Document dYb2gM6v40o47yyX1E0k05kqR

I PLAINTIFFS 1 { EXHIBIT I j XM-7 I IK re: all ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. OR TO BE FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS * * * * * * * IN THE DISTRICT COURTS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 191ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS TO: Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys record, Mr. Peter A. Kraus, Baron. & Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281 of Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant, Kelly Moore Paint Company, submits and files its responses to request for production as follows. Respectfully submitted, ORGAIN, BELL fr TUCKER, 470 Orleans Street Beaumont, Texas 77701 409-838-6412 FAX: 409-838-6959 L.L.P. BY:^____________ Michael J^'Trtfncale State Bar Np< 20258125 / ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been served upjzm all jjr^terested counsel of record on this the day of /J-^ *, 1995. . Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., [hereinafter referred to as Kelly-Moore] will to the best of its abilities gather nonprivileged documents into a document repository for inspection by plaintiffs' counsel in response to the Request for Production served in asbestos litigation. Kelly-Moore offers to make available these documents at a mutually convenient time at its offices at 987 Commercial Lane, San Carlos, California 94070. General Objections: Kelly-Moore objects to the manner in which the plaintiffs have defined Kelly-Moore [referred to defendant, you, your, your company] as meaning all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates, including present and former officers, directors, agents, employees, and all other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of the corporate defendant or its predecessors, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates." Since Kelly-Moore is the named defendant, this definition is overly broad and would require Kelly-Moore to engage in unduly burdensome research, divulge privileged information, and produce privileged documents. Kelly-Moore responds to these requests on behalf of itself. Kelly-Moore further objects to these requests to the extent that they seek information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product privilege, the party communication rule, the joint defense privilege, the witness statement privilege, and to the extent they seek'trial preparation or consulting expert materials or documents. Finally, Kelly-Moore objects to these requests to the extent they ask for identification of voluminous documents on the grounds that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, subject defendant to unnecessary expense, are harassing, and not reasonably 2- - calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As set forth herein, Kelly-Moore will produce documents which are the proper subjects of appropriate document requests. All objections stated herein are asserted and adopted as to each of the following responses to plaintiffs' requests for production if so noted. Defendant KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC. objects to these interrogatories and document production request on the grounds that they contain prefaces, instructions and definitions not within the body of the interrogatory or document category. GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following objections are raised as to each and every request for production propounded in this set: A. Defendant KELLY-MOORE objects on the grounds these requests are overly broad as to time and scope, are burdensome, and are not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, as the requests seek information that covers a time period of 60 years and request defendant to assimilate documents and information that may or may not have been retained over such a period of time. B. Furthermore, defendant KELLY-MOORE does not waive any objections it has now or may have in the future concerning these Interrogatories. By answering this set of Interrogatories, defendant KELLY-MOORE does not waive any of its rights or remedies. Without waiving said objections, defendant KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC. hereby responds to plaintiffs' Requests for Production as follows: 3- - 1. All correspondence, memoranda, sales, brochures, photographs and any other written or recorded material or documents of any kind related to asbestos directed to or received from manufacturers, suppliers or distributors of asbestoscontaining products that are or have been in your possession. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and further objects that the Request for Production is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, uncertain, not narrowly tailored in time or scope, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, any documents which plaintiff can establish which, are relevant to this litigation will be made available for -inspection at a mutually convenient time at KellyMoore's offices. Kelly-Moore Paint Company has in its possession approximately 88 boxes of documents. These documents contain different types of information, including sales journals, invoices, asbestos shipments to PACO, invoices from JohnsManville, invoices from Union Carbide, invoices from E. S. Browning Company, an asbestos distributor, and invoices from Cary Canada. Additionally, we have documentation that pertains to sales reps reports, tonnage reports, and related information. Any party is welcome, on reasonable notice and at a mutually convenient time, to review and inspect the documentation at the Kelly-Moore Paint Company, located at 987 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California. 2. All documents of any kind or character in Defendant's possession and if available, a legible copy of the date stamp indicating when such items were received by Defendant which discuss, refer, allude to or relate in any way to the alleged, real or perceived health effects of exposure to asbestos received by Defendant before 1980. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and further objects on the grounds that is compound, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, uncertain, not narrowly tailored in time or scope, or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, responding defendant objects on the grounds that the documents sought by plaintiff, which may have been produced by various governmental regulatory agencies, are equally accessible to the plaintiff, and as such this category is burdensome, oppressive, and harassing. Subject to and without waiving the objections previously made, defendant states: See response to request no. 1. ' 4- - 3. All documents which instruct, recommend or suggest how asbestos-containing products made, manufactured, assembled, fabricated, sold or distributed by Defendant should be prepared, applied, installed and/or maintained. . RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and further objects to this category on the grounds that it is compound, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, uncertain, not narrowly tailored in time or scope, or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the objections previously made, defendant states that it has an exemplar of packaging for products, containers, and documents describing its products at 1015 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California. Photos of the packaging are attached as a response to request no. 6. 4. All documents or other materials including x-rays, MRI's, Cat Scans, videotapes or other electronically or technologically created representations, depictions, picturizations, imaging or imagery which have been collected by Defendant in the course of discovery and/or will be used by Defendant at time of trial and/or will be relied upon by any of Defendant's experts, including, but not limited to, trial exhibits, expert reports and demonstrative exhibits. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object that the request for production is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding said objection, this responding defendant is unaware of the identity of all of the plaintiffs in this litigation. Likewise, this responding defendant is not aware of the medical history of any and all plaintiff(s) in this action, and it is therefore premature for this defendant to identify any document or things, including x-rays, MRIs, CT-scans, or other materials, which may be used at the time of trial. 5. All documents in Defendant's possession relating to insurance or insurance coverage or proceeds that would or could indemnify Defendant for any losses sustained as a result of the cause of action brought by these Plaintiffs. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object that the request is overly'broad, vague and ambiguous, and seeks documents which, if any exist, may be protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. Subject to these objections and without waiving the same, see documents attached. 5- - 6. Any and all photographs of any asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or distributed by Defendant, including such products that are packaged at the time the photograph was taken and products that were not packaged at the time the photograph was taken. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object to this request on the grounds that it is compound, unintelligible, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, harassing, speculative, and seeks documents which, if any exist, may be protected by the attorneyclient/work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving these objections, photos of the packaging are'attached. 7. A photograph or photocopy of any warning labels, if any, that were provided or placed on any asbestos-containing product or any packaging for any asbestos-containing product manufactured,--sold and/or distributed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Subject to the general objections previously made, see response to request no. 6. 8. Any and all documents reflecting profits made from the sale, distribution or marketing of any products manufactured by the Defendant that contained any amount of asbestos or asbestos fibers. RESPONSE: None. 9. Any documents relating to the design, preparation or introduction into the market or stream_of commerce of any asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or distributed by the Defendant. These documents include, but are not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints and other written materials of any kind or character. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object that the request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous, not limited to time, scope or geographic location, and is burdensome, oppressive and harassing, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and it seeks information that is a protected property right and/or confidential trade secret. 6- - 10. Any and all documents reflecting or relating to testing/ preparation for tests and/or the results of tests conducted to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use of materials including, but not limited to asbestos, contained in asbestos-containing products before such products were first manufactured, sold or distributed by the Defendant. This Request specifically includes, but is not limited to, any written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character related to the testing of any of Defendant's asbestos-containing products prior to their initial sale or distribution. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and further objects to this category on the grounds it is compound, vagu'e, ambiguous, overly broad, uncertain, not limited to time, scope, geographic location, and is burdensome, oppressive, and harassing. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this request on the grounds that these documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorneyclient/work-product privilege. Subject to these objections and without waiving the same, defendant states that no such document exist. 