Document gEbDGnb92BML16j6D6rBDNZY9

32671.91154 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS LITIGATION FILED BY SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC, Plaintiffs, vs. A.W. CHESTERTON, etal., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM TO CLERK NOW COMES the Defendant, GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC,, by and through its attorneys, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, and hereby files with the Court its Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs' Manufacturer Interrogatories Directed to Defendant in the above-referenced cause of action. Copies of said pleadings have been mailed to Plaintiffs attorneys, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Bamerd, LLC, on this 21st day of June , 2013. Copies of the aforementioned documents are available upon request. GRAYBAR ELECTRIC C01 PANY, INC., Defendant LEWIS BRISBOt^BIS^AARD & SMITH LLP Jeffrey T. Bash #6280946 Matthew J. Morris #6286911 Charles S. Anderson #6288940 4839-3562-2164.1 Page 1 of 2 12-L-1378 SC-GRAY-7065 32671.91154 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Mark Twain Plaza II 103 West Vandalia, Suite 300 Edwardsville, Illinois 62025 Telephone 618.307.7290 Facsimile 618.692.6099 PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing has been served on LexisNexis File and Serve on June 21, 2013; and by enclosing a hard copy of said document to Plaintiff's Attorney, as indicated below, in an envelope with postage prepaid, and depositing same in a United States mail box in Edwardsville, Illinois. Copies Mailed To: Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd, LLC One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4839-3562-2164.1 Page 2 of 2 12-L-1378 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS LITIGATION ) FILED BY SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ) ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) vs. ) A.W. CHESTERTON, et a!,, ) ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANT GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MANUFACTURER INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT NOW COMES, Defendant GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. ("Graybar"), pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213 and for its Answers and Objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories on Sales and Distribution, states as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS Graybar objects to Plaintiffs Interrogatories to Defendant, Graybar Electric Co., Inc., on the basis that Graybar is not a manufacturer of any product. Graybar distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. Graybar does not make any admissions or waive the right to assert any defenses it may have through responding to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to Defendant, Graybar Electric Co,, Inc. regarding its status as a distributor. Graybar objects to Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant, Graybar Electric Co., Inc. on the basis that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek to impose a burden upon Graybar which exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure. Graybar also objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information or materials which are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the self- critical analysis privilege, or by any other applicable privilege. Graybar also objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek confidential or trade secret information or materials. In addition, Graybar objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they are excessive in scope, as they are not reasonably limited in time or to specific claims. Graybar objects to interrogatories that are directed toward information and specifications about products not supplied or produced by Graybar. < Graybar objects to any interrogatory that assumes or suggests that Graybar manufactured "asbestos products", or sold or distributed "asbestos." Graybar did not manufacture "asbestos products" and did not sell or distribute "asbestos." Graybar objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require it to provide information or to identify any documents or other tangible things prepared or obtained in anticipation of litigation or for trial where the plaintiffs have not shown that they (a) have substantial need for the materials in the preparation of the case; and (b) are unable to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means without undue hardship. Graybar objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require it to gather and summarize information contained in voluminous papers that have been previously produced or are all a matter of public record. Graybar objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require it to provide information equally available to the Plaintiff as to Graybar. Graybar hereby reserves the right to supplement its responses pending further discovery in 4826-3793-1796.1 this action. Graybar does not concede that any of its answers to these Interrogatories are, or will be, admissible evidence at a trial of this action, and Graybar does not waive any objection, on any ground, whether or not asserted herein, to the use of any such answer at trial. These general objections and reservations are explicitly made a part of and incorporated by reference in each response hereinafter provided. DEFINITIONS A. "Defendant" as used herein includes the above named Defendant(s). B. "Predecessor" or "Predecessor, Entity or Company" as used herein means any entity i which owned any assets or owners equity of this defendant at any time prior to and including the present. The term predecessor or predecessor entity or company as used herein specifically includes any parent entity which now owns or has in the past owned ten percent (10%) or more of the named defendant, either directly or indirectly through another entity. OBJECTION: This Definition is overbroad, burdensome, oppressive and harassing in that it is not limited to Graybar or to any entity who or which is alleged to have manufactured, sold, or distributed an asbestos-containing product to which Plaintiff alleges any injury or damage. It is further objectionable because it is not limited in time, and thus covers an overbroad period of time. For these reasons, it seeks information that is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue on this case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. In addition, Graybar also objects to the extent this definition seeks information or materials which have been gathered or prepared in the course of the asbestos litigation, or which are otherwise protected by the attorney-client 4826-3793-1796.1 privilege, the work product doctrine, the self-critical analysis privilege, or by any other applicable privilege. C. "Related Company" is defined in Judge Byron's order of April 14, 2000. OBJECTION: Graybar incorporates all objections made by any and all Defendants to all of these discovery requests, including this definition of "Related Company," which objections were made in advance of the Court's Order dated April 14, 2000. D. "Asbestos-containing material/product" as used herein means raw or processed asbestos; any product which included any form of asbestos as any part of its composition or ingredients; and/or, equipment or machinery including, but not limited to, conduit, control boxes and/or panels, insulating boards, ebony boards, arc chutes, switching gears, and/or motor starters in or on which an asbestos-containing product as defined above was incorporated, added, utilized or applied prior to being sold, distributed or installed by this Defendant. This term shall also refer to equipment that has specifications that require asbestos or an asbestos-containing product; and, equipment whose manufacturer anticipates or should anticipate the use of asbestos or an asbestoscontaining product in its practical, foreseeable, and/or proper use. OBJECTION: This Definition is overbroad and ambiguous to the extent that it addresses "any form of asbestos as any part of its composition or ingredients," in that it is unclear whether plaintiffs seek information regarding asbestos as a known ingredient or as an unknown or unwanted by-product of some other ingredient or process incorporated into products manufactured by others and distribute by Graybar. Graybar further objects that the definition is burdensome, oppressive and harassing in that it seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, is not reasonably calculated to the 4826-3793-1796.1 discovery of admissible evidence at trial, and is more properly directed to manufacturer defendants. E. "Documents", as used herein, include, without limitation, books, records, notes, letters, correspondence, memorandums, writings, invoices, purchase orders, contracts, sales ledgers, recordings, journals or books of account, in possession or control of the Defendant or Defendant's attorneys, investigators, agents or employees. Such reference to documents includes originals and copies, microfilms and transcripts made, recorded, produced or reproduced by any and every means. "Documents" also includes the content of any applicable computer database. < OBJECTION: Graybar objects on the grounds that this Definition is overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, and places an undue burden of time and expense on it without any provision being made for the reimbursement of costs and expenses associated with retrieving the requested information. Unless and until Plaintiff or the Court make adequate provision to reimburse this Defendant for time, costs and expenses associated with these Requests, this Defendant objects and does not believe it is appropriate to force it to shoulder the entire burden associated with complying with this Request in its current form. In addition, Graybar also objects to the extent this Definition seeks information or materials which are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the self-critical analysis privilege, or by any other applicable privilege. F. When used with respect to documents, "identify" means to give the date, title, origin, author or addressee of the document and the name, address, position or title of the person who has custody of the documents. Whenever identification is requested and Defendant is willing to 4826-3793-1796,1 produce the documents voluntarily, Defendant may respond by attaching a copy of the responsive document to the answers to these interrogatories. OBJECTION: This Definition is overbroad, burdensome, oppressive and harassing in that it seeks duplicative information, and otherwise seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and is not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. In addition, Graybar also objects to the extent this definition seeks information or materials which are otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the self-critical analysis privilege, or by any other f applicable privilege. Graybar will give this term its common, ordinary meaning. G. Where used with respect to a person, "identify" means to give the person's name, employer, title or position with that employer, and business address and last known home address if the person is no longer so employed. If the person identified is, or has been, an employee, officer, director or agent of the Defendant, also state the period of time during which he or she has been employed by Defendant and all positions, titles orjobs that person has held with the defendant and the years the position was held. OBJECTION: This definition (with respect to both documents and persons) is overbroad, burdensome, beyond the scope of permissible discovery and is oppressive and harassing in that it seeks duplicative information, and otherwise seeks information that is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence at trial. H. Where appropriate, singular includes the plural and vice-versa. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify the person answering these interrogatories on behalf of Defendant. ANSWER: Responses to these Interrogatories were drafted by counsel for Graybar and verified by Kathie Bullerdick, Esquire of Graybar. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Has the person answering these interrogatories made reasonable inquiry of all available sources of information such that Plaintiff may rely upon these answers as the truthful and complete answers made on behalf of Defendant? List any and all such sources of information relied upon, including, but not limited to, identifying any and all records or documents reviewed and persons providing information. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and undefined with respect to the phrase "reasonable inquiry of all available sources of information," as the same is overbroad, burdensome and beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Furthermore, Plaintiff's demands that Graybar identify trade secrets or confidential and proprietary documents is improper. This interrogatory also improperly attempts to place the burden on Graybar to determine what is reasonable. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Graybar states that it has made a good faith, and reasonable inquiry into the matter of plaintiff's interrogatories and the responses thereto. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: State the following concerning this Defendant: a. Full and correct name; 4826-3793-1796.1 b. The form in which Defendant presently conducts business (i.e. corporation, partnership, proprietorship, etc.); c. Identify any and all predecessors and related companies as defined above; d. Any and all other forms in which defendant has conducted business at any time, and the date(s) when business was conducted in each form; e. Any and all names by which Defendant has been known or has conducted business, at any time, and the date(s) during which Defendant has been known by and/or conducted business, under each such name; f. Defendant's principal place of business; g. Defendant's present state of incorporation or state in which Defendant is registered as a partnership, association, etc., whichever is applicable; if Defendant has, at any time, been incorporated or registered in a different state, identify which state and when; h. Most recent date of incorporation or reincorporation, and any and all prior date(s) of incorporation or reincorporation; i. Whether this Defendant is authorized to transact business in the State of Illinois and, if so, the date such authority was first issued and last renewed; j. If this Defendant has an agent, representative or place of business in Illinois, identify such agent, representative, or place of business; and, k. If this Defendant has an agent for service in the State of Illinois, identify the registered agent. ANSWER: (a) Graybar Electric Company, Inc. (b) Corporation (c) Graybar Electric Company was founded in 1926 for handling distribution ofsupplies and equipment (d) See answer to sub part c. (e) See answer to sub part c. (f) See answer to sub part c. (g) Defendant is a New York corporation with its headquarters in Clayton, Missouri. (h) 1926 (i) Products manufactured by other companies and distributed by Graybar are available for purchase in the State of Illinois. 