Document gE2kwrqagxJJzK7yr8V9JM1D3
PLAINTIFFS
IS EXHIBIT
a BLC-54
\v
1 Duane Grummer, Esq. (State Bar #59445)
John J. Mifsud, Esq. (State Bar #172659) 2 LYNCH, GILARDI & GRUMMER
50 Francisco Street, Suite 400 3 San Francisco, California 94133 -
Telephone: (415) 397-2800 4 Facsimile: (415) 397-0937
RECEIVED FEB 2 5 1997
5 Attorneys for Defendant, A.P. GREEN SERVICES, INC.
6 f/k/a BIGELOW-LIPTAK CORP.
WARTNICK LAW FIRM
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
KAREN GATTON, as Personal
) No. 970360
Representative of the Estate )
of JERALD A. GATTON,
) A.P. GREENSERVICES'
deceased; and KAREN GATTON,
) RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
Individually and on Behalf of ) FORMINTERROGATORIES
the Legal Heirs of JERALD A.
) ________________________________________
GATTON, deceased,
)
);
Plaintiffs,
);
16 vs. 17 ABEX CORPORATION, et al., 18 Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff KAREN GATTON
20 RESPONDING PARTY:
21 * / .SET NUMBER:
Defendant A. P. GREEN SERVICES, INC. ONE
22 Defendant, A.P. GREEN SERVICES, INC., hereby responds to
23 plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Set Number One, as follows:
24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1:
25 Duane Grummer, Esq.
26 John J. Mifsud, Esq. Lynch, Gilardi & Grummer
27 50 Francisco Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94133.
28
1
1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1:
2 Yes.-
(a) A.P. Green Services, Inc. 3 (b) Bigelow Liptak Corporation, up to 1986.
(c) Michigan, 1926. 4 i (d) Mexico, Missouri sj (e) No.
6i i I 7:
i
8I i 9I
u
io ;!
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. NO.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. NO.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.
3.2 3.3 3.4
:i NO.
11I RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3.5
12
No. 13
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1 14 !
I This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the 15 i
! context 16 I
of asbestos
litigation.
As defined in these
17 I interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
an injury. 18
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
"injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a 19
result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result 20
of the actions or omissions of various defendants. 21
It is not
specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of 22
these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the 23
"INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this 24
interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context 25
of this lawsuit. 26
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2: 27
This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the 28
I
i
2
1 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
2 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
3 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
4 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
5 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
6 of the actions or' omissions of various defendants.
It is not
7 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which cf
8 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
9 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
10 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
11 of this lawsuit.
A
12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1:
13 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
14 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
15 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
16 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
17 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
18 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
19 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
20 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
21 'these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
22 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
23 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context 24 of this lawsuit. 25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2:
26 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
27 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
28 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
3
1 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
2 "injuries" at. his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
3 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
4 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
5 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
6 these particular sites and what set of circumstances' is the
7 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
8 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
9 of this lawsuit.
10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3: 11 This defendant objects to the use of *the term "INCIDENT" in the
12 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
13 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
14 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
15 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
t
16 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
17 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
18 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
19 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
20 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
21 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
22 of this lawsuit.
23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12.4:
24 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
25 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
26 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
27 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
28 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
4
1 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
2 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is net
3 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
4 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the 5 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
6 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
7 of this lawsuit.
8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12.5: 9 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
10 : context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
11!
interrogatories,
ft
"INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
12 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
13 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
14 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
15 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
16 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
17 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
18 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
19 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
20 of this lawsuit. 21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6:
22 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
23 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
24 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
25 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
26 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a 27 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
28 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
5
1 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
2 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
3 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
4 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
5 of this lawsuit.
6 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12.7: !I
7; This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
' o \ context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
9 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
io i
i
an
injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such A
ii'< "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
12 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
13 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not iji i
14 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
15 j these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
16 ! "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this I
17 ; interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
18 of this lawsuit.
19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13.1:
20 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
21 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
22 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
23 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
24 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
25 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
26 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
27 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
28 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
6
1 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
2 interrogatory, is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
3 of this lawsuit. 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13.2:
5 | This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
6 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
7 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding !
8 J an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
9 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
10 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
h
11 ! of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
12 i specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of 13 ! these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
14 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
15 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
16 of this lawsuit.
n j RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14.1:
I 18 j This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
I 19 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
i
20 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
21 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
22 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
23 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
24 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
25 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
26 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
27 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
28 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
7
1 of this lawsuit.
