Document evzKjOBzbpDJ17geERjYbQ4VE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUfl FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA . 1'"' IN RE: ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY CASES C. Si,\'~r, ~;s- ) No. M-1417 u.o. DiGin'c; Cou.xi ! .SB- UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES COMES NOW the Defendant, Unites States Gypsum Company, and for its answers and objections to the Master Interrogatories presented to it by Plaintiffs represented by Mark Iola, states as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS: 1. This Defendant objects to these Interrogatories on the grounds that they call for information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. 2. This Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require Defendant to gather and summarize information contained in voluminous papers that are already a matter of public record. 3. This Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require this Defendant to provide information which is equally available to the Plaintiff as to this Defendant. 4. This Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Interrogatories to the extent that they improperly call for a legal, medical or a scientific opinion or conclusion which Defendant is not qualified to render. (I PLAINTIFF'S i^EXHIBlf^ 5. This Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiver of any of the foregoing objections, which are incorporated by reference in the following responses, Defendant answers Plaintiffs' Interrogatories as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 1; State the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year listing of all other positions, titles, or jobs held with Defendant of each person who has supplied information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER NO. 1: F. M. Poremski, Manager, Financial and Ac counting Services, United States Gypsum Company, has reviewed these Responses for the purpose of satisfying the verification requirements. These Responses have been prepared based on the continual review of documents located in this defendant's files and information obtained from discussions with this defendant's employees over a period of many years. It is not possible to reconstruct each step taken to gather this information or to verify all documents which might possibly pertain to the matters at issue that have been located or examined in connection with these Responses. Nor is it possible to specifically identify by name each person who has participated in the preparation of these Responses or to identify each document which may have provided information used in preparing these Responses. 2 'r INTERROGATORY NO. 2; State whether or not you are a corpora tion. If so, state your correct name, the state of your incor poration, the address of your principal place of business, the name and address of the person or entity authorized to accept service of process on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Oklahoma. ANSWER NO. 2: Yes. United States Gypsum Company. Delaware. 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. Authorized Agent: The Corporation Company, 735 First National Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. Yes. This defendant has held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Oklahoma since 1920. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale of material containing asbestos fibers? ANSWER NO. 3: This defendant has never mined asbestos. This defendant has no subsidiary companies. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the manufacture and sale of pro ducts containing asbestos fibers? ANSWER NO. 4? Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the marketing and sale of pro ducts containing asbestos fibers? ANSWER NO. 5: Yes. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If the answer to one or more of the last three interrogatories is in the affirmative, state as to each affirmative answer the following: A. As to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. B. The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each of those products. C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market. E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the products and the percentage of asbestos in each product. F. The date each of the products was removed from the market and the reason or reasons therefor. G. A description of the physical appearance of each of the named products. H. A detailed description of the intended uses of the named products. ANSWER NO. 6: (a-d) Objection. This defendant objects to this Interrogatory as irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. There is no allega tion concerning which particular product manufactured by U. S. Gypsum Company may have contributed to the plaintiff's alleged injury. Without waiving its objection, see attached Exhibit No. 1 for a listing of all products containing asbestos as part of their formulations which were manufactured, marketed and/or sold by United States Gypsum Company, except as otherwise noted therein. (e) Objection. This defendant objects to the term "a description of the physical (chemical composition) of each of the 4 named products" on the ground of confidential trade secret. With out waiving this objection, chrysotile was the "type of asbestos" used in virtually all U. S. Gypsum Company products that contained asbestos. U. S. Gypsum now understands that amosite asbestos may have been used as a component ingredient in rigid block insulation for short periods of time. Further, see attached Exhibit No. 2. (f) See attached Exhibit No. 3. (g) See attached Exhibit No. 4. (h) See attached Exhibit No. 1. INTERROGATORY NO. 7; Does Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies claim that any patent would cover any product listed in Interrogatory No. 6? If so, for each product, please state: A. The number of each patent and the date it was issued. B. The number and date filed for each pending patent application. ANSWER NO. 7: Objection. This defendant objects to this Interrogatory as irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection, this defendant is aware that it held a patent for at least one of the above-stated products, that product being K-FAC. As related to the other specified products, to the extent such information is available to United States Gypsum Company and would not require it to undertake an unreasonable investigation at an unreasonable cost, it is contained in documents which United States Gypsum Company will provide to Plaintiffs at a mutually convenient time at 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Have any of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 been altered in chemical composition since first being marketed? If so, state: A. The trade name of each of those products. B. The date each of the named products was altered. C. The nature of the alteration. D. The reason for the alteration. E. The names of all persons involved in the decision to alter the product(s). ANSWER NO. 8: Objection. This defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being overbroad, burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evi dence. There may have been many minor changes over the years due to raw material availability and differing geographical market conditions. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: State the name, address, and job title of each person who participated in the design and preparation of the manufacturing specifications for each product listed in Inter rogatory No. 6. ANSWER NO. 9: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, irrelevant, unduly burdensome and will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This defendant has employed thousands of employees since its inception and, thus, it would be impossible to determine who would have the knowledge or information that plain tiff is seeking. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the design, preparation, or introduction into the market of the pro ducts listed in Interrogatory No. 6 still exist? If so, state: 6 A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address and job title of each person who cur rently has possession of each document, and where the documents are currently located. ANSWER NO. 10; Objection. This defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being overbroad, burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evi dence. Without waiving its objection, the information sought in this Interrogatory may be derived from operating bulletins which are regularly maintained business records of United States Gypsum Company. Operating Bulletins for products which plaintiff can establish are relevant to this litigation will be made available to plaintiff for his inspection and review at a mutually conve nient time through U. S. Gypsum's offices at 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, 60606, pursuant to a request to produce. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Before releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of materials contained in those products? If the answer is affirma tive, state: A. The names of the products tested. B. The name, address, and job title of each person conduct ing the tests. C. The results of the tests. D. Whether, as a result of the tests, any products were removed from the market. E. The names of all products removed from the market as a result of the tests. 7 ANSWER NO. 11: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is not limited to testing with respect to asbestos only, the focus of this liti gation. Without waiving this objection, U. S. Gypsum has con ducted a number of studies which relate to its asbestos-containing products and which concern various performance parameters of those products. INTERROGATORY NO. 12; Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the test ing of the named products now exist? If so, state: A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. and ANSWER NO. 12: t burdensome and Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad is not limited to testing with respect to asbestos only, the focus of this litigation. Without waiving this objection, U. S. Gypsum has conducted a number of studies which relate to its asbestos-containing products and which concern various performance parameters of those products. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of those tests? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The trade names of the products changed. 8 B. The nature of the changes made. C. The name, address, and job title of each person respon sible for having caused a change to be made, or having made a change. ANSWER NO. 13: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: After releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of materials contained in those products? If the answer is affirma tive, state: A. The names of the products tested. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who con ducted those tests. C. The results of those tests. . . ANSWER NO. 14: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad and burdensome and is not limited to testing with respect to asbestos only, the focus of this litigation. Without waiving this objection, U. S. Gypsum has conducted a number of studies which relate to its asbestos-containing products and which concern various performance parameters of those products. U. S. Gypsum is aware of tests which were performed to measure the release of asbestos fibers during the mixing and sanding of joint compounds. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the poten tial health hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. The name of each product. 9 B. A description of each document. C. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER NO. 15: tory No. 14. See this defendant's response to Interroga INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of those tests? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products changed. B. The name, address, and job title of each person respon sible for having made a change. C. The nature of the hazard or defect which resulted in such change. ANSWER NO. 16: Not to this defendant's best current know ledge, information and belief. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed mate rial, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, or other written material of any kind or character containing any warnings concern ing the possibility of injury resulting from the use of the pro ducts listed in Interrogatory No. 6? If so, state: A. The names of the relevant products. B. The wording of each warning. C. A description of the other printed material. D. The method used to distribute the warning to persons likely to use the product. E. The date each warning was issued. 10 F. The name, address, and job title of each person respon sible for having issued the warning. G. The current location of any remaining literature and the custodian thereof. H. The form in which such literature can be accessed, i.e., the manner in which such literature is indexed. I. Whether you will permit Plaintiff access to the litera ture for discovery purposes outside a formal discovery request. ANSWER NO. 17: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objec tion, U. S. Gypsum maintains no central repository for the accumu lation of the requested information in the ordinary course- of business. Documents that have already been identified and gathered to respond to discovery requests in other litigation and that relate to products which plaintiff can establish are relevant to this litigation, will be made available for inspection at a mutually convenient time through U. S. Gypsum's offices at 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, pursuant to a request to produce. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Have you received notice that any other person is claiming or has claimed an injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company or any of its subsidiaries, either before or after the filing of this action? If so, state: A. The name and address of each claimant. B. The date of notice of each claim. C. A description of the claim. 11 D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained. E. The name and address of each attorney who represents each individual making a claim. F. The style and court number of each claim currently pending. G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. ANSWER NO. 18; Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and will lead to the discovery of no admissible evidence. Without waiving this objec tion, this defendant will make available to plaintiff for his inspection and review, copies of asbestos-related personal injury complaints filed against U. S. Gypsum Company. Said documents will be made available to plaintiff at a mutually convenient time through U. S. Gypsum's offices at 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, 60606, pursuant to a request to produce. INTERROGATORY NO. 19; Are or were your asbestos products marketed and sold by companies other than your own? If the answer is affirmative, list the names and addresses of each of those companies. ANSWER NO. 19; U. S. Gypsum manufactured colored exterior stucco for National Gypsum Company from the 1940's to the 1970's. This was resold under National Gypsum's Gold Bond label. U. S. Gypsum possesses documents which indicate that it was authorized to manufacture exterior finish stucco for the following companies who sold it under their company label: National Brickstone, early 1960's; Brickstone International, early 1960's to early 1970's; Temple Brick Corporation, mid-1960's. 12 U. S. Gypsum manufactured a high temperature block insulation product for A. P. Green Refractories Company for an eighteen-month period in 1970 and 1971. Further, U. S. Gypsum manufactured SprayDon Fireproofing from 1966 to 1971 for the Sprayon Research Corporation. Those products were sold and distributed by Sprayon Research Corporation and Metropolitan Spray, and manufactured according to Sprayon speci fications by this defendant. The above-referenced documents will be made available for plaintiff's inspection through U. S. Gypsum's offices at 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, pursuant to a request to produce. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Did you or any of your predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries have any distributors of asbestos products in the State of Oklahoma? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such distributor. B. The years in which such company or person distributed your products. C. What products were distributed and in what years. ANSWER NO. 20: Objection. U. S. Gypsum never manufactured asbestos products, but did manufacture products that contained small amounts of asbestos. Without waiving its objection, U. S. Gypsum does not possess any records maintained in the normal course of business which identify who the ultimate user of the product was or where it was installed. With that limitation, U. S. Gypsum responds as follows: Prior to 1966, U. S. Gypsum sold its construction products, some of which may have contained small amounts of asbestos, exclusively through independent 13 dealers. Beginning in about 1966, U. S. Gypsum sold its con struction products either directly to independent contractors, independent distributors or, as had previously been the custom, through independent dealers. This defendant has no sales records for the years prior to 1965, other than records of gross sales of individual products by plant. Sales records thereafter are contained in computer print outs. Records of products which the plaintiff can establish were relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit will be made avail able for inspection at a mutually convenient time at 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, 60606, pursuant to a request to produce. INTERROGATORY NO. 21; List each individual who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company in the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians and industrial hygien ists, and the current address and job title of each of those individuals. ANSWER NO. 21: U. S. Gypsum's Chief Medical Officers: C. A. Hedblom, M.D., 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, 1974 to present. W. Highstone, M.D., 1939 to 1974 (deceased). . In addition, U. S. Gypsum retained or consulted "outside doctors" who provided services to its employees. See attached Exhibit No. 5. This defendant employed F. Tremmel as an industrial hygienist on August 4, 1986. Prior to that time, this defendant did not employ a certified industrial hygienist. 14 This defendant employed H. Lawton as an industrial hygienist on 8/17/87 and H. C. Brown as an industrial hygienist on 9/28/87. INTERROGATORY NO. 22; Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so, state: , A. The name of each publication. B. The date of publication and the names of the author and publisher. C. The date received by Defendant, if known. D. The name, job title, and address of each person who cur rently has possession of each publication and its present location. ANSWER NO. 22: See attached Exhibit No. 6. . INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies at any time been a member of any trade organization or association comprised of other manufacturers, miners, marketers, and/or sellers of asbestos products? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such association or or ganization. B. The dates during which Defendant or any of its sub sidiaries were members. C. . The name and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports of any kind published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations. D. Whether any of those publications are still in your pos session, and if so: 1. A description of the publications, including the date. 2. The current location of such publication. 