Document dQDYw5wkjoV6wwdG90gZnwxzb

FILE NAME: Conwed (CON) DATE: 2008 DOC#: CON004 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal Filing of Defense - Conwed SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re: Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION This Document Applies to: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SARATOGA CQNWED CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES RICHARD HUNT, Plaintiff, vs. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, E T A L , Defendants. Index No. 2007-2377 TO: PLAINTIFF . Defendant Conwed Corporation, for Its Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, states as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Many of the events which may be relevant to the issues in this lawsuit occurred decades prior to its commencement. Many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which plaintiffs requests relate are deceased or otherwise unavailable to Conwed, and investigations to date indicate that at least some of the documents which relate to the matters inquired about were discarded in the regular course of business prior to commencement of the asbestos litigation. Conwed does have a number of boxes of documents located at Iron Mountain and boxes are also in the possession of the Minnesota Historical Society. Furthermore, no single individual is now available who is aware of all facts relevant to this litigation. Information must be assimilated from those records which still exist and from 3239682.1 former employees. Accordingly, Conwed can only relay this Information; if cannot attest to the accuracy of such responses. Information of this nature is supplied because it may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Conwed makes the documents in its possession upon which it relies for its responses available for review. For these reasons, the information being provided in these responses may be incomplete. Conwed is engaged in continuing investigation Into the subject matter sought by this discovery, and its responses are based upon this investigation. Conwed cannot exclude the possibility that its continued investigation may at some time reveal more complete information, or even information which indicates an answer now being supplied Is incorrect. Conwed reserves the right to supplement these responses at a future date if additional information is discovered. Furthermore, to the extent these Answers to Interrogatories contradict or differ from ' discovery previously filed on behalf of Conwed in the State of New York or elsewhere, these Answers to interrogatories should serve to supplement and amend the same. Conwed does not concede that any of its answers to these requests are or will be admissible evidence at a trial of this action, and Conwed does not waive any objection on any ground, whether or not asserted herein to the use of any such answer at trial. Conwed Corporation was formerly known as Wood Conversion Company. Wood Conversion Company changed its name to Conwed Corporation in 1967. All references to "Conwed" refer to both Conwed, and its predecessor Wood Conversion Company. During the time-period it owned and operated the Cloquet facility, the predominant nature of Conwed's business was the manufacture and sale of wood products. However, during a period of time, Conwed manufactured a ceiling tile {sometimes referred to as "panel" or "board") that contained a smaii amount of asbestos sold to it by North American Asbestos and Union Carbide for use in the manufacturing process. 2 323 96 82-, I Although Conwed exists as a viable corporate entity, it has not actively conducted business since it sold Its manufacturing facilities in the mid-1980's. This includes the sale of its ceiling tile business to U.S. Gypsum {U.S.G, Interiors) in 1985. Conwed does not waive any objection or the right to object on any grounds, at any time, to any other discovery procedure relating to the subject matter of these requests. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1; Conwed objects to these requests to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, seek information and documents that are not ' relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, and seek information and documents that are not reasonabiy calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. . Conwed objects to these requests to the extent that they are not limited in time to the years of plaintiff's alleged exposure to asbestos products on the grounds that these requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and that they seek information which is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and is not, therefore, reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. 3. Conwed objects to these requests to the extent that they seek information concerning injury or disease other than those allegedly experienced by Plaintiff herein or concerning asbestos-containing products other than those to which Plaintiff allegedly was exposed on the grounds that these requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and that they seek information which is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and is not, therefore, reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Conwed objects to these requests to the extent that they are not limited in time to the . years that Conwed manufactured and/or sold asbestos-containing products on the grounds that these requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and that they seek information which is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and is not, therefore, reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Conwed objects to these requests to the extent that plaintiff seeks to impose on defendant obligations greater than those set forth in the Case Management Order and the Civil Practice Law and Rules for the State of New York. 6. Conwed objects to these requests to the extent that they seek information and documents, which are protected from discovery by the attorney/client privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine, protected by the right to privacy, or protected by any other applicable privilege. 7. Conwed objects to these requests to the extent that they seek the disclosure of information or documents, which contain private, proprietary, confidential, trade secret or sensitive financial information, without the entry of an appropriate protective order. 3 32396S2.I 8: Conwed objects to these requests to the extent that they seek the disclosure of information or production of documents already In the possession, custody or control of, or are ' otherwise available to Plaintiff. 9. Conwed objects to these requests to the extent that they seek to impose upon Conwed an obligation to supply Information or documents, which are not in the possession, custody or control of Conwed. 10. Conwed objects to these requests to the extent that they seek the disclosure of information or documents contained in public records equally available to Plaintiff or readily obtainable by Plaintiff from another source. 11.. Conwed objects to these requests to the extent that they seek information addressing purely legal issues, contain legal conclusions, or seek admission of liability from Conwed. 12. Conwed objects to the instructions contained in these requests to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome. Conwed's responses herein are based on the ordinary meaning of the words use and Conwed's understanding of any technical terms. . 13. Conwed reserves the right to supplement, amend, revise, correct or otherwise clarify the objections or responses set forth herein, as discovery and investigation are continuing. 14. Any inadvertent production of any document or disclosure of information shall not be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any right or privilege, and Conwed hereby expressly reserves its right to demand that Plaintiff return to it any such document, and all copies thereof, and that Plaintiff destroy any materials that contain information derived from any such document. Pursuant to the foregoing objections, Conwed responds as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 1 State the name, address and official capacity of each person who has supplied information used in answering these interrogatories and indicate for which interrogatory each such person is responsible. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant, material nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection, and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: These Interrogatories are signed on behalf of Conwed Corporation (hereinafter "Conwed") by Robert DePetris. The information used in preparing these interrogatories was assembled by counsel for Conwed and was received primarily from an ongoing review of Conwed's records and information compiled from past discussions with Conwed's past employees. Since the information was gathered in a cumulative fashion and not for this particular set of interrogatories, it is not 4 3239582.] possible to identify by name each person who could be said to have supplied information used in answering these interrogatories. INTERROGATORY NO. 2 identify each document that was examined, reviewed and/or used in answering each interrogatory, specify the interrogatory and identify the present custodian of each document. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant, material nor reasonably calculated to lead to . the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Conwed objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, or any other rule and/or agreements of confidentiality and privilege. Subject to and without waiving said objection, and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to these interrogatories exist, documents may be located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 3 State whether you are a corporation. If so, state: A. your corporate name; B. state o f incorporation; C. date of incorporation; D. address of principal place of business; E. address(es) of any other place of business, including sales offices; whether you are now or have ever been registered or qualified to do business in the State of New York; and F. the corporate name, state of incorporation and date of incorporation of any subsidiary, predecessor or affiliate corporation. ANSWER: Subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Conwed Corporation, f/k/a The Wood Conversion Company (hereinafter "Conwed" or "Conwed Corporation"), was incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware 5 3239682.1 in 1921 and was renamed Conwed Corporation in 1967. Conwed's corporate offices are presently located in Chateworth, New Jersey. Although Conwed still exists as a viable corporate entity, it has not actively conducted business since it sold its manufacturing facilities in the mid~1980's. This includes the sale of the ceiling tile business to U.S. Gypsum {U.S.G. Interiors) in 1985. Therefore, Conwed does not presently transact regular business in New York. INTERROGATORY NO. 4 Identify all prior corporate names by which you have existed. ANSWER: See Answer and Objections to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5 Have you ever controlled, purchased or in any way acquired any interest in any corporation or business entity which has either mined, manufactured, produced, fabricated, imported, converted, compounded, processed, sold, merchandised, supplied, distributed and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce an asbestos product or products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, not limited by geographic scope and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant, materia! nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection, and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: As worded, Conwed is unable to answer this interrogatory because it is unclear as to the meaning of the terms, "controlled,-purchased or acquired." Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents may be located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 6 If your answer to interrogatory No, 5 is in the affirmative, identify and attach copies of all documents related thereto and state: A. The name(s), including prior name(s), and the business address(es) of any and ail such corporation(s) or business entity(ies); B. The date(s) on which you first controlled, purchased or acquired said interest; . C. The manner in which you acquired said interest, i.e., cash purchase, merger, 3239682.1 consolidation, exchange or sale of assets, etcetera; D. The percentage of assets, ownership and/or control acquired by you; E. Whether the corporation^) or business entity(ies) acquired by you continued to exist following the acquisition and, if not, the date on which its existence ceased; F. The nature of and/or amount of consideration paid by you for said interest; G. The terms and conditions of any contracts or agreements by and between you and such corporation(s) or business entity(ies), including but not limited to, the terms and conditions relating to the transfer of liabilities for obligations of such corporation(s) or business entity(ies); H. Whether you continued the manufacture, sale and/or distribution of such corporation's or business entity's asbestos products or products, including but not limited to boilers, to which asbestos materials would be attached and, if so, whether you used the same product name{s) in so doing; and I. Whether there was an. identity of name, officers, directors, personnel, property, suppliers, distribution outlets and/or clients between you and such corporation(s) or business entity(ies). ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, not limited by geographic scope and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant, material nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection, and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: See Answer and Objections to Interrogatory No, 5. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents may be located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 7 If you have ever manufactured, sold, supplied,, distributed, installed and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce asbestos or asbestos-containing products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiies, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient, please identify the following with respect to each such product: A. Brand name, trade-name, and/or trade-mark; B. The generic name or identity; C. Description, including size, shape, color and composition, i.e. solid, powder or 7 3239682.1 other form; D. Chemical and physical composition, including, but not limited to, the percentage of asbestos by weight and volume; E. Type of asbestos, i.e. chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, actinolite, anthophyiiite, or tremolite, indicating specifically the percentage of each such asbestos fiber by weight and volume; F. Intended marketable use; and G. Dates during which each asbestos product or products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient were manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed, and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection, and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Conwed Corporation manufactured an asbestos containing ceiling tile between the years 1958 (sold 1959) to 1974 at its facility in Cloquet, Minnesota. The product was sold under the name "Lo-Tone." Based upon information and beiief, Conwed has determined that it also purchased and then re-soid an asbestos containing panel. The asbestos containing panel was a special order product with minimal sales. Conwed has very little information on this product, it appears that the product was sold at some undetermined time until the late 1970's. Conwed Lo-Tone Board and Tiie were white and came in a variety of patterns. The products came in different sizes including, but not limited to, tiles that were 2 x 2 feet, and lay-in ceiling panels that were 2 x 4 feet. Descriptions of the products can be found in Sweet's Catalogs. Depending on the size, Conwed mineral tile were wrapped in paper packages approximately 8 inches high. These packages were piled on pallets and wrapped in plastic for shipping with approximately 12 packages per pallet of 2 x 4 foot lay-in ceiling panels and approximately 24 packages per pallet of the 2 x 2 foot tiles. Generally, the labels were 6 x 1 2 inches. The labels include the name of the product, the words "mineral ceiling board," and a description of the product, including the Conwed class code, federal specification class number, size of product, number of pieces and a product code number. The chemical ingredients of Conwed's asbestos-containing ceiling tile were as follows: 8 3239(582.1 Chrysotile Containing Lo-Tone Tile: 1. Mineral Fiber: 71.7% Clay: 14.3% Chrysotile asbestos: 1.6% Starch: 11.6% Separan: .04% Sizing (Wax and allum): 0.8% 2. Mineral Fiber: 66.7% Clay: 14.3% Chrysotile asbestos: 1.6% Starch: 11.6% Separan: .04% Sizing (Wax and allum): 0.8% Perlite: 5% 3. Mineral Fiber: 60.2% Chrysotile asbestos: 1.2% Starch: 11.6% News: 9.9% Perlite: 15.8% 4. Rock Wool: 76% Starch: 12% .Chrysotile asbestos: 4% (occasionally may have added amosite asbestos) Sizing (Wax and allum): 0.8% Polyacrylomide: .04% The formulation for Lo-Tone ceiling tile changed over the years. The amount and type of asbestos used are as follows; 1964-1972: 1.6% chrysotile asbestos lay-in 1971-1974: 1967-1974: 1.2% chrysotiie asbestos lay-in 4.0% chrysotile asbestos tile Dates of manufacture: 1964 to 1974. Amosite Containing Lo-Tone Ceiling Tile: 1. 9 3239682.1 Clay: 14.8% Sizing (Wax and Allum): .8% Phonolie Resin: .4% Polyacrylomide: .64% Starch: 12.5% Amosite asbestos: 2% Mineral Fiber: 68.86% 2. Rock Wool: 80% Starch: 15% Amosite asbestos: approximately 5% Sizing (Wax and allum): .8% (Some sulfite for a short period of time) 3. Rock Wool: 76% Starch: 12% Chrysotile asbestos: 4% (occasionally may have added amosite asbestos); Sizing (Wax and allum): .B% Polyacrylomide: .04% 4. Mineral Wood: 80% Starch: 15.5% Amosite asbestos: 5% Sizing (Wax and allum): .8% . The formulation for Lo-Tone ceiling tile changed over the years. The amount and type of asbestos used are as follows: Late 1961-1965: 2.0% amosite asbestos lay-in 1959-1966: 5.0% amosite asbestos tile 1964-1968: 5.0% amosite asbestos tile Conwed began manufacturing amosite containing mineral tile in 1958, the tile was sold in 1959. No amosite was purchased after 1969, but then existing inventory may have been used in mineral tile manufacturing through 1970. During certain years, Conwed manufactured a Class "A" ceiling tile under the name "Lo-Tone" that did not contain asbestos. Conwed was not in the business of manufacturing or selling raw asbestos fiber. However, Conwed sold approximately 75 tons of surplus asbestos to Celotex Corporation in 1971. Upon discontinuing its use of all asbestos, mineral board and ceiling tile in 1974, Conwed sold its remaining UCAR fiber to Boise Cascade 10 3239682.1 in international Falls, Minnesota. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents may be located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 8 Identify all patents issued, or any applications made therefore, for any asbestos product or products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos or as an ingredient. Specify: A. the number of each patent, B. the date{s) of application, issuance and renewal, if applicable, to whom each patent was issued and C. the produces) for which each patent was issued. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is not compliant with the standard Interrogatories authorized by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 9 Slate the following with respect to the package and containers in which you sold, distributed or otherwise furnished each of the asbestos products or products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiies, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient: A. A description of the package or container in which each product was sold, distributed or otherwise furnished, including composition, size, shape and color; B. A description of the markings or printed material that appeared on each package . or container, indicating the size, color and location; C. A description of any logo or other design appearing on the package or container, indicating the size, color and location; D. A verbatim description of all caution or warning notices appearing on the package or container, setting forth the exact dates, location, size and color in which each such notice appeared on each such product; E. A verbatim description of any instructions appearing on the package or container and include its location, size and color; and F. The identity of each person with knowledge of decisions made regarding the use 11 3239682.1 and date of such caution, notice, warning or other statement or explanation. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, not limited by geographic scope and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant, material nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection, and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: See Answer and Objections to Interrogatory No. 7. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents may be located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Do you have custody, possession, or control of any packages that presently or formerly packaged any asbestos-containing product or products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient? If so, A. Describe its contents and the date thereof; B. State when and to whom it was distributed; C. State the manner in which it was placed in the product container or whether it was separate from the product container; D. State whether any written, printed or graphic matter was present to warn of any potential harmful ingredient it might contain: (i) Whether a signal word, e.g., "danger", "warning" or "caution" was present; (ii) Whether the signal word was printed in boldface, capital letters or different colored inks; (iii) The wording of the statements describing any hazard; (iv) The wording, size, color and location of all direction and/or instructions pertaining to any method of use to avoid any hazard. E. identify each individual who participated in the writing of the brochure or other written materials and describe in detail the extent of his participation; F. Identify and produce each document which reflects, refers or relates to the information contained in the brochures, or other written materials and/or the decision to include such information; G. As to any information received oraliy in answer to this interrogatory, identify each '12 3230682.1 person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is not compliant with the standard Interrogatories authorized by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 11 Before marketing, selling, distributing and/or installing the asbestos-containing productor products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient, did you or anyone on your behalf conduct any pre marketing tests of such products concerning their potential for causing injury to persons exposed thereto? If your answer is in the affirmative, please state: A. The particular products upon wh'ich such tests were performed; B. When said tests were performed; C. By whom said tests were performed; D. Where said tests were performed; E. What tests were performed; F. The reasons for performing said tests; G. The results of said tests; H. To whom said results were reported or communicated; I. Where the results of said tests were memorialized. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonabiy calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Further, Conwed objects to this interrogatory to the extent it assumes that such tests were known, necessary or required during the relevant time-period. Prior to 1959, none known. By way of further response and additional reference, see reports of Conwed's expert, Frederick Boelter. INTERROGATORY NO. 12 13 3239682.1 Before marketing, selling, distributing and/or Installing the asbestos-containing products or products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient, did you or anyone on your behalf conduct a search o f the medical and scientific literature concerning .asbestos or asbestos-containing products and potential health hazards associated therewith. If you answer is in the affirmative, please state: A. The particular searches performed; B. When said searches were performed; C. The dates of such searches; D. Where said searches were performed; E. By whom said searches were performed; F. The results of said searches; G. To whom the results were reported or communicated; and H. Where the results of said searches were memorialized. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as ' overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. The Interrogatory is vague as to the terms "search of the medical and scientific literature." Without reference to specific medical or scientific literature, Conwed is unable to answer this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 13 After marketing, selling, distributing, and/or installing the asbestos-containing product or products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient, did you or anyone on your behalf conduct any tests of your asbestos-containing products concerning their potential for causing injury to persons exposed thereto? If your answer Is in the affirmative, please state: A. The particular products upon which such tests were performed; B. When said tests were performed; C. By whom said tests were performed; D. Where said tests were performed; 14 3239682.1 E. What tests were performed; F. The reason for performing said tests; G. The results of said tests; H. To whom said results were reported or communicated; and ' I. Where the results of said tests were memorialized, ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: INTEST, a wholly owned subsidiary of Conwed, performed an analysis entitled, "Acoustical Ceiling Products Asbestos Dispersion, Conwed Corporation" in 1977. By way of further response and reference, see Conwed's .expert reports of Frederick Boelter. INTERROGATORY NO. 14 After marketing, selling, distributing, and/or installing the asbestos-containing product or products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient, did you or anyone on your behalf conduct a search of the medical and scientific literature concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products and potential health hazards associated therewith. If you answer is in the affirmative, please state: A. The particular searches performed; B. The dates of such searches; C. Where said searches were performed; D. By whom said searches were performed; E. The results of said searches; F. To whom the resuits were reported or communicated; and G. Where the results of said searches were memorialized. 15 3239682.1 ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonabiy calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. It cannot be said when Conwed as a company first received notice of potential health hazards or warnings related to asbestos. Such notice came in different forms to different individual employees at different times, in the mid to late 1960's, some employees heard publicity that asbestos could be a potential health hazard. Such information, when received, was taken seriously and promptly investigated. Conwed personnel inquired of Conwed's asbestos suppliers, first North American Asbestos Company, and later, Union Carbide, and was told that such information was incorrect, overblown, and was provided assurance that asbestos could be used safely. Union Carbide in particular, assured Conwed that its chrysotiie asbestos was safe and was especially suitable for the type of papermaking process Conwed used to manufacture its ceiling tile. It reasonably relied upon its suppliers, who, unlike Conwed, were in the asbestos business, for accurate information. In the mid to late 1960's, Conwed went further and consulted with Dr. Lewis Cralley, a leading United States government medical researcher on asbestos in Cincinnati, who told the Conwed employees who contacted him that the reports and publicity on asbestos health hazards at that time were inaccurate, and . exaggerated. He never provided any information that Conwed should not use asbestos in its ceiling tile. By the early 1970's Conwed heard further reports of potential health problems from asbestos in connection with Reserve Mining Company dumping mining tailings thought to contain asbestos into Lake Superior. As a result, and despite continued assurances from its asbestos supplier Union Carbide that its asbestos could be safely used in the Conwed ceiling tile, Conwed employees decided that they wanted to remove asbestos from the ceiling tile. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. Documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 15 State whether you or anyone on your behalf ever conducted, engaged In or participated in any tests, studies and/or research concerning the human health consequences of persons coming in contact with and/or inhafing asbestos fibers or asbestos dust during the manufacturer, sale and/or use of asbestos products. If so, identify: A. What tests, studies and/or research were done; 16 3239682.) B. When said tests, studies and/or research were done; C. The individuals who ordered and supervised the tests, studies and/or research; D.' The individuals or groups engaged in or participating in the tests studies and/or research; E. The substance of any recommendation and/or suggestions given as a result of the tests, studies or research. State when, by whom and to whom said recommendations were made, including the addresses of these individuals; F. All written documents including, but not limited to, reports, memoranda, specifications and correspondence which refer, relate or pertain to said tests, studies and/or research; and G. The present custodian of the written documents identified in you Answer to Part (F) of this Interrogatory. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Unknown. Many of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred over 40 years ago. Therefore, there is no one single individual upon whom Conwed can rely for information. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents are located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 16 # State whether, after you released for sale to the public any of the asbestos product or products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient, you ever conducted or directed any tests thereon to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of materials contained therein, if so, indicate: A. the date of each test; B. the individual or group conducting each test; C. the result or conclusion of each such test; .17 3239682.1 D. all documents which refer, relate or pertain to each such test; and E. the present custodian of all documents identified in this Answer. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: See Answer and Objections to Interrogatory No. 13. INTERROGATORY NO. 17 State whether you ever conducted or directed any studies designed to learn how to prevent; minimize or eliminate the inhalation and Ingestion of asbestos dust and fibers by those who use asbestos products you sold and distributed including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient. If so, indicate: A. the date of each study, B. the individual or group conducting each such study, C. the result or conclusion of each such study, D. all documents which refer, relate or pertain to each such study, and E. the present custodian of all documents identified in this Answer. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Unknown. Many of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred over 40 years 18 3239682.1 ago. Therefore, there is no one single individual upon whom Conwed can rely for information. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents are located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 17A " If you ever manufactured, sold and/or distributed paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient, was it ever necessary under any circumstances to sand any layer of paint after it was applied (i.e. primer coat)? ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is not compliant with the standard Interrogatories authorized by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District. INTERROGATORY NO. 18 Identify all trade organizations, associations or other entities to which you belong or belonged. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further . objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Conwed Corporation participated in numerous associations believed to include: Thermal Insulation Manufacturer's Association; Acoustical Materials Association; Acoustical and Insulation Manufacturer's Association; National Mineral Wool Association; Society of Plastics industry; Technical Association of Pulp and Paper industry; American Chemical Society; American institute of Chemical Engineers; American Society of Mechanical Engineers; National Safety Council; and National Society of Professional Engineers. The specific time periods and memberships are unknown. 19 3239682.1 Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents may be located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 19 For each trade organization, association or other entity identified-in your Answer to Interrogatory No. 14, state: A. Dates of membership; B. Type of membership, i.e,, regular or associate; C. The dates, and type of any meetings you attended and the identity of the individuals who attended such meetings on your behalf; D. The names of any publications or written materials distributed by or on behalf of said organization, etcetera; E. The identity of all documents received by you from said organization(s) and the dates of receipt of each; and F. Whether you serve don the board or on any committees, and If so, identify the person(s) who was on said board or committee, the position of the person{s) on said board or committee and the dates thereof. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: See Answer and Objections to Interrogatory No. 18. . By way of further response, unknown. Many of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred over 40 years ago. Therefore, there is no one single individual upon whom Conwed can rely for information. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents are located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 20 Stale the amount of money spent or contributed by you annually from 1930 to 1979 for 20 3239682.1 research of the relationship between exposure to asbestos dusts, fibers and/or products and any lung diseases including cancer and mesothelioma and identify each person or organization to whom the expenditure or contribution was made and the dates thereof. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Unknown. Many of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred over 40 years ago. Therefore, there is no one single individual upon whom Conwed can rely for information. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents are located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 21 State whether you have ever maintained a library which contain books, articles, periodicals, journals and/or reference materials that relate to the subjects of health hazards from exposure to asbestos. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensom e, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Upon information and belief, Conwed's library was established in 1979 and was located In Roseville, Minnesota. Many of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred over 40 years ago, therefore, there is no one single individual upon whom Conwed can rely for information. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained at the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents exist, documents responsive to these interrogatories may be located at one or both facilities and are available for review 21 3239682.1 upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. Investigation are continuing. Discovery and INTERROGATORY NO. 22 State your knowledge relating to the meaning of "maximum allowable concentration" and/or "threshold limit value" as it pertains to asbestos exposure and disease. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduiy burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the . discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Further, Conwed objects to this interrogatory because Plaintiff has not established that installation or use of ceiling tile resulted in exposure to respirable asbestos fiber, let alone exposure above permissible exposure limits or threshold limit values during the relevant time-period. Finally, the claimed exposure in this case is that of an end-user of finished asbestos-containing product and did not involve defendant's manufacturing operations or exposures comparable to manufacturing operations. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Unknown. Many of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred over 40 years ago. Therefore, there is no one single individual upon whom Conwed can rely for information. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents are located at one or both facilities and are available for review' upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 23 State whether you ever knew that any governmental, private agency, and/or other entity issued guidelines suggesting a "maximum allowable concentration" and/or "threshold limit value" for exposure to asbestos dust and/or fibers, if so state: A. B. . C. The identity of the agency or other entity which issued said guidelines; The verbatim content of said guidelines; The date said guidelines were issued; D. The date you were first aware of the purpose of said guidelines; and B. The custodian, location and identity of all documents related thereto. 22 3239682.1 ANSWER: . Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects ' to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. Documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 24 State when (i.e. date) and by what means you became aware of the alleged hazards of exposure to asbestos dusts, fibers and/or products to the health of persons coming info contact with, handling or using asbestos products. . ?.: " a , ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, burdensome and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the claimed exposure in this case is that of an end-user of finished asbestos-containing product and did not involve defendant's manufacturing operations or exposures comparable to manufacturing operations. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: See Answer and Objections to Interrogatory No. 14. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. Documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 25 State whether you ever learned that there is or may be a causal connection between exposure to asbestos dust; and A. Asbestosis; B. Pneumoconiosis; C. Lung Cancer; ' D. Mesothelioma; and 23 3239682. ! F. Other cancers. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, burdensome, repetitious and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the claimed exposure in this case is that of an end-user of finished asbestos-containing product and did not involve defendant's manufacturing operations or exposures comparable to manufacturing operations. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, and limited to the time-period during which Conwed manufactured asbestoscontaining ceiling tile, Conwed responds as follows: See Answer and Objections to Interrogatory No. 14. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. Documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 26 If your answers to Interrogatory No. 25 Is in the affirmative, identify the following as to each such disease listed therein: A. When (what date) and by what means you first became aware of such causal connection. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, burdensome, repetitious and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably . calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the claimed exposure in this case is that of an end-user of finished asbestos-containing product and did not involve defendant's manufacturing operations or exposures comparable to manufacturing operations. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: See Answer and Objections to Interrogatory No. 14. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. Documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 27 State whether after you became aware of the potential health hazards associated with 24 3239682.] exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products you continued to sell, distribute or install the asbestos-containing products or products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient without any warnings and, if so, state: A. The date you became aware of the potential hazards; B. The period of time for each such product that you continued to self, distribute or install said product without a caution or warning; C. The reason(s) for continuing such sales, distributions or instalfations after you became so aware; and D. The person(s) responsible for such decislons(s). ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is not compliant with the standard Interrogatories authorized by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos;Litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 28 State whether after learning of the potential health hazards associated with exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products you informed those selling, distributing and/or installing any of your asbestos containing products or products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient of those potential hazards. If so, state: A. Those informed; B. The date(s) as to each; C. Who informed them; D. What information was given; E. If given in writing: (i) The author; (ii) To whom sent; {iii) (iv) ANSWER: The date; and Where a copy of the writing is maintained. Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, burdensome and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead 25 3239682.1 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Conwed objects to the extent this interrogatory implies such information was required at the relevant time. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, and limited to the time-period during which Conwed manufactured asbestos-containing ceiling tile, Conwed responds as follows: See Answer and Objections to interrogatory No. 14. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. Documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 29 State whether you ever specifically informed the purchasers and/or users of the asbestos product or products you sold, including but not limited to joint compound ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient that exposure to asbestos dust could .cause asbestosis, pneumoconiosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma and/or other cancers, i'.r.r, ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, burdensome and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Conwed objects to the extent this interrogatory implies such information was required at the relevant time. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and Genera! Objections, and limited to the time-period during which Conwed manufactured asbestos-containing ceiling tile, Conwed responds as follows: See Answer and Objections to Interrogatory No. 14. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. Documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 30 Stale whether you ever provided any caution, notice, warning or other statement or explanation of the potential health hazards of exposure to asbestos on or with the asbestos product or products you manufactured and/or sold including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient. ANSWER: Objection: Conwed objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and not reasonably limited in time or scope. It is also vague and ambiguous as to "cautions," "notice," "warning" or "statements". Conwed 26 32396S2.t further objects to the extent that it requests information on products that are not at issue in this case and therefore seeks information that is irrelevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Conwed objects to this interrogatory to the extent it suggests any such cautions, notice, warnings, statements, or the like were required during the relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving said objections, and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows; Based on information and belief, and as Cowed understands this interrogatory to request information for "cautions," "notice," "warning" or "statements" regarding asbestos or asbestos content, Conwed is unaware of any such information responsive to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 31 If you answer to Interrogatory No. 28 is in the affirmative, state as to each product: A. The date(s) on which such caution, notice, warning or other statement or , : explanation first appeared; B. ' The identity of each such person with knowledge of decisions made regarding the use of such caution, notice, warning or other statement of explanation; C. The verbatim content of each caution,' notice, warning or other statement or explanation when it was first used; D. Whether the caution, notice, warning or other statement or explanation was ever altered, amended or changed. If so, how, when and why it was altered, amended or changed; and E. The size, color and location of the caution, notice, warning or other statement or explanation on each such product and/or its container or package. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, burdensome and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is also vague and ambiguous as to the terms "cautions," "notice," "warning", "statements" or "explanation". Conwed further objects to the extent that it requests information on products that are not at issue in this case, and therefore, seeks information that is irrelevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Conwed objects to this interrogatory to the extent it suggests any such cautions, notice, warnings, statements, or the like were required during the relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, and limited to the time-period during which 27 3239682.1 Conwed manufactured asbestos-containing ceiling tile, Conwed responds as follows: See Answer and Objections to Interrogatory No. 28, Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. Documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 32 State when you first became aware that asbestos products were being labeled with a caution, warning, notice or other statement or explanation concerning the potential health hazards resulting from the sue of asbestos products and/or exposure to asbestos dust or fibers ' and identify the product(s) and manufacturer(s) with which such label was connected. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, burdensome and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is also vague and ambiguous as to "cautions," "notice," "warning", "statements" or "explanation". Conwed further objects to the extent that it requests information on products that are not at issue in this case, and therefore, seeks information that is irrelevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Conwed objects to this interrogatory to the extent it suggests any such cautions, notice, warnings, statements, or the like were required during the relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, and limited to the time-period during which Conwed manufactured asbestos-containing ceiling tile, Conwed responds as follows: See Answer and Objections to Interrogatory No. 14. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. Documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable, time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 33 State whether you ever required your employees, agents and/or servants who worked with and around asbestos and/or asbestos products to wear respirators, gas masks, protective clothing and/or other protective devices. If so, state: A, Which employees, agents and/or servants, by type of employment and department, were required to use each such protective device; B. The date(s) on which the directive relative to each such protective device as. issued for each type of employee and each department; and 28 3239682.1 C. Which type of protective device was required to be used or worn by each type of employee and each department, ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, burdensome and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the claimed exposure in this case is that of an end-user o f ^finished asbestos-containing product and did not involve defendant's manufacturing operations or exposures comparable to manufacturing operations. Conwed also objects to the extent that this interrogatory assumes that a risk of occupational disease and/or personal injury was associated with exposure to Conwed's ceiling tile. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: During the years the ceiling tile was manufactured in Cloquet, Minnesota, there was a continuous effort to reduce dust within the manufacturing process by improved < 1" ventilation and dust control equipment and processes within the manufacturing 1 facility. Masks were made available at company expense to any employee wishing I to wear a mask. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents may be located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 34 State when you first became aware or received notice that any person was claiming injury as a result of use of and/or exposure to asbestos products or products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, burdensome and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Conwed objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks a legal conclusion. Conwed also objects to the extent that this interrogatory assumes that a risk of occupational disease and/or personal injury was associated with exposure to Conwed's ceiling tile. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: During the time period during which Conwed manufactured ceiling tile (19581974), none. 59 3239682.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 35 Have you undertaken or financed any tests or studies to determine what type of ventilator or ventilation system would eliminate or decrease the number of airborne asbestos fibers in confined space? If so, state: A. Who made the test or study; B. When was fine test or study made; . C. What was the result of the study or test; D. To whom the results were reported or communicated; and E, If the result was written, identify the document by title, date, field designation and author of each such test or study, and the location and present custodian thereof, ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is .overbroad, vague, burdensome and.seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the claimed exposure in this case is that of an end-user of finished asbestos-containing product and did not involve defendant's manufacturing operations or exposures comparable to manufacturing operations. Conwed also objects to the extent that this interrogatory assumes that a risk of occupational disease and/or personal injury was associated with exposure to Conwed's ceiling tile. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: None. B yw a y o f further response, see expert reports of Frederick Boelter. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents may be located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 36 Have you or has anyone on your behalf attended and/or participated In any conference, seminar, lecture or symposium not previously identified herein dealing with the potential health hazards of asbestos inhalation or use of asbestos-containing products and, if so, state: A. The date and place of such conference, seminar, lecture or symposium; B. The person or persons conducting such conference, seminar, lecture or symposium; C. The person or persons who attended on your behalf; 30 3239682.1 D. The subject matter of such conference, seminar, lecture or symposium; E. The speakers and/or moderators at such conference, seminar, lecture or symposium; and F. Whether any reports or memoranda were made concerning the subject matter of such conference, seminar, lecture or symposium; Identifying each such report or memorandum. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is not compliant with the standard Interrogatories authorized by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 37 State when, if at ail, you received knowledge of the following publications or matters discussed therein, who received such knowledge and identify all documents relating to such knowledge:' . :1 : / ~ A. Selikoff, et al., "Asbestosis and Neoplasia," 42 Am. J. Med. 1967; B. Selikoff, Churg and Hammond, "The Occurrence of Asbestosis Among Industrial Insulation Workers," 132 Ann. New York Acad. Sc. 139 (1965); C. 1957 Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America "An Epidemiological Study of Lung Cancer in Asbestos Miners," by Braun; D. 1965 "Asbestos Exposure and Neoplasia" by Selikoff, Churg and Hammond; E. Annals New York Academy of Sciences, "The Occurrence of Asbestosis Among Insulation Workers in the United States" by Selikoff, Churg and Hammond; F. 1965 -- "Relation Between Exposure to Asbestos and Mesothelioma" by Selikoff, Churg and Hammond; G. 1968 -- "Asbestos Exposure, Smoking, and Neoplasia" by Selikoff, Hammond and Churg; H. "Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Substances in Workroom Air," A.C.G.I.H. (3rd 1971); I. "Threshold Limit Values for 1961," A.C.G.J.H. (1961); J. 1906 report by Dr. H. Montague Murray; K. 1930 -- "The Occurrence of Pulmonary Fibrosis and Other Pulmonary Afflictions in Asbestos Workers" by E.R.A. Merewether, M.D.; L. 1930 -- "Report on Effects of Asbestos Dust on the Lungs and Dust Suppression 31 3239682.1 in the Asbestos Industry" by Merewether end Price; M. Lanza, A.J., W.J. McConnell, and J. W. Fehnel. "Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust on the Lungs of Asbestos Workers," Publ. Health Rep. 50:1-12 (1935); N. Fulton, W.B. Et al,, Asbestosis. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Department of Labor and Industry, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1935; ' O. Doll, R., "Mortality from Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers", British Journal of Industrial Medicine, v. 12,1955; P. Wagner, J.C., et al., "Diffuse Pleural Mesothelioma and Asbestos Exposure in the North Western Cape Province," British Journal of Industrial Medicine, v. 17, 1960; Q. Hueper, W.C. "Carcinogens in the Human Environment," Arch. Path. 71:237-267 ' (1961); R. Enteriine, P.E. And M.F. McKiever. "Differential Mortality from Lung Cancer by Occupation," J. Occup. Med. 5:283-290 (1963); S. Newhouse, M. and H. Thompson. "Mesothelioma of Pleura and Peritoneum. Following Exposure to Asbestos in the London Area," Brit. J. Indust. Med, 22:261-269(1965); T. Hueper, W.C. "Occupational and Nonoccupational Exposures to Asbestos," Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 132; 184-195 (1965); and U. Brodeur, P., "The Magic Mineral", the New Yorker Magazine, 10/12/68. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is not compliant with the standard interrogatories authorized by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District. INTERROGATORY NO. 38 . When, if ever, did you become aware of the contents and existence of Public Health Bulletin No. 241 entitled "A Study of Asbestosis in the Asbestos Textile Industry" by Dressen, Daliavale, Edwards, Miller and Sayers? ANSWER: Subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Unknown. Many of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred over 40 years ago. Therefore, there is no one single individual upon whom Conwed can rely for information. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in 32 3239682.1 Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents are located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. * . INTERROGATORY NO. 39 When, if ever, was the first time that you became aware of the contents and existence of the article entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels" by Fleischer, Viles, Gade, and Drinker. ANSWER; Subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Unknown. Many of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred over 40 years ago. Therefore, there is no one single individual upon whom Conwed can rely for information. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents are located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 40 State whether you have ever discussed or considered the effect giving caution statements or warnings would have on sales of products containing asbestos. If so, please state: A. The form of the consideration or discussion; B. The date of the discussion or consideration; and C. If the consideration or discussion occurred at a meeting, the names and present business and home addresses of those attending. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is not compliant with the standard Interrogatories authorized by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District. INTERROGATORY NO. 41 Did you receive any warning, instructions, or information as to the potential dangers of asbestos inhalation when you purchased, or received any asbestos or asbestos products? If so, for each: A. Describe in detail each such warping, instruction or information received; 33 3239682.1 B. State whether such warnings, instruction or information was oral or written; C. If oral, identity the substance of the warning, instruction or information received and the date and the name and company 9f the person from whom received; and . If written, attach a copy of each warning, instruction and information, identify it by date given, title and reference number and state the manner and location whereby it was transmitted to you. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is not compliant with the standard Interrogatories authorized by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 42 Have you ever sent any advisory letter or memorandum to any of your customers or to any of the plaintiffs employers, which attempts to advise them of any health hazard that may be associated with the use of asbestos-containing products or products, including bt not limited to boilers, to which asbestos materials would be attached? if so: A. Identify the author of each such advisory letter or memorandum; B. State the content of each such advisory letter or memorandurh; C. Identify the person(s) to whom each such letter or memorandum was sent; D. State the date on which each such letter was sent; and E. identify the custodian of all such advisory letters or memoranda. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is not compliant with the standard interrogatories authorized by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 43 Have you undertaken or financed any studies to determine what type of respirator and/or protective mask would either eliminate or afford maximum protection against the inhalation of asbestos fibers? ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, burdensome and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the claimed exposure in this case is that of an end-user of finished asbestos-containing product and did not involve defendant's manufacturing operations or exposures comparable to 34 3239682.1 manufacturing operations. Conwed also objects to the extent that this interrogatory assumes that a risk of occupational .disease and/or personal injury was associated with exposure to Conwed's ceiling tile. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: During the time-period Conwed manufactured asbestos-containing ceiling tile, none. By way of further response, see expert reports of Frederick Boelter. Many of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred over 40 years ago. Therefore, there is no one single individual upon whom Conwed can rely for information. Conwed Corporation maintains documents at. Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents are located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 44 Did you ever recommend to purchasers or users of the asbestos-containing products or. products, including but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles,- or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient to any other entity, with respect to asbestos products sold or made available to them, directly or indirectly, that respirators, protective masks and/or protective clothing be worn while working with, installing or removing the product? if so, state separately for each product: .' A. The date or dates when each such recommendation was made; B. The date or dates when each such recommendation was made to all users; C. Who made the recommendation; D. Who received the recommendation; E. If oral, the manner and substance of the recommendation; F. If written, identify the document by title, date, field designation and author of each such recommendation and the location and present custodian of each such recommendation. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, burdensome and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Conwed also objects to the extent that this interrogatory assumes that a risk of occupational disease and/or personal injury was associated with exposure to Conwed's ceiling tile. Finally, Conwed objects to this interrogatory to the extent rt assumes such recommendations were required. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and Genera! Objections, Conwed responds as follows: 35 3239682.1 None known. By way of further response, up until and inciuding the 1980's, the EPA labeled ceiling tile as non-friable. INTERROGATORY NO. 45 State whether, at any time prior to the present, any person filed a claim against any worker's compensation Insurance carrier which provided coverage for you alleging that he or she contracted a disease as a result of use of and/or exposure to an asbestos product or products, inciuding but not limited to joint compound, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient. ANSWER; Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: The claimed exposure in this case is that of an end-user of ceiling tile and did not involve defendants manufacturing operations or exposures comparable to manufacturing operations. Conwed further objects to the request to the extent it seeks information and/or documents which are protected from discovery by the attorney/client privilege and/or attorney/client work-product doctrine or the right of privacy; or to the extent information or documents contain private or confidential information. INTERROGATORY NO. 46 Identity each person who has testified on your behaif at trial or by deposition in a case alleging asbestos-related injury, state the custodian and location o f transcripts thereof, and set forth the case name, number, court and date with respect to each proceeding in which the witness testified. ANSWER: Objection: Conwed objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and potentially misleading. Further objecting, the requested information is in the public domain and equally accessible to plaintiffs, and thus this interrogatory places an undue burden on this defendant. Subject to this objection and without waiving same, and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Conwed has been involved in workers' compensation and employee related litigation in which depositions of Conwed employees were taken. Conwed sold its business approximately 22 years ago and no comprehensive list of all witnesses offering testimony exists. 36 3239682.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 47 Identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert to testify, state the substance o f the findings and opinions to which each expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion and product any written report made by each expert concerning those findings and opinions. ANSWER: Objection: This request is overly broad, burdensome and encompasses an unreasonable and excessive time frame, and seeks information that Is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Further, this request is general in nature, and attempts to circumvent the . discovery mandated by the Scheduling Order. Finally, Conwed objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks Information protected from disclosure by the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: , , r Conwed has not determined who it wilt call as an expert witness(es) in this; v lawsuit. Therefore, Conwed reserves the right to supplement this Response' ;1 and/or provide this information in this litigation. Expert witnesses will be identified on Conwed's Witness List pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order. INTERROGATORY NO. 48 State whether any expert whom you expect to call as a witness at trial has performed any examination, test, modeling or other analysis of any product at issue in this action or of any product similar in nature to a product at issue in this trial, if you intend to call that witness to testify at trial and the witness wil! rely on the examination, testing, modeling, or other analysis of such similar products. If so: A. identify the product involved by trade name, brand name; B. identify the defendant whom you claim manufactured or sold the product; and C. . With respect to such examination, test, modeling or other analysis: i. Identify the expert who.performed it; ii. State the date it was performed; iii. State its purpose; iv. State its nature; v. State the results; vi. State the expert's conclusions based on it; vii. State whether any notes of the examination, test, modeling or other 37 3239682.1 analysis were made; and viii. State whether the expert has Issued a report which mentions or is based in whole or in part upon any such examination, test, modeling or other analysis. If so, please attach a copy of the report to you answers to these interrogatories. ANSWER: Objection: This request is overly broad, burdensome and encompasses an unreasonable and excessive time- frame, and seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Further, this request is general in nature,, and attempts to circumvent the discovery mandated by the Scheduling Order. Finally, Conwed objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Frederick W. Boelter, CIH, PE o f Environ'International Corporation, has performed studies relative to the use of Conwed ceiling tiles. His studies were conducted in the Fall of 2007 and reports corresponding to these studies are available upon request. INTERROGATORY NO. 49 . For each person whom you expect to call as a non-expert witness on your behalf at trial who previously has testified in a trial or deposition in a court or administrative proceeding involving asbestos-related injury: A. identify each such person; B. , ' C. identify by case name, date, court or administrative agency, and docket number; each such proceeding, and identify the custodian; and D. location of each transcript of that person's testimony in such proceeding. ANSWER: Objection: This request is overly broad, burdensome and encompasses an unreasonable and excessive time frame, and seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Further, this request is general in nature, and attempts to circumvent the discovery mandated by the Scheduling Order. Subject to and without waiving said abjection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Conwed has not determined who It will call as a non-expert witness(es) in this lawsuit Therefore, Conwed reserves the right to supplement this Response 38 3239682.1 and/or provide this information in this lawsuit. Witnesses will be identified on Conwed's Witness List pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order and Case Management Order. INTERROGATORY NO. 50 For every policy of liability insurance insuring you against losses as a result of claims for bodily Injury dp death as a result of use of asbestos products or products, including but not limited to joint compound, celling tiles, floor tiles, or paint products containing asbestos as an ingredient list A. The name of each Insurer; B. Each policy number; . C. The term of each policy; D. The amount of the coverage; < 'i vav-Eif.