Document YrkKbmvGdgbRXeREyNa4MR0Mn
FILE NAME: Carlisle (CARL)
DATE: 1995
DOC#: CARL071
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Defendant Answers to Plaintiffs' 2nd Set of Interrogatories
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CASS COUNTY, ILLINOIS
ROSE SPEARS, As Special Administrator )
for WILLIAM SPEAR, Deceased,
)
)
Plaintiff, v
) )
)
*
)
A. P. GREEN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
No.92-L-3
ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT CARLISLE CORPORATION I . PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
These questions or requests are answered with respect to t Motion Control, Inc., a subsidiary of Carlisle Corporation. These questions or requests are answered on the basis of informa tion presently known to the person or persons who prepared the answers. Because much of the information which is the subject of these questions or requests is historical in nature, and consid erable time may have passed since the events or dates in ques tion, these answers are subject to the discovery of any addition al information.
These answers are intended to be accurate to the best of the answering person's knowledge and belief as of the time of the answer. To the extent that they are not consistent with any previous answers, including answers and discovery in other cases, these answers are intended to supplement and supersede such earlier answers. Defendant reserves the right to supplement these answers. Furthermore, the information contained in these
answers may be superseded by further discovery in this or future
matters.
II. ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
1.
Before placing Defendant's asbestos-containing products
on the market, did Defendant make or cause to be made, any
studies to determine whether their asbestos-containing products
would be hazardous to people? If so, please state:
a. The date of said studies;
b. What studies were done; and
c. ANSWER:
The titles of each study. Answering defendant did not sponsor, and is not
aware of any epidemiological studies of its asbestos-containing brake linings. As to studies of the relationship, or lack of a relationship, between the use or maintenance of friction product^ and potential occupation disease, please refer to the current epidemiological literature. With respect to the use of asbestos-
containing brake linings this defendant continues to be advised that the ordinary and foreseeable use of asbestos-containing
friction products causes no increased risk of occupational
diseases.
2.
Did any person prior to 1970, file a claim against any
Workers' Compensation carrier covering Defendant alleging that he
or she contracted a disease as a result of exposure to asbestos?
If so, please state the following:
a. A list of each such claim by claimant's name, date filed and jurisdiction involved;
b. A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim.
ANSWER: Objection. The information sought in this
interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of this
-2-
litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. There is no evidence that the
claimed exposures in this case, which concern the alleged use of
brake blocks or linings, involved this defendant's manufacturing
operations, or any exposure comparable to such operations.
Without waiving this objection, we are not aware of any claims by
any of Carlisle employees that they were injured by asbestos
exposure in the course of their employment by the company.
3.
Have any of the products listed in response to
Interrogatory No. 5 to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories
been altered in chemical composition since first being marketed?
If so, please state the following:
a. The trade name of each such product;
b. The date each such product was altered;
c. The nature of the alteration;
d. The reason for the alteration.
ANSWER: Objection. The formulations and manufacturing
processes for the defendant's brake linings and blocks are
valuable, proprietary information, and are disclosed within the
company only as needed. These formulations and processes are the
result of decades of investment of time, money and technical
experience. Disclosure of such information would put this
defendant at a competitive disadvantage because domestic and
foreign competitors could duplicate these products or improve
their products and production methods without making a corre
sponding investment and without having to compensate answering
defendant for its efforts. By way of answer, but without waiving
this objection, answering defendant has always made and continues
-3-
to make improvements in all of its products and manufacturii
methods. By way of further answer, but without waiving thi
objection, answering defendant's asbestos-containing brake
linings contained between approximately 15% and 60% chrysotile asbestos at the time of manufacture, depending on the formulation
and intended use. In addition, in 1979 answering defendant
succeeded in producing an asbestos-free brake lining. By 1986
all of answering defendant's brake linings were asbestos-free.
4.
Have any of Defendant's asbestos-containing products as
listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 to Plaintiff's First
Set of Interrogatories ever been marketed, distributed, and/or
sold by any other company or business in Illinois? If so, please
state the name and last known address of each of those companies
or businesses.