11. Any and all documents related in any way to testing of Defendant's asbestos-containing products after the products had first been released, sold, distributed or marketed. This Request includes, but is not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character relating to the potential health hazards of Defendant's asbestos-containing products or of the asbestos contained in such products. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object that the request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it does not refer to a limited scope of testing and, by not being proper limited, it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and it is not limited to time, scope, geographic location, and is burdensome, oppressive, and harassing. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that these documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorneyclient/work-product privilege. Subject to these objections and without waiving the same, defendant states that defendant does not know of the location or existence of any responsive documents. ' 7- - 12. Any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogues, packaging or other written material of any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by the Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object on the grounds that the request is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is not narrowly tailored and is not limited in time, scope or geographic location. Subject to and without waiving to objections stated above, responding defendant KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC. states that it has an exemplar of packaging for products, containers, and documents, describing its products at 1015 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California. See also response to request for production no. 6 and attached response. 13. Any and all written agreements, or documents reflecting or related to such agreements, for the distribution, marketing and/or sale of Defendant's asbestos-containing products by an entity other than Defendant or its subsidiaries, predecessors or related companies. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object to this category on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the objections previously stated, defendant states that no documents exist. 14. Any documents, books, pamphlets, memoranda, articles or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings and that have been maintained in the possession of Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would object that the request is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and unduly burdensome, especially to the extent that it.seeks written materials that is protected, by the attorney-client/work product/party communication privileges since such materials may have been collected during the course of asbestos litigation. Subject to these objections and without waiving the same, defendant states that it does not believe responsive documents, 8- - if any, exist in its possession. Kelly Moore would refer plaintiffs to government and regulatory agencies which published these types of materials in or around 1978, which are equally accessible to the plaintiffs. 15. Any publications, minutes, circulars, magazines or reports, published, written or disseminated by any trade organization or association comprised of other manufacturers, miners, marketers and/or sellers of products containing asbestos to which Defendant belonged at any time within the last fifty (50) years. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object to this category on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. Additionally, - responding defendant objects on the grounds that this category is speculative and seeks information which is equally accessible to the plaintiff, if any such documents exist. Subject to and without waiving the objections previously stated, defendant states no responsive documents exist in Kelly Moore's possession. 16. Any and all documents reflecting any agreements, or stating any agreements to which Defendant was a party, to purchase asbestos or products containing asbestos from any other company or entity. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the objections previously made, defendant states that it does have invoices from Union Carbide, Cary Canada, Johns-Manville, and E. S. Browning, their distributor as noted in response to request for production no. 1. 9- - 17. Any printed sales materials prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or other agents for purposes of marketing, advertising and/or assisting sales of any products containing asbestos that were manufactured, sold or distributed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the objections previously made, non-privileged, responsive documents, if any, will be made available to the plaintiff at a mutually convenient time at Kelly-Moore's offices located at 1015 Commercial Street, San Carlos, California. 18. Any and all written documentation relating to or stating the results of any studies or surveys including incorporating or stating the proposition that asbestos products or products containing asbestos could be manufactured or designed so as to eliminate potential health hazards to persons working with or using them. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the .documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the general objections previously made, defendant states that no responsive documents are known to exist. 19. Any and all documents reflecting or stating a "re branding" agreement between Defendant and any other company at any time within the last fifty (50) years. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and further would object on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/ work-product privilege. -10- Subject to and without waiving the objections previously made, defendant states that no documents exist. 20. Any and all documents relating to workers' compensation claims or workers' compensation lawsuits brought against Defendant or any of its compensation carriers that allege that an individual contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers or from inhaling unknown dust fibers. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and violative of present or past employees right to privacy guaranteed by"Article I, Section I, of the California Constitution. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney/client work product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the objections previously stated, defendant is not aware of the existence of responsive documents, if any. 21. Any and all documents reflecting the minutes of corporate meetings of any kind or nature, whether of boards of directors, departments, or otherwise, which reflect or relate to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and wouid further object on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the objections previously stated, defendant states that there are no responsive documents. 22. Any and all invoices, shipping documents, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the mining, manufacture, marketing, sale, use or distribution of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object on the grounds that it is .compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and speculative. These documents, if any exist, are protected by California Civil Code section 3294. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the -11- documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney/client work "product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the objections previously stated, defendant responds by making reference to response to request for production no. 1. 23. Any and all documents reflecting the acquisition through purchase, reorganization or merger of another company by Defendant that manufactured, sold, processed, distributed or supplied asbestos or products containing asbestos at any time within the last forty (40) years. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would object that the request for production is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding defendant further objects on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. 24. Any and all documents reflecting any studies, or the results of any studies, designed to assist in minimizing or eliminating the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by your workers and/or those otherwise exposed to your company's asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the general objections previously stated, defendant states that it is unaware of the existence of responsive documents. 25. Any and all documents related in any way to the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously stated and further objects on the basis that the request is unduly burdensome and the requested documents are equally available to the plaintiffs by other means. -12- Responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. . Subject to these objections and without waiving the same, defendant states that it has no responsive documents. 26. Any and all documents reflecting or related to any tests, or the results of any tests, that Defendant ever made or completed, or had made or completed on its behalf, or reviewed, related to the quantity, quality or threshold limit values, of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, manufacturing or fabricating or installing asbestos-containing products manufactured by Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. Subject to the objections previously stated and without waiving the same, defendant states that responding defendant conducted, or caused to be conducted, tests and/or studies of ambient asbestos dust created during the manufacture, processing and/or assembling of asbestos-containing products at 987 Commercial Street in San Carlos, California. The date(s) of such testing is unknown. The location of any documents, which may or may not be in existence, is unknown. 27. Any and all documents reflecting written guidelines or instructions or otherwise indicating in any way the purpose, nature and/or accomplishments of any research department established by Defendant or any independent company that contracted with Defendant to provide research services at any time within the last fifty (50) years. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously stated and further objects that the request is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome [especially to the extent it is not limited to research involving asbestos containing projects], and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. -13- Further, responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. Subject to the objections previously stated and without waiving the same, defendant states that it is not aware of documents which may exist and are responsive. 28. Any and all documents reflecting written guidelines or instructions or otherwise indicating in any way the purpose, nature, advice -and/or accomplishments of any medical department established by Defendant or any independent company that contracted with Defendant to provide medical services or advice at any time within the last fifty (50) years. RESPONSE: Defendant assets the general objections previously stated and further objects on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/ work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the general objections previously stated, defendant states that no responsive documents exist. 29. Any and all documents reflecting or relating to the recall of any asbestos-containing products from the market or stream of commerce by Defendant or related to a decision by Defendant to cease manufacturing, fabricating, selling and/or distributing products containing asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously stated and further objects on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/ work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the general objections previously stated, defendant states that no responsive documents exist. -14- 30. Any and all documents reflecting the physical or chemical composition, makeup or breakdown of any and all asbestos-containing products or components of products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by the Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously stated and further objects that the request invades a property right and/or trade secret of the defendant. Further, responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney/client work product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, defendant states that it has limited responsive documents kept in storage boxes and files in storage rooms at 987 commercial Street in San Carlos, California. Any party is welcome, on reasonable notice and at a mutually convenient time, to review and inspect the documentation at the above address. 