Document a427nMBvm7Y27BrkZ6L1xE8Je

Craig S. Wolcott Board Certified - Civil Trial Law Texas Board of Legal Specialization Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 400 TWO ALLEN CENTER 1200 SMITH STREET HOUSTON, TEXAS 7700S TELEPHONE (713) 654-1111 TELECOPIER (713) 650-0027 October 21, 1999 ULL 3.99* do j Direct Line: (713)752-8309 E-Mail: CWolcott@HaysMcConn.Com PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT - -... i **0 iu'PKC-2 3 | Ms. Melissa Hutts Baron & Budd 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 CMRRR NO, Z 271 972 742 Re: Cause No. 96-03172-A; Ramon T. Cedillo, t al. vs. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation, et al:. In the 28th Judicial District Court ofNueces County, Texas Dear Melissa: ,,* s Transmitted herewith please find Defendant Union Bacific Resources Company's Third Supplemental Responses and Objections to the Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories. Sincerely yours, HAYS, McCONN, RICE & PICKERING Craig S. Wolcott CSW:elp Enclosures cc: All other counsel of record (w/o encl.) VIA REGULAR MAIL CSWV419594J NO. 96-03172-A uli. < j. y y* j 6 6 o RAMON T. CEDILLO; ALVINO RESENDO LOPEZ; AMBROSIO NINO RAMIREZ; and RICHARD FUENTES VELA VS. OWENS-CORNINGFIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 28TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY f/k/a CHAMPLIN PETROLEUM COMPANY. INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO PONTIAC REFINING CORPORATION THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES COMES NOW, Defendant UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY in the above numbered and entitled cause ofaction and pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure makes and files this its Third Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production as follows: SEE ATTACHED. Respectfully submitted, HAYS, McCONN, RICE & PICKERING CSW\418536.1 b. Stephen rice State Bar No. 16838000 CRAIGS. WOLCOTT State Bar No. 21845475 400 Two Allen Center 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 654-1111 (Telephone) (713) 650-0027 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY V CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was forwarded via certified mail/retum receipt requested and/or via hand-delivery and/or via facsimile and/or via Federal Express to Plaintiffs counsel of record, and a copy ofthe cover letter to all other counsel ofrecord, on this 'HjT day of v, 1999. G Xj S. WOLCOTT CSWV418536.1 OBJECTION APPLICABLE TO ALL REQUESTS Defendant objects to each item of discovery to the extent that the discovery calls for documents protected by the attomey/client privilege, work product privilege, or the party communication privilege. OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS Defendant objects to the stated definition of the terms "Defendant," "You," "Your" and "Your Company" on the grounds it is overly broad and seeks to extend the definition beyond the scope of discovery allowed under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to inquiries relating to subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries and other separately incorporated non-parties thus rendering the Plaintiffs stated definitions overly broad, vague and improper. Defendant objects to the stated definition ofthe terms "Document," "Documents," "Written Materials" and "Printed Materials" on the grounds it is overly broad, vague and clearly outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. This Defendant would specifically object to the attempt to extend the definition of these terms as requiring the responding party to make a determination of what documents may be responsive to these Interrogatories and Requests for Production "regardless ofwho now has or formerly had custody, possession or control" on the ground that is clearly outside the scope of permissible discovery and could be construed as seeking disclosure of information that would be protected from discovery by virtue ofthe attorney work product exemption afforded by the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence. Defendant would further object to the stated definition ofthe terms "Meeting" or "Meetings" on the grounds that it is so overly broad and vain and renders each discovery request to which it may apply incapable ofbeing answered; and therefore, improper under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to the stated definition of the terms "products containing asbestos fiber," "asbestos containing products" and "asbestos products" on the grounds it is overly broad, vague and not limited to the matters made the basis ofthis lawsuit and therefore, seeks disclosure ofinformation and/or the production of documentation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CSWV418536.1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY Union Pacific Resources Company, a Delaware Corporation is currently an independent corporation but was previously a subsidiary ofUnion Pacific Corporation. A predecessor of Union Pacific Corporation purchased the stock of Champlin