Document aDDrg7zMe28vBQBnxx2djMo3e

jUL.0C.96** *r 5^1 NO. 96-333 IS PLAINTIFF'S II EXHIBIT I^^GR-83___ IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED IN THE DISTRICT COURtTSsTAENTDT- PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. OR COUNTY COURTS AT LAW TO BE FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. IN EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO: All Plaintiffs represented by Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219 General Motors Corporation (hereinafter "GM") understands that plaintiffs allege they were injured by exposure to asbestos from automotive fhction materials. Consequently, GM's responses to these interrogatories concern automotive friction materials. ` INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a yearby-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. RESPONSE: These interrogatories were verified in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure by the person signing the verification form. General Motors prepared them with the-help of its lawyers, including Philip R. Cosgrove, Grace, Skocypec, Cosgrove & Schirm, 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90071, (213) 487-6660. GM objects to the rest of this interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 1 30366 05491 UT 178211 SCF-EC-4475 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your correct corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the address of your principal place of business, the name and address of the person or entity authorized to accept service of process on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas. RESPONSE: General Motors Corporation is incorporated in Delaware. Its principal place of business is 3044 West Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48202. CT Corporation, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201, is authorized to accept service of process on behalf of General Motors Corporation, in the State of Texas. GM has been authorized to do business in the State of Texas since December 12, 1941. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale of material containing asbestos fibers? If so, identify the location of the mine(s), the years of its operation, the type of asbestos mined and whether you sold any asbestos to any Defendants in the Dallas County asbestos litigation. RESPONSE: GM has not mined or sold asbestos. See also response to 4. 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. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 2 30366 05491 UT 178211 RESPONSE: GM understands that plaintiffs allege they were injured by exposure to asbestos from automotive friction materials. Consequently, GM's responses to these interrogatories pertain to automotive friction materials. GM has manufactured or sold disc pads, drum brake linings, manual clutches and automatic transmission bands and cars, vans and trucks incorporating those items. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovety of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORYJSfO ^5: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiaiy companies at any time marketed or sold. RESPONSE: See response to 4. 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. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold. D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Pape 3 30366 0S491 UT 17821! 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. 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. RESPONSE: DRUM BRAKE LININGS (a) GM began to manufacture molded drum brake linings containing chrysotile asbestos in 1939 and it began to use and sell them in the 1920s. (b) See response to (a). Outside suppliers of drum and disc brake linings were Johns-Manville, Abex Corporation, Eaton Brake Division, Dana Axle, American Coleman, Bendix, Dayton Walther, H.K. Porter, . Kelsey Hayes, Kelsey Products Division, Rockwell International, Unibond Brake, Wagner Electric, Raybestos Manhattan, Friction Division Products, Ferodo, ITT AMCO, Multibestos, Universal Friction, Akebono, AMCO and Marshall Eclipse. (c) Trade Names used by GM: United Motors (1918-1961), United Delco (1961-1974), AC-Delco (1974-present), Delco Moraine (1942-present), GM Parts (unknown date before 1969-present), Goodwrench (1985Present), Buick*, Cadillac*, Chevrolet*, GMC Truck*, Oldsmobile*, or Pontiac*. Dates are approximate. Names marked with an asterisk were used, if at all, for an unknown period of time before 1969. (d) See responses to (a) and (c). (e) GM drum brake linings have one or more grades of chrysotile asbestos, generally grades 5, 6 and 7, and the approximate percentage by weight ranged between 50% to 75%. The grade of chrysotile asbestos in drum brake linings GM purchased is unknown. The specific formulations DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Pape 4 30366 05491 UT 178211 used in the manufacture of brake linings are valuable, proprietary information that are disclosed only within GM on a need-to-know basis. These formulations are the result of decades of investment of time and . money and their disclosure would put GM at a serious competitive disadvantage because domestic and foreign competitors could duplicate GM's products without having to undertake the lengthy and expensive laboratory and vehicle testing program that GM undertook. Competitors could also use this information to improve their products and processing methods without having to compensate GM for its efforts. For these reasons, GM objects to the disclosure of the specific details of its formulations. (f) GM continues to manufacture drum brake linings containing chrysotiie. (g) Not applicable. (h) Automotive drum brake lining segments consist of a solid, curved, dense, grayish material. Typical arc lengths range from 90 to 130 and are for drum diameters of 7, 8, 9-1/2, 11, 12 and 12-1/2 inches. (i) Drum brake linings are one component of a vehicle braking system. (j) Not applicable. DISC BRAKE LININGS (a) GM began to manufacture and sell disc brake linings in 1966. (b) See response to (a). Outside suppliers of drum and disc brake linings were Johns-Manville, Abex Corporation, Eaton Brake Division. Dana Axle, American Coleman, Bendix, Dayton Walther, H.K. Porter, Kelsey Hayes, Kelsey Products Division, Rockwell International, Unibond Brake, Wagner Electric, Raybestos Manhattan, Friction Division Products, Ferodo, ITT AMCO, Multibestos, Universal Friction, Akebono, AMCO and Marshall Eclipse. - (c) Trade Names used by GM: AC Delco, Delco Moraine, GM Parts. Goodwrench. . (d) . See responses to (a) and (c). (e) GM disc brake linings have one or more grades of chrysotiie asbestos, generally grades 5, 6 and 7, and the approximate percentage by weight ranged between 30% to 60%. The grade of chrysotiie asbestos used in disc brake linings purchased by GM is unknown. The specific DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Pape 5 30366 05491 LIT 178211 formulations used in the manufacture of brake linings are valuable, proprietary information that are disclosed only within GM on a need-toknow basis. These formulations are the result of decades of investment of time and money and their disclosure would put GM at a serious competitive disadvantage because domestic and foreign competitors could duplicate GM products without having to undertake the lengthy and expensive laboratory and vehicle testing program that GM undertook. Competitors could also use this information to improve their products and processing methods without having to compensate GM for its efforts. For these reasons, GM objects to the disclosure of the specific details of its formulations. (f) GM stopped manufacturing these linings in 1985 because of production priorities, but continues to sell them. ' (g) Not applicable. (h) Automotive disc brake linings segments are a dense grayish or tan material. Typical dimensions are height 57-63 millimeters, width of 125-142 millimeters, and thickness of 11-13 millimeters. (i) Disc brake linings are one component of a vehicle braking system. ($) GM has distributed asbestos-containing linings from 1966 to present. CLUTCH PLATES AND BANDS FOR AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS (a) Automatic transmissions were introduced in GM model year 1940. Clutch plates and bands containing asbestos were used as early as 1946. GM (Delco Moraine) manufactured some of the band material (approximately 1965-1979) and the rest was purchased. See response to subpart (e). (b) See responses to subparts (a), (c) and (e). (c) Trade Names: United Motors (1940-61), United Delco (1961-1964), GM Parts (1969 - Present); Delco Moraine, Hydra-Matic, Allison (1940s-1969), Detroit Diesel Allison (1970-1987), Allison Transmission (1988-Present); Goodwrench (1985 - Present). (d) See response to subpart (h). (e) The band linings GM manufactured contained about 40-50 percent chrysotile asbestos. The rang? of weight percentage for certain materials used for automobiles and light trucks was approximately 10 to DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paoe 6 30366 05491 LIT 178211 50 percent chrysotile from 1964 to 1982 and from 10 to 25 percent chrysotile from 1983 to 1985. GM bought following asbestos containing paper materials and assembled them into automatic transmission clutch plates, bands, or torque converter clutches: DATE 85 SUPPLIERS Armstrong TYPE* TCC FIBER TYPE 7RS Chrysotile INDENT. Orange St. 81-89 85-88 80-81 74-85 Armstrong Armstrong Delco Moraine Armstrong