Document g2wygnMxBo7NzwKdDrqEX0nw3

CAUSE NO. 96-00261 LLOYD CHAMPION AND DORIS MAE CHAMPION; WILTON CHESTER JORDAN AND FRANK LEWIS SAUNDERS H VS. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL. 9c 9c IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO: Plaintiff Lloyd Champion, by and through their attorney of record, Peter A. Kraus /Kimberly A Castles, Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219 Defendants Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSRC) and Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC), pursuant to Rules 166(b) and 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures, hereby serve their Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set ofInterrogatories as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The following responses are being provided after diligent investigation and inquiry by Defendant. However, because some of the evidence relating to the matters inquired about by Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories occurred more than forty (40) years ago, the availability of persons involved and the existence of applicable documents has been limited. As a result of the foregoing factors, many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge ofthe matters to which Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories relate are deceased, retired, or are otherwise unavailable to NSRC, and investigations to date indicate that at least some documents which relate to matters inquired about by these interrogatories may have been destroyed in keeping with normal corporate record retention policy. Accordingly, some answers are possibly incomplete. NSRC's investigation is continuing and should additional information surface. DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PIAINTIFFS* FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Patel supplemental responses will be submitted. The following is a part of and is incorporated by reference in every response provided hereinafter: This response is accurate as ofthe date ofthe Answers ofDefendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories. However, NSRC's investigation is continuing, and NSRC cannot exclude the possibility that it may be able to obtain more complete information or even information which indicates that the answer being supplied is incorrect. NSRC objects to responding to this interrogatory in regard to any period of time other than the period during which it allegedly employed Plaintiff. NSRC objects to providing information about geographic locations and operating units within the system other than those at which and for whom Plaintiff worked. The basis for such objections are that any responses would be irrelevant to the subject matter ofthe pending litigation, would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and would be burdensome and oppressive to NSRC. The responses that follow, unless otherwise apparent from the context, are limited to the specific period (1953-1963) that NSRC allegedly employed Plaintiff as a switchman; and to the area in and around Selma, Demopolis, Mobile and Rome, Alabama, the places where Plaintiff allegedly worked for NSRC. Defendant, Norfolk Southern Corporation, objects to answering each and every interrogatory in this First Set of Interrogatories due to the fact that the Plaintiff was never an employee ofthis Defendant and it was not in existence at the time ofthe Plaintiffs alleged employment. Effective June 1, 1982, Southern Railway Company and Norfolk and Western Railway Company became sister corporations and the stock of each became owned by the Norfolk Southern Corporation, a non- carrier holding company which had never operated a railroad. Each of the carriers continued to operate as separate legal entities, a practice which continues to date. Southern Railway Company subsequently changed its name to Norfolk Southern Railway Company, but never employed the Plaintiff. Norfolk Southern Railway Company remains a separate and distinct entity. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES P*t2 INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of all positions, titles, or jobs held while working for Defendant of each person who supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: It would be impossible to identify all persons who were consulted in connection with the answers to these interrogatories, and Defendants object to the interrogatory to the extent it seeks information within the work product privilege and the investigative/party communication privilege. NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the interrogatory is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State the full and proper business name and address ofthe Defendant. State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the address ofyour principal place ofbusiness, the name and address ofthe person or entity authorized to accept service ofprocess on your behalf and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate ofAuthority to do business in the State ofTexas, maintained a registered agent in Texas, engaged in business in Texas or recruited or hired employees in Texas. ANSWER: Norfolk Southern Railway Company, One Commercial Place, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. NSRC is a corporation, organized and existing in the State of Virginia, with its principal place of business in Norfolk, Virginia.. Defendants object to the portion ofInterrogatory No. 2 devoted to a Certificate ofAuthority and operating in the State of Texas for the reason that Plaintiff, Lloyd Champion, ifhe worked for NSRC, did not do so in the State of Texas. Therefore, the response ofNSRC to such interrogatories could not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: With regard to each policy of liability insurance intended to provide coverage to Defendant, its agents and/or employees for the liability in connection with the allegations such as those delineated in Plaintiffs Original and Amended Petitions including, but not limited to, all primary and excess policies covering the Defendant for such liability, state the name and address of each carrier. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State whether you contend that the Plaintiff has done anything or failed to do anything that constitutes contributory negligence. If so, please describe the basis ofyour contention and what evidence exists to support that contention. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 3 ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that the request is premature. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State whether you contend that the Plaintiffhas done or foiled to do anything that constitutes a failure to mitigate damages. If so, please describe the basis of your contention and what evidence exists to support that contention. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that the request is premature. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: List each and every place ofwork and job assignment ofthe Plaintiff which he held during his employment with Defendant and describe in detail the duties involved in each ofthe job assignments. ANSWER: See Preliminary Statement and General Objection. NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the interrogatory is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Describe in detail how asbestos containing products were used by railroad workers on Defendant's railroad(s) during the period ofPlaintiffs employment by Defendant. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: that the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms ofgeographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe in detail where asbestos containing products were used by railroad workers on Defendant's railroad(s) during the period of Plaintiffs employment by Defendant. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms ofgeographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pa<e 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 9: If you have alleged in your answer that Plaintiffs injuries and/or damages were caused by some other injury, disease or condition, either pre-existing or unrelated to and arising after or in conjunction with the Plaintiffs exposure to asbestos-containing products, please describe in detail such pre-existing or subsequent disease, injury or condition. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that the request is premature. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please state the name of each and every person having knowledge of facts relevant to this action including most recent address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeach and every person, known to Defendant's agents, including, but not limited to: A. Identification of asbestos-containing products or type ofproducts to which Plaintiff was exposed or facts disputing the identification ofthese products; B. Plaintiffs damages, injuries and/or facts disputing Plaintiffs damages and/or injuries; and C. The negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause ofPlaintiffs injuries and/or damages. D. Each ofDefendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed answer. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request is infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify documents or things, including x-rays, MRI'S, CTscans or other materials, which will be used at time of trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each ofDefendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request is infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. DEFENDANTS1 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES P*fe5 INTERROGATORY NO, 12: Identify the names and addresses of all individuals Defendant may call as an expert witnesses) at trial, and for each individual, please state: A. The subject matter on which the witness is expected to testify, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, the substance ofthe facts and opinions to which the witness intends to testify on the Defendant's behalf and a summary of the grounds for each opinion, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case; B. All factual observations, test results, supporting data, learned treatise (books, general articles, texts or other publications) and opinions which the witness has generated, been provided, intends to use, and/or may use to support his/her opinions and conclusions relative to the case whereupon which the witness has or will base his/her testimony in this matter, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case. The identity, address and job classification of each consulting expert whose opinions or data have been referred to and/or relied upon by the expert witness, and the complete title and author of each learned treatise referred to and/or relied upon by the witness for information and/or corroborating his/her opinions regarding the subject matter ofthis lawsuit. C. Whether any person identified in subparagraph B above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify each such document or report, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group. D. Identify all documents or other materials, including but not limited to x-rays, pathology, CT-scans, you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph B above, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group. E. Describe in detail the education and work history o and identify any books, treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph B above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify all persons, entities, agencies or others, whether governmental (state or federal) or private, who participated in any investigation of the claims made the basis ofthis lawsuit. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Fifei ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state whether Defendant or any successor or predecessor was ever a member of the Railroad Claims Registry, and if so, please state the years Defendant was a member; the years of attendance at and involvement in the Railroad Claims Registry Meetings; the name, job classification, address and telephone number ofeach and every agent and/or representative and/or employee ofDefendant attending each and every Railroad Claims Registry Meeting and the year that agent and/or representative and/or employee ofDefendant attended the meeting; and the location ofthe Railroad Claims Registry Meeting for each year attended by Defendant. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms of time; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number of interrogatories permitted by Rule 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. IS: Please state whether Defendant or any successor or predecessor ever attended or sent an agent on its behalfto any ofthe Association ofAmerican Railroads and American Railway Association meetings from 1930 to the present, and if so, please state the years of attendance; the location of the meeting; the name, address, job classification and telephone number of each and every agent and/or employee and/or representative ofDefendant attending each and every Association of American Railroads and American Railway Association meeting and the exact year of attendance. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 7 ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms of time; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted by Rule 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Before 1980, did Defendant receive notice that any individual who at any time was employed by the Defendant claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, state: A. The name and address ofeach claimant; B. The date of notice ofeach claim; C. A description of the claim; D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained by each claimant; E. The name and address ofeach attorney who represented each individual making a claim; F. The style and court number of each claim; G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. H. The name, address and title ofthe person having custody ofthe records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would b unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted by Rule 168 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PafcS INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Before 1980, did Defendant receive notice that any individual who at any time was employed by any Railroad claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, state: A. The name and address of each claimant; B. The date of notice of each claim; C. A description ofthe claim; D. The type ofinjuries allegedly sustained by each claimant; . The name and address of each attorney who represented each individual making a claim; F. The style and court number of each claim; G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. H. The name, address and title ofthe person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would b unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted by Rule 168 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Has Defendant at any time published, distributed or displayed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, warning signs or statements, packaging or other written material of any kind or character containing any warning concerning the possibility ofinjury resulting from the use ofasbestos-containing products and/or exposure to airborne asbestos? If so, state: A. The exact wording ofeach warning statement and a description of the material upon which the warning was printed; B. The method(s) used to distribute the materials to persons likely to use the asbestos-containing products or likely to be exposed to airborne asbestos; C. The date each warning was first issued or distributed; D. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning statements and/or written materials; E. The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof, F. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, i.e., the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 9 ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms of time; the request is unlimited in terms of geographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds die scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Did Defendant install, replace, use, repair, assemble, transport or store, either as an original appurtenance ofthe railroad or placed in/on the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad, any asbestos-containing products during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant? If so, identify: A. By name and number each of Defendant's railroad(s), whether operating or in railyards, upon which the asbestos-containing product(s) were installed, repaired, used, stored or transported during the time Plaintiffworked for Defendant; B. The particular type of asbestos-containing product(s); C. The trade or brand name ofeach of the asbestos-containing products; D. The years during which each named asbestos product was applied, stored, used, repaired, installed or transported either as an original appurtenance ofthe railroad or placed on/in the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad(s); and E. The dates of any removal or abatement of such asbestos-containing products, from Defendant's railroad(s). ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms ofgeographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted by Rule 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* FIRST SET OP INTERROGATORIES Pae 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Did any entities or persons at Defendant's direction, whether direct or indirect, including but not limited to contractors and subcontractors install, replace, use, repair, assemble, transport or store, either as an original appurtenance ofthe railroad or placed in/on the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad, any asbestos-containing products during the time Plaintiffworked for Defendant? If so, identify: A. By name and number each of Defendant's railroad(s), whether operating or in railyards, upon which the asbestos-containing product(s) were installed, repaired, used, stored or transported during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant; B. The particular type of asbestos-containing produces); C. The trade or brand name of each ofthe asbestos-containing products; D. The years during which each named asbestos product was applied, stored, used, repaired, installed or transported either as an original appurtenance of the railroad or placed on/in the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad(s); and E. The dates of any removal or abatement of such asbestos-containing products, from Defendant's railroad(s). ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms ofgeographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted by Rule 168 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO, 21: Ifthe answer to any portion of the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative and/or ifany asbestos-containing products are identified in response to such interrogatory, state the following as to each identified product: A. The name(s) of the railroad workers repairing, replacing or using each asbestoscontaining product on Defendant's railroad(s) during Plaintiffs period of employment by Defendant; B. A description of the physical appearance of each of the named asbestos-containing products; C. A detailed description ofthe uses ofthe named asbestos-containing products; D. A detailed description of the areas on Defendant's railroad where such asbestos- containing products were installed, replaced or used. DEPENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pate 11 ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms ofgeographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted by Rule 168 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Has Defendant or any other entity at the direction ofDefendant, contracted with another entity for the acquisition, ordering, purchasing, supplying or distributing of asbestos-containing products, at any time prior to or during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. If so, identify: A. Each ofDefendant's railroad components by name and number for winch the asbestoscontaining products were ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed during the time Plaintiffwas employed by Defendant; B. The particular type of asbestos-containing products acquired; C. The trade or brand name of each of those asbestos-containing products ordered. Purchased, supplied or distributed; D. The years such asbestos-containing products were acquired, ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed by Defendant; E. The dates of any removal or abatement of asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms ofgeographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted by Rule 168 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PCc 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Ifyour answer to any portion of the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, or ifany asbestos-containing products, are identified in response to that interrogatory, state the following as to each product: A. The name(s) of the company(ies), entity(ies), manufacturers) from which the asbestos-containing products were acquired, ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; B. The date(s) each asbestos-containing product was ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; C. A description ofthe physical appearance of each of the named asbestos-containing product; D. A detailed description of the uses ofthe named asbestos-containing products; E. Identify the last year that Defendant ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed each identified asbestos-containing product. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms ofgeographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted by Rule 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State whether Defendant maintained from 1950 through the present copies ofinvoices, shipping receipts, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the purchase or acquisition of asbestos-containing products. If so, state: A The location ofsuch 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. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms ofgeographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly DEFENDANTS1 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* FIRST SET OP INTERROGATORIES Fate 13 burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, tiie request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. NSRC further objects to tins interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted by Rule 168 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Identify all persons, including name, address and telephone number, who provided and/or conducted or were responsible for conducting any type of safety training, during the time Plaintiffwas employed by Defendant. ANSWER: Defendants object to this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms ofgeographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. NSRC further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted by Rule 168 of the Texas Rules of CivD Procedure. Respectfully submitted, JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 112 East Pecan Street, Suite 2100 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone (210) 978-7700 Telecopier (2l 978-^796 QBy: JAMES L. WALKER State Bar No. 20708500 LEO D. FIGUEROA State Bar No. 06984100 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, NORFOLK AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pafe 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. Peter A. Kraus/Kimberiy A. Castles, Baron & Budd, The Centrum, Suite 1100, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219, on this the day of August, 1997. All defense counsel may request a copy ofthis document. 1618692 DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pae 15