Document g2kMgMqmZXGMDbdnkrmypwmze

FILE NAME: US Gypsum (USG) DATE: January 23, 1984 DOC#: USG005 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: 1984 Legal - Filing of the Defense 7* IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION n jE G O tlD E Lexington County School District Five, Plaintiff, vs. JAN tA *84 i > fE M g n n s ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 82-2072-0 United States Gypsum Company, Johns-Manville Corporation, Johns-Manville Canada* Inc., and Johns-Manville Amiante Canada, Inc., DEFENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY Defendants. TO THE PLAINTIFF, LEXINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FIVE, AND ITS ATTORNEY,* DANIEL A. SPEIGHTS, ESQUIRE: 1. List by brand name every product containing ; asbestos which you have ever manufactured. As to each such product, state the following: (a) type of product (e.g., acoustical plaster, fireprocfing, etc.); (b) the date the product first went into production; . (c) the last date the product was produced; (d) the last date the product was sold; N (e) all manufacturing locations; (f) dates of manufacture at each location; (g) the identity of each plant manager or works manager and each quality control superintendent at aach location during aaid production, and the dates thereof; r U\LL Wb '^4 lc;**'*.r.n;srLi'jnio & f^unirm JS J V (h) the identity of etch physician, industrial hygienist, nurss, or medical or health officer at each location ' from the date the product wee first manufactured there until the present, and the dates thereof; (i) the percentage of asbestos, and the dates and all reasons for any modification thereto; (j) the type of asbestos; <k) the source of asbestos; (l) the. color, physical characteristic, and appearance of the product; (m) a full and precise description of the package in which the product was sold, including, but not limited to, a type of package, size, color(s), and writings thereon; sold; (n) all other names under which the product was (o) the number and date of each patent or patent application as to the product; (p) if the product continued to be produced after the deletion of asbestos, ell reasons why the asbestos was deleted, the identity of the person who made the decision to delete the asbestos, and the date the product was first produced without the asbestos; (g) if the product is no longer produced reasons it was discontinued, the identity of the person who made the decision to discontinue the product, the brand name of the replacement product, and the date the replacement product first went into production; . ... 2 -h* '  - ' - 4,bVV* '*"*', - . ....r' \ \.,,. ` (r) a precise description of your identifying logo or initials and the dates of inclusion on the product) and (a) the identity of the custodian of ac containers or photographs of containers of the product. RESPONSE: Objection. The only product allegedly at issue in this lawsuit is acoustical plaster. To the extent that this Interrogatory requests information about asbestos-containing products manufactured by this defendant other than acoustical plasters this defendant objects on the grounds it is unduly burdensome, would subject this defendant to undue expense, is . not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and there is no limitation of times applicable to e plaintiff. Acoustical plasters manufactured and sold by this defendant were: Sabinite, Hi-Lite, Audicote. (a) Acoustical plaster; (b) Sabinite: approximately 1930; Audicote: approximately 1955; Hi-Lite: approximately 1955; (c) Sabinite: unknown, but sales diminished substantially by the mid-1950's. ' Audicote: approximately 1972; Hi-Lite: approximately 1972; (d) See (c); (e) Sabinite: Port Dodge, Zowa; New Brighton, New York; Gypsum, Ohio; Midland, California; East Chicago, Indiana; - 3- *** *-. Audicotet New Brighton, New York, Fort Do,,., xow.. . ,, r l v m / ntario, Canada (sales believed to be Canadian 7 .... -- . > . .. ,, ;r :r " ,r z r ... .............. . - (f) See (b) and (e); (9) Plant/Works Managers: Fort Don,.. T~.-- r . Relnl(ing #/a/ai.,/15/JJ> steph#fti f / M / J j W ; " s inweu 1/1/3i-2/i5/37' . d . 2/it/37.,/5/4S, M . e . . 7 / 9 / 4 ^ ^3/46'S/3#/4,' HU O W a y 7/l/-7//49, r . d . Rudolph " 3/23/52' J> "* 3//52-10/15/52( m . E. Davidson /16/S2-2/1/7. G. W. Kellogg 1/1/76-10/31/79. D. d. Nootene . 1/79-6/31/81. H. D. Reimer 9/1/81-present. Cyp.um, ohi,, . d. K . u ey 7/16/29-9/18/30, R. D. He.. 9/19/30-3/31/32, B. w. . Welty 4/1/32-2/6/39, F. j. Reinking 2/7/39-S/15/42, B. E. Welty ' 5/16/423/30/62, M. M. Fischer 4/1/62-9/12/76, R . j. Appleyerd 9/13/76present. East Chicago, indv,,.. A . A# Frosdlck 7/1/29-9/22/30. E. R. Hill 9/23/30-9/26/32, D. D. Wilson 9/27/32-11/4/37, p. S . Coen 11/5/37-7/31/39. R. w, Thoma, 8/1/39-9/1S/42. J. B. Hayford 9/16/42-1/27/44. R. w. Thomas 1944 " Bostwick 3/15/44-11/28/48. A. R. Runp U/2,/48-3/23/52 H ' I. Neeley 3/24/52-2/15/62. S. E. Martin 2/16/62-3/31/63. H ` Ke..en 4/1/631/31/82. >. R. Garceau 2/1 /#2-pre..nt. See ' ` obi action (e,. above. The plant, .t New Brighton, New York, and Midland, California, ar. no longer i,, operation, id.ntifi.hi. information on work, nager. i. not or p l M t i no longer in operation by this defendant. Investigation continue.. ^ -4- o vh i*M^rM orciwiii o* R u m m : vN . Th#r i> no repoaitory of historic*! information on Quality Control Superintendant. If any auch Individual can be identified, the information will be upplied. (h) This defendant has employed many individual, * largely to