TCC CL TCC CL 7RS Chrysotile 7RS Chrysotile 7RS Chrysotile Orange St. Blue St. Orange St. 7RS Chrysotile Black St. 78-85 Armstrong TCC 7RS Chrysotile Blue St. 81-85 79-89 74-84 74-86 Armstrong Armstrong Armstrong Armstrong CL CL CL CL 7RS Chrysotile 7RS Chiysotile 7RS Chrysotile 7RS Chrysotile Blue St. Purple St. Black St. Black St. 74-89 74-85 Delco Armstrong TCC TCC Chrysotile 7RS Chrysotile Blue St. Blue St. 81-85 69-86 69-75 68-83 68-83 Armstrong Armstrong Wrenn Strathmore Armstrong Strathmore Armstrong Strathmore Armstrong CL CL CL CL CL 7RS Chrysotile 7RS Chiysotile Blue St. Blue St. Crocidolite & Anthophyllite Crocidolite & Anthophyllite** Crocidolite & Anthophyllite** None Red Stripe Blue St. Green St. USE THM 125, 180, 250, 350, 200, 325, 440T4, 700RA 2004R, 700R4 700R4, 2004R 2004R, 700R4 125, 200, 325, 700R4 Powerglide, THM-350, 700R4 THM 350, 700R4 180 125-C, 325 125, 200-C, 325, 700R4 125, 440T4, 700R4 Powerglide, THM-350, 700R4 THM-350, 700R4 THM180, 350 Powerglide THM-350 THM-350 THM 476 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 7 30366 0S491 UT 178211 DATE 69-81 66-74 65-75 65-75 65-73 SUPPLIERS Raybestos Armstrong Strathmore Armstrong Wrenn Wrenn Unknown TYPE* BL CL CL BL BL FIBER TYPE Unknown Crocidolite & Anthophyllite Crocidolite & Anthophyllite 6D Chrysotile 6D Chrysotile INDENT. "Raybestos* Orange St. USE THM 180 Powerglide Black St. THM 400 None None THM 350, 400 Unknown * CL = dutch lining TCC * torque converter clutch BL = band lining ** Changed to chrysotile in 1973. (f) The items in (e) were superseded at the dates indicated because the product was no longer produced and serviced or because other materials were used. (g) See response to (f). (h) For typical clutch plates, the asbestos-containing material is a ring with an inside diameter of 2-1/2 to 4 inches, an outside diameter of 3-1/2 to 6 inches, and a thickness of .25 to .35 inches. The material is light tan . to medium brown in color and has a smooth, paper-like texture. The suppliers of plates since 1964 have been Raymark and Spring-Brummer Division of Borg-Wamer Corporation. The suppliers of bands since 1964 have been Spring-Brummer Division of Borg-Wamer Corporation and D.A.B Industries. Clutch plates for Allison transmissions range in size from five to eighteen inches in diameter. Suppliers of clutch plates are Sheepbridge, RaybestosManhattan, Raymark, S.K. Wellman, Thermoset, Borg Warner, and Delco Moraine. GM could not provide more details about dates without a search that would take an estimated 100 man-hours. Identification markings are described in part (c) and (e) above. Parts supplied by Spring-Brummer in pan (c) above have an ink-stamped date code, like A07, BIO or J13, that represent January 7, February 10 and October 15 respectively. (i) Clutch plates and bands are component pans of an automatic transmission. (j) Not applicable. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 8 30366 05491 LIT 178211 CLUTCH PLATES FOR MANUAL TRANSMISSIONS (a) Beginning around 1930, GM assembled clutch driven plates assemblies for mamiqi transmissions with friction materials purchased from suppliers or purchased assemblies from suppliers. Suppliers of facings were (dates are approximate): Raymark Industrial Division, Southfield, MI 1965 - 1985 H. K. Porter, Troy, Michigan 1965-1971 Sources of assemblies were (dates approximate): Borg Warner Corporation Chicago, 111. 1930 - 1985 Borg & Beck Sterling Heights, MI 1974 - 1984 LUK, Inc. Southfield, MI 1983 - 1985 Alma Products Co. Alma, MI 1974-1985 . Isuzu Southfield, MI 1983 - 1984 Daikin (Asahi facings) Troy, MI 1983 - 1984 . (b) See responses to (a), (c) and (h). (c) Trade names used by GM: GM Parts (1969 - present); Buick*. Cadillac*, Chevrolet*, Oldsmobile*. Pontiac*, and GMC Truck*. Names marked with an asterisk were used, if at all, before 1969; United Motors (1918- 1961); Goodwrench (1985 - Present). (d) See response to (c). DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 9 30366 05491 LIT 178211 (e) GM does not know the precise asbestos content of facing materials that others manufactured. It is a known industry practice, however, to use chrysotile asbestos. (f) Distribution of service pans continues. (g) During the 1980s to present for original equipment. (h) An example of a typical assembly for a passenger car includes a facing with an inside diameter of 2.3; millimeters, an outside diameter of 1S6 millimeters, and a thickness of 8 millimeters. The facing is typically dark brown. (i) Clutch driven plates assemblies are one component part of a manual transmission. (j) See response to (f). INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the design, preparation, or introduction into the market of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 still exist? If so, state: A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where the documents are currently located. RESPONSE: GM responds that some documents exist, but not for the entire period of sixty or more years. Engineering drawings, specifications, and manufacturing documents for drum and disc brake linings are generally located at the Delco Chassis Division of GM in Dayton, Ohio. There is no existing list of all of these documents and it would be very time consuming and expensive to try to compile such a list. GM objects to this interrogatory DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 10 30366 05491 LIT 178211 because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Before distributing, selling, or placing tbe products listed in your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 into the streams of commerce, were any tests conducted to determine potential health hazards involved in 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 date of each test. B. The name, address, and job title of each person conducting the tests or involved with conducting the tests. C. The results of the tests. RESPONSE: GM does not know of any study establishing that potential exposures to asbestos during brake repair operations constitute a health hazard. However, GM conducted air sampling for asbestos during routine brake maintenance operations and found that the exposures, if any, were below the permissible exposure limit. GM has also conducted a study that showed the emissions from brakes are substantially less than one percent asbestos. GM will make copies available for inspection at the office of its counsel at a mutually convenient time. See also response to 8. GM objects to this interrogatory because- it is overly broad, argumentative and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the testing of the products referred to in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 11 1Q166QS491 UT 11*111 A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. RESPONSE: See response to 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Did Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies make any design changes or modifications as a result of those tests described in responses to Interrogatory No. 8? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The trade names of the products changed. B. The nature of the changes made and the date of such changes or modifications. C. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having caused a change to be made, or having made a change or modification. RESPONSE: Design changes to brake linings have not been made because of asbestos exposure le.vel testing or measurements. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome, and it will not lead to admissible evidence. 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. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Pace 12 30366 05491 LIT 17*211 D. Whether, as a result of the tests, any products were removed from the market. E. The nmK of all products removed from the market as a result of these tests. RESPONSE: GM does not know of any study establishing that potential exposures to asbestos during brake repair operations constitute a health hazard. However, GM conducted air sampling for asbestos during routine brake maintenance operations and found that the exposures, if any, were below the permissible exposure limit. GM has also conducted a study that showed the emissions from brakes are substantially less than one percent asbestos. GM will make copies available for inspection at the office of its counsel at a mutually convenient time. See also response to 8. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, argumentative and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the potential health hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. The name of each product. B. A description of each document and how it relates to each product. C. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. RESPONSE: . See responses to 7 and 11. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad, and it will not lead to admissible evidence. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paor 13 30366 05491 LIT 178211 INTERROGATORY. MO-13; Did Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of the tests discussed in your response to Interrogatories No. 10 or 13? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products changed or modified. B. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having made a change or modification. C. The nature of the hazard or defect which resulted in such change or modification. RESPONSE: See response to 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material or 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. . 