ANSWER: Objection. The information sought in this request
is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
Neither is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
4 . 1 For each company or business listed in response to Interrogatory No. 4 above, please state whether they sold Defendant's asbestos-containing brake lining products to any of the job sites listed on Exhibit A? If yes, please state the following:
a. The name and last known address of the company or business;
b. The name of each job site where Defendant's product was marketed, distributed, and/or sold by the company or business;
c. The name of each person in each company or business with whom Defendant dealt;
d. Please state the name and quantity of each asbestos-containing brake lining product that was sold to each job site by each company or business;
. Please identify all documents relating to the
-4-
sales of Defendant's asbestos-containing products to each company identified.
ANSWER: Answering defendant has no information concerning
sales by other companies of their various products.
4.2 Did Defendant sell its asbestos-containing brake lining products to any of the job sites listed on Exhibit A? If yes, please state the following:
a. As to each job site on Exhibit A to which Defendant sold its asbestos-containing brake lining products, please state:
i. The name of each asbestos products sold;
ii. The quantity sold;
iii. Each date sold.
iv. The name of each person at each job site with whom Defendant dealt;
v. Please identify all documents relating to the sales of Defendant's asbestos- containing brake lining products to each job site.
ANSWER : N o .
5.
Did Defendant have sales representatives, employees or
other agents who sold products listed in response to Interrog
atory No. 5 to Plaintiff's Pirst Set of Interrogatories to
contractors, builders and/or companies who did work at the job
sites listed on Exhibit A? If so, please state:
a. The name and last known address of each such sales representative, employee, or other agent and whether they are still employed by Defendant.
b. The period of time they acted as your sales representative, employee or agent.
c . Their general responsibility at each location.
d. Whether that person is still alive.
e. The name of the contractor, builder and/or person in each company with whom your representative, employee or agent primarily dealt.
x list of the specific asbestos-containing brake
-5-
lining products that your sales reprsentatif employee or agent sold to the contractors, builders and/or companies who did work at the job^ sites from 1950-1984.
g. The amount of each asbestos product sold by your sales representative, employee or agent to contractors, builders and/or companies who did work at the job sites listed on Exhibit A.
h. Please identify all documents relating to the sales identified in this interrogatory.
ANSWER: Except for sales information provided in the
preceding paragraphs, this information is not available to an
swering defendant.
6. Please identify by location and product produced, each plant in which products listed in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5 to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories have been manufactured and/or assembled and the dates said plants have been in operation.
ANSWER: To the best of our knowledge, all asbestos-
containing brake blocks and linings made by Carlisle would have
been made at its plant in Ridgeway, PA.
7. What is the name, address and job title of each individual who participated in the design and preparation of manufacturing specifications for each such product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories?
ANSWER: Objection. The information sought in this request
is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
Neither is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection,
specifications for brake blocks and linings are developed by the
particular vehicle/axle manufacturer.
8. As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 to Plaintiff Is First Set of Interrogatories, please describe how each product was to be cut, shaped, scribed, mixed
-6-
and applied on the job. (In answering this question, give partic ular reference as to whether or not the materials were to be sawed, cut, or ground on the job.)
ANSWER: If used as designed finished Carlisle brake blocks
and linings were ready for installation when shipped. Answering
defendant anticipated that such products would be installed in
the same manner as any other similar brake products.
9. Based upon the material contents of your asbestoscontaining brake lining products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, please state which of your asbes tos-containing brake lining products as listed in Interrogatory No. 5 to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories could be applied by a worker without creating dust.
ANSWER: If used as designed the installation of Carlisle's
asbestos-containing brake linings would not be expected to
involve the creation of any dust, particularly respirable
*
asbestos fibers in a concentration considered to be potentially
harmful. Answering defendant continues to be advised that
asbestos-containing friction products do not constitute a health
hazard in their operation or servicing.
10. Do any written memoranda, specifications, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character now exist relating to the design and preparation of the asbestos-containing brake lining products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories? If so, please:
a. List each such written material or document;
b. Identify the person or persons presently in possession of each such document;
c. State where each such document is located.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 7.
11. Prior to releasing the asbestos-containing brake lining
products listed in your response to Interrogatory No. 5 to
.
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to the public for sale,
were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said prod-
-7-
ucts to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of the materials and/or products? If so, please state:
a. The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests;
b. The results of such tests.