3. The custodian of such publications. 15 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. 5. Whether you would be willing to produce such publi cations to Plaintiff outside a formal discovery request. ANSWER NO. 23; See attached Exhibit No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 24; Identify by name and location each plant in which the products listed in your answer to Interrogatory No. 6 were manufactured and/or assembled, specifying which plants produced each item, the dates each plant is or was in operation, and the time span during which each named item was produced. ANSWER NO. 24: See attached Exhibit No. 1. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: List the name and address of each business entity from whom you have received raw asbestos, the dates it was received, the amounts received, and to whom the raw asbestos was shipped. ANSWER NO. 25: The following are known to have been approved suppliers of asbestos: Canadian Johns-Manville, Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Nicolet Industries, Carey Canadian, Asbestos Corporation, Atlast Asbestos, Union Carbide, Pacific Asbestos, Keasby and Mattison and Johnson Mines. Atlas Asbestos and Pacific Asbestos shipped only to California. U. S. Gypsum Company also purchased small amounts of asbestos from North American Asbestos for a short period of time. It is unknown which source of supply was used for each particular product, at which mines the raw asbestos was mined, and from which locations the raw asbestos was shipped. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Has your company ever purchased pro ducts containing asbestos from any other manufacturer for resale? 16 If so, state from whom, what was purchased, dates of purchase, to whom resale was made, and under what name or label. ANSWER NO. 26; In the 19501s-1970's, U. S. Gypsum purchased asbestos cement board from National Gypsum Company, which was re shipped as received. In addition, U. S. Gypsum drilled this mate rial and rebranded it for sale and use as asbestos lay-in panels in the late 1950's. U. S. Gypsum also purchased pipe covering from a company believed to be named Baldwin-Ehret-Hill in the 1930's. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Have sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies or their agents for purposes of marketing or advertising asbestos products? state: If so, A. The name, address, and job title of each person or entity who prepared it. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who cur rently has possession of it and its present location. C. The date the materials were prepared. D. The media used to disseminate the sales materials. ANSWER NO. 27: See this defendant's response to Interroga tory No. 17. INTERROGATORY NO. 28; Have any written materials or instruc tions of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies or their agents indicating how asbestos products should be used and maintained? If so, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person* who pre pared it. 17 B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of it and its present location. C. The dates of distribution and the manner in which the materials were distributed to purchasers of Defendant's products. ANSWER NO. 28; All packaging for this defendant's asbestoscontaining products included directions and instructions for use. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claims made by Plaintiff in this case? If so, list the name of each insurance carrier, the amount of initial coverage, amount of coverage remaining, and the effective dates of each policy. ANSWER NO. 29; See attached Exhibit No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Does Defendant expect to call expert witnesses at the trial of these cases? If so, state: A. The name, address, and telephone number of each such expert. B. The current employer and occupation of each such expert. C. A summary of the testimony expected to be given by each such expert. D. Any and all previous times that the expert has either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestosrelated case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition. ANSWER NO. 30: The identity of expert witnesses to be called at trial by this Defendant is not known at the present time. This Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response to designate expert witnesses as soon as this information becomes available. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 31: As to the disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant became aware of the disease. C. Who within the company discovered the adverse conse quences or effects. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether such information is still maintained by Defen dant. F. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER NO. 31: See attached Exhibit No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: As to the disease lung cancer, state: A. The date on which Defendant learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant became aware of the disease. . C. Who within the company discovered the adverse conse quences or effects. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether such information is still maintained by Defen dant. F. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER NO. 32: See attached Exhibit No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: As to pleural disease, state: A. The date on which Defendant learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant became aware of the disease. C. Who within the company discovered the adverse conse quences or effects. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company regarding such adverse consequences or effects. 19 E. Whether such information is still maintained by Defen dant. F. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER NO. 33: See attached Exhibit No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 34; As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A. The date on which Defendant learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant became aware of the disease. C. Who within the company discovered the adverse conse quences or effects. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether such information is still maintained by Defen dant. F. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER NO. 34; See attached Exhibit No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: As to other cancers of the body, state: A. The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant learned such disease was caused by inhalation of as bestos fibers by humans. B. How and of what disease Defendant became aware. C. Who within the company discovered the adverse conse quences or effects. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether such information is still maintained by Defen dant. F. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER NO. 35: See attached Exhibit No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Does Defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactured so as to eliminate all potential 20 health hazards to persons working with them? If the answer is affirmative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys that confirm same. ANSWER NO. 36: Objection. U. S. Gypsum Company objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is not relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. U. S. Gypsum Company further objects to this interroga tory on the grounds that it is argumentative. INTERROGATORY NO. 37; Describe in detail the types of pack ages which Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies used to sell asbestos material, listing the dates each type of package was used, a physical description of each type of package, a descrip tion of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon, and attached photographs of such products, if available. ANSWER NO. 37: See attached Exhibit No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO 38; Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos material? If so, state, as to each such agreement: A. The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos pro ducts under the agreement. -B. The trade name affixed to those products. C. The periods of time covered by each such agreement. D. The volume, in dollar amount, of the transaction. E. The purchaser of the products. ANSWER NO. 38: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This defendant does not understand the term "asbestos 21 materials". Without waiving this objection, see this defendant's response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 26. INTERROGATORY NO. 39: List the name and address of each company from which you purchased asbestos materials, stating the form of the materials, the dates of such purchases, and the ultimate disposal of such materials. ANSWER NO. 39: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This defendant does not understand the term "asbestos materials". Without waiving this objection, see this defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 25. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Does Defendant or any of its subsidi aries currently have possession of any writings or contracts on those rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to Interroga tory No. 34? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person having custody of each of those documents and their current location. B. A brief description of each such document, including the date and parties signatory. ANSWER NO. 40: See this defendant's response to Interroga tory No. 38. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Prior to 1986, has any person filed a claim against a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he/she has contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers? If so, provide: A. A list of the claims, including each claimant's name, address and date each claim was filed, including the caption and jurisdiction of the claim. 