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 cun-ent 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. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page ]4 30366 05491 LIT 178211 RESPONSE; In 1975, GM began placing a caution, with language copied from the OSHA regulation, on packages. It read: "CAUTION: CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS. AVOID CREATING DUST. BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM." The word "CAUTION" was in no smaller than 12 point type. The rest of the words were in no smaller than 10 point type. GM specified a minimum size. The caution was changed beginning in 1989 to: "Danger: Contains asbestos fibers. Avoid creating dust. Cancer and Lung Disease hazard. Do not grind. Do not clean with compressed air. * See Service Manual Instructions *" Starting in 1977, General Motors included this statement in its service manuals: "Caution: When servicing wheel brake parts, do not create dust by grinding or sanding brake linings or by cleaning wheel brake parts with a dry brush or with compressed air. (A water dampened cloth should be used.) Many wheel brake parts contain asbestos fibers which can become airborne if dust is created during servicing. Breathing dust containing asbestos fibers may cause serious bodily harm." Starting in 1981, the statement was changed to: CAUTION: When servicing wheel brake parts, do not create dust by grinding, sanding brake linings, or by cleaning wheel brake parts with a dry brush or with compressed air. Many wheel brake parts contain asbestos fiber which can become airborne if dust is created during servicing. Breathing dust containing asbestos fiber may cause serious bodily harm. A water dampened cloth or water based solution should be used to remove any dust on brake parts. Equipment is commercially available to perform this washing function. These wet methods will prevent asbestos fibers from becoming airborne. - DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OB1ECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTJON-Paee 15 30W6QS491 UT 178211 To the extent this interrogatory asks for more information, GM objects because it is overly broad, vague, burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Before 1970, had you received notice that any individual or individuals, other than those Plaintiffs who have filed personal injury actions in Dallas County, Texas, is or are claiming or has or have claimed an injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company or any of its predecessors or Subsidiaries before 1970? If so, state: A. The name and address of each claimant. B. The date of notice of each claim. C. A description of the claim. D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained. E. The name and address of each attorney who represents each individual making a claim. F. The style and court number of each claim. G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. RESPONSE: GM has not found any record of a product liability lawsuit or claim alleging injury from exposure to asbestos from a GM product before 1970. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Were your asbestos products distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled and/or sold by companies other than your own? If the answer is affirmative, list the names and addresses of each of those companies, and the products in question. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 16 30366 05491 LIT 178211 RESPONSE; GM customarily sells its cars, tracks, and replacement parts to authorized dealers and distributors in Texas and elsewhere, who then resell them. They are not purchased by consumers directly from GM. Records related to GM's sale of replacement parts for most, if not all, of the relevant time periods are no longer available. GM does not have records of sales of parts by dealers or distributors. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Did you or any of your predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries have any distributors or sales representatives of asbestos products in the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such distributor or sales representatives. B. The years in which such company or person distributed, marketed, or sold your products. . C. What products were distributed, marketed, or sold and in what years. RESPONSE: See response to 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: List each employee (including only physicians and/or hygienists) who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians and industrial hygienists, and the current address; telephone number and job title of each of those individuals and who has, had or may have had any knowledge about the hazards of asbestos. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 17 30366 05491 LTT 178211 RESPONSE: The corporate medical directors of GM have been: Clarence Selby, M.D. Max Burnell, M.D. S.D. Steiner, M.D. R.G. Wieneck, M.D. R.W. Prior, M.D. B.B. Van Brocklin, M.D. (1935-1949) (1949-1958 (1958-1976) (1976-1980) (1980-1988) (1988-present) The directors of the GM Industrial Hygiene Department were: L.B. Case F. A. Patty V. J. Castrop G. L. Kortsha W. H. Krebs (1936-1945) (1945-1960) (1960-1975) (1976-1989) (1990-1993) Physicians and industrial hygienists have been employed at GM locations throughout the United States, but there is no central listing of all those people during the past forty years. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so, state: A. The name of each such publication. B. The date of publication and the names of the author and publisher (if any). C. The date received by Defendant, if known. D. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATOR'S AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paee 18 30366 05491 UT 178211 RESPONSE: GM does not know of any study that establishes that potential exposure to asbestos during brake repair operations constitutes a health hazard. There are many published articles that establish that mechanics who perform brake repair are not excessively exposed to asbestos and they do not have any increased risk of disease. The list of articles includes the following: 1. Newhouse, M.L., Sullivan, K.R. - "A Mortality Study of Workers Manufacturing Friction Materials: 1941-86." September 19, 1988, British Journal of Industrial Medicine, Volume 49. 2. Moore, L. Lamont - "Asbestos Exposure Associated With Automotive Brake Repair In Pennsylvania. " American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, Volume 49 (1988). 3. Lippmann, Morton - "Asbestos Exposure Indices." Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York University Medical Center, July 18, 1987. 4. Cheng, V.K. I., and O'Kelly, F.J. - "Asbestos Exposure in the Motor Vehicle Repair and Servicing Industry in Hong Kong." J. Soc. Occup. Med., Volume 36 (1986). 5. Schiffman, Mark H., Pickle, Linda., et al. - "Case Control Study of Diet and Mesothelioma in Louisiana." Cancer Research, Volume 48, May 15, 1988. 6. Wong, Otto - "Considerations of Specificity in Assessing The Relationship Between Asbestos and Cancer." American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Volume 23, (1993). 7. Connelly, Roger R., Spirtas, Robert, et al., - "Demographic Patterns for Mesothelioma in the United States." JNCI. Vol. 78, No. 6, June 1987. 8. Rushton, L., Anderson, M.R., and Nagarajah, C.R. - "Epidemiological Survey of Maintenance Workers in London Transport Executive Bus Garages and Chiswick Works." British Journal of Industrial Medicine, Volume 40 (1983). 9. Fischbein, Alf; Rohl, Arthur; Suzuki, Yasunosuke; and Bigman, Oscar - "Interstitial Pulmonary Fibrosis in An Automobile Body Shop Worker." Toxicology Letters, 27 (1985). DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Pape 19 30366 03491 LIT 178211 10. Gustavsson, Per; Plato, Nils; Lindstrom, Eva-Britta; and Hogstedt, Christer - "Lung Cancer and Exposure to Diesel Exhaust Among Bus Garage Workers." Scand. J. Work Environ Health 1990, Volume 16. 11. Lerchen, Mary L.; Wiggins, Charles L.; and Samet. Jonathan M. "Lung Cancer and Occupation in New Mexico." JNCI, Vol. 79, No. 4, October, 1987. 12. McDonald, Alison and McDonald, J. Corbett "Malignant Mesothelioma in North America." Cancer, Volume 46 (1980). 13. Hansen, Eva. M.D. - "Mortality of Auto Mechanics, A Ten-Year Follow-Up." Scand J. Work Environ Health, Volume 15 (1989). 14. Berry, G. and Newhouse, M.L. - "Mortality of Workers Manufacturing Friction Materials Using Asbestos." British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1983 (Volume 40). 15. Olsen, Jorgen H., and Jensen, Ole M. - "Occupation and Risk of Cancer in Denmark, An Analysis of 93,810 Cancer Cases, 1970-1979." Scand J. Work Environ Health, Volume 13 (1987). 16. Lee, G. L. - "Removing Dusts From Brake Assemblies During Vehicle Servicing Alternative Cleaning Methods." Ann. Occup. Hygiene, Volume 13 (1970). 17. Hickish, D. E., and Knight, K. L. - "Exposure to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance" Ann. Occup. Hygiene, Volume 13, (1970). 18. Knight, K.L. and Hickish, D. E. - "Investigations Into Alternative Forms of Control . for Dust Generated During the Cleaning of Brake Assemblies and Drums" Ann. Occup. Hygiene, Volume 13 (1970). 19. McDonald, A.D.; Harper, A; Arvar, O.A.; and McDonald, J.C. - "Epidemiology of Primary Malignant Mesothelial Tumors in Canada" Cancer, Volume 26, (1970). 