ANSWER: Answering defendant did not sponsor, and is not
aware of any epidemiological studies of its asbestos-containing
brake linings. As to studies of the relationship, or lack of a
relationship, between the use or maintenance of friction products
and potential occupation disease, please refer to the current
epidemiological literature. With respect to the use of asbestos-
containing brake linings, this defendant continues to be advised
that the ordinary and foreseeable use of asbestos-containing
t
friction products causes no increased risk of occupational
diseases.
12. Does Defendant have or control any written memoranda, specifications blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character relating to the testing of the asbestos-containing brake lining products listed in your response to Interrogatory No. 5 to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories?
a. Identify each such written material or document;
b. Identify each person who presently has possession of each such document;
c. State where each such document is located.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 1.
13. Were any design changes made as a result of such tests listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 12 hereinabove? If so, please state:
a. The nature of the change made;
b. The name, address, and job classification of each person in charge of making a change.
-8-
ANSWER : See answer to Interrogatory 1.
14.
After releasing the asbestos-containing brake lining
products listed in your response to Interrogatory No. 5 to
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to the public, did
Defendant conduct any tests (either on animals or humans) to
determine potential health hazards involved in the use of said
materials and/or products?
a. The name, address, and job classification of each person and/or agency conducting said tests;
b. The results of said tests;
c. The date of said tests.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 1.
15.
Has Defendant ever conducted any studies concerning the
effects of the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers on
workers or other persons applying, using and/or working around
any of the asbestos-containing brake lining products manufac
tured, sold, distributed and/or relabelled for distribution by
you or your predecessor? If yes, please state:
a. The dates and nature of such studies;
b. Names and addresses of persons conducting such studies;
c. The purpose of such studies;
d. Attach a copy of reports based upon such studies; and
e. List to whom such reports were given and the date.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 1.
16.
Please state whether or not Defendant ever conducted
any tests in the field (where asbestos-containing products were
applied, removed or used) to determine the nature and extent of
asbestos dust and/or fiber exposure to the brake lining
installers, applicators, and/or workers in the vicinity thereof?
If so, please identify:
a. The date, place and nature of each and every test;
b. The particular asbestos-containing brake lining products to which each test applied;
c. The results of each test with particular reference
-9-
to the number of asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air found at each site.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 1.
17. Please state whether or not Defendant ever obtained any knowledge concerning the likelihood of asbestos being hazardous to human health. If so, please state:
a. When Defendant first became aware of the hazardous potential of asbestos dust and asbestos fibers;
b. The manner in which the Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies first obtained this knowledge and became aware of said hazards and from what source this information was obtained.
ANSWER: With respect to the use of asbestos-containing
brake linings, this defendant continues to be advised that the
ordinary and foreseeable use of asbestos-containing friction
products causes no increased risk of occupational diseases.
18. Please state when Defendant first became aware of the possible association between inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers and the contraction of cancers including, but not limited to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, renal cancer, lymphoma and lung cancer. As to each cancer, state the source of that information, including a description of all tests conducted relative to the possibility of such a relationship.
ANSWER: With respect to the use of asbestos-containing
brake linings, this defendant continues to be advised that the
ordinary and foreseeable use of asbestos-containing friction
products causes no increased risk of occupational diseases.
19. Please state when Defendant first became aware of the possible association between inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers and the contraction of mesothelioma and peritoneal mesothelioma. State the source of that information including a description of all, tests conducted relative to the possibility of such a relationship.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 18.
20. Please state when Defendant first became aware of the
-10-
association between the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers and contraction of lung disease known as asbestosis and state the source of that information including a description of all tests conducted relative to possibility of such a relationship.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 18.
21. Please identify all physicians, industrial hygienists, and other employees (including their names and addresses) who were employed, retained or otherwise engaged by Defendant for research, investigation or study concerning asbestos or asbestos-related diseases.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 1.
22. As to each person who acted in a medical advisory capacity (as it relates in any way to asbestos) to Defendant, please list their name, the date individual acted in this capaci ty, and that person's current address and job title.
ANSWER: Objection. This information is protected by the
attorney-client privilege and the work-product privilege.
(
Without waiving this objection, answering defendant continues to
be advised that the ordinary and foreseeable use of asbestos-
containing friction products causes no increased risk of
occupational diseases.
