissions from plaintiffs. 20. James 0. Rasmussen, Ph.D., Chemistry and Industrial Hygiene, Inc., 4251 Kipling, Wheatridge, Colorado 80033, is an industrial hygiene consultant. If called in this case, he would testify on industrial hygiene principles and standards, including but not limited to OSHA and ACGIH standards, the evolution and history of threshold limit values (TLVs) and permissible exposure limits (PELs), the relative toxicity of different types of asbestos, the relative friability of different asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products, and their propensity to cause disease, and on related issues. He may testify concerning the nature, extent, and etiology of various asbestos-related diseases. 21. Hubert Russell, Morris Gurlanick and Associates, Inc., 620 Folsom Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94103, is a naval engineer. He has been contacted by attorneys for this defendant and has generally agreed to give testimony in this and other asbestos cases. If called in this case, he would testify on the uses of insulation products on ships, Naval regulations regarding same, the types of asbestos products required by various military or government specifications, and the nature and implications of such specifications or regulations. If this witness is called in this case, he will be prepared to give a deposition relative to his opinions in this case upon reasonable request by opposing counsel; the witness is reimbursed for his time at the rate of $150 per hour for deposition testimony. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER ' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 58 232599.1/SIVKCM/1115/0Z2896 22. Terry Stobbe, Ph.D., C.I.H., 322 Watts Street, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, is an industrial hygienist and a professor in the occupational Health & Safety Engineering Graduate Program at West Virginia University who received his B.S. in Industrial Engineering in 1968 from Northwestern and his M.S.E., M.S., and Ph.D. at the University of Michigan in 1974, 1977, and 1982, respectively. He will testify that the use of Okonite's products did not create a health hazard. He will testify regarding an electrician's exposure, if any, to asbestos from wire and cable, the analysis and results, for industrial hygiene purposes, of friable asbestos in occupational and other settings and compare the relative risks of inhalation of asbestos fibers that may be released from wire and cable as compared to other asbestos products. He will also testify regarding the historical evolution of the standards used to evaluate and quantify airborne particles, including asbestos, up to the present time including, but not limited to, OSHA and ACGIH standards, the evolution and history of threshold limit values (TLVs) and permissible exposure limits (PELs), the relative toxicity of different types of asbestos, the relative friability of different asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable products, and their propensity to cause disease, and on related issues. He may testify concerning the nature, extent, and etiology of various asbestos-related diseases. Dr. Stobbe will testify regarding the standards and specifications, both military and non-military, that wire and cable products must be manufactured in accordance with and the similarity of products manufactured pursuant to similar standards by different manufacturers. For documents provided to Dr. Stobbe for his review, see Plaintiffs medical records and Plaintiffs deposition which have been previously produced to or provided by plaintiffs-counsel and the studies produced by defendants by plaintiffs counsel in prior disclosures, as well as plaintiffs responses to interrogatories, requests for production and admissions from plaintiffs. If called as a witness, Dr. Stobbe will be prepared to give an oral deposition concerning his opinions on this case. 23. Raymond J. Wyland, 1001 Sylmar Avenue, No. 196, Clovis, California 93612 1671, is a retired journeyman marine electrician and electrical designer for ship construction and repair. Mr. Wyland may testify regarding the job duties of marine electrician and the types of products, including electrical wire and cable, that would have been used by a marine electrician. In addition, he may testify regarding the general working conditions of a marine electrician, as well as the amount of time an electrician would spend cutting and removing insulation from wire and cable and the methods and tools used. Mr. Wyland may also testify regarding the design and installation of electrical equipment, and wire and cabling systems in ship construction and repair. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 59 232599.1/SP/KCM/I115/022896 INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Please identify documents which will be used at time of trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory seeks attorney work product that is exempt from discovery under Rule 166b(3)(a), Tex. R. Civ. P. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels", published in January, 1946 in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene Toxicology, and authored by W. Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al ("the Fleischer-Drinker Report")? a. Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; b. please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Fleischer-Drinker" study prior to 1968; c. please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; d. please identify the name(s) and address(es) of any person(s) who can verify your above response; e. did Defendant ever rely on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the work place without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 60 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 f. if so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 63(a) above; g. if your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above? ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it requests information not relevant to any issue in the case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving such objection, Okonite is unaware when, if ever, it or any predecessor company received the described article. INTERROGATORY NO. 64: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Study of Asbestos in the Asbestos Textile Industry", published in 1938 in Public Health Bill, No. 241, U.S. Public Health Service and authored by W. C. Dreessen ("the Dreessen Report")? a. Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; b. please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Dreessen" study prior to 1968; b. please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; d. please identify the name(s) and address(es) of any person(s) who can verify your above response; THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 61 232S99.1/SP/KCM/1U5/G22896 e. did Defendant ever rely on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendants asbestos products could be used in the work place without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; f. if so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 63(a) above; g. if your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Dreessen report in whole or in part for the deposition stated in 63(e) above? ANSWER: Okonite objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it requests information not relevant to any issue in the case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving such objection, Okonite is unaware when, if ever, it or any predecessory company received the described article. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce a true and correct copy of each photograph of each asbestos-containing product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 4. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Okonite objects to this request for production on the grounds it requests information not relevant to any issue in the case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Okonite objects to this request for production on the grounds it THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 62 232599.1/SP/KCM/l 115/022896 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, unlimited as to time and scope and intended merely for purpose of harassment. Without waiving such objections, Okonite is presently informed and believes that no photographs exist of products which may have been used at decedent's work sites. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce any diagrams or schematics indicating, stating or detailing the existence of any of your subsidiaries, predecessors, or divisions as defined on Page 1 of these Interrogatories and Request for Production. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: See corporate history of The Okonite Company previously produced in response to Plaintiffs' Master Request for Production. THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER ' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 63 232599. l/SP/KCM/U15/022896 Respectfully submitted. DAVID N. KUNER State Bar No. 11541500 Strasburger & Price, L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 4300 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 651-4300 (214) 651-4330 (Telecopier) OF COUNSEL JAY C. RUSSELL GABRIEL A. JACKSON Jackson & Wallace One Maritime Plaza, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT THE OKONTIE COMPANY, INC. CERTTEICATE_OF_SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been mailed by United States mail, to all counsel of record on this the / , day of 1996. David N. Kitner THE OKONTTE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 64 232599.1/SP/KCM/U15/Q30196 STATE OF NEW JERSEY COUNTY OF BERGEN VERIFICATION I, FRANK R. POSTMA, being duly sworn, depose and state that I am authorized to execute this verification on behalf of The Okonite Company, Inc. The Okonite Company's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. FRANK R. POSTMA Vice President, Marketing The Okonite Company SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me by the said FRANK R. POSTMA on this theday of, 1996, to certify which witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for the State of New Jersey My Commission Expires: ___________________________ '_____________________ Printed Name THE OKONITE COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Page 65 232599.1/SP/KCM/1115/022896