20. Oels, H.; Harrison, E. G.; Carr, D., etc. - "Diffuse Malignant Mesothelioma of the Pleura: A Review of 37 Cases" Official Pub. of the American College of Chest Physicians, Volume 60, 1971. 21. Castleman, Berry; Camarota, Lucille A.; Fritsch, Albert J.j Mazzocchi, Sam; and Crawley, Robert G. - "The Hazards of Asbestos for Brake Mechanics" Public Health Reports, Volume 90 (1975). 22. Rohl, A.N.; Langer, A.M.; Klimentidis, R.; Wolff, M.S.; and Selikoff, I.J.; "Asbestos Content of Dust Encountered in Brake Maintenance and Repair" Proc. Soc. Med., Volume 70 January, 1977. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 20 30366 05491 UT 1782] 1 23. Brockman, Leonard; Rubino, Robert; and Christine, Barbara - "Asbestos and Mesothelioma Incidence in Connecticut" Journal of the Air Pollution Control Assoc., Volume 27, (1977). 24. Kannerstein, Milton; Churg, Jacob; and McCaughey, Elliott - "Asbestos and Mesothelioma: A Review" Pathology Annual, Part 1. Volume 13 (1978). 25. McDonald, A.D.; Fry, J.S.; Woolley, A.J.; and McDonald, J.C. - "Dust Exposure and Mortality in an American Chrysotile Asbestos Friction Products Plant" British Journal of Industrial Medicine 1984, Volume 41. 26. Greenberg, Morris, and Davies, Lloyd - "Mesothelioma Register 1967*1968" British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1974, Volume 31. . 27. Lorimer, William V.; Rohl, Arthur N.; Miller, Albert; Nicholson, William I.; and Selikoff, Irving I. - "Asbestos Exposure of Brake Repair Workers in the United States" The Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 3, May-June 1976. 28. Kjell, Marcus; Jarvholm, Bengt; and Larson, Sven - "Asbestos-Associated Lung Effects in Car Mechanics" Scand J. Work Eviron Health, Volume 13 (1987). 29. Brisman, J. and Jarvholm, Bengt * "Asbestos Associated Tumors in Car Mechanics" British Journal of Industrial Medicine, Volume 45 (1988). 30. Rodelsperger, K.; Jahn, H.; Bruckel, B.; Manke, J.; Paur R.; and Woltowitz, H."Asbestos Dust Exposure During Brake Repair" American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Volume 10 (1986). 31. Williams, Ronald L. and Muhlbaier, Jean L. - "Asbestos Brake Emissions" Environmental Research, Volume 29 (1982). 32. Kauppinen, Timo and Korhonen, Kari - "Exposure to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance of Automotive Vehicles by Different Methods" American Industrial Hygiene Society, Volume 48 (1987). 33. Rohl, Arthur N.; Langer, Arthur M.; Wolff, Maiy S.; and Weisman, Irving "Asbestos Exposure During Brake Lining Maintenance and Repair" Environmental Research, Volume 12 (1976). 34. Lynch, Jeremiah R. - "Brake Lining Decomposition Products" Air Pollution Control Assn., Volume 18 (1986). 35. Enterline, Philip E. and McKiever, Margaret F. - "Differential Mortality from Lung Cancer by Occupation," J. Occup. Med. (1963). DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 21 30366 05491 LIT 178211 36. Newhouse, Muriel L. and Thompson, Hilda - "Mesothelioma of Pleura and Peritoneum Following Exposure to Asbestos in the London Area,* British Journal Industrial Medicine, Volume 22 (1965). 37. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, Volume 13, 1970, Papers from the Conference on Exposure to Asbestos During Brake and Clutch Maintenance, held at Ford's Central Office, Brentwood, Essex, England, March, 1969, including: a. "Asbestos and Asbestosis," Smither, W.J. b. "Hygiene Standards For Asbestos," Roach, S.A. c. "Exposure to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance," Hickish, D.E.. and Knight, K.L. d. "Technical Implementation Of The New Asbestos Regulations," Luxon, S. e. "Possible Alternatives To Asbestos As A Friction Material," Hatch, D. f. "Control of The Use of Asbestos-Containing Friction Materials," Bentley, M.L. g. "Removing Dusts From Brake Assemblies During Vehicle Servicing- Alternative Cleaning Methods," Lee, G.L. h. "Investigations Into Alternative Forms of Control For Dust Generated During The Cleaning of Brake Assemblies and Drums," Knight, K.L., and Hickish, D.E. 38. Jacko, Michael G., DuChanne, Robert T., and Somers, Joseph H. "Brake and Clutch Emissions Generated During Vehicle Operation." Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 1973. 39. Davis, J.M., and Coniam, S.W. - "Experimental Studies on the Effects of Heated . Chrysotile and Automobile Brake Lining Dust Injected Into the Body Cavities of Mice," Experimental and Molecular Pathology, Volume 19 (1973). 40. "Asbestos and Brake Linings." Asbestos Information Association, Washington (1976). 41. "Fabrication and Use of Asbestos Friction Materials." Asbestos Information Association, Washington (1976). 42. Brenner, Joseph; Sordillo, Peter; Magill, Gordon; and Golbey, Robert. - "Malignant Mesothelioma of the Pleura" Cancer, Volume 49 (1982). 43. Enterline, Philip E.; and Henderson, Vivian - "Type of Asbestos and Respiratory Cancer in the Asbestos Industry." Arch Environ Health/Volume 27 (1973). 44. Peterson, J.T.; Greenberg, S.D.; and Buffler, P.A. - "Non-Asbestos-Related Malignant Mesothelioma" Cancer, Volume 54. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paee 22 30366 0J491 LIT 178211 45. Teta, Mary Jane; Lewinsohn, Hilton C.; Meigs, Wister; Vidone, Romeo; Moward. Linda; and Flannery, John - "Mesothelioma in Connecticut, 1955-1977." Journal of Occupational Medicine, Volume 25 (1983). 46. Weill, Hans; Hughes, Janet and Waggenspack, Carmel - "Influence of Dose and Fiber Type On Respiratory Malignant Risk In Asbestos Cement Manufacturing." American Review of Respiratory Disease, Volume 120 (1979). 47. Wong, Otto - "Chrysotile Asbestos, Mesothelioma and Garage Mechanics." American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Volume 21 (1992). 48. Wong, Otto - "Consideration of Specificity in Assessing the Relationship Between Asbestos and Cancer." American Journal Industrial Medicine, Volume 23 (1992). 49. Wright, W.E.; Sherwin, R.P.; Dickson, Elizabeth A.; Bernstein, L.; Fromm, Janine; and Henderson, B.E. - Malignant Mesothelioma: Incidence, Asbestos Exposure and Reclassification of Histopathology." British Journal Industrial Medicine, Volume 41 (1992). 50. Plato, Nils; Tomling, Goma; Hogstedt, Christer, and Krantz, Staffan - "An Index of Past Asbestos Exposure As Applied To Car and Bus Mechanics." British Occupational Hygiene Society, 1995. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 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. 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: DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 23 30366 05491 LIT 178211 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. E$P-ONSE: GM has been a member of numerous organizations from 1930 to the present. Although GM assumes that it received whatever items were forwarded to the general membership of any organization, association or other entity to which it may have belonged over the years, GM has not collected all those publications or compiled a list of them. As a result, GM does not know what each organization may have disseminated. If plaintiff will identify a specific organization, GM will try to determine if it was a member. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 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. - RESPONSE: See responses to 3, 5 and 6. GM combined asbestos fiber and other ingredients to produce asbestos-containing drum brake linings at plants operated by Inland Division (later Delco Products and Delco Chassis Divisions) in Dayton, Ohio (1939-1964) and Vandalia, Ohio (1962-present). GM combined asbestos fiber and other ingredients to produce asbestos- DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paee 24 30366 05491 UT 13Kill containing disc biake linings (1966-85) and extruded band linings for automatic transmissions (1965-79) at plants operated by Delco Moraine Division in Dayton, Ohio. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: . Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes of marketing or advertising products containing asbestos? If so, 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. RESPONSE: GM has advertised replacement parts, including brake linings and clutch assemblies, but has not kept copies of all advertisements and details about their publication. GM will make available a copy of some representative advertising at the office of its counsel at a mutually convenient time. GM also objects because the interrogatory is overly broad, vague, burdensome, harassing and oppressive. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Have any written or printed materials or instructions of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents indicating how asbestos products should be used and maintained? If so, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person who prepared such materials or instructions or assisted in their preparation. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paee 25 30366 0S491 LTT 17S211 B. The name, address and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials or instructions and their present location. C. The dates of distribution or use and the manner in which such materials or instructions were distributed to purchasers of Defendant's products or those of its subsidiaries or predecessors. D. The year each such written material or instruction was prepared and disclosed to potential consumers. RESPONSE: GM's recommendations for maintaining and servicing brake linings and transmission clutches are contained in numerous service manuals. GM will make copies of relevant excerpts or manuals available for inspection on reasonable notice at its lawyers' office. To the extent this interrogatory asks for additional information, GM objects because it is overly broad, burdensome, vague, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claims made by Plaintiffs in these cases? If so, list the name of each insurance carrier, the amount of initial coverage, amount of coverage remaining at the present time, and the effective dates of each policy. (If properly answered, this Interrogatory need not be supplemented as to the remaining amount of coverage). RESPONSE: - GM has comprehensive general liability coverage. The specific coverage that applies to a case depends on the date GM received notice of the case or claim. On request, GM will name the primary insurer for a specific case. The coverage provided is adequate to satisfy any judgment that may be rendered against GM in this action. GM objects to providing any DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 26 30366 04491 LIT 178211 more information because this interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, broad, burdensome, and unlikely to lead to admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: As to the disease asbestosis, state: 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 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. 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. RESPONSE: Asbestosis is related to exposure to asbestos by definition. Asbestosis can result from prolonged, excessive exposure to respirable asbestos fibers. GM does not know the precise date or manner someone at GM first learned this, but it was no later than 1940. GM cannot determine when any of its hundreds of thousands of current or past employees first heard of these "consequences or effects." To the best of GM's knowledge, however, there is no recognized, scientific substantiation that brake linings create an increased risk of illness to consumers or people who do repairs. GM objects to the rest of this interrogatory because it DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Paee 27 30366 03491 UT 178111 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to die discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: As to the disease lung cancer, state: 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. RESPONSE: There have been many general statements about asbestos exposure and lung cancer, but the precise role, if any, of exposure to various types of asbestos in the development of lung cancer is not yet known and is the subject of controversy in the medical and scientific community. GM cannot determine when any of its hundreds of thousands of current or past employees first heard of a report of a causal association between some form of lung cancer and some type of asbestos exposure. To the best of GM's knowledge, however, there is no recognized, scientific substantiation that brake linings create an increased risk of illness to DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paee 28 30366 03491 UT 178211 consumers or people who do repairs. GM objects to the rest of this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 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 of the 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. . F. Who is the custodian of such information. RESPONSE: Pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques can result from prolonged, excessive exposure to respirable asbestos fibers or from many other unrelated causes. GM cannot determine when any of its hundreds of thousands of current or past employees first heard of these "consequences or effects." To the best of GM's knowledge, however, there is no recognized, scientific substantiation that brake linings create an increased risk of illness to consumers or people who do repairs. GM objects to the rest of this interrogatory because it DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paee 29 30366 05491 LIT 178211 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 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 suspected 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 fust 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. RESPONSE: Mesothelioma is found in people who have had prolonged, excessive exposure to respirable amphibole asbestos fibers, as well as in people with no history or indications of asbestos exposure. GM does not know of a cure for mesothelioma. GM cannot determine when any of its hundreds of thousands of current or past employees first heard of these "consequences or effects." To the best of GM's knowledge, however, there is no DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paee 30 30366 05491 LIT 178211 recognized, scientific substantiation that brake linings create an increased risk of illness to consumers or people'who do repairs. GM objects to the rest of this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: As to gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The type of cancer 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. 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 fust suspected 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. - RESPONSE: Gastro-intestinal, laryngeal, pharyngeal, and lymphatic cancers have been theorized to have many different causes. GM cannot determine when any of its present or past employees may have first heard of a theory that some type of asbestos exposure caused or was associated with one of these cancers. To the best of GM's knowledge, however, there is DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PROPUCTION-Paec 31 J0J66 05491 UT 178211 no recognized, scientific substantiation that brake linings create an increased risk of illness to consumers or people who do repairs. GM objects to the rest of this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 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? If the answer is affirmative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys on which this answer is based. RESPONSE: The asbestos-containing brake linings and clutches that GM manufactures and distributes do not pose any significant risk to mechanics who install and remove them from cars and trucks. See also response to 19. GM objects because this interrogatory is overly broad, vague, burdensome, and unlikely to lead to admissible evidence. 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. - RESPONSE: Drum Brake Linings Service parts were shipped in corrugated boxes sized closely to the size and configuration of the parts. The name "Delco" was used on some boxes containing service parts as early as 1936. Boxes with the name "Delco" and colors red and black on white were used beginning in 1938 and later changed to red and blue on DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paee 32 JQ366 05491 UT 17*211 white. In addition to the brand name, the box or a label contains a boxmaker's certificate and box number. Disc Brake Linings Service parts were shipped in corrugated boxes sized closely 10 the size and configuration of the parts. Boxes with the name "Delco" and red and blue on white were used beginning in 1966. Boxes with the name "GM Parts" and colors black and aqua on white have been used since 1974. Boxes with the name "Goodwrench" and colors of black and gray on white have been used since 1985. In addition to the brand name, the box or a label contains a boxmaker's certificate and box number. Clutch Plates and Bands for Automatic Transmissions Service parts were placed in pouches sized closely to size and configuration of the parts and then placed in master boxes. Through 1976, the pouches (for clutch plates) were green and contained the name "United" and "General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Michigan" and "Made and Printed in U.S.A.* From 1977, the pouches are red and blue and contain the name "Delco" and HydraMatic Part" and Hydra-Matic Division, General Motors Corp., Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197, Made and Printed in U.S.A." The master boxes are plain craft boxes. The bands were distributed in white boxes with yellow, red and black trim and the Allison name (I940's-1969) and Detroit Diesel Allison name (1970-1988), and Allison name (1988-present, logo, part name, and group and part number. Clutch Plates for Manual Transmissions Service parts were shipped in corrugated boxes sized closely to part size and configuration during the entire period. The name "Delco" was used on some boxes containing service parts as early as 1936. Boxes with the name "Delco" and colors red and black on white were used beginning in 1958 and later changed to red and blue on white. Boxes with he name "GM Parts" and colors black and aqua on white have been used since 1974. Boxes with the name "Goodwrench" and colors of black and gray on white have been used since 1985. In addition to the brand name, the box or a label contains a boxmaker's certificate and box number. * Medium and heavy duty truck parts For medium and heavy duty truck parts before 1974, some parts were shipped in the boxes in which they were received from the manufacturer with a label added with the GM part number. Otherwise boxes were used with a GMC logo in green and orange before 1963 and GMC truck and coach logo in blue and black from 1963 to 1974. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 33 30366 03491 LIT 178211 INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos materials or asbestos products? If so, state, as to each such agreement: A. The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products. B. The trade name affixed to those products. C. The periods of time covered by each such agreement. D. The volume, in dollar amount, of each transaction. E. The initial purchaser of the products. RESPONSE: Replacement brake linings that GM packaged and sold, whether made by GM or others, were generally packaged in containers with GM brand names, except for some linings packaged in plain containers with AMC pan numbers. GM does not understand what plaintiff means here by "rebranding" and objects to this interrogatoiy because it is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. .. 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. RESPONSE: GM purchased chrysotile for drum brake linings from: DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 34 J0366QS49I LIT 17821] Asbestos Fibre Corp. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. c/o C. L. Zimmerman Co. N-303 Cincinnati Union Terminal Cincinnati, Ohio 45203 Asbestos Corp., Ltd. Johns Manville Corp. Box 517 Toledo, Ohio Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd. Box 608 Black Lake, Quebec JM Asbestos Sales, Inc. Asbestos, Quebec GM purchased chrysotile for disc brake linings from: Asbestos Corp., Ltd. Lake Asbestos Canadian Johns-Manville Asbestos, Quebec National Gypsum Co. Cleveland, Ohio C. L. Zimmerman Co. 3655 Central Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio Union Insulating Co. Parkersburg, W. Virginia Chrysler Chemical Division Trenton, Michigan 1939 - 1975 1967 - 1970 1975 - 1984 1977 - 1985 __ 1984 - 1985 1967 - 1970 1967 - 1970 1967 - 1984 1972 1972 - 1977 1976 1978 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paac 35 30366 05491 LIT 178211 GM purchased axle assemblies, drum brake shoes and disc pads from: Abex Corporation Friction Products Division Winchester, VA 22601-3601 1937 - 1986 American Coleman Co. Littleton, CO 80120-1918 19078 - 1983 Bendix Automotive Aftermarket Newport News, VA 1960 - 1969 The Bendix Corporation Troy, NY 13283 1951 - 1986 C. Itoh & Co. (America) Inc. Southfield, MI 48076 1971 - 1986 Carlisle Corporation Ridgeway, PA 15853 1955 - 1986 Dayton Walther Corp. Dayton Division Dayton, OH 45408 1983 - 1986 Eaton Corporation Gallatin, TN 37066-0761 1979 - 1986 John Hassall, Inc. Westbury, NY 11590-0698 1966 - 1980 ITT Aimco Mississauga, Ontario 1948 - unknown DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Paee 36 J0366 0S491 UT 178211 Kelsey Products Division Brighton, MI 1981 - 1986 1975-1980 Kelsey Hayes Company Milford, MI 1967 - 1973 Marshall Eclipse address unknown-out of business 1948 - unknown Multibestos address unknown-out of business 1942 - unknown H.K. Porter Company Huntington, IN 46750 1974 - 1986 Rockwell International Oshkosh, WI 54903 1978 - 1986 Rockwell International Florence, KY 42042-2754 1972 - 1986 Wagner Electric Corporation McGraw - Edison Tullahoma, TN 1955 - 1985 Raybestos Manhattan, Inc. Chicago, II 60693 1955 - 1971 Raymark Crawfordsville, In 47933-1958 1974 - 1980 Rockwell International Ashtabula, OH 44004 1954 - 1986 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 37 30366 05491 LIT 17B1I Uhi-Bond Brake, Inc. Femdale, MI 48220-2011 1973 - 1986 Universal Friction address unknown-out of business 1956 - unknown Johns-Manville 1956-1969 Dana-Axle 1974-1985 Ferodo 1950s AMCO 1951-1965 Akebono 1985-unknown GM purchased chrysotile for Extruded Clutch Bands from: Asbestos Corp. Ltd. Johns-Manville Since 1964, Raymark and the Spring-Brummer Division of Borg-Wamer Corporation supplied clutch plates and bands for automatic transmissions. Since 1964, the Spring- Brummer Division of Borg-Wamer Corporation and D.A.B. Industries have supplied bands. Suppliers of clutch plates are Sheepbridge, RaybestosManhattan, Raymark, S.K. Wellman, Thermoset, Borg Warner, and Delco Moraine. GM cannot provide more details about dates possible without a search that would take an estimated 100 man-hours. GM purchased Clutch Plates for Manual Transmissions from: DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paee 38 30366 05491 LIT 178211 Suppliers of facings were (dates are approximate): Raymark Industrial Division, Southfield, MI 1965 - 1985 H. K. Porter, Troy, Michigan, 1965 - 1971 Sources of assemblies were (dates approximate): Borg Warner Corporation Chicago, 111. 1930 - 1985 Borg & Beck Sterling Heights, MI 1974 - 1984 LUK, Inc. Southfield, MI 1983 - 1985 Alma Products Co. Alma, MI 1974-1985 Daikin (Asahi facings) Troy, MI Unknown INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Does Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessor currently have possession of any writings or contracts on those rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to Interrogatory No. 32? If the answer is affirmative, state:. A. The name, address, and job title of each person having custody of each of those documents and their current location. B. A brief description of each such document, including the dates and the parties signatory. RESPONSE: See response to 32. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PROPUCTION-Paee 39 30366 0549! UT 1701! INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Prior to 1968, did any person file a claim against a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he/she contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers? If so, provide: A. A list of the claims, including each claimant's name, address and the date each claim was filed, and including the caption and jurisdiction of the claim. B. The disease alleged in each such claim. C. A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim. D. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. RESPONSE: Records of workers' compensation claims are not indexed in a way that would enable GM to isolate claims related to an exposure to a particular material, like asbestos. In addition, workers' compensation records are not maintained in one central location, but are kept at or near the facilities where the claimant worked. Therefore, there is no compilation from which information can be obtained to respond to this interrogatory. However, GM will make workers' compensation claims records available for plaintiffs' lawyers' review at the facilities where they are maintained, at times convenient for all. GM also objects because the interrogatory is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ~ INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? If so, for each such set of minutes, state: DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 40 303<60S491 LIT 178211 A. The dates of each such meeting. B. The general subject matter discussed at each meeting. C. Who was in attendance at each meeting. D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained. . By whom the minutes were taken and put into final fonnat. F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. RESPONSE: * GM found no meeting minutes of the Board of Directors on the subject of asbestos and health. GM objects because this interrogatory is overly broad, burdensome, vague, ambiguous, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Do you or any of your subsidiaries, including foreign business entities, currently manufacture any products containing asbestos? If so, state: A. As to each product, whether such product is mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold. B. The names and addresses of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each of those products. C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. 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. F. A description of the physical appearance of each product and its packaging. G. A detailed description of the intended uses of each of the named products. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 41 30366 0*91 UT 17011 H. Whether there are any warning labels on said products or containers regarding potential asbestos-related health hazards. RESPONSE: The responses to 6 and 14 cover the asbestos-containing friction materials for cars, trucks, and buses manufactured and distributed in the United States by General Motors Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. GM objects to this interrogatory to the extent it encompasses foreign subsidiaries because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: State whether you or any of your predecessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies of invoices, shipping documents, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the mining, manufacture, marketing, sale or distribution of asbestos products. If so, state: A. The location of such documents. B. The name and address of the custodian of the documents. C. The format in which the documents are kept, i.e., hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. D. In what form the documents can be accessed, i.e., by state, by product, etc., and if by product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. RESPONSE: - GM's usual business practice is to maintain records of the sale of replacement automotive parts, including friction parts, for approximately six years. Records of vehicle sales are generally kept for approximately ten years. GM objects to the rest of this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO ELAINTfFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 42 30366 05491 UT 178211 INTERROGATORY NO. 39: May you call company representatives as witnesses at the trial of any of these cases? If so, list: A. The name, address, and job title of each company representative who may be called. B. A summary of the testimony expected to be given by each such witness. C. List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs in that case. RESPONSE: GM has not yet determined who will be called as a witness at trial nor has GM designated its experts. If GM designates GM employees as experts, and if those experts have earlier depositions in their control, GM will make copies of the earlier depositions available to plaintiff on request. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and improper. 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; DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 43 30366 05491 LIT 178211 . Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in the State of Texas; RESPONSE: GM acquired the assets of the Bondall Company, 500 Bittner Street. St. Louis, Missouri, in 1939. Bondall designed and manufactured brake linings and clutch facings. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad and unlikely to lead to admissible evidence. 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. RESPONSE: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: For each asbestos-containing product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6, identify all foreseeable users such as insulators, helpers, pipefiners, welders, machinists, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, boilermakers, shipwrights and riggers, etc. of any of Defendant's asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: GM expected mechanics to replace brake linings and clutches from time to time. PEEENPANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTION?; TO PLAINTIFFS- MASTER INTERROGATORIES ANP REQUESTS FOR PROPUCTION-Page 44 30366 QS491 UT 178ZU INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Based upon the materia] contents of your asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, can such products be generally applied without liberating asbestos fibers into the air? A. If there is a different answer concerning different products manufactured, sold, distributed, or used by your company, then specify the different products by precise manufacturer's name and popular name. B. If there is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in which a particular product was used, then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you are referring to and year involved. RgSPQNSEl Yes. Brake linings and clutches are solid and the chiysotile fibers are locked in a plastic matrix. See also response to 19. GM objects to the rest of this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Was it a foreseeable use of your asbestos-containing products that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced at some time after installation? RESPONSE: Brake linings and clutches wear out and it is expected that they will be replaced. INTERROGATORY NO, 45: Before 1970, did you or your subsidiaries or predecessor(s) ever arrange for any labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company to go to job sites where your products were being used or installed to make or take dust level counts? If so, state when this procedure started, the purpose of such procedures, and all results of such procedures. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS'. MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Papp 45 30366 05491 UT 178211 RESPONSE: No. In 197S, GM conducted air sampling in automobile dealerships during brake maintenance and repair operations. The results of these tests were that the time-weighted average exposures were within the permissible exposure limits of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Copies of the reports are available for inspection at the office of its counsel at a mutually convenient time. See also response to 8. . INTERROGATORY NQ. 46: If Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? RESPONSE: See responses to 8, 10, 11, 13 and 45. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is vague, broad, burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Has your company or its subsidiaries or predecessors) ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies designed to assist in minimizing or eliminating the inhalation Of asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use of your company's products? If so, give the following: A. Name of the person or firm conducting such studies; B. The date the studies began and the date they were completed; C. Any publication or other written dissemination of the results of the studies; DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 46 30366 05491 LIT 17*211 D. The nature of any action to eliminate or dust fibers; RESPONSE: the inhalation of asbestos GM knows of no study establishing that potential exposure to asbestos during brake repair operations is a health hazard. GM has not conducted studies to determine the possible effects of inhalation of asbestos fibers. GM did, however, evaluate the performance of a brake assembly cleaning device. GM will make a copy of the report available for inspection and copying. See also response to 19. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is vague, broad, burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Does your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a Research Department? If so, give the year such Research Department was established, and whether or not such Research Department has operated continuously since being established. State also: A. The amount of time and money expended each year on research concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products? B. What percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessors) spend on research concerning the health effects of asbestos? C. State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities or such Research Department. RESPONSE: GM has many departments that do research on a very wide range of topics. The central research facility was the Research Laboratories, located in Michigan. GM objects to DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Pape 47 30366 03491 UT 1782U this interrogatory because it is vague, burdensome, broad, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Does your company have, or has it ever had, or have your predecessors) or subsidiaries ever had, a Medical Department? If so, state: A. The year such Medical Department was established; B. Whether or not such Medical Department has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Medical Director or Medical Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department. RESPONSE: There are medical departments at many GM plants and other units, some of which have been in operation since the incorporation of GM. There is no list of all of the directors of these many medical departments since the date of their organization. See also response to 18. To the extent this interrogatory asks for more information, GM objects because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO SO: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever place any warning directly on any of its asbestos-containing product or on their packaging. If so, identify the product(s) and year said warning was first applied. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 48 30346 OS491 LIT 178211 RESPONSE: See response to 14. INTERROGATORY NO. SI: 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 of its asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the name brand names of such products, a description of such stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. RESPONSE: Brake linings have contained an edge code and certification number since about 1967. For drum brake linings that GM manufactures, the edge code is "DELCO" and the certification code begins with '2.' For disc brake linings, the edge code is "DM" and the certification code begins with "1" or "2." Drum brake shoes GM manufactures have contained the marks "Delco Moraine" or "DM" or a logo that depicts the outline of two brake shoes. Drum brake shoes with these markings may be relined by various manufacturers with non-GM linings. Before 1974, some clutch facings that GM assembled had a "GM" marking on the facing. Current manual transmission clutch facings do not have identification markings. GM also objects because this interrogatory is overly broad, burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 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 could be substituted for one or more of your asbestos-containing DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTERINTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 49 30366 05491 LIT 178211 products? If so, state the date that such research plan was begun and when such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. RESPONSE: Brake linings that did not contain asbestos were used on GM cars and trucks before the introduction of asbestos-containing linings in the 1920s, and some disc and drum brake linings from 1980 to present, and in special applications, like police cars, at other times. Brake linings that do not contain asbestos have different performance characteristics and are used in brake systems that are designed to match those characteristics. Therefore, non asbestos linings are not a "substitute." GM objects because the interrogatory is vague, . ambiguous, argumentative and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GM also objects because the interrogatory is burdensome, harassing and oppressive. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: . Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever recall any products containing asbestos from the market or stream of commerce? If so, state: A. All details of such recall; B. The name of the product recalled, including the reason for the recall and the names and current addresses of those individuals who determined that it should take place; ' C. The dates of recall; D. The purpose for the recall. RESPONSE: GM has not recalled an asbestos-containing brake lining or clutch facing for any reason relating to its asbestos content. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 50 30366 OS491 UT 178211 GM objects to the rest of this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Before 1970, did you ever manufacture or sell products which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date such asbestos-free products were first placed on the market. RESPONSE: . Asbestos-containing friction products have characteristics different from non-asbestos friction products and, therefore, one is not a substitute for the other. See response to No. 52. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Have any products you identified in your response to Interrogatory Nos. 52 and 54 not performed as intended? Please list all such products that have not performed as intended. RESPONSE: See responses to 52 and 54. INTERROGATORY NO. 56- Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever make, order, or arrange for any industrial hygiene surveys regarding asbestos or asbestos-containing dust? If so, give the date of such surveys and state who, or what entity, was responsible for completion of such surveys. DEFENDANT_GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EASIER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Page 51 3036605491 UT 178211 RESPONSE: See responses to 8 and 11 about brake repairs. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO, 57: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant or any predecessor(s) or subsidiaries were first advised of such limits or concentrations; B. The name of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice; C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. RESPONSE: GM would have become aware of the recommended threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists shortly after their adoption and publication. Because these values have existed for many years, GM cannot identify the specific employee who first received the information. To the extent this interrogatory asks for more information, GM objects because it is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Pagc 52 30366 05491 LIT 178211 !*&ROGATORY NCL 58: Were the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory No. 57 for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone? BESRQNSP: Plaintiff should consult the documentation prepared by the ACGIH for this information. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: State in detail what tests, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing your asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: See response to 8. GM objects to this interrogatory because it is unintelligible, overly broad, burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Please state the following with respect to each expert witness 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; DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page S3 3COM 05491 UT 178211 (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. BESTOMSEi GM's investigation and discovery are continuing. GM and its lawyers have not yet decided what witnesses, evidence or experts GM may use at trial. GM will provide this information as required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or by any order of the court. GM also objects to this interrogatory because it asks for the trial strategies and tactics of GM's lawyers and other similar information protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine. INTERROGATORY NO. 61: . Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge of facts relevant to these cases involving, but not limited to: (a) Identification of asbestos-containing products to which each and every individual Plaintiff, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, allegedly was exposed or facts disputing the identification of asbestoscontaining products in this case. (b) Each and every individual Plaintiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged damages, injuries and/or facts disputing each and every Plaintiffs alleged damages and/or injuries; (c) The negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of each and every individual Plaintiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged injuries and/or damages; DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paee 54 J0J66 0S491 LIT 178211 (d) Each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed Answer in each of these cases. RESPONSE: GM objects to this interrogatory because it asks for legal opinions or conclusions about what constitutes "relevant facts," information protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine. INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Please identify documents which will be used at time of trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List, which are relevant to each of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. RESPONSE: See response to 60. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: . Please state when you first received a copy of the Fleischer/Drinker Report published in 1945/1946. RESPONSE: GM does not know when it first received the report and who at GM received it. GM objects to this request because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and- is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Pace 55 10366 05491 LIT 17J211 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION,NO, 1: Please produce a true and correct copy of each photograph of each asbestos-containing product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 4. RESPONSE: Illustrations or sketches of products are included in the service manuals and advertising samples described in GM's responses to interrogatories. GM objects to this request because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive and it is not reasonably particular about what is being requested. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce any diagrams or schematics indicating, stating or detailing the existence of any of your subsidiaries, predecessors, or divisions as defined on Page 1 of these Interrogatories and Request for Production. RESPONSE: As one would expect in an organization that has existed since 1916, conducting operations throughout the U.S.A and several other countries, with numerous divisions that have in the past or now exist or that have been, in some manner over the years, reorganized, and that conducts many different types of business operations, GM has many documents that might be considered to depict its organization. However, the vast majority of GM's operations have nothing to do with the manufacture or distribution of asbestos-containing products. In addition, GM does not know the number of documents that may possibly be responsive to this request, nor does it know the extent to which those possibly responsive documents from the past 78 years have been retained. Accordingly, GM objects to this DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-Paee 56 30366 05491 LIT 178211 request because it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive in scope, both as to time and subject, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GM also objects to this request because the unclear phrase "diagrams or schematics indicating, stating, or detailing the existence of any of your subsidiaries, predecessors or divisions," particularly given the way plaintiff defines those terms in his preface to this request, makes the request vague and ambiguous. Respectfully submitted, THOMPSON & KNIGHT, A Professional Corporation BvC&folhXYV WuA Joseph S. Pevsner State Bar No. 15874! Dawn M. Wright State Bar No. 12742030 3300 First City Center 1700 Pacific Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 969-1700 Fax: (214) 969-1751 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINT1FFS*_MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION--Page 57 30366 05*91 UT 17011 STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF WAYNE ) )SS. ) Kelly ). Price says chat she is authorized by General Motors Corporation under applicable law and rules to verify and does verify these DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION on behalf of General Motors Corporation. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2ist day of June, 1996. Notary f*6blic Unry cto Fftto* Notary Pubfe, Osteal Oouty, Mfefcg&fl Acting in Wiyne 0r$, GoRmesion &5Bk:-01-07^19 Authorized Ajjent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned does hereby certify that on the 8th day of July, 1996, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was forwarded to counsel for Plaintiff. Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd, The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219, via certified mail, return receipt requested and to all other known counsel of record via first class mail. 30366 03491 UT 178211