Document bBEaM4xO88ddYdVkL707VYzKO

JOHN T. ORGAN VS. GAF CORPORATION, ET AL CAUSE NO. 00CV1053 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS 122ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE UNDER RULE 194 TO: Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys of record, Elizabeth Schick, Lou Thompson and Stephanie Finch, Baron& Budd, The Centrum, Suite 1100,3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219. Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 194, Defendant Pharmacia Corporation, formerly known as Monsanto Company (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant") serves this Response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure. (a) The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit. Answer: Defendant's correct name is Pharmacia Corporation. Pharmacia Corporation was formerly known as Monsanto Company. Defendant has no personal knowledge regarding the correct names of other parties to this suit. (b) The name, address and telephone number of any potential parties. Answer: Unknown at this time. (c) The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party's claims or defenses. Answer: Discovery is not complete at this time and Defendant is still in the process of developing the facts in the case as well as its legal theories. However, at this time, Defendant's defense is based upon the following legal theories: a. The plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he does not suffer from an asbestos-related disease. b. Defendant is not responsible for any alleged asbestos-related injury claimed by the Plaintiff because, to the extent the Plaintiff was ever on a premises owned by Monsanto, he was not exposed to asbestos fibers in sufficient concentration and for sufficient duration to have caused or contributed to the development ofany asbestos-related disease. Therefore, exposure to asbestos on a premises owned by Monsanto was neither a cause in fact nor a proximate cause of the Plaintiffs alleged injuries. c. Defendant was never an employer ofthe Plaintiffs. Asbestos manufacturers or insulation contractors, not Defendant, supplied the asbestos-containing products used on Monsanto's premises. Monsanto's premises were simply one of many job sites at which Plaintiff worked. As such. Defendant owed no legal duty toward Plaintiff and cannot be liable under a theory of negligence or gross negligence. d. Because Defendant did not manufacture or supply the asbestos-containing products to which Plaintiff claims exposure, Defendant cannot be liable under a theory of strict products liability. e. Based on the state of knowledge existing during the relevant time period. Defendant reasonably believed that workers on its premises were not exposed to unsafe levels ofasbestos fibers. Furthermore, at all relevant times 2 Monsanto acted reasonably, met or exceeded the appropriate standard ofcare for the circumstances and, therefore, was not negligent. f. To the extent Plaintiff has suffered damages, such damages were caused by the acts, conduct or omissions ofpersons or entities other than Defendant and over whom Defendant has/had no control. g. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches and by the statute of limitations. (d) The amount and any method of calculating economic damages. Answer: N/A. (e) The name, address and telephone number ofpersons having knowledge ofrelevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the case. Answer: Based on the pleadings and discovery served by Plaintiffs, at this time Defendant responds as follows, but reserves the right to amend the following as discovery progresses and the facts ofthe case develop: Dr. R. Emmet Kelly (now deceased) By prior deposition and/or trial testimony in: Schmidt, et al. v. AC&S, et al. \ No. D-145,280; 136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Major, et al. v. ALCO Standard Corp., et al.; No. 93-CV-315; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Bush, et al. v. Appalachian Power Co., et al.; No. 91-C-157, Putnam County, Texas Smith, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al.; C.A. No. 2 91-0524; U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston Corporate medical doctor 1946-1974 Dr. George Roush (now deceased) 10 Babler Lane St. Louis, MO 63124 (314) 997-2234 Corporate medical doctor 1975-1988 Dr. Barry R. D. Friedlander Exxon BioMedical Sciences Mettlers Road 3 CN 2350 East Milstone, NJ 08875 Corporate medical doctor 1988-1994 Messrs. Kelly, Roush and Friedlander were corporate medical doctors and are expected to have knowledge of Defendant's corporate medical practices, procedures, and policies, as well as the general knowledge of corporate medical directors. Dr. Jay W. O'Bryant Beeler-Manske Clinic 818 5th Street North Texas City, Texas 77590 (409) 948-8521 Dr. O'Bryant is a physician who was engaged and consulted by Defendant relating to medical matters at Monsanto's Texas City plant from 1946 until 1986. Dr. James Rau 1203 South Hill Alvin, Texas 77511 (713)331-3591 Dr. William McDaniel 400 Hillje Street Alvin, Texas 77511 (713) 331-3591 Drs. Rau and McDaniel are physicians who were engaged and consulted by Defendants' Chocolate Bayou plant in Alvin, Texas relating to medical matters at the Chocolate Bayou plant from 1962 until 1988. Dr. William Gaffey 11269 Pineside Drive St. Louis, Missouri 63146 Dr. Gaffey was corporate epidemiology director from 1979 until 1989 at Defendant's headquarters in St. Louis, MO. Elmer Wheeler (deceased) Jack T. Garrett (deceased) By prior deposition testimony in: 4 Schmidt, et al. v. AC&S, et ai; No. D-145,280; 136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Carl Bohl 455 Wildewood Parkway Ballwin, Missouri 63011 Bruce W. Eley Solutia, Inc. 575 Maryville Centre Drive, 6 North St. Louis, Missouri 63141 John L. Henshaw Solutia, Inc. 575 Maryville Centre Drive St. Louis, Missouri 63141 Paul Easterday c/o Pharmacia Corporation 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167 Messrs. Wheeler, Garrett, and Henshaw are former directors of Defendant's corporate industrial hygiene department in St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Wheeler served in that capacity from 1947 until 1974; he is now deceased. Mr. Garrett served in that capacity from 1974 until 1985. Mr. Henshaw served in that capacity from 1985 until 1991. Mr. Easterday has served as the director in charge of Defendant's corporate industrial hygiene department from 1991 until the present date. Mr. Eley served as a senior industrial hygienist and a manager ofindustrial hygiene in Defendant's corporate headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri from 1971 until 1987. Mr. Bohl served as an industrial hygienist in Defendant's corporate headquarters from 1966 to 1991 and is believed to have occasionally visited Monsanto's Texas facilities. Messrs. Wheeler, Garrett, Henshaw, Easterday, Bohl and Eley are expected to have knowledge ofDefendant's corporate-wide industrial hygiene practices and policies. John E. Fox HC64 Box 605 16065 W. U.S.Hwy. 290 Harper, Texas 78631-9407 (210) 669-2744 Dan Campbell Route 1, Box 218 Mt. Enterprise, Texas 75681 (903) 822-3837 5 Mr. Fox and Mr. Campbell provided industrial hygiene services at Monsanto's Texas City plant. Mr. Fox provided those services from the late 1950's until 1985 and Mr. Campbell served as the plant industrial hygienist from 1985 until August 1986, when the Texas City plant was sold to Sterling Chemicals. Further, Mr. Garrett (see above) provided industrial hygiene services for the Texas City plant from the 1950's until the 1970's or 1980's. Messrs. Fox, Garrett and Campbell are expected to have knowledge of the industrial hygiene policies and practices at the Texas City plant. Donald L. Meade c/o Pharmacia Corporation FM Road 2917 (Mortenson Road) Alvin, Texas 77512 James C. Edwards 2418 Bay Crest Houston, Texas 77058 (713) 333-5134 Jacqueline Gaul Peterson c/o Pharmacia Corporation 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167 Frank J. Bryant c/o Pharmacia Corporation FM Road 2917 (Mortensen Road) Alvin, Texas 77512 Mr. Meade, Mr. Edwards and Ms. Peterson were industrial hygienists at Defendant's Chocolate Bayou plant in Alvin, Texas. Mr. Bryant is the current industrial hygienist in the plant. Mr. Meade served in that capacity from 1977 until 1979. Mr. Edwards served in that capacity from 1980 until 1981. Ms. Peterson served in that capacity from 1982 until 1986. Mr. Bryant has served in that capacity since 1986. Prior to 1977, industrial hygiene services at the Chocolate Bayou Plant were provided by Mr. Garrett (see above) and Mr. Fox (see above). Mr. Meade, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Peterson, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Bryant are expected to have knowledge of the industrial hygiene practices and policies at Defendant's Chocolate Bayou Plant. Harry Lundin (address and telephone number unknown) George Gorbell 456 Hill Trail St. Louis, Missouri 63011 (314) 256-0585 6 Russell Miller 17 Taylor Woods St. Louis, Missouri 63122 (314) 821-6747 Ray Witter 12746 Spruce Pond Road St. Louis, Missouri 63131 (314) 567-4124 Vincent Boyen 14592 White Birch Valley Lane St. Louis, Missouri 63017 Messrs. Lundin, Gorbell, Miller, Witter and Boyen are former corporate safety department directors. Mr. Lundin served in that capacity from 1942 until 1946. Mr. Gorbell served in that capacity from 1947 until 1965. Mr. Miller served in that capacity from 1965 until 1978. Mr. Witter served in that capacity from 1978 until 1986. Mr. Boyen served in that capacity from 1986 until 1991. These gentlemen are expected to have knowledge of Defendant's corporate safety practices, policies and procedures. W. B. Stallings (address and telephone number unknown) Safety Director 1947-1956 Charles Gilmore 3409 Nottingham Drive College Station, Texas 77845 (409) 696-1905 Safety Director 1956-1975 John Arnold Glass 1908 16th Street North Texas City, Texas 77590 (409) 945-2986 Safety Director 1975-1984 Robert Hammann 816 24th Avenue North Texas City, Texas 77590 Safety Director 1984-1985 John Wilbeck Route 4, 249 Pecan Estates 7 Angleton, Texas 77515 Safety Director 1985 Jacqueline Gaul Peterson do Defendant Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167 Safety Director 1985-1986 These individuals are former safety department and/or loss prevention department personnel at Monsanto's Texas City plant in Texas City, Texas. They are expected to have knowledge of the safety practices, policies and procedures in place at the Texas City Plant. Albert James Fiske (address and telephone number unknown) Safety Department 1961-1963 George F. Korkmas 405 Riverside Drive Alvin, Texas 77511 281-331-3405 Safety Department 1963-1966 James L. Kilby 239 Heather Cress Dr. Chesterfield, Missouri 63017 314-469-3164 Safety Department 1966-1968 Willard W. Vamado 3711 Canary Grass Lne. Houston, Texas 77059 281-461-4188 Safety Department 1968-1969 Francis H. Dupre 15 Spring Lake Court St. Charles, Missouri 63303 636-922-0786 Safety Department 1969-1970 and 1975-1978 Douglas K. Stephens 1116 Deats Road Dickinson, Texas 77536 8 281-337-2330 Safety Department 1970-1971 Charles H. McComb 412 Carriage Creek Lne. Friendswood, Texas 77546 281-992-1695 Safety Department 1971-1973 James C. Edwards 2418 Bay Crest Houston, Texas 77058 281-333-5134 Safety Department 1973-1975 Stephen L. Nevarez (Address and telephone number unknown) Safety Department 1978-1979 Donald A. McKee Route 1, Box 150 Manvel, Texas 77578 Safety Department 1979-1980 John C. Usrey 403 Riverside Dr. Alvin, Texas 77511 Safety Department 1980-1984 G. John Wilbeck Route 4, 249 Pecan Estates Angleton, Texas 77515 Safety Department 1984-1994 These individuals are former or current safety department personnel and directors for Defendant's Chocolate Bayou Plant in Alvin, Texas. They are expected to have knowledge ofthe policies, safety practices and procedures in place at Defendants' Chocolate Bayou Plant. John Tissue Route 1, Box 366 Somerville, TX 77879 Mr. Tissue worked in the purchasing departments ofDefendant's Texas City Plant, Chocolate Bayou Plant, and a former subsidiary, Lion Oil Company from the late 1950's until the late 1980's. As such, 9 Mr. Tissue is expected to have knowledge concerning Defendant's purchasing practices and policies, including the purchase of asbestos-containing materials, relating to Defendant's Texas City Plant, Chocolate Bayou Plant and the former Lion Oil Company facilities in El Dorado, Arkansas. Vernon Mapes 4280 Lakewood Livingston, Texas 77351 (409) 967-0030 Sherman M. Jones 4114 South Acres Drive Houston, Texas 77047 Bill Bums (believed to be deceased) (address and telephone number unknown) J. B. Thrash P. O. Box 151 Apple Springs, Texas 75926 (409) 831-2950 John Elliott 3814 South Fairview Orange, Texas 77630 (409) 886-8302 A.J. Bourgeois 1025 24th Avenue North Texas City, Texas 77590 (409) 945-2489 L. W. Bryant Address Unknown E. M. Wheeler Address Unknown D. H. Chapman Address Unknown W. R. Merrill Address Unknown 10 B. L. Vines Address Unknown William Bean 2214 21st Avenue N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Doyle Beard 2221 23rd Street N. Santa Fe, Texas 77517 409/327-7854 Clarence J. Cyr 2022 Evergreen Lane La Marque, Texas 77568 Glenn O. Eirdman Address Unknown Robert F. Frankavich P.O. Box 1024 Texas City, Texas 77592 Raymond F. Guidry, Jr. P.O. Box Drawer 3489 Texas City, Texas 77592 Daniel J. Hogan, El 2707 22nd Avenue N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Billy Joe Howard c/o Shirley Howard, P.O.A. P.O. Box 666 Santa Fe, Texas 77510 Robert Lee 7211 Mallard Texas City, TX 77590 Robert R. Long 421 24th Ave. N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Donald E. Lonsford Address Unknown Joe Don Lowe 14108 German Road Bucyrus, MO 65444 Albert Allen McClintock Address Unknown Jimmy C. Overturf 4010 Avenue E Santa Fe, Texas 77510 409/925-1110 Joe H. Skipper 118 20th Avenue, N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Edward L. Smith 510 21st Avenue N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Timothy P. Spencer Box 289 Arcadia, Texas 77517 409/925-6160 Clarence W. Trahan 2709 19th Avenue N. Texas City, Texas 77590 These gentlemen were, or are believed to have been, insulation installers and/or foremen at Monsanto's Texas City plant. As such, they are believed to have knowledge of the insulation products used, as well as the installation practices, procedures, and policies ofMonsanto regarding the installation ofinsulation, and the use and availability ofsafety equipment and the safety practices of employees who may have installed insulation products at the Texas City Plant. Gordon Dillon 2718 Fairfield Ave. Texas City, Texas 77590 (409) 948-3750 Mr. Dillon was a safety inspector at Monsanto's Texas City plant. 12 Defendant will continue to supplement in accordance with the Tex. R. Civ. P. Also, Defendant presumes that Plaintiff has knowledge of facts relevant to his claims against Defendant. (f) Testifying expert witness information. Answer: Defendant hereby designates the following persons who may be called as expert witnesses and (1) who has been retained by Defendant and/or other Defendants in this cause, or (2) who may provide testimony in the nature of expert or opinion type testimony despite the fact that they are not "retained experts". 1. Dr. John Craighead Department of Pathology University of Vermont College of Medicine Burlington, Vermont 05405 (802) 425-3480 Dr. Craighead is a medical doctor and pathologist and may testify concerning the state of medical knowledge, at relevant points in time, regarding the effects of exposure to asbestos. 2. Mr. John A. Pendergrass 6700 Milkhouse Court Mobile, Alabama 36695 Mr. Pendergrass is an industrial hygienist and may testify concerning industry practice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state ofknowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times, and may testify concerning the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels of exposure to asbestos. 3. J. LeRoy Balzer, Ph.D. 408 Horse Trail Ct. Alamo, California 94556 Dr. Balzer is an industrial hygienist and may testify concerning industry practice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times, and may testify concerning the reasonableness of reliance upon established acceptable and safe levels of exposure to asbestos. 4. B. K. Kwon, M.S.P.H. 601 Montrose Rd., Suite 509 Rockville, MD 20852 13 Mr. Kwon is an industrial hygienist and may testify concerning industry practice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times, and may testify concerning the reasonableness of reliance upon established acceptable and safe levels of exposure to asbestos. 5. Mr. Lawrence R. Birkner, CIH, CSP 2026 El Monte Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 (805)494-8173 Mr. Birkner is an industrial hygienist and may testify concerning industry practice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times, and may testify concerning the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels of exposure to asbestos. 