Document Zmvw01aB27bj787MgDpYzabJ
FILE NAME: Azrock-Domco (AZD)
DATE: 2012 DOC#: AZD005
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Domco Responses to Plaintiffs Manufacturer Interrogatories
m TOE CIRCUIT COURT
THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS LITIGATION FILED BY MAUN'L RAiCHLE HART!.EY
FRENCH & MIJDD. LLC, '
`
Plaintiffs.
VS.
DOMCO PRODUCT'S TEXAS INC., F/K/A DOMCO INC. FLOOR PRODUCT'S (TEXAS) F/K/A AZROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., F/K/A UVALDE ROCK. ASPHALT COMPANY (DOMCO). et al.,
'
Defendants.
) } )
)
) )
i ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) }
No. 95 AS ALLLIT
. .
RESPONSES OF DOMCO PRODUCT S TEXAS INC. TO
.
PLAINTIFFS'
MANUFACTURER INTERROGAT ORIES
COMES NOW. Defendant Domeo. Products Texas Inc. {f/k/a Azrock Industries.,
Inc.Khereinafter `"Domeo"), by and through its attorneys, Beth Kamp Veatb and Brown and James.
P.C.. and for its objections and answers to PlainliiTs Manufacturer Interrogatories hereby states;
TH E SE RESPO NSES ARE SU PPLEM EN TA L A ND li PDATE R E SPO N SE S,TO A NY AND/OR ALL PREVIOUSLY FILED DISCOVERY RESPONSES FILED BY DOMCO P W o m iC T S TEX A S INC. AND DOM CO PR O D U C TS TEX A S, L.P. IN THE CjK CUjl r r m wT. THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. M ADISON CO UNTY, ILLIN O IS IN RESPO.NS E T O ANY AND ALL PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR WRIT TEN DISCOVERY IN C L IM N C
ANY AND ALL REQUESTS RY VARIOUS PLAINTIFFS' FIRMS
Paes 1 of 77 No. 95 ASALLUT
not. and may not have been, within the personal knowledge or possession or control or Domco. its employees or its agents,
3. . Domco notes that certain of Plaintiffs' discovery requests seek the production or disclosure of communications prepared by or for Domeo's lawyers, which communications (a) were made by or to legal counsel in anticipation of or in connection with litigation, or (b) re licet confidential and privileged communications between or among counsel, representatives of Domco and/or non-testifying experts retained for purposes o f assisting Domco or its counsel in litigation. For purposes of responding to Plaintiff' discovery, therefore, Domco will not produce or disclose such communications: in addition, Domco will not disclose or otherwise identify such communications m response to written discovery or on any listing of documents or things withheld from production,
4. -Domco states that certain of Plaintiffs' discovery requests seek information about products that have not been pur in issue by Plaintiffs- pleadings in this action. As such. Plaintiffs' discovery requests are an improper and unfair attempt by Plaintiffs to avoid their fundamental burden of establishing product identification its a basis for initiating this suit against Domco. Domco objects to the discovery requests to die extent that they are directed towards information and specifications about products that are not related in any way to Plaintiffs' ease. Domco objects to Plamtttls discovery requests in their entirety on the grounds that requiring Domco to provide the requested information with respect to each and every asbestos-containing product that Domco allegedly designed, manufactured, distributed, supplied or sold, prior to requiring Plaintiffs to Kientity the specific Domco products, if any, to which-they allege Plaintiff was exposed, is highly prejudicial.
Plaintiffs should be required to specifically identify to which, if any, of Domeo's products Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. Only then, and i f such products contained asbestos should Domco be obliged to respond to proper discovery Moreover, Plaintiffs seek dis*.ovu>4 ouich. ,, -mo} bed with fuUv, would require Domco to provide responses that are speculative and to incur unreasonable time and expense in searching for documents relating to products that the Piamtdts hare tailed to identify Moreover, as explained below, such discovers is unreasonable because, even if Pbmiiife
Page 3 of 77 No. 95 ASALLL1T
11. Domco objects to each and every discovery request to the extent that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks to impose obligations not required under the Illinois Code oi Cm! Procedure and/or any applicable case management Order in this litigation.
IN T E R R O G A T O RIES INTERROGATORY NO. t;
identify the person answering these interrogatories on behalf of Defendant. ANSWER: Frank Dolan, Senior Consultant, c/o Domco Products Texas inc,, 1705 Oliver Street, Houston, fexas 77007. Mr. Dolan was assisted by counsel for Defendant.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: lias the person answering these interrogatories made reasonable inquiry of all available
sources of intbrmation such that Plaintiff may rely upon these answers as the truthful and complete answers made on behalf of Defendant? List any and all such sources o f information relied upon, including, hut not limited to, idenlilying any and all records or documents reviewed and poison.*, providing in formation.
ANSWER: Responses have been obtained from investigations by person believed to be reliable and capable o f ascertaining the tacts in said Responses. On the basis of these investigations, and due to the best information and belief the matters set forth in these Responses arc true and correct. Previous discovers* responses have been reviewed in addition to the following documents: product catalogs, installation manuals, advertisements. RFCI manuals/brochures. Defendant's tests %m finished floor products done at the offices of Defendant in Houston and Han Antonio, Texas urn! published test. relating to floor covering products.
Page 5 of 77 No. 95 AKAl.LlJT
INTERROGATORY NO . 3;
State the following concerning this Defendant:
' a, Poll and correct name;
b.
The form in which Defendant presently conducts business (he.
corporation, partnership, proprietorship, etc.);
e. Identify any and ail predecessors and related companies as defined
above;
'
cl Any and all other forms in which defendant has conducted business at any time, and the date(s) when business was conducted in each form;
e. Any and all names by which Defendant has been known or has conducted business, at any time, and the datefs) during which Defendant has been known by and.'or conducted business, under each such name;
f.
Defendant's principal place of business;
g ' Defendant's present state o f incorporation or state in which Defendant is
registered as a partnership, association, etc., whichever is applicable: if
Defendant has. at any time, been incorporated or registered in a different
'
state, identify which state and when;
h. Most recent date o f incorporation or rcineorporalion, and any and all prior datefs) of incorporation or reincorporatioti;
L ' Whether this Defendant is authorized to transact business in the State ot Illinois and, if so. the date such authority was first issued and last renewed;
j.
If this Defendant has an agent, representative or place of business m
Illinois, identify such agent, representative, or place of business; and,
k. If this Defendant has an agent lor service in the State of Illinois, identi f\ the registered agent.
ANSWER:
'
Dome Products Texas. I..P. became Domeo Products Texas Inc. on December 10, riJOk JDomco Products Texas. L.P. was formed on December 23. V W with Domeo Inc Hour Products (Texas) as general partner Domeo Inc. 1loot Products ( lexas) was known as A/.rock IndtiMnes. I from March 27. 1981 to December 4, 19%. Azrock Industries. Inc. was known as vviikie Rock
Page 6 ofT> No. 95 ASAE1X.1T
Asphalt Company from ils inception on June 13, 1912 to Moron
1- Dnu, hit. I
Products (Texas) chants*! its name to Tarkctt floor Products lexas Inc. rat Nroomhu 1,,, ) .. 1.
m e w l with Romeo ftodum Texas Inc. on December 3 1, M l Unmoo 1rejects Texas no, ts ,
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1703 Ol.vcr W ee, llmtslon. 1X 7700,.
Defendant does not tune an agent for service ol process in Illinois.
1NTKRROGATOHV n o . 4:
'
Has Defendant been sued under its con e legal name? Ifttot. state .lie correct legal name of
Defendant and provide the information requested in No. 3 above concerning the defendant as
correctly named. ANSWER: See Response to PlainlitlV Manufacturer interrogatory No. 3.
IN TERR O G ATO R Y n o , 5;
_
Identify any and all persons or entities which own, or at any time have owned, more than a ten
percent (10%) interest in this Defendant, and for each such person or entity identified, state the
datefsyduring which said person or entity owned more than a ten percent (10%) interest in Defendant
and the specific type and amount of interest owned.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory became the requested information is be vend ihe scope of information relevant to Avrock lodustnes. n W Domco 1redacts [ecus Inc., end is -tot relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ol admissible evidence.
f NT KRRO ATORY NO. 6: Identify any and all companies, businesses, corpwrations. iiiu.-or .fee ' vhaii.
m whan Ins
Defendant owns, or at any time has owned, more than a ten percent iW%) interest.
ANSWER:
Page ~ of 77 No. ^3 VSALLLYl
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogato!y because the requested information is not relevant (treasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these objections. Defendant responds as follows: See Response to Plaintiffs Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 3 for corporate history.
INTERROGATORY NO.7: With respect to each corporation, company, business or joint venture identified in response to
Interrogatory No. 6 state:
.
a. Ih e type of business, conducted by such related company;
. b. 1 he past and present business relalionship(s) between said related company and Defendant;
e. The nature o f the products or services which Defendant has sold to, or
purchased from, said related company;
.
d. Whether or not said related company advertises or has advertised products or services supplied by Defendant;
e.
Whether or not said related company sells or has sold Defendant's
.
products or sendees within the State oi Illinois and, if so, the approximate
value of those sales from 1930 to date;
f.
Whether or not said related company pays taxes of any type to the State
of Illinois or to any political subdivision thereof and. if so. the type of
taxes paid;
,
' g. Whether or not Defendant controls or has controlled, directly or ~ indirectly, in whole or in part, said related company's advertising: and,
h, The identity of any past or present officer or director of Defendant who. at any time, served as an officer or director o f said related company.
ANSWER: See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. o
INTERRO G ATO RY NO. 8:
Page 8 o f77 No. 95A SA L E U T
Stale whether any of Defendants present or former officers or directors ever sened i whether
before, during or after becoming Defendants officer or director) as an officer or director of any other company, corporation or business which manufactured- sold or distributed asbestos or asbestos-
containing products and, if so. please:
a,
fdeniifv each officer and director o! Defendant, who served as such othei
company's officer or director; and
b. Identity each company, corporation or business for which each such
officer or director served, each position held by such officer 01 directoi for such other company, corporation or business, and tire time periods
each position was held.
'
ANSWER:
Objection, Defendant objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome, overly broad, beyond the scope of information relevant to A/rock Industries. Inc, n/k/a Domcu Pioducts Texas Inc and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ol admissible evidence. Subject to mid ^ without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Any sudiinfet matron. is unknown at this lime, investigation continues. 1his response will be supplemented it any such applicable information becomes available.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
'
Has Defendant ever acquired - through purchase, reorganization, merger, or through any
other means - another company, corporation or business which manufactured, sold, processed,
distributed or contracted to apply, asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products?
ANSWER:
No. .
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 9 is **Yes. with respect to cacn suen ptcuecvssot.
.
a. State its full and correct name:
P age-of 77 No, 95 AS A U .1.IT
b. Slate its principal place of business:
e. State its State of incorporation;
<1. Slate its date and manner o f acquisition by Defendant; _
e. Whether this predecessor was, at any time, authorized to transact . business in the State of Illinois; and
f.
Identify any and all documents referring to. referring to. relating to
or reflecting the acquisition.
ANSWER:
Not applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
'
Other than any transaction identified in response to Interrogatories Nets. 9-10, has this
Defendant ever been involved, in any capacity, including but not limited to, seller, transferor, grantor.
franchisor, licensor, buyer, transferee, grantee, franchisee or subject of the transaction, in any
transaction, or any kind, concerning any of the following:
a. . The purchase/sale or transfer of ownership of a company, corporation or
'
business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed or contracted
to apply asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products; or
1% The purehase/sale or transfer of ownership of the assets or rights to manufacture, sell, distribute or apply asbestos or asbestos-containing products; and/or
c. .
The purehase/sale or transfer or liabilities arising out oi the manufacture.
sale, processing, distribution or'application of asbestos or asbestos-containing
products.
'
ANSWER:
' No.
.
INTER R O G A TO R Y NO, 12:
Page it) of 77* No. 95 ASALEUT
if ihe answer to any sub-part o f Interrogatory No. I i is "'Yes." with respect to each such
transaction: a.
' Identify all parties ro the transaction;
b. idenii fy the subjee t matter of the transaction;
c.