assist in work-related injuries at plants. To attempt to identify each such individual would be burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and USG objects on those grounds. , (i) Sabi/iite: 2.0-6.3% Hi-Lites 6.2-6.3% Audicote* 6.95-26.241 This variation is usually reflective of formula changes relating to working properties. ( (j) Chrysotile; (k) The following are known to have been approved suppliers of asbestos: Canadian Johns-Manville, Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Nicolet Industries, Carey-Canadian and Asbestos Corpora tion. Investigation continues. This defendant has located no documentation to ascertain from whom asbestos was purchased and actually used in the manufacture of Sabinite, Bi-Lite or Audicote. (1) Grayish-white; <m) Audicote was packaged in 35- and 40-pound paper bags printed with product and Company name and direction for application. Various bag sises were 19" X 3* X 40-41"; and 21H-22" X 35-3/4 to 42". a. 1 |M I CC 06 '94 12:45PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN * -- ' .. - ''-v:P.?/3 Hi-Lit* and it* precursorv Red Top Acoustical Plaster were packaged in 40-pound paper bags printed with product and . Company name and directions for application. Bag size was 18" X ~ 3" x 37". ... Sabinite was packaged in 33-* 50-, 54-, and 100-pound paper bags printed with product and Company name and directions for application. Various bag sices were 18" X 3" X 35" to 37%* and 21" X 38" to 39". (n) None. However* there may have been a product \ - known as Red Top Acoustical Plaster* which later became Hi-Lite. Zt is presently unknown whether any material under this name was commercially produced. . (o) None (p) Not applicable. . (g) Low profitability. Decision not made by a ' single individual and cannot even definitively be traced to a specific group of individuals. Decisions relating to profit ability and product retention are made, with input from many groups within the company. No replacement product. (r) Identifying logo may be examined in litera ture produced in response and Supplemental Response to y Plaintiff's Request to Produce No. 7 and Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories* No. 22(c). It consists of the letters *US" in upper case with a lower case "g" centered iamediately below* ' This defendant believes this logo was used throughout the time period that these products were manufactured and aold by this _ -f - ,r defendant. t - 8- Dt(- 06 '94 12:46PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN 'IPJFTs-. fro-- <> s. K. Torrey, Senior Attorney . t 01 South Hacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois oios. . * s. U . t by brand name very othar product contain!, Bo x --- -- -- . ~ M $ P 0 M S E ' S*e ob^ection to Supplemental Interrogatory 3. State the following with respect to each aabe construction product ever manufactured or distributed by you, ingredient? ' (a) All reasons why asbestos was used as an (b) All other materials which could have performed the same function in a satisfactory manner, <e) The verbatim content of each warranty or guarantee applicable to the performance or safety of the product and the applicable dates of each. ' o. 1. RESPONSE, Se. objection to Supplemental Interrogatory in addition, this defendant object, generally to the Phrase, -asbestos products- and -asbestos ceiling plasters- .. used in these Interrogatories on the ground, that are undefined an* vague terms. This defendant doas not now nor ha. it ever anufactured asbestos product, and asbestos ceiling plaster, a. d,f*na`nt Under,t" <1` th0" * - Without waiving the.. objection? (a) Asbestos was used in acoustical plaste improve -slip- .,,a working properties, ~ 7- * * * : ;tirv -V*iw (b) Non; (c) Without admitting th. l*,,! ,uffiei.ncy thereof, to the extent euoh en expre.e warranty or guerentee exlete, it ie contained in literature produced in keeponae and ' Supplemental keeponae to Plaintiff, keque.t to Produce Wo. 7 and Plaintiff* Firat set of Interrogatorie* Bo. 22(c). no other expree. warranty or guarantee was L a u e d with th.au product, in the routine couree of business. 4. Rave you .or anyone acting on your hehelf ever conducted any re.e.rch, te.ting, ,tudy or analyaia pertaining to the quality and/or performance of your asbeatoa eonatruction product, to determine the effect of water damage, mold, ru.t, . condenaation, wind, impact, vandeliam, aging, and other form. v . Of wear, rear and abra.ion on the quality or performance and/or field eucceaa or failure of auch product*? following; if *o, atate the (a) a full description of all research, testing, studies, cr analysis undertaken; . . (b) the name., preaent address**, and employment titles of all persons who participated in any such research, tests, studies, or analyses; (c) the dates on which all such research, tests, studies, or analyses were conducted; (d) the results or conclusions reached as a result of auch research, tests, studies or analyses; iny design changes bade in* your products as - a result of such research, tests, studies, or anslyses; ' I 3 s- U w ic.**4( r n a r L i w i a & rrumnn V . 1/ .A. *r (f) any instructions, direction., or other information provided to building owner, or occupier. .. . result of uch research, tests, studies or analyses. RESPONSE, See objection, to Supplemental Interrogatory No.. 1 and 3. Without waiving these objection., thi. defendant has undertaken research projects concerning various performance parameter, of the acoustical plasters identified in Response to Supplemental Interrogatory No. 1. Documents responsive to thi. . Interrogatory, if any, concerning the acoustical plasters identi fied in Response to Supplemental Interrogatory 0. 