23. Please state if any medical officer or industrial hygienist or medical consultant ever made at any time any recom mendations and/or suggestions to Defendant pertaining to the risks or hazards to persons involved in the manufacture or use of asbestos products and, if so, please state when, by whom or to who such recommendations and/or suggestions were made and the substance of each recommendation.
ANSWER: Objection. The information sought in this
interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of this
litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. There is no evidence that the
claimed exposures in this case, which concern the alleged use of
brake blocks or linings, involved this defendant's manufacturing
-11-
operations, or any exposure comparable to such operations. By
way of answer, and without waiving the foregoing objection,
answering defendant is not aware of any such recommendations
concerning the use of its asbestos-containing friction products
during the time Carlisle made such products. With respect to the
use of asbestos-containing brake linings, this defendant
continues to be advised that the ordinary and foreseeable use of
asbestos-containing friction products causes no increased risk of
occupational diseases.
24. Please state the scientific or medical periodicals to which Defendant, its medical department, industrial hygiene divisions, engineering department or consulting physicians subscribed between 1950 and 1984.
ANSWER: Objection. The information sought in this request:
is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
Neither is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
25. State in detail what test, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust, fibers or particles to which applicators or consumers of your product were exposed while using your asbestoscontaining brake lining products.
ANSWER: On one occasion, Robert Tami took air samples at
the request of a customer at its place of business for purposes
of assisting the employer in monitoring its OSHA compliance
requirements. The sampling confirmed that airborne asbestos dust
levels were well within any applicable OSHA requirements. This
took place in the early or mid 1980s. Defendant has no record of
this air sampling.
26. For each test described in Interrogatory No. 25, please
-12-
give the name of the person conducting the test, the date of the test, and attach true copies of any reports, findings or memoranda concerning such tests or studies.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 25.
27. Please state the year that Defendant was first advised of either threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and state the name of the employee/official of the company receiving such advice.
ANSWER: This defendant has no knowledge of when any of its
employees first learned of the TLV for asbestos dust because so
many years have passed. The TLV was replaced by OSHA
requirements in the early 1970s.
28. Does Defendant maintain a library dealing with
industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and engineering and/or
>
research? If so, state:
a. The date each such library was established;
b. The location of each library;
c. The name(s) of the librarian(s) since 1930;
d. List all journals subscribed to by you concerning asbestos, industrial hygiene, medicine, safety, and/or engineering;
e. List all books and articles dealing with asbestos and asbestos-related diseases and the date acquired.
ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory is overbroad and
unduly burdensome. Without waiving this objection, with respect
to the subject matter of this litigation, since the promulgation
of OSHA regulations in the early 1970s concerning exposure to
asbestos, answering defendant has been generally aware of the
industrial hygiene aspects of manufacturing its products with
Qh^-ygotile fibers (when those products, in fact, contained
-13-
chrysotile), and has generally monitored relevant articles on
this subject. This function has been handled by Robert Tami
since approximately 1979. Since the inception of third party
litigation involving the company's asbestos-containing brake
products, certain articles have come to the attention of answer
ing defendant through the efforts of its counsel in the course of
the litigation. 29. Did Defendant in the 1920's or 1930's commission, or
participate in the arrangements with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for studies at the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, concerning the effect of inhalation or ingestion of asbestos fibers upon human and/or animal bodies.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 1.
30. Does Defendant admit that a report of some of the studies of Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, entitled "Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust in the Lungs of ^ Asbestos workers" was published by A.J. Lanza, Assistant Medical Director and J. published in the Public Health Report, Vol. 50, No. 1, dated January 4, 1935?
ANSWER: Answering defendant lacks sufficient information
to either admit or deny this request, and the request is
therefore deemed denied. Defendant reserves the right to modify
or supplement this response if the article in question is
believed to have any relevance to the pending claim(s) against
it. With respect to the use of asbestos-containing brake linings, this defendant continues to be advised that the ordinary
and foreseeable use of asbestos-containing friction products
causes no increased risk of occupational diseases. 31. When was Defendant first aware of the above mentioned
Lanza Report? ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 30.