22 B. The disease alleged in each such claim. C. A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim. D. The person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER NO. 41: Not to this defendant's best current know ledge, information and belief. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Does Defendant admit that it or any of its subsidiaries maintain minutes of corporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect dis cussions pertaining to any subject matter covered within these interrogatories. If so, for each such set of minutes, state: A. The general subject matter discussed. B. The dates of each such meeting. . C. Who was in attendance. D. Where and by whom the minutes are maintained. E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format. F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports dis seminated to other individuals and, if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. ANSWER NO. 42: Non-privileged, non-confidential documents responsive to this Interrogatory will be made available to plain tiff for his inspection at a mutually convenient time through U. S. Gypsum's offices at 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, 60606, pursuant to a request to produce. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Do you currently manufacture any products containing asbestos? If so, state: A. As to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold. 23 B. The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each of those products. C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market. E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product. F. The date each of the products was removed from the market and the reason or reasons therefor. G. A description of the physical appearance of each product. H. A detailed description of the intended uses of each of the named products. ANSWER NO. 43; No. This defendant discontinued manufactur ing products with asbestos as part of their formulations in 1976. INTERROGATORY NO. 44; State whether you or any of your pre decessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through present or for any portion thereof, copies of invoices, shipping docu ments, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to asbestos products mined, manufactured, marketed or sold. If so, state: A. The location of such documents. B. The name and address of the custodian of the documents. C. The format in which the documents are kept, i.e., hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. D. In what form the documents can be accessed, i.e., by state, by product, etc., and if by product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. E. Whether you will permit Plaintiff access to those docu ments for discovery purposes outside a formal discovery request. 24 ANSWER NO. 44: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in that it does not set forth whether it is seeking the described documents for products this defendant sold or for pro ducts sold by other entities. Without waiving this objection, see this defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 20. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Do you expect to call company repre sentatives as witnesses at the trial of these cases? If so, list: A. The name, address, and job title of each company repre sentative to be called. B. A summary of the testimony expected to be given by each such witness. C. Any and all previous times that the witness has either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestosrelated case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition. ANSWER NO. 45: The identity of witnesses to be called at trial by this Defendant is not known at the present time. This Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as soon as this information becomes available. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: In what year did Defendant begin selling or distributing products containing asbestos? ANSWER NO. 46: See attached Exhibit No. 1. INTERROGATORY NO. 47: In what year did Defendant last sell products containing asbestos? ANSWER NO. 47: See attached Exhibit No. 1. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Has Defendant ever acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed, or 25 contracted to supply products containing asbestos? If so, for each such entity, state: A. Full and correct name. B. - Principal place of business. C. State of incorporation. D. Date of acquisition by Defendant. E. Whether or not authorized to transact business in the State of Oklahoma. F. Attach copies of all papers pertaining to the acqui sition. ANSWER NO. 48: United States Gypsum Company acquired the assets of National Asbestos Manufacturing Company in 1936. National Asbestos Manufacturing Company was located in New Jersey and no longer exists as a corporate entity. Said company was a producer of asbestos-containing pipe covering. United States Gypsum acquired A. P. Green of Missouri in 1966. A. P. Green is located in Mexico, Missouri> and continues to exist as a separate and independent corporate entity. Said company is primarily a manufacturer of refractory products. A small percentage of the products it manufactured or sold contained asbestos as part of their formulations. United States Gypsum Company acquired Chicago Mastic Company, a manufacturer of adhesives, in 1971. by purchase of stock. Said company was acquired INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Was each of your products generally expected to reach, or was packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? If not, with respect to any such product, explain in what way the 26 Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user. ANSWER NO. 49: This defendant's asbestos-containing products were packaged to minimize damage in transport; however, the pro ducts may have been altered or modified by others before reaching the parties named in this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Do you admit that asbestos applica tors, helpers, mechanics, pipefitter/welders, and/or other con struction trade crafts were foreseeable users of Defendant's asbestos-containing products, such as: A. Pipe covering; B. Blocks; C. Asbestos cloth; D. Mastics; E. Spray-on insulation; F. Rope or tape; G. Asbestos sheeting or millboard; H. Cements; I. Gaskets or gasket materials. ANSWER NO. 50; This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff is submitting a request for admission. This defen dant further objects to the interrogatory on the basis that it is vague in that no time period as to when the submitted fact was foreseeable is indicated. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Based upon the material contents of your products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of 27 application, can your products be generally applied without liberating asbestos fibers? A. If there is a different answer concerning different pro ducts manufactured, sold, distributed, or used by your company, then specify the different products by exact manufacturer's name and popular name. B. If there is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in which a particular product was used, then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you are referring to and year involved. ANSWER NO. 51; Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Was it a foreseeable use of your asbestos-containing products that they may have to be removed, stripped, or replaced at any time after installation? , ANSWER NO. 52; Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that it would be foreseeable that its asbestos-containing products would be removed, stripped or replaced some time after instal lation. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Prior to 19 70, did you or your pre decessor (s) ever have any labor inspectors or anyone from your company whose job it was to go to areas where your products were being used or installed to make dust level counts? If so, state when this procedure started, the purpose of such procedure, and what action, if any, was taken in response to the findings, and attach the results. ANSWER NO. 53; Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Without waiving its objection, 28 this Defendant states that not to its best current knowledge, information and belief. INTERROGATORY NO. 54; If your company performed or had per formed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? ANSWER NO. 54: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Has your company or its predecessor(s) ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies designed to minimize or eliminate the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use of your company's products? If so, give the following: A. Name of the person or firm conducting such studies. B. The date the studies began and the date they were completed. . C. Any publication or dissemination of the results of the studies. D. The nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers. E. Attach copies of the studies. ANSWER NO. 55: Objection. This interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Without waiving its objection, this Defendant states not to its best current knowledge, infor mation and belief. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Does your company have, has it ever had, or has your predecessor(s) ever had, a Research Department? If so, give the year such Research Department was established, and whether or not such Research Department has operated continuously since being established. 