31. Any and all documents related to the disposition or settlement of any claims for workers' compensation benefits against Defendant or Defendant's workers' compensation carrier that alleged an injury from inhalation of asbestos fibers or exposure to asbestos-containing products or dust of an unspecified origin. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously stated and further objects on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney/client work product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the objections previously made, Kelly-Moore states that no documents exist. 32. Any and all documents reflecting the receipt of raw asbestos or the receipt of products containing asbestos by Defendant, including but not limited to, the date or dates they were received or shipped, the amounts received or shipped or other information regarding shipment of raw asbestos or asbestoscontaining products to or by Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously stated and further objects that the request is unduly burdensome and subjects the defendant to unnecessary expense. Defendant -15- further objects on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney/client work product privilege. Subject to and without waiving said objections, responding defendant has limited documents kept in storage boxes and files in storage rooms at 987 Commercial Street in San Carlos, California, that may be responsive. Any party is welcome, on reasonable notice and at a mutually convenient time to review and inspect responsive documents at the above address. 33. Any and all documents related in any way to Defendant's discovery, initial comprehension, or first learning that asbestos and exposure to asbestos fibers can cause asbestosis. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the objections previously stated and further objects on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/ work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the general objections previously made, defendant states that no non-privileged documents exist. 34. Any and all documents related in any way to Defendant's discovery, first learning, or initial comprehension that asbestos and exposure to asbestos fibers can cause pleural thickening. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the objections previously stated and further objects on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/ work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the general objections previously made, defendant states that no non-privileged documents exist. 35. Any and all documents related in any way to Defendant's discovery, first learning, or initial comprehension that asbestos and exposure to asbestos fibers can cause lung cancer. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the objections previously stated and further objects on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is speculative. -16- Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/ work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the general objections previously made, defendant states that no non-privileged documents exist. 36. Any and all documents related in any way to Defendant's discovery, first learning, or initial comprehension that asbestos and exposure to asbestos fibers can cause types of cancer other than lung cancer. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the objections previously stated and further object-s on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/ work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the general objections previously made, defendant states that no non-privileged documents exist. 37. Any and all documents related in any way to Defendant's discovery, first learning, or comprehension that asbestos and exposure to asbestos fibers can cause mesothelioma. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the objections previously stated and further objects on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if_.any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/ work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the general objections previously made, defendant states that no non-privileged documents exist. 38. Any and all documents reflecting or related to Defendant's policies concerning employee safety and the avoidance of accidents, including, but not limited to, safety brochures, guidelines, bulletins, publications, safety meeting minutes, and/or safety guidelines. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the objections previously stated and further objects on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is speculative. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/ work-product privilege. -17- Subject to and without waiving the general objections previously made, defendant states that no non-privileged documents exist. 39. Any documents related to work accidents sustained by any of Defendant's employees involving the inhalation of fumes, gases or dusts and safety guidelines related to such inhalation including, but not limited to, all accident reports or other written materials related in any way to injuries resulting from such inhalations. RESPONSES: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and further asserts that the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorneyclient/work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, defendant states that no responsive documents exist. 