Document Z4zaB6K6vzdxpzKyR4NaV70g8

1 WILLIAM J. SAYERS (SBN 078038) FARAH S. NICOL (SBN 162293) n SUSAN WEISENBERG GILEFSKY (SBN 190321) McKENNA & CUNEO, L.L.P. 3 444 South Flower Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-2901 4 Telephone: (213) 688-1000 Facsimile: (213)243-6330 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION (formerly known as Union Carbide 7 Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc.) PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 11 12 KLAUS BRAUCH and SUSAN BRAUCH, 13 Plaintiffs, 14 vs. 15 BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.. 16 Defendants. CASE NO. BC 258492 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) 17 18 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF KLAUS BRAUCH 19 RESPONDING PARTY: UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION (formerly known as Union 20 Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc.) 21 SET NO.: ONE 22 23 Defendant Union Carbide Corporation provides the following Amended responses to 24 plaintiffs' Request for Admissions, set one, after locating further documentation. -TSSGPTl Ii EXHIBIT I 17122277 1 1 M\)otaoO j Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) 1 GENERAL OBJECTIONS Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide") objects to the entire set of Plaintiff s 3 Requests for Admissions on the following grounds, which are hereby incorporated by reference 4 in Union Carbide's Responses to individual Requests for Admissions below: 5 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 1: 6 Union Carbide states that trial preparation and factual investigation are ongoing. Union 7 Carbide's responses to these Requests for Admissions are based on information known to Union 8 Carbide at this time. Union Carbide reserves the right, however to make reference at the trial or 9 at any hearing in this action to facts and documents not identified in these responses, the 10 existence or relevance of which is later discovered by it or its counsel. By this reservation. 11 Union Carbide does not in any way assume a continuing responsibility to update its responses to 12 these Requests for Admissions, and specifically objects to each of these Requests to the extent 13 that they seek to impose any such continuing obligation upon Union Carbide. To the extent the 14 information contained herein differs in any respect from any prior responses to discovery, this 15 response shall be deemed to update and supersede such prior responses. 16 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 2: 17 Union Carbide objects to plaintiffs Requests for Admissions in their entirety on the 18 grounds that they are not reasonably framed in terms of the facts and subject matter of the 19 present action, with the result that Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what 20 information relevant to the present case, if any, may be deemed to fall within the scope of the 21 Requests for Admissions as phrased. 22 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 3: 23 Union Carbide also objects to all Requests for Admissions insofar as they would require 24 the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product 25 doctrines. 26 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 4: 27 Union Carbide objects to providing information about any asbestos-containing products 28 which it has manufactured, sold or distributed, on the grounds that the asbestos fiber in those 2- Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) 1 products was encapsulated by or embedded in other material and on the grounds that the 2 plaintiff has made no allegation of exposure to those products. All responses to these Requests 3 for Admissions refer to Calidria asbestos only, unless otherwise stated. 4 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 5; 5 Union Carbide objects to this entire set of Requests for Admissions to the extent that 6 they call for information about Union Carbide employees or premises, or policies pertaining to 7 Union Carbide employees or premises. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs do not allege that they or their 8 decedents were ever employed by Union Carbide or worked at any job site controlled by Union 9 Carbide, such information is irrelevant and immaterial to matters at issue in this case. Any 10 pertinent information which the employee or premises information can be said to reflect can be 11 requested directly without requesting the irrelevant and immaterial information or 12 documentation about employees or premises. 13 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 6: 14 Union Carbide objects to the entire set of Requests for Admissions to the extent that they 15 call for information beyond this plaintiffs claims about asbestos-containing products to which 16 Union Carbide allegedly supplied raw asbestos fiber contained in the Case Report filed pursuant 17 to the Los Angeles Asbestos First Amended General Order No. 29. Union Carbide therefore 18 limits its Responses to the Requests for Admissions to the claims regarding Union Carbide 19 found in plaintiffs Case Report which was served on December 20, 2001. Specifically, these 20 Responses are limited to plaintiffs contention'that Union Carbide Corporation was a supplier of 21 raw asbestos fiber to United States Gypsum Company and National Gypsum Company for use 22 in their asbestos-containing joint compound products to which plaintiff claims he was exposed 23 in 1968. As such, these Responses are limited to the relevant timeframe of the plaintiffs 24 claims, in particular prior to and including 1968. 25 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: 27 Admit that on You mined raw asbestos. 28 -3Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Admitted that for a period of time Union Carbide mined a unique, short fiber chrysotile asbestos ore called Calidria from the California New Idria deposit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that You mined raw asbestos from a mine at King City, California. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied that Union Carbide's mine was in King City, CA. The mine was approximately 50 miles from King City. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that You sold raw asbestos between 1964 and 1985. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Admitted that Union Carbide sold during that time frame raw asbestos, in pelletized and fibrous form. The asbestos was not sold to the general public or to "end users." It was sold to manufacturers for use in their products and production processes. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that You sold raw asbestos mined from King City, California between 1964 and 1985. -4Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Admitted in part. Union Carbide sold asbestos milled in its King City, CA mill between 1964 and 1985. The asbestos was mined approximately 50 miles away. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that You sold raw asbestos to Georgia-Pacific Corporation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that you sold raw asbestos fiber to Georgia-Pacific Corporation in 1968. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: See General Objections Nos. 1,2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to Georgia-Pacific Corporation for use in Georgia-Pacific Corporation joint compounds. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: See General Objections Nos. 1,2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the -5Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) 1 discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: 2 Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of 3 exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: 5 Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to United States Gypsum Company. 6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: 7 See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this 8 Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 9 discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: 10 Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of 11 exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. 12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: 13 Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to United States Gypsum Company in 1968. 14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: 15 See General Objections Nos. 1,2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this 16 Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 17 discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide responds as follows: 18 Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of 19 exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: 21 . Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to United States Gypsum Company for use in 22 United States Gypsum Company joint compounds. 23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: 24 See General Objections Nos. 1,2,4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this 25 Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated 26 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide 27 responds as follows: Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this 28 plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. 6- Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to United States Gypsum Company for use in 3 USG joint compound. 4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: 5 See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this 6 Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and not reasonably calculated 7 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide 8 responds as follows: Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this 9 plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: 11 Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to United States Gypsum Company for use in 12 Durabond joint compound. 13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: 14 See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this 15 Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 16 discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: 17 Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of 18 exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: 20 Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to Proko Industries, Inc. 21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: 22 See General Objections Nos. 1,2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this 23 Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 24 discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide additionally objects to this Request on the 25 grounds of relevance in that it seeks information about a product manufacturer to whose 26 products plaintiff never claimed exposure. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide responds as 27 follows: Denied as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior 28 to and including 1968. -7Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to Proko Industries for use in Proko Industries joint compounds. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide additionally objects to this Request on the grounds of relevance in that it seeks information about a product manufacturer to whose products plaintiff never claimed exposure. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including 1968. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to National Gypsum Company. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to National Gypsum Company in 1968. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. 8- Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to National Gypsum Company for use in National Gypsum Company joint compounds. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: See General Objections Nos. 1,2,4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to National Gypsum Company for use in Gold bond joint compound. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: See General Objections Nos. 1,2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. in 1968. -9- Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: 2 See General Objections Nos, 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this 3 Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 4 discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: 5 Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of 6 exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: 8 Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. for use in 9 Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. joint compounds. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: 11 See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this 12 Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 13 discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: 14 Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of 15 exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: 17 Admit that You sold raw asbestos fiber to Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. for use in 18 PACO joint compound. 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: 20 See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this 21 Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated 22 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide 23 responds as follows: Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this 24 plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: 26 Admit You sold, raw asbestos fiber to Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. for use in 27 PACO quick set joint compound. 28 -10Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: See General Objections Nos. 1,2,4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied for use in joint compounds as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that, from September 1970 to May 1977, all joint compounds manufactured by Georgia-Pacific Corporation contained raw asbestos fiber supplied by You. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: See General Objections Nos. 1,2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that the trade name of the raw asbestos fiber that you sold between 1964 and 1985 was known as Calidria. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: See General Objections Nos. 1,2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide responds as follows: Admitted in part. Union Carbide sold its asbestos initially as "Union Carbide Asbestos" and then under the name "Calidria". Union Carbide's asbestos was given other trade names by some distributors. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that the raw asbestos fiber you sold between 1964 and 1985 was referred to by You as a short fiber Chrysotile. - 11 Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Admitted. Calidria consisted of raw chrysotile asbestos in a unique shortfiber formulation which Union Carbide mined near King City, California. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27; Admit that You represented to your raw asbestos fiber customers that your raw asbestos fiber was safer than other forms of asbestos fiber. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: See General Objections Nos. 1,2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied. Union Carbide advised its customers to take precautions applicable to the use of any asbestos fibers. See Calidria's brochure (1968) a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Calidria was mined from a deposit which consisted of a unique form of chrysotile. As a result of its unique properties, Calidria could not pose the dangers which might be created by asbestos from other deposits. Those properties include the following: Calidria's short fiber length (shorter than any other known chrysotile); the Calidria deposit's lack of tremolite contamination; Calidria's quick dissolution due to the "weak" fibril structure; and its width and shape. Many of Union Carbide's expert witnesses can testify as to the unique properties of the Calidria fiber and resulting innocuous biological impact of Calidria. In spite of the unique, innocuous nature of the Calidria fiber, Union Carbide has long recognized the desirability of avoiding excessive exposure to dust from any source. Union Carbide took steps to enable customers to minimize or avoid the creation of and exposure to dust from Calidria. -12Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) During the early days of Union Carbide's Calidria business, medical and industrial health officials at Union Carbide issued asbestos toxicology reports which were distributed to sales and other appropriate personnel. Warning labels were added to Calidria packages in 1968 and toxicological information first appeared in sales literature in that year. Material Safety Data Sheets were mailed to Calidria customers beginning in 1972. ALA/NA information pamphlets were made available to customers starting in 1972 and were mailed to customers beginning in 1977 at the latest. The health and safety literature made available and disseminated by Union Carbide to its Calidria customers warned of possible serious adverse health effects associated with the excessive inhalation of asbestos fiber, advised customers on ways to control or avoid such hazards, including the use of respirators as a way to avoid the hazards. In addition to the dissemination of health and safety information. Union Carbide took active steps to help insure that Calidria was handled and used in a clean and safe manner and environment: Union Carbide employed shrink-wrap, tight-fitting packaging to prevent leakage, spillage, or dust emission during the shipment of Calidria. Union Carbide also developed pelletized forms of Calidria which would reduce dust emission. In 1972, Union Carbide offered to take dust counts of the premises of Calidria customers in order to help them maintain a safe working environment, a service which many Calidria customers utilized (Calidria was not sold to the general public or other "end-users", but rather was marketed only to manufacturers or producers who used Calidria in their products or production processes). Dr. Harrison Rhodes, an industrial hygienist, supervised Union Carbide's dust monitoring program. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admit that You represented to Georgia-Pacific Corporation that your raw asbestos fiber was safer then other types of raw asbestos fiber. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2,4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide _- 13- _____________________________ _ Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) responds as follows: See Response to Request for Admission No. 27, including all objections asserted therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit that You advised Georgia-Pacific Corporation that your raw asbestos fiber was safer than other types of raw asbestos fiber. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Union Carbide's Response to Request for Admission No. 27, including all objections asserted therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that You represented to United States Gypsum Company that your asbestos fiber was safer than other types of raw asbestos fiber. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: See Union Carbide's Response to Request for Admission No. 27, including all objections asserted therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that You advised United States Gypsum Company that your asbestos fiber was safer than other types of raw asbestos fiber. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: See Union Carbide's Response to Request for Admission No. 27, including all objections asserted therein. - -- - 14Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that You represented to Proko Industries that your raw asbestos fiber was safer than other types of raw asbestos fiber. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: See General Objections Nos. 1,2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide additionally objects to this Request on the grounds of relevance in that it seeks information about a product manufacturer to whose products plaintiff never claimed exposure. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including 1968. See also Union Carbide's Response to Request for Admission No. 27, including all objections asserted therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that You advised Proko Industries that your raw asbestos fiber was safer than other types of raw asbestos fiber. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, and 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide additionally objects to this Request on the grounds of relevance in that it seeks information about a product manufacturer to whose products plaintiff never claimed exposure. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including 1968. See also Union Carbide's Response to Request for Admission No. 27, including all objections asserted therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admit that You represented to National Gypsum Company that your raw asbestos fiber was safer than other types ofraw asbestos fiber. - 15 Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this 3 Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 4 discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: 5 See Union Carbide's Response to Request for Admission No. 27, including all objections 6 asserted therein. 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: 8 Admit that You advised National Gypsum Company that your raw asbestos fiber was 9 safer than other types of raw asbestos fiber. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: 11 See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this 12 Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 13 discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide responds as follows: 14 See Union Carbide's Response to Request for Admission No. 27, including all objections 15 asserted therein. 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: 17 Admit that You represented to Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. that your raw asbestos 18 fiber was safer than other types of raw asbestos fiber. 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: 20 Union Carbide objects to this Request on the grounds that the plaintiffhas exceeded the 21 statutory limit of thirty-five (35) Requests for Admissions without providing a Declaration for 22 Additional Discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033 which details why such 23 additional discovery is necessary, not harassing or overly burdensome. See General Objections 24 Nos. 1, 2,4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly 25 broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to 26 its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: See Union Carbide's Response to Request 27 for Admission No. 27, including all objections asserted therein. 28 -16Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Admit that You advised Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. that your raw asbestos fiber was safer than other forms of raw asbestos fiber. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Union Carbide objects to this Request on the grounds that the plaintiff has exceeded the statutory limit of thirty-five (35) Requests for Admissions without providing a Declaration for Additional Discovery pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure section 2033 which details why such additional discovery is necessary, not harassing or overly burdensome. See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied for use in joint compound as to the relevant timeframe of this plaintiffs claims of exposure, namely, prior to and including September 1968. See Union Carbide's Response to Request for Admission No. 27, including all objections asserted therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Admit that You received a copy of the 1966 study by the Chemical Hygiene Fellowship of Mellon Institute which addressed the potential of your raw asbestos fiber to cause fibrosis. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Union Carbide objects to this Request on the grounds that the plaintiff has exceeded the statutory limit of thirty-five (35) Requests for Admissions without providing a Declaration for Additional Discovery pursuant tc Code ofCivil Procedure section 2033 which details why such additional discovery is necessary, not harassing or overly burdensome. See General Objections Nos. 1,2,4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide additionally objects on the grounds that the Request is vague in that no timeframe is provided for when the 1966 study was received by Union Carbide. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied as stated; admitted that Union Carbide received a - 17Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) copy of a 1966 memo styled: "The Fibrogenic Potential of Asbestos Products via Intraperitoneal Injection in Guinea Pigs, Rats and Rabbits and by the Intratracheal Route in the Rat." REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admit that You received the 1966 study by the Chemical Hygiene Fellowship of Mellon Institute which addressed the potential of your raw asbestos fiber to cause fibrosis in 1966. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Union Carbide objects to this Request on the grounds that the plaintiff has exceeded the statutory limit of thirty-five (35) Requests for Admissions without providing a Declaration for Additional Discovery pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure section 2033 which details why such additional discovery is necessary, not harassing or overly burdensome. See General Objections Nos. 1,2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Denied as stated; admitted that Union Carbide received in 1966 a copy of a memo styled: "The Fibrogenic Potential of Asbestos Products via Intraperitoneal Injection in Guinea Pigs, Rats and Rabbits and by the Intratracheal Route in the Rat." REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admit that You received a copy of the 1966 study by the Chemical Hygiene Fellowship of Mellon Institute regarding the potential of your raw asbestos fiber to cause fibrosis before you ceased selling raw asbestos fiber. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Union Carbide objects to this Request on the grounds that the plaintiffhas exceeded the statutory limit of thirty-five (35) Requests for Admissions without providing a Declaration for Additional Discovery pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure section 2033 which details why such additional discovery is necessary, not harassing or overly burdensome. See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide additionally objects on the grounds that the Request is vague in that no timeframe is - 18Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) 1 provided for when the 1966 study was received by Union Carbide. Subject to its objections, 2 Union Carbide responds as follows: See Union Carbide's Responses to Requests for Admission 3 Nos. 3 and 39, including all objections asserted therein. 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: 5 Admit that You commissioned the study by the Chemical Hygiene Fellowship of Mellon 6 Institute. 7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: 8 Union Carbide objects to this Request on the grounds that the plaintiff has exceeded the 9 statutory limit of thirty-five (35) Requests for Admissions without providing a Declaration for 10 Additional Discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033 which details why such 11 additional discovery is necessary, not harassing or overly burdensome. See General Objections 12 Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly 13 broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible ) 14 evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Admitted if the study 15 referred to in this Request is the same as the one referred to in Request No. 40. 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: 17 Admit that, between 1964 and 1985, you performed animal testing studies on the raw 18 asbestos fiber that you sold. 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: 20 Union Carbide objects to this Request on the grounds that the plaintiffhas exceeded the 21 statutory limit of thirty-five (35) Requests for Admissions without providing a Declaration for 22 Additional Discovery pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure section 2033 which details why such 23 additional discovery is necessary, not harassing or overly burdensome. See General Objections 24 Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly 25 broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to 26 its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Admitted in part and denied in part. See 27 Union Carbide's Responses to Request for Admissions Nos. 38-41, including all objections 28 asserted therein. - 19Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: 2 Admit that You, between 1964 and 1985, you learned through animal testing studies that 3 the raw asbestos fiber had an equal or greater potential to cause fibrosis than other forms of raw 4 asbestos fiber than commercially available. 5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: 6 Union Carbide objects to this Request on the grounds that the plaintiff has exceeded the 7 statutory limit of thirty-five (35) Requests for Admissions without providing a Declaration for 8 Additional Discovery pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure section 2033 which details why such 9 additional discovery is necessary, not harassing or overly burdensome. See General 10 Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds 11 that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, assumes facts not in evidence and is not reasonably 12 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union 13 Carbide responds as follows: See Union Carbide's Responses to Request for Admissions Nos. 14 38-42, including all objections asserted therein. 15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: 16 Admit that, between 1964 and 1985, you learned that the raw asbestos fiber you sold was 17 an equal or more potent carcinogen than other forms of raw asbestos fiber than commercially18 available. 