-14-
32. Please state whether the Defendant at any time have . been members of any "trade organization" or "trade association" * composed by other manufacturers, miners, distributors, and/or sellers of asbestos products, including asbestos-containing brake lining products, and, if so, please identify the name and address of each such association or organization, the dates of member ship, and the names of any publications issued or written by such association or organization.
ANSWER: This defendant has been a member of the following
organizations at various times:
Brake Lining Manufacturers' Association during the 1940s.
Friction Manufacturers Standards Institute, Inc. (FMSI), since the late 1940s.
Asbestos Information Association of North America 1976-81.
Industrial Hygiene Foundation 1979-82.
32.1 Please state whether Defendant at any time has been a member of the Frictions Materials Standards Institute, and if so,* please identify the dates of membership, and the neunes of any publications issued or written by such association or organiza tion.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 32. The FMSI
publishes technical standards or specifications for the manufac
ture of friction products.
32.2 Please state whether the Defendant at any time has been a member of The Brake Lining Manufacturers' Association, and if so, please identify the dates of membership, and the names of any publications issued or written by such association or organi zation.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 32. Unknown as to
publications.
33.
With respect to each trade organization or association
listed in answer to Interrogatory Nos. 32, 32.1, and 32.2, please
state whether the minutes of the group's meetings and any
correspondence between the members of such groups concerning the
hazards of asbestos exposure are available.
ANSWER: Any information may be available from the
-15-
organization in question.
34.
Please identify by name the technical and trade
association periodicals to which the Defendant subscribed, and
state whether Defendant had knowledge of any articles being
printed, or withheld from printing, in said periodicals pertain
ing to the potential hazards of asbestos. If so, please state
the following:
a. The title of each such article;
b. The periodical in which each such article was published;
c. The date each such article was published;
d. A detailed explanation of the reason for with holding any such article for printing;
e. Produce documentation which refers, alludes or mentions articles which were withheld for publication.
ANSWER: Objection. The information sought in this request
is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
Neither is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. In addition, the question is unduly broad.
Without waiving this objection, the person answering these
interrogatories is not aware of any particular articles.
Answering defendant continues to be advised that the ordinary and
foreseeable use of asbestos-containing friction products causes
no increased risk of occupational diseases.
35.
Please state whether, prior to 1975, the Defendant
sponsored, or attended any meeting, seminar, conference, conven
tion or legislative hearing where the subject of occupational
health and exposure to asbestos was discussed and, if so, please
state the date and place of such meeting and the name and address
of any speakers or participants.
ANSWER: Unknown to the person answering these
interrogatories.
-16-
36.
As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory
No. 5 to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, please state
whether Defendant, at any time, published and/or distributed any
brochures, pamphlets, packagings or other written materials of
any kind or character that contain any warnings, cautions,
caveats or directions concerning the possible health effects of
the products on a person. If so, please state as to each prod
uct :
a. The wording of each such warning;
b. A description of each such printed material;
c. The method used to distribute the warning to persons who are likely to use the products;
d. The date each such warning was issued;
e. Whether any warning accompanied any of your asbestos-containing brake lining products' sales literature, handout or pamphlets;
f. Please attach a copy of the warning and date said
warning was issued;
*
g. The name, address, and job classification of each person who presently has possession of the above-described documents;
h. The name or names and addresses of the company who provided, produced, or manufactured the boxes or containers on which the warning appeared and dates these boxes with the warnings appeared.
ANSWER: Warning labels were placed on Carlisle's brake
lining products which contained chrysotile asbestos. Research
indicates that warning labels first appeared on such products
about July, 1973. An example of this warning label is shown in
Exhibit "l".1 Since approximately August 1978, a revised
version of this warning label has been placed on all Carlisle's
brake lining products which contained chrysotile asbestos. An
1 Copies of all exhibits identified herein were produced by the answering defendant in response to the Plaintiff's First Request to Produce, and filed with the Court on January 20, 1994.
-17-
example of this warning label is shown in Exhibit "2" Exhibit
"3" is a copy of the revised warning label starting about
November, 1985. This warning was revised for layout or artwork
purposes only in June, 1986, as set forth in Exhibit "4". No one
individual at Motion Control formulated the language. These
warnings were used on all products which contained chrysotile
asbestos in the formula.