State the date of the transaction: and,
d. Identify any and all documents, referring to. relating to or reflecting the
transaction.
.
ANSWER; See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No, 11. Not Applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13; State the first and last dates on which any asbestos-containing product was manufactured by:
a.
Defendant;
b. Each and every predecessor; and,
. c. Each and every related company. .
ANSWER;
(a) Not Applicable (b) 1932 to October 1982 (c) Not Applicable
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: State the first arid last dates on which any asbestos-containing product was .specified, sola.
distributed, applied anchor installed within the 1mited States by,
a.
Defendant;
b. Each and every predecessor; and,
.
Page 11 -of ? 7
No. 95 ASAU..UT
c, Fach and every related company.
ANSWER:
See Re.spon.se to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory' No. 13. 1. vaide Rock Asphalt Company/Azrock Industries, Inc. did not specify, apply or install asbestos-containing products.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
State the last date on which Defendant or any related company specified, sold, distributed,
applied and/or installed any asbestos-containing product outside the United States and identify bj
brand or trade name the products so sped lied, sold, distributed, applied and/or installed.
ANSWER:
.
All sales were performed at A/xock's place of business in San Antonio. Texas and were made to wholesale distributors. Azrock has no direct knowledge of sales which its distributors may or may not have made. Nor does Azrock have direct knowledge of die lirsi and last dates regarding sales, distribution, application or installation after products went to wholesale distributors.
IN T ER R O G A T O R Y NO . 16:
Identify by full and complete trade name, any and all asbestos-containing products as defined
above, which this Defendant, any related company, or any predecessores) has. at any time:
a.
Designed;
b. Manufactured;
c. Processed;
<1 Sold:
Distributed;
f
Applied;
*7^ Installed;
h. Patented;
Page 12 of 77 No. 95 ASALLUT
Specified: or
j,
Re-labelcd.
ANSWER:
Uvalde Rock Asphalt Company/Azrodk Industries. Inc. manufactured and distributed asphalt
floor tile, vinyl asbestos floor tile and moulded wail cove base. They only distributed asphalt cutback
adhesive. They did not apply, install, patent or specify these products. I he products and time periods
are as follows:
'
Asphalt products:
Azrock Asphalt Tile 1932-1980
Azrock Asphalt industrial Tile 1933-1944
Azrock Asphalt Carpel Tile 1933-1944
Duraco Greaseprooflndustriaf Tile 1952-1957
Azphlex Thermoplastic Tile 1951-1952
A/.phlex Vinylized 'file 1952-1961
Viny I products:
Azrock Vinyl Asbestos Tile 1965-1977 Vina-Lux Reinforced Vinyl Tile 1952-1958 Vina-Lux Vinyl Asbestos Tile 1958-1964 Duraco Vinyl industrial Tile 1958-1959 _ Azrock Vinyl Composition Tile 1978-1982
Moulded Resilient Wall Cove Rase: Azrock Asphalt Cove Base 1933-1952 Vina-Lux Flexible Cove Base 1952-1957
Asphalt (. utbaek Adhesive (distributed only!:
.Azrock Type Z 1933-1988
'
INTERROGATORY NO. 1 With respect to each asbesh is-containing product listed for each subpart o f htierrocatury
16:
Page 13 o f"7 No. 95 ASA! .-El.IT
a. Identify the specific company (Defendant, predecessor, related company) which designed, manufactured, processed, specified, sold, distributed, applied, installed, patented or re-labeled such product;
b. State the year in which Defendant, its related company or its predecessor first designed, manufactured, processed, specified, sold, distributed, applied, installed, patented or re-labeled such product; and,
c.
State the year in which the Defendant, its related company or predecessor
last designed, manufactured, processed, specified, sold, distributed, applied,
installed, patented or re-labeled such product,
ANSWER:
' See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 16 for products manufactured and sold by Uvalde Rock Asphalt Company/Azrock Industries, Inc, Uvalde Rock Asphalt Company/Azrock Industries, Inc. did not apply, install, patent or specify floor products. Azrock's Asphalt Cutback Adhesive Type Z was marketed under the Azrock trade name but was nut manufactured by them. Sources of adhesive and dates purchased include:
Gulf States Asphalt Co., Inc. - 1969- 1988 601 Jefferson, Suite 535, Houston, TX 77002
WAV. Henry Company'" 1976-1986 Foot of Whitehead Avenue, South River. New Jersey 00882
W.W. Henry Company - 1975-1986 5608 Soto Street. Huntington Park. California 90255
The Flintkotc Company - 1933/34 to 1969 East Rutherford, New Jersey New Orleans, Louisiana Vernon, California
INTERR O G ATO R Y N O . 18:
With respect to each product listed in response io interrogatory No. 16. state:
The type of asbestos contained in the ptoduct us n was first manufactured; The percentage of asbestos contained in the product as it was first manufactured;
Any modification so the product winch altered the percentage or type oi asbestos in the product and the dates of such modif cation;
Ifiiije 14 of 77 No. 95 AS ALEUT
d. The source of asbestos in each product;
e. The color, physical characteristics, and appearance of each product:
{'. Any and all other names under which the product was sold, at any time:
g. The number and date of each patent or patent application for each product;
h. If the product continued to be produced after the deletion of asbestos, all reasons why the asbestos was deleted, the identity of the person! s) who made the decision to delete the asbestos, arid the date the product was first produced without the asbestos:
i.
if the product is no longer produced, all reasons it was discontinued,
the identity of the person(s) who made the decision to discontinue the
product, the brand name o f the replacement product, and the date the
replacement product first went into production; and
j.
The reasons why asbestos was used as an ingredient in each such product.
ANSWER:
(a-bj Defendant's asphalt floor tile was a thoroughly blended composition of thermoplastic binder of asphaltic or resinous type, asbestos and other fibers and inert materials as fillers or pigments, formed under pressure while hot and cut to size. Fillers of calcium carbonate such a limestone, oyster shell and coral. Asbestos fibers of short fiber chrysolite. Periodic changes were made in the composition of these produces, however, dates are unknown. Percentage of asbestos in these products was between 0.1 percent and approximately 20 percent.
Defendant's vinyl asbestos floor tile was a thoroughly blended composition of thermoplastic binder, asbestos fibers, mineral fillers, and pigments. Binder of polyvinyl chloride resin or a copolymer resin compound with suitable plasticizers and stabilizers, formed under pressure while hot and cut to size, fillers of calcium carbonate such as limestone, oyster shell, coral and marble. Asbestos fibers o f short fiber chrysolite. Periodic changes were made in the composition of these products, however, dates are unknown. Percentage of asbestos in these products was between 0.1 per cent and approximately 20 percent.
Moulded Wall Cove Base:. Composition generally simiDrto vinyl asbestos ale or aspftali tr.e
with respect to Us major constituents.
.
Azroek Cutback Adhesive: Liquid asphalt, solvent, asbestos fibers. Periodic changes were made in the composition of these products, however, dates are unknown. I he percentage composition of this product is information proprietary to the manufacturer ol the product and unknown to Defendant.
Page 15 of 77 No, 95 ASALU .IT
(_ h-i) Objection. Defendant objects to these subpurts on the grounds that they nre overly broad, unduly burdensome and vague. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Azrock Ibru Onyx was completely reformulated it) contain no asbestos fibers by January 1977. By October 4, 1982.. the entire product Sine whs completely ^ reformulated to eliminate the use of asbestos, based on a variety ot factors including modified lederai specifications which allowed for non-asbestos products, improved manufacturing processes, and marketing considerations* Senior management at Azrock. including Mr. Clark, were involved in making the reformulation decision.
(d) Objection. Defendant objects on the grounds that subpart is vague and unduly burdensome as to the variety of products manufactured over 50 years. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: See Response to Interrogatory No. 24.
(e) Azrock`s 12 '!x 12" or 9"'x<r tile products were of various colors and patterns.
if) See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer interrogatory No, 16.
. (g) Not applicable. (j) 'fhe addition of asbestos provided strength, consistency, dimensional stability, and processibility to floor tile, which could not be achieved at the same levels at that time under thenexisting manufacturing equipment controls. To be in compliance with the U.S. Government Federal Specifications for asphalt lloor tile, the use of asbestos fiber was required. The applicable federal specifications for asphalt floor tile have been; 1. SS-1-306, issued May 1, 934;
2. SS-T-306a. issued May 18. 1943;
3. SS-T-306b, issued July 14, 1952;
4. SS-T-312, Type 1issued June 2.1966; 5. SS-T-312a, Type I issued May 30, 1972; 6. SS-T-312b, ly p e 1 issued October 10, 1.974;
fhe U.S. Government Federal Specifications for vinyl asbestos tile required the use of asbestos fiber as an ingredient to comply with its specifications until amended on November 14. 1970, to change the product description from vinyl asbestos floor tile m vim 1composition Hour le. allowing the product to be made with or without asbestos fibers.
The federal specifications for vinyl asbestos floor tile have been. 1. t., f-7S i (GSA-FSS) Interim Federal Specification issued Marc; 8. 1932;
2. L-1-00345 (COM-NBSj Interim Federal Specification issued August 28. i 959:
3. ' SS-T-312. Type IV issued June 2, I960;
4. SS- f-3 Ida. Type IV issued May 30, 1972:
Page 16 of 77 No. 95 ASALTLI'T
SS-T-312b, Type IV issued October 10. 1974;
6
SS-T-312b, Interim Amendment"I (YD; issued November 14. 19/9.
Onh after technological developments and computer coniro! systems became available was it
possible to reformulate this type o f product, eliminating asbestos fibers, and still produce a reliable
and quality-' product.
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
Identify any and all persons known by you to have any knowledge concerning the
manufacture, sale, distribution, possession, application, installation or use of the products listed in
response to interrogatory No. 16.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, vague and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Delendant responds as follows; Given the lengthy passage of time since October 4,1982, the date Azrock Industries, Inc. last manufactured asbestos-containing floor tiles, employees with the knowledge described in tins interrogatory arc deceased or retired. Retired employees include Henry' A. Carrington. Richard Zaruba. Calvin Robertson, C. Wayne Crow, and frank Dolan.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
Were any of the products, which were listed in response to Interrogatory No. 16 as having
been specified, sold, distributed, applied or installed by Defendant, its predecessor or related
company(ies), purchased from another company and re-labeled for sale or distribution by Defendant,
' its predecessors or related companies? if ho. identify- those products, and with respect to cadi;
a.
Identify the company from which Defendant, its predecessor nr related
company purchased the product; and,
.!>. Identiiv the company which manufactured the product; and.
c, State the date* during which said re-iahelcd product was sold,
distributed or applied.
.
.
Page 17 of?'7
No. 95 ASALLL1T
ANSWER:
See Response to Plaintiffs'-Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 17 for A/rock's Asphalt Cutback Adhesive Type Z.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Has this Defendant, at any time, applied, contracted to apply, installed or engaged in the
business o f applying or installing,, asbestos-containing products? If so:
a.
State the datc(s) on which or during which Defendant applied,
contracted to apply, installed or engaged in the business o f applying
or installing asbestos-containing products;
b. Identify any and all sites within the State of Illinois at which Defendant applied, installed or contracted to apply or install asbestos-containing products, and for each such site:
(i) Stale whether the products you applied, installed or.
contracted to apply or install were included as part
o f the project's contract price or whether you
applied the products that were provided at the worksite;
'
(ii) Identify by manufacturer and trade name each arid every
.
asbestos-containing product applied or installed:
(Hi) ijv i
(v) (vi)
State the date(s) during which said application or installation took place:
Identify the employce(s) of Defendant who was (were) in
charge o f the job;
_
Identify the person or entity for which the products were applied or installed; and
Identify all documents relating to such, contract, application or installation.
ANSWER:
.
Page 18 of 77 No. >5 ASAf. LI. IT
INTERROGATORY NO. 22;
Has this Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, ever engaged in the business oi
mining asbestos? If so:
a.
Identify which company(ies) (whether Defendant, predecessor or related
, company) engaged in said business;
b. State the date(s) during which each said company engaged in such business;
e.
State each and every location at which such mining was clone;
d. Identify each every' officer, employee and/or agent of said company who, at any time, was in charge o f each mining operation: and.
e.