4826-3793-1796.1 (j) Places of Business: Chicago, IL; Collinsville, IL; East Peoria, IL; Glendale Heights, II; Joliet, IL; Naperville, IL; Rockford, IL; INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Has Defendant been sued under its correct legal name? If not, state the correct legal name of Defendant and provide the information requested in No. 3 above concerning the defendant as correctly named. ANSWER: Yes. Graybar Electric Company, Inc. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify any and all persons or entities which own, or at anytime have owned, more than a ten percent (10%) interest in this Defendant, and for each such person or entity identified, state the date(s) during which said person or entity owned more than a ten percent (10%) interest in Defendant and the specific type and amount of interest owned. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it overbroad, seeks confidential financial information that is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is an employee-owned company. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify any and all companies, businesses, corporations, and/orjoint ventures in which this Defendant owns, or at any time has owned, more than a ten percent (10%) interest. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, seeks confidential financial information that is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible 4826~3 793-1796.1 evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: With respect to each corporation, company, business orjoint venture identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6 state; a. The type of business, conducted by such related company; b. The past and present business relationship(s) between said related company and Defendant; c. The nature of the products or services which Defendant has sold to, or purchased from, said related company; - i d. Whether or not said related company advertises or has advertised products or services supplied by Defendant; e. Whether or not said related company sells or has sold Defendant's products or services within the State of Illinois and, if so, the approximate value of those sales from 1930 to date; f. Whether or not said related company pays taxes of any type to the State of Illinois or to any political subdivision thereof and, if so, the type of taxes paid; g. Whether or not Defendant controls or has controlled, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, said related company's advertising; and, h. The identity of any past or present officer or director of Defendant who, at any time, served as an officer or director of said related company. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, seeks confidential financial information that is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: List all directors and officers of Defendant from 1940 to date and for each state all positions 4826-3793-1796.1 held and the date(s) during which each position was held. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, seeks information that is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Investigation continues. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: State whether any of Defendants' present or former officers or directors ever served (whether before, during or after becoming Defendants' officer or director) as an officer or director of i any other company, corporation or business which manufactured, sold or distributed asbestos or asbestos-containing products and, if so, please: a. Identify each officer and director of Defendant, who served as such other company's officer or director; and b. Identify each company, corporation or business for which each such officer or director served, each position held by such officer or director for such other company, corporation or business, and the time periods each position was held. . ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 2,5 and 8. Further objecting, Graybar states that the requested information is beyond its personal knowledge and, accordingly, this Interrogatory places an undue burden on Graybar to respond. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, Graybar states that to the best of its knowledge, it is unaware of any such occasions or instances. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Has Defendant ever acquired, through purchase, reorganization or merger, another company, corporation or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed or contracted to 4826-3793-1796.1 apply, asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products? ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is not limited in time, is not limited to the alleged asbestos-containing products from which plaintiffs allege any exposure or damage, and is seeking information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Subject to the foregoing objections, Graybar states no. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 10 is "Yes," with respect to each such predecessor: a. State its full and correct name; b. State its principal place of business; c. State its State of incorporation; d. State its date and manner of acquisition by Defendant; e. Whether this predecessor was, at any time, authorized to transact business in the State of Illinois; and f. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the acquisition. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Has Defendant ever acquired from another corporation, company, or business, by any means other than those specified in Interrogatory No. 10, assets or rights to manufacture, sell, distribute or apply asbestos or asbestos-containing products? ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is not limited in time, is not limited to the alleged asbestos-containing products from which plaintiffs allege any exposure or damage, and is seeking information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Subject to the foregoing objections, Graybar states no. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 12 is "Yes," with respect to each such acquisition: a. State the full and correct name of the company from which such assets or rights were acquired; b. State the principal place of business of the company from which said assets or rights were acquired; c. Describe the assets or rights acquired, including the specific asbestos-containing products to which said assets or rights related; and d. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the transaction. ANSWER: Not applicable. * INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Other than any transaction identified in response to Interrogatories Nos. 10-13, has this Defendant ever been involved, in any capacity, including but not limited to, seller, transferor, grantor, franchisor, licensor, buyer, transferee, grantee, franchisee or subject of the transaction, in any transaction, of any kind, concerning any of the following: a. The purchase/sale or transfer of ownership of a company, corporation or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed or contracted to apply asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products; or b. The purchase/sale or transfer of ownership of the assets or rights to manufacture, sell, distribute or apply asbestos or asbestos-containing products; and/or c. The purchase/sale or transfer of liabilities arising out of the manufacture, sale, processing, distribution or application of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is not limited in time, is not limited to the alleged asbestos-containing products from which plaintiffs allege any exposure or damage, and is seeking information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Subject to the foregoing objections, Graybar states: 4826-3793-1796,1 a. No b. Over the years, Graybar has never manufactured any asbestos containing products. Graybar had agreements with manufacturers of products to distribute a wide variety of electrical supplies and equipment. As a distributor, Graybar does not possess any information regarding the ingredient formulas or composition of products it may have distributed. c. No INTERROGATORY NO. 15: If the answer to any sub-part of Interrogatory No. 14 is "Yes," with respect to each such transaction: a. Identify all parties to the transaction; < b. Identify the subject matter of the transaction; c. State the date of the transaction; and, d. Identify any and all documents, referring to, relating to or reflecting the transaction. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component 4826-3793-1796.1 parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: State the first and last dates on which any asbestos-containing product was manufactured by: a. Defendant; f b. Each and every predecessor; and, c. Each and every related company. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: State the first and last dates on which any asbestos-containing product was specified, sold, distributed, applied and/or installed within the United States by: a. Defendant; b. Each and every predecessor; and, 4826-3793-1796.1 c. Each and every related company. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calcu lated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: ( State the last date on which Defendant or any related company specified, sold, distributed, applied and/or installed any asbestos-containing product outside the United States and identify by brand or trade name the products so specified, sold, distributed, applied and/or installed. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calcu lated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify by full and complete trade name, any and all asbestos-containing products as defined above, which this Defendant, any related company, or any predecessor(s) has, at any time; a. Designed; b. Manufactured; c. Processed; d. Sold; e. Distributed; f. Applied; < g. Installed; h. Patented; i. Specified; or j. Re-labeled. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: a. None b. None c. None 4826-3793-1796.1 d. Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. e. Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. f. None g. None h. None i. None j. None INTERROGATORY NO. 20: With respect to each asbestos-containing product listed for each subpart of Interrogatory No. 19: a. Identify the specific company (Defendant, predecessor, related company) which designed, manufactured, processed, specified, sold, distributed, applied, installed, patented or re-labeled such product; b. State the year in which Defendant, its related company or its predecessor first designed, manufactured, processed, specified, sold, distributed, applied, installed, patented or re-labeled such product; and, 4826-3793-1796.1 c. State the year in which the Defendant, its related company or predecessor last designed, manufactured, processed, specified, sold, distributed, applied, installed, patented or re-labeled such product. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by othdr entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Were any of the products, which were listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19 as having been specified, sold, distributed, applied or installed by Defendant, its predecessor or related company(ies), purchased from another company and re-labeled for sale or distribution by 4826-3793-1796.1 Defendant, its predecessors or related companies? If so, identify those products, and with respect to each: a. Identify the company from which Defendant, its predecessor or related company purchased the product; and, b. Identify the company which manufactured the product; and, c. State the date(s) during which said re-labeled product was sold, distributed or applied. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. Records reflecting sales of products manufactured by others during the requested time period have not been retained in accordance with Graybar's records retention policy which 4826-3793-1796.1 dictates that sales records only be kept for the current year and the six previous years. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Has this Defendant, at anytime, applied, contracted to apply, installed or engaged in the business of applying or installing, asbestos-containing products? If so: a. State the date(s) on which or during which Defendant applied, contracted to apply, installed or engaged in the business of applying or installing asbestos-containing products; b. Identify any and all sites within the State of Illinois at which Defendant applied, installed or contracted to apply or install asbestos-containing products, and for each such site: (i) State whether the products you applied, installed or contracted to apply or install were included as part of the project's contract price or whether you applied the products that were provided at the worksite; (ii) Identify by manufacturer and trade name each and every asbestoscontaining product applied or installed; (iii) State the date(s) during which said application or installation took place; (iv) Identify the employee(s) of Defendant who was (were) in charge of the job; (v) Identify the person or entity for which the products were applied or installed; and (vi) Identify all documents relating to such contract, application or installation. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Has this Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, ever engaged in the business of mining asbestos? If so: a. Identify which company(ies) whether (Defendant, predecessor or related company) engaged in said business; b. State the date(s) during which each said company engaged in such business; 4826-3793-1796.1 c. State each and every location at which such mining was done; d. Identify each and every officer, employee and/or agent of said company who, at any time, was in charge of each mining operation; and, e. Identify each and every entity, if any, to which said company sold the asbestos which was mined. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Has this Defendant, any predecessor or any related company ever purchased and resold raw asbestos? If so, with respect to each such purchase and resale: ' a. State the date(s) of the transaction; b. Identify any and all parties from which the raw asbestos was purchased; and, c. Identify any and all parties to which the raw asbestos was sold. ANSWER: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Identify each and every source from which Defendant, any predecessor or related company, obtained raw asbestos and/or asbestos-containing material used by Defendant, any predecessor or related company, to manufacture or process any product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Is Defendant or any related company, as of the date of answering these interrogatories, still manufacturing, specifying, selling, distributing, applying or installing any asbestos-containing product? If so, give the brand/trade names of such products, type and percentage of asbestos in such product, and the date on which Defendant or any related company first manufactured, 4826-3793-1796,1 specified, sold, distributed, applied or installed said products. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: With respect to each and every product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19, provide a full and complete description of the package in which the product was sold, including, but not limited to, type of package, size, color and writings thereon. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for 4826-3793-1796.1 sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. Records reflecting sales of products manufactured by others during the requested time period have not been retained in accordance with Graybar's records retention policy which dictates that sales records only be kept for the current year and the six previous years. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: For each subpart below, state whether or not, to Defendant's knowledge, any items as described therein presently exist and, if so, identify any and all such existing items and state the present location of each: a. Any product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19, including, but not limited to, any sample, part or piece thereof; b. Any package of the type in which any or all of the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19 were or would have been sold, including, but not limited to, any partial package; c. Any catalogue, brochure, sales literature or like item referring to, relating to or reflecting any or all of the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19; d. Any picture, drawing, photograph or like representation of the items described in subparts a., b. and/or c. of this Interrogatory. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory 4826-3793-1796.1 in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or f with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. Records reflecting sales of products manufactured by others during the requested time period have not been retained in accordance with Graybar's records retention policy which dictates that sales records only be kept for the current year and the six previous years. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Did Defendant, any related company or any predecessor ever stamp or otherwise place (including affixing tags or labels) a company name, initials, or any identifying logo on any of the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19? ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and 4826-3793-1796.1 without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. At times Graybar may have placed a sticker on packaging indicating that a product was supplied by Graybar, but product packaging was never modified by Graybar. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 29 is "Yes," identify each and every such product upon which such name, initials or identifying logo appeared and for each such product identified: a. Describe each and every name, initials or identifying logo appearing on said product, at any time, by stating the wording, lettering, symbols, size, color and manner in which it was stamped, placed or affixed to said product; b. State the date(s) during which each such name, initials, or identifying logo appeared on said product; and c. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the stamping, placing or affixing of names, initials or logos to said product, including, but not limited to, any pictures, photographs or like representations of such names, initials or logos. ANSWER: See response to interrogatory #29. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Was each of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19 generally expected to reach, or was each packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and < without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. Records reflecting sales of products manufactured by others during the requested time period have not been retained in accordance with Graybar's records retention policy which dictates that sales records only be kept for the current year and the six previous years. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 32: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 31 is "No" with respect to any product(s), explain in what manner Defendant claims said product(s) were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the consumer or user. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: With respect to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19, state whether, based upon the material contents, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, such product could generally be applied or installed without liberating asbestos fibers? ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: With respect to each product listed in response to original Interrogatory number 19, could it 4826-3793"1796.1 be expected or anticipated that the product might have to be removed, stripped or replaced at any time after application or installation? ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. INTERROGATORY NO. 88: Identify each person who participated in the design and/or preparation of manufacturing specifications for each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Identify any and all documents, including, but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, blueprints, formulas, patterns and designs, referring to, relating to or reflecting the design, preparation, application and/or installation of each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory f in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. Records reflecting sales of products manufactured by others during the requested time period have not been retained in accordance with Graybar's records retention policy which dictates that sales records only be kept for the current year and the six previous years. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 37: With respect to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19, state: a. The type of asbestos contained in the product as it was first manufactured; b. The percentage of asbestos contained in the product as it was first manufactured; c. Any modification to the product which altered the percentage or type of asbestos in the product and the dates of such modification; d. The source of asbestos in each product; e. The color, physical characteristics, and appearance of each product; f. Any and all other names under which the product was sold, at any timb; g. The number and date of each patent or patent application for each product; h. If the product continued to be produced after the deletion of asbestos, ail reasons why the asbestos was deleted, the identity of the person(s) who made the decision to delete the asbestos, and the date the product was first produced without the asbestos; i. If the product is no longer produced, all reasons it was discontinued, the identity of the person(s) 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; and j. The reasons why asbestos was used as an ingredient in each such product ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by 4826-3793-1796.1 others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. Records reflecting sales of products manufactured by others during the requested time period have not been retained in accordance with Graybar's records retention policy which dictates that sales records only be kept for the current year and the six previous years. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Identify any and all facilities at which Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at anytime, manufactured or processed asbestos-containing products, or processed raw asbestos. For each such facility identified: a. State the date(s) which said facility was owned and/or operated by Defendant, any predecessor or any related company; b. State the date(s) during which asbestos-containing products and/or raw asbestos were manufactured or processed, at said facility; and, c. Identify each person serving as the manager or supervisor of said facility during any time which the facility has been owned and/or operated by Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, and state the date(s) of the tenure as manager or supervisor for each. 4826-3793-1796.1 ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. Records reflecting sales of products manufactured by others during the requested time period have not been retained in accordance with Graybar's records retention policy which dictates that sales records only be kept for the current year and the six previous years. INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Identify any and all entities to which the defendant, any predecessor or related company, sold, distributed or otherwise provided any type of asbestos-containing product, including but not limited to, the products listed in response to original Interrogatory number 19, and which the defendant has any reason whatsoever to suspect, believe, think or otherwise conclude that said 4826-3793-1796.1 asbestos-containing product was installed, applied, stored, or anyway made use of at any site identified in the interrogatory answers of any plaintiff with a claim against this defendant, at any site located in Madison County, Illinois, or at any site within a 200 mile radius of Madison County, Illinois. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to the phrases "or otherwise provided" and "suspect, believe, think, or otherwise condclude that said asbestos- i containing product was installed, applied, stored, or anyway made use of at any side" as vague, undefined, ambiguous and overbroad. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Records reflecting sales of products manufactured by others during the requested time period have not been retained in accordance with Graybar's records retention policy which dictates that sales records only be kept for the current year and the six previous years. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Identify any and all persons known by you to have any knowledge concerning the manufacture, sale, distribution, possession, application, installation or use of the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 19 4B2S-3793-1796.1 ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. This Interrogatory is premature because plaintiffs have not identified any product sold or moved along the stream of commerce by Graybar that they claim injured them. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time, designed, manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, supplied, applied, installed or contracted to apply or ( install any product which contained vermiculite? ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to said objections and without waiving same, Graybar states, investigation continues. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 41 is "Yes," identify by brand/trade name any and all such products which contained vermiculite and for each: a. State the date(s) during which said product contained vermiculite; b. State, in percentage terms, the amount of vermiculite contained in the product; c. Identify the source of the vermiculite used in the product; d. Identify the specific company (Defendant, predecessor, related company) which designed, manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, applied, installed or patented such product; e. State the year in which Defendant, its related company or its predecessor first designed, manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, applied, installed or patented 4826-3793-1796.1 such product; f. State the year in which the Defendant, its related company or predecessor last designed, manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, applied, installed or patented such product; g. State whether any sample, part or piece of such product is still in existence; and h. Identify all documents relating to such product, including but not limited to any package, brochure, catalog, picture, photograph or like representation of the product or packaging. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: t With respect to the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42, did Defendant, any predecessor or related company or the manufacturer of the products ever conduct tests of any kind on any or all of said products concerning possible or potential health hazards involved in its use or in the use of materials contained therein? ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities, It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those 4826-3793-1796.1 products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Manufacturers did not share any information regarding testing with Graybar and therefore Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. INTERROGATORY NO. 44: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 43 is "Yes," with respect to each product test: a. State the location where the test was performed; b. Identify each and every individual who conducted or participated in said test; c. Describe the results of said test; d. State the date or dates upon which said test was conducted; e. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said test or the results thereof; and f. Identify each and every individual who received a copy of any document referring to, relating to or reflecting the results of said test. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Did any person, including but not limited to, an officer, agent or employee of Defendant, any predecessor or related company recommend any design changes as a result of any test referenced in your response to the preceding interrogatory? ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory 4B26-3793-1796.1 in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. Manufacturers did not share any information regarding chemical < composition of products and therefore Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 45 is "Yes," with respect to each such recommended design change: a. State the product or products involved; b. State the test or tests involved; c. State the nature of the change recommended; d. Identify the person(s) making the recommendation; e. State the nature and effective date of any change made; and f. Identify each and every person who participated in the decision to make or not make the recommended design change. ANSWER: Not applicable, INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Identify any and all persons employed by Defendant, its predecessor or related company at any time from 1940 to date as an industrial hygienist or in a similar position. 