1 will be made available for inspection and copying at a mutually convenient time at 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois. This defendant will seek an appropriate protective order from the court (or stipulation amoung counsel) concerning dissemination of the information contained in the documents and no documents will be produced prior to the court's ruling on the motion. -Hard . copies- of these documents must be made from microfilm, in which these documents are not segregated from documents relating to all other product# which may have been the subject of research. Therefore, this defendant will need considerable advance notice m order to make documents available for inspection and any costs associated with said production to be borne by the party ' requesting same. Rule 33(c). Such document, will be tendered pursuant to 5. Please state whether you or anyone acting on yo behalf ever conducted any research, testing or studies of any kind to determine whether any of your construction products posmd 1 ut^ ub l a r m a r t ib m a & kuhtmti 11/ *ny hazards or dng.r. to th. ha.lth or a.f.ty of tho.. parson, who would utilise, inhabit. or oth.rwi.a occupy building, or ' > etrueture. in which those products hed been applied. forth in detail, If .0 , ,.t . .. (> a full description of all reaaarch, testing or studies undertaken to determine whether said products were for such persons; (b) the identity of ,11 person, who par in any such research, teats or studies; . (cl the dates on which all each research, teste, or studies were conducted; <d) the results or conclusions reached as a * result of such research, tests, or studies; (e) result of such studies; any design changes siade in your prod - (f) any corrective measures made by you enclosure, removal, abatement, operation end maintenance planning or cleaning ae a result of euch studiaa; (9) the identity of ell documents that in any way relate to the conduct of any auch research, Seating or atudlat or e rasulta thereof, and the identity of the person who has custody thereof. S SISfse, see Objection, to Supplemental Interrogatory Hoe. 1, and 3 . Without waiving thaaa objections, yea, with respect to Audieote Acoustical Plaster. . '. ~ % f - 10- DEC 08 '94 12=48PM SPEIGHTS & RLNY" (a) Air sampling to determine whether asbestos fibers were released and remained suspended in air during attempts to physically mar the Audicote Acoustical Plaster ceiling. (b) J. J. Peter, NATLSCO, Manager, Industrial Hygiene,- Dr. Morton Corn, Morton Corn 6 Associates; J. S. Coreki, HATLSCO, Industrial Hygieniet/Ventilation, P. Landsman, Wolfe, Rosenberg (stenographic transcription) P. Rosenberg, Wolfe, Rosenberg (supervisor of videotaping), R. P. Brown, Morgen. Lewis s Bockits; S. K. Torrey, OSG, Senior Attorney - Litigation, T, 8. Snell, OSG, Vice President, General Counsel, J. D. Cornell, OSG, Manager, Corporate Occupational Safety * Health, S. H. Bernini, OSG, safety Manager, J. P. Hernn. OSG. Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance, P. Hughes, OSG, unknown, but similar to Communications Manager, J. Reich, OSG, Supervisor Engineering Adv./Comm., M. Thibeau, OSG, Assistant Producer Adv./Comm.! R. Gilkinson, OSG, Video Engineer, J. A. Wronski, HATLSCO, Manager. Environmental Science. Laboratory, G. J. Krafciein, HATLSCO, Vice president. Health Services, J. H. caris, HATLSCO, Manager, Industrial Hygiene. (c) March 25-2, 182. Analyeie of filters occurred aubsequently. <d) Ho asbestos fibers were released from Audicote Acoustical Plaster in this test. (a) Hot applicable. <f) Hot applicable. -11 DEX 06 '94 12:49PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN (g) NATLSCOi Acoustical Plaster Study F Gypsum by Joseph J. Fster, Manager, Industrial Hygiene. HATLSCO and counsel for defendant. 6. State the following with respect to the sale asbestos construction products during the entire period such products were manufactured or distributed by you: (a) the name and description of the sales region or regions for the sale of construction products, including ell modifications thereto, which included or serviced this state, and the dates thereof; (b) the address of each sales office located in said sales region or regions, and the dates thereof; * (c) the identity of each sales person who sold construction products in this state, and the dates thereof; (d) the identity of ell authorized dealers in . this state or any contiguous state, and the dates thereof; (e) the identity of all documents which refer, reflect, or relate to the sale, distribution or shipment of asbestos construction products within said region or regions, including, but not limited to, all sales records, invoices, . computer printouts, bills of lading, freight bills, shipping orders, or other documents of transfer, and the identity of the person or persons who have the custody thereof; (f) the gross annual sales in dollars and in volume for each asbestos construction product in said salas region or regions. * - 12- t m/ E E O T S i 12U 9 W "S$IG H TS & R U N TM 2 5 2 PONSE, See objection, to Supplemental Vt , J T ~ Z I. d.f.ndant object! further on the ,round, th.t tory U not l i m i t * to P U i n t t f f . g r a p h i c a l thi Interrogatory ie no *n*-hmit waiving these objections: Southern Con.truetlon Product. Olvl.ion and lt8 predece.eor, Southern * * * * * (b) This