Identify each and every entity, if any, to which said company sold
the asbestos which was mined.
ANSWER;
No.
INTERROG ATORY NO. 23;
Has this Defendant, any predecessor or any related company ever purchased and resold raw
asbestos? If so, with respect to each such purchase and resale:
a.
State the dale(s) o f the transaction;
b. Identify any and all parties from which the raw asbestos was purchased: and,
c.
Identify any and all parties to which the raw asbestos was sold.
ANSWER:
No
IN T E R R O G A T O R Y NO. 24;
Page 0 of 77 No, 95 ASAI/U JT
Identify each and every source from which Defendant, any predecessor or related company,
obtained raw asbestos and/or asbestos-containing material used by Defendant, any predecessor oi
related company, to manufacture or process any product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 16.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and
the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Defendant
cannot identify the source o f the chrysotile asbestos prior to 1942. Uvalde Rock Asphalt Company
and subsequently Azrock Industries, Inc. purchased only chrysotile asbestos fiber from the following
suppliers for the years noted:
Asbestos Supplier Carey'Canadian Mines Ltd.. Hast Broughton Station, Quebec, Canada
Johns-Manville Sales Corp., Manville, New Jersey
Huxley-'Westfried Corp., 350 Fifth Ave.. New York, New York 10020
1luxicy Development Corp.. Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center. New York. New York 10020
Union Carbide Corp., Mining and Metal Div.. P.O. Box 579. Niagara Falls. New York 14302
Dates. 1942 to 1955 1950 to 1957 1955 to 1956 1957 io 1974
February 1974 to 1982
1NTERROGATORY NO. 25: ' With respect to each and every product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 16. provide a
full and complete description of the package in which the product was sold, including, Inil not limited to. type of package, size, color and writings thereon.
ANSWER.:
Page 20 of 7? No. 95~ASAl JA H
Objection, Defendant objects to this interrogatory as over!}'- broad, vague and not likely to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objections. Defendant responds as follows: Virtually everyone who could have described the original
changes in cartons is deceased. Upon information and belief the basic character o f the carton in
which tile was packaged has been similar for the relevant times. Cartons have been corrugated to
hold usually 45 square feet of one-eighth inch tile or approximately 50 square feet of three-sixteenth
inch tile, to fit the size of tile. In this gauge, normal weight was approximately 60 pounds. In thinner
gauges, the carton was smaller and weighed less, During certain periods of time, the government
required wooden cartons for export shipment, but very few of these were executed. 1he visual
appearance was normally craft-colored corrugate printed with Azrock insignia on the carton and
marked with the color number, size, gauge, carton weight, and run date. The specifics changed at
various times over the years. Additional printing on the shipping canons included: `important:
Wren installing Azrock tile, use installation procedures and adhesives as recommended in Azrock
Installation Instructions." Individual copies of the Azrock Manual of installation were made
available to installers, dealers, architects and distributors. Copies were available from all Azrock
distributors or direct from Azrock.
`
INTERROGATORY NO, 26:
Tor each subpart below, state whether or not, to Defendant's knowledge, any items as described therein presently exist and. if so, identify any and all such existing items and state the present location of each:
_ a. Any product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 16, including, but not limited to, any sample, part or piece thereof;
b. Any package of the type in which any or all of the products listed in
.
response to Interrogatory No. 16 were or would have been sold, including,
but not limited to. any partial package;
.
c.
Any catalogue, brochure, sales literature or like item referring to. relating
to or reflecting any or all of the products listed in response to Interroaatorv
Mo, 16;
'
" '
cl, Any picture, drawing, photograph or like representation of the items described in suhpaiis a,, b, anchor e. of this Interrogatory.
ANSWER:
a.-b. Objection.' Defendant objects to this interrogatory cm the basis that it requests information about items that are not relevant, not likely ro lead in the discovery oi admissible evidence and beyond the scope of discovery. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
Page 21 of 77 No.95ASAl.LLIT
objections. Defendant responds as follows: Defendant has no knowledge of the existence of such
products or packaging, c ~d Objection. Defendant objects tn this interrogatory on the basis that it request*
information s p a i n g a 50-year time period, and therefore is overly broad. not r-asonabiv calculated to lead to the discovery oi admissible evidence. SubjcU u> ar.d with >u, waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant maintain possession o a limited number o f catalogs, installation manuals, and adveilismg m atuial,.
INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
Did Defendant, any related company or any predecessor over stamp or otherwise place
(,,eluding affixing tags or labels) a company ' `i * - products listed in response to interrogatory No. 167
iJ" U1'yi"S 'S
" rihe
' ANSWER:
.
See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 25. Defendant did not stamp, affix or glue its name to any finished prodtict made for installation.
I NT KRROGATO RY N C felfo if your answer to Interrogatory No. 27 is "Ye*." identify each and every such product upon
which such name, initials or identifying logo appeared and for each such product dentilied:
,
Describe each and everv name, initials or identifying logo appearing on said
` ` product, at any time, by* staring the wording, lettering symbols, .sr/e. color
and manner in which it was stamped, placed or affixed to said product.
' fi, State the date(s) during which each such name, initials, or identifying logo appeared on said product, and
c. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting tec stamping. daring or affixing of names, initials or logo? to said nroauc. including, but not limited to, any pictures, photographs or ii.ee representations
of such names, initials or logos.
ANSWER:
Page 22 of ?7 No. *5 A SM .L U !
See Response to Plaintiffs' Manuiacturcr Interrogatory No. 27.
INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Was each of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to interrogatory No. 16
generally expected to reach, or was each packaged to reach., the consumer or user, without substantial
change in the condition in which it was sold?
'
.A...N...S: WER...:. Yes.
INTERROGATORY NO. 30: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 29 is "No" with respect to any produces), explain in what
manner Defendant claims said product(s) were altered or substantially changed alter sale or
distribution and before reaching the consumer or user.
A N SW ER: See Response to Plaintiffs* Manufacturer Interrogatory' No. 29. Not Applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO. 31: With respect to eticb product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 16. state whether, based
upon the material contents. the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, such product could generally be applied or installed without liberating asbestos fibers.-'
ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is vague, overly broad and nht likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waning the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: The products could be applied or installe without releasing respirable asbestos fibcis in sufficient quantities, ifa m .io pose a health funraru.
V'Aiiv 23 of 77 No. 95 A S A L U .IT
potential or otherwise, to persons 'using said products, due to the .fact that only snort tber cm p o ttle asbestos was used. Additionally. the asbestos libers are totally encapsulated by the thermoplastic binder within a homogenous mixture during the manufacturing process, making release of respirable, friable asbestos liber virtually impossible. Defendant denies that use ol, or exposure to, its encapsulated asbestos-containing products puses a health hazard.
INTERROGATORY NO. 32:, With respect to each product listed in response to original Interrogatory number 16. could it
be expected or anticipated that the product might have to be removed, stripped or replaced at any tune
after application or installation?
ANSWER:
`
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basts that it is vague, overly broad, and not likely to lead to the discovers of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objectons. Defend responds as follows: k is recognized thal times, products nngnl
have to he removed.
INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
Identify each person who participated in the design and/or preparation ol manufacturing
specifications (breach product listed in response to interrogator) No. 16.
ANSWER:
f Rlewett Smvth. President and Chairman of the Board 19(2-163? (all dates are approximations): Glenn H, Alvey, President and Chairman of the Board 1937-I9<56; H W t o ph Brown President and Chairman of the Board 1966-1974: William k . (.dark. President 1974-1986, Chairman of the .Board and CKO [986-1991. Defendant further answers that. Irom lime to ume. otha persons may have been involved in the topic ot incpiny.
INTERROGATORY NO. 34: _ Identity any and alt documents, including, but not limited to, written memoranda,
specifications, blueprints, formulas, patterns and designs. refcmng to. relating to or reflecting me
Page 24 ot 77 No, 95 ASAL1..LIT
design, preparation, application and/or installation of each product listed in response to Interrogatory
No. 16.
ANSWER:
'
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, vague and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The relevant issues m this action against Delendam pertain to finished tloor covering products after such products left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Defendant mam aiib possession of a limited number of product catalogs, installation manuals and advertising materials relating to its products. Additionally, Defendant maintains possession of a limited numbu ot manuals/'brochnres prepared by the Resilient Floor Covering institute relating to floor covermg
product's.
INTERR O G ATO R Y NO. 35: Identify any and all facilities at w hich'Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at
any time, manufacturing or processed asbestos-containing products, or processed raw asbestos. For
each such facility identified:
a. State the date(.s) which said facility was owned and/or operated by Defendant, any predecessor or any related company,
b. State the date(s) during which asbestos-containing products and.'or raw asbestos were manufactured or processed, at said facility; and,
c
Identify each person serving as the manager or supervisor of said facility
' during"any time which the facility lias been owned attd'or operated by
Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, and stale the dates,s)
of the tenure as manager or supervisor for each.
ANSWER: Ijvafde Rock Asphalt Company and subsequently A'/rock industries, Inc. did not process raw asbestos fiber. They manufactured iloonng products at their facility at 170? Olir er Street Houston. Texas',
INTERROGATORY n o . 36:
Page 25 of 71 No- 95 aSALI-I.T
Identify any and all entities to which the Defendant, any predecessor or related company, sold, distributed or otherwise provided any type of asbestos-containing product, including but not limited to, the products listed in response to original Interrogatory number 16. and which the Defendant has any reason whatsoever to suspect, believe, think or otherwise conclude that said asbestos-contammg product eyas installed, applied, stored, or anyway made use of at any site identified m the interrogatory answers of any plaintiff with a claim- against this Defendant, at any site located in Madison County, Illinois, or at any site within a 200 mile radius of Madison County Illinois,
ANSWER:
.
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, undulv burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence Defendant also objects to the area specified above us to vagueness and buiduisomc to determine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections Defendant responds as tallows. Most paper documentation for the period prior to October 4, 1982, the date Defendant last ^. m an u L L rcd asbestos containing products, has been destroyed m accordance with its recoas retention policy based on the federal government's guidelines for records retention. Tot sale, pr October 4 1982 the only documents defendant maintained was microfilm dating from appioxmidtdy S c late 1950s to sometime during the 1980s, Remaining records are maintained m Houston. Texas. All sales were performed at Azrock's place of business in San Antonio. 1e\as and were ma wholesale distributors. Defendant has no direct knowledge of what sales us distributors may ui t *>
not have made.
INTERROGATORY N Q ,.jll With respect to the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 16, did Defendant, any
predecessor or related company or the manufacturer of the products ever conduct tests of any kind on any or all of said products concerning possible or potential health hazards involved in it. use or in the
use o f materials contained therein!
ANSWER: To the extent this interrogatory is intended to cover air monitoring studies ofA /rock's finished llooring products, yes,
Page 26 of 7-? No. 95 ASAIXI.IT
INTERROGATORY NO. 38: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 37 is --Yes/1with respect to each product test
a. State the location where the test was performed:
.
b, Identity each and every individual who conducted or participated in said lest;
Describe the results of said tesi;
d. State the date or dates upon which said test was conducted; identify-anv and all documents referring to, relating to os reflecting snf .11 test or the results thereof; and
f.
Identify each and every individual who received a copy of any document
referring to, relating to or reflecting the results of said lest.
ANSWER:
(a d) Air monitoring studies relating to finished products at the oilkes oi Defendant in Houston and San Antonio, Texas. Tests were conducted December 10,13-16 1976; February 24 & 25. 1977; October 6-8, 1982; and December 21. 1982.
(b) Howard Milschkc, Environmental Chemist; Professional Service Industries-Shilslonc Engineering Testing Laboratory. Inc.
(ci Concentrations well below OSHA limits.
(e) Asbestos Air Sampling Memorandum of December 22, 1976 with December 1976 studies;
Asbestos Toxicology Report of .March 2, 1977 regarding February 24, 1977 study;
Asbestos Toxicology Report of March 2, 1977 regrading Febsuary .5. I 777 study;
Laboratory Report of October 15, 1982 with October 1982 studies;
Professional Service Industries. Inc.. Shiktone Engineering Tesiin. Lab Letter of Januar v 28. 983 with December 2 L 1982 studies.
if) R.S. 7 aruba, W.C. Clark, JIAV. Reeves. J. Tant. C. DickschiU. RAY. Van Burn. Alex IL Cuevas. P. Thomas
Page 27 of 77 No, 95 ASALLU F
INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Did any person, including but not limited to, an officer, agent or employee of Defendant, any
predecessor or related company recommend any design changes as a result o f any test referenced in your response to the preceding interrogatory?