40. Any documents reflecting or related to Defendant's right to contractual indemnity or indemnification from any person, corporation or business entity for any damages or potential damages, sustained or that could be sustained, or lawsuits that might or could be filed as the result of Defendant's manufacture, sale and distribution of any products containing asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objections previously made and would further object on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably . calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the general objections previously made, defendant makes reference to response to request for production no. 5. 41. Any chart of an organizational nature demonstrating Defendant's relationship with its subsidiaries (both foreign and domestic), predecessors and any other related companies or entities from 1930 the present. . RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the general objection previously made and would further object on the grounds that it is compound, uncertain, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this responding defendant objects to this category -18- on the grounds that the documents, if any exist, are protected by the attorney-client/work-product privilege. Subject to and without waiving the general objections previously made, defendant states that no documents exist which satisfy the request. -19- N RE: ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. OR TO BE FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS * * * * * * IN THE DISTRICT COURTS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 191ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS ATTACHMENT FOR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5 KKUY-UOOIW PAINT COMPANY. INC, Burm ury o f M u lti I l l y IPu M u uh J anuary I t l 4 - Ootoba* l , 19B4 -- c <* rr S * 5 2- er j:r :,:: *m 3H r *-rs 5.- a Sc <O*.T*> +B o* * * S = *r * * '* r0* a* a ^^ -i ? t n ? 3* w _ 3C --" j ry> ^ %S ?? o *T 33 /* ? S* -- I 3 3s n i s a o33 *5--*" ? *3 a -- y --4 3 lz r> i- l ?f iI s sr * o o 3 e x 3 O' O 3 tr 4 3f 9 < *MS2 vi*s*a; eo ss-; 3I 3 3S e f rd 3 s. . 2. 2. I X In ftu rrr I'filh -y Number 1< -3 5> s^ nJ I9 ^-* o-- V* o a> COO o a a- 3D ao ^ w < nn ca aa oa x '*< 00 S3 oo >> 39 *a rt a a9a s a^ **< c >> 53 - ^ ^>3 *>3 o9 ` 3 C ^ *< oo ~v3i n>3 u* w* n r> U> Uf sOOO <336) N> KV* X9n >c* K> X* Kw) 0I9 ^> SI* v* ** ^O 3 vi Sn 2** s *9 a *3 'OO -< ~< an a --> 3C _ # ro < < c -< KPl.LY-MOOMv P A IN T COMPANY. INC. Summary o f I . l i i b t l l l y P o lic ie s January 1, 1956 - O ctober 1, 1964' Tvii o f U n b U lly Covrrum * Annum l o f Ci i v i t i:* -- n o >n s u O r> 2. Z ^9 SS w o R rm u rkK < 3 > 3^ "s aaa 23 S a= 52*32 9 KEU.Y-M001IK PAINT COMPANY. INC. Summitry o r I . l n b l l i l y P o lic in g January 1, 1956 - O ctober 1, 1984 CD >I a* ?> r* o 3 3 O3 U* W> W* ViA --3 ---- 33 3*o 3- 3 3* *n iii ? s> ^ 33 30 ^ V* w vW----.l1it Viww3Ail\Mw30*t3w1<w0^* --3 0 3w3 3 33 w* wn v* 3- -- > Oi v 3i v3i 3_> 3 > ** & 33 O-- >= 3O 3 V 3 1-400 --O> 33se**t*33 c>r 3a1 Oc t3f% -- > T, act ^-- 3 ic c >33 S~ --3 O3 -- } -- we <-3 v; C ns -- WI W* VI 3 33 3 - 333 3 0 3 30 03 30 3I Wwi Ww<Wm 333 vi -- vi vi S 3 3 O * 303 3 00 3 3 0 o o 1 3O I | wo ww VI V* VI 3 03 3 03 O 30 3 03 330 33 0 30 ivs<a wvi O3 *3 3 33 O3 v* -- v .3 o" .3 33 3 330 3 O I 3O I o oo 33 *3 3 OO OO wows O--3-- -n/ v-0 > 9 ^ iw j r> 3 0 a9 9 HC 0 FI N** 3 ** O X rf 3 O so r jo O 09 3 r, o h o o^ 93 _ -- <s> -- -- --> ir 99 -- 93 x3 -a C w x -- ~a-- c o -- 3 *j aa s3 ZZ 3 r: -- 3 O 3 <O9 *0"3 -- ** m -- * 3 o-- -- *r *--N 3 O0 0CD -3 -- -> ^ ^ -- ~ 3 6. M e* c ** -- *i Xi * ~^ --3 CW 3 -n 3 C ~3 3 0 -- a 3^ n^ ro a r 9 9 *** 5/J -- *< 'K 3 Z " w* 933 a3 aC KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC. Summary o f L ia b ilit y P o lic ie s January 1, 1956 - O ctober 1, 1964 O x- w w <J *- J U1 o W K> W H- w * ^W CT NO ww c: to +* r* x >*j 9 O ^} N9>) UUmI *c9. v ^M0g M^^( r(*ln*NwMO ww*i e o O w0* O n~ * o W ** o VA *+ I ^ 0* >* yM so * ^ W i LA AX W >o w r r k> so m o O\A KK* I r 4 -- - <* 0* 0k P* -- -- X- I J wo l" 1* e> * o f? cr > nnc> <X> Xn Bv Er* sc a- > no I* M 0* T BBCBNO XX 8XX3C oo o O CT' rr i* A m n A * O a aa a a Ci a 3 w uw O O' '- O ooo U M o ooo oo oo *o o -o oo ooo o r> U N O O O' -o -o -o oo oooo -- o o o o oo K> oo o o VV-- Uol -Ul ooUooIM- H. o -o9 -ooO -oOoo -oo -o -ooOo CA mmec nx *o y3 re** A A *1 H Ul -U1 v -0 0 *3 o0 - o oO 1 ** * SB a --H < <-*^3 < O ao o * < o *1 s 99 O > 3 0 e a 9 < \ & in w .o oo OO a. Asro r>rto>-^- Ui O g -- 3r> r3> o3 - QO in va A a o CL r rt r oo -- --o O< <A<AA&^A &A AAa, -- t 3 a. 3* in V>V<UlS c ---- m w> k> - rx * -V *> -t 'll ro5> n3 u* n ^ *x_ Sx "C. n Ti T55 *5< KRLLY-MOORR PAINT COMPANY, INC. Summory o f L ia b ilit y P o lic ie s January 1, 1956 - O ctober 1, 1984 X X c% V t^ rv V V r* % S '-l X vV* <> V *> *r 5 KU 0V n* ea> ci r t0* -rs:w fI^c*l O^ ^W V*04 Oo v* *> ? K -4 * *> fl r\ (\ u u *1* .^1 v** AW'.. % v> - C" r* * " *- T -< on --O VX vfc J *1 > csI* X IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. OR TO BE FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS * * * * * IN THE DISTRICT COURTS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 191ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS ATTACHMENT FOR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6 I I Kt m iim iiim m iH i PACO TEXTURfcb UJuruivMiiwn r aM cwF. mm. m. - ifflWJiHa -v >: ST1WAS - KBSTEW. TK - TffiJSA, BOAHOIA - BOWER, COL net WEIGHT 25 LBS. . , Bwfctmn if KWW1 RteSlBC MMBULS : ****** I' < eBM*0M*FC**'o**1:'', . - i * * '"tnr, . 9on ftH *YY a* >* fTTHlU * ')^>*<i>it*> ****\ rwtw**'' <J >. r Mgc>* ***** - . s^i * Ift* c>u:t <Mt NET WEIGHT 35 LBS. DUE TO THE NATURE OF THIS PRODUCT, COMPACTION MAY RESULT FROM TRANSPORTATION, HANDLING AND STORAGE. CAUTION CONTAINS AS8ESTOS FBEftS AVOID CREATING DUST 8REATWN6 ASBESTOS OUST MAY CAUSE *** V IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. OR TO BE FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS * * * * * IN THE DISTRICT COURTS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 19 1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS ATTwtVMENT FOR REQUEST FOR PROl/JCTION NO. 12  ssiGv:r - ':' *.wtlNS f^r.Ii i^s^s c-e *' i.r22^5019 `ON XtfJ 07?!.-0"0? "Y . nc'P -nt