defendant W ***** w ^ ,, y ,.le. office in Sooth Caroline. I930*s -1970 (c) <5. `Keller E. R. Grubb 1959-1970 j. J. O 'Malley 1948-present G. MacBain 1964-present 1956-present F. Re Mullin 1959-present j* R. Parnell 1966-present W. E. Tarpley , - in South Carolina have <d) The following dealers in . .e*rilv ordered and sold this . j w/h* all have necessarily or been identified. Not all nav defendant', acou.tieel plaster.. ' Lumber Co. Columbia Lumber Co. Central Roofing i Supply Bagnell Building Supply FranX Ulmer Lbr* Co# C. L. Cannon 6 Sons CBS Lumber CO* Citi.en. ullder urt -1 a b \ Df.C 06 '.J4^ 12.:49PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN 'i ` . * -it*--AV. ' * jv. *:*.. Builders' Wholesale supply circle Lumber Co. Spartanburg Lumber and Mill Work Co Neely Wholesale Supply Co. Ken Supply Co. Roebuck Lbr. Co. Berry Builders* mart Clement Lbr. Co. Maccp Building Supplies Brown, Rogers s Dixson Wholesale Distributors Co. Taylors Lumber Co. Greer Lumber Co. Greer Builders' Supply Co. Cromer ( Sullivan Holman Co. Drywall a Contracting, Inc. Central Concrete a plaster, Inc Stewart Lbr. Co. Clempson Lbr. Co. Snead Bldrs. Supply Co. V. E. Edwards Co. S. S. Smith Lbr. Co. Tryon Lbr. C o Fountain Lbr Co. Quality Bldrs. Supply Co. Shaw Lumber Co. -14 . CC 06 '94 12:49PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN <r--yp.T S T S " Dealers Wholesale Inc. Myrtle Beach Lumber Co. Camden Building Supply Miller Lumber Co. Economy Builders' Supply Martin Paint t Supply ' City Builders* Service Todd Lumber Co. * Catawba Lumber Co. Ace Builders' Hdve. Porter-Bell Lumber co. Builders' Supply Co. . . McBride Builders' Supply (e) This defendant has no sales records for the year, prior to 1965. without waiving th. objections set forth in Response to Supplemental interrogatory No. 1. such records a. it ha. for acoustical plasters for the period fro 1965 forward are contained in computer print-out. which have been produced to plaintiff'a counsel in sirhisnd County School District On. v. Johns-ManvlHe Sales Corporation et il. (f) . See Response to (e) above. 7. Identify all sales literature including brochures, advertisements > pamphlet. or other at.ri.1 pertaining to each asbatoa con.truction product ever manufactured or di.tributed by you. E S P O U S E . 8. objection, to Supplemental Intarrogatory 1 and 1. Without waiving thesa objections, documents Mo b . - 15- 0 S ^ 9 4 12:50PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYRN r . i i / -*V- reapon.ive to thi Interrogatory have boon produced in re.ponae to plaintiff's Requoit to produce No. 7 ond Plaintiff's Pirot Sot of Interrogator!* No. 22(e). 8. Identify any instruction, direction# technical bulletins, materiel data shoots, or other documents provided to distributors, contractors, supply houses, sales persons, or building earners pertaining to the application, maintenance, or repair of each asbestos construction product ever mwuf.ctured or distributed by you. RESPONSE. Seo Response to Supplemental Interrogatory Mo a 7. s. Identify all sources of raw asbestos fiber . beginning in 194 and going to date, on a yearly basis, and with respect to each, the m u a i gross dollar mount end gross werght of asbestos fiber purchased. RESPONSE. See Response to Supplemental Interrogatory No. 1<K). Investigation continues as to the annual gross dollar amount and gross weight of asbestos fiber purchased. 10. Identify all warnings, cautions, caveats, inst tions. or direction, accompanying raw ..to. fiber purchased by you and the date* thereof. RESPONSE. See Response to Supplemental Interrogatory NO 1(h). This defendant ha. located no documentation to a.c.rteln from who. asbestos ws. purchaaed. however, thi. daf.ndant i. now aware that warning, were given by John.-ManviUe, which is not a party to thi. with ahipment. of raw aabeato. beginning in the aid-1960'. - 16- WL'w u 2*4 ii tirn & k u w Hn i-\ -V 11. State tha following with respect to asbestosis: (a) the date you firat heard it alleged there ie u causal connection between aabeatoaia and the inhalation of asbestos, the identity of the peraon and/or document that waa the source of such allegation, the identity of the peraon who received such information, and the identity of all documents generated as a result of the receipt of such information; <b) the date you first recognized that there is a causal connection *>etween asbestosis and the inhalation of asbestos, the identity of all persons or documents upon which you relied in arriving at that conclusion, and the identity of all documents generated as a result of such recognition? ^ (c) as to each type of asbestos fiber contained in your esbeatos products, the minimum dose you contend is suffi cient to cause or contribute to such condition for a smoker and for a non-smoker. RESPONSE: (a) 1975. Litigation filed against this defen dant. Various individuals may have read material in the popular press in the late 1960*s. (b) Objection. This Interrogatory calls for a medical conclusion, and has been or will be the subject of medical expert testimony. This defendant recognizes that OSHA, in 1972, adopted regulations concerning exposure to asbestos in the workplace as a result of its presumed recognition of a causal connection between the inhalation of asbestos end the - 17- 6 '94" 'i2:50PM SPEIGHTS 8. RUNYAN V-. 