ANSWER: No.
INTERROGATORY NO, 40: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 39 is "Yes," with respect to each such recommended
design change: a. State the product or products involved:
b. State the test or tests involved:
c. State the nature of the change recommended;
d. Identify the personfs) making the recommendation;
c. State the nature and effective date of any change made; and
identify each and every person who participated in the decision to make or not make the recommended design change.
ANSWER:
.
Not applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO. 41: identify any and all persons employed by. hired by or otherwise utilized by Defendant, its
predecessor or related company at any time from 19d0 to elate as an industrial hygienist or in a similar
posit mm.
Page 28 of 77 No. 95 ASALLLIT
ANSWER:
. ' , . , a-,.,..*, m ihis imerro-atofY on the grounds that the interrogatory is
Objection. Defendant
^ uabt is L e v a n t to this case and is not
overly broad, unduly butdtnsonte .i ^
.imissibic evidence. The only relevant issues m this
reasonably ca!cub^
Boor covering products alter such products lett
action against DUuiuunl p<.rt.nn
^
. . , iim><>nhv' objections. Deiendant responds
Defendanf s M M Subjcirt loand
O 960's, David M.
as follows: The following individuals ^ f ^ ^ sXna] byfclem' tS*
Devvatt (5970's) and Howard Mitschke (mid 1970 s).
TNTRRROC ATORY NO- .42: Does Deiendant have, or has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company ever had, a
Research Department? if so: a. duaethedwehneanrtmsuecnhl dheapsaortpmereanttedwcaosnetsitnauboliusshlyeds,maneed bwehinelgheesrt"ablished,
State how much Defendant, its predecessor and/or related company b.
expended each year on reseat oh, and
c. State the percentage of said expenditure which was lor research concerning the health effects of asbestos;
d. Identify the persons) in charge of such department throughout its existence; and Identify the pcrson(s) in charge of any asbestos-related re: conducted by such department throughout the years.
ANSWER:
Objecrion. Defendan. objects to vasue.ovcrly broad, unduly burdensome and d ie 1
" ' de,,ce Thc unlv
is ;1nl issues in
no! Ibis action againsl iylelldani i .
after such produce left , tbe foregoing objections. Defendan. respon/.s
Detendam
.,,.,,linial staff of one o r , eftem te hose primary
budne's, it any.
* 0 included Tom Swift. Deftmdan, has no mum .edge as u,
Page* 29 oi V No. 95 ASALLL1 I
INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Did Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any medical department or
industrial hygiene division thereof, maintain a medical and/or scientific library at any time from 1940
to the present? If so:
a. Slate the dates such library existed;
b. State the number of volumes maintained therein;
c. State the number of employees, part-time or lull-time, assigned to the maintenance of said library; and
d. ' .
Identify the person(s) within the corporate structure to whom said library employees reported throughout the existence of the library.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome and the information sought is irrelevant to this case and is not ^ reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action aaainst Defendant pertain to finished lloor covering products after such products left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Dtendant rest* as follows: Defendant did not maintain a library' as that term is commonly understood.
INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Identify any and all scientific or medical periodicals to which Defendant, any predecessor or
any related company, or any medical department or industrial hygiene division thereof subscribed from
1940 to the present, and for each periodical stale the dates ol such subscriptions.
' ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the interrogatory is
overly broad, unduly burdensome and the information sought is irrelevant to this ease and is not ^ ^
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The only relevant issue- in tins
action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left
^
Defendant's facilities. Subject lo and without waiving lhe foregoing objections. Defendant responds
Page 30 of 77 No. 95 A SA U X IT
as follows; Any periodical subscriptions during the time Defendant' s products contained asbestos are no longer known or maintained.
INTERROGATORY NO. 45
.
f las Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time since 1940;
a.
Been a member o f a medical and/or scientific library or library association?
b. Been a member of any organization or association which maintained a medical and/or scientific library?
c. Been a member o f any organization or association through- which
mem bets obtained the use of, or access to, a medical and/or scientific library?
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the interrogatory is
overly broad, unduly burdensome and the information sought is irrelevant to this case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery' o f admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this
action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after suchproducts fell
IX-fendant s lacilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoim* objections. Defendant responds
as follows: Any such memberships, to the extent they existed, during the time Defendant's products
contained asbestos' arc no longer known.
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 46
If your answer to any subpart of interrogatory No. 45 is "Yes":
a.
Identify the libraryfies) involved and state the years during which
Defendant, its predecessor or related company was a member o f or
otherwise had use of or access to said library; and
b. If applicable, identify the organization or association through which Defendant, its predecessor or related company, obtained the use of or access to. ueh libraryfies;.
ANSWER:
-See Response to Plaintiffs Manufacturer Interrogatory No 52. Not Applicable
Page 31 n t7? No, 95 ASALLLIT
INTERROGATORY MO. 47:
Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any person or entm acting <.hi behall thereof, including but not limited to, any insurance company, at any lime, conducted am' industrial hygiene surveys concerning any product identified in response to interrogatory No. 16.
including, but not limited to. surveys concerning the manufacture, processing, application, installation, use and/or removal o f said products?
ANSWER:
is ovcrlv broJ )S ? i ? Di,Df endant hj? f l thiS iuterro&atory 011 the Sounds that the intern,aatorv
-
broad, unduly burdensome and the information sought is irrelevant to this case and Is not
a. onably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this
dUion against Defendant_pertain to finished floor covering products after such products felt
r ;
*, he extent the Defe"nfdan?tsithaiorumt oTMnitvoirninsgihsetudriercsgroeil"at8ed'*t*o*it*s "fi*nishDecdfap,r*od"uuctrscscpan "b*e " if "5 h-V"'ene SUrVeyS"' * * Dcf" `la,It' s R a p * to Plaint! (JV Manuilictufer
INIKKkOGATOKY NO. 4!
your answer to Interrogatory No. 47 is "Yes." with respect to each such survey Identify the producl(s) which was used in the survev:
identify any and all person! s), lirm(.s) or entityfics) conducting or participating in the conducting of said survey;
State fhe dale(s) o f said survey:'
d. Describe the methodology, results and conclusions of said survey;
Identify any and all documents referring to, or reflecting said survey
or the results and conclusions thereof; and,
^
*
f.
Identify any and all persons to whom such document may have been sent
ANSWER:
See Response to Plaintiff Manufacturer interrogatory No. 47
Page .42 of V No. 95 ASALIJJT
INTERROGATORY NO M-
I t e Defendant, any f n i e m m m any rolated compaoy. ^ ^ ^
^^ ^
^
behalf thereof, including but lilnited to any lusurance. eontpany, a, my ^ ^
^ ^
where any product identified iB response to ,,,,,,rogatory Nfl ,, ^ ^ ra,,nufi,clured. ^
applied or installed to perform a dust level count or similar iest?
'
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to fliis interrogaiorv on the grounds that it is ovwlv hr ^ t ?
against Defendant pertain to finished Iloor covering products at} K T " ' " " l o ,h`SaC`iOT
facilities. Subject to and without
f * " * Uefcnd" ' s
Sec Response to Plaintiffs' Marntfactuier InterrogateJ No 38, ^ Wb" mfmk * fo,iows:
M D & B O C A T O R y n o . ><p
If your answer to Interrogatory No. 49 is "Yes,- identify' each such count or test per,boned, by stating when and where il was conducted, and with respect to each count or test so identified:
a- Identify the product being manufactured, used, applied or installed:
b' o! ,rfaainiaTMtvmdl tlhre idcsTultsyoff, sraS0i1d,'cWouhntco,'"r,dte"sct:tcd' participated in conducting, c. State the purpose o f said count or test;
d. State what, if any, actions were taken in response to the results of seld
count or test; and
,LSurwd
e- identify any and ail documents referring to, rdatina to or retlcctinu ;<!
i f S; inc!ltdmg but nor lioiited to die results o f such count or test.
taken in ' m
' ANSWER:
Sec Responses Plaintiffs Manufacturer uterregatones No. 49 and 39.
Page 33 of 77 NOv 95 A SA U A A T
INTERROGATORY NO. 51 :
Han Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any person or entity actum on
behali thereof, at any time, conducted any studyfiesk oi any kind, concerning the effects of the
inhalation of asbestos dust or asbestos fibers on one using or being exposed to asbestos or any asbestos-
containing product, including but not limited to, those identified in response to Interrogatory No. Id?
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and the information sought is irrelevant to this case and is not reasonably ' calculated to lead to the discovery oi admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action against Defondant pertain to finished floor covering products after such product's left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: No.
INTERROGATORY NO, 52:
It your answer to Interrogatory No. 51 is "Yes,'*with respect to each such study:
Describe the nature of said study, including, but not limited to, the
purpose and objectives of the study, the productfs) involved, the daie(s)
conducted, the methodology employed atid the results reached, both raw
data and conclusions;
Indenlily any arid ail entities anchor persons conducting said .study or
participating in the conducting o f said study;
*
Identify any and ail documents referring try relating to or reflecting said study, including bat not limited to reports (both interim and final), notes, memoranda, work papers, data compilations nnd surveys;
Identify any ana all,directors, ot fleers, agents nr eiripioveva or Defendant wrto participated in the decision to have the studv conducted, ant!.
Identify any and all entities and/or persons who received a copy o f any
document referring to. relating to or refecting the results or conclusions reached.
ANSWER;
Page 34 uf 71 No. 9$ A.SALLLiT
See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 51. Not Applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO. 53:
Did Defendant, its predecessor or related company, take any action as a result of any study or
studies set forth in response to interrogatory Nos. 49 and 51? If so, identify each and every studs
which resulted in some action being taken, and;
a.
Describe tine actions taken, including the effective date o f said actions;
b. Identify any and all persons, including, but not limited to. directors, officers,
. agents and employees o f Defendant who participated in the decision to
undertake said actions: and '
c. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said actions, or any subsequent modification or discussion of the same.
'ANSWER:
As to studies identified in Response to interrogatory No. 49: See Response to Plaintiffs'
Manufacturer interrogatory No. 50. As to Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer interrogatory No, 51:
Not Applicable.
'
INTERROGATORY NO. 54:
Has Defendant, any predecessor, or any related company, or any person or entity acting on
behalf thereof, at any time, conducted any study(ies) designed to minimize or eliminate the inhalation
o f asbestos dust and libers by those using, handling or exposed to any product listed in response to
Interrogatory No. 16?
'
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that ti is overly broach unduly burdensome and the information sought is irrelevant to this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to iinished floor covering products after such products left Defendant's Facilities. Additionally, this interrogatory assumes facts and lacks foundation as to the alleged inhula* ion o f asbestos dust and libers from DefemiatU's products. To Defendant's'knowledge, it Isas never been established that there is a health hazard from asphalt Poor tile or vinyl asbestos floor tile
Pag* 35 of 77 No. 95 ASALLLIT
during installation, use or removal due to the fact that only short fiber chrysotile asbestos was used. Additionally, the asbestos libers arc totally encapsulated by the thermoplastic binder within a homogenous mixture during the manufacturing process, making release of respirable, friable asbestos fiber virtually impossible. Defendant states that there has never been any evidence or reason to believe that its asbestos-containing products release respirable asbestos libers in sufficient quantities, if any, to pose a health hazard, potential or otherwise, to persons using said products. Defendant denies that use of, or exposure to, its encapsulated asbestos-containing products poses a health hazard. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: No.
INTERROGATORY NO, 55:
if your answer ic> interrogatory No. 54 is " Yes." with respect to each such study;
a. identify the product involved;
b. Identify the person(s) and/or entitv(ies) conducting said study:
e. State the d.ate said study began and the date on which it was completed:
d. Identify any and all persons, including, but not limited to, directors, officers, agents or employees o f Defendant, who participated in the decision to have said study conducted;
e.