29 A. How much time and money was expended each year on research? B. What percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessor spend on research concerning the health effects of asbestos? C. State in detail the purpose, duties, and responsibili ties of such Research Department. ANSWER NO. 56: (a-b) Objection. This Interrogatory is irrelevant and will not lead to discovery of admissible evidence. (c) This defendant has had a Research Department since 1921. The Research Department does not deal with scientific and/or medical research, but rather is devoted to product development. The focus of the Research Department has never been solely the research and development of asbestos-containing products. INTERROGATORY NO. 57: Does your company have, or has it ever had, or has your predecessor (s) ever had, a Medical Department? If so, state: A. The-year such Medical Department was established. B. Whether or not such Medical Department has operated continuously since being established. C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Medical Director or Medical Department, and the last known address of each. D. State in detail the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department. ANSWER NO. 57: Yes. (a) 1939 (b) Yes. (c) U. S. Gypsum's Chief Medical Officers: C. A. Hedblom, M.D., 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, 1974-Present; W. Highstone, M.D., 1939-1974 (deceased). 30 (d) The Medical Director operates a medical facility in Company general offices; conducts and manages a medical program; and furnishes counsel as required to assure the health and well being of Company employees. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Did your company or its predecessor(s) ever place any warning directly on any of its asbestos-containing products, such as pipe covering itself, block itself, cloth itself, or millboard itself? ANSWER NO. 58; Not to this defendant's best current know ledge, information and belief. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: Did your company ever stamp the name of the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any of its asbestos pipe covering, blocks, cloth, millboard, or gasket material? ANSWER NO. 59: Not to this defendant's best current know ledge, information and belief. INTERROGATORY NO. 6 0: Has your company, or your predeces sor (s) , ever devised a high-temperature heat insulation which does not contain asbestos? If so, state the date that such insulation was first placed on the market. ANSWER NO. 60; Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad in that it is not limited to asbestos-containing products, the focus of this litigation, and therefore will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, this Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. 31 INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Did your company or its predecessor(s) ever recall any products containing asbestos from the common market? If so, state: A. All details of such recall. B. The name of the product recalled. C. The time of recall. D. Any further action taken in connection with the recall. ANSWER NO. 61: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving its objection, U. S. Gypsum has not conducted a recall of any of its products because of any alleged health hazards associated with asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Prior to 1970, did your company, or any predecessor(s), ever manufacture or sell a high-temperature heat insulation which does not contain asbestos? If so, state the date such insulation was first placed on the market. ANSWER NO. 62: Objection. See this defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 60. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: If your company, or its predeces sor (s), ever devised a high-temperature heat insulation which does not contain asbestos, state what prompted your company to devise such high-temperature heat insulation not containing asbestos. ANSWER NO. 63: tory No. 60. See this defendant's response to Interroga INTERROGATORY NO. 64: Has such high-temperature heat insula tion not containing asbestos performed satisfactorily, e.q., is such insulation suitable for the purpose for which it is to be used? 32 ANSWER NO. 64: See this defendant's response to Interroga tory No. 60. INTERROGATORY NO. 65: Give the trade names of your high- temperature heat insulation products which do not contain as bestos, and state fully what such insulation contains. ANSWER NO. 65: See this defendant's response to Interroga tory No. 60. INTERROGATORY NO. 66: State the decade that there first existed manufacturing technology for commercial purposes, the use of chemical sand mineral for combining into a high-heat insulation product as a substitute for asbestos in insulation materials. ANSWER NO. 66: See this defendant's response to Interroga tory No. 60. INTERROGATORY NO. 67: To your company's knowledge, in what decade was fiberglass first commercially available for insulation over 350 degrees Fahrenheit? ANSWER NO. 67; Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Such information, the extent that it exists, would be equally available to plaintiff as to this defendant. . INTERROGATORY NO. 68: In what decade was each of the follow ing products commercially available for use and sale: A. Fiberglass; B. Calcium silicate; C. Mineral wool; D. Rock wool; 33 E. Foamglass; F. Ceramics; G. Wood pulp; H. Organic pulp. ANSWER NO. 68: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Such information, the extent that it exists, would be equally available to plaintiff as to this defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 69: Did your company or any predecessor(s) ever have a division or subsidiary company engaged in the con tracting business of applying insulation products? If so, give the name of such division or subsidiary company, the full address of the home office of such division or subsidiary company, and the dates such division or subsidiary company was engaged in the con tracting business. ANSWER NO. 69: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objec tion, this Defendant would state that prior to 1940, a group within U. S. Gypsum's corporate structure was engaged in con tracting. It is unknown whether said group formally was a "division" or "unit", as no documents have been located from which to verify this information. U. S. Gypsum has no further infor mation. INTERROGATORY NO. 70; Did any division of your company or subsidiary company engaged in the contract business of applying 34 insulation products,' or your worker's compensation insurance carrier, ever have any claims for lung diseases or death from lung diseases, whether directly or indirectly attributed to asbestosis, mesothelioma, lung cancer, or any exposure to asbestos products prior to 1972? If the answer is in the affirmative, give the name of such employees and attach copies of such claims, along with copies of all documents relating to the disposition and handling of such claims. ANSWER NO. 70: Objection. See this defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 69. U. S. Gypsum further objects that there is no allegation that the plaintiff was ever an employee of this defendant. Without waiving its objection, U. S. Gypsum further states that to its best current knowledge, information and belief, no worker's compensation claims were filed for asbestos-related lung diseases against its contracting units or divisions. INTERROGATORY NO. 71: Was your Medical Department or Industrial Health Department or Industrial Hygienist responsible for the screening of contracting unit employees? ANSWER NO. 71: See this defendant's response to Interroga tory No. 69. INTERROGATORY NO. 72: Did your company or its predecessor(s) ever make any industrial hygiene surveys? If so, give the date of such surveys and attach copies. ANSWER NO. 72; Objection. No allegations have been made that the plaintiffs were employees of the defendant? therefore, this interrogatory is overly broad, irrelevant, immaterial and not 35 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 73: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust by the American Conference of Governmental Indus trial Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant or any predecessor (s) were first advised of such limits or concentrations. B. The name of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice. C. Attach copies of the instrlament (s) communicating such advice. ANSWER NO. 73: This defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Furthermore, this defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad insofar as it relates to dust in general. Without waiv ing its objection, United States Gypsum Company understands the term "threshold limit value" to mean a concentration to which nearly all workers can be exposed, day after day, without adverse effect. This defendant recognizes that The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists defines "Threshold Limit Values - Time Weighted Average" as the time weighted average concentra tion for a normal 8-hour work day or 40-hour work week, to which nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, with out adverse effect. This defendant has not located, at this time, information indicating when it first became aware of the term. 36 INTERROGATORY NO. 74; Were the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory No. 73 for total dust, and not just asbestos dust? ANSWER NO. 74: See this defendant's response to Interroga tory No. 73. INTERROGATORY NO. 75: State in detail what test, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using your asbestos-containing products. ANSWER NO. 75: U. S. Gypsum is aware of tests which were performed to measure the release of asbestos fibers during the mixing and sanding of joint compounds. . INTERROGATORY NO. 76: When did any official with your company first have knowledge, information, or understanding that asbestos would, could, or might produce the disease of: A. Asbestosis; B. Mesothelioma; C. Lung cancer; D. Any other diseases. E. With reference to your company, give the name of the official who first had such knowledge, information, or understanding. F. If there are any documents, records, or memoranda of any kind concerning such knowledge, list and attach copies of each. 37 ANSWER NO. 76: See attached Exhibit No. 6 PRAY, WALKER, JACKMAN, WILLIAMSON & MARLAR Wm. Gregory James, 900 Oneok Plaza Tulsa, OK 74103 (918) 584-4136 OBA #4620 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 38 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) COUNTY OF COOK ) SS VERIFICATION I. F. M. Poremski, declare: I am the Manager, Financial & Accounting Services, of United States Gypsum Company, one of the above named defendants, and am authorized to make this verification for and on behalf of said corporation: I have read the foregoing Answers, Objections, and other Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and am informed and believe that the same is true and on that ground allege that the matters therein stated are true. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed Illinois. F. M. Poremski 1 .erior r :er Fiber ilar Product Type/Use Acoustical Plaster Acoustical Piaster Acoustical Plaster Finish Plaster Finish Plaster Finish Plaster (Dates Approximately) First Last Produced Produced 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 *1964 1945 1945 *1964 1945 1955 1972 1955 1972 1930 1930 1935 1935 1950 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1951 1972 1972 1972 1972 1944 1949 1949 1942 1950 1972 1954 Exhibit 1 Manufacturing Locations Fort Dodge, 1A Midland, CA East Chicago, IN New Brighton, NY Gypsum, OH New Brighton, NY Fort Dodge, IA New Brighton, NY Fort Dodge, IA Gypsum, OH East Chicago, IN Fort Dodge, IA New Brighton, NY Fort Dodge, IA Oakfield, NY Fort Dodge, IA New Brighton, NY Sweetwater, TX Boston, MA Gypsum, OH Philadelphia, PA Jacksonville, FL Norfolk, VA Philadelphia, PA Southard, OK Finish Plaster Basecoat 1929 1942 1942 1944 1945 1945 1945 1945 1945 1945 1945 1945 1945 1948 1948 1952 1947 1946 1951 1947 1972 1952 1959 1963 1963 1965 1966 1967 1960 1952 1972 1960 Gypsum, OH New Brighton, NY Nephi, UT Milwaukee, WI South Gate, CA East Chicago, IN Heath, MT Nephi, UT Midland, CA Fort Dodge, IA Detroit, MI Sweetwater, TX Loveland, CO Southard, OK Plaster City, CA Gerlach, NV Sigurd, UT Empire, NV -1- Product Name Red Top Wood Fiber Plaster - Machine Application Cement Plaster Regular. Name changed to Gypsum Plaster 7/67; to Red Top Gypsum Plaster 11/68 Red Top Cement Plaster for Machine Application. Name changed to Red Top Gypsum Plaster for Machine Application 7/67 Red Top Structo-Lite Gypsum Plaster for Machine Application Product Tyne/Use Basecoat Basecoat Basecoat Basecoat Oriental Exterior Finish Stucco Exterior Finish Stucco (Dates Approximately) First Last Produced Produced 1959 1972 1961 1972 Manufacturing Locations Plaster City, CA East Chicago, IN 1943 1947 Loveland, CO 1962 1962 1964 1966 1966 1966 Gypsum, OH Detroit, MI Oakfield, NY 1955 1955 1957 1958 1963 1971 1930 1930 1930 1930 1932 1932 1949 1949 1962 1959 1962 1962 1972 1972 1973 1944 1972 1972 1944 1946 1972 1972 Boston, MA Detroit, MI East Chicago, IN Fort Dodge, IA Gypsum, OH Jacksonville, FL Loveland, CO New Brighton, NY Norfolk, VA Oakfield, NY Philadelphia, PA Plasterco, VA Southard, OK Sweetwater, TX Milwaukee, WI Shoals, IN Plaster City, CA Fort Dodge, IA Detroit, MI Fort Dodge, IA Gypsum, OH New Brighton, NY Oakfield, NY Sweetwater, TX Boston, MA Philadelphia, PA Milwaukee, WI . Jacksonville, FL Philadelphia, PA Norfolk, VA -2- Product Name Product Type/Use (Dates Approximately) First Last Produced Produced Manufacturing Locations Pyrobar Mortar Mix Aggregated plaster 1969 1969 1970 1972 East Chicago, IN New Brighton, NY Sheetrock Radiant Heat Filler Machine Application Specialty plaster 1971 1972 Empire, NV Bondcrete Basecoat 1940 1943 Midland, CA SPRAYDON STANDARD A Fireproofing 1966 1971 S. Plainfield , NJ Torrance, CA SPRAYDON STANDARD G SPRAYDON POWERCOTE0 Fireproofing Thermal Insulation 1968 1969 1970 1971 S. Plainfield , NJ Torrance, CA Corsicana, TX SprayDon - U. S. Gypsum manufactured this product pursuant to the specification of Sprayon Research Corporation. FIRECODE V FIRECODE D ***AC0UST0NE 120 ACOUSTONE 180 USG Fireproofing Plaster Fireproofing Plaster Ceiling Tile Ceiling Tile Texture Texolite Pac-Tex Texture Texture 1964 1959 196 7 1966 1964 1961 1943 1968 1964 1975 1976 1976 196 7 1963 East Chicago, IN New Brighton, NY ' Empire, NV New Brighton, NY East Chicago, IN Empire, NV Gypsum, OH Walworth, WI Walworth, WI Gypsum, OH Gypsum, OH Sweetwater, TX Dallas, TX Chamblee, GA Midway, IL South Gate, CA Gypsum, OH Dallas, TX New Brighton, NY South Gate, CA South Gate, CA Dallas, TX Sweetwater, TX -3- Product Name Imperial QT Product Tvpe/Use Texture "SHEETROCK" Texture Texture Textone Texture USG Textone Texture Paint USG A-B TEX Texture Paint Texture Paint Other Products (By generic group) Paste Spackling Putty ' Pipecoverings (Dates Approximately) First Last Produced Produced 1964 1976 1964 1944 1976 1975 1928 1974 1954 196 7 1964 1976 1935 1959 only 1973 only 1949 Manufacturing Locations South Gate, CA Dallas, TX Gypsum, OH Midway, IL New Brighton, NY Chamblee, GA Gypsum, OH Dallas, TX Midway, IL South Gate, CA Gypsum, OH Sweetwater, TX South Gate, CA Dallas, TX New Brighton, NY South Gate, CA Gypsum, OH Chamblee, GA New Brighton, NY Sweetwater, TX Chamblee, GA Sweetwater, TX Gypsum, OH Gypsum, OH New Brighton, NY Sweetwater, TX Midway, IL Chamblee, GA South Gate, CA 1952 1936 1975 1938 Mew Brighton, NY Gypsum, OH Chamblee, GA Sweetwater, TX Jersey City, NJ -4- Product Name Joint Compounds Product Type/Use (Dates Approximately) First Last Produced Produced 1920s? 1976 Manufacturing Locations Gypsum, OH Midway, IL Chamblee, GA Dallas, TX East Chicago, IN Jacksonville, FL South Gate, CA New Brighton, NY Sweetwater, TX Rigid Block Insulation 1943 1970 1950 19 71 East Chicago, IN Greenville, MS Siding Shingles Roofing 1937 1975 1937 196 7 Possible other dates. 1946 19 75 East Chicago, IN Jersey City, NJ St. Paul, MN South Gate, CA Thermalux Electric Heating 1961 1965 Shoals, IN (Assembled) Asbestos Cement Insulation purposes where sheet and block insulation would be impractical. 1936 1939 Jersey City, NJ NOTE: Not all products were made at all plants at all times listed. * May have been produced until this date, but sales diminished substantially by the mid-1950's.** *** ** Some of these products (Red Top Trowel Finish; Oriental Interior Finish Plaster; Red Top Cover Coat Finish Plaster; Red Top Patching Plaster; Red Top Wood Fiber Plaster Regular Basecoat; Red Top Wood Fiber Plaster Machine Application Basecoat; Cement Plaster - Regular, Name changed to Gypsum Plaster 7/67, to Red Top Gypsum Plaster Basecoat 11/68; Red Top Cement Plaster for Machine Application - Name changed to Red Top Gypsum Basecoat for Machine Application; Red Top Structo-Lite Gypsum Plaster for Machine Application Basecoat; Oriental Exterior Finish Stucco; Pyrobar Mortar Mix; Sheetrock Radiant Heat Filler - Machine Application) did not have asbestos as part of their formulation at all manufacturing locations at all times. *** Some of these products did not have asbestos as part of their formulation. Most of the products identified in this Exhibit have a shelf life of approximately six months, with some variation due to humidity and storage conditions. It is the policy of the defendant to provide this information to all customers. Therefore, date of last production approximates date of last sale, though U. S. Gypsum.is not certain whether shelf life guidelines were adhered to by its customers. Reasonable investigation continuing. PERCENTAGE OF ASBESTOS (VOLUME) Exhibit 2 ACOUSTICAL PLASTERS PRODUCTS SABINITE II IJp II SABINITE "B" SABINITE 38 (HYDRAULIC) SABINITE ACOUSTICAL PLASTER SABINITE "M" and SABINITE SPECIAL WHITE SABINITE lip II SABINITE "A" or SABINITE HYDROCAL HI-LITE ACOUSTICAL PLASTER AUDICOTE SPECIAL WHITE DATE No Change 04/18/33 11/03/33 11/10/30 04/18/32 01/13/37 07/12/39 05/23/30 01/01/31 06/29/32 05/03/40 10/18/40 01/23/48 02/27/44 07/28/50 07/28/50 09/18/52 04/04/31 04/18/33 11/03/33 06/09/53 03/31/55 09/15/55 08/24/56 10/31/56 12/14/56 03/27/57 12/02/57 12/02/57 03/10/58 03/27/58 04/04/58 05/16/58 05/29/58 05/29/58 05/29/59 PERCENT ASBE! 4.90% 2.00% 4.00% 2.40% 3.00% 2.00% 3.00% . 98% 2.50% 2.00% 4.00% 4.00% 6.30% 4.00% 3.00% 4.00% 3.00% 4.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.20% 6.30% 8.25% 7.62% 7.60% 8.00% 7.70% 6.95% 22.50% 7.10% 6.95% 22.50% 16.89% 17.09% 16.89% 16.88% Page 1 of 8 ACOUSTICAL PLASTERS PRODUCTS AUDICOTE SATIN WHITE . RED TOP ACOUSTICAL PLASTER* *SPRAYDON STANDARD A *SPRAYDON STANDARD G SPRAYDON POWERCOTE DATE 05/29/59 12/06/60 07/14/61 07/06/62 08/07/62 02/05/64 08/11/64 09/15/55 08/24/56 10/31/56 03/27/57 12/02/57 03/10/58 03/27/58 04/04/58 05/16/58 05/29/58 05/29/58 05/29/59 05/29/59 12/06/60 07/14/61 07/06/62 08/07/62 02/05/64 12/22/64 04/25/51 No Change No Change No Change PERCENT ASBESTOS 16.93% 8.33% 8.46% 7.63% 7.65% 7.64% 7.63% 8.43% 7.78% 7.76% 7.47% 26.24% 8.06% 7.47% 26.24% 19.66% 19.49% 19.66% 19.22% 19.70% 8.60% ' 8.73% 7.85% 7.87% 7.86% 7.85% 9.70% 29.70% 7.60% 30.00% * SprayDon - U. S. Gypsum manufactured this product pursuant to the specifications of Sprayon Research Corporation. TEXTURE PRODUCTS DATE PERCENT ASBFSTD^ PAC-TEX 1943 1953 1954 4.5 4.5 - 6.0 3.5 Page 2 of 8 A-B TEX USG TEXTONE TEXTURE PAINT SPECIAL TEXTURE PAINT SPRAY TEXTURE PAINT IMPROVED SPRAY TEXTURE MULTI-PURPOSE TEXTURE SANDED COLORED TEXTURE PAINT USG MULTI-PURPOSE TEXTURE PAINT USG TEXTURE PAINT SPRAY TEXTURE PAINT USG MULTI-PURPOSE SPECIAL WHITE USG MULTI-PURPOSE USG MULTI-PURPOSE SPECIAL TEXTURE PAINT USG MULTI-PURPOSE SPRAY TEXTURE 1935 1943 1944 1928 1930 1934 1938 1943 1947 1952 1955 1956 1958 1960 1970 1971 No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change 1954 19 64 No Change 1966 1968 1969 No Change No Change No Change 1956 No Change 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.3 - 4.5 2.8 - 4.5 3.3 - 4.5 2.67 - 5.0 2.67 - 6.0 2.67 - 8.0 2.5 - 3.5 1.2 - 3.5 2.3 - 3.5 1.2 - 6.0 1.2 - 10.0 .5 - 10.0 .5 - 3.5 3.0- 4.0 1.5 - 2.5- 1.5 - 2.5 6.0 - 10.0 2.0 - 4.0 1.0 - 1.4 6.0 - 10.0 2.5 Unknown 5.0 2.0 5.0 6.0 - 10.0 4.0 Unknown 4.0 Page 3 of 0 USG MULTI-PURPOSE SPRAY TEXTURE 1972 1973 SPRAY TEXTURE No Change AB TEX TEXTURE PAINT No Change AB TEX TEXTURE PAINT No Change USG TEXTURE MULTI-PURPOSE No Change 1971 SPRAY TEXTURE PAINT WHITE SPRAY TEXTURE PAINT 1969 1973 1958 1971 SPRAY TEXTURE PAINT No Change SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY No Change SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY No Change SPRAY TEXTURE No Change SPRAY TEXTURE SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY AGGREGATED SPRAY TEXTURE AGGREGATED SPRAY TEXTURE SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY "QT" SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY No Change No Change 1961 1962 No Change 1962 1963 No Change 1964 1969 1971 IMPERIAL QT SPRAY No Change AGGREGATED SPRAY No Change Page 1 of 8 Unknown 4.0 1.5 - 2.5 .5 1.2 - 1.6 1.6 - 3.5 Unknown 7.3 0.0 1.5 - 3.0 4.5 - 6.0 1.5 - 3.0 8.0 8.0 1.5 - 3.0 1.5 - 4.0 8.0 Unknown 8.0 1.0 1.0 .5 - 1.5 2.0 2.0 5.0 4.4 . 