Document ZnJNgd6mmyJLBzvm2M99Jy4LL

FORMAN PERRY WATKINS KRUTZ& TARDY, pllc ATTORNEYS AT LAW Kyle C. Steele Direct Dial: 214-678-5548 EMPIRE CENTRAL WOODVIEW OFFICE TOWER SUITE 400 DALLAS, TEXAS 75247 TELEPHONE: (214)905-2924 FACSIMILE: (214)905-3976 E-MAIL: dcsteelefefpwk.com March 27, 200 Ben DuBose Baron & Bud 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 VIA COURIER NO. RE: No. CC-99-08033; Malcom Murphy, et al. v. Owens Corning, et al. Dear Ben: Please find attached the 1st Supplemental Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories Propounded to Defendants in the above-referenced case. These responses should cover all the issues we discussed during our conference two weeks ago. I am working on providing you copies ofphotos ofname plates/logos ofvarious Zum/Erie City Boilers. I can agree to provide those to you within the next 7-10 days. Please contact me after you have had a chance to review these responses. Sincerely, KCS/dd Enclosure Kyle C. Steele Attorney for Zum Industries, Inc. No. CC-99-08033-B MALCOM LEE MURPHY, JR and ANNETTE HARBERT MURPHY and WILLIAM H. MURPHY and MALCOM LEE MURPHY, HI, Plaintiffs, VS. OWENS CORNING (a/k/a OWENS CORNING CORPORATION), et al., Defendants. IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS IN RE: ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED OR TO BE FILED IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 68TH DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANT ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC.'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANTS TO: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD. ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC., (individually and as successor-in-interest to Erie City Iron Works) hereinafter referred to as "Zum," a Defendant in various asbestos cases filed in Dallas County, files the attached First Supplemental Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs' Master Set of Interrogatories. Respectfully submitted, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, PLLC 400 Woodview Tower 1349 Empire Central, Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75247 (214) 905-2924 (214) 905-3976 Telefax DallasYMalcom Murphy 1st supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd *--n I r By: r-yg-L KYLE C. STEELE SEN: 00791722 -X CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent to counsel for Plaintiffs by certified mail, return receipt requested, and a copy of the cover page only to all other known counsel of record by regular mail, on this l^day of , 2001. " K a ( ....-vx, KYLE d. STEELE DallasVMalcom Murphy P' supplemental answers-objections to master, wpd GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Zum objects to these discovery requests on the grounds that they are overly broad and beyond the scope of product identification in this litigation. 2. Zum also objects to the form, as well as the vague, ambiguous and compound nature of many of the discovery requests, in addition to the false predicates contained herein. 3. Many of the questions call for expert opinion and narrative answers not proper for these discovery requests. Zum asserts that the expert opinions and the basis of the opinions are known to Plaintiffs' attorneys from disclosure of such opinions in this case and others. These discovery requests are therefore calculated to be duplicative and harassing. 4. Zum objects on the grounds these discovery requests are unduly burdensome. 5. Zum objects to any discovery request which implies or assumes that Plaintiffs actually have an asbestos-related injury. The burden of proof is on the Plaintiffs to prove that they have asbestos-related disease, and Zum has a constitutional right to deny the same. 6. Zum objects to any discovery request which requests information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 7. Zum objects to the "Definitions" preceding these discovery requests to the extent they attempt to redefine the meaning of the terms listed as found in the Rules of Civil Procedure or commonly accepted English usage. Zum has responded to this discovery on the assumption that the terms used therein are to be given their usual and customary meaning and objects to any attempt to force the use of some other standard. 8. Zum objects to Plaintiffs' discovery requests for the reason that they, and their subparts, exceed the maximum number allowable under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding these objections and in the spirit of cooperation, Zum will provide answers to these interrogatories subject to and without waiving said objection. 9. Zum objects to Plaintiffs' discovery requests to the extent they seek information from its present or former attorneys that is privileged or work product. Defendant further objects to the extent these discovery seek disclosure of any information or material that is subject to the attomey/client privilege, work-product privilege, investigative privilege, consulting expert privilege, party communications privilege, joint defense privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. 10. Zum objects to the extent Plaintiffs' discovery requests seek information or material pertaining to alleged injuries or damages other than of the character allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs in this specific case on the ground that such information is not relevant to any issue in these cases and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Dallas\Malcom Murphy Is' supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd 11. Zum objects to the extent these discovery requests seek information prior or subsequent to the date of Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to Defendant's product(s), as such information is not relevant to any issue in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 12. Zum objects to the extent that these discovery requests seek information that includes proprietary information and trade secrets. Information that identifies trade secrets will be redacted from any documents produced. 13. Zum objects to the extent that these discovery requests seek information or documents which, due to the passage of time or other reasons, are not in the possession, custody or control of Zum. Such requests call for documents or information outside the scope of permissible discovery. 14. Zum objects to the extent that these discovery requests require Zum to provide information which is equally available to Plaintiffs as it is to Zum or seek information in the public domain or in published medical or scientific literature. 15. Zum objects to any definition within these requests that purports to require response on behalfofany entity other than the corporation on which process in this action was served or to require the provision of information and documents regarding predecessors and divisions that are not relevant to this litigation. Zum's answers are limited to those divisions and predecessors which manufactured or supplied the boiler products believed to be at issue herein which may have contained component parts that had some asbestos content. 16. Zum objects to these requests insofar as the information sought is not limited in time or to activities that transpired in a geographical area to which the Plaintiffs asserting claims against Zum would have had contact. Zum objects to those requests that request information and documents regarding the ultimate sale or distribution of products other than to job sites where Plaintiffs worked and which may not lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence regarding product shipments that may have been utilized at job sites where Plaintiffs are claiming exposure. Information sought regarding other sales or distribution ofthis Defendant's products are irrelevant and immaterial. Moreover, there is no allegation that the alleged exposure of Plaintiffs is to any specifically identified asbestos-containing product of Zum. Thus, the discovery sought is irrelevant to the subject matter ofthe pending litigation, is burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Plaintiffs' discovery should be limited to specifically identified products to which asbestos exposure is claimed at a specific job site during a relevant time frame. 17. In light of the breadth of Plaintiffs' inquiries and the fact that information is sought for a virtually unlimited time period, it is essentially impossible for this Defendant to conduct a complete search for the information sought. Even a limited search will be prejudicially time consuming and costly. Therefore, this Defendant objects to these requests on such grounds. In searching for information and documents responsive to these Requests, this Defendant has undertaken searches of its files that appear reasonably calculated to contain documents, if documents exist, relevant to the facts of this action. DallasVMalcom Murphy 1st supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd All of these objections are incorporated by reference and adopted as to each and every discovery request contained herein, and are specifically alleged as set forth in the responses to Plaintiffs' individual Interrogatories. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These responses apply equally to Zurn Industries, Inc., individually and as successor-ininterest to Erie City Iron Works. Plaintiffs' Interrogatories concern events which occurred years ago. Because much of the information relates to events of many years ago, it is difficult, if not impossible, for this Defendant to retrieve or reconstruct much of the requested information. Many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge ofthe matters to which Plaintiffs' discovery relate are deceased or otherwise unavailable to Defendant, and investigations to date indicate that at least some information and documents that might relate to matters inquired into by Plaintiffs' discovery may have been destroyed pursuant to normal document retention policy or are otherwise unable to be found. Defendant is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate or confirm the absence of such information or documents and is in a continuing investigation with respect to the matters inquired into by Plaintiffs' discovery. The responses are believed to be accurate as of the date of filing, but Zum's investigation of the underlying facts is continuing. If further discovery of additional facts adds meaning to the known facts or establishes new factual conclusions or legal contentions, these responses will be supplemented ifrequired by applicable law. Thus, the following responses are made without prejudice to Zum's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts Zurn may later recall. Zum accordingly reserves the right to amend or supplement any and all responses herein, if permitted or required by applicable law, as additional facts are ascertained, or as the contentions of the plaintiffs herein may be discovered or amended. Furthermore, these Responses are given without prejudice to this Defendant's right to rely at trial on subsequently discovered information or on information inadvertently omitted from these Responses as a result of mistake, error or oversight. To the extent information contained herein differs in any material respect from any prior responses to this or other discovery, these responses shall be deemed to update and supersede such prior responses to the extent they may be inconsister Zum was a manufacturer of industrial steam generating equipment that was primarily sold to knowledgeable and sophisticated commercial customers. Zum does not concede that its boilers were "asbestos-containing products." Neither Zum, nor any company it controlled, purchased or acquired, ever mined, milled or sold raw asbestos. Neither Zum, nor any company it controlled, purchased or acquired, ever made or manufactured asbestos-containing thermal insulation products. Certain Zum boiler products may have had components that contained asbestos-containing products manufactured by others. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs claim exposure to asbestos-containing components of boiler products formerly manufactured and sold by Zum or its predecessor entities. As such, Zum's Responses apply only within that scope and context. DallasVMalcom Murphy 1st supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd Zum's responses are limited to those divisions and predecessors which manufactured or supplied the boiler products believed to be at issue herein, which may have contained component parts that had some asbestos content. Plaintiffs' discovery requests are addressed to a corporation which has no independent knowledge of much of the information supplied in these responses. Zum Industries, Inc. refers to and is limited to the officers and directors of Zum Industries, Inc. and those Zum Industries, Inc. or Erie City Iron Works employees or agents who the Company believes are responsible for and who are in possession ofcorporate documents or information that is responsive to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. The information supplied in these responses is based on the knowledge ofZum's employees and authorized agents regarding the products believed to be at issue in this litigation and the individual attesting to the responses may not have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein. The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as is currently available, but in no way should prejudice Zum in relation to further discovery, research, or analysis. Zum incorporates by reference this preliminary statement into each answer to each Interrogatory replied to herein. FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant of each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: Zurn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it requests information protected by the attorney/client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Moreover, the Defendant states that it compiled the information in these responses from various sources over a period of years in relation to litigation in other jurisdictions, so this Defendant is unable to identify all persons providing information herein. Without waiving said objection and without prejudice to this Defendant, the individuals who have been primarily responsible for providing the information in these discovery responses are Theodore C. Fuhrman, Chief Engineer, Aalborg Industries, Inc., 5300 Knowledge Parkway, Suite 200, Erie, PA 16510, Theodore Morad, Jr., Assistant Manager, Customer Service, Aalborg Industries, Inc., 5300 Knowledge Parkway, Suite 200, Erie, PA 16510 and Robert Seibel, Consultant, RMR Technical Services, Inc., 5650 Gardner Drive, Erie, PA. Moreover, Zurn reserves the right to amend these answers on the basis of any further DallasVMalcom Murphy 1st supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd information obtained through any sources during discovery in this way or any other civil action pending against this Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time manufactured or sold. ANSWER: Zurn objects on the grounds that this Interrogatory is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and requests information which is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Zurn responds that it did not enter the boiler business until it purchased Erie City Iron Works in 1966. Erie/Zurn was a manufacturer of industrial steam generating equipment that was primarily sold to knowledgeable and sophisticated commercial customers. Certain Erie/Zurn boilers, during certain time frames, may have incorporated asbestos-containing thermal insulation, refractory and/or sealing components. Erie/Zurn manufactured and sold various types of industrial steam generating boilers, which were typically customized to the purchaser's specifications. As such, it is difficult, if not impossible, for Zurn to respond to this Interrogatory in the abstract, absent Plaintiffs providing it with the boiler number of any boiler to which they claim exposure or, at a minimum, without identification of the work site where the boiler was allegedly installed or erected and the date of installation/erection. As such, Zurn is presently able to state generally only that it, or its predecessor, Erie City Iron Works, manufactured various industrial boilers, which were primarily designed for process steam generation. Erie/Zurn did not manufacture boilers for use in ship propulsion or for other marine use. Erie/Zurn did not manufacture large utility/power generation boilers. Erie/Zurn boilers may have been sold under the trade names Erie City Iron Works, Erie City Energy Division, Zurn Energy Division, Keystone or Waste Heat. Erie/Zurn manufactured shop assembled Are tube boilers from the late 1800s until 1978. Erie/Zurn fire tube boiler models included the Economic, built until 1966, the HRT Economic and the FT steel package boiler, built until 1966. Erie/Zurn manufactured water tube boilers from approximately 1900 until the Energy Division of Zurn was sold in 1997. Depending on the model and expected use, Erie/Zurn water tube boilers were packaged, field-erected or sold knocked down. The vast majority of the water tube boilers manufactured and sold were packaged, which included the Keystone package boiler and the VL boiler. Erie/Zurn package boilers were of a size that could be shipped on a rail car. Field-erected boilers included the VC boiler, 2 drum boilers, 3 drum boilers (including the "C" boiler) and 4 drum boilers. Depending on the models and time frames, the boilers may have been solid fuel, oil or gas fired. Some Erie/Zurn boilers may have also utilized waste heat for fuel. Dallas\Malcom Murphy Is1 supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd All Erie/Zurn boilers were manufactured in Erie, Pennsylvania. Depending on the model and time frame, some Erie/Zurn boilers may have contained block and/or blanket insulation and/or cast refractory materials, manufactured by others and utilized by Erie/Zurn "as is," some of which components contained asbestos. On very limited occasions, some of such boilers may have contained small amounts of millboard that may have contained asbestos. On information and belief, all of such components were generally located underneath metal lagging. On information and belief, by the mid-1950s, Erie/Zurn package boilers were insulated with mineral wool or fiberglass. Field-erected boilers were typically insulated by others in the field, generally with materials selected, purchased from and supplied by others. On information and belief, any insulation materials supplied for field-erected boilers from the Erie/Zurn shop from the mid-1950s forward would have been mineral wool or fiberglass. On information and belief, Zurn discontinued the use of any asbestos-containing insulation or cast refractory in the early 1970s. Some Erie/Zurn boilers may also have incorporated asbestoscontaining gaskets and rope materials, manufactured by others and utilized by Erie/Zurn "as is," without material change. On information and belief, such sealing materials were likewise located under the metal lagging and/or otherwise encapsulated. Zurn discontinued the use of such materials as suitable alternatives became available from their manufacturers. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If the answer to one or more of the last three interrogatories is in the affirmative or lists any products, state as to each named product the following: A. As to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. B. The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each product mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. C. sold. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market. E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage of asbestos put in each product. F. The date each of the products was removed from the market and no longer sold or distributed and the reason or reasons therefor. G. The date asbestos was removed from such products, if ever, and the reasons therefor. Dallas\Malcom Murphy ls< supplemental answers-objections to master, wpd H. A description of the physical appearance of each of the named products. I. A detailed description of the intended uses of the named products. J. Identify the last year that you sold each asbestos-containing product. ANSWER: Zurn objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and requests information which is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Zurn responds as follows: See Objection and Response to Interrogatory No. 4. As noted, Zurn Industries, Inc. entered into the boiler business with the purchase of Erie City Iron Works in October 1966. Defendant is not certain as to the date Erie City first began to utilize asbestos-containing components in some of its boiler products, but believes Erie City first began utilizing asbestoscontaining components in some of its steam generating products in the early 1900s. On information and belief, by at least the mid-1950s, Erie's package boilers were insulated with mineral wool or fiberglass insulation. On information and belief, from the mid-1950s forward, if insulation was furnished from Erie's shop for its field-erected boilers, it would likewise have been mineral wool or fiberglass. Neither Zurn nor Erie City manufactured the asbestos containing components which may have been incorporated into some of their products. Therefore, Zurn has little, if any, knowledge as to the composition or asbestos content, percentage or type of asbestos which may have been present in the thermal insulation and sealing products which were incorporated into some of its products. On information and belief, many if not all of such materials contained chrysotile asbestos. Zurn and Erie City steam generating systems were generally designed to the customer's specifications. Therefore, the type and amount of insulation and sealing products used varied depending on the size and temperature requirements. Absent identification of the specific boiler product, if any, to which Plaintiffs claim exposure, Zurn is unable to determine what, if any, asbestos-containing components may have been utilized in any such boiler and, if so, from whom such products may have been purchased. At present, Zurn is able only to state that, at various times, it utilized gasket products manufactured by Durabla, Garlock, Flexitaliic and, perhaps, Anchor Packing, some of which may have contained asbestos and some of which may not It purchased some of such sealing products from Sealing Devices, Inc. and Sullivan Supply Company in Erie, PA, as well as from others presently unknown to Zurn. Likewise, at various rimes, it purchased refractory products manufactured by various companies, including A.P. Green, Harbison Walker, CE Refractories, J.H. France, Johns Manville, Plibrico and Quigley. On information and belief, DallasVMalcom Murphy Is' supplemental ansvvers-objections to master.wpd the majority of such refractory products used did not contain asbestos. Furthermore, insulation products may have also been purchased on occasion from other companies, possibly including Keene, Owens Corning Fiberglas, M. H. Detrick, Armstrong, Forty-Eight Insulations and ACandS. Zum lacks sufficient knowledge or information to determine whether any such products may have contained asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: After releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use of or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products tested and the dates of such tests. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests. C. The results of those tests. D. Whether, as a result of the tests, any products were removed from the market. E. The names of all products removed from the market as a result of these tests. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Zurn states that it presently lacks documents or other information that would enable it to answer this question, but based upon information known or reasonably available to Zurn, there was no reason to conduct any such tests because Zurn did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that were utilized "as is" without material change in certain of its boiler products during certain time frames and had no information to indicate that any asbestos health hazards were posed by its boiler products. Most of such products were located under metal lagging and/or otherwise encapsulated. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Has Defendant or any ofits predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material or [sic] any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of the asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No. 6? If so, state: A. The names of each relevant product. DallasVMalcom Murphy 1st supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd B. The exact wording of each warning statement on each printed material. C. A description of the printed material other than the warning statement. D. The method used to distribute the warning to persons likely to use the product. E. The date each warning was first issued, distributed, or placed on packaging. F. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning. G. The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof. H. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, i.e., the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame or job site. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant responds that the Energy Division of Zurn Industries, Inc. and its predecessor, Erie City Iron Works, manufactured steam generating systems and components. Some of such boiler products, during certain time frames may have incorporated insulation, refractory or sealing materials, some of which components may have contained asbestos during some periods of time. Such products were manufactured by others and utilized by Zurn/Erie "as is," without material change. Most of such material were located underneath metal lagging and/or otherwise encapsulated. Because Defendant did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components utilized in some ofits boiler products during certain time frames, because such products were purchased from others and utilized "as is" without material change, because most ofsuch purchased components were located underneath a boiler jacket and/or otherwise encapsulated and because Defendant had no knowledge that any health hazard was posed by its products, no warnings were believed necessary. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of asbestos comprised of other manufacturers, miners, marketers, and/or sellers of asbestos products? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such association or organization. B. The dates during which Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors were members. DallaslMalcom Murphy 1st supplemental answers-objections to master, wpd C. The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations. D. Whether any of those publications are still in your possession, and if so: 1. A description of the publications, including the date. 2. The current location of such publications. 3. The custodian of such publications. 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections. Defendant is a large, decentralized company and it and its predecessor, Erie City, employed numerous persons over the course of many decades. Defendant's employees may have held memberships in various organizations from time to time, but Defendant has no central repository for information ofthis type. As such, it is impossible for it to identify all organizations to which its employees may have belonged in the past, whether any of its employees attended meetings or received publications from organizations and whether any publications that may have been received by individual employees still exist today. At present, Defendant is only able to state that from time to time. Defendant held memberships in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) since 1886, American Boiler Manufacturers Association (ABMA) since 1889 and the Air Pollution Control Association. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products listed in your answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 were manufactured, assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing, specifying which plants produced each item, the dates each plant is or was in operation, and the time span during which each named item was produced or manufactured. ANSWER: 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 relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant time frame. DallasVMalcom Murphy 1st supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd Subject to and without waiving such objections, all of Defendant's boilers were manufactured at its plant in Erie, Pennsylvania. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes ofmarketing or advertising products containing asbestos? Ifso, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person or entity who prepared such materials. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials and their present location. C. The date the materials were prepared. D. The media used to disseminate the sales materials. ANSWER: 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 relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to relevant product, time frame and job site, if any, involved in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant has very limited literature for some boiler products during limited time frames. If Plaintiffs' will identify with specificity, the specific boiler type and model to which exposure is claimed during an identified time frame, Defendant will determine if it has responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: As to the disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecess< first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease. C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease and/or of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. DallasVMalcom Murphy 1st supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, lacks foundation, is overbroad in scope, and seeks information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant time frame and product. Moreover, it seeks expert medical opinion, which this Defendant is not qualified to render. Defendant defers to the judgment and opinion of its medical expert witnesses on such questions of human diseases, their causes and diagnoses. Further, the Interrogatory does not specify what level or type of exposure is claimed to be at issue. The Interrogatory fails to distinguish between different fiber types and ignores important factors such as differences in the friability of asbestos fibers in different products, different uses of asbestos-containing products, different exposures of individuals at different work sites, engaged in different crafts and the frequency, proximity, regularity and duration of particular exposures. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant did not manufacture the asbestoscontaining components that were utilized "as is" and without material change in certain of Defendant's boiler products during certain time frames. Most of such components were located underneath the boiler jacket and/or otherwise encapsulated. On information and belief, Defendant's boiler products did not release harmful levels of respirable asbestos fibers. Defendant is a corporation, which has employed numerous persons throughout the course of its business, any one of whom may have obtained varying degrees of knowledge regarding asbestos and asbestos-related diseases at varying points in time. When Zurn, as a corporation, obtained any particular ' nowledge cannot be determined. Defendant is generally aware that, depending on the frequency, regularity, proximity' and duration ofparticular exposures to certain levels ofcertain types of friable asbestos fibers, and assuming an appropriate latency period exists and other causes have been excluded, there may be a possible connection between asbestos exposure and certain health effects, including pleural plaques, bilateral pleural thickening, asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. When Defendant first obtained such awareness as a corporate entity cannot be presently determined. At present, it is believed that Defendant became generally aware that certain asbestos exposures might be harmful in the same time frame as did the general public, in the early 1970s. INTERROGATORY NO. 26 As to the disease lung cancer, state: DallasYMalcom Murphy lsl supplemental answers-objections to master,wpd A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. ANSWER: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 25. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: As to pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware ofthe disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. Dallas\Malcom Murphy Is' supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd F. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 25. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. The date on which Defendant first received knowledge that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. C. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. G. Who is the custodian of such information. H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. ANSWER: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 25. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: As to gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The type ofcancer and the date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such diseases were caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. DallasVMalcom Murphy Is' supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd B. What cancers has the Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers? C. The date on which Defendant first received knowledge that these other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated with Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. G. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 25. On information and belief, medical science has not conclusively established a link between all of such cancers and asbestos exposure. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Does Defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactured or designed so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or exposed to them? Ifthe answer is affirmative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys on which this answer is based. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, over broad in scope and seeks information that is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant time frame, job site or product, if any, involved in this litigation. Moreover, it seeks expert medical opinion, which this Defendant is not qualified to render. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant defers to the judgment and opinion of its expert witnesses on matters relating to questions of asbestos fiber release, potential risks, health hazards relating to asbestos and the circumstances of exposure. However, on information and belief, Defendant's boiler products did not release harmful levels of respirable asbestos fibers. Most, if not all, of the asbestos-containing components utilized "as is," without material change in certain of its boiler products during certain time frames, were located underneath metal lagging and/or otherwise encapsulated. Dallas\Malcom Murphy 1st supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Describe in detail the types of packages or packaging which Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies used for asbestos material or products, listing the dates each type of package was used, a physical description of each type of package, and providing a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. ANSWER: 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 relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site, if any, involved in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant manufactured boilers. They were not sold in packages or containers, as such terms are presumably used in this Interrogatory. The size of such equipment precluded packaging it as that term is used and implied in this Interrogatory. Such boilers would have borne an ASME stamp and the Erie City, Zurn, Keystone and/or Waste Heat name plate. Use of the Erie City name was phased out in the early 1970s. The Zurn name was not used on boilers prior to the purchase of Erie City by Zurn. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: List the name and address of each company from which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor purchased materials or asbestos products which Defendant sold or distributed in any form, stating the form of the materials, the dates of such purchases, and the ultimate disposal of such materials. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and requests information which is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site, if any, involved in this litigation. Defendant objects to providing information concerning products to which Plaintiffs do not claim exposure at job sites and times at issue in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant no longer possesses purchase records regarding the asbestos-containing components that may have been utilized "as is" without material change, at some points in time in some of its boilers. The asbestos-containing components purchased for use in some of its boiler products, during certain time frames, were purchased from various manufacturers and suppliers. At present, it is known only that asbestos-containing products may have been supplied by Sullivan Supply Company and Sealing Devices, Inc. in Erie, PA. On information and belief, sealing materials utilized at certain times in certain products may have been DallasVMalcom Murphy Is' supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd manufactured by Garlock, Durabla, Flexitallic and, perhaps, Anchor Packing. Cast furnace refractory materials utilized in some boilers may have been Quigley, including INSULAG and PANELAG. Although asbestos content is unknown, from time to time, refractory was also manufactured or supplied by A.P. Green, CE Refractories, J.H. France, Harbison-Walker, Plibrico, Johns-Manville and others. On information and belief, insulation products may have also been purchased on occasion from other companies, possibly including Keene, Owens Corning Fiberglas, M. H. Detrick, Armstrong, Forty-Eight Insulations and ACandS. Zurn lacks sufficient knowledge or information to determine whether any such products may have contained asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Have Defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed, or contracted or supplied products containing asbestos? If so, for each such entity, state: A. Full and correct name; B. Principal place of business; C. State of incorporation; D. Date of acquisition by Defendant; E. Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in the State of Texas. ANSWER: 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 relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product and time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections, as noted above, Zurn Industries, Inc. entered into the boiler business with the stock purchase of a Pennsylvania corporation, Erie City Iron Works, in October 1966. On July 1,1997, Zurn Industries, Inc.'s Energy Division, which included the former Erie City Iron Works boiler business, was sold to Aalborg Keystone, Inc. Zurn was incorporated in Pennsylvania on January 28, 1932. Its principal place of business is 14801 Quorum Drive, Dallas, Texas 75240. Both it and its predecessor, Erie City, have been authorized to and have conducted business in Texas. DallasYMalcom Murphy Is1 supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Was each of your asbestos products generally expected to reach, or packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? If not, with respect to any such product, explain in what way the Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user. ANSWER: Zurn objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Zurn responds that it sold steam generating equipment of three types, package boilers, field erected boilers and knock down boilers. The insulation, refractory and sealing components in the package boilers were generally expected to reach the customer without substantial change. However, field erected boilers, as that term indicates, were constructed by contractors at the customer's job site. Knock down boilers were shop assembled and then dissembled into large parts and shipped to the job site for erection on site. In most cases, Erie/Zurn did not specify or supply any asbestos-containing insulation, refractory or sealing materials that may have been utilized in the field. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever stamp or place the name of the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any ofits asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the name brand names of such products, a description ofsuch stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product or time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Zurn states that the nameplates attached to its steam generating equipment would have borne an ASME stamp and the Erie City, Zurn, Keystone and/or Waste Heat name plate. Use of the Erie City name was phased out in the early 1970s. The Zurn name was not used on boilers prior to the purchase of Erie City by Zurn. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Has your company, or your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries, ever devised a research plan to develop, or actually developed or had developed, a product which did not contain asbestos and which DallasVMalcom Murphy Is1 supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd could be substituted for one or more of your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date that such research plan was begun and when such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. ANSWER Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product or time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Zurn states that it presently lacks documents or other information that would enable it to answer this question, but based upon information known or reasonably available to Zurn, there was no reason to conduct such research because Zurn did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that were utilized "as is" without material change in certain of its boiler products during certain time frames and had no information to indicate that any asbestos health hazards were posed by its boiler products. Most of such products were located under a boiler jacket and/or otherwise encapsulated. On information and belief, asbestos was removed from insulation and refractory products, by their manufacturers, in the early 1970s. Zurn stopped utilizing asbestos-containing sealing materials, such as composition gaskets, when suitable substitutes became available from their manufacturers. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Please state the following with respect to each expert witness you that you may call during trial of these cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you will call, including: (a) The name, address, and job classification of each such expert witness; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion; (d) Whether any person identified in subparagraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify each such document or report; (e) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above; (f) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. DallasVMalcom Murphy Is' supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent the information sought is beyond the scope of permissible discovery under the Rules. Subject to and without waiving such objections, discovery is continuing and Defendant has not yet determined the identity and expected testimony of any expert witnesses it may call at the trial of this matter. This response will be supplemented in accordance with the Rules and any Scheduling Order entered by the Court. At present. Defendant can only state that it may offer testimony from the following: See experts listed on Attachment A. Dallas\Malcom Murphy 1st supplemental answers-objections to master.wpd EXHIBIT A ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC.'S EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION 1. Theodore C. Furhman Manager, Combustion & Controls Aalborg Industries, Inc. 5300 Knowledge Parkway, Ste. 200 Erie, PA 16510 Mr. Furhman was employed by Zurn Industries, Inc., Energy Division, from 1972 to 1997 and has knowledge of the types of products Defendant and its predecessor manufactured, whether those products contained asbestoscontaining materials as well as being knowledgeable as to the operation, installation, and repair of Zurn's steam generating products. Mr. Furhman may also testify about the types of trades or crafts which may work with Defendant's products. He may further testify concerning the extent of Defendant's knowledge of potential asbestos health hazards. He may also testify regarding corporate history, corporate knowledge and other related issues. 2. Theodore Morad Assistant Manager, Customer Service Aalborg Industries, Inc. 5300 Knowledge Parkway, Ste. 200 Erie, PA 16510 Mr. Morad was employed by Zurn Industries, Inc., Energy Division, from 1967 to 1997 and has knowledge of the types of products Defendant and its predecessor manufactured, whether those products contained asbestoscontaining materials as well as being knowledgeable as to the operation, installation, and repair of Zurn's steam generating products. Mr. Morad may also testify about the types of trades or crafts which may work with Defendant's products. He may further testify concerning the extent of Defendant's knowledge of potential asbestos health hazards. He may also testify regarding corporate history, corporate knowledge and other related issues. 3. Robert Seibel RMR Technical Services, Inc. 5650 Gardner Drive Erie, PA 16509 Mr. Seibel was employed by Zurn Industries, Inc., Energy Division, from 1967 to 1995 and has knowledge of the types of products Defendant and its predecessor manufactured, whether those products contained asbestos- Page 1 of 16 containing materials as well as being knowledgeable as to the operation, installation, and repair of Zurn's steam generating products. Mr. Seibel may also testify about the types of trades or crafts which may work with Defendant's products. He may further testify concerning the extent of Defendant's knowledge of potential asbestos health hazards. He may also testify regarding corporate history, corporate knowledge and other related issues. 4. Juan Carlos Diaz, P.E. President, American Steam, Inc. Post Office Box 1149 Wylie, Texas 75098 Mr. Diaz is President of American Steam, Inc. Mr. Diaz is a registered engineer in the states of Texas and Oklahoma. Mr. Diaz is generally knowledgeable regarding boiler products, including asbestos in boilers, boiler operations and maintenance, boiler functions, inspections and repairs. As such Mr. Diaz is expected to testify on issues relating to boiler installation, operation, repair and maintenance. In his years of work as a boiler maker, Mr. Diaz has had occasion to personally install, repair and maintain a variety of commercial boilers (packaged and field erected) manufactured by a number of boiler companies. Mr. Diaz is expected to testify as to the proper manner and procedures to be followed when installing, repairing, and maintaining such boiler types. It is further anticipated that Mr. Diaz will testify as to any potential for exposure to asbestos-containing products when installing, repairing or maintaining such boiler types. 5. Dr. Andrew Churg 1229 West 7th Avenue Vancouver, BC Canada V6H1B7 Dr. Churg may generally testify concerning asbestos related pulmonary pathology and the epidemiology relevant thereto. Dr. Churg may generally testify concerning asbestos related disease and the effects of exposure to various asbestos-containing products upon persons in occupational and nonoccupational settings. He may further testify regarding the epidemiology of asbestos related disease, the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos related disease, fiber gradients and the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding asbestos causation thresholds and the relative risk of personal injury or death as a result of exposure to different types of asbestos at different cumulative exposure levels. Dr. Churg may also testify regarding the etiology of cancer, the risk of cancer in various anatomical sites, carcinogenicity of various work-sites and environmental chemicals and Page 2 of 16 substances, and the epidemiology relevant thereto. Dr. Churg may also testify concerning the effect of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors in the occurrence of disease in populations allegedly exposed to asbestos containing products. Dr. Churg may also respond to matters raised within his field of expertise by plaintiffs in the presentation of their case in chief. Accordingly, Dr. Churg's testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony of plaintiffs' experts and can not be predicted with further specificity. Dr. Churg's testimony will be based on his training, experience, research, education, writings, review of medical and scientific literature concerning asbestos disease and other relevant matters, and review of depositions, documents and medical records relevant to the plaintiffs. 6. Dr. Victor Roggli Duke Univ. Med. Ctr. 2nd Floor Green Zone, RM M243 Erwin Road Durham, NC 27710 Dr. Roggli may generally testify concerning asbestos related pulmonary pathology and the epidemiology relevant thereto. Dr. Roggli may generally testify concerning asbestos related disease and the effects of exposure to various asbestos-containing products upon persons in occupational and nonoccupational settings. He may further testify regarding the epidemiology of asbestos related disease, the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos related disease, fiber gradients and the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding asbestos causation thresholds and the relative risk of personal injury or death as a result of exposure to different types of asbestos at different cumulative exposure levels. Dr. Roggli may also testify regarding the etiology of cancer, the risk of cancer in various anatomical sites, carcinogenicity of various work-sites and environmental chemicals and substances, and the epidemiology relevant thereto. Dr. Roggli may also testify concerning the effect of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors in the occurrence of disease in populations allegedly exposed to asbestos containing products. Dr. Roggli may also respond to matters raised within his field of expertise by plaintiffs in the presentation of their case in chief. Accordingly, Dr. Roggli's testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony of plaintiffs' experts and can not be predicted with further specificity. Dr. Roggli's testimony will be based on his training, experience, research, education, writings, review of medical and scientific literature concerning asbestos disease and other relevant matters, and review of depositions, documents, medical records and pathology relevant to the plaintiffs. Page 3 of 16 7. Dr. John Craighead 1845 Four Winds Road Ferrisburgh, Vermont 05456 Dr. Craighead may testify concerning general issues ofoccupational medicine and specific issues of asbestos-related pulmonary pathology and epidemiology relevant thereto. Dr. Craighead's testimony may include various matters relating to cancer, including fiber respirability, fiber gradients, cancer risk and cumulative asbestos exposure, carcinogenicity of work site and environmental chemicals and substances. In addition, Dr. Craighead may testify concerning the anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and cancer of the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; the nature and extent of medical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of pulmonary disease with the various types of asbestos fiber and the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos in the development and manifestation of diseases of the respiratory system; the methods of diagnosis and means of establishing the differential diagnosis of asbestos-related diseases with non-asbestos related diseases; the incidence of lung cancer in the general population and those individuals exposed to asbestos; cigarette smoking and its effect on the lungs; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy; the lack of relationship between pleural plaques and development of any cancer; the history of evolution and knowledge of asbestos-related diseases; and the evolution of the medical communities awareness of the increased risks for an asbestos-related disease in cases of prolonged exposure in particular populations. 