Describe the nature o f said study;
f.
Describe the nature of any action to eliminate or minimize inhalation
o f asbestos dust or asbestos libers undertaken as a result o f said study;
g. Identify any and ail documents referring to. relating to or reflecting said study or the results thereof: and
h. identify any and ail persons receiving a copy o f any document referring to. relating to or reflecting the results or conclusions of said study.
ANSWER:
See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 54. Not applicable,
. INTERROGATORY NO. 56:
Did Defends!., any related company or any predecessor t any time, give to persons, who
would be applying and/or removing any of Ur ptoducts listed in re 5on.se to Interrogatory N<*. 16. ary Page 3A of 77
No. 95 ASAi.IJJT.
instructions or guidelines concerning precautions, warning, procedures, and/or methods to use. in order
to safely apply or remove such products? If so, describe such instructions, state to whom they were
given, state the dates they were given, and describe the manner in which they were given.
ANSWER:
'
See Responses to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer interrogatories No. 25, 34 and 58.
INTERROGATORY NO. 57:
Did Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time, place any warning signs
or labels on the containers in which any o f the products listed in response to Interrogatory Mo. 16 were
packaged?
ANSWER:
`
.
Yes.
INTERROGATORY NO. 58:
If your answer to interrogatory No. 57 is `'Yes.*1 identify each and every product upon which
such a warning was placed, and with respect to each such product identified;
a.
State (he date on which any order directing that a warning be placed on
said product first issued:
b.
Identify any and all persons participating in the decision to issue that order;
e.
State the first date on which such warning was actually placed on said product:
d. Stale the tirst date on which such product accompanied by such warning was, first sold, distributed or installed;
c.
Stale the exact wording o f this first warning:
f.
State the exact location and si/e o f this first warning as ii appeared on said
product: .
Page .57 of 77
No. 95 ASALLUT
g, Identity any and ali persons who participated in any phase of the drafting
.
or design o f said first warning, including, but not limited to, those who
performed the actual drafting and design work, those who reviewed the
work, those who edited the work and those who approved the warning;
h. Slate why you placed such warning on said product, including, hut not limited to, whether you placed such warning on said product because you received a directive, command, suggestion, legal opinion, or an}- type of communication
' (written or otherwise) from any person, linn, corporation, governmental agency, committee, association, attorney or institute; and
i.
Identify any and ali documents referring to, relating to or reflecting, said
warning, its drafting, and/or the decision to place the warning on said product,
including but not limited to, any communication as described in subpart h. of this
Interrogatory.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: To defendant's knowledge, it has never been established that there is a health hazard from asphalt floor tile or vinyl asbestos floor tile during installation, use or removal due to the fact that only short fiber chrysotile asbestos was used. Additionally, the asbestos libers are totally encapsulated by the thermoplastic binder within a homogenous mixture during the manufacturing process, making release of respirable, friable asbestos fiber virtually impossible. Defendant states that there has never been any evidence or reason to believe that its asbestos-containing products release respirable asbestos fibers in sufficient quantities, if any, to pose a health hazard, potential or otherwise, to persons using said products.' Defendant denies that use of, or exposure to, its encapsulated asbestos-containing products poses a health hazard. Defendant has always provided to architects, specifiers and customers product catalogs including specifications and technical information, advertising and promotional material and installation and maintenance instructions, including warnings and warranties upon individual request from anyone or through Azrock. it is impossible to identify all documents. Beginning in approximately 1978, the following warning was placed in tire Azrock Manual of installation;
. To prevent any release of encapsulated asbestos fiber, do not sand asphalt tile or viny
asbestos tile floors.
Additional printing on the shipping cartons included:' ''important: When installing Azrock tile, use installation procedures and adhesives as recommended in Azrock Installation Instructions.'"
Beginning in July 1980. the following language was included in the Azrock Manual oflnstaliuikm,
IMPORTANT NOTICE ... Warnings and instructions set lord! in the manual and incorporated on A/rock Floor Products accessory labels should be strictly followed. WARNING: DO NOT SAND EXIST ING RESILIENT FLOORING, BACKING OR
Page 38 of 7? No. 95 A S A L L U T
LINING FELT. THLSL PRODUCTS MAY CONTAIN ASBESTOS FIBLRS THAI CANNO!'BE IDENTIFIED READILY. INHALATION OF ASBESTOS DUS f MAY CAUSE ASBESTOSiS OR OTHER SERIOUS BODILY HARM.
In June 1986, the Ibllowing language was added by the Defendant:
SMOKING GREATLY INCREASES THE RISK OF SERIOUS BODILY HARM.
This warning was developed by the president of Azrock. in conjunction with the Resilient Floor Covering Institute. There has been some discussion prior to this lime that release of asbestos liber from sanding of asphalt floor tile or vinyl asbestos floor tile was doubtful since friction heat generated from sanding softens the thermo-plastic hinder further encapsulating the fiber. However, it was thought that it would be safer to include these products in the warnings since other asbestos containing products manufactured by other entities might cause problems when sanded.
INTERROGATORY NO. 59:
With respect to each product identified in response to interrogatory No. 58 as having heen
accompanied by a warning, state whether, subsequent to the first warning described above, any
different warning was ever placed upon said product. Any alteration, change or modification in the
language, wording, capitalization, punctuation, style of type or printing, size, color, or location on the
package or container, of the warning constitutes a different warning.
ANSWER:
.
Sec Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 58.
INTERROGATORY NO. 60:
With respect to each different warning which accompanied each product listed in response to
Interrogatory No, 58:
a. State the date on 'which any order directing that such dicleient warning be placed on said product first issued;
b. Identify any and all persons participating m the decNion to issue that order;
c. . State flic first dare on which such dilTcrent wanting 'was actually putved on said
product:
"
Page 39 of n No. *>5 ASAl. I.LIT
d. State the first date on which such product accompanied by Such different wanting was sold- distributed or installed;
e.
Describe, with sped(icily, any and all changes, modifications or di ficrences
between the different warning and the prior waming(s);
t
Identify any and all persons who participated in any phase of the drafting or
design of such different warning, including, but not limited to. those who
performed the actual drafting and design work, those who reviewed the work,
those who edited the work and those who approved the different warning;
g.
State why you placed such different warning on said product, including, but not
limited to, whether you placed such different warning on said product because
you received a directive, command, suggestion, legal opinion, or any type of
communication (written or otherwise) from any person, firm, corporation,
governmental agency, committee, association, attorney or institute; and
h. Identify any and all documents referring to. relating to or reflecting, said
'
different warning, its drafting, and/or the decision to place the different
warning on said product.
ANSWER:
.
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome, Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory1No. 58.
INTERROGATORY NO, 61:
Prior to the date on which Defendant first directed that a warning accompany any product
identified in response to Interrogatory No. 16, did any person, firm, organization or other entity, within
or without your employ, suggest, recommend, counsel, advise, or otherwise indicate in any manner,
that a warning should accompany any or all such products or asbesios-conUnniug products generally '
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and the information sought is irrelevant to this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Subject to and without waiving tin: fore ainng objections. Defendant responds as billows: lo defend ant's knowledge, it has never been established that there is a health hazard front asphalt floor tile or vinyl asbestos floor tile during
Page 40 of "7 No. h5 ASALUJT
installation, use or removal due to the fact that only short fiber chrysolite asbestos was used. Additionally, the asbestos fibers are totally encapsulated by the thermoplastic binder within, a homogenous mixture during the manufacturing process, making release of respirable, friable asbestos fiber virtually impossible. Defendant states that there has never been any evidence or reason to believe that its asbestos-containing products release respirable asbestos fibers in sufficient quantities, if any. to pose a health hazard, potential or otherwise, to persons using said products, Defendant denies that use o f or exposure to. its encapsulated asbestos-containing products poses a health hazard.
The first time Azroek received any notice indicating an alleged connection between asbestoscontaining products and lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis or other illnesses was in June o f 1969 when Azroek received a copy o f a memorandum from Union Carbide to its field sales force dated May 26, 1969. Nothing in this notice suggested that products formerly manufactured by Azroek hud any connection with asbestos-related diseases.
Since that rime, Azroek received information concerning the alleged connection between asbestos-containing products and various health hazards. However, Azroek is not aware of any evidence or information indicating that any asbestos-containing products manufactured by A zroek release respirable asbestos fibers in sufficient quantity, if any, to pose a health hazard, potential or otherwise, to persons using said products, Azroek did not receive any recommendation to place any warnings on the products previously identified or prior to the time it formulated the warnings referenced in Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer interrogatory No. 58.
INTERROGATORY NO, 62:
If your answer to Interrogatory No. 61 is ``Yes,M with respect to each such suggestion,
recommendation, counseling, advice or other indication:
.
a.
identify the person(s) and/or entity(ics) giving the same;
b. State the date(s) on which the same was given;
e. Identify any and all persons receiving notice of the same:
d. Describe what, if"any, action Defendant took in response to or upon the same; and,
e. ' .
identify any and all documents, imerring to, relating to or reflecting: the same, or any action taken thereon qr in response thereto.
ANSWER:
See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer interrogatory No. 6L Not applicable.
<
Page 4! of ^7
No. 95 ASALLL1T
.
INTERROGATORY NO, 63;
bid Defendant, any predecessor, or any related company ever place any warning directly upon any o f the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 16?
ANSWER:
See Responses to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer interrogatory No. 25 and No. 58. INTERROGATORY NO. 64:
'i f your answer to Interrogator}' No. 63 is "Yes," identify each and every product upon which such a warning was placed and for each such product identified:
a.
State, verbatim, each and every warning which ever appeared on said
product;
.
b. State the size, color and location o f each such wanting and describe the manner in which it was placed upon the product;
c.
State the dates on which each such warning first and last appeared in
said product; and,
d. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the . placing of any wanting directly upon said products, including, but not limited to. decisions not to place such a warning.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows; See Responses to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer interrogatories No. 25 and 58.
INTERROGATORY NO. 65: Did-any warning oi any type concerning the products listed in resjymse to Interrogatory NO. JO
ever appear in any sale literature or other materials distributed or provided by Defendant predecessor or any related company, to the purchasers, consumers and/or users of such products?
ANSWER:
Ei;sc 42 of 77
No. 95 ASAELUT
See Responses to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatories No. 25 and 58
INTERROGATORY NO, 66;
If your answer to Interrogatory No. 65 is " Yes,'* identify each and every item of sales iiteraiu>or other materials in which such a warning appeared, and for each item so identified:
a. State the date on which said item was first provided to distributors, sellers, purchasers, consumers or users;
b. List the products discussed in the literature;
e.
identify any and all other sales'literature concerning the products listed in
response to interrogatory' No, 16 which was provided to distributors.
sellers, purchasers, consumers or users after the above date and which
contained no warning.
ANSWER:
liach and every location of warning labels is unknown, however, see Responses to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer interrogatories No. 25 and 58.
INTERROGATORY NO. 67:
Does Defendant, any predecessor, or any related company have any of the following m its possession, custody or control;
Any package, container, label or item of sales literature which Defendant
claims constitutes or contains any' warning which ever accompanies unv
product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 16?
*
Any picture, photograph or like reproductive representation of any item described in subpait a.?
ANSWER:
. Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows. See Responses to Plaintiffs' Yiamtfacturer Interrogatories No. 56 and 58. Defendant is in possession of a limited number o f installation manuals and Resilient floor C W n m . institute hoehnres.
Page 43 of 77 No. 95 ASALLUT
INTERROGATORY NO. 68:
if Defendum, Bny prcdteessoi oi related company obtained raw asbestos and/or asbestos
containing materia! used by Defendant, any predecessor or related company, to manufacture or process
any product listed in response to Interrogatory ]6, did such raw asbestos and/or asbestos-containing
material contain any warning of any type - either affixed to the container, contained within the
container, or affixed to the product itself - - when received by Defendant, any predecessor or related company?
.A N S W E R :
Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left Defendant's facilities.
INTERROGATORY NO. 69:
If the answer to interrogatory 68 is "Yes." :
a.