1.5 2.8 IMPERIAL QT REGULAR VERMICULITE SPRAY TEXTURE SMOOTH HARD FINISH IMPERIAL QT TEXTURE USG SUPER HARD SPRAY USG SPRAY TEXTURE SPRAY TEXTURE FINISH USG TEXTURE XII USG SPRAY TEXTURE USG TEXTURE XII SUPER VINYL USG SPRAY TEXTURE FINISH SHEETROCK SMOOTHCOAT USG EXTERIOR TEXTURE WALL30ARD FINISH EXTRA HARD FINE IMPERIAL QT SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY TEXTURE SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY TEXTURE IMPERIAL QT TEXTURE SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change 1971 1972 1971 1974 No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change 2.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.2 5.0 .1 3.0 5.0 3.0 Unknown 4.0 5.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 - 3 8.0 8.0 4.0 6.0 6.5 10.0 Page 5 of 8 SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY No Change SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY No Change SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY No Change SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY No Change IMPERIAL QT IMPERIAL QT IMPERIAL QT No Change No Change No Change IMPERIAL QT MULTI-PURPOSE TEXTURE No Change No Change READY-MIXED SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY 1966 IMPERIAL QT 1966 IMPERIAL QT 1966 IMPERIAL QT 1966 IMPERIAL QT IMPERIAL QT Polystrene 1966 1966 SHEETROCK RADIANT HEAT SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY 1966 SHEETROCK SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY 1966 SHEETROCK SIMULATED ACOUSTICAL SPRAY 1966 AGGREGATED SPRAY TEXTURE 1966 IMPERIAL QT REGULAR 1967 IMPERIAL QT REGULAR NC-4 1967 1968 Page 6 of 8 8.0 2.5 - 4.5 2.5 - 3.5 2.0 2.0 8.0 5.0 4.0 2.6 Unknown 4.6 .94 - 1. 2.0 - 3.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 3.5 5.0 Unknown 8.0 6.0 IMPERIAL QT No Change 2.0 USG SPRAY TEXTURE FINISH 1965 .5 USG SPRAY TEXTURE FINISH 1965 .5 XH WHITE 1968 .5 - 1.5 AGGREGATED SPRAY TEXTURE No Change 1.0 IMPERIAL QT No Change 2.0 IMPERIAL QT No Change 4.0 IMPERIAL QT COARSE VERMICULITE No Change 2.0 IMPERIAL QT COARSE VERMICULITE 1970 1971 5.1 6.1 USG SPRAY TEXTURE R ,No Change 1.5 USG CONCRETE CEILING TEXTURE No Change 6.0 TEXTONE TEXTURE FINISH 1944 1967 1972 2.5 - 4.5 3.5 - 5 . 5 2.5 - 4.5 Miscellaneous Specialty Plasters - Generally less than 1% Fireproofing Plasters Firecode V Firecode V Type D Approximately 12% Approximately 12% Ceiling Tile Acoustone 120* Acoustone 180 Approximately 3% Approximately 3% Texture Products - Approximately 3 - 5 %. Investioai_Lon continues as to individual texture products. Paste Spackling Putty - Approximately 3% Pipccoverings - Approximately 30 - 91% *Not all formulations contained asbestos. Page 7 of 8 Asbestos-Containing Products Reasons for Discontinuation: Exhibit 3 I. Sabinite was replaced by Audicote and Hi-Lite in the marketplace. Audicote and Hi-Lite were discontinued because the low profitability of these products did not justify the expense of research efforts to reformulate without asbestos. II. Cost of Compliance with proposed lower OSHA standards within the plant. III. At the direction of Sprayon Research Corporation. IV. The low profitability of these products did not justify the expense of research efforts to reformulate without asbestos. V. Low Profitability.* ** Product Categories Acoustical Plasters Plasters Fireproofing Plasters Fireproofing Thermal Insulation Ceiling Tile Textures Roofing Joint Compounds Pipe Covering Asbestos Cement Rigid Block Insula-ion Block Insulation Cement Siding Paste Spackling Putty Reason for Discontinuation I II V III III 11 II II II V V V IV II & IV II ' Last Date of Manufacture 1974 1972 1970 1972 1971 1976 1976 1976 1976 1938 1939 1950 1971 1975 1975 * Includes production by subsidiary. ** U. S. Gypsum Company manufactured this product pursuant to the specifications of Sprayon Research Corporation. Exhibit 4 ASBESTOS CONTAINING PRODUCTS Acoustical Plasters - grayish-white; Miscellaneous Specialty Plasters - white to off-white plus some pastels for two products; Fireproofing - grayish-white; Fireproofing Plasters - white to off-white; Ceiling Tile - white to off-white Texture Products - whits to off-white; Paste Spack-ling Putty, Pipecoverings, Joint Compounds, Rigid Block Insulation, Mortar - white to off-white; Siding - white, gray, ivory, green, brown; Roofing - red, green, blue, brown, black and gray Medical Personnel Retained/Consul ted Oakfield. New York R. C. Warn. M.D. J. Diasio, M.D. Chamblee. Georgia H. M. Schreeder. M.D. W.C. McGraw, M.D. Greenville. Mississippi J. B. Hirsch. Sr.. M.D. 0. Beck. M.D. J. B. Hirsch. Jr., M.D. Corsiciana, Texas A. L. Grizzafi, M.D. Dallas. Texas Launey Medical & Surgical Clinic D. G. Launey. M.D. S. L. Gilbert. M.D. F. C. Atkinson. M.D. R. F. Duchouquette. M.D W. D. Stevenson. M.D. D. H. Waddell. M.D. R. R. Henry, M.D. 2. L. Dameron, M.D. W. D. Lee, M.D. Page 1 of 4 Exhibit 5 Jacksonville. Florida J. H. Mitchell. M.D. J. L. Mitchell. M. D. Plasterco. Virginia J. A. Sawyers. M.D. P. W. Cowherd, M.D. Sweetwater. Texas C. A. Rosebrough. M.D. A. H. Fortner. M.D. S. - A. Loeb. M.D. J. K. Richardson, M.D. T. D. Young. M.D. F. Hood. M.D. R. L. Price, M.D. Detroit. Michigan R. L. St. Louis. M.D. K. Hergt, M.D. East Chicago, Indiana R. J. Liehr. M.D. F. F. Boys. M.D. F. A. Benchik. M.D. G. A. Thegze. M.D. J. Demkowicz. R.N. Fort Dodge. Iowa Fort Dodge Medical Center T. J. Michelfalder. M.D. C. L. Dagle. M.D. M. E. Kraushaar, M.D. Page 2 of 4 Fort Dodae, Iowa cont. J. J. Landhuis. M.D. G. L. LeValley, M.D. J. W. Rathke, M.D. R. H. Brandt, M.D. J. R. Kersten, M.D. W. C. Robb, M.D. H. H. Kersten, M.D. R. E. Woodard, M.D. Gvfsum. Ohio C. J. Yeisley, M.D. A. J. Miessner. M.D. P. Hughes, M.D. K. Ritter, M.D. K. Akins. M.D. M. Jennings, R.N. Shoals, Indiana E. B. Lett, M.D. . R. E. Chattin, M.D. Empire, Nevada Sparks Medical Clinic J. M. Watson, M.D. M. Raymond, M.D. J. C. Kelly, M.D. F. C. Stokes, M.D. Torrance, California *V Casey, M.D. J. Anable, M.D. Dr. Cook Page 3 of 4 South Gate. California H. Caesar. M.D. Family Medical Clinic (Various physicians. Names unavailable) Firestone Medical Group (Various physicians. Names unavailable) Tacoma. Washington , B. Archer, M.D. Walworth. Wisconsin D..R. Hansen, M.D. I. J. Bruhn. M.D. J. A. Carroll, M.D. A. C. Sapida, M.D. Boston. Massachusetts V. Rubin, M.D. E. Staffier. M.D. A. C. Leavitt. M.D. Sullivan Square American Mutual Insurance Clinic Massachusetts General Hospital The plants at New Brighton. New York; Jersey City, New Jersey; St. Paul, Minnesota; Midway, Illinois; South Plainfield New Jersey; and Midland, California are no longer in operation. Identifiable information on medical personnel is not maintained for plants no longer in operation by United States Gypsum Company. Page 4 of 1 Exhibit 6 United States Gypsum Company has been aware since the mid-1930's that inhalation of large quantities of asbestos fibers for long periods of time could produce a pneumoconiotic lung condition known as asbestosis. United States Gypsum Company is presently unaware of specifically now it acquired this knowledge. United States Gypsum Company is not aware of precisely when it first knew of the relationship between the inhalation of asbestos fibers and the development of bronchogenic carcinoma, except that it does know that one of its employees. E. C. Beuthin, United States Gypsum Company's first Safety Director, has stated in his deposition that he attended a conference in 1955. at which papers discussing this relationship were presented. . Documents produced in other litigation pertaining to this issue have come to U. S. Gypsum's attention. These documents were produced by other parties; U. S. Gypsum has not found them in its own files and can make no representations concerning the origin or authenticity of those documents. The documents suggest that in approximately October 1948. U. S. Gypsum may have received a draft report concerning inhalation experiments on laboratory animals exposed to high levels of asbestos dust. It was reported that some of the animals developed lesions described variously as lung cancer and non-malignant adenomas. U. s. Gypsum believes that these are the same experimental results reported to the National Cancer Institute by Dr. L. U. Gardner in 1943 and Dr. Kenneth M. Lynch in 1947 and referred to by Drs. Lynch. Mclver and Cain in their 1956 published article, "Pulmonary Tumors In Mice Exposed To Asbestos Dust." 15 A.M.A. Archives of Industrial Health 207 (March 1957), which was received for publication in 1956. United States Gypsum Company is now aware that the first published study which established a direct association between the inhalation of asbestos fibers and the development of mesothelioma was the 1960 epidemiological study entitled "Diffuse Pleural Mesothelioma and Asbestos Exposure in the North Western Cape Province" by J. C. Wagner, et al., which described mesothelioma occurrence among persons exposed to crocidolite', at or near crocidolite mines in South Africa. United States Gypsum Company is not aware of precisely when it