8. Dr. Philip Cagle Center for Pulmonary Pathology Baylor College of Medicine Department of Pathology One Baylor Plaza, Room 286A Houston, TX 77030 Dr. Cagle is a pathologist. He will testify to all matters pertaining to study and research concerning exposure to asbestos and its effects on the human body; to exposure to asbestos and the development of lung cancer, mesothelioma and other respiratory diseases; to his examination and review of Plaintiffs medical records, history, x-rays, and pathology material; his expert opinion to whether Plaintiff suffers from a respiratory disease and the cause of such disease, including but not limited to asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma and the basis for such opinion; to all matters pertaining to the Plaintiffs Page 4 of 16 medical condition; to the effects of exposure to chrysotile fibers on the human body; and to all matters pertaining to the Plaintiffs medical condition. 9. Dr. Michael Graham Medical Examiner's Office Chief Medical Examiner 1300 Clark St. St. Louis, MO 63103 Dr. Graham is Board Certified in Anatomic, Clinical and Forensic Pathology by the American Board of Pathology. Dr. Graham may provide testimony regarding his examination of plaintiffs, or plaintiffs' decedents' medical records and pathology material. He may also testify regarding the biological effects of asbestos and the evidence of the relationship between the inhalation of various forms of asbestos fibers and asbestos-associated disease and the factors that go into evaluating whether there is any medical risk from asbestos-containing products. Dr. Graham may also provide testimony regarding animal research concerning asbestos-related disease, the biological effects of asbestos and various other dusts, cancer research, the practices and protocols regarding publication of scientific research and the history of research into such matters in the United States and elsewhere including, state of the art. Dr. Graham may also be asked to respond to the testimony of certain witnesses offered at the time of trial including, but not limited to, testimony from plaintiffs' experts regarding the alleged hazards of exposure to various asbestos-containing materials and their alleged propensity to release fibers. The observations and opinions offered by Dr. Graham in this matter will be based on his review of the materials provided; a continuing review of the available scientific literature relating to the health effects of materials of interest in this matter and Dr. Graham's education and professional experience. As defendant becomes aware of additional facts and the opinions of plaintiffs' experts, this witness may testify regarding his opinions of the additional facts or in response to the opinions of plaintiffs' experts. 10. Dr. James Crapo 4650 South Forest Street Englewood, CO 80110 Dr. Crapo is board certified in internal medicine and pulmonary disease. Dr. Crapo may testify about the pulmonary aspects of asbestos exposure and the epidemiology relevant thereto, including such matters as toxicology dose response, cumulative exposure and causation thresholds, progression, cancer risk, scientific opinions and theories as to how asbestos may be involved in the cause of various cancers, and experimental animal studies relating to the initial biological response to asbestos. He may also testify Page 5 of 16 regarding the linear dose extrapolation model and quantitative risk assessment of different individuals with different levels and types of asbestos exposures and determine, insofar as science is able, the risks of those individuals to contract conditions which may be asbestos-related, as well as their risks of contracting various forms of cancer. Dr. Crapo is further expected to testify that the principles of synergism which are considered by some to apply to the combination of asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking do not necessarily apply to all individuals who claim exposure to asbestos. Dr. Crapo may also to testify about cancer risk from asbestos exposure including comments on the relevant literature, federal statistics and publications as well as the risk relevant to an individual's particular circumstances. Beyond these matters, because Dr. Crapo is a witness appearing after the testimony of plaintiffs' experts at trial, in some measure his testimony may be responsive to evidence presented by the plaintiffs and cannot therefore be predicted with further specificity. Dr. Crapo's testimony will be based on his training, experience, research, education, writings, review of medical and scientific literature concerning asbestos disease and other relevant matters, and review of depositions, documents, expert reports and medical records relevant to the plaintiffs. 11. Dr. William Hughson UCSD Center for Occupational & Environmental Medicine 330 Lewis Street, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92103 Dr. Hughson is a board certified pulmonologist and epidemiologist. Dr. Hughson may testify about the pulmonary aspects of asbestos exposure including such matters as dose response, progression, and cancer risk. Dr. Hughson may also testify about principles of epider ology involved in studies of differing groups of people. He may testify iegarding quantitative risk assessment of different individuals with different asbestos exposures and determine, insofar as science is able, the risks of those individuals to contract conditions which may be asbestos-related, as well as their risks of contracting various forms of cancer. Dr. Hughson may also testify about cancer risk from asbestos exposure as well as the risk relevant to an individual's particular circumstances. Dr. Hughson may also testify about the state of the art of knowledge about asbestos related disease and the time periods when it was recognized that certain kinds of workers exposed to asbestos were believed to be at risk of contracting an asbestos related disease. Beyond these matters, because Dr. Hughson is a witness appearing after the Page 6 of 16 testimony of plaintiffs' experts at trial, in some measure his testimony may be responsive to evidence presented by the plaintiffs and cannot therefore be predicted with further specificity. Dr. Hughson's testimony will be based on his training, experience, research, education, writings, review of medical and scientific literature concerning asbestos disease and other relevant matters, and review of depositions, documents and medical records relevant to the plaintiffs. 12. Dr. Hans Weill 755 Hearthstone Drive Basalt, CO 81621 Dr. Weill may testify concerning general issues of occupational medicine and specific clinical issues relating to asbestos and disease and the epidemiology relevant thereto. Dr. Weill may also testify regarding quantitative risk assessment, asbestos exposure thresholds, fiber gradients and regulatory activity related to asbestos. Dr. Weill may testify concerning the history and evolution of knowledge of asbestos-related diseases; the regulatory history of asbestos; and the evolution of the medical community's awareness of the increased risks for an asbestos-related disease in cases of prolonged exposure in particular populations. In addition, Dr. Weill may testify concerning the anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosis and cancer of the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; the nature and extent of medical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber and the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos in the development and manifestation of diseases of the respiratory system; the methods of diagnosis and means of establishing the differential diagnosis of asbestos-related diseases with non-asbestos related diseases; the incidence of lung cancer in the general population and those individuals exposed to asbestos; cigarette smoking and its effect on the lungs; the difference between impairment and disability; the effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy; the lack of relationship between pleural plaques and development of any cancer; the history of evolution and knowledge of asbestos-related diseases; and the evolution of the medical community's awareness of the increased risks for an asbestos-related disease in cases of prolonged exposure in particular populations. Dr. Weill's testimony will be based on his training, experience, research, education, writings, review of medical and scientific literature concerning Page 7 of 16 asbestos disease and other relevant matters, and review of depositions, expert reports, documents and medical records relevant to the plaintiffs. 13. Stanley B. Fiel, M.D. Medical College of Pennsylvania 3300 Henry Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19129 Dr. Stanley B. Fiel may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including tile epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of any asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Fiel has for years studied the dose-response relationship between asbestos and disease, both clinically and academically. He is familiar with the studies of Carl Marigold, CIH and other Industrial Hygienists regarding the actual contribution of asbestos fibers during use of gasket and packing materials. By virtue of his years of education, training and experience in these areas he is able to testify that use of gasket amid packing materials can not be a cause of asbestos-related disease. Dr. Fiel's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related diseases. 