State, verbatim, each and every warning which approved on the
received product.
b. State the size, color, and location o f each such warning and describe the manner in which it was placed upon the received product.
e. State the dates on which each such warning first and last appeared on the received product.
d. State whether Defendant, any predecessor or related company left each warning in place, or removed or attend such warning at any time.
e. if such warnings were removed or altered in any manner, describe in detail how such warnings wore removed or altered,
' ANSWER:
`
Sec Response to Manufacturer interrogatory No. 68. No? applicable.
Page- 44 <fl nNo. 95 ASAGLUT
INTERROGATORY NO. 70:
Stale the year that Defendant, or any predecessor or related company was first advised o f either
threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations o f both asbestos dust and total dust
promulgated by Ute American Conference 'of Governmental Industrial Hygienist, and identify the
specific personas) receiving such advise, and any and all documents communicating such advise.
ANSWER:
.. Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and
the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to thediseoverv of admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished Hour covering products
after such products left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant has no knowledge of receiving the intoxination described in this inteiTOgatory Iront the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hvaienists.
INTERROGATORY NO. 71-
Describe, in detail, any and all tests, if any, conducted by Defendant, any predecessor or anv
related company, or anyone acting on behall thereof, concerning the quantity, quality or threshold
limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which, applicators or consumers of asbestos-containing products were exposed while using any product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 16, including:
a.
The product being used;
h. Jdenliiy any and ali person(s). fmn(s) or entity!ics) conducting or
participating in the conducting o f said test;
'
c.
State the daieis) o f\aid test;
d. Describe the methodology, results and cone usions of said test;
c.
identify any and all documents, referring to. relating or reflecting said
K'St or the--results and conclusions thereof: and.
Page 45 of 77 No, 95 ASALLUT
. f.
Identify any and all persons to whom any document referring to. ielating
to or reflecting the results or conclusions of said test was sent.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: To the extent this Interrogatory is intended to cover air monitoring studies as to Azrock's finished flooring products, see Response to Plaintiffs* Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 38, above.
INTERROGATORY NO. 72:
Did Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time, directly advise the
owners or management employees o f any worksite in which it sold or applied any product listed in
response to Interrogatory No. 16, of threshold limit values for exposure to asbestos dust
. recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist0 If so, state the
date or dates that you so advise each such owner or employees, the manner in which you advised such
owner or employee and the name of each such owner or employee.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory cm the grounds that it is overly broad and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Because Defendant did not sell its product directly to any `'worksite.1' Defendant would not have had any communications concerning threshold limit values with the owners or management employees of such worksites:.
IINTERROGATORY NO. 73:
Page 46 of 77 No. `>5 ASALLUT
Stale the date on which any official of Defendant or any predecessor or any related company
first had knowledge, notice, information or understanding that exposure to asbestos would, could or
might cause each o f the following diseases:
_
a.
Pleural disease;
b. Asbestosis:
c. Mesothelioma:
d. Lung cancer;
e.
Any other forms o f cancer.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and
the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ot admissible evidence.
The only relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished Hour covering products
after such products left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objections, Defendant responds as follows: See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory
No. 61.
INTERROGATORY NO. 74: With respect to each disease set forth in Interrogatory No, 73:
a.
identity the official who first obtained the knowledge, notice,
information, or understanding to which the interrogatory refers:
b. Identify any and all documents referring to. relating to or reflecting such knowledge, notice, information or understanding;
c. If such knowledge or information was obtained by attendance at any
conference, lecture, convention, symposium or meeting, identify such
meeting, any and all persons attending, and any and all documents
referring to, relating to or reflecting die meeting: and
d. Describe what, if assy, action said official, Defendant, any predecessor or any related company took in response to such knowledge, notice, information or understanding.
ANSWER:
Page 47 of "7 No. 95A SA U J.1T
See Response to Plaintiff s Manufaetuier interrogatory No, 73. INTERROGATORY NO. 75:
As to any knowledge or information referred to in interrogatories 73-74, did Defendant, at am time, educate or inform its employees, distributors, purchasers or any persons working in the vicinity where any asbestos-containing product was being applied or installed as to the hazards known to Defendant or about which Defendant had information, and as to the safety precautions necessary to guard against cancer and other diseases arising from the use and handling o f the products identified in response to interrogatory No. 16?
ANSWER: See Responses to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatories No. 58 and 73.
INTERROGATORY NO. 76: '
If your answer to Interrogatory No. 75 is "Yes.*' identify each such occasion on which
Defendant so educated or informed its employees, distributors or purchasers, as follows:
a.
Identify the persons or parlies which you educated or informed;
b. State when, where and in what manner they were educated or inlimned;
c. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the
`
communication or other dissemination of such information; and
d. Identify any and all persons who so educated or informed said employees, distributors, purchasers or persons working in the vicinity of application or
who participated in the same in any way. including, but mu limited to. assembling, drafting, writing, rewriting, preparing or com eying such information in an;, format.
ANSWER:
'
See Responses to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatories No. 58 and 7.3.
'
Page 48 of 77 No. 45 AS-VLUTl
INTERROGATORY NO, 77:
f3id Defendant 01 an- pjedecessur entity perform. direct to he performed, finance in whole or
in part, sponsor in whole or in pan or receive the results- of. any studies or tests concerning the
relationship between asbestos exposure and asbeslosts, cancer and/or mesothelioma?
ANSWER:
'
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. 78:
If your answer to interrogatory No. 77 is "Yes?' with respect to each such study or test:
a. ' State the nature o f the involvement (performed, directed it to be
.
performed, financed, sponsored, received results, etc.);
b. State when, where and at what intervals said study was performed;
.c. Identify any and all persons, firms or entities which performed said study;
d. identify any and all documents referring to, relating or reflecting said .study
or the results thereof; and
*"
'
e. State all means by which the results o f said study were disseminated including,
if applicable, publication; and identify any and all persons who received said
results and any and all publications in which said results appeared.
'
ANSWER:
See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 77, Not applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO, 79:
.
Did Defendant ai any time during the period that the products listed tn response to
Interrogatory No. 16 were manufactured, sold, applied or installed, inform any purchaser or user of
said products that such products could cause cancer, asbestosas. author other serious diseases?
Page 49 of 7?
No. 95"ASALLLIT
'
ANSWER: Sec Response to Hamuli Manuiaeturer Interrogatory No. 58. Not applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO. 80:
'
Did Defendant am predecessor or any related company, or any workers' compensation
insurance carrier thereof, ever have any claims for lung diseases or death from lung disease, whether
directly or indirectly attributed to asbestos, mesothelioma, lung cancer, or exposure to asbestos-
containing products?
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: No workers' compensation claims involving an alleged asbestos-related injury has been filed against Azrock relating to an employee's exposure or handling o f a finished floor covering product manufactured by Azrock. With respect to finished floor covering products, Azrock has received claims for alleged personal injuries beginning in approximately l<>80.
INTERROGATORY NO. 81: if your answer to original Interrogatory number 80 was "Yes," please provide the following
information for each and every employee of the defendant, predecessor or related company with such a claim. If the claimant was a non-employee, please provide the information for the first 100 cases of which the defendant had notice. .
a. Identify the claimant; b. Identify the entity against which the chum was tilled, c. State the date upon which the claim was filed: d. List the locoiion(s) at which claimant was exposed to asbestos:
Page 50 af 77 No. 95 A.SALL.UT
c. Identify each and every board, administrative body, commission or court which handled or reviewed said claim and state tire state the style and cause number applicable to said claim before each such body;
f.
identify the disease alleged by claimant:
g. State the final disposition o f the claim including any and all benefits paid, and the entity making such payments;
h. If different from the date on which the claim was filed, state the date on which defendant first had notice of the claim; and
i. . Identify any and all documents referring to. relating to or reflecting
said claim.
'
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to (he discovery o f admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left Defendant's facilities. Defendant further objects to (g) as to benefits paid on the grounds it is irrelevant, and many o f the settlement values are confidential
INTERROGATORY NO. 82:
How many past or present employees o f Defendant, its predecessors or related companies arc-
known by you to be suffering from, to have suffered from, or to have suffered deaths caused by:
a.
Asbestosis?
b. Lung Cancer?
c.
Mesothelioma?
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome and the information sought is irrelevant to this case and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action
against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left Defendant's
facilities.
Page si of 77 Ni.. 95 A S A L M .IT
INTERROGATORY NO, 83: For each employee referenced in your answer to interrogatory No, 82, stale the date that
Defendant first knew, or had notice or information, that such past or present employee was suffering,,
or had suffered from:
a,
Asbeslosis:
b. Lung Cancer;
e. ' Mesothelioma.
ANSWER: See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 82.
INTERROGATORY NO. 84: identify any and ail material safety data sheets concerning the products listed m response to
Interrogatory No. 16 prepared, at any time, by, or on behalf of, Defendant, any predecessor or any
related company.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It requests data on a variety of products over a fifty year period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: None. Delendant is not subject to the federal regulation concerning the issuance of material safety data sheets for the manufacture of the products previously listed. Furthermore, the federal regulation in question did not become effective until alter Defendant had removed asbestos from its products.
INTERROGATORY NO. 85:
identify an): and ail trade organizations, associations, or other entities, including but not
limited to American Textile Institute (ATI). Asbestos information Association (AIA). Industrial
Health Foundation or industrial Hygiene Foundation ill IF), National Insulation Manufacturers Assn.
(MIMA). National Insulation Contractors Assn. (MICA), National Safety Cmmetl (NSO. American
Page 52 of 77 '
No. 95 ASAI.IJ.IT
Ceramics Society (ACS), National Building Materials Distributors Assn, {NA), Sprayed Mineral
Hber Manufacturers Assn. (SMFMA), Thermal Insulation Manulaeturers Assn. ( IlMA), Quebec
Asbestos Mining Assn. (QAMA), to which Defendant, any predecessor or any related company has
belonged or in which any or all of the same have participated since 1925. and state the applicable
dates,o f such membership or participation.
.
ANSWER:
_ Azroek has been a member of the Resilient Floor Covering Institute and its predecessor
entities since at least the early to mid 1950s; the Producers* Council-of America (from the early 1950s
to unknown); the National Association of Home Builders (from as early as 1959 to unknown); the
Construction Specifications institute (from as early as 1959 to unknown); the National Association
o f flo o r Covering Distributors (from as early as 1978); the Western floor Covering Association (dates unknown); the American floor Covering Association (dates unknown); and the Asbestos
information Association (from 1972 to 1980).
INTERROGATORY NO. 86:
Identify any and all persons attending, on behalf o f Defendant, any predecessor or any related
company, any meetings, seminars or symposiums held by the trade organizations, associations, or other entitles identified in Interrogatory No. 85.
ANSWER:
See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer interrogatory No. 87.
INTERROGATORY NO. 87;
Did any officer, employee, agent or representative of Defendant, of any predecessor, or o f any related company, serve, at any time, as:
a. An officer, director or official of any trade organization, association or e-ntltv ' identified in response to Interrogatory No. 85?
b
A member o f any committee or subcommittee of any trace organization,
association or entity identified in response to Interrogatorv No. 85?
Page- 53 of 77 No. 95 ASALLLIT
' c. The chair of any committee or subcommittee of any trade organization, association or entity identified in response to interrogatory No. 85'.'
d. The representative or liaison for any trade organization, association or entity
identified in response to interrogatory No. 85 to any other 'trade organization,
association or entity, including, but not limited to. A.T.I., I.H.F., NJ.M.A., A.I.A.,
N.I.C.A.. T.I.M.A.," Q.A.M.A., N.A.C.. N.S.C., A.C.S., N.B.M.D.A..
NT.A., S.M.F.M.A.?
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad, beyond the scope o f discovery and not likely to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving die foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: William K. Clark served on the Board o f Directors or wars an officer of the Resilient Floor Covering Institute and its predecessor entities from the mid 1950s to approximately 1968. Mr. Clark was active in the Promotion & Publicity Committee. Distribution Committee. Market Research, and Membership Committee. H.R. Brown and GTI. Alvey also represented Uvalde/Azrock at various times during their tenure. Defendant has no information as to whether or not Mr. Brown or Mr. Alvey attended meetings or were members of any committees or subcommittees.