Research has indicated that since 1977 answering defendant
has included in its brake lining catalogue and containers a
statement which has the same or substantially the same form and
wording as that attached as Exhibit "5", entitled "Recommended
Procedures for reducing Asbestos Dust During Brake Servicing". ,
Research indicates that in early 1979 Motion Control distributed
to its customers a booklet entitled "Friction Materials Work
Practice Guide", an example of which is attached as Exhibit "6".
The precise authorship of these documents is unknown to this
defendant. Investigation is continuing. In addition, answering
defendant provided Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), attached
as Exhibits "7" (3/83), "8" (10/84) and "9" (11/18/85).
37.
Has sales material been prepared by Defendant or its
agents for purposes of marketing or advertising the asbestos-
containing brake lining products listed in response to Interroga
tory No. 5 to Plaintiff's Pirst Set of Interrogatories? If so,
please state:
a. The name and address of each person or entity who prepared same;
b . The name, address and job title of each person who presently has possession of same;
c. The date same was prepared;
-18-
d. The media used to disseminate the sales material.
ANSWER : Unknown to the person answering these
interrogatories.
38.
Has any written material of any kind or character been
prepared by Defendant, Defendant's predecessor or any of
Defendant's subsidiary companies or their agents indicating how
the asbestos-containing brake lining products listed in response
to Interrogatory No. 5 to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogato
ries should be used or maintained by the person installing it or
,applying it to an automobile? If so, please state the following:
a. The name, address and job classification of each person who prepared same;
b. The name, address and job classification of each person who presently has possession of same;
c . The dates and manner in which said material was
distributed to purchasers of the products in
answer to Interrogatory No. 5.
ANSWER : See answer to Interrogatory 36.
39.
Does Defendant contend that the asbestos-containing
brake lining products can be manufactured so as to eliminate all
potential health hazards to workers installing same? If so,
please state the following:
a. The date that Defendant first determined that another product could be used in place of asbestos;
b. The chemical of the substitute;
c . Whether the substitute is suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used;
d. Whether Defendant used the substitute for asbestos to 1971;
e. Whether Defendant ever used the substitute for asbestos for high or low heat insulation.
ANSWER : Answering defendant does not manufacture any brake
linings which contain asbestos. With respect to the use of
asbestos-containing brake linings, this defendant continues to be
-19-
advised that the ordinary and foreseeable use of asbestos-
* containing friction products causes no increased risk of
occupational diseases.
40.
Did Defendant receive notice prior to 1968 that any
person was claiming injury as a result of using asbestos-contain
ing brake lining products manufactured and/or sold by Defendant?
If so, please 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;
e. The name and address of each attorney representing the individuals making such claims;
f. The style and court number of each such claim; .
q. The resolution of each claim.
ANSWER: No.
41.
Has Defendant obtained statement from any witnesses
including the Plaintiff? If so, please:
a. List each witness who has given a statement and the name, address, and job title of each person having custody of any such statement.
ANSWER: Answering defendant has not obtained any
statements from any witnesses other than discovery depositions
conducted during formal discovery in this case.
42. Do you contend that Plaintiff improperly used your products? If so, please set out in detail in what respect the product was improperly used.
ANSWER: Unknown or undetermined as of the time of this
answer. Discovery, investigation and trial preparation may
continue, and this defendant reserves the right to so contend. 43. Please state whether Defendant contends that there was
-20-
any substance other than asbestos which contributed to or caused Plaintiff's mesothelioma. If your answer is yes, please state the following:
a. The facts upon which you rely;
b. The identity of the sources upon which you rely which substantiate these facts.
ANSWER: Unknown or undetermined as of the time of this
answer. Discovery, investigation and trial preparation may
continue, and this defendant reserves the right to so contend.
44.
Would any respirator, mask or other breathing devices
prevent inhalation of the asbestos dust and fibers contained in
the asbestos-containing brake lining products listed in response
to Interrogatory No. 5 of Plaintiff's First Set of
Interrogatories? If so, state:
a. When the respirator was sold;
b. A detailed description of such respirator or other breathing devices, including name of manufacturer and model number;
c. The basis of your claim that such respirators or other breathing devices will prevent the inhalation of such dust and fibers;
d. Identify any tests performed regarding the efficaciousness of such respirators and other breathing devices in preventing the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers including date, title, author and number;
e. Produce all documentation which mentions, alludes or refers to tests performed on breathing devices which prevented the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers.