14. Dr. Morton Corn Page 8 of 16 Morton Corn and Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants and Engineers, Inc. 3208 Bennett Point Road Queenstown, MD 21658 Dr. Corn may testify as to matters relating to the standards, customs, practices, and general principles in the field of industrial hygiene; the manner and method of conducting and reporting the results of industrial hygiene surveys; historical development, design, use application, and interpretation of dust counting surveys and air sampling tests; interpretation ofdust counting surveys and air sampling tests performed in industrial settings, historical development, purpose, meaning application, and maintenance of threshold limit values and permissible exposure limits for asbestos exposure and their application in industrial settings; size, construction, engineering controls, layout, and nature of the plaintiffs' working environment; composition and asbestos content, if any, of the products which the plaintiffs claim exposure, including the ability, if any, of such products to emit respirable asbestos fibers; state of the scientific and medical art throughout history regarding knowledge of asbestos related diseases; estimated duration and intensity of exposure necessary to cause asbestos related diseases; estimated time-weighted average exposure of the plaintiffs to asbestos from various sources; encapsulation; fiber release, fiber drift, the speed with which asbestos fiber settles out of the air and fails to remain airborne, and the speed with which asbestos leaves the breathing zone of individuals; purpose, history and operation of the American Conference of Governmental Hygienists; responsibilities of employers, unions, and individual workers regarding industrial hygiene and safety; use and effectiveness of respirators; development of product warnings; and/or documentary evidence relevant to the defense of the individual plaintiffs claims. It is expected that Professor Corn's testimony generally will respond, within the scope of his expertise, to the subject matter of industrial hygiene testimony that may be offered by Plaintiffs experts, and in that sense his testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony of such experts and cannot be predicted with further specificity. Dr. Corn's testimony will be based on his training, experience, research, education, writings, review of medical and scientific literature concerning asbestos disease and other relevant matters, and review of depositions, documents, expert reports and medical records relevant to the plaintiffs. 15. Dr. J. Leroy Balzer 408 Horse Trail Court Alamo, CA 94507 Dr. Balzer may testify as to matters relating to the standards, customs, practices and general principles in the field of industrial hygiene; the manner and method of conducting and reporting the results of industrial hygiene Page 9 of 16 surveys; historical development, design, use, application and interpretation of dust counting surveysand air sampling tests; interpretation of dust counting surveys and air sampling tests performed in industrial settings; historical development, purpose, meaningful application and maintenance of threshold limit values and permissible exposure limits for asbestos exposure and their application , in industrial settings; size, construction, engineering controls, layout and nature of the plaintiffs' working environment; composition and asbestos content, if any, of the products to which plaintiffs claim exposure, including the ability, if any, of such products to emit respirable asbestos fibers; state of the scientific and medical art throughout history regarding knowledge of asbestos-related diseases; estimated duration and intensity of exposure of asbestos exposure necessary to cause asbestos-related diseases; estimated time-weighted average exposure of the plaintiffs to asbestos from various sources; encapsulation; fiber release, fiber drift, the speed with which asbestos fiber settles out of the air and fails to remain airborne, and the speed with which asbestos leaves the breathing zone of individuals; purpose, history and operation of the American Conference of Industrial and Governmental Hygienists; responsibilities of employers, unions and individual workers regarding industrial hygiene and safety; use and effectiveness of respirators; development of product warnings; and/or documentary evidence relevant to the defense of the individual plaintiffs claims. It is expected that Professor Balzer's testimony generally will respond, within the scope of his expertise, to the subject matter of industrial hygiene testimony that may be offered by Plaintiffs experts, and in that sense his testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony of such experts and cannot be predicted with further specificity. Dr. Balzer's testimony will be based on his training, experience, research, education, writings, review of medical and scientific literature concerning asbestos disease and other relevant matters, and review of depositions, documents, expert reports and medical records relevant to the plaintiffs. 16. John Spencer, C.I.H., C.H.P. Environmental Profiles, Inc. 5570 Sterret Place, Suite 208 Columbia, Maryland 21044 Mr. Spencer is President of Environmental Profiles, Inc. Mr. Spencer is a certified industrial hygienist, certified safety professional and environmental professional. He may testify regarding asbestos fiber release issues and boilers. Mr. Spencer's opinions are based on more than twenty years of experience as an industrial hygienist, safety and environmental professional. His opinions are also based on portions of the scientific literature regarding occupational health hazard assessment. Mr. Spencer may testify as to matters relating to the standards, customs, practices and general principles in the field of industrial hygiene; the manner Page 10 of 16 and method of conducting and reporting the results of industrial hygiene surveys; historical development, design, use, application and interpretation of dust counting surveys and air sampling tests; interpretation of dust counting surveys and air sampling tests performed in industrial settings; historical development, purpose, meaningful application and maintenance of threshold limit values and permissible exposure limits for asbestos exposure and their application in industrial settings; size, construction, engineering controls, layout and nature of the plaintiffs' working environment; composition and asbestos content, if any, of the products to which plaintiffs claim exposure, including the ability, if any, of such products to emit respirable asbestos fibers; state of the scientific and medical art throughout history regarding knowledge of asbestos-related diseases; estimated duration and intensity of exposure of asbestos exposure necessary to cause asbestos-related diseases; estimated time-weighted average exposure of the plaintiffs to asbestos from various sources; encapsulation; fiber release, fiber drift, the speed with which asbestos fiber settles out of the air and fails to remain airborne, and the speed with which asbestos leaves the breathing zone of individuals; purpose, history and operation of the American Conference of Industrial and Governmental Hygienists; responsibilities of employers, unions and individual workers regarding industrial hygiene and safety; use and effectiveness of respirators; development of product warnings; and/or documentary evidence relevant to the defense of the individual plaintiffs claims. It is expected that Mr. Spencer's testimony generally will respond, within the scope of his expertise, to the subject matter of industrial hygiene testimony that may be offered by Plaintiffs experts, and in that sense his testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony of such experts and cannot be predicted with further specificity. Mr. Spencer's testimony will be based on his training, experience, research, education, writings, review of medical and scientific literature concerning asbestos disease and other relevant matters, and review of depositions, documents, expert reports and medical records relevant to the plaintiffs. 17. Dr. William Blot International Epidemiology Institute, Ltd. 1455 Research Blvd., Suite 550 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Dr. Blot is a biostatistician and epidemiologist. Dr. Blot may testify in person or by deposition concerning the application of epidemiology and biostatistics to asbestos related disease in populations such as the plaintiffs, as shown by literature and his research. He may testify concerning relevant epidemiologic studies showing the incidence and progression of asbestos related diseases, the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease, fiber gradients, and the relative risk of personal injury or death as a result of exposure to different types of asbestos at different exposure levels. Dr. Blot may also testify on the relationship Page 11 of 16 between asbestos exposure and malignant and nonmalignant conditions. He may also testify regarding the linear dose extrapolation model and quantitative risk assessment of different individuals with different levels and types of asbestos exposures and determine, insofar as science is able, the risks of those individuals to contract conditions which may be asbestos-related, as well as their risks of contracting various forms of cancer. Dr. Blot may also respond to matters raised within his field of expertise by the plaintiffs in the presentation of their case in chief. Accordingly, Dr. Blot's testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony of plaintiffs' experts and can not be predicted with further specificity. Dr. Blot's testimony will be based on his training, experience, research, education, writings, review of medical and scientific literature concerning asbestos disease and other relevant matters, and review of depositions, expert reports, documents and medical records relevant to the plaintiffs. 18. Otto Wong, Sc.D., F.A.C.E. Chief Epidemiologist Applied Health Sciences 181 Second Avenue Suite 628 P. O. Box 2078 San Mateo, CA 94401 Dr. Wong is a biostatistician and epidemiologist. Dr. Wong may testify concerning the application of epidemiology and biostatistics to asbestos related disease in populations such as the plaintiffs, as shown by literature and his research. He may testify concerning relevant epidemiologic studies showing the incidence and progression of asbestos related diseases, the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease, fiber gradients, and the relative risk of personal injury or death as a result of exposure to different types of asbestos at different exposure levels. Dr. Wong may also testify on the relationship between asbestos exposure and malignant and nonmalignant conditions. Dr. Wong may also respond to matters raised within his field of expertise by plaintiffs in the presentation of their case in chief. Accordingly, Dr. Wong's testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony of plaintiffs experts and can not be predicted with further specificity. Dr. Wong's testimony will be based on his training, experience, research, education, writings, review of medical and scientific literature concerning asbestos disease and other relevant matters, and review of depositions, expert reports, documents and medical records relevant to the plaintiffs. 