4826-3793"1796.1 ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. As such, defendant states to the best of its knowledge, none. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Identify any and all persons or entities, other than the employees listed above, which provided industrial hygienic or similar services or information to, or for the benefit of, this Defendant, at any time from 1940 to date, including, but not limited to, employees of, or anyone retained by, any predecessor or related company. ANSWER: See response to interrogatory #47. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Does Defendant have, or has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company ever had, a Research Department? If so: a. State when such department was established, and whether or not such department has operated continuously since being established; b. State how much Defendant, its predecessor and/or related company expended each year on research; and c. State the percentage of said expenditure which was for research concerning the health affects of asbestos; d. Identify the person(s) in charge of such department throughout its existence; and e. Identify the person(s) in charge of any asbestos-related research conducted by such 4826-3793-1796.1 department throughout the years. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7,10 and 35 and related companies above. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and undefined as to the term "research" in so far as it fails to identify the type of research to which it refers, is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information that is immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Graybar states: to the best of its knowledge, none. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: < Did Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any medical department or industrial hygiene division thereof, maintain a medical and/or scientific library at any time from 1940 to the present? If so: a. State the dates such library existed; b. State the number of volumes maintained therein; c. State the number of employees, part-time or full-time, assigned to the maintenance of said library; and d. Identify the person(s) within the corporate structure to whom said library employees reported throughout the existence of the library. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 48. This interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information that is immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Graybar states that it never maintained a "medical library" or "medical department" as it understands those terms to be defined. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Identify any and all scientific or medical periodicals to which Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any medical department or industrial hygiene division thereof, subscribed from 1940 to the present, and for each periodical state the dates of such subscriptions. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7, 10, 35, 48 and 50 and related companies above. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, seeks information that is immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Subject to and without ( waiving said objections, Graybar states: to the best of its knowledge, none. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time since 1940: a. Been a member of a medical and/or scientific library or library association? b. Been a member of any organization or association which maintained a medical and/or scientific library? c. Been a member of any organization or association through which members obtained the use of, or access to, a medical and/or scientific library? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 48. This interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information that is immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Graybar states that it is not aware of any type of association with a "medical" library as it understands that term to be defined. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: If your answer to any subpart of Interrogatory No. 52 is "Yes": 4826-3793-1796.1 a. Identify the library(ies) involved and state the years during which Defendant its predecessor or related company was a member of, or otherwise had use of or access to said library; and b. If applicable, identify the organization or association through which Defendant, its predecessor or related company, obtained the use of or access to, such library(ies). ANSWER: Not applicable INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any person or entity acting on behalf thereof, including but not limited to, any insurance company, at any time, conducted any industrial hygiene surveys concerning any product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 19, including, but not limited to, surveys concerning the manufacture, processing, application, installation, use and/or removal of said products? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7,10 and 35 and related companies above. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, seeks information that is immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Objecting further, Defendant objects to the terms "any insurance company, at anytime" to which Graybar would have no access or control and with respect to what constitutes an "industrial hygiene survey." Subject to and without waiving said objections, Graybar states: to the best of its knowledge, no. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: ' If your answer to Interrogatory No. 54 is "Yes," with respect to each such survey: a, Identify the product(s) which was used in the survey; b. Identify any and all person(s), firm(s) or entity(ies) conducting or participating in the conducting of said survey; 4826-3793-1756.1 c. State the date(s) of said survey; d. Describe the methodology, results and conclusions of said survey; e. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to, or reflecting said survey or the results and conclusions thereof; and, f. Identify any and all persons to whom such document may have been sent. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any person or entity acting on behalf thereof, including but not limited to any insurance company, at anytime, gone iftto any area where any product identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 was being manufactured, used, applied or installed to perform a dust level count or similar test? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7, 10, 19, 35, and 42 and related companies above. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, seeks information that is immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Objecting further, the terms "gone into any area" and "dust level counts" are vague, ambiguous and undefined. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Graybar states: to the best of its knowledge, no. INTERROGATORY NO. 57: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 56 is "Yes," identify each such count or test performed, by stating when and where it was conducted, and with respect to each count or test so identified: a. Identify the product being manufactured, used, applied or installed; b. Identify each and every person who conducted, participated in conducting, or analyzed the results of, said count or test; 4826-3793-1796.1 c. State the purpose of said count or test; d. State what, if any, actions were taken in response to the results of said count or test; and e. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said count or test, including, but not limited to, any actions taken in response to the results of such count or test. ANSWER: Not Applicable INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any person or entity acting on behalf thereof, at any time, conducted any study(ies), of any kind, concerning the effects of the inhalation of asbestos dust or asbestos fibers on one using or being exposed to asbestos or any asbestos-containing product, including, but not limited to, those identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7, 10, 29, 35,and 42 and related companies above. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, seeks information that is immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Objecting further, the terms "on one using or being exposed to asbestos or any asbestos-containing product" are vague, ambiguous and undefined. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Graybar states: to the best of its knowledge, no. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 58 is "Yes," with respect to each such study: a. Describe the nature of said study, including, but not limited to, the purpose and objectives of the study, the product(s) involved, the date(s) conducted, the methodology employed and the results reached, both raw data and conclusions; 4826-3793-1796.1 b. Identify any and all entities and/or persons conducting said study or participating in the conducting of said study; c. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said study, including but not limited to reports (both interim and final), notes, memoranda, work papers, data compilations and surveys; d. Identify any and all directors, officers, agents or employees of Defendant who participated in the decision to have the study conducted; and, e. Identify any and all entities and/or persons who received a copy of any document referring to, relating to or reflecting the results or conclusions reached. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: i Did Defendant, its predecessor or related company, take any action as a result of any study or studies set forth in response to Interrogatory Nos. 56 and 58? If so, identify each and every study which resulted in some action being taken, and: a. Describe the actions taken, including the effective date of said actions; b. Identify any and all persons, including, but not limited to, directors, officers, agents and employees of Defendant who participated in the decision to undertake said actions; and c. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said actions, or any subsequent modification or discussion of the same. ANSWER: See responses and objections to interrogatories 35, 56 and 58. INTERROGATORY NO. 61: ' Has Defendant, any predecessor, or any related company, or any person or entity acting on behalf thereof, at any time, conducted any study(ies) designed to minimize or eliminate the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those using, handling or exposed to any product listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42? 4826-3793-1796.1 1 j j j i j : ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7, 10, 29, 35,and 42 and related companies above. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, seeks information that is immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence at trial and improperly attempts to to create a duty or burden on Graybar, to conduct such studies without any basis therefore, and further contains legal conclusions. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Graybar states: to the best of its knowledge, no. INTERROGATORY NO. 62: ( If your answer to Interrogatory No. 61 is "Yes," with respect to each such study: a. Identify the product involved; b. Identify the person(s) and/or entity(ies) conducting said study; c. State the date said study began and the date on which it was completed; d. Identify any and all persons, including, but not limited to, directors, officers, agents or employees of Defendant, who participated in the decision to have said study conducted; e. Describe the nature of said study; f. Describe the nature of any action to eliminate or minimize inhalation of asbestos dust or asbestos fibers undertaken as a result of said study; g. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said study or the results thereof; and, h. Identify any and all persons receiving a copy of any document referring to, relating to or reflecting the results or conclusions of said study, ANSWER: Not applicable. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 63: Did Defendant, any related company, or any predecessor at anytime, give to persons, who would be applying and/or removing any of the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42, any instructions or guidelines concerning precautions, warnings, procedures, and/or methods to use, in order to safely apply or remove such products? If so, describe such instructions, state to whom they were given, state the dates they were given, and describe the manner in which they were given. ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is ,i overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. Records reflecting sales of products manufactured by others during the requested 4B26-3793-1796.1 time period have not been retained in accordance with Graybar's records retention policy which dictates that sales records only be kept for the current year and the six previous years INTERROGATORY NO. 64: Did Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time, place any warning signs or labels on the containers in which any of the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 were packaged? ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. Records reflecting sales of products manufactured by others during the requested time period have not been retained in accordance with Graybar's records retention policy which 4826-3793-1796.1 dictates that sales records only be kept for the current year and the six previous years INTERROGATORY NO. 65: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 64 is "Yes," identify each and every product upon which such a warning was placed, and with respect to each such product identified: a. State the date on which any order directing that a warning be placed on said product first issued; b. Identify any and all persons participating in the decision to issue that order; c. State the first date on which such warning was actually placed on said product; ( d. State the first date on which such product accompanied by such warning was first sold, distributed or installed; e. State the exact wording of this first warning; f. State the exact location and size of this first warning as it appeared on said product; g. Identify any and all persons who participated in any phase of the drafting or design of said first warning, including, but not limited to, those who performed the actual drafting and design work, those who reviewed the work, those who edited the work and those who approved the warning; h. State why you placed such warning on said product, including, but not limited to, whether you placed such warning on said product because you received a directive, command, suggestion, legal opinion, or any type of communication (written or otherwise) from any person, firm, corporation, governmental agency, committee, association, attorney or institute; and i. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting, said warning, its drafting, and/or the decision to place the warning on said product, including, but not limited to, any communication as described in subpart h. of this Interrogatory. ANSWER: Not applicable. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 66: With respect to each product identified in response to Interrogatory No, 65 as having been accompanied by a warning, state whether, subsequent to the first warning described above, any different warning was ever placed upon said product. Any alteration, change or modification in the language, wording, capitalization, punctuation, style of type or printing, size, color, or location on the package or container, of the warning constitutes a different warning. ANSWER: See responses and objections to Interrogatory 63, 64 and 65. INTERROGATORY NO. 67: With respect to each different warning which accompanied each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 65: a. State the date on which any order directing that such different warning be placed on said product first issued; b. Identify any and all persons participating in the decision to issue that order; c. State the first date on which such different warning was actually placed on said product; d. State the first date on which such product accompanied by such different warning was sold, distributed or installed; e. Describe, with specificity, any and all changes, modifications or differences between the different warning and the prior warnings(s); f. Identify any and all persons who participated in any phase of the drafting or design of such different warning, including, but not limited to, those who performed the actual drafting and design work, those who reviewed the work, those who edited the work and those who approved the different warning; g. State why you placed such different warning on said product, including, but not limited to, whether you placed such different warning on said product because you received a directive, command, suggestion, legal opinion, or any type of communication (written or otherwise) from any person, firm, corporation, governmental agency, committee, association, attorney or institute; and 4B26-3793-1796.1 h. Identify any and ail documents referring to, relating to or reflecting, said different warning, its drafting, and/or the decision to place the different warning on said product. ANSWER: See responses and objections to Interrogatory 63, 64 and 65. INTERROGATORY NO. 68: Prior to the date on which Defendant first directed that a warning accompany any product identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42, did any person, firm, organization or other entity, within or without your employ, suggest, recommend, counsel, advise, or otherwise indicate in any manner, that a warning should accompany any or all such products or asbestos-containing products generally? ANSWER; See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7,10, 29, 35, 42, 63, 64, 65 and 67 and related companies above. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, seeks information that is immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Objecting further, the terms "indicate in any manner" and the concluding "generally" are vague, ambiguous and undefined. See responses and objections to Interrogatory 63, 64 and 65. INTERROGATORY NO. 69: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 68 is "Yes," with respect to each such suggestion, recommendation, counseling, advice or other indication: a. Identify the person(s) and/or entity(ies) giving the same; b. State the date(s) on which the same was given; c. Identify any and all persons receiving notice of the same; d. Describe what, if any, action Defendant took in response to or upon the same; and, 4826-3793-1796.1 e. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the same, or any action taken thereon or in response thereto. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 70: Did Defendant, any predecessor, or any related company ever place any warning directly upon any of the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42? ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatories 3,5,7,10,29,35,42,63,64, 65 and 67 and general objections to the term "related companies" above. Graybar further objects i to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes electrical products and equipment sold and distributed by Graybar required a caution, warning, caveat or other statement about health, as described in this interrogatory. Subject to said objections, Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging forthe relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. INTERROGATORY NO. 71: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 70 is "Yes," identify each and every product upon which such a warning was placed and for each such product identified: 4826-3793-1796.1 a. State, verbatim, each and every warning which ever appeared on said product; b. State the size, color and location of each such warning and describe the manner in which it was placed upon the product; c. State the dates on which each such warning first and last appeared in said product; and, d. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the placing of any warning directly upon said products, including, but not limited to, decisions not to place such a warning. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 72: Did any warning of any type concerning the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 ever appear in any sales literature or other materials distributed or provided by Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, to the purchasers, consumers and/or users of such products? ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatories 3, 5,7,10,29,35,42,47,49, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 70 and general objections to the term "related companies" above. Further objecting, this interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome and not limited in time. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Graybar states no. INTERROGATORY NO. 73: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 72 is "Yes," identify each and every item of sales literature or other materials in which such a warning appeared, and for each item so identified; a. State the date on which said item was first provided to distributors, sellers, purchasers, consumers or users; b. List the products discussed in the literature; c. Identify any and all other sales literature concerning the products listed in response 4826-3793-1796.1 to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 which was provided to distributors, sellers, purchasers, consumers or users after the above date and which contained no warning. ANSWER: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 74: Does Defendant or any related company have any of the following in its possession, custody or control: a. Any package, container, label or item of sales literature which Defendant claims constitutes or contains any warning which ever accompanies any product listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42? b. Any picture, photograph or like reproductive representation of any item described in subpart a.? ANSWER: Objection: Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such 4826-3793-1796.1 product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. Records reflecting sales of products manufactured by others during the requested time period have not been retained in accordance with Graybar's records retention policy which dictates that sales records only be kept for the current year and the six previous years INTERROGATORY NO. 75: State the year that Defendant or any predecessor(s) was first advised of either threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust, promulgated by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and identify the specific person(s) receiving such advise, and any and all documents communicating such advise. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 3, 5, 7, 10 and 35. The Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, calls upon this Defendant to guess and speculate, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 76: State whether such threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations referred to in Interrogatory No. 75 involved TOTAL dust or just asbestos dust? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 75. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the document(s) to which Interrogatories 75 and 76 refer are published documents which speak for themselves, so that this Interrogatory calls for guess and speculation on the part of this Defendant as to what was meant by the same. INTERROGATORY NO. 77: Describe, in detail, any and all tests, if any, conducted by Defendant, any predecessor or any 4826-3793-1796.1 related company, or anyone acting on behalf thereof, concerning the quantity, quality or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which applicators or consumers of asbestos-containing products were exposed while using any product identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42, including: a. The product being used; b. Identify any and all person(s), firm(s) or entity(ies) conducting or participating in the conducting of said test; c. State the date(s) of said test; d. Describe the methodology, results and conclusions of said test; f e. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating or reflecting said test or the results and conclusions thereof; and, f. Identify any and all persons to whom any document referring to, relating to or reflecting the results or conclusions of said test was sent. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 19, 35,42,43,47, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68 and 77 and predecessor and related companies above. Further objecting, this Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 78: , Did Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at any time, directly advise the owners or management employees of any worksite in which it sold or applied any product listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42, of threshold limit values for exposure to asbestos dust recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist? If so, state the 4826-3733-1796.1 date or dates that you so advised each such owner or employees, the manner in which you advised such owner or employee and the name of each such owner or employee. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 9,35,42,43,47 and 77 and predecessor and related companies above. Further objecting, this Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, seeks to improperly place a burden upon this Defendant without any legal or other basis to do so, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 79: < State the date on which any official of Defendant or its predecessor(s) first had knowledge, notice, information or understanding that exposure to asbestos would, could or might cause each of the following diseases: a. Pleural disease; b. Asbestosis; c. Mesothelioma; d. Lung cancer; e. Any other forms of cancer. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7,10 and 35 and related companies above. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. This Interrogatory is also vague and ambiguous in its use of the undefined term "official." 4B26-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. SO: With respect to each disease set forth in Interrogatory No. 79: a. Identify the official who first obtained the knowledge, notice, information or understanding to which the interrogatory refers; b. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting such knowledge, notice, information or understanding; and, c. Describe what, if any, action said official. Defendant, any predecessor or any related company took in response to such knowledge, notice, information or understanding. ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatories 3, 5,7,10,35,67,77 and 79. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, see response to Interrogatory 79 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 81: Is Defendant aware, or does Defendant possess knowledge or information concerning, a causal connection between exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products and: a. Pleural disease? b. Asbestosis? c. Lung cancer? d. Mesothelioma? e. Other cancer? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 80. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to issue in this case, constitutes 4826-3793-1796.1 an improper contention interrogatory, calls for guess and speculation on the part of Graybar, seeks a legal and medical expert opinions which it is not qualified to give, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Further objecting, this Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to what constitutes a "casual connection." INTERROGATORY NO. 82: For each subpart of Interrogatory No. 81 to which you answered "Yes"; a. Describe when and how Defendant first obtained knowledge, or information concerning such connection; b. If such knowledge or information was obtained by attendance at any'conference, lecture, convention, symposium or meeting, identify such meeting, any and all persons attending, and any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the meeting; c. If knowledge was obtained from medical or scientific studies, or work, published or unpublished, identify the same. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 79, 80 and 81 INTERROGATORY NO. 83; With regard to any knowledge or information obtained subsequent to that identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 82 (a), identify any and all documents or communications (oral and/or written) concerning the causal connection between exposure to asbestos-containing or asbestos products and any disease, which were sent to, or received by, Defendant, and identify any and all persons conveying and/or receiving such communications. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 35, 56 and 79-82, all of which are incorporated herein. This Interrogatory is overbroad, Burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 84: As to any knowledge or information referred to in Interrogatories 79-83, did Defendant, at any time, educate or inform its employees, distributors, purchasers or any persons working in the vicinity where any asbestos-containing product was being applied or installed as to the hazards known to Defendant or about which Defendant had information, and as to the safety precautions necessary to guard against cancer and other diseases arising from the use and handling of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 19? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 19, 35 and 79-83, all of which are incorporated herein. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it improperly assumes "cancer and other diseases" arise from the use and handling of any products, sold or distributed by Graybar. Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar is within the category of distributors referenced in Interrogatory 84. Graybar offers for sale and distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. Graybar was not a manufacturer and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of products. Finally, this interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited in time. INTERROGATORY NO. 85: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 84 is "Yes," identify each such occasion on which Defendant so educated or informed its employees, distributors or purchasers, as follows: 4826-3793-1796.1 a. Identify the persons or parties which you educated or informed; b. State when, where and in what manner they were educated or informed; c. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the communication or other dissemination of such information; and d. Identify any and all persons who so educated or informed said employees, distributors, purchasers or persons working in the vicinity of application or who participated in the same in any way, including, but not limited to, assembling, drafting, writing, rewriting, preparing or conveying such information in any format. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 84 above and the responses incorporated therein. INTERROGATORY NO. 86: f Did Defendant or any predecessor entity perform, direct to be performed, finance in whole or in part, sponsor in whole or in part or receive the results of, any studies or tests concerning the relationship between asbestos exposure and asbestosis, cancer and/or mesothelioma? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7,10,19, 35,43,47,49, 63, 64 and 79 83. This defendant further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, improperly assumes that Graybar had any duty or obligation to perform, finance, sponsor or receive the results of any such studies or tests, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue i n this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 87: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 86 is "Yes," with respect to each such study or test: a. State the nature of the involvement (performed, directed it to be performed, financed, sponsored, received results, etc.); b. State when, where and at what intervals said study was performed; 4826-3793-1796,1 c. Identify any and all persons, firms or entities which performed said study; d. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating or reflecting said study or the results thereof; and e. State all means by which the results of said study were disseminated including, if applicable, publication; and identify any and all persons who received said results and any and all publications in which said results appeared. ANSWER: See objection to Interrogatory 86. INTERROGATORY NO. 88: Did Defendant at any time during the period that the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 were manufactured, sold, applied or installed, inform any purchaser or user of said products that such products could cause cancer, asbestosis, and/or other serious diseases? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5,7,10,19,35,42, 67 and 79-83, and to "manufacture" above. Further objecting, this Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. The Interrogatory is not limited in geographic area or time, and fails to identify the, or any, specific Graybar product, if any, at issue in this litigation or to which any Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. Graybar objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, compound, not limited in time or scope and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Graybar further objects to this Interrogatory in that it is more properly directed to manufacturers. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Graybar responds as follows: Graybar is not a manufacturer of products. Graybar offers for sale and 4826-3793-1796,1 distributes electrical related products manufactured by other entities. It is believed from 1926 until the early 1980s, a small number of those products manufactured by others and offered for sale by Graybar may have contained asbestos. Any such products offered for sale may be referenced in Graybar archival catalogs. Graybar was not the manufacturer of these products and, therefore, has no information regarding the chemical composition or component parts of those products. To the extent that manufacturers of any products placed warnings on or with the packaging of their products, those warnings or instructions would have been sent on to the purchaser in the same form as received from the manufacturer. Graybar has not retained any such product packaging for the relevant time period; therefore, Graybar is unable to respond to in any greater detail. Records reflecting sales of products manufactured by others during the requested time period have not been retained in accordance with Graybar's records retention policy which dictates that sales records only be kept for the current year and the six previous years. INTERROGATORY NO. 89: Did Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, or any workers' compensation insurance carrier thereof, ever have any claims for lung diseases or death from lung disease, whether directly or indirectly attributed to asbestosis, mesothelioma, lung cancer, or exposure to asbestoscontaining products? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 88 and predecessor and related companies above. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 90: If your answer to original Interrogatory number 89 was yes, please provide the following information for each and every employee of the defendant, predecessor or related company with such a claim. If the claimant was a non-employee, please provide the information for the first 100 cases of which the defendant had notice. a. Identify the claimant; b. Identify the entity against which the claim was filed; c. State the date upon which the claim was filed; d. List the locations(s) at which claimant was exposed to asbestos; < e. Identify each and every board, administrative body, commission or court which handled or reviewed said claim and state the state the style and cause number applicable to said claim before each such body; f. Identify the disease alleged by claimant; g. State the final disposition of the claim including any and all benefits paid, and the entity making such payments; h. If different from the date on which the claim was filed, state the date on which defendant first had notice of the claim; and i. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said claim. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 88 and 89. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 91: How many past or present employees of Defendant, its predecessors or related companies are known by you to be suffering from, to have suffered from, or to have suffered deaths caused by: a. Asbestosis? b. Lung cancer? c. Mesothelioma? ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatories 88-90 and predecessor or any related company above. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks medical and legal expert opinions, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. a. None. b. None. c. Geri Huffman worked for Graybar in California and was diagnosed with mesothelioma around 2010. Mr. Huffman had numerous other employers. Graybar was dismissed from the case without prejudice. He did not file a workers compensation case against Graybar as a result of his mesothelioma diagnosis. INTERROGATORY NO. 92: , For each employee referenced in your answer to Interrogatory No. 91, state the date that Defendant first knew, or had notice or information, that such past or present employee was suffering, or had suffered from: a. Asbestosis; 4826-3793-1796.1 b. Lung cancer; c. Mesothelioma. ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatory 91. INTERROGATORY NO. 93: Identify any and all material safety data sheets concerning the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 prepared, at anytime, by, or on behalf of. Defendant, any predecessor or any related company. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogator 3, 5, 7,10,19, 35 and 42 and predecessor or any related company above. Further objecting, this Interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited in time. INTERROGATORY NO. 94: Identify any and all trade organizations, associations, or other entities, including but not limited to American Textile Institute (ATI), Asbestos Information Association (AIA), Industrial Health Foundation or Industrial Hygiene Foundation (IHF), National Insulation Manufacturers Assn. (NIMA), National Insulation Contractors Assn. (NICA), National Safety Council (NSC), American Ceramics Society (ACS), National Building Materials Distributors Assn. (NIA), Sprayed Mineral Fiber Manufacturers Assn. (SMFMA), Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Assn. (TIMA), Quebec Asbestos Mining Assn. (QAMA), to which Defendant, any predecessor or any related company has belonged or in which any or all of the same have participated since 1925, and state the applicable dates of such membership or participation. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3,5,7,10,19,35 and 67 and predecessor or any related company above. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, incorporates and 4826-3793-1796.1 excessive time frame, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 95: Identify any and all persons attending, on behalf of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, any meetings, seminars or symposiums held by the trade organizations, associations, or other entities identified in response to Interrogatory No. 94. ANSWER: company above. See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7,10, 35, 67 and 94 and any related ( INTERROGATORY NO. 96: Did any officer, employee, agent or representative of Defendant, of any predecessor, or of any related company, serve, at anytime, as: a. An officer, director or official of any trade organization, association or entity identified in response to Interrogatory No. 94? b. A member of any committee or su bcommittee of any trade organization, association or entity identified in response to Interrogatory No. 94? c. The chair of any committee or subcommittee of any trade organization, association or entity identified in response to Interrogatory No. 94? d. The representative or liaison for any trade organization, association or entity identified in response to Interrogatory No. 94 to any other trade organization, association or entity, including, but not limited to. A.T.I., I.H.F., N.I.M.A., A.I.A., N.I.C.A., TIMA, QAM A, N AC, N.S.C., A.C.S., N.B.M.D.A., N.I.A., S.M.F.MA? ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatories 94 and 95. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this 4826-3793-1796.1 case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NIQ. 97: For each subpart of Interrogatory No. 96 to which your answer is "Yes," identify each and every person serving in such capacity and: a. state the trade organization, association or entity for which such service was rendered; b. specify the capacity of service, including identifying any specific committee, subcommittee or other trade organizations, associations or entities involved; and, ( c. state the applicable dates of service. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 94-96. Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 98: Identify any and all documents which Defendant, its predecessor(s) or any related company submitted to, or received from, the organizations listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 94 and/or 97: a. Which refer to, relate to or reflect the subject of asbestos; b. Which refer to, relate to or reflect a relationship between asbestos exposure and any disease; and/or c. Which refer to, relate to or reflect the placement or providing of warnings with respect to hazardous products. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7,10, 35, 67, 94 and 97. INTERROGATORY NO. 99: Identify any and all documents including, but not limited to, minutes, bulletins or reports, created by, or on behalf of, any trade organization, association or entity listed in response to 4826-3793-1796.1 Interrogatory No. 94 and/or 97 or any committee, subcommittee or subgroup thereof; a. Which refer to, relate to or reflect the subject of asbestos; b. Which refer to, relate to or reflect a relationship between asbestos exposure and any disease; or c. Which refer to, relate to or reflect the placement or providing of warnings with respect to hazardous products. ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatories 94 and 97, 98. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the organizations, associations and entities are third-party entities over which this Defendant had no control and to which Plaintiffs have access equal to that f of Graybar. INTERROGATORY NO. 100: Identify any and all documents including, but not limited to, minutes, bulletins or reports, received by, or on behalf of, any trade organization, association or entity listed in response to Interrogatory No. 94 and/or 97, or any committee, subcommittee or subgroup thereof; a. Which refer to, relate to or reflect the subject of asbestos; b. Which refer to, relate to or reflect a relationship between asbestos exposure and any disease; or c. Which refer to, relate to or reflect the placement or providing of warnings with respect to hazardous products. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 94-99 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 101: Identify any and all agreements, oral or written, between or among Defendant, any of the other defendants in this lawsuit, any organization, association or other entity including, but not limited to. those identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 94 and/or any medical or scientific 4826-3793-1796.1 foundations, relating to the standardization of: a. Specifications for asbestos doth products; b. Specifications for paper or burlap bags, or other packaging to be used for the transport and/or storage of asbestos cement; c. Warning or caution labels to be applied to asbestos products and/or their packaging, cartons, containers, or boxes; d. Methods of dissemination of public relations information to defendant's purchasers, advertisers, distributors, factory workers, contractors, insulators, users, consumers of asbestos products and/or the general public; e. Safety equipment and/or protective clothing to be utilized while handling defendant's asbestos products; * f. Medical programs to be offered or sponsored by defendant. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 94 and 100. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, is not limited to products of this Defendant, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Defendant further objects that the phrases "asbestos cloth products," "asbestos cement," "asbestos products" and "industrial programs" are vague, ambiguous and undefined. INTERROGATORY NO. 102: Did Defendant, any predecessor or related company, direct to be performed, sponsor in whole or in part, finance in whole or in part, receive the results of, or become aware of, any studies or tests performed by the Saranac Lake Laboratory of the Trudeau Foundation relating to asbestos exposure and its effects upon human health? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7, 10, 86, 88, 94 and 101. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any 4826-3793-1796.1 issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 103: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 102 is "Yes": a. Identify any and all documents received by Defendant, its predecessor(s), or a related company referring to, relating to or reflecting any findings or results of those studies or tests, and state the date upon which each was first received; b. Identify any and all communications (oral or written), between Defendant, its predecessor(s) or a related company and Saranac personnel, including but not limited to Gerrit W.H. Schepers, M.D.; c. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the Saranac studies received or submitted by Defendant, its predecessor(s) or a related company either directly, through related or predecessor companies, through other companies, or through any trade associations, organizations or other entities; and d. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting recommendations or findings of such studies relating to: (i) Adequacy or inadequacy of threshold limit values; (ii) Substitution of materials other than asbestos to be used in the insulation process. ANSWER: Not applicable. See objections to Interrogatory 102 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 104: With respect to each subject listed below, state whether said subject was, at any time, discussed at a meeting of the board of directors of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company: a. The sale and/or marketing of any asbestos-containing product, including, but not limited to, the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42; 4826-3793-1796.1 b. The health hazards resulting from exposure to asbestos, including, but not limited to, exposure resulting from the use, application or removal of asbestos-containing products; c. The placement or possible placement of warning labels on asbestos-containing products or their packages, or in sales literature, therefore including, but not limited to, the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42; and d. Any test, survey, study or similar matter concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products, including, but not limited to, the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 19 and 42. Further objecting, this Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, not limited in time or to products of this Defendant, seeks < information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial and which is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege. Defendant further objects to sub paragraph (d) on the grounds that "similar matters concerning asbestos" is vague, ambiguous and undefined. INTERROGATORY NO. 105: If your answer to any one or more of the subparts of Interrogatory No. 104 is "Yes," then with respect to each subpart for which you answered "Yes": a. Identify each and every board meeting at which said subject was discussed by stating the date(s) on which, and the location(s) at which, each meeting was held; b. Identify any and all persons present at each such meeting; and, c. Identify any and all documents, including, but not limited to, minutes, referring to, relating to, or reflecting each such meeting. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 35 and 104. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 106: Identify any and all seminars, symposiums, conferences or like gatherings attended by any officer, agent or representative of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, at which the subject of asbestos, the health hazards of asbestos exposure, or the placement or providing of warnings was discussed. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 35 and 104. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, is not limited to warnings regarding or related to asbestos, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably < calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial and is protected from discovery by the attorney client and work product privileges. INTERROGATORY NO. 107: Identify any and all documents, including, but not limited to, notes, reports, minutes or bulletins, which refer to, relate to or reflect any meeting identified in response to Interrogatory No. 106. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 98,100 and 106. INTERROGATORY NO. 108: With respect to each job site within 200 miles of Madison County and/or identified by any plaintiff (who has asserted claims against this defendant) (i) identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the purchase, sale, delivery, use, application or ordering, of any of the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 by, for, to or at said site; and, (ii) identify any and all persons known by Defendant to have knowledge concerning the same. 4826-3793-1796.1 ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 19,39 and 42 above. Further objecting, this interrogatory is overbroad and burdensome, vague and ambiguous. INTERROGATORY NO. 109: Identify any and all parties, located within a 200 mile radius of Madison County, Illinois, including, but not limited to, distributors, suppliers or contractors, known by you to have purchased, received, sold, distributed, applied or otherwise used, at any time, any or all of the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 19, 39,42 and 108. Further objecting, this < Interrogatory is overbroad and burdensome. INTERROGATORY NO. 110: Other than cases identified in Interrogatory numbers 89 and 90, has defendant, any predecessor or any related company, ever appeared as a party in any lawsuit involving a claim or claims based upon allegations of property damage or seeking recovery of the costs of abatement from the use, application, installation or presence of asbestos or asbestos-containing products? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3,5,7,10,89 and 90 and to the definitions of related company and predecessor above. Graybar objects to the phrase "a claim or claims based upon allegations of property damage or seeking recovery of the costs of abatement from the use, application, installation or presence of asbestos or asbestos-containing products" as vague, ambiguous, and undefined. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. Ill: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 110 is "Yes," identify each such lawsuit as follows: a. Identify the plaintiff(s); b. Identify all other defendants; c. State when and where the case was filed; d. Identify each court in which the case was heard or is pending, including appeals, and state the style and cause number of the case in each court; and, e. State the current status of the case if it remains pending or, if the case has been disposed of, state the final disposition. < ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 110. INTERROGATORY NO. 112: In any lawsuit, as described in Interrogatory numbers 89, 90,110 and 111, has Defendant been subject to sanctions, a contempt citation or similar action for failing, or refusing to comply with, any court order, for discovery fraud, or for the failure to provide complete, accurate and truthful responses to discovery? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 89, 90,110 and 111. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 113: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 112 is "Yes," with respect to each such occasion described: a. Identify the lawsuit involved, the court which imposed the sanctions or issued the contempt citation, and any other court which reviewed the same; 4826-3793-1796,1 b. Describe the violation for which sanctions or contempt was imposed; c. If the violation involved the failure or refusal to produce any document(s), identify any and all such documents; d. If the violation involved any failure to truthfully answer or to respond to interrogatories, identify any and all such interrogatories and your response thereto, including the person answering on your behalf; e. State the present status or final disposition of the matter, which ever is applicable; and, f. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said matter, including, but not limited to, pleadings, exhibits and court orders. ANSWER: Not applicable. See objections to Interrogatory 112. INTERROGATORY NO. 114: In any lawsuit involving a claim or claims based upon allegations of injury, impairment, disease or death allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos, has any document or conversation as to which the defendant, any predecessor or related company, asserted the attorney/client privilege been held by any court to be not privileged on the basis of the crime/fraud exception? ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatories 3, 5,7,10, 35 and 112. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. The assertion of any privilege in any other case is immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in these cases, is beyond the scope of permissible discovery, is protected by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Illinois and United States Constitutions, and the free and ready access to the courts provision of the Illinois Constitution. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 115: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 114 is "Yes," identify any and all such documents or conversations described, and with respect to each: a. Identify all persons whose actions were held to constitute a crime or fraud; b. State the current status of the court's determination; and, c. State whether you assert the privilege with respect to disclosing the document or conversation in this case. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 35, 112 and 114. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any'issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 116: Identify any and ail expert witnesses who have testified on behalf of the defendant, any predecessor or related company, in the last ten years in any lawsuits involving a claim or claims based upon allegations of injury, impairment, disease or death caused by exposure to asbestos, or a claim or claims based upon allegations of property damage from the use, application, installation or presence of asbestos or asbestos-containing products, or issues of insurance coverage for any claims of personal injury or property damage arising out of the exposure to, use of, application of, installation of, or presence of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7, 10, 35 and 112-115. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Further objecting, 4826-3793-1796.1 Graybar states that experts who have testified in any other case, if any, are immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in these cases, is beyond the scope of permissible discovery, and such information is equally available to Plaintiffs through the records of state and federal court systems. Moreover, the Plaintiffs' cases herein do not directly involve insurance coverage. INTERROGATORY NO. 117: Identify any and all present or former directors, officers, employees, or agents of defendant, any predecessor or related company, who have testified in any manner whatsoever including a discovery or evidence deposition, or in a trial, in the last 20 years on behalf of or against the f defendant, any predecessor, or related company, in any lawsuits involving a claim or claims based upon allegations of personal injury or property damage caused by exposure to, the use of, the application of, the installation of, or the presence of any asbestos or asbestos-containing product, other than persons who testified as plaintiffs in their own cases. Specifically included within the scope of this request are any suits involving the issue of insurance coverage for claims of personal injury or property damage resulting from the exposure to, the use, application, installation or presence of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: See objections and responses to Interrogatories 3,5,7,10,35,67,95,110 and 116 and predecessor and related company above. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, encompasses an unreasonable and excessive time frame, seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Further objecting, Graybar states that another case, if any, are immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in these cases, is beyond the scope of permissible discovery, and such information is equally available to Plaintiffs through the 4826-3793-1796.1 records of state and federal court systems. Moreover, the Plaintiffs' cases herein do not directly involve insurance coverage. INTERROGATORY NO. 118: Identify any and all present or former directors, officers, employees, or agents of the defendant, any predecessor or any related company, other than persons appearing as adverse parties, who have testified against the defendant, any predecessor, or any related company in the last 20 years, in any proceeding involving the subject of asbestos, including, but not limited to, workers' compensation hearings, or any hearing before any governmental body. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 117. INTERROGATORY NO. 119: With respect to your answers to Interrogatory numbers 116,117, and 118, identify any and all documents, including, but not limited to, transcripts or notes of testimony, referring to, relating to or reflecting the testimony of such expert witnesses or employees, directors, officers, or agents. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 116-118. INTERROGATORY NO. 120: Has Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, ever been cited, warned, fined, sanctioned or otherwise officially written up for, any violation of a federal, state or local statute, law, rule, ordinance, code, administrative order, executive order, or the like, by any federal, state or local governmental entity, which violation concerned asbestos in any way? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 110-113, 116-118. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, not limited in time, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 4826-3793-1796.1 discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Moreover, the phrase "concerned asbestos in any way" is overbroad, burdensome, vague, ambiguous, undefined and places an undue burden on this Defendant to both search for the requested information and to guess and speculate over what is being sought. INTERROGATORY NO. 121: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 120 is "Yes," with respect to each such violation: a. Identify the governmental entity issuing the citation, warning, fine, sanction or write up; b. State the date of the citation, warning, fine, sanction or write-up; * c. Describe the violation and state the date(s) during which it occurred; d. Identify the statute, law, rule, ordinance, code or order to which the violation related; e. State what, if any, specific fine, penalty, or sanction was imposed; f. State the date in which and the manner in which said violation was corrected; g. Identify any and all officials of Defendant, its predecessor or its related company having knowledge or notice of said violation and state the date on which said knowledge or notice was received; and, h. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said violation. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7,10, 35, 67, 99,100 and 120. INTERROGATORY NO. 122: Has any federal, state or local government entity, at anytime, conducted any inspection, test or survey concerning asbestos or asbestos exposure at any facility where the products listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 42 were manufactured, processed, applied, used or removed? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 19, 42 and 120. Further objecting, this Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, not limited in time or locations, seeks information which is 4826-3793-1796.1 irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 123: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 122 is "Yes," then with respect to each such inspection, test or survey; a. Identify the governmental entity conducting the same; b. State the date(s) on which the same was conducted; c. Describe the nature of the inspection, test or survey including, but not limited to, the results or conclusions thereof; and, f d. Identify any and all documents referring to, relating to or reflecting the same. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 122. INTERROGATORY NO. 124: Identify: a. Any expert whom you intend to call as a witness; b. The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; c. The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; d. A summary of the grounds for each opinion; e. The address of such person and field of expertise; f. Identify and produce each treatise, article or text upon which the expert will rely in testifying, ANSWER: Defendant will comply with the applicable Illinois Rules and law regarding disclosure of experts and any standing, general or case specific orders or agreements between counsel regarding expert discovery and disclosure, 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 125: Are there any policies of insurance which provide, or might provide, coverage on behalf of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company for the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs' complaints? ANSWER: This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, not limited in time or locations, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 126: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 125 is "Yes," identify each such policy of insurance as follows: a. Identify the insurer(s); b. Identify the insured(s); c. State the date on which the policy was first purchased and the date on which the policy expired or was terminated; d. Describe the coverage provided, including, but not limited to, the time period over which the policy applied, the nature of the acts, omissions and injuries covered, and whether the policy provides primary or excess coverage; and e. State the dollar limits of the coverage provided, including, if applicable, the "per person" limitations and "per occurrence" limitation. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 125 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 127: ., With respect to each policy described in response to Interrogatory No. 126, state: a. The dollar amount of coverage which remains unexpended; and b. Whether any dispute exists between insurer and insured with respect to coverage. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 125 above. 4826-3793-1796.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 128: Other than the policies of insurance described in response to Interrogatory No. 126, do there exist any agreements providing for the benefit of Defendant, any predecessor or any related company, complete or partial indemnification for any or all expenses incurred with respect to any or all of these cases, including, but not limited to, judgments, settlements, costs, experts' fees and/or attorneys' fees? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 10 and 126 above. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculate to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 129: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 128 is "Yes," for each such agreement: a. Identify all parties to the agreement and state the capacity of each such party (i.e. indemnitor, indemnitee, etc.); b. State the terms of the agreement, including the nature of the expenses covered and, if applicable, any limitations on payment, reimbursement or indemnification; and c. Identify any and ail documents referring to, relating to or reflecting said agreement. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory 128 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 130: Was this Defendant ever allowed to use the trademark or logo of any other company, including but not limited to, its predecessor or related company, on any products Defendant sold, distributed or installed, and if so please state: a. The trademark or logo used by you; 4826-3793-1796.1 b. The company allowing such use of its trademark or logo; c. The time period such use was allowed; d. Whether such use was by written, verbal or implied agreement; e. Each and every product such trademark or logo was placed upon; f. Identify all documents which refer to, relate to or reflect the use of such trademark or logo. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3,5,7,10,47,89 and 116. This Interrogatory is overbroad in that it is not limited to any asbestos-containing products, burdensome for the same reason, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this casd, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 131: From 1940 to present, state whether Defendant and/or any predecessor or related company ever provided workers' compensation, health, accident and disability and/or life insurance coverage for its employees, and if so: a. Identify each insurance carrier which provided workers' compensation, health, accident and disability and/or life insurance coverage to your employees and the dates such coverage was provided by each such carrier; b. State whether such insurance carrier(s) ever conducted any dust counts or studies, industrial hygiene surveys or other tests relating to any asbestos-containing products that Defendant's employees may have been working with or around; and, c. If your response to subpart b, hereof is in the affirmative, please indicate the date of each such count, study, survey or other test and identify all documents relating thereto. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3,5,7,10,35,67,98-100. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this 4826-3793-1796.1 case, seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial, and is beyond the scope of permissible discovery as provided by Illinois law. INTERROGATORY NO. 132: Other than cases identified in Interrogatories 89, 90, 110 and 111, has defendant, any predecessor or any related company, ever appeared as a party in any lawsuit involving a claim or claims based upon issues of insurance for any claim of personal injury, property damage or cost of abatement arising out of the exposure to, use of, application of, installation of or presence of asbestos or asbestos-containing products? ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 89, 90,110 and 111. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 133: If your answer to Interrogatories 89,90,110 and 111 is "yes", identify each such lawsuit as follows: a. Identify all plaintiffs); b. Identify all defendant(s); c. State when and where the case was filed; d. Identify each court in which the case was heard or is pending, including appeals, and state the style and cause number of the case in each court; and e. State the current status of the case if it remains pending or, if the case has been disposed of, state the final disposition. 4826-3793-1796.1 ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 89, 90,110 and 111. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. INTERROGATORY NO. 134: Is the defendant, any predecessor or related company, claiming any document responsive to any interrogatory or any request for production filed by Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides 8t Barnerd LLC as being protected from disclosure because of a privilege claimed for any reason? If yes, please list each document being claimed as protected from disclosure in a privilege log providing the date of the document, the identity of the author, what individual or entity the document was addressed to, the identity of any individuals or entities provided copies of the document, a brief description of the nature of the document, and the particular privilege claimed as shielding the document from disclosure. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 7, 10, 35, 67 and 98-100. This Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case, seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial, and is beyond the scope of permissible discovery as provided by Illinois law. INTERROGATORY NO. 135: Describe each and every document that defendant intends to use as an exhibit at trial. (Providing an exhibit list in lieu of an answer is an acceptable response). 4826-3793-1796.1 ANSWER: Defendant will comply with the applicable Illinois Rules and law regarding disclosure of trial exhibits and any standing, general or case specific orders or agreements between counsel regarding trial exhibits, discovery and disclosure. INTERROGATORY NO. 136: State whether this defendant has ever generated reports in compliance with the Asbestos Information Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-577,15 U.S.C. Section 2607 and if so for each such document, please state: a. The date said documents were generated and filed; < b. The location of any copies of said reports under the control of this defendant; c. The location of any draft reports, memos or any other notes concerning the preparation of said reports; and d. The name, address and phone number of the individual having custody and control of each said report. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case as to this Defendant, seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial, and is beyond the scope of permissible discovery, in that 15 U.S.C. sec. 2607 is specifically limited to "any person who manufactured or processed...asbestos or asbestos-containing material that was prepared for sale for use as surfacing material, thermal system insulation, or miscellaneous material in buildings," and this Defendant has not been sued in this litigation with respect to any such activities. INTERROGATORY NO. 137: If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the negative, please state whether any 4826-3793-1796.1 documents, memos, notes or any other writing exist describing or memorializing the research and decision whether or not to generate or file any report as required by the said Act and if so for each such document please state: a. The date said document was generated; b. The location of said documents; and, c. The name, address and phone number of the individual(s) having custody and control of each said document. ANSWER: See objections to Interrogatory No. 136 above. 4826-3793-1796.1 STATE OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS VERIFICATION TO FOLLOW ) ) ss. ) KATHIE BULLERDICK, ESQ., being duiy sworn according to law, deposes and says: that I am an employee of defendant Graybar Electric Company, Inc., and authorized to make this verification on its behalf; that she has read GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MANUFACTURER INTERROGATORIES AND MANUFACTURER REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS and is familiar with their contents; that the responses set forth herein were assembled and prepared by counsel for defendant based on information provided to counsel by employees or former employees through their sworn testimony and/or contained in documents located in the repository of asbestos-related documents maintained by counsel; and that to the best of the deponent's knowledge, information and belief, the responses are true. Also, Graybar Electric Company, Inc.'s Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Requests for Production pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 214 is complete in accordance with the requests. Kathie Bullerdick, Esq. Sworn before me this____ day of, 2013. Notary Public 4826-3793-1796.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the attorneys of record to the above cause via hand delivery and also by enclosing same in an envelope with postage prepaid, and depositing same in a United States mailbox in Edwardsville, Illinois on June 21, 2013. Copies Mailed To: Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd, LLC One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Attorneys for Plaintiffs LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Madison County Office 103 W. Vandalia St, Suite 300 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone 618.307.7290 Facsimile 618.692.6099 4326-3793-1796.1