ANSWER: Certain protective devices are approved by
government agencies for protection against pneumoconiosis-produc
ing dusts. With respect to the use of asbestos-containing brake
linings, this defendant continues to be advised that the ordinary
and foreseeable use of asbestos-containing friction products
-21-
causes no increased risk of occupational diseases.
45. Does Defendant expect to call expert witnesses at the trial of this case? If so, please state the following:
a. Their identity, last known address;
b. The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify;
c. The expert's specific conclusion and specific opinions and the specific basis therefore;
d. The expert's qualifications to render the opinions set forth above.
ANSWER: Answering defendant has not yet determined which,
if any, expert witnesses shall be used in the trial of this
matter. Discovery and investigation are continuing. Such
experts will be identified in accordance with the applicable
,
rules and as required by the Court's Scheduling Orders.
46. For each expert witness who has testified for Defendant in other asbestos cases (both by deposition and trial testimony), please state:
a. The person's name and last known address;
b. The style of the case, its cause number, and its jurisdiction;
c. Whether that person was an employee of Defendant at the time and whether that person remains an employee.
ANSWER: Objection. The information sought in this request
is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
Neither is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Furthermore, gathering such information
would be unreasonably burdensome and oppressive.
47. Please identify each expert witness who is not retained or employed for that purpose who is an employee of Defendant and will render an opinion within his expertise at the time of trial.
-22-
a. Please identify each document which will be offered into evidence by the expert witness.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory 45.
48. Does Defendant have policies of insurance that might cover the claims that have been made by Plaintiff herein?
a. If so, please list the name of each insurance carrier who may have coverage, the amount of such coverage, and the dates of each such policy.
ANSWER: Aetna Life and Casualty Co. or Aetna Casualty and
Surety Co.
49. Please state the name and address of each person who has knowledge of relevant facts regarding claims and defenses of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: The following witnesses are believed to have
knowledge of the facts of this case and may be called'by this
defendant at the time of trial, either by way of live testimony
or by deposition. Because discovery and investigation continue,
this defendant reserves the right to supplement this list as
needed.
a. Plaintiff or plaintiff's decedent; any co-workers of the plaintiff or decedent whose identities have been or remain to be discovered.
b. Employees of this defendant: Robert Tami
c. Any witness identified by any other party to this litigation.
Dated: March 9, 1995
Roger Pascal Jayant W. Tambe SCHIFF HARDIN & WAITE 7200 Sears Tower Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 876-1000 Attorneys for Defendant
Carlisle Corporation
23-
CERTIFICATION IN LIEU OF AFFIDAVIT
Robert Tami, being of full age, deposes and states as
follows: 1.
I am employed by Motion Control Industries, a
subsidiary of Carlisle Corporation. 2. I am authorized to take this affidavit on behalf of
Carlisle Corporation. 3. I have reviewed the foregoing answers to
plaintiff's request for production and they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The language is that of
counsel. 4.
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me
are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements
made by me are wilfully false, I am subject to punishment
fj\ Ifrsrfss*-*
ROBERT TAMI
Date :March 9, 1995
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that he caused true and correct copies of the foregoing Notice of Filing with all documents referenced therein to be served on all counsel on the attached Service List by regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on March 9, 1995.
Jayant W. Tambe
SERVICE LIST
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Steven D. Wolens BARON Sc BUD, P.C. The Centrum 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219
Attorneys for Maremount Corporation Robert H. Shultz, Jr. HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER Sc ALLEN Mark Twain Plaza II Suite 100 103 North Main Street P.O. Box 467 Edwardsville, Illinois 62025
Attorneys for General Motors Corporation
Gregory A. Cerulo QUINN, JOHNSTON, HENDERSON & PRETORIUS 227 N.E. Jefferson Street Peoria, Illinois 61602
Attorneys for Abex Corporation Robert W. Scott SWAIN, HARTSHORN & SCOTT 1806 Savings Center Tower 411 Hamilton Boulevard Peoria, Illinois 61602
Attorneys for Borg-Warner
Thomas Burnham HINSHAW Sc CULBERTSON 222 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60601
Corporation
