Document aJN4oEoMn82NnMg5qqMVEBMnY

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT CAUSE NO. 94-CI-10078 ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED OR TO BE FILED IN BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY. INC.'S AMENDED 102-20-031 OB.rECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANTS COMES NOW Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. and files these Amended (02-20-03) Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendants pursuant to the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and the Bexar County Standing Order No. 1 entered on July 15,1994 adopting these interrogatories and requests for production as the Master Discovery Requests in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Brown McCarroll, l.l.p. __ By: ___________________ TODD N. WADE State Bar No. 20627500 KAY ANDREWS State Bar No. 01248510 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1215 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-5456 (Telephone) (512)479-1155 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT: KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AL'S:2007882.I 32021.70736 i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing instrument was forwarded to the court and plaintiffs' counsel via certified mail, return receipt requested, and by regular mail to all other counsel of record on this the day of /yfArgh ___________ , 2003. ToddN. Wade All Known Plaintiffs' Counsel (see attached service list) All Known Defense Counsel ofRecord (see attached service list) Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant ACS.2007882.I 32021.70736 2 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' definitions of "Defendant," "You," "Yours," and "Your Company," on the grounds that the definitions are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek irrelevant information, because the definitions include persons or entities (e.g., affiliates, predecessors in interest, subsidiaries, divisions, agents, and "all other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of the corporate Defendant") over whom Defendant has no control, who are not parties to this suit, and for whom the Defendant would have no responsibility. Furthermore, Defendant objects that inclusion ofthese additional persons and entities within Plaintiffs' definitions renders the definitions vague and ambiguous with respect to the capacity in which Plaintiffs desire these Interrogatories and requests for production to be answered. 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' definition of "document," "documents," "written materials," and "printed matter" on the grounds that the definition is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and constitutes harassment, because the definition attempts to expand and enlarge the definition of "document" contained in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 192.3(b). Additionally, Plaintiffs' request that Defendant produce those documents beyond those currently in its possession, custody or control exceeds the scope of Rule 192.3(b). Furthermore, Plaintiffs' instruction in section (2) of the definition requiring Defendant to produce responsive documents "regardless of who now has or formerly had custody, possession or control" clearly exceeds the scope of Rule 192.3(b) and is harassing and unduly burdensome. Finally, regarding Plaintiffs' instruction to produce all documents in the possession, custody or control of Defendant's "subsidiaries ... or merged or acquired predecessors," Defendant objects on the basis set forth in Objection No. 1, supra. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS-2007882.1 32021.70736 3 GENERAL OBJECTIONS APPLICABLE TO AI T, INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs' requests for production to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to impose a duty or obligation upon Defendant to produce any documents or things which are not currently in Defendant's possession, custody, or control on the grounds that Plaintiffs seek to impose requirements, obligations, and duties on Defendant not prescribed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant will make a good-faith effort to produce all non-privileged documents, which are properly discoverable under the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and Evidence, which are, as of the date of this response, within Defendant's possession, custody, or control, which have not previously been produced to Plaintiffs, and which Defendant identifies as responsive to Plaintiffs' requests. Defendant will not produce any documents obtained by Defendant after the date of this response, except to the extent required by Rule 193.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or except as necessary to properly respond to any subsequent discovery requests. 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' requests for production to the extent that any request requires Defendant to produce information and/or documentation within the public domain and equally available to Plaintiffs under the Freedom of Information Act and/or the Texas Open Records Act, from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and/or the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and/or OSHA, and/or any other appropriate federal or state agency. 3. Defendant objects to the extent these discovery requests are not limited to the time period when Kelly-Moore manufactured or sold any asbestos-containing product (December, 1960 to June, 1978). As Kelly-Moore has been sued in literally thousands of asbestos-related personal injury cases over the years, information has been developed subsequent to that time. Kelly-Moore's responses are thus generally limited to describing information known to it during or shortly after the time it manufactured or sold asbestos-containing products. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AL'S:2007882.1 32021.70736 4 ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of all other positions, titles, ofjobs held when working for Defendant or each person who has supplied any information used in answering these Interrogatories. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is unduly burdensome to the extent it asks Defendant to identify each individual supplying any information used in answering these Interrogatories. Subject to this objection and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Mr. Herbert Giffins President and Chief Executive Officer 987 Commercial Street San Carlos, California 94070 Length of time employed: July 1985 to present. Year by year list of all other positions, titles, or job held: Merchandise Manger, 1985-1987; Vice-President of Store Operations, 1987 1996; President - Southwest Division, 1996-2002; President and Chief Executive Officer, 2002-Present. 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 ofprocess on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas. ANSWER: Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., is a California corporation, incorporated 12/4/52. The principal place of business is 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 s Todd Wade ofBrown McCarroll, L.L.P., 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1215, Austin, Texas 78701-4043, is authorized to accept service on behalf of Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. in the State of Texas. Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., was qualified to do business in the State of Texas on October 14, 1964. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Has Defendant or any ofits predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale ofmaterial 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 Bexar County asbestos litigation. ANSWER: Subject to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Defendant never mined asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time manufactured or sold. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, and requests information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only products containing asbestos fibers which might be relevant to this lawsuit are those to which the Plaintiffs claim exposure. Defendant objects to providing information concerning asbestos-containing products to which the Plaintiffs do not claim exposure. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: See Exhibit A. attached to these Interrogatory answers and objections. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time marketed or sold. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, and requests information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only products containing asbestos fibers which might be relevant to this lawsuit are those to which the Plaintiffs claim exposure. Defendant objects to providing information concerning asbestos-containing products to which the Plaintiffs do not claim exposure. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: See Exhibit A. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If the answer to one or more ofthe 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 ofthe 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. E. A description ofthe physical (chemical) composition ofeach ofthe named products, including the type 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. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 7 ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it is not limited to any relevant time period or limited to the products to which Plaintiffs claim exposure. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that Plaintiffs seek the production of confidential and proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, including the composition of each of the named products. Information concerning the composition ofthe products beyond asbestos content is protected from disclosure by privilege pursuant to Rule 507 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Evidence. Disclosure of such information would be materially damaging to Defendant's business. Furthermore, information concerning the composition ofproducts beyond asbestos is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: (a-j) Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. manufactured, marketed and sold the products listed on Exhibit A. Please see Exhibit A for further details. The products were generally sold under the Paco Textures Corporation name. Further details regarding the components ofthe various product formulas and the other details inquired about may be contained within the business records of Kelly-Moore pertaining to its involvement with asbestos-containing products. These documents are available for inspection and copying at the Kelly-Moore document repository, 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070 upon reasonable notice. Responding generally, though, to the questions posed, Kelly-Moore can summarize its knowledge as follows: The asbestos fiber type used by Kelly-Moore was chrysotile asbestos. It was purchased from three principal sources, Johns-Manville, Carey Canadian, and Union Carbide, directly or through their respective distributors. These distributors included Harrison & Crosfield (Pacific), of Emeryville, California, which distributed products on behalf of Union Carbide Corporation; E.S. Browning Corporation, which distributed products on behalf of Carey Canadian; and Thompson Hayward Company, which distributed on behalf of the Johns-Manville Sales Corporation. Kelly-Moore manufactured products using asbestos as a raw ingredient from 1960 to 1978. On average, the products contained approximately 6% asbestos by weight in the product formulas. Starting in 1972, efforts were Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS-2007882.1 32021.70736 8 made to reduce or eliminate the use of asbestos in Paco's drywall related products. Over time, asbestos was totally eliminated from some products. The use ofasbestos was reduced in other products. Some ofthe products saw a reduction in asbestos to less than /% of 1% (by weight) of the product. In some cases, Paco was not successful in producing a commercially acceptable asbestos-free product. In 1978, Kelly-Moore totally ceased manufacturing or selling any products which contained asbestos. 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 ofthe 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. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its "patching compounds" (including joint compound) no later than 1978. Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been collected from outside sources and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees collected or developed in order to defend against asbestos-related injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Defendant herein incorporates by reference objections to Interrogatory 6. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 9 (a) To the extent Kelly-Moore has located or collected documents responsive to this Interrogatory which are not otherwise privileged, those documents are contained within Kelly-Moore's document repository in San Carlos, California. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer to this Interrogatory from the records is substantially the same for Plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attomey/client or work-product privilege. The custodian of records of these records is Herbert R. Giffins. (b) The documents are currently stored in a document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Before distributing, selling, or placing the 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. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, to the extent that it requests information regarding testing of "materials" besides asbestos contained in defendant's products. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous because it is unclear whether plaintiff is limiting the Interrogatory to information concerning only those tests conducted by, authorized by, or known to Defendant; Defendant will answer the Interrogatory assuming that the Interrogatory is so limited. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers: Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 io Before 1978, Kelly-Moore had received very few documents, all of which were prepared or written by others, relative to the medical literature regarding testing of health effects from asbestos or asbestos-containing products in general. These products may or may not be similar to the products identified on Exhibit A attached hereto. The documents Kelly-Moore received from others showed that the type of medical research necessary to understand the health effects of asbestos was very complex and specialized. The documents further showed there appeared to be a consensus among medical researchers specializing in this field that while asbestos could cause adverse health effects, asbestos could also be used safely if exposure to respirable asbestos fibers was controlled or limited by safe work practices. Kelly-Moore did not perform its own tests to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to the materials such as asbestos, as Kelly-Moore did not have the facilities nor expertise to conduct such tests. Kelly-Moore relied upon its raw material suppliers to advise Kelly-Moore of any known, possible, or potential adverse health effects associated with the use of the raw materials they supplied to Kelly-Moore, including asbestos. Prior to 1971 or early 1972, KellyMoore had not received information from any source indicating asbestos was potentially harmful to human health. Starting in 1972, dust level exposure tests were conducted at Kelly-Moore's manufacturing facilities by Kelly-Moore's workers' compensation insurer. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, through industrial hygienists provided by Liberty Mutual for that purpose. These tests measured dust levels associated with the manufacturing process. Kelly-Moore does not have complete records of these inspections. In addition, various regulatory agencies would also conduct tests of airborne dust levels at Kelly-Moore's facilities to determine compliance with applicable regulations. Kelly-Moore is also aware that Union Carbide Corporation conducted tests ofvarious joint compounds (although it is unknown if a Kelly-Moore product was used in these tests) in actual application at numerous job sites throughout the United States. The results of that testing, which was designed to test levels of airborne asbestos-dust, were published in a study by Union Carbide. In addition, in 1975, a study was done of the amount of airborne asbestos dust from use of certain Kelly-Moore ceiling texture products. This study was conducted in Los Gatos, California. The Los Gatos testing of Kelly-Moore product showed that the normal use of the product generally did not create asbestos dust levels in excess ofthe permissible exposure levels set by the United States government as to exposure to certain airborne asbestos fibers. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 11 Once Kelly-Moore learned of the potential for adverse health consequences from inhalation of asbestos in "patching compounds" (including joint compound and texture products) ofthe type manufactured by Kelly-Moore, Kelly-Moore undertook to research ways to make its products asbestos-free or, at a minimum, to try to reduce the amount of asbestos used in the product formulas. Ultimately, the use of asbestos as an ingredient was discontinued entirely in all products in 1978. To the extent further information is in document form, responsive, non-privileged documents are located at Kelly-Moore's document repository in San Carlos, California, and are available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. 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: 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. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its "patching compounds" (including joint compound) no later than 1978. The response to this Interrogatory is limited to the records of Kelly-Moore from the time period Kelly-Moore manufactured or sold products which contained asbestos (1960-1978). Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been collected from outside sources and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees collected or developed in order to defend against asbestosrelated injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 12 Defendant herein incorporates by reference objections to Interrogatory 6. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers: Yes. The answer to Subparts (a) and (b) of this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. 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? Ifthe 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. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it is not limited to any relevant time period. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that Plaintiffs seek the production of confidential and proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, including the composition of each of the named products. Information concerning the composition of the products beyond asbestos content is protected from disclosure by privilege pursuant to Rule 507 of the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence. Disclosure of such information would be materially damaging to Defendant's business. Furthermore, information concerning the composition of products beyond asbestos is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant herein incorporates by reference objections to Interrogatories 6 and 8. Subject to these objections and to the general objections set forth above, and without waiving the same, Kelly-Moore answers: Yes. See responses to Interrogatories 6 and 8. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 13 Beginning in the early 1970's, various Kelly-Moore employees were involved in efforts to develop asbestos-free formulas for various products. Kelly-Moore also worked to re-formulate its products to reduce the amount ofasbestos fiber used in the product formula. In certain instances, Kelly-Moore was able to reduce the amount of asbestos to less than Vz of 1%, and Kelly-Moore was able to completely eliminate asbestos in other products. In some instances, Kelly-Moore was not successful in developing commercially usable asbestos-free formulations of certain products. In 1978, though, Kelly-Moore discontinued the use of asbestos in any product that it manufactured. Douglas Merrill of Kelly-Moore was in charge of product reformulation between 1972 and 1978. At various times from 1972-77, tests were conducted by Kelly-Moore on the commercial viability of, or effectiveness of, the asbestos-free or reduced asbestos formula products Kelly-Moore was working to develop. Over 236 different formulas were tested in Kelly-Moore's effort to develop commercially acceptable asbestos-free or reduced asbestos products. To the extent documentation regarding the above information is available, those documents are available for inspection at Kelly-Moore's document repository in San Carlos, California, upon reasonable notice. The custodian ofthese records is Herbert R. Giffins, see Interrogatory 1. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: After releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use of or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products tested and the dates of such tests. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests. C. The results of those tests. D. Whether, as a result of the tests, any products were removed from the market. E. The names of all products removed from the market as a result of these tests. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects because this Interrogatory is not limited in time. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 14 is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its "patching compounds" (including joint compound and texture products) no later than 1978. The response to this Interrogatory is limited to the records of Kelly-Moore from the time period Kelly-Moore manufactured or sold products which contained asbestos (1960-1978). Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been collected from outside sources and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees collected or developed in order to defend against asbestos-related injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, to the extent that it requests information regarding testing of "materials" besides asbestos contained in defendant's products. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous because it is not clear whether the Interrogatory is limited to a request for information concerning tests conducted or authorized by this Defendant; Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad to the extent that it seeks information concerning tests neither conducted nor authorized by this Defendant. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Tests were conducted as described in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and 47. KellyMoore does not have complete records ofthese inspections. To the extent any further information is available regarding these tests, the answer to Subparts (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AL'S:20078S2.I 32021.70736 15 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. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its products no later than 1978. Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been collected from outside sources and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees collected or developed in order to defend against asbestos-related injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Further, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it concerns documents neither generated by this Defendant nor known to this Defendant. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad because it is not limited in scope to health hazards at issue in this suit. Defendant herein incorporates by reference objections to Interrogatory 6. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Yes. Kelly-Moore first began receiving written information pertaining to the potential health hazards of asbestos in late 1971 or early 1972. Before 1978, KellyMoore had received very few documents, all of which were prepared or written by others, relative to the medical literature regarding testing of health effects from asbestos or asbestos-containing products in general. These products may or may not be similar to the products identified on Exhibit A attached hereto. The documents Kelly-Moore received from others showed that the type ofmedical research necessary Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 16 to understand the health effects of asbestos was very complex and specialized. The documents further showed there appeared to be a consensus among medical researchers specializing in this field that while asbestos could cause adverse health effects, asbestos could also be used safely if exposure to respirable asbestos fibers of a certain size was controlled or limited by safe work practices. Once Kelly-Moore learned of the potential for adverse health consequences from inhalation of asbestos in "patching compounds" (including joint compound) of the type manufactured by Kelly-Moore, Kelly-Moore undertook to research ways to make its products asbestos-free or, at a minimum, to try to reduce the amount of asbestos used in the product formulas. Ultimately, the use of asbestos as an ingredient was discontinued entirely in all products in 1978. Also, see responses to Interrogatories 8 and 25. To the extent further information is in document form, responsive, non-privileged documents are located at Kelly-Moore's document repository in San Carlos, California, and are available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Document will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. INTERROGATORY NO. 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. 8 or 11? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products changed or modified. B. The name, address, and job title ofeach person responsible for having made a change or modification. C. The nature of the hazard or defect which resulted in such change or modification. ANSWER: Defendant herein incorporates by reference objections to Interrogatory 10. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Defendant refers Plaintiffs' counsel to response to Interrogatory No. 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 Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 17 material or any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injiny 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 place on packaging. F. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning. G. The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof. H. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, he., the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and subjects Kelly-Moore to unnecessary expense and undue burden. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad because it is not limited to any relevant time period nor to the products to which Plaintiffs claim exposure. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers: Yes. (a) See Exhibit A. (b) -(c) The warning stated: CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS AVOID CREATING DUST BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the photographs of packaging of asbestos products which are available for inspection and review upon reasonable notice at Plaintiffs' request at Defendant's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 18 ascertaining the answers from the photographs and packaging exemplars is substantially the same for Plaintiffs as for Defendant. (d) Stamped, stickered, or printed on product package. Also, in January of 1976, Kelly-Moore sent a letter to all Paco customers advising them that federal and state laws were restricting the use of asbestos in drywall finishing products. The notice also advised that the state of California required all spray materials to be free of asbestos by July 1,1976. Kelly-Moore is also aware that some correspondence exists between KellyMoore and some customers where Kelly-Moore responded to questions regarding asbestos hazards or safe work practices. (e) No later than November 1972. (f) Robert Miller was the Kelly-Moore employee who identified the warning label regulations promulgated by OSHA in 1972. In 1972, Mr. Miller advised Kelly-Moore of the OSHA warning requirement including the required phrasing of that warning, and immediately thereafter Kelly-Moore undertook to place a warning on its products. The language used was the language mandated and required by the federal government. (g) See response to Subpart (b)-(c). (h) See response to Subpart (b)-(c). 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 Texas State Courts, 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. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.I 32021.70736 19 G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that this Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: No, none to Defendant's knowledge. 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. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it fails to identify or define the terms "distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled and/or sold." It is also overly broad because, as written, it is not limited to rebranding agreements concerning Defendant's asbestos-containing products. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, and limiting its response to asbestos-related agreements, Defendant answers: Yes; Defendant refers Plaintiffs' counsel to Interrogatory No. 32, infra, regarding Rebranding Agreements. Further information may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Defendant. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. In addition, discovery and investigation is ongoing, and Kelly-Moore reserves the right to supplement its discovery responses. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Did you or any ofyour 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. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing, and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, because it seeks information concerning geographical areas having no connection with the plaintiffs' claims. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on this grounds that it is vague and ambiguous because the term "distributors or sales representatives" is confusing and undefined. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. had employees who were sales representatives of Paco asbestos-containing products in the states of Oregon, Washington, and Texas, and Oklahoma. To Defendant's knowledge, Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. has never had any resident distributors or sales representatives of asbestos products in the states of Alabama, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, and Montana. Kelly-Moore had an office in Georgia for a brief period of time, located at 2080 Peachtree Industrial Court, Atlanta, Georgia 30005 in 1968-69. The Georgia office did not generally distribute asbestos-containing products. It is believed the Georgia office was intended to sell tape and/or spray machines. Further information can be derived or ascertained from the invoices and records of Kelly-Moore Paint Company of Georgia that have been produced to other plaintiffs' counsel, and are available upon request. (a)-(c) See Exhibit A for products which may have been sold by Kelly-Moore sales representatives. Further answers to Subparts (a), (b), and (c) of this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 21 deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. The documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. In addition, discovery and investigation is ongoing, and Kelly-Moore reserves the right to supplement its discovery responses. 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 regarding the hazards of asbestos. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and requests information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence This Interrogatory is not limited to any relevant time period. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: None, to Defendant's knowledge. 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. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its "patching compounds" (including joint Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 22 compound) no later than 1978. Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been collected from outside sources and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees collected or developed in order to defend against asbestosrelated injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. The response to this Interrogatory is generally limited to materials in Kelly-Moore's possession through 1978. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Yes. Before 1978, Kelly-Moore had received very few documents, all ofwhich were prepared or written by others, relative to the medical literature regarding testing of health effects from asbestos or asbestos-containing products in general. These products may or may not be similar to the products identified on Exhibit A attached hereto. The documents Kelly-Moore received from others showed that the type of medical research necessary to understand the health effects of asbestos was very complex and specialized. The documents further showed there appeared to be a consensus among medical researchers specializing in this field that while asbestos could cause adverse health effects, asbestos could also be used safely if exposure to respirable asbestos fibers was controlled or limited by safe work practices. Furthermore, Defendant refers Plaintiffs' counsel to Interrogatory No. 25 through Interrogatory No. 29, infra. To the extent further information is in document form, responsive, non-privileged documents are located at Kelly-Moore's document repository in San Carlos, California, and are available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time been a member ofany 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: Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 23 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: 1. A description of the publications, including the date. 2. The current location of such publications. 3. The custodian of such publications. 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery by asking this Defendant to speculate regarding the publications or disseminations ofwhich this Defendant is not aware. Subject to this objection and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Defendant has been a member of the California Paint and Coatings Association ("CPCA") (and its predecessor, Golden Gate Paint & Coatings Association) from 1991 to the present. Defendant has also been a member of the Coatings Research Group ("CRGI") from 1989 to the present. Additionally, certain of Defendant's employees may have belonged to the local chapter of the Societies for Coatings Technology in San Carlos, California in the past. Defendant has no knowledge whether any ofthese organizations have ever published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of asbestos. To the extent that Defendant received any reports, studies, minutes, or investigations from the above-referenced organizations, they would be included within the KellyMoore document repository located at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from these documents is substantially the same for Plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. The documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. 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 Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 24 or marketing, specifying which plants produced each item, the dates each plant is or was in operation, and the time span during which each named item was produced or manufactured. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatoiy on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and unduly burdensome. This Interrogatory is not limited to the plants or manufacturing facilities relevant to the products to which Plaintiffs claim exposure. Subject to these objections, and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Paco Textures Corporation, Richmond, CA; Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, CA 94070; Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., Dallas, TX; Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., 301 West Hurst Blvd., Hurst, TX 75053; Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., 3600 East 45th Avenue, Denver, CO 80216; Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., 11200 Kirkland Way, Kirkland, WA 98033; Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., Tulsa, OK; Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., West Kenosha Street, Broken Arrow, OK 74012; Kelly-Moore Paint Company Inc., The Alameda, Houston, TX; Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., 1400 Campus Drive, Ontario, CA 91764. Kelly-Moore purchased Paco Textures Corporation and its Richmond, California facility in December, 1960. The operation was moved to the San Carlos, California facility in April, 1964. See Exhibit A for each type of product manufactured, processed, or assembled at this facility. San Carlos began operation April, 1964 and ceased manufacturing asbestos-containing products in January, 1978. See Exhibit A for each type ofproduct manufactured, processed or assembled at this facility. The Hurst, Texas facility began operation, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1970 and is currently operating today. The Dallas, Texas facility began operation, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1963 and ceased operations, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1970, when its operations moved to the Hurst facility. See Exhibit A for each type of product manufactured, processed or assembled at these facilities. The Denver, Colorado facility began operations, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1971 and ceased operations, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1976. This facility manufactured, processed or assembled drywall products. See Exhibit A for each type of product manufactured, processed or assembled at this facility. The Kirkland, Washington facility began operations, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1969 and ceased operations, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1972. This facility manufactured, processed or assembled drywall products. See Exhibit A for each type of product manufactured, processed or assembled at this facility. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 25 The Broken Arrow, Oklahoma facility began operations, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1975 and ceased operations, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1978. The Tulsa, Oklahoma facility began operation, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1969 and ceased operations, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1975, when the operations were moved to the Broken Arrow facility. These facilities manufactured, processed or assembled drywall products. See Exhibit A for each type ofproduct manufactured, processed or assembled at these facilities. The Houston, Texas facility began operations, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1967 and ceased operations, as far as Defendant is aware, in 1974. This facility manufactured, processed or assembled ceiling texture products. See Exhibit A for each type of product manufactured, processed or assembled at this facility. The Ontario, California facility began operations, as far as Defendant is aware, in approximately 1966 and ceased operations in January 1975. This facility manufactured, processed or assembled drywall products. See Exhibit A for each type of product manufactured, processed or assembled at this facility. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes ofmarketing or advertising products containing asbestos? 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. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects because the term "sales materials" is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and requests information which is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This Interrogatory is not limited to any relevant time period or to the products to which Plaintiffs claim exposure. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 26 Subject to this objection and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Yes; further information and all non-privileged documents in Kelly-Moore's possession which may contain information responsive to this Interrogatory or from which such information may be derived or ascertained is currently stored in KellyMoore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. These documents may contain copies of "printed sales materials". The burden of deriving or ascertaining additional information from the documents is substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Kelly-Moore. Kelly-Moore will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice at Plaintiffs request. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. 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. 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. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it is neither limited to any relevant time period nor to the products to which Plaintiffs claim exposure. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers: Yes. Kelly-Moore did not make "asbestos products." Kelly-Moore made drywall joint compounds and textures, some of which contained a small percentage of asbestos. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 27 Kelly-Moore provided information on how to store, apply and use its drywall related products. Kelly-Moore also warned users of its products that breathing asbestos dust was harmful. The warning label for all products stated : CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS AVOID CREATING DUST . BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM Also, in January of 1976, Kelly-Moore sent a letter to all Paco customers advising them that federal and state laws were restricting the use of asbestos in drywall finishing products. The notice also advised that the state of California required all spray materials to be free ofasbestos by July 1,1976. Kelly-Moore is also aware that some correspondence exists between Kelly-Moore and some customers where KellyMoore responded to questions regarding asbestos hazards or safe work practices. Further information responsive to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claims made by Plaintiff in this case? 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. (Ifproperly answered, this Interrogatory need not be supplemented as to the remaining amount of coverage.) ANSWER: Defendant has exhausted all of its primary insurance policies, but Defendant has a layer of excess coverage that might cover the claims made by the Plaintiffs in these cases. Defendant is currently in the process of determining more specific details in regards to its insurance coverage, and will supplement its response to this Interrogatory at a later date. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 28 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 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. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, harassing, irrelevant to this litigation, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this Defendant would defer to the judgment and opinions of its medical expert witnesses on such questions of human diseases, their causes, and diagnoses. Finally, the Interrogatory is argumentative and without foundation to the extent it implies that all levels of asbestos exposure can result in the development of asbestosis. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its "patching compounds" (including joint compound) no later than 1978. Thousands ofclaims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been collected from outside sources and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees collected or developed in order to defend against asbestosrelated injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, rNC.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS`2007882.1 32021.70736 29 Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: To the best ofKelly-Moore's knowledge, it did not receive any information regarding the potential health hazards from asbestos prior to the 1970's. Kelly-Moore's first knowledge ofthe hazards ofasbestos was received shortly after the OSHA legislation was enacted. Kelly-Moore received information from OSHA and from industrial hygienists employed by or retained by Kelly-Moore's workers' compensation insurer between 1971 and 1972 and thereafter. Kelly-Moore also believes that it was provided with references to certain published articles between 1972 and 1978 which dealt with potential for adverse health effects associated with the use of asbestos in certain products and the way in which safe work practices would reduce or eliminate this health hazard. These documents may contain copies of some of the articles which Kelly-Moore received between the time frame 1972 to 1978. These documents are available for inspection and copying upon reasonable notice. Kelly-Moore was first provided information by an asbestos manufacturer/supplier regarding the state of medical knowledge about the potential for adverse health effects from asbestos in 1973, when information was conveyed by Johns-Manville Sales Corporation to Kelly-Moore at a seminar. Doug Merrill attended the seminar. The substance of this information was provided again by Johns-Manville in 1974. Kelly-Moore also received some information from other manufacturers or suppliers in the mid-1970's, but the exact date upon which that information was received is unknown. The substance of the information provided to Kelly-Moore by the asbestos manufacturers and suppliers was that asbestos could potentially cause various lungrelated diseases if the time and amount of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers above a certain size exceeded certain threshold levels. The same material also stated that asbestos had many very beneficial uses which made it well-suited for use in KellyMoore's drywall-related products as well as in many other different types ofproducts not related to drywall. The manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos represented that asbestos could be used safely and that there was no reason to cease the use of asbestos as a raw material ingredient in the types ofproducts manufactured by KellyMoore. The information received from asbestos suppliers appeared consistent with the prior information Kelly-Moore had received from OSHA and from KellyMoore's workers' compensation insurer's industrial hygienists commencing in the 1971-72 time frame. None of the information provided by the asbestos manufacturers or suppliers to Kelly-Moore suggested that there was any great urgency to remove asbestos from every drywall joint compound product of the type manufactured by Kelly-Moore. Nonetheless, Kelly-Moore had already begun work. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 30 starting in late 1971 or early 1972, to try to reduce or eliminate asbestos from its product formulas. Further information and all non-privileged documents in Kelly-Moore's possession which may contain information responsive to this Interrogatory or from which such information may be derived or ascertained is currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. These documents may contain copies of some of the articles which Kelly-Moore received between the time frame 1972 to 1978. The burden of deriving or ascertaining additional information from the documents is substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Kelly-Moore. Kelly-Moore will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice at Plaintiffs request. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. 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 ofthe disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary of 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 subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, harassing, irrelevant to this litigation, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this Defendant would defer to the judgment and opinions of its medical expert witnesses on such questions of human diseases, their causes, and diagnoses. Finally, the Interrogatory is argumentative and without foundation to the extent it implies that all levels of asbestos exposure can result in the development of lung cancer. Defendant Kellv-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 31 Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its "patching compounds" (including joint compound) no later than 1978. Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been collected from outside sources and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees collected or developed in order to defend against asbestosrelated injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: To the best ofKelly-Moore's knowledge, it did not receive any information regarding the potential health hazards from asbestos prior to the 1970's. Kelly-Moore's first knowledge ofthe hazards of asbestos was received shortly after the OSHA legislation was enacted. Kelly-Moore received information from OSHA and from industrial hygienists employed by or retained by Kelly-Moore's workers' compensation insurer between 1971 and 1972 and thereafter. Kelly-Moore also believes that it was provided with references to certain published articles between 1972 and 1978 which dealt with potential for adverse health effects associated with the use of asbestos in certain products and the way in which safe work practices would reduce or eliminate this health hazard. Kelly-Moore was first provided information by an asbestos manufacturer/supplier regarding the state of medical knowledge about the potential for adverse health effects from asbestos in 1973, when information was conveyed by Johns-Manville Sales Corporation to Kelly7Moore at a seminar. Doug Merrill attended the seminar. The substance of this information was provided again by Johns-Manville in 1974. Kelly-Moore also received some information from other manufacturers or suppliers in the mid-1970's, but the exact date upon which that information was received is unknown. The substance of the information provided to Kelly-Moore by the asbestos manufacturers and suppliers was that asbestos could potentially cause various lungrelated diseases if the time and amount of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers above Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 32 a certain size exceeded certain threshold levels. The same material also stated that asbestos had many very beneficial uses which made it well-suited for use in KellyMoore's drywall-related products as well as in many other different types ofproducts not related to drywall. The manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos represented that asbestos could be used safely and that there was no reason to cease the use of asbestos as a raw material ingredient in the types ofproducts manufactured by KellyMoore. The information received from asbestos suppliers appeared consistent with the prior information Kelly-Moore had received from OSHA and from KellyMoore's workers' compensation insurer's industrial hygienists commencing in the 1971-72 time frame. None of the information provided by the asbestos manufacturers or suppliers to Kelly-Moore suggested that there was any great urgency to remove asbestos from every drywall joint compound product of the type manufactured by Kelly-Moore. Nonetheless, Kelly-Moore had already begun work, starting in late 1971 or early 1972, to try to reduce or eliminate asbestos from its product formulas. Further information and all non-privileged documents in Kelly-Moore's possession which may contain information responsive to this Interrogatory or from which such information may be derived or ascertained is currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. These documents may contain copies of some of the articles which Kelly-Moore received between the time frame 1972 to 1978. The burden of deriving or ascertaining additional information from the documents is substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Kelly-Moore. Kelly-Moore will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice at Plaintiffs request. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: As to pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware ofthe disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 33 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. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, harassing, irrelevant to this litigation, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this Defendant would defer to the judgment and opinions of its medical expert witnesses on such questions of human diseases, their causes, and diagnoses. Finally, the Interrogatory is argumentative and without foundation to the extent it implies that all levels of asbestos exposure can result in the development of pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its "patching compounds" (including joint compound) no later than 1978. Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been collected from outside sources and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees collected or developed in order to defend against asbestosrelated injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: To the best ofKelly-Moore's knowledge, it did not receive any information regarding the potential health hazards from asbestos prior to the 1970's. Kelly-Moore's first knowledge ofthe hazards ofasbestos was received shortly after the OSHA legislation was enacted. Kelly-Moore received information from OSHA and from industrial hygienists employed by or retained by Kelly-Moore's workers' compensation insurer between 1971 and 1972 and thereafter. Kelly-Moore also believes that it was provided with references to certain published articles between 1972 and 1978 which dealt with potential for adverse health effects associated with the use of asbestos in certain products and the way in which safe work practices would reduce or eliminate this health hazard. D EFENDANT KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC.'S AMENDED (02-20-03) OBJECTIONS, ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS-2007882.1 32021.70736 34 Kelly-Moore was first provided information by an asbestos manufacturer/supplier regarding the state of medical knowledge about the potential for adverse health effects from asbestos in 1973, when information was conveyed by Johns-Manville Sales Corporation to Kelly-Moore at a seminar. Doug Merrill attended the seminar. The substance of this information was provided again by Johns-Manville in 1974. Kelly-Moore also received some information from other manufacturers or suppliers in the mid-1970's, but the exact date upon which that information was received is unknown. The substance of the information provided to Kelly-Moore by the asbestos manufacturers and suppliers was that asbestos could potentially cause various lungrelated diseases ifthe time and amount of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers above a certain size exceeded certain threshold levels. The same material also stated that asbestos had many very beneficial uses which made it well-suited for use in KellyMoore's drywall-related products as well as in many other different types ofproducts not related to drywall. The manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos represented that asbestos could be used safely and that there was no reason to cease the use of asbestos as a raw material ingredient in the types ofproducts manufactured by KellyMoore. The information received from asbestos suppliers appeared consistent with the prior information Kelly-Moore had received from OSHA and from KellyMoore's workers' compensation insurer's industrial hygienists commencing in the 1971-72 time frame. None of the information provided by the asbestos manufacturers or suppliers to Kelly-Moore suggested that there was any great urgency to remove asbestos from every drywall joint compound product of the type manufactured by Kelly-Moore. Nonetheless, Kelly-Moore had already begun work, starting in late 1971 or early 1972, to try to reduce or eliminate asbestos from its product formulas. Further responding, no individual at Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. has any specific recollection of the date or event by which Kelly-Moore Paint Company obtained knowledge of pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques. Further information and all non-privileged documents in Kelly-Moore's possession which may contain information responsive to this Interrogatory or from which such information may be derived or ascertained is currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. These documents may contain copies of some of the articles which Kelly-Moore received between the time frame 1972 to 1978. The burden of deriving or ascertaining additional information from the documents is substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Kelly-Moore. Kelly-Moore will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice at Plaintiffs request. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.I 32021.70736 35 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 ofthe disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. G. Who is the custodian of such information. H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, burdensome, vague, ambiguous, harassing, irrelevant to this litigation, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this Defendant would defer to the judgment and opinions of its medical expert witnesses on such questions of human diseases, their causes, and diagnoses. Finally, the Interrogatory is argumentative and without foundation to the extent it implies that all levels of asbestos exposure can result in the development ofmesothelioma. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its "patching compounds" (including joint compound) no later than 1978. Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been collected from outside sources and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees collected or developed in order to defend against asbestosrelated injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 36 been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers: To the best ofKelly-Moore's knowledge, it did not receive any information regarding the potential health hazards from asbestos prior to the 1970's. Kelly-Moore's first knowledge ofthe hazards ofasbestos was received shortly after the OSHA legislation was enacted. Kelly-Moore received information from OSHA and from industrial hygienists employed by or retained by Kelly-Moore's workers' compensation insurer between 1971 and 1972 and thereafter. Kelly-Moore also believes that it was provided with references to certain published articles between 1972 and 1978 which dealt with potential for adverse health effects associated with the use of asbestos in certain products and the way in which safe work practices would reduce or eliminate this health hazard. Kelly-Moore was first provided information by an asbestos manufacturer/supplier regarding the state of medical knowledge about the potential for adverse health effects from asbestos in 1973, when information was conveyed by Johns-Manville Sales Corporation to Kelly-Moore at a seminar. Doug Merrill attended the seminar. The substance of this information was provided again by Johns-Manville in 1974. Kelly-Moore also received some information from other manufacturers or suppliers in the mid-1970's, but the exact date upon which that information was received is unknown. The substance of the information provided to Kelly-Moore by the asbestos manufacturers and suppliers was that asbestos could potentially cause various lungrelated diseases if the time and amount of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers above a certain size exceeded certain threshold levels. The same material also stated that asbestos had many very beneficial uses which made it well-suited for use in KellyMoore's drywall-related products as well as in many other different types ofproducts not related to drywall. The manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos represented that asbestos could be used safely and that there was no reason to cease the use of asbestos as a raw material ingredient in the types ofproducts manufactured by KellyMoore. The information received from asbestos suppliers appeared consistent with the prior information Kelly-Moore had received from OSHA and from KellyMoore's workers' compensation insurer's industrial hygienists commencing in the 1971-72 time frame. None of the information provided by the asbestos manufacturers or suppliers to Kelly-Moore suggested that there was any great urgency to remove asbestos from every drywall joint compound product of the type Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 37 manufactured by Kelly-Moore. Nonetheless, Kelly-Moore had already begun work, starting in late 1971 or early 1972, to try to reduce or eliminate asbestos from its product formulas. Further information and all non-privileged documents in Kelly-Moore's possession which may contain information responsive to this Interrogatory or from which such information may be derived or ascertained is currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. These documents may contain copies of some of the articles which Kelly-Moore received between the time frame 1972 to 1978. These documents are available for inspection and copying upon reasonable notice. The burden of deriving or ascertaining additional information from the documents is substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Kelly-Moore. Kelly-Moore will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice at Plaintiffs request. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. 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 first 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. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, harassing, irrelevant to this litigation, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this Defendant would defer to the judgment and opinions of its medical expert witnesses on such questions of human diseases, their causes, Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:20O7882.1 32021.70736 38 and diagnoses. Finally, the Interrogatory is argumentative and without foundation to the extent it implies that all levels of asbestos exposure can result in the development of gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its "patching compounds" (including joint compound) no later than 1978. Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been collected from outside sources and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees collected or developed in order to defend against asbestosrelated injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: To the best ofKelly-Moore's knowledge, it did not receive any information regarding the potential health hazards from asbestos prior to the 1970's. Kelly-Moore's first knowledge ofthe hazards ofasbestos was received shortly after the OSHA legislation was enacted. Kelly-Moore received information from OSHA and from industrial hygienists employed by or retained by Kelly-Moore's workers' compensation insurer between 1971 and 1972 and thereafter. Kelly-Moore also believes that it was provided with references to certain published articles between 1972 and 1978 which dealt with potential for adverse health effects associated with the use of asbestos in certain products and the way in which safe work practices would reduce or eliminate this health hazard. Kelly-Moore was first provided information by an asbestos manufacturer/supplier regarding the state of medical knowledge about the potential for adverse health effects from asbestos in 1973, when information was conveyed by Johns-Manville Sales Corporation to Kelly-Moore at a seminar. Doug Merrill attended the seminar. The substance of this information was provided again by Johns-Manville in 1974. Kelly-Moore also received some information from other manufacturers or suppliers Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 39 in the mid-1970's, but the exact date upon which that information was received is unknown. The substance of the information provided to Kelly-Moore by the asbestos manufacturers and suppliers was that asbestos could potentially cause various lungrelated diseases ifthe time and amount of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers above a certain size exceeded certain threshold levels. The same material also stated that asbestos had many very beneficial uses which made it well-suited for use in KellyMoore's drywall-related products as well as in many other different types ofproducts not related to drywall. The manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos represented that asbestos could be used safely and that there was no reason to cease the use of asbestos as a raw material ingredient in the types ofproducts manufactured by KellyMoore. The information received from asbestos suppliers appeared consistent with the prior information Kelly-Moore had received from OSHA and from KellyMoore's workers' compensation insurer's industrial hygienists commencing in the 1971-72 time frame. None of the information provided by the asbestos manufacturers or suppliers to Kelly-Moore suggested that there was any great urgency to remove asbestos from every drywall joint compound product of the type manufactured by Kelly-Moore. Nonetheless, Kelly-Moore had already begun work, starting in late 1971 or early 1972, to try to reduce or eliminate asbestos from its product formulas. Further responding, no individual at Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. has any specific recollection of the date or event by which Kelly-Moore Paint Company obtained knowledge of gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer. Further information and all non-privileged documents in Kelly-Moore's possession which may contain information responsive to this Interrogatory or from which such information may be derived or ascertained is currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. These documents may contain copies of some of the articles which Kelly-Moore received between the time frame 1972 to 1978. The burden of deriving or ascertaining additional information from the documents is substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Kelly-Moore. Kelly-Moore will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice at Plaintiffs request. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 40 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. ANSWER: Objection: The Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing, argumentative, vague, ambiguous and calls for speculation, because it pertains to all types of "asbestos products" which were manufactured and sold by others and about which Defendant has no knowledge. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the request seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant also objects as overly broad, argumentative to the extent it asks about "all potential health hazards", since to Defendant's knowledge there is no product of any type or kind that could never under any circumstance cause injury in some fashion. Defendant herein incorporates by reference objections to the five preceding Interrogatories, Interrogatory No. 43 through Interrogatory No. 47. Subject to these objections, and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Unknown. Defendant refers Plaintiffs' counsel to answers to the five preceding Interrogatories, Interrogatory No. 43 through Interrogatory No. 47. 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 ofpackage was used, a physical description ofeach type ofpackage, and providing a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it is neither limited to any relevant time period nor to the products to which Plaintiffs claim exposure. Defendant herein incorporates by reference objections to Interrogatory 14. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 41 See Exhibit A and Interrogatory 14. In general, Paco's products came in bags, boxes, pails or cartons of various sizes over the years. Kelly-Moore has photographs of some, but not all, of its products. To the extent further detail is required, the answer to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. 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 oftime covered by each such agreement. D. The volume, in dollar amount, of each transaction. E. The initial purchaser of the products. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it fails to identify or define the terms "rebranding agreement." It is also overly broad because, as written, it is not limited to rebranding agreements concerning Defendant's asbestos-containing products to which the Plaintiffs claim exposure. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, and limiting its response to asbestos-related agreements. Defendant answers: Yes; a Rebranding Agreement was entered into by Defendant with Georgia-Pacific Corporation under which a small quantity of asbestos-containing products manufactured by Defendant were packaged in a Georgia-Pacific labeled package and sold to Georgia-Pacific and shipped to Georgia-Pacific facilities in California and, to a limited extent, to a Georgia-Pacific facility in the Denver, Colorado area for re-sale by Georgia-Pacific. This Agreement was signed on 11/5/68 and was terminated on 10/12/71. A limited number of re-labeled products continued to be sold to Georgia Pacific into 1972. Further information may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 42 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Defendant. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. In addition, discovery and investigation is ongoing, and Kelly-Moore reserves the right to supplement its discovery responses. 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 ofthe materials, the dates ofsuch purchases, and the ultimate disposal of such materials. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, irrelevant to this litigation, ambiguous, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous because plaintiffs fail to define "materials" and "ultimate disposal", and the Interrogatory requires defendant and its attorneys to speculate as to plaintiffs' intent in using those terms. To the extent that the term "materials" refers to products other than asbestos, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome, and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, defendant objects to the requirement to supply the dates of purchase and the "ultimate disposal" as unduly burdensome as Plaintiffs do not claim exposure to such raw "materials." Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Raw asbestos was purchased primarily from Johns-Manville Sales Corporation (Greenwood Plaza, Denver, Colorado 80217), Union Carbide Corporation (P.O. Box 4115, Church Street, New York, New York 10008), and from Carey Canadian Mines Co., Ltd. (East Broughton Station, Quebec, Canada), and from distributors who resold these manufacturers' products. See Response to Interrogatory No. 6. Further answer to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 43 from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. 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. ANSWER: Defendant herein incorporates by reference objections to Interrogatory 32. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Defendant has possession of the Rebranding Agreement between Defendant and Georgia-Pacific dated November 5, 1968, and the Termination Agreement terminating the Rebranding Agreement dated October 12,1971. These documents, and any other documents concerning the Rebranding Agreement with GeorgiaPacific, are located in the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. 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 ofthe 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. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AL'S:2007882.1 32021.70736 44 C. A brief summary of the deposition of each such claim. D. The name, address and title of the person having custody ofthe records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is harassing and unduly burdensome. Thousands ofPlaintiffs have filed claims against this Defendant alleging injury from inhaling asbestos fibers; information concerning these claims is a matter of public record and is as readily available to the Plaintiffs as to Defendant. Subject to the above objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: No, not to Defendant's knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Did Defendant or any or of its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board ofdirectors, 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: 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. E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format. F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and harassing because it is not limited to a relevant time period, and because it requests information concerning "any subject matter related to asbestos." Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its "patching compounds" (including joint compound) no later than 1978. Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and minutes Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 45 responsive to this Interrogatory regarding asbestos-related claims have been generated. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks minutes generated at meetings conducted after asbestos was removed from Defendant's products, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has ben withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers: Yes. The answers to (a) - (f) may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for Plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice at Plaintiffs' request. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. In addition, discovery and investigation is ongoing, and KellyMoore reserves the right to supplement its discovery responses. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Do you or any ofyour 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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. H. Whether there are any warning labels on said products or containers regarding potential asbestos-related health hazards. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.I 32021.70736 46 ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome as it is not limited to any time frame to which Plaintiffs claim exposure nor to any products to which Plaintiffs claim exposure. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: 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, ie., by state, by product, etc., and ifby product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant to this litigation, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Also, the Interrogatory subjects this Defendant to undue burden and unnecessary expense. This Interrogatory does not identify those locations at which Plaintiffs were allegedly exposed to asbestos. Furthermore, this Interrogatory is neither limited to any time frame to which Plaintiffs claims claim exposure nor to any products to which Plaintiffs claim exposure. Furthermore, Defendant objects to the term "asbestos product." Kelly-Moore did not manufacture or sell "asbestos products." This Defendant manufactured "patching compounds" (including joint compound and texture products), some of which contained a small percentage of asbestos fibers. Defendant further objects to the term "maintain" as being vague and ambiguous. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS-2007882.1 32021.70736 47 Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Yes, Kelly-Moore has certain records relating to its business of the type inquired about in the Interrogatory. To the extent they exist, copies of invoices, purchase orders, shipping receipts and other documents relating to or connected in anyway to the manufacture or sale of asbestos-containing drywall related products by KellyMoore are currently stored in the Kelly-Moore document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for Plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice at Plaintiffs' request. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. In addition, discovery and investigation is ongoing, and Defendant reserves the right to supplement these answers. 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. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous because the term "company representatives" is undefined. Assuming that Plaintiffs intend "company representatives" to include current employees of Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Defendant may call one or more of the following company representatives at the trial of this case: 1 .A. Mr. Herbert Giffins Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. 