1' ^ / ' distase asbaatosis. No employ of thie def.nd.nt i. ,u.llii.d in the area of occupational medicine. <c> S objection, to Supplemental Interrogatory NO. 3 and 11 (b>. Thi. defendant object, further that thi. interrogatory call, for a medical conclu.ion. Thi. will be the subject of expert medical te.timony. U S - S & . - deposition, the following expert witne.se taken by plaintiff coun.e herein in connection with ,. m n s t y rhnol F a v states Gypsum company. et a U , Carolina, action No. 83-2073-0 = Ian T. T. Ni,, i n . October 1, 1983, Han. Neill, daposed January S. 198, and E. Craighead, deposed January 7, 198. . 12. State the following with respect to lung cancer. (a) the date you first heard it alleged that there i. a causal connection between lung cancer and the inhalation of asbestos. th. identity of the per.on and/or document that was the source of such .negation, the i en Who received such information and the identity of the person who received s -.ad as a result of the receipt of such of all document generated as a resu information; f . _i recoonitsd that there (b) the date you first reeogni.e is a causal connection between lung cancer and the inhalatio of asbestoa. th. identity of ail P-sona or document, upon which you relied in arriving at that conclu.ion. and the i en .11 document, generated as a r.ault of ouch r.cognit on, (c) .. so each type of asbestos fiber contain.* in your a.ba.to. product., the m i n i - do., you contand is - 18- DEC 06 '94 12:51PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN P.2 sufficient to ciuse or contribute to such condition for e smoker . i and for a non-smoker. RESPONSE: (a) Late 1970*s. Litigation filed against this defendant. (b) Objection. This Interrogatory calls for a medical conclusion and has been or will be the subject of medical expert testimony. This defendant recognises that OSHA, in 1972 adopted regulations concerning exposure to asbestos in the work place as a result of its presumed recognition of a causal connection between the inhalation of asbestos and lung cancer. No employee of this defendant is qualified in the area of * occupational medicine. (c ) See Objections to Supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 11(b). This defendant objects further that this Interrogatory calls for a medical conclusion. This will be the subject cf expert medical testimony. See e.g., depositions of the following expert witnesses taken by. plaintiff's counsel herein in connection with Lexington County School District Five v. United States Gypsum Company, et al. District of South Carolina, Action No. 82-2072-0: Ian T. T. Higgins deposed October 19, 1983; Hans Weill, deposed January 5, 1984; and John E. Craighead, deposed January 7, 1984. 13. State the following with respect to mesothelioma* (a) the date you first heard it alleged there is a causal connection between mesothelioma and the inhala tion of asbestos, the identity of the person and/or documant that J ggff.- DEC 06 '94 12:51PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYHTi ' % . . -. ' . w a s the source of such allegation, the identity of the person who received such information, and the identity of all documents generated as a result of the receipt of such information; (b) the date you first recognized that there is a causal connection between mesothelioma and the inhalation of asbestos, the identity of all persons or documents upon which you relied in arriving at that conclusion, and the identity of all documents generated as a result of such recognition; (c) as *to each type of asbestos fiber contained in your asbestos products, the minimum dose you contend is suffi cient to cause or contribute to such condition for a smoker and for a non-smoker. . RESPONSE: ( (a) Late 1970's or around 1980. Litigation filed against this defendant. (b) Objection. This Interrogatory calls for a medical conclusion and has been or will be the subject of medical expert testimony. This defendant recognizes that OSHA, in 1972, adopted regulations concerning exposure to asbeBtos in the work place as a result of its presumed recognition of a causal connection between the inhalation of asbestos and mesothelioma * / No employee of this defendant is qualified in the area of occupational medicine. (c) See Objections to Supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 11(b). This defendant objects further that this interrogatory calls for a medical conclusion. This will be the subject of expert medical testimony. See, e.q., depositions of -20 Hgr* *"- DEC 06 '94 12! 52PM SPEIGHTS 8. RUNYAN ;p.22/35!S3t* the following export witnesses taken by plaintiff c o u n f ^ ^ r - herein in connection with Lexington County school District v* Statea Gypsum Company, et al.. District of South Carolina, Action No. 82-2072-0: Ian T. T. Higgins, deposed October 19, 1983; Hans Weill, deposed January 5, 1984; and John E. Craighead, deposed January 7, 1984. 14. List each notice, claim, allegation, or statem that you have ever received that an injury or disease resulted from exposure to or use,of any asbestos or any asbestos product manufactured or distributed by you, and with respect to each, state the following: (a) the name and address of each claimant; (b) the date of the notice of each claim; (c) a description of the claim (e.g. workmen's compensation, third party liability action, disability insurance claim, complaint letter, etc.); sustained; (d) the type of injury or disease allegedly (e) the name and address of the attorney, if any, who represented the individual making the claim; (f) where applicable, the style and court number / or other designation of the claim; disposed of; (g) the resolution of each claim that has been (h) the identity of the custodian of all records that relate to the claim* 21- r.