Document dxrB6oZRy5O3Yea05rewGz16

IN RE BRIDGEPORT ASBESTOS LITIGATION CV 95-0322954S IN RE: JOSEPH MATHIAU and HELEN MATHIAU vs. W. R. GRACE Sc CO. , CONNECTICUT, et. al. SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT AUGUST 29, 1996 RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S CASE SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES Riley Stoker Corporation("Riley Stoker"), pursuant to the Connecticut Rules of Practice and the Bridgeport Asbestos Litigation Pretrial Order, hereby responds to Plaintiff's Case Specific Interrogatories ("Interrogatories") as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These Interrogatories concern events which occurred years ago. The answers are believed to be accurate as of the date of filing, but Riley Stoker Corporation's investigation of the underlying facts is continuing. If further discovery of additional facts, adds meaning to the known facts, or establishes new factual conclusions or legal contentions, these answers will be supplemented if required by applicable law. Thus, the following answers are made without prejudice to Riley Stoker Corporation's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts Riley Stoker Corporation may later recall. Riley Stoker Corporation accordingly reserves the right to amend or supplement any and all answers herein, if permitted or required by applicable law, as additional facts are ascertained, or as the contentions of the plaintiff herein may be discovered or amended. Plaintiff's Interrogatories are addressed to a corporation which has no independent knowledge of the information supplied in these answers. Riley Stoker Corporation refers to and is limited to the officers and directors of Riley Stoker Corporation located in Worcester, Massachusetts, and those Riley Stoker Corporation employees who the Company believes are responsible for and in possession of corporate documents or information that is responsive to plaintiff's Interrogatories. The information supplied in these answers is based on the knowledge of Riley Stoker Corporation's employees and authorized agents as to which the affiant may not have personal knowledge of the matter stated herein. The answers contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as is presently known, but in no way should 2 prejudice Riley Stoker Corporation in relation to further discovery, research or analysis. Neither Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, manufactured, sold, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation understands these terms, any asbestoscontaining products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. Certain boilers designed by Riley Stoker, however, had components that contained asbestos. Riley Stoker Corporation's product line of industrial and utility fuel burning equipment is marketed and sold primarily to large, sophisticated and knowledgeable commercial customers whose architects, engineers, consultants or other agents frequently specified the type, brand and quality of component parts to be utilized in the installation of their boilers. Moreover, component manufacturers supplied product selection and instructions for proper and safe application, use and installation of their asbestos products. Riley Stoker Corporation incorporates by reference this preliminary statement into the answer to each interrogatory. 3 GENERAL OBJECTIONS Riley Stoker Corporation objects to these Interrogatories on the grounds that they are overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, beyond the scope of product identification in this litigation, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Riley Stoker Corporation also objects to the form, as well as the ambiguous and compound nature of many of the Interrogatories, in addition to the false predicate contained therein. Moreover, these Interrogatories call for information which is necessarily outside of the scope of Riley Stoker's knowledge, and therefore, each answer is formulated on the basis of the best information available to Riley Stoker. Any answer by Riley Stoker Corporation to these Interrogatories does not in any way constitute a waiver as to any information which is protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work product privileges, or any other proprietary rights or material including, but not limited to, trade secrets. Moreover, Riley Stoker Corporation objects to any interrogatory which implies or assumes that any individual plaintiff actually has an asbestos related disease or any injury allegedly related to asbestos. Riley Stoker Corporation in no way 4 admits, by responding to these Interrogatories, that any plaintiff has an asbestos related disease or injury. The burden of proof is on each plaintiff to prove that he/she has an asbestos related disease, and Riley Stoker has a constitutional right to deny same. Moreover, Riley Stoker Corporation objects to any interrogatory which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All of these objections are incorporated by reference and adopted as to each and every interrogatory contained herein. LIMITATIONS 1. Trial preparation and factual investigation are ongoing. Accordingly, Riley Stoker Corporation's answers to these Interrogatories are based solely on information known to it at the time of the service of these answers. Riley Stoker Corporation reserves the right, therefore, to make reference at trial, or in any other hearings, in this action, to facts and documents not identified in these answers, the existence or relevance of which is subsequently discovered by Riley Stoker or its counsel. 2. Plaintiff's Interrogatories are addressed to persons who have no independent personal knowledge of the information 5 supplied in these answers. The information supplied in these answers to Interrogatories is based upon information as to which the affiant may not have personal knowledge of the matter stated herein. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1 Did you manufacture, mine, process, market, sell, purchase, install and/or distribute asbestos or asbestos containing products during the period of plaintiff's alleged exposure to asbestos as indicated on Plaintiff's Answers to Defendants' Interrogatories? ANSWER NO. 1 Riley Stoker objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker Corporation does not concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing products." Riley Stoker Corporation is a manufacturer of boilers and steam generating equipment, and never designed, manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, patented, or relabeled asbestos-containing products, including but not limited to 6 thermal insulation products such as pipecovering, block insulation and insulation cement. Therefore, this interrogatory is inapplicable as to Riley Stoker. INTERROGATORY NO. 2 Did you manufacture, mine, process, market, sell, purchase, install and/or distribute asbestos or asbestos containing products to the state(s) or regions where plaintiff's alleged exposure to asbestos occurred as indicated on Plaintiff's Answers to Defendants' Interrogatories? ANSWER NO. 2 Riley Stoker objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker Corporation does not concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing products." Riley Stoker Corporation is a manufacturer of boilers and steam generating equipment, and never designed, manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, patented, or relabeled asbestos-containing products, including but not limited to thermal insulation products such as pipecovering, block insulation and insulation cement. Therefore, this 7 interrogatory is inapplicable as to Riley Stoker. INTERROGATORY 3 Have you consulted with any expert whom you expect to call as an expert witness at the trial of this case? If so, please give: a. the name and address of each such person so consulted? b. when the person was consulted and what did the person do as a result; c. the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; and d. state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds of each opinion of the expert. ANSWER NO. 3 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Riley Stoker further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it requests information protected by the attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it will designate witnesses pursuant to the Bridgeport Asbestos Litigation Amended Pre-Trial Order. 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 4 State the names and addresses of all witnesses the defendant intends to call to testify and give a brief statement of the substance of the testimony of each such witness. ANSWER NO. 4 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Riley Stoker further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it requests information protected by the attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it will designate witnesses pursuant to the Bridgeport Asbestos Litigation Amended Pre-Trial Order. INTERROGATORY NO. 5 With regard to the preceding interrogatory, state whether or not a written or recorded statement or deposition or testimony has been given by such witness and indicate who has possession of such statement, deposition or testimony. ANSWER NO. 5 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome 9 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Riley Stoker further objects that this interrogatory requests information protected by the attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it will designate witnesses pursuant to the Bridgeport Asbestos Litigation Amended Pre-Trial Order. INTERROGATORY NO. 6 Set forth a list of photographs, plans, sketches or other documents in the possession of the party or its attorneys that will be used as an exhibit at the trial of these cases by you. ANSWER NO. 6 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Riley Stoker further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it requests information protected by the attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it will designate exhibits pursuant to the Bridgeport Asbestos Litigation Amended Pre-Trial Order. 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 7 If you contend that the plaintiff (or the plaintiff's decedent, as is appropriate) knew or should have known of the hazards of working with or in an environment with asbestos products, please state all the facts on which the defendant relies to support such a contention. ANSWER NO. 7 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that discovery has not yet been completed with respect to this matter. Riley Stoker therefore reserves the right to amend or supplement this response. INTERROGATORY NO. 8 If you contend that the employer or any employer of the plaintiff in whose employment the defendant believes or the plaintiff claims exposure to asbestos had knowledge of the dangers of exposure to asbestos products which was equal to or greater than that of the defendant's please state in full all the facts on which the defendant relies to support such a contention. 11 ANSWER NO. 8 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that discovery has not yet been completed with respect to this matter. Riley Stoker therefore reserves the right to amend or supplement this response. RILEY STOKER CORPORATION By it^ Attorney, DATED: August 29, 1996 Lawrence G. Cetrulo, Esq. Kevin E. Young, Esq. Christopher R. Smith, Esq. Cetrulo & Capone 53 State Street Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 (617) 624-0111 #18841 12 VERIFICATION COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ) COUNTY OF WORCESTER ss JAMES S. BRANTL, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an authorized agent of DB Riley, Inc., and that he verifies the foregoing DB Riley, Inc.'s Answers to Plaintiff's Case Specific Interrogatories for and on behalf of DB Riley, Inc.; that certain of the matters stated therein are not within the personal knowledge of deponent; that the facts stated therein have been assembled by authorized employees and counsel of DB Riley, Inc., and deponent is informed that the facts stated therein are true. SWORN TO BEFORE ME and subscribed in my presence this day of August 1996 . 12th My commission expires: Janaury 17,, 2003