987 Commercial Street San Carlos, California 94070 President and Chief Executive Officer Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 48 B. Mr. Giffins will testify regarding many relevant issues, including but not limited to the following: the nature, composition and use of KellyMoore/Paco products; the manufacturing facilities at which KellyMoore/Paco's asbestos-containing products were made; Kelly-Moore/Paco's operations, sales and product development and distribution throughout the United States; acquisition ofraw asbestos for inclusion in Kelly-Moore/Paco products; Kelly-Moore/Paco's corporate knowledge and documentation regarding asbestos and asbestos health hazards; Kelly-Moore's document retention policies and repository in San Carlos, California; tests conducted on Kelly-Moore/Paco products and Kelly-Moore/Paco's facilities to determine levels of dust and asbestos in the air; Kelly-Moore/Paco's placement of warnings on asbestos-containing products and compliance with governmental regulations; Kelly-Moore/Paco's use of respirators and other safety measures at its manufacturing facilities and compliance with governmental regulations; Kelly-Moore/Paco's program of developing asbestos-free products; KellyMoore/Paco corporate history; Kelly-Moore's loss prevention activities, and Kelly-Moore/Paco's recall of asbestos-containing products from the market and cessation ofproduction of asbestos-containing products. C. Mr. Giffins has testified via deposition or trial testimony in the following listed asbestos-related cases as of June 12,2002. He has also testified since that time, and it is expected that he will be called upon to testify in depositions or in trials in the future. It is unduly burdensome to track all of his appearances on an ongoing basis, as plaintiffs counsel has easy access to such information from the public record and from counsel's other cases against Kelly-Moore. Therefore, Kelly-Moore notes that the following list is current only as of June 12,2002: a. Jim Maltais, et al. v. AC&S, Inc., Cause No. 01-04801-C; In the County Court at Law No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas; Case No. BC 220 887, In the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles; and Case No. BC 243 037; In the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles. Deposition was taken by C. Andrew Waters of Waters & Kraus on October 17, 2001; b. Barbara Navarro, et al v. A C & S, Inc., et al; Cause No. BC 243 027; In the County of Los Angeles, California. Deposition was taken by C. Andrew Waters ofWaters & Kraus on October 17,2001; c. Nancy Sheehy, Individually and as Personal Representative ofGerald Sheehy, et al v. A. C. & S., Inc., et al; Cause No. BC 220887; In the Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AL'S:2007882.1 32021.70736 49 County of Los Angeles, California. Deposition was taken by C. Andrew Waters of Waters & Kraus on October 17, 2001; d. Thomas Love v. A.C.&S, Inc., et al.\ Cause No. B010305-C; In the 163rd Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas. Deposition taken by Peter Kraus of Waters & Kraus on March 7, 2002, and at trial in this case on June 12,2002; e. William L. Cotton, etal., v. A.P. Green Refractories Company, etal.; Cause No. B-150,374-AK; In the 60th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas; Deposition was taken by Brent Coon of Brent Coon & Associates on May 31, 2002; f. Verda Sutton, et al., v. ACANDS, Inc., et al.; Cause No.41,862; In the 356th Judicial District Court of Hardin County, Texas; Deposition was taken by Brent Coon of Brent Coon & Associates on May 31, 2002; g. Klaus Brauch and Susan Brauch v. Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., et al; Cause No. BC-258-492; In the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Deposition taken by Troyce Wolf of Waters & Kraus on March 15,2002; h. Gail Jagneaux, et al.v. Union Carbide, et al.; Cause No. B163425-B; In the 60th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. Deposition taken by Novak of Ness Motley and Shrader of Hissey, Kientz, & Herron on February 5,2002. 2.A. Mr. Douglas W. Merrill Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. 987 Commercial Street San Carlos, California 94070 Director of Manufacturing Mr. Merrill may testily live or by deposition. Mr. Merrill's deposition testimony or trial testimony from the following cases may be introduced by Kelly-Moore at the time of trial. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 50 B. Mr. Merrill has historical knowledge of Kelly-Moore's use of asbestos in manufacturing, similar to the issues Mr. Giffins may testify to as described above. Mr. Merrill's deposition testimony or trial testimony from one or more ofthe following cases may be introduced by Kelly-Moore at the time oftrial: a. Daniel Aldrete v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corp, et al\ Cause No. 97-02640-B; In the 44th Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas. Deposition taken by Steve Barron of Silber*Pearlman, September 18, 1998; b. Vincent Depalma, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corp. et al.; Cause No. 00-3673-F; In the 24th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas. Deposition taken by Michael Kaeske of KaeskeReeves, LLP on June 12, 2001; c. Rudolph Cardenas v. Owens-Coming, et al.; Cause No. 98-652109-A; In the 24th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas. Taken in February 12, 2000; d. Nancy Sheehy, et al v. ACANDS, Inc., et al; Cause No. BC 220-887; In the Superior Court for the State of California and for the County of Los Angeles. Deposition taken by Troyce Wolf on March 14, 2002; e. Robert Money and Dorothy Money v. A CANDS, Inc., et al; Cause No. A010133-C; In the 128th Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas; Deposition taken by Troyce Wolf on March 14, 2002. C. In addition to the above listed causes, Mr. Merrill has testified via deposition or trial testimony in the following listed asbestos-related cases as ofJune 12, 2002. He may have also testified since that time, and he may be deposed in the future. It is unduly burdensome to track all of his appearances on an ongoing basis, as plaintiffs counsel has easy access to such information from the public record and from counsel's other cases against Kelly-Moore. Therefore, Kelly-Moore notes that the following list is current only as ofJune 12, 2002: a. State ofHawaii v. W.R. Grace & Co., et al; Cause No. 93-4161-10; In the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii. Deposition Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 51 taken by Mary Caroline Parker, Special Deputy Attorney General on November 9, 2000, November 10,2000, January 29,2001, January 30, 2001, and January 31, 2001; b. Patricio Sanchez v. Kelly-Moore; Cause No. 96-2807; In the County Court at Law No. 2 of El Paso County, Texas. Deposition taken by Michael Kaeske of Baron & Budd on March 12,1997 and at trial in this case on March 14, 1997; c. Samuel Wooley v. OCF; Cause No. 94-09-04823B. Deposition taken by Allen Stewart of Baron & Budd on November 20,1995; d. In re: Clapper & Brayton Shipyard and Applicator Asbestos Cases; various cause numbers in Solano County, California. Deposition taken by Jack Clapper of Clapper & Brayton on November 1, 1984 and February 27,1985; e. Pete Fairl v. Western McArthur Company; Cause No. 296985; In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento. Deposition taken by George V. Kilboume on October 8, 1984; f. Thomas Love v. A.C.&S, Inc., et al; Cause No. B010305-C; In the 163rd Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas. Deposition taken by Ron Eddins of Waters &' Kraus on March 6,2002. 3.A. Ms. Sandy L. Joy Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. 303 West Hurst Boulevard Hurst, Texas 76053 Division Controller (Southwest Division) B. Ms. Joy may testify regarding several subjects, including but not limited to: General operations at the Kelly-Moore Hurst facility since 1978; KellyMoore's document destruction and retention policy at the Hurst facility; the location and existence of various Kelly-Moore records from the Hurst facility; the identity of Kelly-Moore employees at the Hurst facility since 1978. C. Ms. Joy has testified via deposition in the following asbestos-related cases: Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 52 a. Aldrete, et al v. OCF, Cause No. 97-02640-B; In the 44th Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas. The deposition was taken on January 14, 1999 by Mike Hissey of Silber Pearlman; b. Thomas Love v. AC&S, Inc., et al; Cause No. B010305-C; In the 163rd Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas. The deposition was taken on March 8,2002 by Waters & Kraus. 4.A. Mr. Juan Gauna Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. 4107 Victory Drive Austin, Texas 78744 Sales Representative B. Mr. Gauna may testify regarding several subjects, including but not limited to: knowledge of sales in the Austin and San Antonio areas; knowledge of nature, composition, and uses of Paco products; distribution of Paco products; and packaging of and warnings on Paco products. C. In asbestos related cases, Mr. Gauna has given a deposition in Thomas Love v. AC&S, Inc., et al; Cause No. B010305-C; In the 163rd Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas. The deposition was taken on March 7,2002 by Waters & Kraus. Mr. Gauna has also given a deposition in Jimmy Dwayne Miller, et ux. v. Kellogg-Brown & Root, Inc., et al; Cause No. GN201185; In the 261st Judicial District Court ofTravis County, Texas The deposition was taken November 20, 2002 by McCurdy & McCurdy. Mr. Gauna also testified at the trial of this case. 5. A. Albert Cisneros Kelly-Moore Paint Store 400 W. Whitestone Cedar Park, Texas 78613 B. Mr. Cisneros may be asked to testify concerning his knowledge of materials used on construction jobs at which plaintiff has claimed exposure to KellyMoore products. Further, Mr. Cisneros may be asked to testify regarding his knowledge ofproducts sold by Kelly-Moore stores in various areas in Texas, and construction practices during the relevant time period when plaintiff claims to have been exposed to Kelly-Moore products. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 53 C. Mr. Cisneros has never given deposition or trial testimony in any asbestosrelated case. 6. A. Mr. John J. Moeller Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. 303 W. Hurst Boulevard Hurst, Texas 76053 Corporate Internal Audit Manager B. Mr. Moeller may testify regarding several subjects, including but not limited to: general operations at the Kelly-Moore Hurst facility since 1969; KellyMoore's document destruction and retention policy at the Hurst facility; the identity of Kelly-Moore employees at the Hurst facility since 1969; and Kelly-Moore accounting, inventory, and bookkeeping practices. C. Mr. Moeller has testified via deposition in the following asbestos-related cases: a. Aldrete, et al v. OCF, Cause No. 97-02640-B; In the 44th Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas. The deposition was taken on January 14,1999 by Mike Hissey of Silber Pearlman. b. Thomas Love v. AC&S, Inc., et al; Cause No. B010305-C; In the 163rd Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas. The deposition was taken on March 6, 2002 by Waters & Kraus. 7. A. Mr. Marion Hicks Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. 303 W. Hurst Boulevard Hurst, Texas 76053 B. Employee of Kelly-Moore, with general knowledge of Kelly-Moore/Paco products and plant operations during the time frames associated with his employment at various locations in Texas. C. Mr. Hicks has never given deposition or trial testimony in any asbestosrelated case. 8. A. Manual Juarez Gaby Lopez Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS'2007882.1 32021.70736 54 Richard Rodriguez Oscar Fernandez Kelly-Moore Paint Store, Inc. 6622 San Pedro St. San Antonio, Texas 78216 B. Messrs. Juarez, Lopez, Rodriguez and Fernandez may be asked to testify concerning their knowledge of materials used on construction jobs at which Plaintiff has claimed exposure to Kelly-Moore products. Further, these witnesses may be asked to testify regarding their knowledge ofproducts sold by Kelly-Moore stores and construction practices in the San Antonio and central Texas areas during the relevant time period when Plaintiff claims to have been exposed to Kelly-Moore products. C. Messrs. Juarez, Lopez, Rodriguez and Fernandez have never given depositions or trial testimonies in any asbestos-related cases. 9. Other current employees may be called to testify by Defendant. Defendant will timely notify Plaintiff in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable Standing Orders. In addition to the above-named employees, former employees, including Mr. William Doyle Freeman, Freeman Products, 1912 W. Kenosha, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012, may be asked to testify on behalf of Kelly-Moore at trial. Mr. Freeman is a former general manager for Kelly-Moore who worked at the Tulsa and Broken Arrow plants. He will testify regarding several subjects, including but not limited to: the nature and composition of Paco products; distribution of Paco products from Kelly-Moore's manufacturing facilities, particularly the facilities in Broken Arrow and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Mr. Freeman may also testify regarding all sales and distribution of Kelly-Moore and Paco products generally and regarding specific sales outside of states where Kelly-Moore stores were located. He may also testify regarding general issues ofKelly-Moore's history, products, sales, and product development and distribution. Mr. Freeman was deposed in Perry v. Keene Corporation; Cause No. 93-09896; In the 299th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, on January 11,1995. The deposition was taken by Andrew Waters of Baron & Budd. Mr. Freeman was also deposed in Ronald Bailey, et al v. Able Supply Co., et al; Cause No. 26,721; In the 20th Judicial District Court of Milam County, Texas, on October 5, Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 55 2000. The deposition was taken by Randall Iola, Law Offices ofRandall Iola. Other former employees include the following: Mr. Robert Miller; Mr. Miller is a former employee of Kelly-Moore; Mr. Miller may testify regarding his employment at Kelly-Moore including his work regarding OSHA compliance and regulatory issues, company's knowledge of OSHA, and efforts to comply with all facets of OSHA in Kelly-Moore plants. Mr. Miller may also testify with regard to Kelly-Moore products, including replacement ofwarnings on asbestos-containing products starting in October of 1972. He may testify as to how the company first began to learn of any health or safety issues relative to the use of asbestos, and the company's decision to begin efforts to develop asbestos-free products. Mr. Miller may be contacted through Todd Wade at Brown McCarroll, L.L.P., 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1215, Austin, Texas 78701. Mr. William Harrison; Mr. Harrison is a former employee of Kelly-Moore; Mr. Harrison may testify concerning his employment at Kelly-Moore. Mr. Harrison may be contacted through Todd Wade at Brown McCarroll, L.L.P., 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1215, Austin, Texas 78701. Mr. John Winslow; Mr. Winslow is a former employee ofKelly-Moore; Mr. Winslow may testify regarding his employment at Kelly-Moore as Sales Manager and Salesman for Paco and Kelly-Moore products. Mr. Winslow may be contacted through Todd Wade at Brown McCarroll, L.L.P., 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1215, Austin, Texas 78701. Defendant further incorporates by reference its most recent designation made in this case, whether made through Defendant's Response to Request for Disclosure or through Defendant's Designation ofFact and Expert Witnesses filed in this cause and supplements this list with that designation. 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; Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 56 B. Principal place of business; c. State of incorporation; D. Date of acquisition by Defendant; E Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in the State of Texas; ANSWER: Subject to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Yes. (a) Paco Textures Corporation. (b) Richmond, California. (c) California. (d) 12/19/60. (e) Kelly-Moore does not believe that Paco Textures Corporation was authorized to or did transact business in Texas before Paco Textures Corporation was purchased by Kelly-Moore in December of 1960. Such information is equally available to plaintiffs thought the public record. Kelly-Moore is authorized to transact business in Texas. In addition, Kelly-Moore did acquire the assets of two very small California-based drywall products companies between 1961 and 1978. The exact dates of the acquisitions are not presently known. The transactions were asset purchases only and the companies were then closed by Kelly-Moore. The companies' names were K. V. Alger and Blue Ribbon. The exact legal names are not presently known. After a search, Kelly-Moore has not been able to locate the acquisition documents as to those entities. It is believed the assets of both entities were purchased in 1969, exact date unknown. It is believed no products, or only a minimal amount, were sold by KellyMoore under the name of these entities, and such sales would have been limited to California and the state of Washington. Defendant does not believe either entity did business in Texas or was licensed to do business in Texas. 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 Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 57 respect to any such product, explain in what way the Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. This Interrogatory is not limited to the products to which Plaintiffs claim exposure. Subject to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers: All asbestos-containing products were expected to reach the consumer or user without substantial change. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: For each asbestos-containing product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6, identify all foreseeable users such as insulators, helpers, pipefitters, welders, machinists, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, boilermakers, shipwrights, and riggers, etc. of any of Defendant's asbestoscontaining products. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is not proper because it requires the Defendant to speculate as to who might be using its products. Subject to this objection and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: . Drywall finishers. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Based upon the material 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. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 58 B. If there is a difference in you 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. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous because plaintiffs fails to define "generally applied" and the Interrogatory requires defendant and its attorneys to speculate as to plaintiffs' intent in using that term. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Yes. Some products are pre-mixed, so it was believed the asbestos fibers did not become airborne during application. Kelly-Moore believes that use of dry products generally could liberate dust during mixing or sanding, and this dust may contain asbestos. (a) Not applicable. (b) Not applicable. 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? ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is vague, overly broad in scope, ambiguous, requests information which is irrelevant to this Defendant in this litigation, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory because it calls for defendant to speculate regarding all possible or potential uses of its products. Defendant furthers objects to this Interrogatory because it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery, because it requires defendant to state a legal conclusion, namely, whether a particular use of products was "foreseeable," without supplying any factual background upon which Defendant could make such a conclusion. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.I 32021.70736 59 Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: No, if by removed, stripped or replaced, plaintiff is implying that removal and replacement of the product was an intended use, such as for periodic maintenance as may be associated with some types ofproducts unlike those manufactured by Paco. Typically, Paco type products would be disturbed after installation only upon demolition of the wall or ceiling to which they were affixed. Demolition was a foreseeable event. 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. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is argumentative to the extent it implies that this Defendant was under a duty to make inspections ofwork sites or that any product sold by Kelly-Moore Paint Company would expose workers to harmful dose levels. The Plaintiffs or the Plaintiffs' employees) had complete control over the work place and a non delegable responsibility for insuring the safety of the work place. Plaintiffs or the Plaintiffs' employer(s) could adequately train, supervise, and monitor its employees in proper methods to use and handle products used in the work place, including asbestos-containing products. Defendant herein incorporates by reference its objections to Interrogatory No. 8 and Interrogatory No. 11. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: At various times from 1972-77, tests were conducted by Kelly-Moore Paco Textures Division, Union Carbide, and by various regulatory agencies, at Defendant's San Carlos, Ontario, Broken Arrow, Hurst, and Denver facilities. These are the first dust level counts Kelly-Moore is aware ofrelating to its products or facilities. Dust level exposure tests were conducted at Kelly-Moore's manufacturing facilities by Kelly-Moore's workers' compensation insurer. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 60 through industrial hygienists provided by Liberty Mutual for that purpose. These tests measured dust levels associated with the manufacturing process. Kelly-Moore does not have complete records ofthese inspections. The various regulatory agencies would also conduct tests of airborne dust levels at Kelly-Moore's facilities to determine compliance with applicable regulations. In 1975, there was a dust count study done at job sites in Los Gatos, California. This study showed that generally the Kelly-Moore products tested did not release airborne asbestos fibers in excess of the OSHA limits in normal use. Defendant herein refers Plaintiffs to Response to Interrogatory No. 8 and Response to Interrogatory No. 11. To the extent any further information regarding these tests is available, the answer may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for Plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection and review upon reasonable notice at Plaintiffs' request. Documents will be produced in the maimer in which they are currently stored. In addition, discovery and investigation is ongoing, and Defendant reserves the right to supplement these answers. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: If Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is argumentative to the extent it implies that this Defendant was under a duty to make inspections ofwork sites or that any product sold by Kelly-Moore Paint Company would expose workers to harmful dose levels. Defendant herein incorporates by reference objections to Interrogatories 10, 13, and 47. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Defendant refers Plaintiffs counsel to Interrogatories 10 and 13 and Interrogatory 47, below. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 61 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; D. The nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is unduly burdensome, overly broad, and it inquires into matters that are irrelevant and immaterial, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its products no later than 1978. Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestosrelated injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been collected from outside sources and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees collected or developed in order to defend against asbestos-related injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Defendant herein incorporates by reference its objections to Interrogatory No. 8 and Interrogatory No. 11. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers: Yes. (1) Beginning in 1972, and continuing until the use of any asbestos ceased in 1978, Kelly-Moore employees studied, researched, and designed asbestos-free substitutes for various products. (2) At various times from 1972-77, tests were conducted by Kelly-Moore/Paco Textures Division, by Union Carbide, Liberty Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AL'S:2007882.l 32021.70736 62 Mutual and by various regulatory agencies at Defendant's San Carlos, Ontario, Broken Arrow, Hurst, and Denver facilities. To the extent necessary, steps were taken to reduce or eliminate worker exposure to airborne dust at Kelly-Moore's facilities. (3) On at least one occasion in 1975, Union Carbide tested the exposure levels of individuals during mixing and application of ceiling texture at a jobsite at several houses in Los Gatos, California. See preceding responses to all Interrogatories, and specifically. Interrogatory No. 10. To the extent any further information regarding these tests is available, the answer to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. In addition, discovery and investigation is ongoing and Kelly-Moore reserves the right to supplement its discovery responses. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Does your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessors) 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 oftime and money expended each year on research concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products? B. What percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessor(s) spend on research concerning the health effects of asbestos? C. State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities or such Research Department. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous as to the term "Research Department," irrelevant and not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Furthermore, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome because it requires defendant to calculate a percentage of gross sales spent on research concerning the health effects of asbestos. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers: Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 63 No. Kelly-Moore did not have a research department. 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. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous as to the term "Medical Department," and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as Plaintiff has not alleged suffering any injury in a plant owned or operated by Defendant. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers: There has been no "Medical Department" at Kelly-Moore. However, in 1972, with the passage ofthe OSHA legislation, Kelly-Moore appointed Robert Miller as safety director to oversee OSHA compliance and general plant safety issues company wide. In one form or another, Kelly-Moore has continued this general practice. On November 1, 1999, Defendant hired Walter LeClerc as Quality, Environmental, Health and Safety Manager. His duties include development of policies and procedures to ensure Defendant's compliance with OSHA and other health and safety laws, regulations and practices. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever place any warning directly on any of its asbestos-containing products or on their packaging. If so, identify the product(s) and year said warning was first applied. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 64 ANSWER: Defendant herein incorporates by reference objections to Interrogatory 14. Subject to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Yes. See Response to Interrogatory No. 14. The warning language required by federal law was placed on the packaging of all asbestos-containing products. Warnings were not affixed to the products themselves due to the nature of the products. The warning was placed on the packaging no later than November 1972. To the extent any further information regarding these warnings is available, the answer to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Did your company or its predecessors) 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. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to this objection and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: See Exhibit A. Logos were placed on the product's packaging, but not on the product itself. Defendant refers plaintiffs to the photographs of packages of asbestoscontaining products and to the packaging exemplars which are included within Defendant's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 65 INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Has your company, or your predecessors) 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 ofyour asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date that such research plan was begun and when such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. ANSWER: Defendant herein incorporates by reference its objections to Interrogatory No. 10. Subject to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Yes. See Exhibit A and previous Interrogatory answers, and specifically, Response to Interrogatory No. 10. Defendant was developing and testing various asbestos-free substitutes from approximately 1972 through 1978. The first commercially acceptable asbestos-free product went on the market in 1973 or 1974. Other asbestos-free or reduced asbestos products were introduced into the marketplace prior to 1978. Over 236 different formulas were tested in Kelly-Moore's effort to develop commercially acceptable asbestos-free or reduced asbestos products. All asbestoscontaining products were either discontinued or replaced with asbestos-free products in 1978. To the extent further information is available, the answer to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. 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 ofthe 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. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 66 ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad because it requests "all details" of any recall. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Yes. A complete recall of those "patching compounds" banned by the Consumer Product Safety Commission was directed to all retail stores in 1978. The stores were ordered to conduct an inventory and return products subject to the recall. Additionally, Defendant recalled certain texture products in the state of California during the mid-1970s in accordance with California regulations. Further details regarding these recalls, if any, may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. In addition, discovery and investigation is ongoing and Kelly-Moore reserves the right to supplement its discovery responses. 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 asbestosfree products were first placed on the market. ANSWER: Objection: This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, and it calls for speculation on the part of this Defendant. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: No, not to Defendant's knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Have any products you identified in your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 52 and 54 not performed as intended? Please list all such products that have not performed as intended. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 67 ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous because plaintiffs fail to define "not performed as intended" and the Interrogatoiy requires Defendant and its attorneys to speculate as to plaintiffs' intent in using that phrase. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers: Yes. In some instances, the asbestos-free joint compound products did not perform as well as asbestos-containing products. There was some resistance from customers to asbestos-free products as many customers preferred the asbestos-containing products in terms of overall performance and ease of application. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Did your company or its predecessors) or subsidiaries ever make, order, or arrange for any industrial hygiene surveys regarding asbestos or asbestos-containing dust? Ifso, give the date of such surveys and state who, or what entity, was responsible for completion of such surveys. ANSWER: Obj ection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its "patching compounds" (including joint compound) no later than 1978. Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been generated and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees generated or developed in order to defend against asbestos-related injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous because Plaintiffs fail to define "surveys regarding asbestos or asbestos-containing dust," and the Interrogatory requires Defendant and its attorneys to speculate as to Plaintiffs' intent in using those terms. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad because it is not limited to a Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 68 relevant time period. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because this Plaintiff does not claim exposure from asbestos in any of Defendant's plants or industrial facilities. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Dust level exposure tests were conducted at Kelly-Moore's manufacturing facilities by Kelly-Moore's workers' compensation insurer. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, through industrial hygienists provided by Liberty Mutual for that purpose. These tests measured dust levels associated with the manufacturing process. KellyMoore does not have complete records of these inspections. In addition, various regulatory agencies would also conduct tests ofairborne dust levels at Kelly-Moore's facilities to determine compliance with applicable regulations. Kelly-Moore is also aware that Union Carbide Corporation conducted tests ofvarious joint compounds (although it is unknown if a Kelly-Moore product was used in these tests) in actual application at numerous job sites throughout the United States. The results of that testing, which was designed to test levels of airborne asbestos dust, were published in a study by Union Carbide. In addition, in 1975, a study was done of the amount of airborne asbestos dust from use of certain Kelly-Moore ceiling texture products. This study was conducted in Los Gatos, California. The Los Gatos testing of Kelly-Moore product showed that the normal use of the product generally did not create asbestos dust levels in excess ofthe permissible exposure levels set by the United States government as to exposure to certain airborne asbestos fibers. Once Kelly-Moore learned of the potential for adverse health consequences from inhalation of airborne asbestos from products of the type manufactured by KellyMoore, Kelly-Moore undertook to research ways to make its products asbestos-free or, at a minimum, to try to reduce the amount of asbestos used in the product formulas. Ultimately, the use of asbestos as an ingredient was discontinued entirely in all products in 1978. To the extent further information is in document form, responsive, non-privileged documents are located at Kelly-Moore's document repository in San Carlos, California, and are available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS'2007882.1 32021.70736 69 INTERROGATORY NO. 57: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations ofboth 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. ANSWER: Subject to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Defendant does not now know precisely who first received this information, nor by what medium the information was initially received. It is believed that Kelly-Moore began to get information regarding dust exposure level standards in 1972. KellyMoore made efforts to, and was successful, in meeting the standards in its own plants. Further information responsive to Subsections (a) - (c) can be found in the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. In additional, discovery and investigation is ongoing and KellyMoore reserves the right to supplement its discovery responses. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Were the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory No. 57 for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone? ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires defendant to speculate regarding facts not known to this Defendant. The question is also ambiguous. Subject to this objection and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Kelly-Moore's focus in its plants was on airborne asbestos dust. See response to Interrogatory No. 47. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 70 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. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous because plaintiffs fail to define "quantity, quality or threshold limit values," and the Interrogatory requires defendant and its attorneys to speculate as to plaintiffs' intent in using those terms. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad because it is not limited to a relevant time period. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because this Plaintiff does not claim exposure from asbestos in any of Defendant's plants or industrial facilities. Defendant herein incorporates by reference objections to Interrogatory 47. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: See Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 47. 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. (e) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AL'S:2007882.1 32021.70736 71 (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 the resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. ANSWER: Objection: To the extent that this request seeks information concerning Defendant's testifying experts, the request is an improper form of discovery, as information concerning testifying expert witnesses cannot be obtained through Interrogatories. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.1. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Defendant incorporates by reference its most recent designation of expert witnesses made in this case, whether made through Defendant's Responses to Requests for Disclosure or through Defendant's Designation of Fact and Expert Witnesses. 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 asbestos-containing 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; (d) each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed Answer in each of these cases. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 72 ANSWER: Objection: To the extent that this request seeks information concerning Defendant's testifying experts, the request is an improper form of discovery, as information concerning testifying expert witnesses cannot be obtained through Interrogatories. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.1. Defendant herein incorporates by reference objections to Interrogatory 39. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers: In addition to the individuals identified in response to Interrogatory 39, Defendant incorporates by reference its most recent Designation of Fact and Expert Witnesses and any supplemental or amended Designation made in this case. Defendant further generally identifies experts identified by plaintiffs solely on the issue of negligence of other defendants. 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. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Defendant will produce an Exhibit List and/or a "Deposition List" only in accordance with a scheduling order or similar order from the Court. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it invades the work product and attorney-client privileges, and based on this objection, information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld based on those privileges. Subject to the foregoing objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same. Defendant answers as follows: Defendant incorporates by reference and adopts its most recent amended Exhibit List filed In Re: All Asbestos-Related Personal Injury or Death Cases Filed or To Be Filed in Bexar County, Texas and any supplemental Exhibit List filed specifically for a particular case. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 73 INTERROGATORY NO. 63: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels", published in January, 1946 in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene & Toxicology and authored by W. Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al ("the Fleischer-Drinker Report")? (a) Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same. (b) Please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Fleischer-Drinker" study prior to 1968. (c) Please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based. (d) Please identify the name(s) and address(es) of any person(s) who can verify your above response. (e) Did Defendant ever rely on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the work place without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander? (f) If so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above. (g) If your Answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above? ANSWER: Objection: Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome. This Defendant removed all asbestos from its "patching compounds" (including joint compound) no later than 1978. This Interrogatory is not limited to the time period in which Defendant manufactured asbestos-containing products. Thousands of claims have since been made against Defendant for asbestos-related injuries, and numerous documents responsive to this Interrogatory have been collected from outside sources and/or developed by Defendant's attorneys and employees in order to defend against these claims. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks documents that Defendant's attorneys or employees collected or developed in order to defend against asbestosrelated injury claims, this Interrogatory is overly broad, harassing and Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant Al'S:2007882.l 32021.70736 74 unduly burdensome. Information responsive to this Interrogatory has been withheld pursuant to the work product, attorney-client, and consulting expert privileges. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Defendant did not receive the Fleischer/Drinker Report between 1960 and 1978. However, Defendant's attorneys may have obtained a copy of this Report during the 1980s or thereafter as part of their representation of Defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 64: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Study of Asbestos in the Asbestos Textile Industry", published in 1938 in Public Health Bill, No. 241, U.S. Public Health Service and authored by W.C. Dreessen ("the Dreessen Report")? (a) Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same. (b) Please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Dreessen" study prior to 1968. (c) Please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based. (d) Please identify the name(s) and address(es) of any person(s) who can verify your above response. (e) Did Defendant ever rely on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the work place without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander? (f) If so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 63(a) above. (g) If your Answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above? Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 75 ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, harassing, unduly burdensome, and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs in this case do not allege that they were exposed to asbestos-containing products as employees of this Defendant. Furthermore, Defendant objects to "your Respirators," as Defendant did not manufacture, sell, or market respiratory equipment. Subject to the foregoing objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Kelly-Moore did not manufacture respirators, so this question is not applicable. However, Defendant supplied masks and respirators to its employees as required under OSHA regulations. To the extent further information is available, the answer to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the documents currently stored in Kelly-Moore's document repository at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for Plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 76 RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION GENERAL RESPONSE TO ALL REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION: This Defendant's relevant historical records are currently stored at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California 94070. The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answers from the documents is substantially the same for plaintiffs as for Defendant. Defendant will make the documents available for inspection upon reasonable notice. Documents will be produced in the manner in which they are currently stored. In addition, discovery and investigation is ongoing and Kelly-Moore reserves the right to supplement its discovery responses. 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: Defendant incorporates its objections to Interrogatory No. 4. Subject to this objection and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Defendant refers plaintiffs to the photographs of packages of asbestos-containing products contained within Defendant's document repository in San Carlos, California. Color photocopies are available on request. 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: Subject to the general objections and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: See General Response. Responsive documents, if any exist, can be found within Defendant's document repository in San Carlos, California. Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 77 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce copies of all reports ofDefendants' experts and any and all documents relied upon by such experts. RESPONSE: Objection: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that requests for production are an impermissible for of discovery for obtaining discovery regarding testifying experts. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.1. Defendant further objects to this request ofthe ground that it is overly broad and vague because it seeks material from "Defendants' experts" without distinguishing between consulting and testifying experts; responsive material regarding consulting experts whose mental impressions and opinions have not been reviewed by a testifying expert is outside the scope ofdiscovery and will not be produced. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e). Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad because it seeks all documents "relied upon" by Defendants' experts; Rule 192.3(e)(6), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, sets forth the proper scope of material subject to discovery. Subject to these objections and to the general objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant answers: Defendant will produce reports generated by any of Defendant's testifying experts, or by consulting experts if those reports have been reviewed by a testifying expert. For testifying experts. Defendant will produce documents that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert's testimony. See Tex R. Civ. P. 192.3(e). Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections, Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendant AUS:2007882.1 32021.70736 78 RE: In Re: ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED OR TO BE FILED IN BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS; In the District Courts of Bexar County, Texas VERIFICATION OF INTERROGATORIES STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO I, HERBERT R. GIFFINS, hereby declare: I am an authorized representative of Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. in this case. I verify the foregoing responses to Interrogatories for and on behalfof Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. The matters stated in the foregoing responses to Interrogatories are not all within my personal knowledge, but I am informed and believe that there is no representative of Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. who has personal knowledge of all such matters. The facts stated in the attached responses have been assembled by authorized employees, representatives and counsel of Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.; and I am informed by said employees, representatives and counsel, and I believe after reasonable inquiry, that the facts stated in the attached responses are true and correct. I verify under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed thisday of, 2003. HERBERT R. GIFFINS President and Chief Executive Officer Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, by HERBERT R. GIFFINS, an authorized representative of KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC., thisday of, 2003, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. Notary Public in and for The State of California My Commission Expires: a 2wo- awus s qo Ha cua 2g ?4 i aw5 co 5 O Ssa3385 M3 MC SO CJ ,'T U <-> If Is CU GO 2 O c/J Ss e3 cf-: 3 <2S 25 rr rs S2 *-< Tf o3 SO I* g S % t I" IS >> co C: 2 3 rp rs o *7 S3 c00: cm , ^2 r-- v ' o\ Q^ W --* 5 $ ^^232 <&1ch: Qg oc: *Oe\Vc1: -- VO -- VO >-- OO eo CJ C/5 03 MX Jc3 CJ 3 00 Q 3<3 a .X fi g <3 .j 1 12 1 g a3 (2 CO U-J 13 CJ o' 1 c O i:aS* aB3s |P3-gc2a 3 < EXH IBIT A AUS: 1856847.1 32021.70736 W cPn o co V S.'S 1/5 V g-1 4$ "1 6 S. * =H Io *o ^ '3 OO 0- b-C o cj r-~ fc o -*3> OO n0os* O v b TJ 3> Oon o b.c Q Cj H U o -> o ao co O * CO 0o0 *2 On E s ai . <u OCU.CQ. oUu 2 cog .s a *2 ts| u *Q o [UO cc8 otn Sb 'oll oo *o JJ ? '3 oo CU s* bj= O (J II 15 M .2 e1> a. uu QCU c.ooo ~ C oo*C -- .5 3 fs s i,fu0 -tcu5oi^n 3 - *tf5oLf *Gs0J o & -c oo CL, du D 22 a fa wf--IaduDS_Bucn SOfc# BH Sft-i 5> c< 00 N c: t x ^c 111 o o'5 II s C C _C DD "oO l^4 j o CJ io > CJ ,o o W S, h|s^|Pscso St _2 :3 5 C D ONaOn S^-- C^25 O3 O2' 3 SCSftSt -- o -- N oo <o c; 2(KV 2i Oh|$l'oSS>--oVSoS'o2C 3 2| iSOpn c^2:SS2oc2a: v2jnc2: VO *--' NO -- OO 2 f2 Tf ON 5 "* O -2 -- ^r coo tS^S: Jt2 -- i &co T CJ U g CJ CJ o 'C 3 liaal!* ? o x s .2 E -U S25 o . H o _ 3 is -5 2 28 ~1 u u g3 8 a5 I .?e-OIo-,'SKIPf33S34cti 4J 53 J' _r S sM^oj CJ <-> J2 Q 33 (- m 2QOX(-fflO 22 < o pSi cNO:gPcO:OCt:oS; O'tvrsoo -- 53 O ON V>10 -- o 2 o o o noon ~ ~^-- O 2 c: no v^o 0c0: O 2 >Jw 15 11 5 7* S 3 X 1^S 1P CJ _r CJ ^ v 0 ^ C H' Or> ^ 1 IM ii% I a <3 as si o w 33 CO *HN r0fa\ OH co W ZH O U Un [aWm => < Q O Z u CO D at ofa o <J z o Hfa ycn fa Q g2 nl D 3 CJ X '5CX So fOi '{X --j JD X) JD a oo O (N --> Tt 10 VO o ,cg'S2 -co 0. c COL--60 for. ~00'cC o C2 c Sflss- iii 2 faa fa .2 3 IE x: s si ia oO 'f g^ss lUci -o ?& Cl U a -- c S '3 -3 OX 0- f fa 5e2 at & E v> 2 " a fa f ^ 2 B 13 O >- cs o ^ Jb= CL U .2 E T- O 2o f.i1 4J CL S* 2- a. O o u > =5 oo CU S AUS: 1856847.1 J2021.70736 2wa- wyy EgP u 9 SB W sOH a OS > bo OH Pi c3 O QEd D co OH (s, H Z 5Q=5 cwo ou w CO m <A oo VO s 22 ti VO vO , 3 3, Z2\ <<< c s? S o3 rhr O3 < 2 7f s O\ 73 < 2 <3 3 o -ti So n- x a co J3 3 QX I X in c: OV w j 2, o| D*" OC XP>-i S ON |so 3 O z 3 a* S> u *E a> s fi 3 Is CO -- CQ El co a. -s S t- o CO u- Ed co 3 28 fl Sw5 O 60 O |ii3 .5 ! 3X o 3x *o s X <l> 7a3 Hw H2x orzSCsw--'O5 S3 04 O -) a. 3 '3 O5 <J o 3o C JZ " =E ? 3 ofa is O? z O H fiu 7ot3- o V o 2o 73 _0 io *o3 ?i oo 73 O o so 73 V &s p frlTCO Ed O QU Ol, qa iU Oh g> ^s av Ph QU H => ao X H rs h* 60 Vg sd S h fc- o ^ 03 g &8 H2XOorn--W--7e3 c g 3g S <2t-> B e aS 3 c-- X *-- "O MHO<oWc a| ,=Is >32 w 2o 2 a ?2 ta g o cq CQ 3, a=o.t 2"o b-c QO ao- -o5 j= QO cC cwu fO= .c4wsu- & hO .5 & (2 6 II a. a au 3 AUS: 1856847. 32021.70736 1/75 12/77 TIM E PERIOD PRODUCED W ITH ASBESTOS 9/70 to 1974 Unknown to 197 i_______________ 4/64 to 1975 Short period onl; 19701971- *r g r* s 1 r- V4 vi s *e3 O *<3 U W-4 to tO/> (3 ig5 O fc CJ "o5 c3 o 15 o u 52 f<e oJ 0U0 00 Vs3 00 wo <3 o 00 OC/J U3 uo <l-2 aC 3e 00 O ffi o w -z Sc S.HZ kocc-u CO o S g Jg 3 5 cS c ^3 USE Ol ASBES DISCO 1974 1974 1974 1975 Unknowr to 1978 10/77 Unknoi not con by 197! z > * H I s zo oz 1 Cu 0! 2 o z H a* 2 ' " Cw/D Q H Q O si a* USE Fill void walls 0M)l 1978 1978 2o | o Z io sc D 303 3ON 5 3 9/70 | 5 a T3 -g II |1| 10/77 o\ a O 3 o 1970 1970 'Sc3u 'SC3L Si 8> -- wo 'S3 'S3 CU CU S> Si -- o 'S3 S3 cu CU ii -- wo G6<30 g 04 2o in C 60 G *c6cj0 G6c0 C p O So O 8 O 5mr ? o 2 4u>. a O J(53 ut- 22H 2 X H X X X st.ls f-- 5o <c3u cs 60 3 ss co CO cs j= I i V 3 f ao cu c C3 CU c c3 O. 5s o `2 5s o $ & T3 5S | o CU 0s*r <N --c C cu O 0s- TLOT .-s cu L> n 0s r*S W c-c<u3 C U 0Xs- OoO6 QJ <=> TJ U cOu GO & OO 4> CO c3 CU n 4> Is 2 ^flu <o CcUQ Q CJ . 04 Ci " D o O "IE2 33 g g O 3 CU CU S/S wS <N 0-4 r-i 04 = t> aC3 Xo s a3 U -o C3 o o G fid a. -o 0) p*^ oo 04 AUS:1856847.1 32021.70736 RE: In Re: ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED OR TO BE FILED IN BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS; In the District Courts of Bexar County, Texas VERIFICATION OF INTERROGATORIES STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO I, HERBERT R. GIFFINS, hereby declare: ' I am an authorized representative of Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. in this case. I verify the foregoing responses to Interrogatories for and on behalfofKelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. The matters stated in the foregoing responses to Interrogatories are not all within my personal knowledge, but I am informed and believe that there is no representative ofKelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. who has personal knowledge of all such matters. The facts stated in the attached responses have been assembled by authorized employees, representatives and counsel of Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.; and I am informed by said employees, representatives and counsel, and I believe after reasonable inquiry, that the facts stated in the attached responses are true and correct. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before lpfjby HERBERTR. GIFFINS, an authorized representative of KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC., thi^^TlA^day of ~ . _______, 2003, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. NotaiyJ'ublic in and for The State ofCalifornia My Commission Expires JEAN M. BOEHM Commission# 1272211 z IcBraBBa Notary Pubfic - California iV&yE' San Mateo County r 4 MyCamm.&ptesAug1&2Q04 r Brown McCarroIi L.L.P. P. P-C^LA MAR05.03*! 01985 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400, Austin, Texas 78701-4043 512-472-5456 fax 5 12-479-1 101 DirectDkl (512) 370-3355 E-Mail: gaustin@mailbmc.com March 3, 2003 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED All Known Plaintiffs' Counsel See Attached Service List Re: Cause No. 94-CI-l 0078; In Re: All Asbestos-Related Personal Injury or Death Cases Filed or to be Filed in Bexar County, Texas', In the District Courts of Bexar County, Texas Dear Counsel: Enclosed are Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Request for Production in the above-referenced matter. Also enclosed is a copy of a Certificate of Written Discovery which is being filed with the Court. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Geri Austin Legal Assistant Enclosures cc: All known defense counsel without enclosures (see attached service list) Via Facsimile - /Please advise ifyou would like copies ofthe discovery responses] Austin . Dallas Houston Longview Brown McCarroll L.L.P. MAR 0 5.0 3 *1 01 988 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400, Austin, Texas 78701-4043 512-472-5456 fax 512-479-1101 DirectDiat (512) 370-3355 E-Mail: gausda@maSbiiic.com March 3,2003 VTA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED All Known Plaintiffs' Counsel See Attached Service List Re: Cause No. 94-0-10078; In Re: AllAsbestos-Related Personal Injury orDeath Cases Filed or to be Filed in Bexar County, Texas', In the District Courts of Bexar County, Texas Dear Counsel: Enclosed are Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Request for Production in the above-referenced matter. Also enclosed is a copy of a Certificate of Written Discovery which is being filed with the Court. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Geri Austin Legal Assistant Enclosures cc: All known defense counsel without enclosures (see attached service list) Via Facsimile - [Please advise ifyou would like copies ofthe discovery responses] Austin Dallas Houston Longview Brown McCarroll L.L.P. Ill Congress Avenue, Suite 1400, Austin, Texas 78701-4043 512-472-5456 fax 512-479-H01 DirectDial: (512) 370-3355 E-Mail: gatistin@iTiailbmc.com March 3,2003 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Margaret G. Montemayor Bexar County District Clerk 100 Dolorosa Street San Antonio, Texas 78205 Re: Cause No. 94-CI-l0078; In Re: AllAsbestos-Related PersonalInjury or Death Cases Filed or to be Filed in Bexar County, Texas', In the District Courts ofBexar County, Texas Dear Ms. Montemayor: - Enclosed for filing among the papers of the above referenced proceeding, please find an original and one (1) copy of a Certificate of Written Discovery pertaining to Defendant KellyMoore Paint Company, Inc. 