19. Richard J. Lee, Ph.D. RJ Lee Group, Inc. 350 Hochberg Road Monroeville, PA 15146 Page 12 of 16 Dr. Lee is an expert in the fields of microscopy and environmental asbestos analysis. If called, Dr. Lee is expected to testify based upon his education, work experience, research and review of literature, regarding materials-testing techniques, air sampling techniques, physical characteristics of asbestos and other minerals, identification of asbestos-containing materials and other constituents, methods for analyzing asbestos-containing materials, the amount of asbestos fibers released by these materials, ambient air level exposures, and federal and state governmental regulations pertaining to asbestos. Dr. Lee is also expected to testify about the results and interpretation of tests he and/or others have performed on samples of asbestos-containing products relevant to the plaintiffs' alleged exposure. Dr. Lee will also testify as to his knowledge and inspection of boilers and their potential for releasing asbestos fibers. 20. Bertram Price, Ph.D. Price Associates, Inc. PO Box 342 White Plains, New York 10605 Dr. Price may testify regarding the linear dose extrapolation model and quantitative risk assessment of different individuals with different levels and types of asbestos exposures and determine, insofar as science is able, the risks of those individuals to contract asbestos-related conditions, as well as their risk of contracting various forms of cancer. Dr. Price may also testify concerning available exposure data relating to various types of asbestos containing products and the relative risks of contracting asbestos related disease associated with different workers resulting from their exposure during the life cycle of the product. Dr. Price may also respond to matters raised within his field of expertise by plaintiffs in the presentation of their case in chief. Accordingly, Dr. Price's testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony of plaintiffs' experts and can not be predicted with further specificity. Dr. Price's testimony will be based on his training, experience, research, education, writings, review of medical and scientific literature concerning asbestos disease and other relevant matters, and review of depositions, documents, expert reports and medical records relevant to the plaintiffs. 21. Dr. Brooks Emory Executive Health Department 1514 Jefferson Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70121 Dr. Emory will be offered by this Defendant as an expert in pulmonology. Dr. Emory will testify concerning his examination and diagnosis of the physical condition of the particular plaintiff and the relationship, if any, to the plaintiffs Page 13 of 16 exposure to asbestos. The scope of Dr. Emory's testimony is expected to include matters concerning the clinical aspects of non-malignant changes alleged to be associated with exposure to asbestos containing products, including, comment concerning various epidemiologic studies that have been reported concerning nonmalignant conditions allegedly associated with exposure to asbestos containing products in some populations. Or. Emory is expected to provide testimony concerning interstitial lung changes, the range of elements that can cause interstitial lung changes, the lungs' response to foreign substances and/or insult of any sort, the clinical elements and testing necessary and/or generally accepted within the medical community and the diagnoses of various nonmalignant conditions alleged to be associated with asbestos exposure, differential diagnoses, notions of impairment associated with various conditions, progression (both its definition and likelihood of progression of certain conditions as reported epidemiologically in certain populations), and the effects of confounding conditions. Dr. Emory further is expected to offer testimony concerning the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors on the occurrence of disease in populations who also are alleged to be exposed to asbestos containing products and, additionally, concerning how the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors can confound the apparent results of certain epidemiologic studies. Dr. Emory further is expected to testify concerning the circumstances under which exposure to asbestos fibers may be associated with the incidence of some forms of cancer, including mesothelioma, in some persons and will testify concerning the results of his own experiences, the medical and scientific literature, and existing epidemiologic studies concerning associations that are alleged to exist epidemiologically between exposure to asbestos in some populations and the mortality and/or incidence of some forms of cancer. It is expected that Dr. Emory's testimony general', will respond, within the scope of his expertise, to the subject matter jf internal and pulmonary medicine testimony that may be offered by Plaintiffs experts, and in that sense his testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony of such experts and cannot specifically be predicted. Dr. Emory will base his opinions on his own research, knowledge and experience, his background and education, his writings, his review of the medical and scientific literature, including epidemiologic and other research on asbestos and conditions associated with asbestos, and other relevant publications and materials. 22. Dr. Robert Jones Tulane University Medical Center Page 14 of 16 Section of Environmental Medicine SL15 1430 Tulane Ave. New Orleans, LA 70112 Dr. Jones will testify concerning his examination and diagnosis of the physical condition of the particular plaintiff and the relationship, if any, to the plaintiffs exposure to asbestos. The scope of Dr. Jones' testimony is expected to include matters concerning the clinical aspects of non-malignant changes alleged to be associated with exposure to asbestos containing products, including comment concerning various epidemiologic studies that have been reported concerning nonmalignant conditions allegedly associated with exposure to asbestos-containing products in some populations. Dr. Jones is expected to provide testimony concerning interstitial lung changes, the range of elements that can cause interstitial lung changes, the lungs' response to foreign substances and/or insult of any sort, the clinical elements and testing necessary and/or generally accepted within the medical community and the diagnoses of various non-malignant conditions alleged to be associated with asbestos exposure, differential diagnoses, notions of impairment associated with various conditions, progression (both its definition and likelihood of progression of certain conditions as reported epidemiologically in certain populations), and the effects of confounding conditions. Dr. Jones further is expected to offer testimony concerning the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors on the occurrence of disease and populations who also are alleged to be exposed to asbestos-containing products and, additionally, concerning how the effects of inhaled tobacco smoke and other factors can confound the apparent results of certain epidemiologic studies. Dr. Jones further is expected to testify concerning the circumstances under which exposure to asbestos fibers may be associated with the incidence of some forms of cancer, including mesothelioma, in some persons and will estify concerning the results of his own experiences, the medical and scientific literature, and existing epidemiologic studies concerning associations that are alleged to exist epidemiologically between exposure to asbestos in some populations and the mortality and/or incidence of some forms of cancer. It is expected that Dr. Jones' testimony generally will respond, within the scope of his expertise, to the subject matter of internal and pulmonary medicine testimony that may be offered by Plaintiffs' experts, and in that sense his testimony is dependent upon the prior testimony of such experts and cannot specifically be predicted. Dr. Jones will base his opinions on his own research, knowledge and experience, his background and education, his writings, his review of the Page 15 of 16 medical and scientific literature, including epidemiologic and other research on asbestos and conditions associated with asbestos, and other relevant publications and materials. 23. Dr. H. Corwin Hinshaw If called, Dr. Hinshaw, of Belvedere, California, will testify by videotape and transcribed deposition taken on December 18-19,1980, in Alameda County, California, or by other deposition duly identified, on the state of the medical and scientific art of asbestos diseases through history, and the development of knowledge of asbestos related hazards. He will testify from personal experience on the risks, including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, associated with the various asbestiform minerals, as perceived by members of the asbestos industry, and the medical and scientific community through time. 24. [PLAINTIFF SPECIFIC MEDICAL EXPERTS TO BE ADDED BY LOCAL COUNSEL.] 25. Each and every physician, nurse, medical technician, therapist or health care provider who has either treated or examined the plaintiffs, performed or interpreted any x-rays, CT scans, pulmonary function tests, or other diagnostic tests or samples or reviewed Plaintiffs medical records or pathology materials or who will do so in the future. 26. Defendant may call medical expert physicians co-designated as joint medical expert witnesses and/or independent medical examiners on behalf of all defendants as designated by Defense Liaison Counsel. 27. Defendant reserves the right to call any expert witness previously identified, or who will be identified, by any party in this litigation. 28. Defendant also reserves the right to list supplemental expert witnesses or to call expert witnesses for rebuttal. 29. Defendant further reserves the right to substitute other individuals for those designated in the event that schedule conflicts or other reasons preclude a designated expert from being deposed and/or testifying at trial. 30. Defendant reserves the right to withdraw any of the expert witnesses listed herein at any time prior to their being called to testify at trial. Page 16 of 16