INTERROGATORY NO. 88: For each subpart of Interrogatory No. 87 to which your answer is "Yes,5" identify each and
every person serving in such capacity and:
a. state the trade organization, association or entity for which such
.
service was rendered:
b. specify the capacity of service, including identifying any specific committee, subcommittee or other trade organizations, associations or entities involved; and,
c. state the applicable dates of service. _
ANSWER: See Response to Plaintiffs" Manufacturer Interrogatory' No. 87. iN I KKRQGATORV NO. 89:
Page 54 of 77 No. 95'AS ALEUT
Identify any and all documents which Defendant, its predecessor!s) or am related company
submitted to, or received from, the organizations listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 85 und/or
88: a.
Which refer to, relate to or reileel the subject of asbestos;
b. Which refer to, relate to or reflect a relationship between asbestos exposure and any disease: and/or
c.
Which refer to, relate to or reflect the placement or providing of
warnings with respect to hazardous products.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly
broad, unduly burdensome and the information, sought is irrelevant to this case and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action
against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left Defendant's
facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows;
Unknown.
INTERROGATORY NO. 90:
'Identify any and all documents including, hut not limited to. minutes, bulletins or reports,
created by, or on behalf of, any trade, organization, association or entity listed in response to
Interrogatory No. 85 and/uv 88 or any committee, subcommittee or subgroup thereof;
a. Which refer to, relate to or reflect the subject of asbestos;
b. Which refer to. relate to or reflect a relationship between asbestos exposure and any disease, or
e.
Which refer to, relate to or reflect the placement or providing of
'
warnings with respect to hazardous products.
ANSWER:
'
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and the information sought is irrelevant to this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in ;lm action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left Defendant's
Page 55 of 77
-
'
No. 95 A S A U .IJ 1
Did Defendant, any predecessor or related company, direct to he performed, sponsor in whole
or in pari, finance in whole or in part, receive the results ol. or become aware ol. any studies or tests
performed by the Saranac Lake Laboratory of the Trudeau Foundation relating to asbestos exposure
and its effects upon human health?
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: No.
INTERROGATORY NO. 93:
If your answer to Interrogatory No. 92 is '"Yes"':
a. Identify any and all documents received by Defendant, its predecessor^), or a related company referring to, relating to or reflecting any findings or results of those studies or tests, and state the date upon which each was first received;
b. Identify any and all communications (oral or written), between Defendant, it's predecessor(s) or a related company and Saranac
_ personnel, including but not limited to Crerrit W. H. Schepers, M.D.;
c. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the Saranac studies received or submitted by Defendant, its predecessor!s) or a related company either directly, through related or predecessor companies, through other companies, or through any trade associations, organizations or other entities; and
d. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting recommendations or findings ol such studies relating to:
(i) Adequacy or inadequacy of threshold limit values:
foil Substitution of materials other than asbestos to be used in the insulation process.
`ANSWER: See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No 92. Not applicable.
l'HSe5~ of 77 No. 95 ASALLLIT
INTERROGATORY NO, 94:
With respect to each subject listed below, state whether said subject was. at any time,
discussed at a meeting of the board of directors of Defendant, any predecessor or any related
company:
a. The sale and/or marketing of any asbestos-containing product, including, but not limited to. the products listed in response to interrogatory No. 16:
b. ' .
The health hazards resulting from exposure to asbestos, including, but not limited to, exposure resulting from the.use, application or removal of asbestos-containing produc Is;
c. The placement or possible placement of warning labels on asbestos
.
containing products or their packages, or in sales literature, therefore
including, but not limited to, the products listed in response to Interrogatory
No. 16: and
d. Any test, survey, study or similar matter concerning asbestos or asbestoscontaining products, including, but not limited to, the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 16.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left Defendant's facilities.
INTERROGATORY NO. 95:
If your answer to any one or more o f the subparts of Interrogatory No. 94 is *"Ycs," then with
respect, to each subpart for which you answered "Yes'':
a. Identify each and every board meeting at which said subject was
discussed by stating the dutefs) on which, and the location(s) at
which, each meeting was held:
.
b. Identify any and all persons present at each such meeting: and.
c. Identify any and all documcnta, including, but nut limited to. minutes, referring to. relating to. or reflecting each such meeting.
Page 58 of 77 *
No. 95 ASAIT.LIT
ANSWER: See Response 10 Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 94.
INTERROGATORY NO. 96:
Identify any and all seminars, symposiums, conferences or like gatherings attended b> any
officer, agent or representative of Defendant. any predecessor or any related company, at which the
subject of asbestos, the health hazards of asbestos exposure, or the placement or providing of
warnings was discussed.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Defendant has no knowledge of any former employees or officers who may or may not have attended meetings as described.
INTERROGATORY NO. 97:
identify any and all documents, including, but not limited to. notes, reports, minutes or
bulletins, which refer to, relate to nr reflect any meeting identified in response to Interrogatory No.
96.
ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that ii is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action again*.! Defend?,! pertain, to finished floor covering products alter such products left Defendants facilities. Subject la and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Defendant has no knowledge of any documents as described.
INTERROGATORY NO. 98:
Page 59 of Y7 No. 95 ASALLLH
With respect to each job site within 200 miles of Madison County and/or identified by any
plaintiff (who has asserted claims against this defendant) i, identify any and all documents referring
!o, relating to or reflecting the purchase, sale, delivery, use. application or ordering, of ariv of the
products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 16 by. for, to or at said site; and, (ii) identify any and ail persons known by Defendant to have knowledge concerning the same;
' ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly
broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discover}1of admissible
evidence. Defendant also objects to the area specified above as to vagueness and burdensome to
determine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
Most paper documentation for the period prior to October 4, 1982, the date Defendant last
manufactured asbestos containing products, has been destroyed in accordance with its records
retention policy based on the federal government's guidelines for records retention. For sales prior to
October 4, 1982, the only documents defendant maintained was microfilm dating from approximately
the late 1950s to sometime during the 1980s. Remaining records arc maintained in Houston, Texas. "
All sales were performed at Azroek's place o f business iri San Antonio, Texas and were made to
wholesale distributors. Defendant has no direct knowledge of what sales its distributors may or may
not have made.
"
INTERROGATORY NO. 99:
Identity any and all parties, located within a 200 mile radius of Madison County, Illinois,
including, but not limited to, distributors, suppliers or contractors, known by you to have purchased,
received, sold, distributed, applied or otherwise used, at anytime, any or all o f the products listed in
response to interrogatory No. 16.
.
ANSWER:
See Response to IMaintiiTs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 36.
INTERROGATORY NO. 100:
Page 0 of T No. 95 ASALUJT
Other than eases identified in interrogatory numbers 80 ami 81, has defendant, am
predecessor or any related company, ever appeared as a party in any lawsuit involving a claim m
claims based upon allegations o f property damage or seeking recovery o f the costs of abatement from
the use, application, installation or presence of asbestos or asbestos-containing products?
ANSWER:
,
Objection, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff does not raise any property damage claim.
INTERROGATORY NO. 101:
If your answer to interrogatory No. 100 is "Yes," identify each such lawsuit as follows:
a. Identify the plaintiffs);
b. Identify all other defendants;
c.
State when and where the case was filed;
d. Identify each court in which the case was heard or is pending, including appeals, and state the style and cause number of the ease in each court; and.
. e. State the current status of the case if it remains pending or. if the case has been disposed of. state the final disposition.
ANSWER;
See Response to Manufacturer interrogatory No. KXL
IN IERROGATORY NO. 102: In any lawsuit, as described in Interrogatory numbers 80. 81, 100, and 101. has Defendant
been subject to sanctions, a contempt citation or similar action for failing, or refusing to comply with.
* Page 61 of 77 No. 95 ASlJ..IT
any court order, tor discovery fraud, or for the failure to provide complete, accurate and truthful responses to discovery?
ANSWER: No.
INTERROGATORY NO. 103:
'll vour answer to Interrogatory No, 102 is "Yes," with respect to each such occasion described:
a.
Identify the lawsuit involved, the court which imposed the sanctions
or issued the contempt citation, and any other court which reviewed
the same;
h.
Describe the violation for which sanctions or contempt was imposed;
c.
If the violation involved the failure or refusal to produce any documont(s),
identify any and all such documents;
d- If the violation involved any failure to truthfully answer or to respond to . interrogatories, identify any and ail such interrogatories and your response thereto, including the person answering on your behalf;
e.
State the present status or final disposition of the matter, whichever is
applicable; and,
f.
Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting
said matter, including, hut not limited to. pleadings, exhibits and court
orders.
ANSWER:
.
See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No, 102.
INTERROGATORY NO. 104:
Page 62 of 7? No. 95 ASALLUT
in an) lawsuit involving a claim or claims based, upon allegations u f injury, impairment
disease oj death allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos, has any document or conversation as to
which the defendant, any predecessor or related company, asserted the attorney/eliem privilege been
held by any court to be not privileged on the basis of the crime/fiaud exception?
'
ANSWER:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. 105;
If your answer to Interrogatory No. 104 is ~Yes," identify any and all such documents or conversations described, and with respect to each;
a. Identify all persons whose actions were held to constitute a crime or
.
fraud:
b. State the current status of the court's determination; and,
e. State whether you assert the privilege with respect to disclosing the document or conversation in this case.
ANSWER:
See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer interrogatory No. 104.
INTERROGATORY NO. 106: Identify any and all expert witnesses who have testified on behalf of the defendant, anv
predecessor oj dated company, in the last ten years in any lawsuits involving a claim or claims based upon allegation:* of injury, impairment, disease or death caused by exposure to asbestos, or a claim or claims based upon allegations of property damage from the use, application, installation ur presence of asbestos or ashe.sto-S-cumaining products, or issues of insurance coverage for anv claims
Page 63 of 77 No. 45 A SA lJJ.IT
of personal injury or property damage arising out of the exposure to. use of. application of.
installation of. or presence of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. ANSWER:
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of discovery.
INTERROGATORY NO. 107:
Identify any and ail present or former directors, officers, employees, or agents of defendant,
any predecessor or related company, who have testified in any manner whatsoever including a
discovery or evidence deposition, or in a trial, in the last 20 years on behalf o f or against the
defendant, any predecessor, or related company, in any lawsuits involving a claim or claims based
upon allegations of personal injury or property damage caused by exposure to, the use of. the
application of. the installation of. or the presence o f any asbestos or asbestos-containing product,
other than persons who testified as plaintiffs in their own cases. Specifically included within the
scope of this request are any suits involving the issue of insurance coverage for claims o f personal
injury or property damage resulting from the exposure to, the use, application, installation or presence
o f asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
AN S W E R :
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome and on the grounds that the information sought is no! reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished Hnor covering products after such products left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving tire foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows; For the time period requested, the following individuals have testified by deposition; Calvin A. Robertsuo. Richard Sieve Zaruba. Henry A. Carrington. Mandeep Sekhon, C Wayne Crow, Frank Dolan and Joseph Jared.
INTERROGATORY NO. 108:
Page M of 17
No. 9$ ASALLUI
identify any and ail present or former directors, officers, employees, or agents of ihe
defendant, any predecessor or arty related company, other than persons appearing as atlver.se panics,
who hve testified against the defendant, any predecessor, or any related company in the last 20
years, in any proceeding involving the subject ol asbestos, including, hut nol limited to, workers*
compensation hearings, or any hearing before any governmental body.
ANSWER:
.
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as o ve rly broad, unduly burdensome and on the grounds that the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery- of admissible evidence. The oniy relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: None,
INTERROGATORY NO. 109:
With respect to your answers to interrogatory numbers 106, 107. and !08, identify any and all
documents, including but not limited to. transcripts or notes o f testimony, referring to. relating to or
reflecting the testimony of such expert witnesses or employees, directors, officers, or agents.
ANSWER:
Objection.'Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought is vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant incorporates its objections to Interrogatories No. 106. 107 and i 08. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Deposition transcripts o f individuals identified in Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 107.
INTERROGATORV NO. 110: lias Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, ever-been cited, warned, fhied.
sanctioned or otherwise officially written up for, any violations oi a federal, state or focal statute, rule, ordinance, code, administrative order, executive order, or the like, by any federal, state or local governmental en?jr w hich vio latio n concerned asbestos in any w ay?