\ * ' DEC 06 '94 12:52PM SPEIGHTS 8. RUNYAN 'P.237 Response1 (.) through <g) See objection to Supple ment.! Interrogatory No. 3. In edditlon, thi. defendant object. .' on the ground, th.t the record, are irrelevant and would lead to no admissible evidence .bout acou.tleal pla.ter in .chool.. The Interrogatory has no applicable tie i. overly broad and ia insufficiently precise in designation of the information ought. Thi. defendant object, further on the ground of privi lege and that the listing of the infornation would be unduly burdensome. , (h) Supervisor of Files. S. K. Torrey and/or Dorothy Littlejo 15. List each notice, claim, allegation, or statem that you have received from or on behalf of a building owner or occupier that a potential or actual health hazard existed because of the existence of an asbestos product therein. As to each, provide the information requested in the preceding Interrogatory. RESPONSE: To the extent that any such documents relate to acoustical plaster, documents responsive to this Interrogatory will be made available for inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time at 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. 16. Identify all internal documents of this Defenda where the potential health effects of asbestos have been discussed, including, but not limited to, minutes of product safety, health, industrial hygiene, or other committees; records relating to any decision to include or exclude asbestos from any product; records relating to any proposed warning, caution or instruction for placement of asbestos-containing products; T"' d e c 06 '94 12:53PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYON K' - ^ S W P F ' % * 'j - V `* medical, health or industriel hygiene reporta) recorde or reporta concerning any proposed or actual surveillance program? and document.) or memoranda reporting on seminars, medical literature, newspaper articles, litigation, or meetings with members of the medical or health community, or other members of industry or insurance representatives. RESPONSE: See Objection to Supplemental Interrogatory . No. 1. This Interrogatory is overbroad in that it is not limited . to plaintiff's geographical area, nor to the product at issue with regard to this defendant. The review of all defendant's ^ (%) documents answering the descriptions in this Interrogatory for of asbestos would be so time-consuming as to be unduly. burdensome and unreasonable. Without waiving these objections, to the best of this defendant's knowledge, documents responsive to this Request were produced in Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, No. 22(c). Investigation continues. 17. Identify all documents, reports, or communications received by this Defendant any workmen'* compensation insurance carrier or products liability insurance carrier pertaining to the hazards of asbestos or of asbestos products. aware. RESPONSE; None of which this defendant is currently / 18. Identify all documents, reports or communications rceived by this Defendant from any supplier or raw asbestos or any other manufacturer or distributor of asbestos products per taining to the alleged hazards of asbastos or asbestos products - 23- TEC 06 '94 12:53PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN t RESPONSE! Se Objection to Supplemental Interrogatory No. 3. Without waiving thia objection# this defendant is now aware that warning were given by John-Manvilie# which ia not a party to this case# with shipments of raw asbestos beginning in the mid-1960's, however, it is not currently aware of when its employees or agents first became aware of these warnings. This defendant is currently aware of no warnings regarding asbestos placed on any acoustical plaster product. 19. Identify,all other documents received by this Defendant where the potential health effects of asbestos have been discussed, including# but not limited to, medical literature# health or industrial hygiene reports, newspaper . articles, periodicals, books, communications with health facilities, communications with insurance carriers# communications with other manufacturers or distributors# seminar literature, trade association documents, or reports of any tests# studies or surveillance programs. RESPONSE: See Objection to Supplemental Interrogatory No. 1. This Interrogatory is overbroad in that it is not limited to plaintiff's geographical area# nor to the product at issue with regard to this defendant. The review of all defendant's documents answering the descriptions in this Interrogatory for mention of asbestos would be so time-consuming as to be unduly burdensome and unreasonable. 20. Did you ever conduct any dust studies of any of your asbestos product manufacturing facilitias and/or any dust -24 'K DEC 06 '94 12:54PM SPEIGHTS & KUINYHIN r.i.b/^-' studies relating to the actual use of your product? If so# with respect to each: (a) identify the person or entity who conducted the study and the dates thereof; (b) state the complete results of each study; (c) identify all documents that refer, reflect, or relate to the study, and the person who has custody thereof; (d) explain all actions taken as a result of the study. , RESPONSE: See Objections to Supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 3. Without waiving this objection, none of which this defendant is currently aware relating to acoustical plasters.a There was no "actual use" of acoustical plasters in this defen dant's manufacturing facilities. 