's Amended (02-20-03) Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requestfor Production. Please file the original with the Court, file-stamp the remaining copy, and return it to us in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided herein. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Geri Austin Legal Assistant Enclosures cc: All known plaintiffs' counsel with enclosures (see attached service list) Via Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested All known defense counsel without attachments (see attached service list) __ _ _ Via Facsimile Austin Dallas Houston Longview PLAINTIFFS' SERVICE LIST Russell W. Budd Baron & Budd 3102 Oak Lawn, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (800)222-2766 Phone: (214)521-3605 Fax: (214)520-1181 Fletcher N. Rhodes Blanks, Greenfield & Rhodes 220 N. Main at Calhoun P.O. Box 867 Temple, TX 76503 Phone: (254) 778-4267 or 4181 Fax: (254)778-1280 Eric Bogdan Bogdan Law Firm 8866 GulfFreeway, Suite 515 Houston, TX 77017 Phone: (713)378-9378 Fax: (713)378-9379 Lou Thompson BRENT COON & ASSOCIATES 917 Franklin, Suite 210 Houston, Texas 77002 Pnone: (713)-224-5949 Fax: (713)-227-2018 Joseph F. Bruegger Bruegger, Quillin & McCullough 5477 Glen Lakes Drive Suite 209, LB 12 Dallas, Tx 75231 Phone: (214)365-9000 Fax: (214)365-9003 AUS:I873244.1 32021.70736 Alice Oliver-Parrott Burrow & Parrott, LLP 3500 Chevron Tower 1301 McKinney Houston, TX 77010-3092 Phone: (713)222-6333 Fax: (713)650-6333 Mr. Richard Dodd CAPPOLINO, DODD & KREBS 312 South Houston Ave. Cameron, Texas 76520 Phone: (254)-697-4965 Fax: (254)-697-4969 Russell Cook Cook, Doyle & Bradshaw, LLP 1221 Lamar, Suite 1300 Houston, TX 77010-3038 Phone: (713)650-1221 Fax: (713)650-0521 Damon Chargois Foster & Sear, LLP 360 Place Office Park 1201 N. Watson Road, Suite 145 Arlington, TX 76006 Phone: (817)633-3355 Phone: (800)631-5908 Fax: (817)633-5507 Ryan A. Foster The Foster Law Firm, P.L.L.C. 440 Louisiana, Suite 2100 Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713)236-2900 Fax:(713)236-0566 Paul D. Henderson Dies, Dies, and Henderson 1009 West Green Avenue Orange, TX 77630 Phoney (409) 883-4394 AUS:1873244.1 32021.70736 2 Fax: (409)883-4814 Scott M. Hendler The Hendler Law Firm, PC 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512)473-3672 Fax: (512)480-2209 Mike Hissey Hissey, Kientz & Herron, LLC 16800 Imperial Valley Drive, Suite 130 Houston, TX 77060 Phone: (713)224-7670 Fax: (713)224-7671 Herschel Hobson ATTORNEY AT LAW 2190 Harrison Beaumont, TX 77701 Phone: (409) 838-6410 Fax: (409)835-2063 D. Allen Hossley Hossley & Associates, PLLC 6440 N. Central Expressway University Tower, Suite 617 Dallas, Texas 75206 Phone: (214)-265-1117 Fax: (214)-265-1958 Barry Jenkins Jenkins & Parron 3611 West Pioneer Parkway, Suite F Arlington, TX 76013 Phone: (817)459-4459 Fax: (817)459-0067 Mike Kaeske Kaeske - Reeves 6203 Gaston, Suite 735 Dallas, TX 75214 Phone: (214)821-1221 Fax: (214)821-0977 AUS:1873244.1 32021.70736 3 Jill K. Kuswa Law Office of Jill Kuswa 6909 Clayton Avenue Dallas, TX 75214 Phone: (214) 328-3303 Fax: (214) 328-3244 Mark Lanier Lanier, Parker & Sullivan 1331 Lamar, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713)659-5200 Fax: (713) 659-2204 Larry Madeksho Lawrence Madeksho, Attorney at Law 8320 GulfFreeway, Suite 218 Houston, TX 77017 Phone: (713) 641-0251 Fax: (713) 641-6530 Mike Martin Maloney, Martin and Mitchell 909 Fannin, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713) 759-1600 Fax: (713) 759-6930 Stephen Vaughn Mandell & Wright, PC 712 Main Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002-3297 Phone: (713)228-1521 Fax: (713)228-0321 Frank J. Wathen, II McCurdy & McCurdy, LLP 360 Place Office Park 1201 N. Watson Road, Suite 236 Arlington, TX 70006 Aubrey R. Williams AUS:1873244.1 32021.70736 4 Montez, Williams & Baird, P.C. 3809 W Waco Drive Waco, TX 76710-7105 Phone: (254) 759-8600 Fax: (254) 759-8700 Michael Singley, Esq. Mundy & Singley, LLP 816 Congress Avenue Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512)480-2274 Fax: (512)473-3679 Alexandra V. Boone Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP 205 Linda Drive Daingerfield, TX 75638 Phone: (903) 645-7333 Fax: (903) 645-2172 John M. O'Quinn & M. Michael Meyer O'Quinn & Laminack 440 Louisiana Street 2300 Lyric Centre Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 223-1000 Fax: (713) 222-6903 Chris Parks Parker & Parks 1 Plaza Square Port Arthur, TX 77642 Phone: (409)985-8814 Fax: (409)985-2833 . David D. Parron The Parron Firm 404 East First Street Arlington, Texas 76010 Phone: (817)-459-4459 Fax: (817)-459-0067 AUS:1873244.1 32021.70736 5 Walter Umphrey Provost & Umphrey, LLP 2901 Turtle Creek Drive, Suite 250 Beaumont, TX 77642 Phone: (409) 721-6260 Fax:(409)721-9579 Glen W. Morgan Reaud, Morgan & Qninn, Inc. 801 Laurel Street P.O. Box 26005 Beaumont, TX 77720-6005 Phone: (409)838-1000 Fax: (409)833-8236 Ian Cloud Lance Lubel Heard, Robins, Cloud, Lubel & Greenwood, LLP 910 Travis, Suite 2020 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713)650-1200 Fax: (713) 650-1400 Steve Baron Silber*Perlman 2711 N. Haskell Avenue Fifth Floor, LB 32 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (214)874-7000 Fax: (214)824-8100 Mark H. Iola Stanley, Mandel & Iola, LLP 3100 Monticell Ave., Suite 750 Dallas, TX 75205 Phone: (214)443-4318 Fax: (214)443-0358 Peter Krause Waters & Kraus 3219 McKinney Avenue, Suite 3000 Dallas, TX 75209 Phone: (214)357-6244 Fax: (214)357-7252 AUS: 1873244.1 32021.70736 6 Watts Law Firm Mellie Esperson Building 815 Walker - 16th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Phone No: (956) 686-0500 Fax: (956) 683-1703 Paul Sadler Wellborn, Houston, Adkison, Mann, Sadler & Hill, LLP 300 West Main Street P.O. Box 1109 Henderson, TX 75653-1109 Phone: (903) 657-8544 Fax: (903) 657-8108 Ken Kraatz Wells, Purcill, & Kraatz 1619 Pennsylvania Ave. Fort Worth, Texas 76104 Phone: (817)335-5525 Fax: (817)3356208 Steven J. Kherkher Williams & Bailey 8441 GulfFreeway, Suite 600 Houston, TX 77017 Phone: (713) 230-2200 Fax: (713) 643-6226 Roger Worthington Law Office of Roger Worthington 3219 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (214) 902-9797 Fax: (214) 902-9297 AUS: 1873244.1 32021.70736 7 DEFENDANTS' SERVICE LIST Michael Steel Scott, Hulse, Marshall, Feuiile, Finger & Thurmond, P.C. P.0. Box 99123 El Paso, TX 79999 Phone: (915) 533-2493 Fax: (915) 546-8333 Kenneth D. Morris Laura Frase Thomas Tardy, HI Todd Ogden Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy 1349 Empire Central, Suite 400 Dallas, TX 75247 Phone: (214)905-2924 Fax: (214)905-3976 lafrase@fpwk. com Ronald D. Collins Kyle Steele W. G. Watkins Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy 1200 One Jackson Place 188 East Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39225-2608 David W. Ledyard Strong, Pipkin, Nelson Bissell & Ledyard 1400 San Jacinto Building 595 Orleans Street Beaumont, TX 77701-3255 Phone: (409) 981-1000 Fax:(409)981-1010 AUS:201595l.l 32021.70736 John Bissell Strong, Pipkin, Nelson Bissell & Ledyard 1111 Bagby, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 770022546 J.D. Bashline James Galbraith McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel 17225 El Camino Real, Suite 344 Onyx Building Houston, TX 77058 Phone: (409)763-2481 Fax: (409)762-1155 Paula H. Blazek James R. Old, Jr. Germer, Bernsen, & Gertz 550 Fannin, Suite 1025 Beaumont, TX 77701 Phone: (409)654-6721 Fax: (409)835-3373 James R. Old, Jr. Karen Bennett Germer, Bernsen, & Gertz 805 Park Street Beaumont, TX 77701 Phone: (409)654-6721 Fax: (409)835-3373 Keven B. Brown Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP 200 Cresent Court, 11th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214)871-8200 Fax: (214)871-8209 David Taylor Robin Seckel Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P. One Riverway, Suite 2450 Houston, Texas 77056 Phone: (713) 403-8210 AUS:2015951.1 32021.70736 2 "Fax: (713) 403-8299 Raymond Harris Whittenburg, Whittenburg & Schachter, PC 600 N. Pearl, Ste. 2300, LB 133 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214)999-5700 Fax: (214)999-5747 Eduardo R. Rodriguez Rodriguez, Colvin & Chaney 1201 E. Van Buren Street Brownsville, Texas 78520 Alex E. Cosculluela F. Lee Butler Adams and Reese 1221 McKinney, Ste. 4400 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713)652-5151 Fax: (713)652-5152 Walter J. Crawford, Jr. Cheryl Oleson Crawford & Olesen, LLP 550 Fannin Street, Suite 1200 Beaumont, TX 77701 1 Phone: (409) 833-7343 Fax: (409)832-9705 wjcrawford@crawford-olesen. com Hubert A. Crouch, HI Crouch & Inabnett, LLP 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214)922-7100 Fax: (214)922-7101 hcrouch@crouchfirm. com Julie B. Cunningham Anderson & Cunningham, PC 270 First City Tower 1001 Fannin Street AUS:2015951.1 32021.70736 3 Houston, TX 77002-6712 Phone: (713)655-8400 Fax: (713)650-8745 Joe Michael Dodson Pate & Dodson, LLP 470 Orleans Bldg., Suite 1201 Beaumont, TX 77701 Phone: (409)838-6578 Fax: (409)838-6922 John R. Dolezal Nicholas Baldo Stevens, Baldo & Freeman, LLP 550 Fannin, Suite 400 Beaumont, TX 77704 Phone: (409)835-5200 Fax: (409)838-5638 sbj@sbf-law. com Lee Wilson (Ms.) Bowers Orr, LLP 8910 Two Notch Rd., S-400 Columbia, SC 29224 Phone: (803)799-5220 Fax: (803)788-6767 lwilson@bowersorr. com Douglas B. Dougherty Edward M. Carstarphen Ellis, Carstarphen, Dougherty & Goldenthal P.C. 720 North Post Oak, Suite 330 Houston, Texas 77024-3834 Phone: (713) 647-6800 Fax: (713) 647-6884 Joanne Early Gardere Wynn Sewell, LLP 1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000 Dallas, TX 75201 AUS:2015951.1 32021.70736 4 Phone: (713)220-4200 Fax: (713)220-4285 J. Michael Jordan Jose A. Berlanga Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 3400 Houston, TX 77002-5007 Phone: (713) 276-5500 Fax: (713) 276-5555 Lisa A. Powell James M. Hall Laurie B. Easter Jackson Walker, LLP 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 4200 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713)752-4200 Fax: (713)752-4221 leaster@jw. com Karen K. Maston George T. Shipley Baker & Botts, LLP One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana Houston, TX 77002-4995 Phone: (713)229-1234 Fax: (713)229-1522 Gary D. Elliston Paul E. Hamilton DeHay & Elliston, LLP 3500 Nations Bank Plaza 901 Main Street Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214)210-2400 Fax: (214)210-2500 David J. Fisher W. Miller Thomas Fairchild, Price, Thomas, et al. P.O. Drawer 1719 Center, TX 75935 AUS:2015951.1 32021.70736 5 Phone: (936)598-3317 Fax: (936)598-7712 R. Mark Willingham Fairchild, Price, Thomas, et al. 440 Louisiana, Suite 2110 Houston, TX 77002 Keith W. Foley Mehaffy& Weber, PC 2615 Calder Avenue Beaumont, TX 77704 Phone: (409)835-5011 Fax: (409)835-5729 KeithFoley@MehaffyWeber.com Warren A. Gage Cowles & Thompson 901 Main Street, Suite 4000 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214)672-2000 Fax: (214)672-2020 Bill Galerston The Kleberg Law Firm 1800 Bering Street, Suite 400 Houston, TX 77057 Phone: (713)650-6166 Fax: (713)650-6169 Ben S. Garza Callier & Garza 4900 Woodway Drive, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (713)439-0248 Fax: (713)439-1908 Donald E. Godwin Karl F. Muller Nick Inman Elizabeth Phifer AUS:2015951.I 32021.70736 6 Godwin, White & Gruber, PC Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm St., Suite 1700 Dallas, TX 75270-2084 Phone: (214) 939-4826 dgodwin@gwglaw. com ephifer@gwglaw. com Paul C. Goetz, RE Hill, Heard, Gilstrap 1400 West Abram Street Arlington, TX 76013 Frank Harmon, HI Kimberly Stuart Crain, Caton & James 909 Fannin, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77001-1079 Phone: (713)658-2323 Fax: (713)752-8618 James M. Harris, Jr. Harris, Lively & Duesler, LLP P.O. Box 830 550 Fannin, Suite 650 Beaumont, TX 77704-0830 Phone: (409)832-8382 Fax: (409)833-4240 harrislively@readynet. net JohnL. Hill, Jr. JohnB. Hall Locke, Liddell & Sapp, L.L.P. 600 Travis Street, Suite 3400 Houston, TX 77002-3095 Phone: (713)226-1200 Fax: (713)223-3717 Paul J. Holmes Paul J. Holmes, PC 550 Fannin, Suite 230 P.O. Box 3746 AUS:2015951.1 32021.70736 7 Beaumont, TX 77704 Phone: (409)835-3482 Fax: (409)835-2063 Robert E. Thackston Stephanie Spardone Jenkens & Gilchrist 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75202-2711 Phone: (214)855-4500 Fax: (214)855-4300 Gail C. Jenkins David D. Reynard, Jr. Kirk E. Martin Jenkins & Martin, LLP P.O. Box 26008 2615 Calder, Suite 500 Beaumont, TX 77702-6008 Phone: (409)832-4100 Fax: (409)832-4242 ,, Jerry Kacal M. Laura Lopez Robert L. "Larry" Adams Dunn Kacal Adams Pappas & Law, PC One Riverway, Suite 1200 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (713)529-3992 Fax: (713)621-9065 Jkacal@dkapl. com David Livingston Livingston & Miller 450 Gears Rd., Suite 625 Houston, TX 77067-4529 Phone: (281) 876-3595 Fax: (281) 876-3599 Raymond Matthews C. Robert Mace AUS:2015951.1 32021.70736 8 Tekell, Book, Mathews, & Limmer LLP 1221 McKinney, Suite 4300 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713)222-9542 Fax: (713)655-7727 D. Ferguson McNeil, IH Vinson & Elkins, LLP 2300 First City Tower 1001 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77002-6760 Phone: (713)758-2222 Fax: (713)615-5493 Lewis Miltenberger Cordray, Goodrich & Miltenberger, LLP 108 W. Eighth Street, Suite 500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817)820-0343 Fax: (817)820-0373 Randy Bums Baker Botts, LLP 2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 800 Dallas, TX 75201-2916 Phone: (214)953-6500 Fax: (214)953-6503 Terence M. Murphy Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue 2727 North Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214)220-3939 Fax: (214)969-5100 E. Russell Nunnally Maria Davis Bell, Nunnally & Martin, LLC 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75204 David Walsh Brin & Brin, PC AUS:2015951.1 32021.70736 9 1202 3rd Street Corpus Christi, TX 78404 Phone: (361)881-9643 Fax: (361) 883-0506 George P. Pappas James L. Ware Sheehy, Sepre & Ware 2500 Two Houston Center 909 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77010-1003 Phone: (713)951-1000 Fax: (713)951-1067 Jerry C. Parker Clay M. White Sammons & Parker, PC 218 North College Tyler, TX 75702 Phone: (903)595-4541 Fax: (903)595-2864 info@sammons-parker. com Jeffery J. Shaver Sammons & Parker, PC 11200 Westheimer Road, Suite 520 Houston, TX 77042 Phone: (713) 953-0860 Fax: (713) 953-0917 Jeffrey Parsons Pam Rea Timothy J. Hogan Beirne, Maynard & Parsons 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 2500 Houston, TX 77056-3000 Phone: (713)623-0887 Fax: (713)960-1527 Allen Ashcraft Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, LLP 6250 Chase Tower 600 Travis AUS:2015951. 32021.70736 10 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713)546-5850 Fax: (713)546-5830 Anthony E. Pletcher Huseman & Pletcher 600 Leopard Street, Suite 2100 Corpus Christi, TX 78473 Phone: (361) 883-3563 Fax: (361)883-0210 Franklin A. PofF, Jr. Crisp, Boyd & Poff, LLP 2301 Moores Lane P.O. Box 6297 Texarkana, TX 75505-6297 Phone: (903)838-6123 Fax: (903)832-8489 James H. Powers Sharia Frost Lori Wiese Powers & Frost, LLP 2400 Two Houston Center 1221 McKinney Street Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713)767-1555 Fax: (713)767-1799 W. Neil Rambin Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold 1717 Main Street, Suite 5400 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (469)227-8200 Fax: (469) 227-8004 neil. rambin@sdma. com Ellen G. Reynard Kent M. Adams Adams & Coffey, PC 550 Fannin, Suite 800 AUS:2015951.1 32021.70736 11 P.O. Box 7505 Beaumont, TX 77726-7505 Phone: (409) 838-6767 Fax: (409) 838-6950 Stephen B. Rice Robert E. Purgatorio Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering 1200 Smith Street, S-400 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713)654-1111 Fax: (713)650-0027 James M. Riley, Jr. Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, PC 800 First City Tower 1001 Fannin Houston, TX 77002-6707 Phone: (713)651-0111 Fax: (713)651-0220 Eduardo Rodriguez Rodriguez, Colvin & Chaney, L.L.P. 1201 E. Van Buren Street Brownsville, TX 78520 Phone: (956)542-7441 Fax: (956)541-2170 Steven L. Russell David Blanke Vinson & Elkins, LLP 3700 Trammell Crow Center 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201-2975 Phone: (214)220-7700 Fax: (214)220-7716 H. Daniel Spain Spain & Hastings 3900 Two Houston Center 909 Fannin AUS:2015951.1 32021.70736 12 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713)650-9700 Fax: (713)650-9701 Thomas Taylor Alexis J. Gomez Raymod G. Randle Andrews, Kurth, Mayor, Day 700 Louisiana, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713)225-7000 Fax: (713)225-7041 ttaylor@akllp. com James M. Tompkins Mary Lou Mauro Jessica R. Jones (lead) Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith 3555 Timmons Lane, S-1225 Houston, TX 77027 Phone: (713)599-0700 Fax: (713)559-0777 John F. Unger Royston Rayzor Vickery & Williams, LLP 1001 McKinney, Suite 1100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713)224-8380 Fax: (713)225-9945 Susan Sparks Usery Law Offices of Kilpatrick & White 2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 622 Houston, TX 77019 Phone: (713)523-8830 Fax: (713)523-8835 James R. Wetwiska Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP 1301 McKinney, Suite 500 Houston, TX 77010-3095 AUS:2015951.I 32021.70736 13 Phone: (713)651-5151 Fax: (713)651-5246 Dawn M. Wright Thompson & Knight, PC 1700 Pacific Ave., Ste. 3300 Dallas, TX 75201-4693 Phone: (214)969-1700 Fax: (214)969-1751 wrightd@tklaw.com Michael C. Wright Winstead Sechrest & Minick, PC 1201 Elm Street 5400 Renaissance Tower Dallas, TX 75270 Phone: (214)745-5400 Fax: (214)745-5390 Jamshyd M. Zadeh Bourland, Kirkman & Seidler 201 Main Street, Suite 1400 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817)336-2800 Fax: (817)877-1863 AUS:2015951.1 32021.70736 14 Cause No. 94-CI-l0078 IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED OR TO BE FILED IN BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY Defendant, Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., certifies that Defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.'s Amended (02-20-03) Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Request for Production Propounded to Defendants have been served upon all known plaintiffs' counsel and all known defense counsel of record have been notified, but these documents have not been filed with the District Clerk. Respectfully submitted, BROWN McCARROLL, L.L.P. By: ________________ " TODD N. WADE' State Bar Number 20627500 KAY ANDREWS State Bar Number 01248510 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1215 Austin, Texas 78701-4043 (512) 472-5456 (Telephone) (512)479-1101 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT: KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC. AUS:2014730.1 32021.70736 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record on the day of _________ , 2003, as follows: All Known Plaintiffs' Counsel (see attached service list) VIA CERTIFIED MAEL/RRR All Known Defense Counsel ofRecord (see attached service list) VIA REGULAR MAIL/FAX AUS:2014730.1 32021.70736