Page (>5 of No. 95 ASAJXL1T
ANSWER:
_
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information
so u g h tjs not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. The onlv relevant
issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such"products
left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant
responds as follows: No. as to finished asbestos-containing products.
INTERROGATORY NO. i l l :
if your answer to Interrogatory No. 110 is "Yes." with respect to each such violation:
a. ^ Identify the governmental entity issuing the citation, warning, fine,
' sanction or write-up;
.
b. State the date of the citation, warning, fine, sanction or write-up:
c. Describe the violation and state the date(s) during which it occurred;
d. Identify the statute, law, rule, ordinance, code or order to which the violation related:
Slate what, if any, specific fine, penalty, or sanction was imposed:
State the date in which and the manner in which said violation was ' corrected;
Ment iy any and all officials o f Defendant, its predecessor or its related company having knowledge or notice of said violation and state the date on which said knowledge or notice was received; and,
i.
Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said
violation.
"
"
ANSWER:
.
See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 110. Noi applicable. INTERROGATORY N O , 112:
Has any federal, state or local government entity, at any time, conducted any inspection. test
or survey concerning asbestos or asbestos exposure at any facility where the products listed in
response to Interrogatory No. 16 were manufactured, processed, applied, used or remox ed? Page <f>of 77
No. 95 ASALLIT!
ANSWER:
.
Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information
sought it relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the
only relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products alter
such products left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections
Defendant responds as follows: Yes.
'
INTERROGATORY NO. ilto
if your answer to Interrogatory No, 112 is '"Yes." then with respect to each such inspection,
test or survey:
.
a. Identify the governmental entity conducting the same; b. State the datc(s) on which the same was conducted;
c. Describe the nature of the inspection, test or survey including, but not limited to. the results or conclusions thereof: and.
d. identify any and all documents referring to. relating to or reflecting
the same.
^
ANSWER:
'
.
. . Objection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory cm the grounds that the information sought
Is itrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only
relevant issues in this action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such
products left Defendant's facilities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections.
Defendant responds as follows: No governmenful entity has conducted tests of Defendant's facility as
to finished floor covering products.
'
INTER R O G A TO R Y NO. 114: Identify:
a, Any expert whom you intend to call as a witness;
h. This subject mailer on which the expert is expected to iesiify:
c. 1he substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is
expected to testify;
.
Page 67 of 77 No. 95 ASALLOT
d. A summary of the grounds for'each opinion;
c. The address of such person and Held o f expertise;
f.
Identify and produce each treatise, article or text upon which
the expert will rely in testifying.
ANSWER:
Unknown at this time. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this Response.
INTERROGATORY NO. 115:
Arc there any policies o f insurance which provide, or might provide, coverage on behalf of
Defendant, any predecessor or any related company for the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs' complaints?
ANSWER:
At one point in time Defendant had the benefit of some primary coverage that is nc> longer available to satisfy any judgment. From 1972 to 1983. primary-' coverage was issued by Employers Casualty Company which was declared insolvent in 1994. From 1983 to 1985. primary coverage was issued by Western Employers Insurance Company, which was declared insolvent in 1991." From 1985-1986 primary coverage was issued by North American Insurance Company of California which exhausted its limits in 1996, First layer excess coverage for the policy period 1985-1986 was issued by Guaranty National insurance Company which denied coverage in 1998. The resolution of the dispute seeking a declaration o f GNIC's coverage obligations occurred in 2006 and called tor GNIC to reimburse Defendant lor certain past defense costs and indemnity payments and to make available only a limited amount for future liabilities. Defendant has been attempting to resolve issues relating to its other excess, coverage also. AH insurance policies after July 1986 contain asbestos exclusions and, therefore, arc not available to satisfy any judgment. As additional information becomes available ihir. response will be supplemented.
INTERROGATORY NO. 116;
If your answer to Interrogatory No. 115 is " Yes," identity each such policy of insurance as
follows;
a Identify the insure s);
b. Identify the insurcd(s);
Page 68 of 77 No. 95 ASALUTT
c.
Slate the date on which the policy was first purchased and the
date on which Ihc policy expired or was terminated;
d. Describe the coverage provided, including, but not limited to, the time period over which the policy applied, the nature o f the acts, omissions and injuries covered, and whether the policy provides primary or excess coverage; and
c.
State the dollar limits of the coverage provided, including, if
applicable, the "per person'"limitations and "per occurrence"
limitation.
A N S W E R :
See Response to Plaintiffs" Manufacturer interrogatory No. 115.
INTERROGATORY NO. 117:
With respect to each policy described in response to Interrogatory No. 116, state:
a. The dollar amount of coverage which remains unexpended; and
b. Whether any dispute exists between insurer and insured with respect to coverage.
ANSWER:
'
.
See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer interrogatory No. 115.
INTERROGATORY NO. 118:
Other than the policies of insurance described in response u> Interrogatory No. 116, do there exist any agreements providing for the benefit o f Defendant, any predecessor or any related company. complete or partial indemnification for any or ail expenses incurred with respect to aav or ailI of these
cases, including but not limited to, judgments, settlements, costs, experts' lees ttnd/or &ttorw s ices,1
ANSWER:
'
Page 60 of No. 95 ASA 1T U T
See Response to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 115.
INTERROGATORY NO. 119:
If >our answer to Interrogatory No. 18 is "Yes," for each such agreement:
a.
identify ail parties to die agreement and state the capacity of
each such parly (Le. indemnitor, indemnitee, etc.);
b.
State the terms of the agreement, including the nature of the
expenses covered and. if applicable, any limitations on payment.
. reimbursement or indemnification; and
'
c.
identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or refecting
said agreement.
ANSWER;
See Response to Plaintifs' Manufacturer Interrogatory No. 118.
INTERROGATORY NO. 120: .
Was the Defendant ever allowed to use the trademark or logo of any other company, including
hut not limited to, its predecessor or related company, on any products Defendant sold, distributed or installed, and if so please .slate:
a. The trademark or logo used by you;
b.
Ore company allowing such use of its trademark or logo;
e.
The time period such use was allowed;
VI hether such use was by written, verbal or implied agreement:
Each and every product such trademark or logo was placed upon;
Identify all documents which refer to, relate to or refect the use
of such trademark or logo
'
Page 71) of 77 No. 95ASALLLIT
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 121:
j 10m 940 to present, state whether Defendant and/or any predecessor or related company ever provided worker's compensation, health, accident and disability and/or life insurance coverage for its employees, and if so:
a. identify each insurance carrier which provided worker's compensation,
health, accident and disability and/or life insurance coverage to your
.
employees and the dates such coverage was provided by each such carrier;
b. State whether such insurance carrier(s) ever conducted any dust counts or
studies, industrial hygiene surveys or other tests relating to any asbestos-
containing.products that Defendant's employees may have been working
with or around; and.
"
c. .
your response to subpart b. hereof is in the affirmative, please indicate
the date of each such count, study, survey or other test and identify all
documents relating thereto.
ANSWER:
Objection, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO, 122:
.
Is the defendant, any predecessor or related company, claiming any document responsive to
any interrogatory or any request for production filed by French & Mudd as being protected from disclosure because of a privilege claimed for any reason? if ves, pleas-c list each document being claimed as protected from disclosure in a pfiviless.* loe providing the date of the document, the . identity ol flic author, what individual or entity the document was addressed to, the identity of anv individuals or entities provided copies of the document, a brief description of the nature of tht document, and the particular privilege claimed as shielding the document from disclosure.
Page 71 of 77
No. 95 A8LLL1T
ANSWER: No.
INTERROGATORY NO. 123:
Describe each and every document that defendant intends to use as an exhibit at trial
(Providing an exhibit list in lieu o f an answer is an acceptable response).
' ANSWER:
.
Unknown at this time. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this Response.
INTERROGATORY NO. 124?
State whether this defendant has ever generated reports in compliance with the Asbestos Information Act of 1988. Pub. L, 100-577, 15 U.S.C. Section 2607 and if so for each such document, please state:
a. The date .said documents were generated and filed;
b.
1he location of any copies of said reports under the control of
this defendant;
c.
1he location of any draft reports, memos or any other notes
concerning the preparation of said reports; and"
d.
The name, address and phone number of the individual having
custody and control of each said report,
_
MSW ER:
Objection. Defendant objects on the grounds that this interrogator is vague, overly broad undu y burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to the subject matterA s not reasonable calculated to lean to the discovery o f admissible evidence, and is without reasonable limitation and scope, i he only relevant issues m this action against Defendant pertain to finished floor covering products after such products left D e fen d a n t facilities. Subject to and without waiving the ioregoA
objections. Defendant responds as follows; investigation js continuing. Defendant reserves t h A i A to supplement this response.
Page ~2 of 77 No. 95 A S A L I.EH
INTERROGATORY n o . 125:
II the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the negative, please state whether any
documents, memos, notes or any other writing exist describing or memorializing the research and
decision whether or not to generate or file any report as required by the said Act and if so for each
such document please state:
a.
I he date said document was generated:
b.
The location of said documents; and,
c* Thc nainc/address and phone number of Die individual(s) having custody and control o f each said document.
ANSWER:
` See Response to Manufacturer Interrogatory N'o. 124
INTERROGATORY NO. 126:
identity any and all parties or entities which have supplied, distributed, and/or applied any of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to interrogatory No. 16. For such parlies '' entities:
a. Identify the name(s) of the supplier(s}/dLstributor(s): h. Provide the last known addrcss(es) of the suppliers )/distributor(s): e. Provide the dates which the suppiiert'sj/distributoris) supplied, distributed or
applied the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 16, ANSWER:
_
Domco objects to this interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad,
irrelevant unduly burdensome, ambiguous, and not appropriately limited in scope, Domco further objects that a response to this interrogatory would impose undue burden and 'tpeose upon Dmtieo unless and until Plaintiffs satisfy the fundamental burden o f identifying c
Page 73 of ??
No. h5 A S A L L U T
product manufactured by Dornco to which Plaintiffs were allegedly exposed, the date of such
alleged exposure, the location o f such alleged exposure and the circumstances of such alleged
exposure.
'
r /
l|Ctli Kamp Veaur 6186523 Sandra Cook #6288089 BROWN & JAMES. P.C. Richland Plaza 1 525 West Main Street Suite 200 Beileville. Illinois 62220 (618)235-5590 (618) 355-5159 (fax)
Attorneys for Defendant DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS INC.
Page 74 of 77 No. 95"ASAL L U T
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
tlio undersigned, on the
- # day of
t , 2012 at 5pm,
deposited a copy o f this document, postage prepaid, b the United States Mail, addressed to; Maime
Raiehie Hartley french & Model One Metropolitan Square, 2! f North Broadway. #2940, St, 1,satis,
Missouri 63102 Responses of Domco Products Texas Inc. to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer interrogatories.
Under penalties of perjury as provided hv law, I certify that the statements in this affidavit are true,
i/ -O k k .
-V ,k -
9914069
Page 75 of 77
No. 95 ASVTLUT
Cause No.; <->5AS ALL Li f
linder
penal sics
of
perjury
as
provided
by "
la4w,
r
/Belli Kamp Veaib tfb 186521 Sandra Cook *6288089 BROWN & JAMFS, P.C. Richland Plaza I 525 West Main. Suite 2(H) Belleville. Illinois 62220-1547 (618)235-5590 (618} J>5-5 i5l) (Asbestos Fax)
Attorneys For Defendant Domeo Products Texas Inc.
AFFIDAVIT OF SEKVICT
.
i &X
;7
I- the undersigned, on the ^ __ day of [ ,1a
/
i
_ , 2012. at 5:00 p,m,,
deposited a eop> of ibis document, postage prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed to:
Mmme Raich Je Hartley French & Mudd. LLC, One Metropolitan Square. 211 Nortli Broadw'av.
#2940. St. Fouls. MO 63102 and via LexisNe,ri.vto defense attorneys.
Under penalties of perjury as provided by law. 1 certify that the statements in thU aillda\ it are true.
-ytPyJTO
/"~~is/\ ...
x..,/ `LUd
\;-.4'f
{/ .i'*V/i
Page 2 o f 2