Petroleum Company and the former Pontiac Refinery from Celanese Corporation ofAmerica in 1969. Champlin Petroleum Company's name was changed to Union Pacific Resources Company in 1987. Also, effective Januaiy 1, 1987, 50% interest in the Corpus Christi refinery was sold to a subsidiary of PDVSA, the National Oil Company of Venezuela. A general partnership was established known as the Champlin Refining Company partnership operating the Corpus Christi refinery on behalf ofthe 50% interest held by a subsidiary ofPDVSA and 50% interest held by Champlin Refining Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Champlin Petroleum Company (now known as Union Pacific Resources Company). Effective January 1,1989, Champlin Refining, Inc. had sold its remaining 50% interest in Champlin Refining Company to a subsidiary ofPDVSA which was subsequently merged by PDVSA into PDVSA's CITGO Petroleum Company. Following the sale of its interest in the Corpus Christi Refinery, (formerly known as the Pontiac Refinery), Champlin Petroleum Company, now known as Union Pacific Resources Company, retained no records or documents relating to the operation ofthat refinery. All such documentation remained in the possession ofthe current owner and operator ofthat refinery. CSWVU8536.1 INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please list all asbestos-containing products ("products") used at Defendant's Premises and state what these products were used for, from whom these products were purchased, where these products were installed, and the specific persons or contractors who installed these products. Further, indicate the first year each specific asbestos-containing product was no longer purchased and installed on Defendant's Premises. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, vague,.not limited to the time period relevant in this case nor is it limited to the matters made the basis of this lawsuit, specifically alleged exposure to asbestos fibers and therefore seeks disclosure of information wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant UPR supplements as follows: See enclosed documents labeled D0001743, J0014991, G0027516, G0026810, G0026336, G0001247, G0001248, FF0092993, FF0092994, FF0092956, FF0092957, FF0092916, FF0092917, FF0069504, FF0069456, FF0066961, FF0066949, FF0066950, FF0066502, FF0066004, FF0065798, FF0059607, FF0050589, FF0050(illegible), FF0046167, FF0046137, FF0045756, FF0044300, FF0043143, FF0041197, FF0041198, FF0039903-21, FF0038621, FF0033025, FF0026376, FF0024770, FF0017380, FF0017386, M0024111, M0012716-7 INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please state whether any asbestos-containing products in place or in use at Defendant's Premises have been abated at any time. If so, please list each person or company involved with the abatement of asbestos, including address and telephone number, and state the dates and particular locations of each abatement procedure. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER; Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, vague, not limited to the time period relevant in this case nor is it limited to the matters made the basis of this lawsuit, specifically alleged exposure to asbestos fibers and therefore seeks disclosure of information wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant UPR supplements as follows: See enclosed documents labeled A0001058, A0001060, A0001061, A0001068, A0001468, A0065002-7, A0065434, AA0007341, D0001673, D0001674, D001690-97, D0001716, D0001743. INIERRUGAXQRY NOJ3: Have you ever had a policy requiring workers on Defendant's premises to use respirators? Ifso, please state when this policy was implemented; describe this policy in detail; state to whom it applied (i.e. Defendant employees and contractor employees); and describe what types and brand names of respirators were required by you. CSWVU8536.r SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, vague and not limited to asbestos or the matters made the basis ofthis suit. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant UPR supplements as follows: See enclosed documents labeled D0001673, D0001674, D0001692. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Have you ever warned workers on Defendant's Premises of the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products? If so, describe in detail the methods of such warnings, who you warned and when. Please include in your response a description of any written warnings relating to the hazards of asbestos in place at Defendant's Premises and state when the written warnings were installed, how many were installed, and whether they have been removed. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Objection. Defendant Union Pacific Resources Company objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, vague and not limited to the time period relevant in this case and therefore seeks disclosure ofinformation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant UPR supplements as follows: See enclosed documents labeled A0061590, A0001693. CSVA418536.1