6. James T. Knorpp, PE, CSP 2149 Misty's Run Keller, TX (817) 379-0840 Mr. Knorpp is a safety professional and professional engineer and may testify concerning his education, training and experience, as well as his factual observations and mental impressions and opinions and the basis for them, in the following areas: the creation, role and significance of OSHA, and relevant rules and regulations, concerning asbestos products in the work place; the process ofestablishing, historical development, and significance of maximum allowable concentrations, permissible exposure limits, threshold limit values, regulatory standards, and similar concepts, in general and specifically with regard to asbestos at relevant times and the reasonableness of reliance upon established acceptable and safe levels of exposure to asbestos; employer's responsibility for employee/worker work site conditions and safety, including the employer's role in connection with OSHA. Mr. Knorpp may also testify regarding matters in response to testimony of Plaintiffs' experts. 7. Dr. Mark R. Wick, M.D., FCAP University of Virginia Health System Department of Pathology Box 214 O.M.S. Building, Room 2882 Charlottesville, VA 22908 (804) 924-9038 14 Dr. Wick is a medical doctor and pathologist and may testify concerning his education, training and experience, as well as his factual observations and mental impressions and opinions and the basis therefor, in the following areas: historical developments regarding asbestos utilization; medical aspects of asbestos-related diseases; state of the art in medicine and state of medical knowledge, at relevant points in time, concerning asbestos and asbestos exposure and the effects thereof; relevant medical and scientific literature; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; the relative risk, as well as reasonably perceived risk during relevant periods of time, from various levels of potential exposure to asbestos, as well as particular type of asbestos fiber involved; existence of a dose-response relationship and the concept ofthreshold levels for asbestos-related diseases; and the rate of occurrence or incidence of certain diseases in given populations. Dr. Wick may also review Plaintiffs medical records and may also review, examine and/or analyze pathology material, including tissue samples and/or blocks and/or slides, and may opine as to the appropriate diagnosis of Plaintiff s alleged disease as well as their etiology. Dr. Wick may also testify regarding matters in response to testimony of Plaintiff s experts. 8. Dr. William L. Dyson, Ph.D, CIH Workplace Hygiene, L.L.C. 1022 Jefferson Road P.O. Box 49176 Greensboro, NC 27410-1642 Dr. Dyson is an industrial hygienist and safety professional and may testify concerning his education, training and experience, as well as his factual observations and mental impressions and opinions and the basis for them, in the following areas: properties, use of and historical developments concerning asbestos and asbestoscontaining products; industry practice and standards in general and specifically concerning industrial hygiene and asbestos; state ofknowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times; the process ofestablishing, historical development and significance of maximum allowable concentrations, permissible exposure limits, threshold limit values, regulatory standards, and similar concepts, in general and specifically with regard to asbestos at relevant times and the reasonableness of reliance upon established acceptable and safe levels of exposure to asbestos products during relevant periods of time; how potential exposure levels from various activities compared to then existing threshold limit values at relevant times; employer's responsibility for employee/worker work site conditions and safety; and the reasonableness of petrochemical premises owner's conduct during relevant periods of time. Dr. Dyson may offer opinions relating to the levels of asbestos exposure necessary to attribute the development of mesothelioma to any particular occupational exposure. Dr. Dyson may also testify regarding matters in response to testimony of Plaintiffs' experts. The basis for Dr. Dyson's mental impressions and opinions are his education, training, and experience, his review of 15 pertinent literature, and his review of additional information pertinent to Plaintiffs' and/or this case. 9. Dr. Patrick N. Conoley, M.D. Kelsey Seybold Clinic 6624 Fannin, Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77030 Dr. Conoley is an M.D. and a "B" reader, who may testify concerning his review of of the radiographs and CT scans of Plaintiff in this case and the significance of various x-ray findings on the radiographs of Plaintiff. 10. Dr. Peter J. Barrett, M.D. 10 Martin's Lane Hingham, MA 24043 (617) 749-5876 Dr. Barrett is an M.D., is board certified in diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine and has been a "B" reader from NIOSH since 1984. Dr. Barrett may testify concerning the significance of asbestos related abnormalities and neoplastic disease based upon his review of the radiographs of Plaintiff as to the presence or absence of radiographic abnormalities related to asbestos and the significance of same. 11. Dr. Gail D. Stockman 703 East Marshall Avenue, Suite 4002 Longview, Texas 75601 (903) 753-0787 Dr. Stockman may testify regarding the pulmonary diseases and illnesses alleged by Plaintiff. More specifically. Dr. Stockman may testify regarding specific medical complaints and history of Plaintiffs and whether those alleged diseases or illnesses could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Stockman may address issues regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiff in the future due to Plaintiffs alleged exposure to materials from the premises ofDefendant. Dr. Stockman may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs experts. 12. Mr. Kim Bloom, M.D. 6550 Fannin, Suite 2403 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 790-6250 Dr. Bloom is a specialist in pulmonary diseases and a certified B-reader. He may testify regarding specific medical complaints and history of Plaintiff and whether those complaints could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from 16 the premises of Defendant. Dr. Bloom may also testify regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiff in the future and the effects of the alleged illnesses and diseases on Plaintiff in the past and in the future. Dr. Bloom may also offer testimony in response to the reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs experts. 13. Robert M. Ross, M.D. 6550 Fannin Street, Suite 2403 Houston, Texas 77030 (713)383-6100 (phone) (713)383-6103 (fax) Dr. Ross is a specialist in pulmonary diseases and a certified B-reader. He may testify regarding specific medical complaints and history of Plaintiff and whether those complaints could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Ross may also testify regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiff in the future and the effects of the alleged illnesses and diseases on Plainti T in the past and in the future. Dr. Ross may also offer testimony in response to the reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs experts. 14. Venessa Ann Holland, M.D., MPH, P.A. Environmental Pulmonary Consultants 7515 S. Main Street, Suite 670 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 799-2224 (Telephone) (713) 799-2225 (Facsimile) Dr. Holland may testify regarding the pulmonary diseases and illnesses alleged by Plaintiff. More specifically, Dr. Holland may testify regarding specific medical complaints and history of Plaintiff and whether those alleged diseases or illnesses could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Holland may address issues regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiff in the future due to Plaintiffs alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Holland may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs experts. 15. Gregory H. Foster, M.D., F.C.C.P Pulmonary/Critical Care 375 Municipal Drive, Suite 218 Richardson, Texas 75080 (972) 680-0666 (972) 680-2499 (fax) Dr. Foster may testify regarding the pulmonary diseases and illnesses alleged by Plaintiffs. More specifically, Dr. Foster may testify regarding specific medical complaints and history of Plaintiffs and whether those alleged diseases or illnesses 17 could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendants. Dr. Foster may address issues regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffs in the future due to Plaintiffs alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendants. Dr. Foster may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs' experts. 16. Scott G. Donaldson, M.D., F.C.C.P Pulmonary/Critical Care 375 Municipal Drive, Suite 218 Richardson, Texas 75080 (972) 680-0666 (972) 680-2499 (fax) Dr. Donaldson may testify regarding the pulmonary diseases and illnesses alleged by Plaintiff. More specifically, Dr. Donaldson may testify regarding specific medical complaints and history of Plaintiff and whether those alleged diseases or illnesses could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Donaldson may address issues regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiff in the future due to Plaintiff's alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Donaldson may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs experts. 17. Kathryn A. Hale, M.D. 6550 Fannin Street Smith Tower, Suite 1236 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 790-2076 (Telephone) (713) 790-3648 (Facsimile) Dr. Hale is a specialist in pulmonary diseases and may testify regarding the pulmonary diseases and illnesses alleged by Plaintiff. More specifically. Dr. Hale may testify regarding specific medical complaints and history of Plaintiff and whether those alleged diseases or illnesses could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Hale may address issues regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiff in the future due to Plaintiffs alleged exposure to materials from the premises of this Defendant. Dr. Hale may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs experts. Defendant also designates the following witnesses to testify through their deposition and/or trial testimony from other cases: 1. Dr. Emmett Kelly testified by deposition, and at trial, in the case of Rita Mae Schmidt, et al. v. A.C. & S., et al.; No. D-145,280; In the District Court ofJefferson County, Texas; 136th Judicial District. Dr. Kelly's testimony, both at trial, and on 18 deposition, is designated here only to the extent that he gave expert or opinion type testimony in that deposition. 2. Mr. Jack T. Garrett in the case of Rita Mae Schmidt, et al. v. A.C. & S., et al.; No. D-145,280; In the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas; 136th Judicial District. Mr. Garrett's deposition testimony is designated here only to the extent that he gave expert or opinion type testimony in that deposition. 3. Joe Shrode in the case ofClaude J. Tomplait v. Combustion Engineering, et al.; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofTexas, Beaumont Division; and/or in Samuel R. Porter v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al., also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, and/or Mr. Shrode's deposition testimony in the Clarence Borel trial, also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 4. Dr. Corwin Hinshaw, expert regarding state ofthe medical art, in the cases ofJimmie L. Vaughan v. Johns-Manville, CA-3-01-0070-F, USDA, N.D. Tex; Antonio Mendoza, et al v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al., CA.-2-80-006, USDC, N.D. Tex; In Re: Related Asbestos Cases, C-83-6251-RFP, USDC, N.D. Calif. Defendant also designates any and all expert witnesses designated herein by Plaintiffs. Defendant also designates any and all expert witnesses designated herein by other Defendants. (g) Any discoverable indemnity and insuring agreements. Answer: Defendant's insuring agreements are voluminous and are contained in approximately 31 three-ring notebook binders located at the headquarters offices of Defendants in St. Louis, Missouri. Those binders will be made available to Plaintiffs in the St. Louis, Missouri area at a mutually agreed upon time. Other responsive agreements will be made available to Plaintiffs at the offices of counsel for Defendant at a mutually agreed upon time. Please contact Defendant's counsel to arrange an agreeable date and time. (h) Any discoverable settlement agreements. Answer: None that this Defendant has been made aware of at this time. (i) Any discoverable witness statements. Answer: Defendant will make available to Plaintiff copies of statements and testimony relevant to the subject matter of the case from persons with knowledge of relevant facts. This production will occur at counsel for Defendant's office at a mutually 19 agreed-upon time and date. Please contact Defendant's counsel to arrange an agreeable date and time. (j) Medical records and bills relating to the injuries and damages asserted by Plaintiff. Answer: See Answer to subpart (k) below. (k) Medical records and bills obtained by Defendant by virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party. Answer: These records are fairly voluminous and, therefore, they will be made available to Plaintiffs for inspection and copying at the offices of counsel for Defendant at a mutually agreeable time. Please contact counsel for Defendant to arrange a date and time to inspect and copy such records. Respectfully submitted. ELLIS, CARSTARPHEN, DOUGHERTY & GOLDENTHAL P.C. G. Joe Ellis State Bar No. 06575050 Douglas B. Dougherty State Bar No. 06031560 Lawrence E. Goldenthal State Bar No. 08089508 720 N. Post Oak Rd., Suite 330 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 647-6800 (713) 647-6884 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE United States certified mail/retum receipt requested and/or regular United States mail to all known counsel of record, as follows. Elizabeth Schick Lou Thompson Stephanie Finch Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 Lawrc il 21 JOHN T. ORGAN VS. GAF CORPORATION, ET AL CAUSE NO. 00CV1053 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS 122ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JOHN T. ORGAN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO: Plaintiff John T. Organ, by and through his attorneys of record, Elizabeth Schick, Lou Thompson and Stephanie A. Finch, Baron & Budd, P.C., The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219. Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, attached are Defendant Pharmacia Corporation's, formerly known as Monsanto Company, objections and responses to Plaintiff John T. Organ's First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission Propounded on Premises Defendant Monsanto Company (f/k/a Monsanto Chemical Company). Respectfully submitted, ELLIS, CARSTARPHEN, DOUGHERTY & GOLDENTHAL P.C. Edward M/Carstarphen State Bar No. 03906700 G. Joe Ellis State Bar No. 06575050 Douglas B. Dougherty State Bar No. 06031560 Lawrence E. Goldenthal State Bar No. 08089508 720 N. Post Oak Rd., Suite 330 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 647-6800 (713)647-6884 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . 'j'K I hereby certify that on the V 0 day of July, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was sent by United States certified mail/retum receipt requested and/or regular United States mail to all known counsel of record, as follows. Elizabeth Schick Lou Thompson Sephanie A. Finch Baron & Budd, P.C. The Centrum 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 Lawrer Goraenthal K.\Solutia'Organ\DiscoveTy\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -2- Exhibit "1" I. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS, AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS 1. Defendant objects to Instruction No. 1 seeking to require a particular manner of production of responsive documents on the grounds that it incorrectly states what is require by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and improperly seeks to impose an obligation beyond, or more restrictive than that allowed under those rules. Defendant will comply with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure in responding. 2. Defendant objects to Definition No. 1, attempting to define "Defendant", "you", "your" and "your company" to include legally separate and distinct corporate entities who are not parties to this case on the grounds that such is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the disco very of admissible evidence, and goes beyond the scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Defendant objects to Definition No. 2, attempting to define "document", etc. to include matters outside the scope ofdiscovery under the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure, specifically attempting to require production ofmaterials that are not within the Defendant's possession, custody or control, on the grounds that such is beyond the scope of discovery and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Defendant objects to Definition No. 16 attempting to define the term "identify" with regard to a document to the extent such definition seeks to limit Defendant's right to identify a document by simply producing it, on the grounds that such seeks to impose obligations beyond the scope of discovery, amounts to multiple interrogatories and subparts, is unduly burdensome and harassing. 5. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Interrogatories, specifically enumerated interrogatories nos. 1 through 20, including all subparts, in their entirety on the grounds that the number of interrogatories, counting discrete subparts, exceeds the allowable number under Rule 190.3(b)(3), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. II. GENERAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS REGARDING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS In response to Plaintiffs requests for documents and Plaintiffs interrogatories in response K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovcry\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd *3- to which Defendant has referred to documents which may contain responsive information, subject to and without waiving the objections states herein, Defendant further responds that documents responsive to Plaintiff's requests were previously copied and provided to Plaintiff s counsel at their request in a prior separate action. Still subject to and without waiving Defendant's objections, additional documents which may be responsive to some of Plaintiffs Discovery requests are available for inspection and will be made available at the offices of Defendant's counsel at a mutually agreeable time upon reasonable request. Furthermore, subject to and without waiving Defendant's objections, as further documents that may be responsive to Plaintiffs Discovery are obtained, if any, such will likewise be made available for inspection. III. ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.3, you are hereby advised that material or information which may be responsive is privileged, and has been withheld from this response on that basis. The pri vileged materials and information covered by this Assertion of Privileged Documents relate to each and every request for production in this litigation. The material and information withheld pursuant to this Assertion of Privileged Documents includes: (a) confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services for the client between the client or a representative of the client and the client's lawyers or representatives of the lawyers; (b) confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services for the client between the client's lawyers or lawyers' representatives; (c) confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services for the client by the client or a representative ofthe client, or the client's lawyers or the lawyers' representatives, to a lawyer or a representative of a lawyer representing another party in an action that was pending at that time, and concerning a matter ofcommon interest therein; (d) confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services for the client between representatives of the client or between the client and a representative of the client; (e) confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services for the client among lawyers and their representatives representing the same client; "4-K:\Solutia\Organ\DiscoverySMonsanto's responses to discovery,wpd (f) returns or reports required by law to be made; (g) trade secrets owned by the client or other information of a confidential and/or proprietary nature or which otherwise may be the proper subj ect ofa request for confidentiality and/or protective order; (h) privileged communications to or from lawyers or lawyers' representatives which were created or made from the point at which the client consulted a lawyer in the defense of claims that one or more individuals were injured as the result ofexposure to asbestos fibers on a premises owned by Monsanto, other than in this particular lawsuit, and which communications concern litigation and claims other than the claims in this particular lawsuit; (i) privileged documents oflawyers or lawyers' representatives which were created or made from the point at which the client consulted a lawyer in the defense of claims that one or more individuals were injured as the result of exposure to asbestos fibers on a premises owned by Monsanto, other than in this particular lawsuit, and which documents concern litigation and claims other than the claims in this particular lawsuit; (j) material prepared, or mental impressions developed, in anticipation oflitigation, including other litigation as described above, or for trial (including other trials besides this case) by or for the client or the client's representatives, including the client's attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, employees, or agents; (k) communications made in anticipation oflitigation, including other litigation as described above, or for trial (including other trials besides this case) between a client and the client's representatives, or among the client's representatives, including the client's attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, employees, or agents; (l) work products of an attorney or an attorney's representatives that contain the attorney's or the attorney's representative's mental impressions, opinions, conclusions or legal theories in this lawsuit, and in other lawsuits, both pending and resolved, in which it has been alleged that one or more individuals were injured as the result of exposure to asbestos fibers on a premises owned by Monsanto. For a description of the material and information withheld pursuant to this Assertion of Privileged Documents, a list of privileged documents is available upon appropriate request from Defendants' counsel of record. Finally, depending on the resolution of the General and Specific Objections made in this response, additional documents may also be withheld from discovery based upon this Assertion of Privileged Documents. In such event, Defendant will supplement the list ofprivileged documents. K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd "5- IV. DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. I: For each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories, or who assisted in identifying, locating or retrieving documents responsive to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, identify such person and include the length oftime employed by Defendant or other employer, and a year-by-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held. ANSWER: Responses to these interrogatories are based upon Defendant's corporate knowledge. As such, information responsive to some or all of these interrogatories has been accumulated over a period oftime and specific sources ofparticular information cannot be determined. These responses were prepared based upon available information by both outside legal counsel and in-house legal staff INTERROGATORY NO. 2: As to each of the following, please state the first year you first became aware, what you learned, and how Defendant learned that humans who inhale asbestos fibers can contract a. asbestosis b. lung cancer c. mesothelioma ANSWER: Defendant objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is vague and overly broad. Subject to and without waiving its objection, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant states that Monsanto has always diligently attempted to keep abreast of the published medical literature pertaining to asbestos-related diseases. This type of information, and knowledge thereof, develops gradually over time and is constantly evolving. Additionally, it is difficult, ifnot impossible, for any corporate entity to pinpoint when it "became aware" of any particular issue; and Defendant is presently unable to state when Monsanto first became aware ofany suspected link between asbestos exposure and any physical ailments. Moreover, Defendant, cannot agree with the premise that there is a causal connection between asbestos exposure and physical ailments without first knowing the K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -6' details regarding the specific ailment involved, the nature, duration and intensity of any alleged exposure, as well as the medical and work history of any specific individual in whom a causal connection between asbestos exposure and such ailments is alleged. More detailed information concerning when and by what means Monsanto may have become aware ofasbestos-related diseases is not within the personal knowledge of current employees of Defendants, but some of this information may be obtained from a review of the documents which will be produced. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please list all trade organizations, trade associations and any other industry-wide groups to which you belong(ed) (specifically including but not limited to the following groups: American Hygiene Foundation, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Chemical Manufacturer's Association, American Chemical Council, American Petroleum Institute, Texas Chemical Council, Ohio Safety Congress, National Safety Council, Asbestos Information Association, Industrial Medical Association) in which information or documents relating to asbestos was discussed, disseminated, or published (including, but not limited to, the effects of exposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations at risk). As to each such group, please state: a. the inclusive dates of your membership and b. identify Defendant's employees or former employees or representatives who attended any of the meetings held by each organization, and c. the meetings they attended, and d. ifany individuals employed by Defendant or representing Defendant were members of committees or subcommittees of any such organizations (such as, e.g., a medical advisory committee or legal committee), identify the committee or subcommittee on which such individual served and the position occupied on the committee, if applicable. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant to this claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is not reasonably limited in scope to any relevant time frame, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law, including one or more of Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex.1996). Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and non-specific in that the particular organizations inquired about cannot reasonably be identified. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant states that at this time it has no knowledge ofmembership in any such organization. Defendant further states K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd -! that Monsanto has had a policy of paying for association memberships for its professional employees. Gathering information on these individual memberships, committee memberships and specific meetings attended over the last 50+ years is impossible. However, Defendant has found that individuals within Monsanto's organization maintained the following memberships, but is not stating that the following organizations and/or associations actually published or disseminated documents or information relating to asbestos: Industrial Hygiene Foundation, member 1937-1954 American Chemistry Council (formerly Chemical Manufacturer's Association), current member and member ofthe Manufacturing Chemists Association since 1910 American Petroleum Institute, member 1955-1986 Texas Chemical Council, member (dates unknown) National Safety Council, member (dates unknown) Industrial Medical Association, member (dates unknown) National Safety Council, member since 1916 American Industrial Hygiene Association, member since 1957 American Congress of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists, member (dates unknown) Gulf Coast Section of American Industrial Hygiene Association, member (dates unknown) Texas Safety Association, member (dates unknown) Texas Public Health Association, member (dates unknown) American Academy of Occupational Medicine, member (dates unknown) American Academy of Occupational Hygiene, member (dates unknown) Texas Chemical Council, member (dates unknown) American Medical Association, member (dates unknown) INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify Defendant's employees or former employees or representatives who attended any proceedings, symposia, or conferences of a scientific or medical or technical nature at which information or documents relating to asbestos was discussed, disseminated, or published (including, by way of example, the effects of exposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations at risk) and specifically including but not limited to the Seventh Saranac Symposium, 1952, and/or New York Academy of Sciences, October 1964, and for each such individual, state the proceedings, symposia, or conferences attended and to whom within your corporate organization information concerning attendance at such proceedings, symposia, or conferences were reported, either verbally or in documentary form. ANSWER: K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -8- Defendant objects to his interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is not reasonably limited in scope as to any relevant time frame. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that gathering information on individual conferences attended by employees over the last 50+ years is impossible; however, information responsive to this request may be contained within the documents which have been or will be produced and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify each company from which you acquired asbestos-containing products used at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the years Plaintiffhas indicated he worked at Defendant's Premises at Issue and include in your response a description of each asbestos-containing product acquired and the dates each asbestos-containing product was acquired. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the grounds and to the extent that this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the parties or issues in this case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited in time, is not limited to the asbestos-containing products used in units or areas where Plaintiff allegedly worked, and is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plaintiff allegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that, based upon the information available to it at this time, asbestos was present in a number ofmaterials used in and around its Texas facilities, including gaskets, packing, floor tiles, transit board, roofing materials, siding, and pipe and vessel insulation. Inasmuch as insulation containing asbestos was the only available insulating material for use in certain applications at industrial plants such as Defendant's Texas facilities prior to the 1970's, Defendant generally used asbestos-containing insulation products in units where pipes and vessels required such insulation materials. Defendant believes that asbestoscontaining insulation materials may have been used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. More detailed information concerning the dates when and locations where asbestos-containing products were used or installed in Defendant's Texas facilities is not known at the present time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifother responsive information becomes available. However, some ofthis K:\So!utia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd "9 information maybe derived or ascertained from an examination ofthe documents ofthis Defendant, which have been or will be made available to Plaintiffs in this case. Detailed information concerning trade or common names of asbestos-containing products present in the Defendant's Texas facilities is either unavailable at this time or may be ascertained from the answer below or from documents which have been or will be produced in this case or from testimony of former employees or workers who worked on Defendant's Premises in Texas. Based upon the information which is available to it at this time, however, Defendant believes that Johns Manville and Owens-Coming were manufacturers ofsome ofthe insulation products that were present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. Defendant believes that the following were makers or distributors of asbestos-containing materials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities: J. T. Thorpe (insulation materials); Lion Oil (Nokorode, a water-proofing mastic); Gulf Supply (gaskets); Lamons (gaskets); Marine Petro (gaskets); John Crane (gaskets); Texas Marine (gaskets); Triplex (gaskets); and Flexitallic (gaskets). Defendant does not know, and is unable at this time to identify with any reasonable degree of accuracy, the distributors ofother possible asbestoscontaining materials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. More detailed information concerning the product names, what such products were used for, sellers and/or manufacturers, locations where installed, when purchased and persons and entities who may have installed asbestoscontaining products present in Defendant's Texas facilities is unavailable at this time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure if other responsive information becomes available. However, some ofthis information maybe derived or ascertained from an examination ofthe documents ofthis Defendant which have been or will be made available to Plaintiffs in this case and the burden ofsuch is substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If any asbestos-containing materials located or formerly located at Defendant's Premises at Issue have been removed, encapsulated, or otherwise abated at any time, a. Identify each person or company that performed such abatement services; b. State the dates and locations within Defendant's Premises At Issue ofeach abatement procedure; and c. Describe what asbestos-containing materials were abated d. State how such asbestos-containing waste was stored at Defendant's Premises At Issue prior to disposal and how it was disposed of. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the claims in this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited in time, or units or areas within a facility where K:\SolutiaV5rgan\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd -10- Plaintiff allegedly worked, is not limited to the specific types of products or materials with which or around which Plaintiff allegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant states that, in line with Defendant's corporate policy, its plants began the systematic removal of asbestos-containing material in the 1970s. Removal was accomplished as asbestos-containing insulation materials had to be replaced on each pipe or vessel in each unit of Defendant's facilities. Where removal was inappropriate, Defendant encapsulated those materials and such were maintained in this encapsulated condition either by steel piping, paint or duct tape and, as such, were in a non-ffiable state. Further, information responsive to this request may be ascertained from the documents that have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge of facts relevant to this case concerning Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to the identification or location in your premises of asbestos-containing products to which Plaintiff was exposed or facts disputing the identification or location of such product or type ofproducts. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory and the phrase "known to you, your agents, or contractors" to the extent it requires a response as to matters not specific to this particular defendant but as to other separate entities and would require this defendant to speculate as to the matters inquired of. Defendant further objects on the ground that this interrogatory is the subject of a Request for Disclosure. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that discovery and investigation offacts is ongoing. Defendant does not know that Plaintiffwas ever present or worked on its premises, the work he may have performed, what location he performed any work, or the exact details existing at the time Plaintiff was allegedly on Defendant's Premises. Further, Defendant refers Plaintiff to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: With respect to Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofevery person known to you, your agents, or contractors as being employed by you or having been employed by you whose duties and/or responsibilities included interface or liaison with Plaintiffs employer or other contractors who installed, removed, maintained, repaired or replaced asbestos-containing products (including foremen or supervisors or Plaintiff) on Defendant's Premises at Issue (regardless of job title, including but not limited to "plant engineers," "project engineers," "project superintendents," IC\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd "11 "purchasing agents" or job descriptions of a similar nature) and specifically include those whose duties and responsibilities included the following: a. entering into contracts or purchase orders (including specifications) with such contractors b. allowing such contractors access to Defendant's Premises at Issue, c. overseeing or supervising or observing or monitoring such contractor activities or addressing any contractor questions or concerns relating to the work being performed d. providing or approving asbestos-containing materials to be used by such contractors e. inspecting or approving work done by such contractors or authorizing payment for work done by such contractors. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory and the phrase "known to you, your agents, or contractors" to the extent it requires a response as to matters not specific to this particular defendant but as to other separate entities and would require this defendant to speculate as to the matters inquired of. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the claims in this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is not limited or specific enough as to time, or units or areas within a facility where Plaintiffallegedly worked, is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plaintiffallegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed. Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant responds that some of this information may be obtained from the documents which have or will be produced to Plaintiffs' counsel and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: If you have or have had an industrial hygiene or safety or medical department, please a. state the year such department was established, and whether it was established on the corporate level or at Defendant's Premises At Issue or both and b. with respect to Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as being or having acted in a medical, safety, or industrial hygiene advisory capacity (regardless of job title), specifically including, but not limited to, physicians, medical directors, medical personnel, nurses, safety engineers or managers and industrial hygienists. (You should include in your answer those persons on a corporate level, regardless of whether they worked directly on Defendants' Premises if they had such responsibilities for workers on Defendant's Premises At Issue, and identify such K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -12- individuals as affiliated with the corporate headquarters of Defendant.) ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppressive and onerous. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant responds as follows: a. Defendant has operated a corporate medical department, which included industrial hygiene, since at least 1946. b. Jack Wheeler (deceased) Corporate industrial hygiene director 1947-1974 Jack T. Garrett (deceased) Corporate industrial hygiene director 1974-1985 Provided industrial hygiene services to Texas City plant from 1950s-1970s or 1980s Carl Bohl Corporate industrial hygienist 1966-1991 Bruce Eley Corporate industrial hygiene manager 1971-1987 John E. Fox Texas City industrial hygiene supervisor late 1950s -1985 Chocolate Bayou industrial hygiene supervisor 1960-1977 Dr. R. Emmet Kelly (deceased) Corporate medical director 1946-1974 Dr. George Roush Corporate medical director 1975-1988 Dr. Thomas Rau Chocolate Bayou physician 1962-1988 INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify all warnings given by Defendant, if any, to anyone at Defendant's Premises At Issue (including the Plaintiff) regarding the hazards of asbestos and the dangers inherent in the K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -13 inhalation of asbestos fibers, and please include in your response: a. to whom these warnings were given (and specifically state if Plaintiff was among them), b. when they were given, if ever, and c. in what manner they were given (e.g. written pamphlets, signs posted, oral/group meeting, individual discussions, etc.) and d. state whether you have ever published, written, edited, or distributed any other printed materials, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging, advertising, signs, statements, or other materials containing any warnings of the possibility of injury from the use or exposure to asbestos-containing products, and e. state whether any of the foregoing warnings were in Spanish or any other language besides English. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiff allegedly worked at a Monsanto facility or any reasonable time period and is not limited to the specific unit or units where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant does not know that Plaintiffwas ever present or worked on its premises, the work he may have performed, what location he performed any work, or the exact details existing at the time Plaintiff was allegedly on Defendant's Premises. However, although Defendant has no record ofany communications directly with Plaintiff, Defendant states that it provided a safe workplace and appropriate safety information to workers on its premises at all relevant times. It is Defendant's position that Plaintiff, and all other persons at Defendant's facility, were not exposed to asbestos at levels then thought to be hazardous. The existence, nature and extent of the safety information known by and available to, and the precautions taken for and by, Monsanto's employees and its contractors would have depended on the year when the work was performed, the type of work done, the location ofthe work performed, the particular contractor involved, the particular employee involved, the anticipated level ofairborne particles, the terms of the contract between Monsanto and the contractor, and other factors. Generally, Monsanto's policies and safety measures evolved over the years along with the increase in knowledge of the risks associated with exposures to dust and asbestos and Monsanto always attempted to stay abreast of pertinent information and comply with or exceed the minimum requirements for safety for all workers on its premises. Monsanto held regular impromptu safety meetings where appropriate safe work practices and the potential hazards of many products and processes were discussed. However, it is not possible to state the first time a warning was given about the hazards of asbestos exposure. Further, responsive information may be obtained from documents which have been or will be produced in this case and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. K:\SolutiaVOrgan\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -14- INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If Defendant has or had or maintained 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, please identify a. the individuals who received, maintained, reviewed and disseminated the information contained in such written materials, b. identify the written materials received, and c. state how and why these materials came into Defendant's possession. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, overly broad, and not reasonably limited to any relevant time frame or location. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the information sought may be ascertainable from Defendant's records which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. There is no greater burden on the Plaintiffto obtain the information requested from those documents than it is for Defendant to do so. Additionally, due to the passage of time and the passing of former employees who may have knowledge relevant to this interrogatory, it is virtually impossible to know the individuals who received, maintained, reviewed or disseminated the information contained in such written materials or when, how and why these materials came into Defendant's possession. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please describe in detail your manufacturing or industrial use of any asbestos or asbestoscontaining products at Defendant's Premises At Issue. Please include in your response a. the type of asbestos fiber used, b. from whom you purchased the asbestos fiber used, c. a description of the process in which the asbestos was used. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the grounds and to the extent that this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the parties or issues in this case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited in time, is not limited to the asbestos-containing products used in units or areas where Plaintiff allegedly worked, and is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plaintiff allegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. K:\Solutia'Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -15- Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that, based upon the information available to it at this time, asbestos was present in a number ofmaterials used in and around its Texas facilities, including gaskets, packing, floor tiles, transit board, roofing materials, siding, and pipe and vessel insulation. Inasmuch as insulation containing asbestos was the only available insulating material for use in certain applications at industrial plants such as Defendant's Texas facilities prior to the 1970's, Defendant generally used asbestos-containing insulation products in units where pipes and vessels required such insulation materials. Defendant believes that asbestoscontaining insulation materials may have been used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. More detailed information concerning the dates when and locations where asbestos-containing products were used or installed in Defendant's Texas facilities is not known at the present time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifother responsive information becomes available. However, some of this information may be derived or ascertained from an examination ofthe documents ofthis Defendant, which have been or will be made available to Plaintiffs in this case. Detailed information concerning trade or common names ofasbestos-containing products present in the Defendant's Texas facilities is either unavailable at this time or may be ascertained from the answer below or from documents which have been or will be produced in this case or from testimony of former employees or workers who worked on Defendant's Premises in Texas. Based upon the information which is available to it at this time, however, Defendant believes that Johns Manville and Owens-Coming were manufacturers ofsome ofthe insulation products that were present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. Defendant believes that the following were makers or distributors of asbestos-containing materials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities: J. T. Thorpe (insulation materials); Lion Oil (Nokorode, a water-proofing mastic); Gulf Supply (gaskets); Lamons (gaskets); Marine Petro (gaskets); John Crane (gaskets); Texas Marine (gaskets); Triplex (gaskets); and Flexitallic (gaskets). Defendant does not know, and is unable at this time to identify with any reasonable degree of accuracy, the distributors of other possible asbestoscontaining materials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. More detailed information concerning the product names, what such products were used for, sellers and/or manufacturers, locations where installed, when purchased and persons and entities who may have installed asbestoscontaining products present in Defendant's Texas facilities is unavailable at this time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure if other responsive information becomes available. However, some ofthis information may be derived or ascertained from an examination of the documents ofthis Defendant which have been or will be made available to Plaintiffs in this case and the burden of such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify by name and location each plant, facility, location, or premises owned, operated, or controlled by you in which asbestos-containing products were assembled, stored, used, prepared for K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -161 use, installed, or fabricated during the Time Period At Issue. For each plant, facility, location, or premises listed as responsive to the above request, specify a. b. ANSWER: the functional dates for each plant, facility, location, or premises and the period during which asbestos-containing materials were stored, used, prepared for use, installed or fabricated. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law, including one or more of Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996), and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed and is not limited to areas or units where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, with regard to Defendants' Texas facilities, please see responses to interrogatories nos. 5 and 12. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: For any of Defendant's Premises At Issue, during the Time Period At Issue, if you, your affiliates, subsidiaries, or predecessors), arranged for any of your employees, labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors, industrial hygienists, or any other party, whether directly employed by you or otherwise, to count or measure quantity, quality or threshold limit values or concentrations of asbestos dust or particles or other dust at any of your plants, facilities, locations, or premises where asbestos or asbestos-containing products were used, assembled, installed, or removed, please describe such tests and indicate a. the results obtained, b. by whom such tests were performed and c. identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as the person most knowledgeable concerning such tests and their results. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory is broad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including on or more of Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -17- Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows. Dust monitoring and air sampling were conducted at Defendant's Texas plants and laboratory analyses of air samples were performed. Defendant purchased a Bausch & Lomb dust counter in 1947 for the purposes ofair sampling to determine working conditions at its facilities. In later years, a phase contrast microscope and an electron microscope were purchased and similar analyses were done. Air sampling, monitoring, and industrial hygiene programs increased in the later years along with the increased indications in the published literature regarding the potential health risks from long-term exposure to given levels of airborne particles, including asbestos, and the publication of governmental guidelines regarding airborne particles, including asbestos. Industrial hygienists at Monsanto's Texas facilities and Monsanto's corporate industrial hygienists would have collected the dust samples prior to the early 1970's. Samples would have been sent to outside laboratories for analysis using particle counting methods. Starting in the early 1970's, when asbestos fibers would be counted using phase contrast light microscopy, samples were sent to Monsanto's physical science center at its John F. Queeny plant for analysis. The results of the monitoring and sampling performed always revealed safe and acceptable levels ofairborne particles at Defendant's facilities. Further, to the extent the information can be ascertained from Defendant's documents in this case, Defendant refers Plaintiff to those documents pursuant to TRCP 197.2(c). INTERROGATORY NO. 15: For the Time Period At Issue, ifyou provided or caused to be provided any safety equipment or medical programs (including, but not limited to, masks, respirators, other breathing devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, area air filtration systems, and area exhaust systems or barriers or enclosures or medical monitoring program, medical examination program, or other medical or safety program) to employees, contractors, or invitees at any of your plants, facilities, locations, or premises where asbestos and asbestos-containing products were manufactured, used, assembled, installed, or removed, please indicate a. when such was first provided to your employees, contractors, and/or invitees and to whom, b. under what circumstances such were provided, and c. state whether you conducted safety meetings discussing the hazards ofasbestos with employees, contractors, or invitees at any of Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, and if so, when and what was discussed, and d. identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as the person most knowledgeable concerning such equipment and programs and their provision. ANSWER: IC:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -18- Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the specific units or areas where Plaintiff allegedly worked or any reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that, generally, Defendant's policies and safety measures have evolved over the years along with the increase in knowledge of suspected dust and asbestos inhalation hazards. The contractors hired by Defendant held themselves out to be experienced and competent contractors familiar with the work involved, the risks attendant thereto, the safety equipment necessary for the work to be performed, and the regulations and standards governing the performance of their work. Defendant's contractors also were required by contract to comply with all applicable laws and regulations relating to dust and airborne asbestos. As such. Defendant relied on those contractors to provide the requisite and appropriate guidance, safety measure and safety equipment when working with and around asbestoscontaining materials. Defendant is unable at this time to provide any more reasonably detailed answer to this interrogatory, which spans several decades in time, because the existence, nature and extent of precautions taken or to be taken, and the equipment issued or to be issued, would depend upon the year when any work involving asbestos-containing materials was performed, the type of work performed, the location where the work was performed, the particular contractor or employee involved, the anticipated level ofairborne particulates, the terms ofthe contract between Defendant and the contractor, and other factors. Defendant can state, however, based upon information available to it at this time, since before it acquired its first plant in Texas from the United States Government in 1946, it recommended dust masks and made them available to workers on its premises who worked in dusty conditions. By no later that 1950, Defendant provided respirators approved by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and later, NIOSH, to persons working in dusty conditions. Later, Defendant further increased its safety and industrial hygiene programs and personnel along with increased emphasis and warnings concerning dust and asbestos-containing materials. Further, to the extent such are considered responsive. Defendant further states that during relevant times it required periodic medical exams and chest x-rays for its workers, and also, in the 1960's, Dr. Emmett Kelly, corporate medical director, surveyed for the incidence ofcertain illnesses in its employees in connection with potential exposures to asbestos. See also responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 14. Should more specific information responsive to this interrogatory be discovered, this answer will be supplemented in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. For further response, responsive information may be obtained from documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiff s counsel in this case and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state for each of Defendant's Premises At Issue, all relevant State and Federal regulations, laws, statute, mandates, or other authority pertaining to industrial hygiene, safety, and health of which you were aware during the Time Period At Issue that governed, controlled, or applied to exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, abatement or removal of asbestos- K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -19- containing products, and transportation ofasbestos containing waste from such removal or abatement activities. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the specific units or areas where Plaintiff allegedly worked or any reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive information may be obtained from documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiff's counsel in this case and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: For any of Defer dant's Premises At Issue, detail every occasion during the Time Period At Issue when any state, federal, or local regulatory agency, commission, or other examiner inspected or visited any ofyour plants, facilities, locations, or premises where asbestos and asbestos-containing products were used, manufactured, assembled, installed, or removed to ascertain whether you were in compliance with relevant state, federal, or local health and safety regulations. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to the specific units or areas where Plaintiff allegedly worked or any reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive information may be obtained from documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel in this case and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: If, before 1980, you had received notice that any individual or individuals had claimed for alleged injury against you resulting from exposure to asbestos, state for each: a. The name and address of the claimant b. A description of the claim c. The name and address of the attorney representing such claimant. ANSWER: K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -20 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more oILoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). Additionally, Defendant objects on the grounds that such request is not reasonably limited or specific as to any relevant time, facility, or unit where plaintiff allegedly worked or any other relevant location. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that to the best of its current knowledge, the first claim ofthis type inquired ofwas a worker's compensation claim filed by a worker in its Springfield, Massachusetts plant alleging some type ofasbestos-related injury on August 15, 1979. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: If you contend that you did not own or operate or control the Defendants' Premises during the Time Period At Issue, or if you contend you are not liable in the capacity alleged in the most recent petition, describe in detail the facts supporting your contention and include a detailed corporate history of Defendant and its ownership, sale, acquisition, or divestiture or any of Defendant's Premises At Issue and any relevant mergers, acquisitions, consolidation, or other events of similar nature that you believe bear on the issue of ownership, control, assumption of liabilities for acts occurring on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue and identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofevery person known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge of facts relevant to this issue. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Subject to these objections, with regard to ownership and operation ofthe Texas City plant, Defendant states that based upon the Time Period At Issue i.e. 1957-1960,1962-1964,1966, 1968-1970,1972, this interrogatory is not applicable. Additionally, with regard to ownership and operation of its Chocolate Bayou plant. Defendant states that based upon the Time Period At Issue, i.e. 1960-1961 and 1968, this interrogatory is not applicable. With regard to the issue of "control," Defendant acknowledges that it had the right in general terms to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant, to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines, order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress of the work and to receive reports, but denies that it had the right to control the means, methods, and details of independent contractors' work. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -21 If you contend that venue is not proper, identify by municipality and county the location you contend is your principal place of business within this state for purposes of venue, as well as your next three most significant business locations within this state. If you do not contend that any of your locations are a principal place ofbusiness, identify up to four of your places ofbusiness where your highest level decision makers within this state work. ANSWER: As to that portion ofthis interrogatory inquiring ofDefendant's "next three most significant business locations," Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. V. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1; Please produce all ordering, sales, and shipping documents pertaining to the purchase or acquisition of asbestos-containing products for use at Defendant's Premises at Issue at any time. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claim made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the relevant time period when Plaintiff allegedly worked at Defendant's facilities, is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiff allegedly worked or to the specific materials to which Plaintiff alleges he was exposed. Subject to andwithout waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this requesthavebeen orwill be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents that relate to abatement of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue and transportation of asbestos-containing waste. RESPONSE: K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -22' Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the claims in this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited in time, is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffs allegedly worked, is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plaintiff allegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that documents responsive to this request may be included in the documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all records identifying contractors and/or the employees ofcontractors who were on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to gate records, sign-in logs, visitor's logs, identification badge or "brassing" procedures, fingerprinting, or other documents of a similar nature. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiff worked at a Monsanto facility or any reasonable time period and is not limited to any reasonable scope of locations. Subject to the foregoing objections, documents which may be responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all records pertaining to the methods and manner of identification of individuals entering and/or leaving Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at a Monsanto facility, or any reasonable time period, and is not limited to any reasonable scope oflocations. Subject to the foregoing objections, no such records are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: fC\Solutia'Organ\Discovery\Mcmsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -23- Please produce the contract and work progress documents pertaining to the contractors who performed services at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including, but not limited to, invitations to bid, requests for proposals, bids, proposals, statements ofscope ofwork, work orders, specifications, blueprints, plans, acceptances, contracts, amendments, addenda, change orders, inspection reports, work logs or contractor logs, including but not limited to all of the contractor documents referring to work to be done, underway, or completed by Plaintiffs employer at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, seeks information that is not relevant or material to Plaintiffs claims, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is not limited to any reasonable scope of locations or the specific area that Plaintiff allegedly worked or any reasonable scope of type of contractor or type of work being performed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents which may be responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents reflecting payments made to Plaintiffs employer for work contracted to do at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to authorizations for payment, invoices, bills, check requests, requisitions, canceled checks, or other documents ofa similar nature reflecting payment for services rendered by Plaintiff s employer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, onerous, not limited to the specific time period Plaintiff allegedly worked at Defendant's facilities or any reasonable time frame, seeks documents which are not relevant to material to the claims made by Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, concerns contracts for work which Plaintiff is not alleging could expose a worker to asbestos or in areas or units ofthe plants where Plaintiffdid not allege to have worked and is not reasonably limited to any relevant time frame or scope of locations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all photographs or videographic depictions or films depicting the use of any safety precautions (such as containment areas, warning signs, etc.) taken to protect bystanders from the hazards of airborne asbestos resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products at Defendant's Premises At Issue. -24-K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at a Monsanto facility, or any reasonable time period, is not limited to any reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing , documents which may be responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiff's counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and because it is not limited to any reasonable time frame or to documents that may have been posted at, issued by or at, circulated by or at, or maintained by or at Defendant's Texas facilities or Defendant's corporate headquarters to workers at Defendant's Texas facilities. Defendant further objects to any requirement, as a result of the ambiguity attendant to the term "warnings" in this request, to review the entire company files and employee's files and library of publications it has for documents responsive to this request on the grounds that such a request is onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden on Defendant to search for, gather and produce the requested documents is far greater than any reasonable probative value those documents would possess for Plaintiff in this case. Subject and limited to the foregoing, and without waiving the objections, responsive documents have been or will be produced to Plaintiff's counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9 . Please produce all photographs of warning signs or warning statements which are or have been in place at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Dillard Dept. lC\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd -25 Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types of materials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents that relate to any inspections by any regulatory agency for the purpose ofascertaining whether health or safety regulations were being followed or adhered to at any of your plants. This request specifically seeks any and all such documentation referring to dust hazards, including but not limited to asbestos in your plants. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, undulyburdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products and Texas facilities, have been or will be produced to Plaintiff's counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: In the event that Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts or measurements ofany ofits plant or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, please produce any documents, memoranda, or other writings that in any way reflect the results of such studies or counts and actions taken as a result of such counts or studies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claim made by the Plaintiff and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited in scope to Defendant's Texas facilities or the relevant time period when Plaintiff allegedly worked at Defendant's facilities, is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiff allegedly worked or to the specific materials to which Plaintiff alleges he was K:\Solutia'Qrgan\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd "26 exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and subject to the stated limitations, documents responsive to this request relating to Defendant's Texas facilities have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents relating to inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company or hired by your company, that included the taking or measuring of "dust counts." RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. V. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. V. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types of materials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products and Texas facilities, have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents that indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to any requirement, as a result ofthis request, to review all ofits files and employee's files and the library of publications it has and its employees may have for documents responsive to this request on the grounds that such a request in onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden on Defendant to search for, locate and produce responsive documents would be unduly burdensome, onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden would far outweigh any reasonable probative value that any responsive documents may provide to the Plaintiffs in this case. Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, responsive documents which Defendant has assembled as a result ofprior document searches have already been produced to Plaintiffs counsel. IC\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -27- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents supporting the legal theories and factual bases ofyour defenses set forth in your response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure under Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure 194.2, subparagraph (c). RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it invades the attorney work-product exemption and attorney-client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, global, lacks the specificity required for a proper document request, and seeks to require the marshaling of evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: If you contend that Plaintiff was not exposed to asbestos dust at Defendant's Premises At Issue, please produce the documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling of evidence and seeks and would require production of attorney work product and information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Subject to and without waving the foregoing objections, defendant states that discovery and investigation of facts is ongoing and Defendant will supplement this response should more information be discovered. Defendant does not know that Plaintiffwas ever present or worked on its premises, the work he may have performed, what location he performed any work, or the exact details existing at the time Plaintiff was allegedly on Defendant's premises. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request may be contained within the documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiff's counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16 Please produce all documents used, referred to or relied upon in answering any Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and lacks the specificity required of a proper document request. Subject to this objection. Defendant is unable to specifically identify such requested documents. However, documents containing some of the "28K:\Solutia'Organ\Discovcry\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd information supplied have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce any and all documents and other tangible things which refer to the document retention (and/or destruction) policy of Defendant, including the following: a. Any document retention and/or destruction policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. b. Any record retention and/or destruction, dumping, or purging policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records created, maintained or stored by electronic and/or magnetic means, including but not limited to records that have been microfilmed, microfiched, imaged, scanned, or stored on tapes, disks, diskettes, CD-rom, databases, etc. or on or within any computer hardware, backup system, download system, file dumping or other system of information management, whether on-site or off-site, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited to any reasonable or relevant time frame, is overly broad, and to the extent it calls for the production ofmaterial protected from discovery under the attorney client privilege or work-product exemption. Subject to the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Please produce all documents, including but not limited to lists, inventories, indices, databases or printouts thereof, archives, storage inventories, logs, or other search aids that refer or relate to the existence, extent, type, organization, filing system, method ofaccess or retrieval, and/or location ofDefendant's documents (maintained or stored on-site or off-site) pertaining to any ofthe subject matter areas of Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous (Defendant cannot determine what documents are being sought), is overbroad, not limited to anyreasonable time period or subject matter, and to the extent it calls for production of material protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product exemption. IC\Solutia\Organ\Discovcry\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -29- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce all books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that were received by you and that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, overly broad, and not reasonably limited to any relevant time frame or location. Subject to the foregoing objections, documents of the type requested have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Please produce all documents that reflect, indicate or in any way relate to communications between you and any manufacturer of asbestos-containing products concerning or related to the asbestos contained in such products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corpv. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Subject to the and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please produce all documents in your possession disseminated or published by any trade association that contain information relating to the hazards ofasbestos and all documents which refer to such documents and any documents pertaining to meetings of such trade associations that were attended by any of your employees or representatives. K:\Solutia\OrganVDiscovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -30- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Dillard Dept. Stores,Inc. v.//a//,909S.W.2d491 (Tex. 1995),and/orK-MartCorpv. Sanderson,937S.W.2d429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types of materials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, while Defendant knows ofno such documents responsive to this request within its possession, custody or control, ifthere were any such documents they would be contained in the documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce all of Defendant's safety meeting minutes that refer to the dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad and is not reasonably limited to any relevant time frame or location. Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Please produce all documents related to the installation of asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad and is not reasonable limited to any relevant time frame and the units or areas where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -31- Please produce all documents related to the medical condition ofPlaintiffat any time during his work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. This request specifically includes any and all x-rays, xray reports, medical notes and/or medical records ofany kind, annual physical forms, and any records relating to Plaintiffs health. RESPONSE: No such documents are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents related to Plaintiff, including but not limited to Plaintiffs work performance and/or personnel records at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: No such documents are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Please produce all documents that reflect or depict in any way the layout of Defendant's Premises At Issue, including the location and dimensions of all buildings and the location and placement of asbestos-containing products, and specifically including all photographs, plats, maps, diagrams, blueprints, drawings, specifications or other architectural renderings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more oiLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types of materials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiff allegedly worked. K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -32- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Please produce all demonstrative aids Defendant plans to use at trial in this matter. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence, seeks information protected by the attorney client and/or work product privileges and exemptions. Furthermore, this request is premature at this time; defendant has not yet determined which, if any, documents it will use at the time of trial. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Please produce all photographs ofasbestos products in place or asbestos-containing materials being installed, maintained, removed, replaced, repaired, or manipulated in any way at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types of materials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Please produce all documents relating to any individuals' claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos at any facility of Defendant, including, but not limited to, workers' compensation claims and any documentation going to or received from any insurance carrier pertaining to such claims, and any documentation pertaining to the disposition of such claims. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, lacks the requisite K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd -33 specificity, is unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Please produce all documents that in any way reflect corporate minutes, corporate records, departmental meetings or discussions, or meetings with agents or contractors that in any way discuss, note, or table a discussion of the hazards of asbestos or potential hazards of asbestos. The documents sought in this request include those produced and/or maintained at a corporate level by those responsible for supervising or advising personnel at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, lacks the requisite specificity for a proper request, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Please produce all documents of corporate, board of directors, Defendant Premises representatives, departmental persons, task force, or other meetings of members of Defendant from 1940 until the last year ofthe Time Period At Issue that contain discussion or information concerning asbestos, asbestos-related health hazards, or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not -34-K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, lacks the requisite specificity for a proper request, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law, including one or more of Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or the specific time period Plaintiff was allegedly on Defendant's premises. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Please produce all documents which will be used at the time of trial, including all potential exhibits and those documents which may be used to cross-examine other witnesses or in rebuttal, and which you contend are relevant to any ofDefendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's most recently filed Answer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling of evidence, seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege and invades the attorney work product exemption. Furthermore, this request is premature at this time; Defendant has not yet determined which, if any, documents it will use at the time of trial. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Please produce documents between Defendant and any of its worker's compensation insurance carriers or any other insurance carriers regarding the hazards of asbestos and asbestoscontaining products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to this claims made by the Plaintiff and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent such documents are protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges and exemptions. Without waiving its objections, however. Defendant is not aware at this time of any documents in its possession, custody or control that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -35 Please produce documents between Defendant and any of its insurance carriers relating to any inspections carried out by the insurance carrier in which asbestos or dust in general was mentioned. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by Plaintiffand is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further obj ects to the extent such documents are protected by the attomey-client or work product privileges and exemptions. Without waiving its objections, however, Defendant is not aware at this time of any documents in its possession, custody or control that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Please produce i copy of all regulations, orders, rules and/or policies which have been used relating to the safety of the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, unclear, overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claim made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the relevant time period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facilities, is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's facilities where Plaintiff allegedly worked or to the specific materials to which Plaintiff alleges he was exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Please produce all documents which contain complaints by employees of Defendant at the Defendant's Premises At Issue regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, oveireaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent such documents are protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges IC\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -36- and exemptions. Subject to and without waiving these objections, documents which may be responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products, have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce all documents which contain complaints by Union representatives of Defendant's Premises At Issue regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent such documents are protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges and exemptions. Subject to and without waiving these objections, documents which may be responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products, have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce all documents, organizational charts or rosters which identify the members ofthe management at the Defendant's Premises At Issue and their areas ofresponsibility during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Please produce all documents which evidence Defendant's net worth, including, but not limited to, all "10-K" forms filed for the last five (5) years. K.:\Solutia'Qrgan\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -37- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, overreaching and because Defendant is a publicly traded company and the documents requested are public records and available to the general public. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that documents other than Defendant's 10-K forms and/or annual report for the current year would be duplicative, redundant, cumulative, overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, onerous, oppressive and harassing. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce its Annual Reports for the requested years and its most current Form 10-K. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Please produce all documents which evidence Defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale, or transfer of ownership or liabilities relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation oiLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Ifyou contend that you are not liable for any dangerous condition or activity taking place at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please produce all title documents supporting this contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling of evidence and seeks and would require production of attorney work product and information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendant further objects to the request and the phrase "all title documents" on the grounds that such is vague and fails to identify the documents sought. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanlo's responses to discovery.wpd -38 Ifyou contend that you did not own or control the facility(ies) during any portion ofthe Time Period At Issue, please produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the purchase, sale, acquisitions, merger, or divestment of corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of the facility(ies); such documentation to include, by way ofexample and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 1 OK reports or other state or federal agency filings or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits of your corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling of evidence and seeks and would require production of attorney work product and information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, based upon the Time Period At Issue i.e. 1957-1960, 1962-1964, 1966, 1968-1970, 1972 for the Texas City facility and 1960-1961 and 1968 for the Chocolate Bayou facility, this interrogatory is not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: If you contend that you have not been sued in the proper capacity as set forth in Plaintiffs latest petition, produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the history ofDefendant and any relevant purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of the facilities); such documentation to include, by way of example and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 10K reports or other state or federal agency filings, or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits of your corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling of evidence and seeks and would require production of attorney work product and information protected by the attorney-client privilege. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Please produce all indemnity agreements, assignments of liability, subrogation agreements and other similar documents relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue and liabilities arising from said ownership. K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -39- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types of materials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: If you contend Defendant's Premises At Issue was asbestos-free during the Time Period At Issue, please produce all documents which support your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling of evidence and seeks and would require production of attorney work product and information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant states that based upon Plaintiffs definition of the years at issue, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: If you contend that some or all of Defendant's Premises At Issue are asbestos-free, please produce all documents, including but not limited to, specifications, blue prints and drawings supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling of evidence and seeks and would require production of attorney work product and information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant states that based upon Plaintiff s definition of the years at issue, this request is not applicable. -40-K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Please produce all documents relating to your manufacturing of any asbestos or asbestoscontaining products, or products to which any amount of asbestos was added, for use at any of Defendant's facilities or for sale to others. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Please produce all documents relating to your use of any asbestos containing materials, asbestos containing products or tools with which asbestos is used, for any process taking place at any of Defendant's facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and / or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -41- produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Please produce all documents relating to your use, manipulation or handling of asbestos in any industrial processes at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types of materials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: Please produce all marketing and advertising materials related in any way to your manufacturing of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials or your use of asbestos or asbestoscontaining materials in your industrial processes. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d813(Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types of materials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Kj\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -42- Please produce all documents relating to boilers at Defendant's Premises At Issue. This request includes owner manuals, maintenance manuals, purchase orders and invoices. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more oiLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types of materials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Please produce all documents relating to any audits you conducted or caused to be conducted at Defendant's Premises At Issue in order to review some aspect of Defendant's safety program. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more oiLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v.Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types of materials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: Please produce all documents provided by you to other plants or facilities relating to safety in the industry, audit procedures or means to eliminate dust exposure, including, but not limited to asbestos dust, at industrial facilities. RESPONSE: "43 -K:\Solutia\Organ\DiscoveryVMonsanto's responses to discovery.wpd Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types of materials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plants where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Please produce depositions and trial transcripts ofyour current or former employees or other corporate representatives taken in any matter involving an alleged injury or claimed property damage due to asbestos or instance coverage for claims related to asbestos injury or property damage. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Please produce exhibit lists produced to you by any other counsel for plaintiff in other cases involved claim of injury or property damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's K:\SoIutia'Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -44- Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). Subject to an without waiving the foregoing objections, at this time, no such documents are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Please produce all correspondence from you to Plaintiffs employer and from Plaintiffs employer to you during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague since Plaintiffs employer has not been identified, overly broad and not reasonably limited to any reasonable scope of time, location, subject matter or a specific location or the specific time period Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, no such documents are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in any way any decision or discussion related to the cessation of the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products in any of your facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague and not reasonably limited in scope as to time, location, type of product, or type of work. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant responds that documents responsive to this request may be included in the documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiff s counsel and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in any way any catalog or index or subscriptions or holdings of any library or other research repository of Defendant containing magazines, journals, books, publications or other documents relating to asbestos (including but not limited to, the effects of exposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations at risk, etc.) RESPONSE: K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd "45 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous (Defendant cannot determine what documents are being sought), is overbroad, not limited to any reasonable time period or subject matter, and to the extent it calls for production of material protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product exemption. Defendant objects to any requirement, as a result of this request, to review all of its files and employee's files and the library of publications it has and its employees may have for documents responsive to this request on the grounds that such a request is onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden on Defendant to search for, locate and produce responsive documents would be unduly burdensome, onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden would far outweigh any reasonable probative value that any responsive documents may provide to the Plaintiffs in this case. Subject to and without waiving any ofits obj ections, responsive documents which Defendant has assembled as a result ofprior document searches have already been produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Please produce all inventory, stock-on-hand, warehouse or other documents pertaining to asbestos-containing products that were stored, maintained, stockpiled, or kept by Defendant for use at any facility of Defendant, including Defendant's Premises At Issue, at any time. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or the types of materials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's facilities where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Please produce any letters, affidavits, or stipulations concerning authenticity of any of Defendant's documents provided by you in any other case involving claim of injury or property damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -46' admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). VI. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND FURTHER REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, and/or machinery requiring the use ofasbestos or asbestos-containing products were utilized on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that plaintiff was ever present on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. To the extent any other portion ofthis request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -47' If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling of evidence, seeks and would require production ofattorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that you have no air monitoring for asbestos taken on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and not limited to any unit or area within the facilities where Plaintiff allegedly worked or any other reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62 (sick Admit that results of air monitoring for asbestos taken on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue indicate Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that plaintiff was ever present on Defendant's Premises. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, the remainder of this request is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd "48- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling of evidence, and to the extent it seeks and would require production ofattorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited in time to the specific period in time when Plaintiff allegedly worked at Defendant's facilities or any other reasonable time frame, or a specific facility or area within a facility Plaintiffallegedly worked or any other reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that Defendant's employees were working with asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. To the extent any other portion ofthis request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that contractors were working with asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulationproducts. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. To the extent any other portion ofthis request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Defendant was aware of the presence of asbestos-containing products on K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovcry\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -49- Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant admits that it was aware of the presence of and/or the use of certain asbestos products during certain portions of plaintiff's defined "time period at issue". To the extent any portion ofthe request has not been addressed, then same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Defendant was aware ofthe use ofasbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets mayhave been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant admits that it was aware of the presence of and/or the use of certain asbestos products during certain portions of plaintiffs defined "time period at issue". To the extent any portion ofthe request has not been addressed, then same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that you did not post a warning, caution or hazard signs concerning asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that you did not post a warning, caution or hazard signs in Spanish concerning asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -50- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that you specified the use of asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue prior to or during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulaficn materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. To the extent any other portion ofthis request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1950s. RESPONSE: Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1960s. RESPONSE: Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: K:\Soluria\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd "51 Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1970s. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state of the art guidelines and principals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos containing materials in place in a non-friable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was most likely some amount of asbestos containing material still present at Defendant's Premises. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1980s. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state of the art guidelines and principals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos containing materials in place in a non-friable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was most likely some amount of asbestos containing material still present at Defendant's Premises. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1990s. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, beyond the specific time frame when Plaintiff allegedly worked at Defendant's facility, and beyond the Plaintiffs own defined "time period at issue" i.e. Texas City facility 1957-1960, 1962-1964, 1966, 1968-1970 and 1972, and Chocolate Bayou facility 1960-1961 and 1968. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any asbestos-containing products are still being specified, installed or applied at Defendant's Premises and admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulationproducts for use at its facilities in 1972. Although Defendant sold its Texas City facility inquired about to Sterling Chemicals in 1986, Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -52' standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state of the art guidelines and principals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestoscontaining materials in place in a non-ffiable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired of there was probably some amount of asbestos-containing material still physically present at the Texas City and Chocolate Bayou facilities. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that you did not provide to contractors working at Defendant's Premises At Issue health and safety procedures relating to the use ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that you did not provide to contractors working at Defendant's Premises At Issue health and safety procedures in Spanish relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that you did not conduct with contractors health and safety meetings relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. K:\Solutia\OrganVDiscovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -53 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19 Admit that you did not conduct with contractors health and safety meetings in Spanish relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that you did not take any steps to protect contractor employees from exposure to asbestos on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor involved, areas or units where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling of evidence and to the extent it seeks and would require production ofattorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections documents responsive to this request may be contained within the documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. -54-K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovcry\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that asbestos is still in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, beyond the specific time frame when Plaintiff allegedly worked at Defendant's facility, and beyond the Plaintiffs own defined "time period at issue" i.e. Texas City facility 1957-1960, 1962-1964, 1966, 1968-1970 and 1972, and Chocolate Bayou facility 1960-1961 and 1968. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any asbestos-containing products are still being specified, installed or applied at Defendant's Premises and admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Although Defendant sold its Texas City facility inquired about to Sterling Chemicals in 1986, Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state of the art guidelines and principals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestoscontaining materials in place in a non-friable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired of there was probably some amount of asbestos-containing material still physically present at the Texas City and Chocolate Bayou facilities. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that asbestos is still in place at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, beyond the specific time frame when Plaintiff allegedly worked at Defendant's facility, and beyond the Plaintiffs own defined "time period at issue" i.e. Texas City facility 1957-1960, 1962-1964, 1966, 1968-1970 and 1972, and Chocolate Bayou facility 1960-1961 and 1968. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any asbestos-containing products are still being specified, installed or applied at Defendant's Premises and admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulationproducts for use at its facilities in 1972. Although Defendant sold its Texas City facility inquired about to Sterling Chemicals in 1986, Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state of the art guidelines and principals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestoscontaining materials in place in a non-friable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired of there was probably some amount of asbestos-containing material still physically present at the Texas City and Chocolate Bayou facilities. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd "55 Admit that the United States government has contracted with Defendant for work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and is not reasonably limited in scope as to time, or type of activity. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that the United States government paid Defendant more than $10,000 for the work it contracted with Defendant for work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and is not reasonably limited in scope as to time, or type of activity. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that Defendant owned Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that it owned its Texas City facility during the Time Period At Issue, i.e. 1957-1960,1962-1964,1966,1968-1970and 1972, and its Chocolate Bayou facility during the Time Period At Issue, i.e. 1960-1961 and 1968. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that Defendant operated Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Subject to these objections, Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms to manage and oversee the condition of its own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -56- require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admit that you did not conduct air monitoring for the presence of asbestos dust during the time period in question. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad, not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff or any other reasonable scope of time and location. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, you did not conduct air monitoring tests for levels of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit that you were aware that business invitees at Defendant's Premises At Issue did not understand English. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, persons inquired of, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd " REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that you did not take any steps to ascertain whether business invitees at Defendant's Premises At Issue understood English. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, persons inquired of, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that you did not to provide safety orientations to contractor employees prior to their commencing work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that you did not to provide safety orientations in Spanish to contractor employees prior to their commencing work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiff's employer to remove asbestos-containing materials from Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: K:\Solutia'Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -58- Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiff allegedly worked and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to replace asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiff allegedly worked and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiff's employer to install asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiff allegedly worked and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiff s employer to maintain asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiff allegedly worked and the type of work allegedly done K:\Solutia'Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd "59 by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to do new construction work at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiff allegedly worked and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Admit that you hired Plaintiffs employer to do "turnaround" work at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiff allegedly worked and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admit that you communicated with Plaintiffs employer concerning the work to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects as overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -60- Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress of the work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details ofthe independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admit that you instructed Plaintiffs employer concerning the work to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects as overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details ofthe independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: Admit that you instructed Plaintiff s employer concerning how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects as overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable fC:\Solutia'Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd "61 Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details ofthe independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that you showed Plaintiffs employer how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects as overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details ofthe independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: Admit that your specifications indicated to Plaintiffs employer how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available IC\Solutia\Organ\I>iscovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -62- is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any document showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling of evidence, and to the extent it seeks and would require production ofattorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited in time to the specific period in time when Plaintiff allegedly worked at Defendant's facilities or any other reasonable time frame, or a specific facility or area within a facility Plaintiffallegedly worked or any other reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admit that your specifications indicated to Plaintiff's employer what materials were to be used in performing the work on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what specifications are being referred to, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd *63- laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports, and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: If your response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence, and to the extent it seeks and would require production ofattorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited in time to the specific period in time when Plaintiff allegedly worked at Defendant's facility or any other reasonable time frame, or a specific facility or area within the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked or any other reasonable scope oflocations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer or supervisor when to start work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient maimer K.:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd -64- of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer or supervisor when to stop work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer what materials to use when doing the work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: K:\Solutia'Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -65- Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer in what order the work should be done. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer the deadline by which the work on Defendant's Premises At Issue was to be completed. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admit that you had the power to correct the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: K:\Solutia'Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -66- Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: Admit that you had the power to require that the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue be redone to your satisfaction. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: Admit that you had the power to stop the work performed by the employees of Plaintiff s employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd -67- these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: Admit that you observed the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: Admit that you inspected the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd "68- the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: Admit that you approved the work performed by the employees of Plaintiff's employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: Admit that you retained the power to control all phases of work being performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plants. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd *69 of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -70- STATE OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS CORPORATE VERIFICATION Karen L. Knopf, being duly sworn, deposes and states that she is Assistant Secretary of Solutia IncM that she verifies the foregoing answers to interrogatories contained within" DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JOHN T. ORGAN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION" (in Cause No. 00CV1053, John T. Organ vs. GAF Corporation, et al; in the 122nd Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas) for and on behalf of Pharmacia Corporation, formerly known as Monsanto Company, and is duly authorized to do so; that some or all of the facts and matters set forth therein are not within the personal knowledge of the deponent; that the facts and matters set forth therein have been assembled by authorized agents of Pharmacia Corporation, formerly known as Monsanto Company; and that deponent is informed that the facts and matters set forth therein are true. Karen L. Knopf Assistant Secretary, Solutia Inc. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this,5& day of 2001. K:\SoluliaVOrganVMonsanlo's responses to discovery.wpd CAUSE NO. 00CV1053 JOHN T. ORGAN VS. GAF CORPORATION, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS 122nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY T* I hereby certify that on the 1 day of July, 2001, true and correct copies of the following documents were sent to counsel for Plaintiff, Elizabeth Schick, Lou Thompson and Stephanie Finch, Baron & Budd, P.C., The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219, by U.S. Certified Mail, return receipt requested, and to all other known counsel ofrecord by regular U.S. Mail: 1. Defendant Pharmacia Corporation's, formerly known as Monsanto Company, Response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure Under Rule 194; and 2. Defendant Pharmacia Corporation's, formerly known as Monsanto Company, Objections and Responses to Plaintiff John T. Organ's First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission. Respectfully submitted, ELLIS, CARSTARPHEN, DOUGHERTY & GOLDENTHAL, P.C. Edward M. (Jarstarphen State Bar No. 03906700 G. Joe Ellis State Bar No. 06575050 Douglas B. Dougherty State Bar No. 06031560 Lawrence E. Goldenthal State Bar No. 08089508 720 N. Post Oak Rd., Suite 330 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 647-6800 (713) 647-6884 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY K:\Solutia\Organ\Discovery\CertifcateWritDisc -2-