21. Bave you or anyone on your behalf ever conduct sponsored or contributed financially to any tests, studies or research pertaining to the health consequences of asbestos or asbestos products. If so, with respect to each: (a) identify the person or entity who conducted the test, study or research, and the dates thereof; (b) state the complete results of each test or study; <c) identify all documents that refer, reflect or relate to the test or study, and the person who has custody thereof; <d) explain all actions taken as a result of the test, study or research to DEC 06 '94 12:54PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN r . c. i ' RESPONSE: None of which this defendant is currently aware, however, this defendant is aware through documents produced in other litigation that it may have contributed to a study conducted in approximately 1936 "concerning asbestos or asbestos-related diseases" by Dr. LeRoy Gardner of the Saranac Labs. However, no information or documents have been located in this defendant's files concerning the nature or extent of its participation, if any. See Objections to Supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 3. 22. Did anyone ever make any recommendations and/or suggestions to you pertaining to the alleged risks and hazards associated with the manufacturing or use of products containing ` asbestos? If so, with respect to each recommendation or sugges tion , state the following: (a) the identity of the person who made the recommendation or suggestion, and the date thereof; (b) the identity of the person to whom the recom mendation or suggestion was made. . (c) the substance of the recommendation or suggestion; (d) explain all actions taken as the re the recommendation or suggestion. RESPONSE: See Objections to Supplemental Interrogatory No. 1. Without waiving this objection, none of which this defen dant is currently aware concerning the manufacture of acoustical plasters. 26- DEC 06 '94 12:54PM SPEIGHTS 8. RUNYAN P.28/35T. 23. Identify any medical axaainatien or surveillanc program offered or sponsored by you or your insurance carrier for employees handling or otherwise exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos products. With respect to each such program, please state: (a) the location or locations where such program was in effect; (b) the manner of communicating with employees about such program; ^ (c) whether examination was mandatory or optional; (d) the percentage of workers permitted to ^ undergo such examination and the percentage of workers who actually participated; (e) the identity of each worker who was found to have asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, lung abnormalities. (f) the identity of the person most knowledgeable about the program; (g) the identity of all documents relatin program, and the person who has custody thereof. RESPONSE; See Objections to Supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 3, An annual X-ray program for those employees of this defendant regularly exposed to dust, including, but not limited to asbestos in the course of employment was instituted in 1959 (a) It is not known which plants participated. 27 DE 06 '94 12 =55PM SPEIGHTS 8. RUNYAN p ': w - (b) Unknown for earlier year. Since 1971, via personnel supervisor. (c) Mandatory. (d) This defendant has no data regarding the number of employees who participated* (e) To this defendant's best knowledge, no employee of this defendant has been found to have asbestosis, mesothelioma, or bronchogenic carcinoma through participation in this program. , (f) J. O. Cornell, Manager, Corporate Occupational Safety & Health. (g) Internal Bulletins dated 1959-1983. R. E. Clark, Supervisor, Manual Systems. 24. Identify all trade organizations, associations other entities to which you or your representative have ever been a member of or participated in, including but not limited to Asbestos Textile Industry, Industrial Health Foundation, NIMA, Asbestos Information Association, NICA,.TIMA, Quebec Asbestos Mining Association, PICA, QAPA, Asbestos Cement Producers Association, Asbestos Information Association of North America, Gypsum Association, National Safety Council, Mineral Fibers Products Bureau, Sprayed Mineral Fiber Manufacturers Association, with respect to each, state the followings (a) Identify all persons attending any m on your behalf, and the years of attendance. - 28- EEC 06 '94 12:55PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN P.30/35 (b) Identify all document! submitted by you or your representative relating to asbestos or any occupational disease, (c) Identify all documents received by you or your representative relating to asbestos or any occupational disease. No. 1. RESPONSE: See Objection to Supplemental Interrogatory Without waiving this objection, this defendant was a member of no trade association of which it is aware which was concerned either solely or principally with acoustical plaster products. Of the associations listed in this Interrogatory this defendant has been a member of IHF and TIMA since 1974 and has been a member of NIMA and NICA, but exact dates of membership are unknown. This defendant has been and is currently a member of the Gypsum Association since 1914 and the National Safety Council (dates unknown, investigation continues). (a) TIMA - J. D. Cornell, M. R. Helton (1974); NICA - J. W. Jaeger; IHF - J. D. Cornell, S. H. Berning, and K. S. Freeman; Gypsum Association - J. D. Cornell, J. C. Edwards, C. P. Kipp, G. Krug, . Beuthin, W. W. Holloway, V. Noble, R. P. Entz (1960-1981), J. M. Crumbaugh (1971-present), w. Veschuroff, J. A. Robertson (1947-?), R. L. Selbe (7-1971); National Safety Council - unknown, investigation continues. (b)-(c) This defendant is not specifically aware of any documents relating to asbestos or any occupational disease submitted or received by this defendant or its representative. DEC 06 '34 12:56PM SPEIGHTS & R U N Y m P.31/35*" This defendant has received the Industrial Hygiene Digest since 1978 which nosy contain such references* 25. Explain in detail the best method for determining the airborne concentration of asbestos fibers. RESPONSE: Through the use of recognized air sampling techniques# e.g., NIOSH and further analysis to determine presence of asbestos, e.g., electron microscopy. 