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: 20 Union Carbide objects to this Request on the grounds that the plaintiffhas exceeded the 21 statutory limit of thirty-five (35) Requests for Admissions without providing a Declaration for 22 Additional Discovery pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure section 2033 which details why such 23 additional discovery is necessary, not harassing or overly burdensome. See General Objections 24 Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly 25 broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 26 evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: See Union Carbide's 27 Responses to Request for Admissions Nos. 38-42, including all objections asserted therein. 28 -20Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that despite receiving the results of animal testing on your raw asbestos fiber, you continued to supply raw asbestos fiber until 1985. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Union Carbide objects to this Request on the grounds that the plaintiffhas exceeded the statutory limit of thirty-five (35) Requests for Admissions without providing a Declaration for Additional Discovery pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure section 2033 which details why such additional discovery is necessary, not harassing or overly burdensome. See General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, assumes facts not in evidence and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: See Union Carbide's Responses to Request for Admissions Nos. 3 & 38-42, including all objections asserted therein. Dated: March 25, 2002 Respectfully submitted, McKENNA & CUNEO, L.L.P. Susan Weisenberg Gilefsky Attorneys for Defendant UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION (formerly known as Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc.) -21 Union Carbide's Amended Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (Set 1) 17085919.1 EXHIBIT "A" * Jk* -r....1..;.I....I.`.11.**.r'....e- THfc Ui$>V*UHni .>-. ' .J.. j T \st 1 > if/ r?/r\/,' t--v-.r-'j' PfSM^A. VU^V frs r- -&U UlCi ** dU'&J* <^4-6c #6 . Jr*w\ Besearas: "CALIDRIA" ASBESTOS SG-130 AND S6-210 r For Tape Joint Compounds ^ Lowers Costs Two Ways Enhonces Sandebillty CALIDRIA Asbestos acts as a body ing and secondary thickening agent permitting formulation of lower den sity, moxe.acanogiir.ai jape foistt-eompounds without the sacrifice of per formance. CALIDRIA Asbestos is produced by a proprietary manufactur ing process chat yields unusually high fiber concent and more complete fiber liberation from the natural bundles. As a result, CALIDRIA Asbestos goes up to twice as far, pound for pound, as commercial grades of as bestos containing large amounts of ocher filler materials that have no specific desirable effects on tape joint compound properties. CALIDRIA Asbestos contains mainly chrysoriie fiber and is essentially free from abrasive contaminants, such as juagaexite -and .serpentine rock dust. This composition results in a low density product, free from con* . taminants chat interfere with sanding. Improves Uniformity Narrow and well-controlled particle size distribution, low alkalinity and high brightness are characteristic of CALIDRIA Asbestos. These proper ties are consistent from batch to batch and improve the uniformity of tape joint compounds using CALIDRIA Asbestos. Reduces Crocking The fibers of CALIDRIA Asbestos behave as an active lyophobic colloid in aqueous dispersion; by this mecha nism CALIDRIA Asbestos increases cape .joint compound liquid cohesive strength during drying. Increased liquid cohesive strength greatly re duces the tendency for cracks over nail holes,~in chick sections at the center of the joint, and along the feathered edges. Suggestions far Use of CALIDRIA Asbestos CALIDRIA Asbestos can be readily used in your present tape joint compound formulation. Add approximately one-half the proportion of asbestos you now use. Increase the proportion of calcium carbon ate or other inert filler to make up for the lower quantity of asbestos, You may also be able to use slightly more water in your ready-mix and maintain your present vis cosity level. No other changes in your Qclobtr, *068 F-42258 CALIDRIA, CELLOSIZE, UCAR, nd UNION CARBIDE *re uide marks of Union Carbide Corperajoa. imihn CARBIDE CORPORATION CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS * 270 PARK AVENUE, N.Y..N.V. ID) `'CA'LIDRIA" ASBESTOS SS-130 AND S6-21Q .t For Tope Joint Compounds Suggestions for Use of CALIDR1A Asbestos (Continued) formulation or manufacturing procedure are required. CALIDRIA Asbesias SC'130 has the coarser particle size; it finds use for bedding compounds or perhaps spackLing compound, The SG-210 has ch finer parti cle size and is favored for topping com pounds, .all-purpose compositions, texture paints, and similar formulas. A Suggested Ready-Mix Tape Joint Compound For Use With CALIDRIA Asbestos Part* by Weight Dry Basis Filler*: Calcium Carbonote, No. 1 White (Thompson Weinman).............. ........................... Mica, P9QF (Western Mica)...................................................................................... Clay, ASP-400 (Minerals and Chemicals Philipp Corp,) ........................................ CALIDRIA Asbestos, SG-210 (Union Carbide)............................................ .......... 61,42 21.00 4.00 4.58 Binder: UCAR Latex 131 (Union Carbide) .................................................. . ................... Workability Control Agent: CELLOS1ZE Thickener, TJC Grade (Union Carbide),.......... ............................. ... Drying Control: Ethylene Glycol (Union Carbide)................................................ ...................... .. Defoomer: "Nopco" PD-1 (Ncpeo Chemical Company)............................................... -......... 6.60T 0.50 1-00 0.10 Dispersonfc "Daxod" 30 (Dewey & *Almy Chemical Div.)...........................-............ 