first knew of the relationship between the inhalation of asbestos fibers and the development of mesothelioma, except that it believes that the first employee to become aware of this association was G. R. Krug, one of United States Gypsum Company's former Safety Directors. Mr. Krug has testified that he first became aware in the early to mid-1960's of the association between exposure to asbestos fibers and the development of mesothelioma in asbestos miners, as a result of reading articles in newspapers and magazines. Page 2 of 2 * The following represents this defendant's best current information Exhibit 7 ORGANIZATION Gypsum Association DATES OF MEMBERSHIP HEALTH HAZARDS OF ASBESTOS DISCUSSED AT MEETINGS ATTENDED BY UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY PERSONNEL DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 1930-present Asbestos discussed at all of the following: Membership meetings: 10/27/71 - 10/28/71 E. W. Duffy, W. W. Holloway, A. J. Watt 4/5/72 - J. H. Crumbaugh, A. R. Rump, C. G. Gramor, A. J. Watt, M. L. Hepsher, W. W. Holloway 4/4/73 - J. S. Bush, W. W. Holloway, A. J. Watt, C. G. Gramor, J. D. May, J. J. McLaughlin 10/10/73 - 10/12/73 W. W. Holloway, A. J, Watt Minutes of meetings, but these documents are not in this defendant's files produced to this defendan in litigation by Gypsum Association. This defendant does not know if such individuals actually attended meeting: listed in documents produc to this defendant by Gypsu Association in other litigation. Also, some test results are in this defendant's files. Safety Committee Meetings: 9/20/66 - P. D. Fix, G. R. Krug 9/17/67 - C. P. Kipp 3/19/68 - 3/20/68 - G. R. Krug 10/25/71 - W. E . Halley, J . D. Cornell, J. M. Rochers 9/19/73 - J. D. Cornell 3/7/74 - J. D. Cornell, M. R. Helton 8/14/74 - J. D. Cornell Manufacturing & Mining Committee: 4/3/73 - W. W. Holloway, H. D. Gobrecht Page 1 of 6 ORGANIZATION Gypsum Association (cont.) Industrial Health Foundation (But not Industrial Hygiene Foundation) DATES OF MEMBERSHIP HEALTH HAZARDS OF ASBESTOS DISCUSSED AT MEETINGS ATTENDED BY UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY PERSONNEL DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY Manufacturing & Mining Committee: 4/9/74 - W. W. Holloway 10/8/74 - W. W. Holloway, H. D. Gobrecht 8/10/76 - J. D. Cornell, K. E. Mohler, U. Lewis Technical Committee: 2/14/73 - 12/16/73 J. H. Crumbaugh 8/1/73 - 8/3/73 J. H. Crumbaugh, A. L. Hampton, R. L. Selbe 11/73 and 1/74 - unknown 2/13/74 - 2/15/74 J. H. Crumbaugh 8/7/74 - 8/9/74 J. H. Crumbaugh, R. L. Selbe Board of Directors: 4/5/73, 10/12/73 A. J. Watt 1974-1981 (budget cut backs forced United States Gypsum J Company to drop membership) No business meetings Some "discussionals" Industrial Hygiene Digest Monthly Abstracts 1/74 - 12/81 (JDC's) Asbestos was discussed at the following meetings: Annual Business Reports (JDC's) Introduction to Industrial Hygiene Asbestos Sampling Chemicals for Industrial Hygiene C. Roe 1978-1979 . Toxicology Chemicals and Engineering S. H. Beming - 1/10/79 - 1/21/79 Page 2 of 6 ORGANIZATION Lime Association *National Insulation Manufacturers Association (Founded in 1958) (Now TIMA) Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association National Insulation Contractors Association (Associate Member) National Safety Council National Mineral Wool Association DATES OF MEMBERSHIP HEALTH HAZARDS OF ASBESTOS DISCUSSED AT MEETINGS ATTENDED BY UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY PERSONNEL DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY________________ Industrial Hygiene Techniques Update, Advanced Industrial Hygiene S. H. Beming - 11/12/79 - 11/14/79 Seminar Regarding Industrial Health J. D. Cornell - 6/8/75 - 6/9/75 Other personnel involved: J. D. Cornell, S. H. Beming, K. S. Freeman, C. Roe exact date unknown unknown none 1973-1974 unknown Minutes produced in other litigation (Wm. Simpson deposition) (1958-?) 1974-present none Some mass correspondence letters regarding committe J. D. Cornell was on health and safety, public information, medical and scientific dated 1978 to t. present. unknown (perhaps 1972-present?) none NICA by Laws dated 1975; NICA's 1981 Annual Report. 1914-present none 19437-1957 mid-1960's mid-1970's none Transactions from 1912-197E records of all presentatior and papers produced at Phillip E. Schmidt, deposit and document production April 17, 1984, in Neil Woe none Page 3 of 6 ORGANIZATION DATES OF MEMBERSHIP Contracting Plaster and Lathers International (Associate Member) 1960-1969 International Association Wall and Ceiling Contractors (Associate Member) 1970-1976 Gypsum Drywall Contractors International (Associate Member) 1960-1976 unknown Association of Wall and Ceiling . Contractors Industries International Gypsum Drywall Contractors International (Associate Member) 1976-1979 Association of Wall and Ceiling Contractors Industries International 1980-present American Society of Safety Engineers exact dates unknown American Industrial Hygienists Association exact dates unknown HEALTH HAZARDS OF ASBESTOS DISCUSSED AT MEETINGS ATTENDED BY UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY PERSONNEL none none none none none unknown unknown ' DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY Some documents in M. V. Cook's and J. Edwards' fil Some documents in M. V. Cook's and J. Edwards' fil Some documents in M. V. Cook's and J. Edwards' fil Some documents in M. V. Cook's and J. Edwards' fil none none Page 4 of 6 ORGANIZATION DATES OF MEMBERSHIP Employing Plasterers Association (Associate Member) present Metal Lath Association 1950* s-1964 Pulp and Paper 1950* s-1964 Institute Hardboard Association 1950's-1964 Health and Safety Council of Asbestos Cement Products Association 19677-1971? Asbestos Information Association of North America Unknown if a member. National Bureau of Standards not a member not a member American Standards Association (never a member; served on committees) became ANSI 1969 similar to ASTM (sustaining member) unknown; involvement at least 15 years ago HEALTH HAZARDS OF ASBESTOS DISCUSSED AT MEETINGS ATTENDED BY UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY PERSONNEL unknown unknown unknown unknown G. R. Krug - Ll/19/68 C. P. Kipp (deceased) or L. A. Tobey (deceased) 2/17/70; 2/18/70; 3/19/70; 5/19/70; 11/19/70 none 1978 - J. D. Cornell, K. S. Freeman (retired) Rockville, MD, jointly sponsored by NBS and NIOSH re: Asbestos and Health unknown DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY none none none none November 21, 1968 memo frc Krug to Kipp re: meeting and various minutes from other meetings. none none  ORGANIZATION Asbestos Textile Institute SOEH/IOEH DATES OF MEMBERSHIP never a member never a member HEALTH HAZARDS OF ASBESTOS DISCUSSED AT MEETINGS ATTENDED BY UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY PERSONNEL none DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY "Occupational Exposures to Fibrous and Particulate Dust and Their Extentions into the Environment" 12/5/77 - 12/7/77 J. D. Cornell (others?) none *Membership information pertaining to these organizations is not available in this defendant's files. United States Gypsum Company does not and has not belonged to: Quebec Asbestos Mining Association - QAMA Asbestos Research Council of England Public Health Bulletin Service Plastering and Lath Association Chicago Plastering Institute Perlite Institute Page 6 of 6 Exhibit 8 r. * This defendant is primarily insured by the following: Dates of Coverage prior to 4/1/42 4/1/42 - 4/1/43 4/1/43 - 4/10/49 4/10/49 - 3/10/52 3/10/52 - 3/10/55 3/10/55 - 4/1/58 4/1/58 - 4/1/61 4/1/61 - 4/1/62 4/1/62 - 2/1/63 2/1/63 - 2/1/64 2/1/64 - 2/1/65 2/1/65 - 2/1/66 2/1/66 - 2/1/67 2/1/67 - 2/1/68 2/1/68 - 2/1/69 2/1/69 - 2/1/70 2/1/70 - 4/1/71 4/1/71 - 2/1/72 2/1/72 - 2/1/73 2/1/73 - 2/1/74 2/1/74 - 2/1/75 2/1/75 - 7/1/75 7/1/75 - 7/30/79 8/1/79 - 7/31/82 8/1/82 present Carrier Policy Number unknown unknown The Hartford unknown Liberty Mutual unknown Lloyd's of London unknown Lloyd's of London C36693 Lloyd's of London 642295 Lloyd's of London RS907609 American Motorists 1 YM 1147000 American Motorists unknown American Mutual BLPL 952989-12-OD American Mutual BLPL 952989-12-ID American Mutual BLPL 95.2989-12-2D American Mutual BLPL 952989-12-3D American Mutual BLPL 952989-12-4D American Mutual BLPL 952989-12-5D American Mutual BLPL 952989-12-6D American Mutual BLPL 952989-12-7D Kemper 1ZM127-724 Kemper 2ZM127-724 Kemper 3ZM127-724 Kemper 4ZM127-724 Kemper 5ZM127-7-24 The Travelers TR-NSL-13 5T060 -1-' CNA 005 30 96 37 Primary self insurance rentention admini stered by Gallagher Bassett Insurance Service The amount of coverage, if applicable, is sufficient to cover the instant claims. General questions concerning apportionment of claims and application of deductibles are presently before the courts and unresolved. Exhibit 9 U. S. Gypsum does not maintain examples of actual packaging in the normal course of business. All packaging contained the product name, this defendant's name, directions and instructions for use. To this defendant's best knowledge, information and belief, the product packaging for its asbestos-containing products was as follows: Acoustical Plaster Kraft Paper Bags Miscellaneous Plasters Kraft Paper Bags Stucco Kraft Paper Bags Fireproofing Plaster Kraft Paper Bags Joint Compound Kraft Paper Bags, metal and plastic buckets and cardboard cartons Spray Textures Kraft Paper Bags, metal and plastic buckets and cardboard cartons Block Insulation Cardboard Cartons Pipecovering Cardboard Cartons Spackling Paste Metal and plastic cans buckets and pails Ceiling Tile Cardboard Cartons Asbestos Cement Burlap bags, cardboard cartons Available packaging bulletins dealing with products which plaintiff can establish were relevant to this lawsuit will be made available to the plaintiff for inspection at a mutually convenient time at 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago. IL 60606.