26. State the following with respect to buildings owned or occupied by you: (a) the identity of all facilities where the products Audicote, Hilite, Firecode, and Imperial Q.T. have been placed since 1950. (b) e the identity of all facilities where the products referred to in No. 26(a) above have been removed since 1965, and all reasons therefor. (c) the identity of all facilities where the products referred to in No. 26(a) above have been encapsulated since 1955, and all reasons therefor. (d) the identity of all facilities where samples of any asbestos product have been taken for analysis, the identity of all documents generated thereby, and the identity of / the person who has custody of such documents. (e) the identity of all facilities where air samples have been taken to determine the concentration of airborne asbestos, the identity of all documenta generated closeby, and the identity of the person who has custody of such documents. 30- DC 06 '94 12:56PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN P.32/35 RESPONSE: (a) Audicote Acoustical Plaster is known to be in this defendant's offices located at 101 South Wacker Drive# Chicago, Illinois. (b) The material referred to in (a) above is still in place. (c) The Audicote Acoustical plaster ceilings may have been painted in connection with ordinary interior decoration, but not for,the purpose of encapsulating the material to prevent the release of asbestos fibers. (d) See Responses to Supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 5, 20 and 26(a). S. K. Torrey. (e) See Responses to Supplemental Interrogatory Nos. S, 20 and 26(a). 27. For all documents gathered in response to each Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, please state the following: (a) the names and addresses of all persons involved in the gathering of documents in response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. (b) a description of said involvement of each / person named above. (c) the sources of all sales records provided in response to each of Plaintiff's Request for Production of Docu ments . - 31- rC 06 '94 12:56PM SPEIGHTS 2, RUNYAN f .J >: RESPONSE: (a) The documents provided in Response to Plain tiffs Request for Production of Documents have been compiled over a period of several years by a number of different employees* It would be impossible for this defendant to identify each Individual who has been involved. * (b) See Response to Supplemental interrogatory No. 27(a). (c) The original source of the informati previously supplied to plaintiff relating to sales of acoustical plaster in South Carolina were invoices. These invoices are no longer maintained in the ordinary course of business of this a defendant. However, information previously contained in the invoice is maintained in a computer data base. This data base was used to generate the information previously supplied to plaintiff and which comprises the print-out of sales shipped to South Carolina previously supplied the plaintiff's counsel herein in connection with Richland County School District One, v. W. Grace Company, et al. ROBINSON, MCAFDDEN, MOORE, POPE, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR * BRAILSFORD, P.A. Columbia, South Carolina 23rd day of January, 1984 32- 7m UEC 06 '94 12:57PM SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN P.34/35 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS COUNTY OF COOK VERIFICATION 1 JOHN F. HERNAN, declare: I am tha Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance, of United States Gypsum Company, one of the above named defendants, and am authorised to make this verification for and on behalf of said corporation; ( I have read the foregoing Answers, Objections and Other Responses to Plaintiff*s Supplemental Interrogatories and am informed and believe that the same is true and on that ground e 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 on January 18, 1984, in Chicago, Illinois. John F. Hernan Subscribed and sworn to before me this D! 06 '94 12:57PM SPEIGHTS 2, RUNYAN P. 35/351 CERTIFICATE OP MAILING Thi* is to certify that I, Christine L. Charette, secretary with the fina of Robinson, MePaddan, Moore, Popa, Williams, Taylor a Brailsford, P.A., have this data sarvad Denial A. Speights, attorney for the plaintiff in the foregoing matter with defendant United States Gypsum Company's Responses to Plaintiff's Supplemental Interrogatories to Defendant United States Gypsum Company by placing a copy of same in the United States mail with adequate postage thereon, addressed as follows* Daniel A. Speights, Esquire p. o. Box 621 . Hampton, SC 29924 Dated at Columbia, South Carolina this 23fljL>iay of January, 1984. ROBINSON, MCFADDEN, MOORE, POPE. WILLIAMS, TAYLOR 4 BRAILSFORD, P.A. f\ sy_