2 RESPONSE TO I-NTERRO^ATORY NO. 14.2:
3 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
4 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
5 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
6 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
7 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
8 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
9 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is net
10 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which cf
/t
11 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
12 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. . Thus, this
13 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
14 of this lawsuit.
15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1: 16 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
i j
17 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
18 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
19 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
20 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
21 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
22 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
23 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of 24 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the 25 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this 26 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context 27 of this lawsuit. 28 Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the use of the term
8
mm
1 "material allegation."
The complaint does not contain any
2 allegation which are particularly relevant to this defendant.
3 Rather, the complaint contains allegations generic to hundreds of
4 defendants, and it is not specified at which location or in what
5 manner this plaintiff was allegedly exposed to asbestos as a result
6 of the acts or omissions of this defendant. This defendant denied
7 the generic allegations of the complaint on information and belief,
8 and cannot respond further at this time. Similarly, this defendant,
9 stated several affirmative defenses in its answer in order to avoid
10 possible waiver of them, and cannot provide further information at
11 this time.
it ) )
12 RESPONSE TOINTERROGATORY NO. 16.1:
I
13 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the j
14 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these j
j
15 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding j
16 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such >
\I ! !
17 "injuries" at his numerous job sites,on numerous occasions, as a !
1
18 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
19 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
20 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of 21 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
22 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
23 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context 24 of this lawsuit.
25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16.2:
26 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
27 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
28 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
9
1 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
2 "injuries" at- his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
3 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
4 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
5 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
6 these particular sites and what set of circumstances ' is the 7 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
8 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
9 of this lawsuit.
10 RESPONSE TO'INTERROGATORY NO. 16.3:
11 i! ft This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
12 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
13 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
14 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
15' "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
16 I result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
17 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
18 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
19 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
20 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this 21 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context 22 of this lawsuit.
23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16.4:
24 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
25 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
26 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
27 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
28 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
10
1 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
2 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
3 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
4 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
5 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
r
6 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
7 of this lawsuit.
8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16.5:
9 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the ;
10 I context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these j
,I
11 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set off' circumstances surrounding ,
12 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such i
13 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a j i
14 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result j
15 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
I It is not \
16 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of j i
17 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
18 "INCIDENT" which is thd subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
19 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
20 of this lawsuit.
21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16.6:
22 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
23 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
24 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
25 an. injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
26 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
27 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
28 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
11
1 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
2 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
3 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
4 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
5 of this lawsuit.
6 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16.9:
7 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the j
8 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
9 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
10 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
*i 11 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
12 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result |
j
13 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not j
14 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
i
; i
15 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the ;
16 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
17 interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
18 of this lawsuit.
19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16.10:
20 This defendant objects to the use of the term "INCIDENT" in the
21 context of asbestos litigation.
As defined in these
22 interrogatories, "INCIDENT" means a set of circumstances surrounding
23 an injury.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered scores of such
24 "injuries" at his numerous job sites, on numerous occasions, as a
25 result of circumstances particular to each job site and as a result
26 of the actions or omissions of various defendants.
It is not
27 specified in the complaint or in these interrogatories which of
28 these particular sites and what set of circumstances is the
12
1 "INCIDENT" which is the subject of this interrogatory. Thus, this
2 interrogatory-is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context
3 of this lawsuit.
4 DATED:
7
5
6
7
f/k/a BIGELOW-LIPTAK CORP. 8
9
\ASB\GC 189\P\FI .RES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I certify that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to
3 the within action; that my business address is 50 Francisco Street,
4 Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94133; and that on this date I served
5 a true copy of the document(s) entitled: A. P. GREEN SERVICES,
6 INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES in the matter
7 of Gatton, Karen et al. v. Ravbestos-Manhattan (SF-970360) by
8 placing it in an envelope addressed as set forth below, and placing
'9 it, following ordinary business practices, for deposit with the
10 United States Postal Service at my place of business as set forth
11 above.
I am readily familiar with tri'is office's practice for
12 collection and processing of correspondence for mailing within the
13 United States Postal Service. In the ordinary course of business,
14 such correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal
15 Service that same same.
16
Harry F. Wartriick, Esq.
Berry & Berry
17 101 California Street, 26th Fl.
1300 Clay Street, 9th FI.
San Francisco, CA 94111
Station D - P.O. Box 70250
18 Fax: (415)391-5845
Oakland CA 94612-1428
Fax: (510) 835-5117
19
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
20
and correct.
21
Executed on February 24, 1997, at San Francisco, California.
22
23
24
\USR\ASB\GC26J\P\POS
25
, si ?
-7
'Nancy K./Burnett
/
26
27
28
1