0.60* Bocleriastat: "Dowicide" A (Dow Chemicol Co.) .................. .. _ 0.20 100.00 Total Water: about 56 ports by weight per 100 parts dry solids 'Contained solid* basts 2 "CALIDRIA" ASBESTOS S6-130 AND SG-210 For Tope Joint Compound* Typical Product Characteristics Reflectance (G.E. Phctovolf) ............. Contained magnetite............ .............. Alkalinity (as % of NajO) ........... pH (535 aqueous slurry).......................... ..... Surface areo (BET) ....................................... Oil Adsorption (DOP f/TOOl asbestos)........ Wet Bulk, settled vol. (ml.) 10g/25Q ml./1 hr. Dry Bulk ((/ft.*) ........................................... Water absorption (wi. % in filter eoke) ..... Size distribution (cumulative % retained) Wet Screen mesh size 100............................................ 200 ..................................................... 325.......................................................... CALIDRIA Asbestos SG. 130 SC-2 TO 68% 2% max. 0.05 to 0.06 8.S to 9.5 50 to 60 mVg. 90 to 100 200 7 to 8 55 to 60 110 to 120 220 5 to 6 62 to 65 5 17 23 to 32 Trace 3 10 to 15 Packaging and Shipping Information' Product Farm - Opened (finely ground) ehrysorlle asbestos fiber. Packaging -- One Package......................................... .................................... Pellel Weight Carload ................................................................................. Truckload.............. .................................. ............................ Shipping Classification - asbestos shorts Rail point of origin - Welby, California (King City, California) CALIDRIA Asbestos SG-130 SG-210 40 (b. 30 !b. 1,600 lb. 1,050 lb.' 2,000 !b. 1,500 lb. ~ ~ --- ----- ~ TOXICOLOGICAL PROPERTIES It has been known for many years that some persons working in asbestos produc* tion were prone to develop a disabling lung disease. In time, this condition became known as asbesrosis and was related to exposure to high concentrations of ashes* tos dust. With further experience, it was found that men could work with asbestos without development of lung disease if dust concentrations were kept below a certain level. It is now generally accepted that a man can work a 40-hour week for & lifetime without developing asbestosis if the asbestos dust particle count is kept at or below 5 million particles per cubic foot of air. This dust concentration of 5 million particles per cubic foot of air is the Thresh old Limit Value for asbestos, and no cases 3 "CALIDRiA" Aseco i TOXICOLOGICAL PROPERTIES (Continued) of asbestosis are believed to have occurred when exposures have been maintained at or below this level, despite large-scale utilization (now approaching one million tons per year in the U.S.A.). This concen tration of dust is generally not visible in the average work area unless a beam of light causing a Tyndall effect is present. Usually the dust concentration must be from 8-10 million particles per cubic foot before its presence is visible in average lighting conditions. Several years ago, it was reported that there was an increase in the incidence , of cancerous tumors, especially of the lung, associated with asbestosis.Recently there have been reports of some cancers occurring in individuals exposed to asbestos dust, but who have not developed clinical as bestosis. It is believed by most authorities that these cases have been associated with exposures significantly exceeding the Threshold Limit Value. A major manufac turer of asbestos products who also mines asbestos has not been able to show an in crease in cancerous growths in men work ing where dust concentrations were main tained at the Threshold Limit Value. Control of asbestos dusr exposure is therefore necessary. The control methods are the standard ones applicable to a variety of dusty operations. They include closed flow systems, wet processes where possi ble, and adequate exhaust ventilation where openings in the system are necessary. Pelletizing is sometimes used to improve the handling characteristics of otherwise dusty materials. Where satisfactory con tainment to stay within the Threshold Limit Value is impractical or impossible, effi cient and reliable respirators are available for the protection of the employee. A pro gram of environmental monitoring in manu facturing operations is highly desirable to determine that Threshold Limit Values are not being exceeded. Employees should wear respirators where dusting occurs in finishing products such as sanding taped joints. Pre-employment and periodic physical examinations of workers are desirable, These should include chest X-rays to in sure that the worker has no chest con dition prior rework with asbestos and to determine that no lung changes are result ing from work with asbestos. In conclusion, while asbestos dust in excess of the Threshold Limit Value is potentially harmful, as are many other dusts encountered In industry, it is as readily controlled as other such dusts and it can be used safely with appropriate precautions. 4 "CAUDRIA" ASBESTOS SG-130 AND SS-*iu 'Ffcf Tope Joint Compound* RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WATER & OIL ADSORPTION CAPACITY OF SOME ASBESTOS PRODUCTS FOR TAPE JOINT ADHESIVE FORMULATIONS 5 Ui ivlSiu'iL= THE DISCOVERY COMPANY Safes Offices UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS 270 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK. N.Y. 10017 Untied Stole. ATLANTA GEORGIA 30303.......................................1371 Pe*ehtr SL. N. E................. BALTIMORE. MARTUND 21207.............................. Beltway Bid*., 6707 Whitestons RtL BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02194......................300 first Ave, Needham Ups.. BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14225...................................3343 Hartem tU. ......................... CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA 28210.................S230 Fslrvlew Rd. .......................... .. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6GS06................................ .120 South Riverside Plaza................ CINCINNATI, OHIO 45227....................... ....West Street and MadbonvHla RcL... CLEVELAND. OHIO 44114....................................... 1300 Lakeslds Awl. NX..................... CUFTON. NEW JERSET 07012................................. 935 Allwood Rd,................................ DALLAS, TEXAS 75207............................................. Z710 Stemmont Freeway........... ........ DETROIT, MICHIGAN 4B221.....................................10*21 West Seven Mile Rd................... HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103..........................410 Asylum St.......................... ........ HOUSTON, TEXAS 77027......................................... 3839 West Alabama Ave.,........ INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46220.............................. 720 Broad Ripple Aw......................... KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI 6*141............................ 910 Baltimore Ave,.............................. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90058.,................... 2770 tennis Blvd.................................. MEMPHIS. TENNESSEE 3B116................................3385 Airways Blvd................................ MINNEAP0U5, MINNESOTA 55416 ....................... 3033 Eaetlalor Blvd.............................. MOORESTOWN. NEW JERSET 0B0S7 .............Route 3B and Pleasant Valley Rd.... NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017................................. 270 Park Ava.,..................................... PHILADELPHIA (MOORESTOWN. NEW JERSEY SALES OFFICE)............ .............................. PITTSBURGH. PENNSYLVANIA 15220................... PTway Center, 875 Crtentrae Rd.... ST. LOUIS. MISSOURI 63105................................. 10 5outh Brentwood Blvd.................... SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94106................... 22 Battery St....................... ............. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98118 ..................... .. .4726 Rainier Ave, South................... TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74X1*....... ............................. 2901 South Haivard...,.................. . .40*4192,7500 . .3014444211 ..617-44*-5400 ..716-837-6450 . .704-364-1*00 , .312-822-7000 ,.513-272-0206 ..216-621-4202 . .201-778-2900 .,214-631-0010 , .313-341-3131 .2034525-9345 .713-621*1000 , .317-255-3181 .816-221-2400 .213-5834081 .90149645575 .612-927-4221 .609-2354200 .212-551-4641 .215-9234200 ,4x2-922-5700 .314-726-0324 .415-982-1360 .206-723-8660 .918-7424524 Affiliates p.m America ARGENTINA --........... ..... Union Carbide Inter-America. Ine, Buenes Alias BRAZIL , ...... ....... . Union Carbide do Brasil S. A, Sao Paulo. Rio da Janeiro CANADA ............................. Union Carbide Canada Ud., Calfary. Laehlne (P.Q.), Toronto. Vancouver, Winning CARIBBEAN______ _______ Union Carbide Inter-America. I Re, San Juan. Puerto Rico CENTRAL AMERICA.--.--Union Carbide Intcr-Ameriea, Ins, Panama City, Panama CHILE ,, Union Carbide Comerdal Chile Ltd., Santiago COLOMBIA .......... ........... Union Carbide Colombia, S. A, Bogota MEXICO ............................... Unlearb Comerdal, S. A, dt C V, Mexico, D. F,, Guadalajara. Montarrey PERU __ Union Carblda IMer-Amerlea. Inc, Lima VENEZUELA ----- Union Carbtda de Venezuela. C. A,, Caracas WESTERN HEMISPHERE-- Union Carbfde Inter-America. Inc, New York. N. Y. AUSTRALIA ,________ _-- Union Carbide Australia Ud, Sydney, N. S. W. HONG KONG....... ........ ... Union Carbide Asia Ud., Hong Kong INDIA ......, ---- Union Carbide India Ltd, Calcutta. Bombay, Madras, New Oelhl NEW ZEAtANO --i-- Union Carbide New Zealand (Pty) Ltd, Auckland PAKISTAN ----.--National Carbon Co. {Pakistan) Ltd, Karachi PHIUPPINES____________ Union Carblda Fhiiippinu Inc, Manila SINGAPORE_____ ____ _ Union Carbide Singapore Ltd, Singapore Europ c M.dd'O Eos'- and wric3 AUSTRIA __ Union Carbide Austria Ges, mbK, Vienna BELGIUM -....... --. Union Carbide Belgium N. V, Brusseit FRANCE , ------------------ - Union Carbide Europe *., Suceursale Francu'se, Puteaux-Paris GERMANY Union Carblda Deutschland, GmbH, Dusseldorf ITALY - Union Carbide Itslia S.p-A, Milan MIDDLE EAST------------------ Union Carbide Middle East Ud, Athens; Greece NETHERLANDSUnion Carbide Belgium N. V,, Amsterdam SCANDINAVIA --... Union Carbide NordenA.B, Stockholm, Sweden SPAIN----------------------------- Union Carbide Iberiea S. A, Madrid SWITZERLAND -___ --___ Union Carbrda Europe s.a,, Geneva UNITED KINGDOM ..............Union Carbide U. K. Limited, London, Manchester, RicXmaiuworth; England Africa AFRICA (EAST) Union Carbide Africa Ltd, Nairobi, Kenya AFRICA (SOUTH} .....--- Union Carbide South Africa (Pty) Ltd., Johannesburg, Capetown, Durban; Republic of South Afriea Lithographed In U.S.J VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) ) ) ss: EDWARD W. DeBOR, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is Union Carbide Corporation's Assistant Manager, Vermont Records; that over the past years, he participated in collecting Union Carbide's asbestos-related documents for inclusion in the asbestos-related Document Repository maintained in the offices of Kelley, Diye & Warren, LLP, Union Carbide's national coordinating counsel for asbestos-related matters; that no single employee or former employee of Union Carbide (including deponent) has knowledge or information regarding all of the information set forth in the attached discovery responses; that the attached amended responses to' Plaintiffs Request for Admissions (Set One) were assembled and prepared by counsel for Union Carbide based upon the documents contained in the Document Repository and upon information obtained by counsel from current and former employees of Union. Carbide. L KA EdwardW. DeBor Assistant Manager, Vermont Records Sworn to before me this *2-^^ day of N$m____ _ 2002 5tkSVvc A-lWfccy Notary Public U SK3SHAN A. HANDLEY Notary Ptffc, Stgto of New ^>,1 NaeaMASoeeem' QuaSfied in NowVbrt; c-w, Comtescn Bipiroa .Jan, -fs. Sfv-3 Sy- NY01/JANGM/7008S9.1 1