-. ^ Whether each policy provides for primary or excess coverage and if excess, the limit; - ? i " '': .... F. The deductible, If any, for each policy; G. The basis for coverage for each e.g. claims made, occurrence; H. The amount paid by the insurer to date or alternatively the amount of coverage still remaining; and i. The identity of the person having possession of each policy. ANSWER: Objection: Conwed objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, vague and to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Conwed's insurance carriers are St. Paul Companies (now known as St. Paul Travelers Companies) and Fireman's Fund. Conwed was self-insured for workers' compensation claims. Excess coverage was afforded by S t Paul Fire and Marine Employers' and Reinsurance Corporation. INTERROGATORY NO. 51 State whether you ever received or are in possession of any documents, reports, writings, or studies which were done by you or someone on your behalf concerning the potential health hazards associated with exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, which were not published or otherwise made available to members of the public. If your answer is in the affirmative, please state; 39 3239682.1 A. The title of the writing, report, document or study; B. The date; C. By whom prepared; D. To whom it was sent; and E. Where a copy of the document,,writing, report or study is maintained. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is not compliant with the standard Interrogatories authorized by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District. INTERROGATORY NO. 52 If you had a sales or other pffice or manufacturing or storage facility located in New York, state the following; A. The address and type (whether sales office, executive offices, manufacturing, packaging, warehouse, shopping 9r other) of each office or facility; B. Dates each office or facility was open and in operation; C. The area or territory of responsibly for each such office or area or territory covered by the operations of each facility; and D. The identity of any asbestos-containing products or products, including but not limited to boilers, to which asbestos materials would be attached that were manufactured, packaged or stored in such facility and the dates applicable thereto. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Yes. During an unknown time period, Conwed maintained sales offices or had representatives in New York. 40 3239682.1 Conwed is no longer in possession of sales records from the period during which it manufactured asbestos-containing ceiling tile (1958 (sold in 1959) to 1974). However, Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Although it is unknown if said documents include sales of asbestos-, containing products, located at Iron Mountain are commercial sates sheets from post-1974. Additional documents are maintained at the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, they would be located at both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 53 With respect to the period from 1950 to 1979, state the names, addresses and company title or position of each person who at any time during that period was in charge of the following activities with regard to each of the products identified in Answer to Interrogatory No. 7: A. Production; B. : c. Marketing; Labeling; D. Advertising; E. Product evaluation; F. Research and development; and G. Distribution. ANSWER: Objection: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the- permissible scope of discovery permitted by the Case Management Order governing the Fourth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and not reasonably cafculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Conwed responds as follows: Conwed Is unable to determine the job title, dates o f employment and period of responsibilityof all the individuals as requested from 1950 through1975. Although this isnot a comprehensive list of names or titles, the following are names of individuals who were in management at Conwed Corporation- Robert Crowson (former President); Tom Mara (current Vice President); Ted Weyerhaeuser (former President); 41 3239682.1 H.E. Waiter E.G. Domke J.S. Bope B.J. Gaffney P.J. McGervey R.M. Danielson D.J. Valsvik F.M. Pugh D.Q. Harayda H.E. Seewang R.J. Merrick W J . Berg R.E. Greenhalgh D.E. Hinton R.N. Shreve L.A. Anderson H.R. Abelson [President, Vice-President, Director of Corporate Research and Development); [Director of Operations); (Director of Manufacturing); [Vice President) (Vice President) (Controller & Treasurer) (Developing Business Group General Manager) (Vice President) (Director of Industrial Relations) (Manager, Customer Service) (Director of Communications - St. Paul) (Manager, Building Products, Division) (Vice President) (Corporate Secretary) (Vice President) (Controller) (Assistant Treasurer) Conwed Corporation maintains documents at Iron Mountain in Minnesota. Additional documents are maintained by the Minnesota Historical Society. To the extent documents responsive to this interrogatory exist, documents may be located at one or both facilities and are available for review upon request at a mutually agreeable time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 54 Please identify a!i of your present or former employees, categorized by manufacturing plant, business division, date of claim, claimant occupation, employment date, and claim disposition who are now receiving or who ever received benefits under any Occupational Disease or Workmen's Compensation Statute for each year from 1930 until the present time for each of the following: A. Asbestosis; B. Lung Cancer; C. Mesothelioma;and D. Asbestos-reiated lung disease. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad, vague, burdensome and seeks the discovery of information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Conwed objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks a legal conclusion. Conwed also objects to the extent that this interrogatory assumes that a risk of occupational disease and/or personal injury was associated with exposure to Conwed's ceiling tile. Subject to and without waiving said objection and subject to Conwed's Preliminary Statement and General Objections, and limited to the time-period during which 42 3239682. i Conwed manufactured asbestos-containing ceiling tile, Conwed responds as follows: The claimed exposure in this case is that of an end-user of ceiling tile and did not involve defendant's manufacturing operations or exposures comparable to manufacturing operations. Conwed further objects to the request to the extent it seeks information and/or documents which are protected from discovery .by the attomey/ciient privilege and/or attorney/client work-product doctrine or the right of privacy, or to the extent information or documents contain private or confidential information. INTERROGATORY NO. 55 . Name any person not heretofore mentioned having personal knowledge of the facts material to this case. ANSWER: Objection: Subject to and without waiver of the specific and general objections set forth above, Conwed states as follows: Conwed has no information regarding persons having knowledge of Plaintiffs alleged exposure to asbestos beyond those individuals identified by plaintiffs in their discovery responses and individuals identified during the course of depositions taken in this action to date. To date Conwed is unaware of any credible evidence of Plaintiff's alleged exposure to Conwed's asbestos-containing ceiling tile, or to any asbestoscontaining products of Conwed. Conwed is, therefore, unable to respond fully to this interrogatory at this time, however Conwed denies generally that Plaintiff was ever exposed to any asbestos containing product or material of Conwed, or that any such alleged exposure was a cause in fact of any alleged injury, disease or damages suffered by Plaintiff. Conwed will identify its fact and expert witnesses at a later stage of discovery, in compliance with the applicable case management order. Discovery and investigation are continuing. Conwed reserves the right to supplement this answer. DATED: New York, NY l 2 . 2008 WILSON, MAN & DICKER LLP 3239682.1 Erik DiMarco, ts q . Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP Attorneys for Conwed Corporation 150 East 42nd Street New York, New York 10017-5639 Phone: 212-490-3000 Our File No. 07415.00070 43 To: Michael Ponterio, Esq. Lipsitz & Ponterio, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 135 Delaware Avenue . 5th Floor Buffalo, NY 14202-2415 All Defense Counsel VERIFICATION Robert DePetris, hereby states that he is the president of Conwed Corporation and has read the statements made in the foregoing Conwed Corporation's Answers to Plaintiff's interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Directed to Conwed Corporation which were prepared by attorneys for Conwed Corporation. Said statements are not based upon his personal knowledge. Dated this day of May, 2008. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of May, 2008. Com m lslSn *piF 8/25/2012 '44 3239682.1