Document gOXZ7OgRXn2a1ZVM3YoO1g4e

IL036B.ASB 04/20/93 STATE 07 ILLINOIS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OP ILLINOIS TAZEWELL COUNTY OTIS PADGETT, Plaintiffs, V. OWENS-CORNINGFIBERGLAS CORPORATION; et al, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No-. 92 L122 DEPENDANT, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.'S ANSWERS PLAINTIFFS' PIRST SET OP INTERROGATORIES PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Some of the events which may be relevant to the matters inquired about by Plaintiffs' Interrogatories apparently occurred more than thirty-five years ago. In addition, effective April 30, 1958, Owens-Illinois, Inc. disposed of the business involved in this action by way of sale of that business to OwensCorning Fiberglas Corporation. Since that time, Owens-Illinois, Inc. has not engaged in any such business. It does not now and it has not since that sale manufactured, distributed or sold any asbestos-containing products. As a result of the foregoing factors, many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which plaintiffs' interrogatories relate are deceased, or are otherwise unavailable to OwensIllinois, Inc., and investigations to date indicate that at least some documents which relate to matters inquired about by these interrogatories were transferred to Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation with the transfer of the business in question in 1958. Owens-Illinois, Inc. is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate, confirm the transfer of, or confirm the absence of, such documents and is also engaged in mmay"s a continuing investigation into the matters inquired about in these interrogatories. Unless otherwise stated in an answer to a specific interrogatory, the answers set out hereinafter are limited to the period during which Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactured asbestos-containing insulation products and to the facilities related to that business. The following is a part of and is incorporated by reference in every answer provided hereinafter: This answer is accurate as of the date made. However, Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s investigation is continuing, and Owens-Illinois, Inc. cannot exclude the possibility that it may be able to obtain more complete information or even information which indicates that the answer being supplied is incorrect. Owens-Illinois, Inc. objects to answering this interrogatory in regard to any period of time other than the period during which it engaged in the business involved in this case which ended in mid-1958 or concerning any facility not related to that business, on the basis that any such answer would be irrelevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and would be burdensome and oppressive. Furthermore, Owens-Illinois, Inc. objects to the instructions and definitions supplied by plaintiffs with regard to these interrogatories, on the basis that the defini tions are overly broad, vague, and often inconsistent with the normal usage and meaning of such words, and the instructions are overly broad, burdensome and constitute an unreasonable expansion of the interrogatories themselves. Owens-Illinois, Inc. therefore gives notice that it does not consider itself bound by the instructions and definitions propounded by plaintiffs, and 2 instead shall answer the interrogatories in a manner consistent with a normal understanding of the language used in the interrogatory and to the extent necessary to fairly and fully answer the interrogatory. Q. l. Have these interrogatories been answered fully and in good faith to the extent of the actual knowledge and information available to Defendant, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., its insurance carrier(s) and attorneys as required by Battershell v. Bowman Dairy Co., 37 ill. App. 2d 193, 201 (1st Dist. 1961)? A. 1. This Defendant states that it has referred to the relevant business records of the Owens-Illinois Glass Company, which are still in the possession of Owens- Illinois, Inc., in connection with the preparation of answers to these interrogatories unless otherwise indicated. Q. 2. Is the Defendant, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., a corporation? If so, state: (a) the exact corporate name; (b)' the state of incorporation; (c) the name and address and position within Defendant of the person providing sworn answers to these interrogatories. A. 2. Owens-Illinois Glass Company was incorporated in the State of Ohio in 1929. Owens-Illinois Glass Company changed its name to Owens-Illinois, Inc. on April 28, 1965. Due to corporate restructuring in 1987, this defendant is now a Delaware corporation. Arthur H. Smith, Assistant Secretary of Owens-Illinois, Inc., One SeaGate, Toledo, Ohio 43666. 3 Q. 3. Has anyone obtained from any person a statement (whether oral or written, signed or unsigned) concerning the occurrence involved in this cause of action? if so, state as to each statement: (a) the name and last known address of the person making the statement; was taken; (b) when, where and by whom the statement (c) is there any tangible preservation of the statement, such as a document signed by the person making the statement, a tape-recording, a transcript or a memorandum purporting to reflect what was said? (d) if your answer to (c) is affirmative, state the name and address of the person having possession of the tangible preservation of the statement. A. 3. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all of the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. Q. 4. Has any private firm or company adjustor been directed to investigate the occurrence or asked questions of persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the occurrence? If so, state the full name and address of each firm or adjustor. A. 4. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited 4 to any issue which is the subject of this case. This defendant furtht'.' objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all of the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. Q. 5. Do you have any information regarding Plaintiff's physical condition other than that information furnished you by the Plaintiffs' counsel? If so, state the nature of that information, the name and address of its source, and if documentary in nature, who now has each. A. 5. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all of the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. Q. . Were any photos taken of Otis Padgett? If so, state the total number of photos, the date of each photo, and who has each. A. 6. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the 5 ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all V:i the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. Q. 7. Were you named or covered under any policy of liability insurance, effective on the date of the occurrence, which may be construed to provide coverage for any claim stated in the Complaint? If so, as to each policy, state: (a) the name of the company; (b) the policy number; (c) the effective period; (d) the maximum liability limits for: (1) injury to any one person; (2) aggregate personal injury limits; (e) what amounts, if any, have previously been paid under the policy which in the opinion of the carrier reduces the coverage available; (f) whether the carrier denied coverage or tendered a defense under a reservation of rights; (g) whether the policy contains any first party medical pay or disability coverage, and, if so, describe the coverage. A. 7. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks irrelevant and immaterial information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Expressly reserving and without waiving its objections, and subject to them, this defendant states that the issues surrounding its insurance coverage for asbestos claims are complex. Because of disputes over possible insurance coverage, this defendant has engaged in litigation against certain insurance carriers which may provide coverage for asbestos claims. One such lawsuit resulted in a 6 decision of the Unitec' States District Court of the District of Columbia in Owens-Ill- -is. Inc, v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. 597 F.Supp. 1515 (D.D.C. 1984). The litigation between this defendant and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. has been settled. The terms and conditions of the settlement agreement are confidential, and as a consequence, the parties are precluded from disclosing the terms or contents of the agreement. Litigation with other insurance carriers is ongoing. Q. 8. Which, if any, of the carriers listed in your answer to the preceding interrogatory are providing a defense this suit? No. 7. A. 8. Refer to objection to Interrogatory Q. 9. Identify those expert witnesses (as defined in Supreme Court Rule 220(a)(1) from whom you may offer opinion testimony at trial, and for each such expert, state: (a) his name, current address, telephone number, occupation, and employer; (b) the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; basis therefore; (c) his conclusions and opinions and the (d) his qualifications, including all formal education subsequent to high school, a history of his employment and the citation to each of his published writings; (e) the amount paid, or agreed to be paid to him, specifying his hourly rate of compensation; (f) the name of the first plaintiff, first defendant, the court in which filed, and the cause number 7 for every cause in which such expert has testified, whether at deposition or trial, and the da-'-e of his testimony. A. 9. The identity of expert witnesses to be called at trial is not known at the present time. This defendant reserves the right to designate at a later date expert witnesses to be used at trial. Q. 10. Identify with specificity any documents, objects, and tangible things, as defined in Supreme Court Rule 214, which are or were in the possession of any consulting expert as defined in Supreme Court Rule 220 which do not contain the consulting expert's opinion. A. 10. This defendant objects to revealing the name of any expert whom it has consulted, except as to employment for testimony at trial on the grounds of: (a) the work product privilege; (b) attorney-client privilege; (c) the interrogatory seeks information which is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Q. 11. Has Defendant ever had one or more persons whose primary responsibility included looking after or monitoring the health of Defendant's employees, such as a medical director? If so, state the following as to each person who has held this position: (a) the name and address of the person; held; (b) the name of the position he or she the position; (c) the dates during which he or she held (d) the address of his or her office during the time he or she held the position; 8 (e) state whettv.r there was a written job description for that position at that 'vne; (f) if there was a written job description, set forth the words of the description or attach a copy hereto. A. 11. Charles Shook, M.D., deceased, employed from March 25, 1946 until June 30, 1960 was the Medical Director during the period in which this defendant manufactured, sold or distributed asbestos-containing products. He reported to the Vice President of Corporate Staff, Director of Corporate Personnel. This defendant's chief medical officer is responsible for assuring and promoting preventive and corrective medical programs, services and practices to protect and preserve employee health and productivity throughout Owens-Illinois, Inc. The individual in this position develops, organizes, introduces and implements pre-employment and periodic examinations as well as new health programs in order to insure the continued well being of defendant's employees in a safe and healthy environment. The person in this position is also responsible for the quality of medical services at Owens-Illinois locations. Q. 12. Has Defendant ever directed or contributed money toward a study of the effects of asbestos exposure upon the health of some or all of its employees? If so, state the following as to each such study: study; (a) the description or title of the (b) the dates during which it was made; (c) the location or locations of the plants at which the employees were employed; (d) the number of employees studied; (e) brief description of the study; 9 (f) whether any of the r .ults were reported into written form, and if so, who now h a copy of the report. A. 12. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958 and does not have any records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer this interrogatory. During May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information relating to the substance of this interrogatory. This defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies constitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this defendant has not copied. They are available through Winne, Banta, Rizzi, Hetherington & Basralian, 25 E. Salem Street, Hackensack, New Jersey. This defendant also has reason to believe that plaintiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. Other documents possibly relating to this interrogatory may have been produced by OwensCorning Fiberglas Corporation in the asbestos litigation. Those documents found at Saranac Lake and at Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation and elsewhere, indicate that during the period of time when Owens-Illinois was in the business of manufacturing asbestos-containing products, the state of government, industrial hygiene and medical community knowledge was that there was a recognized safe exposure level for asbestos dust and that persons installing insulation were not exposed to excessive or hazardous levels of asbestos dust. The foregoing 10 documents also indicate that Kaylo plant employees were v-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disease; that this defendant made appropriate efforts to provide ventilation and to control the emissions of all dust emitted during the manufacturing process within recognized safe levels of exposure, including the use of respirators in some instances, dust collection equipment and other devices as necessary; and that therefore during the period in which this defendant was in the business of manufacturing Kaylo it had no reason to believe that the foreseeable use of Kaylo would create a hazard to users. The documents produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation indicate that the September, 1955 publication in the A.M.A. Archives of Industrial Health was a publication of inhalation experiments. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks the production of documents, such documents, as outlined in this response, have not been found as part of this defendant's records and, to the extent that this defendant is in possession of copies of documents, it possesses copies only of documents collected in preparation for litigation. This defendant objects to producing the same. The documents are available from their proper source. Q. 13. Have there been any studies of the effect of asbestos exposure upon the health of any of Defendant's employees? If so, state: study; (a) the description or title of the (b) the dates during which it was made; (c) the location or locations of the plants at which the employees were employed; (d) the number of employees studied; (e) brief description of the study; 11 (f) whether any of the results were reported into written form, and if so, who now has a copy of the report. A. 13. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestoscontaining products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 14. known as asbestosis? Is there a disease or disease process A. 14. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. Further, this defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks an expert medical opinion which this defendant is not qualified to render. asbestos? Q. 15. Is asbestosis caused by exposure to A. 15. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 12 overly broad, and seeks an expert medical opinion which this defendant is not qualified to render. Without waiving the above objections, during the period of time in which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products, it was this defendant's understanding that the inhalation of asbestos dust in excessive amounts over a prolonged period of time (years), under certain conditions, could lead to the potential hazard of contracting a disease known as asbestosis. However, in 1958 and before and for some years thereafter, the state of the medical and scientific knowledge was to the effect that there was a safe level of asbestos to which a person could be exposed without risk of injury and to the effect that persons such as plaintiffs were not exposed to excessive amounts of asbestos. Q. 16. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, when did Defendant first learn that asbestosis was caused by exposure to asbestos? A. 16. Refer to objection to Interrogatory No. 15. To the extent this interrogatory inquires as to asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by other defendants, this defendant states that it does not have any records from which it can 'obtain information sufficient to answer this interrogatory, nor can it locate any present employees with knowledge thereof. Insofar as this interrogatory inquires as to asbestos-containing products manufactured by this defendant, this defendant states that it ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products effective April 30, 1958, and has not engaged in any such business since. During May 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at 13 Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information relating to the substance of this interrogatory. This defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies constitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this defendant has not copied. This defendant also has reason to believe that plaintiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. They are available through Winne, Banta, Rizzi, Hetherington & Basralian, 25 E. Salem Street, Hackensack, New Jersey. Other documents possibly relating to this interrogatory may have been produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation. Those documents indicate that experiments referred to in the documents produced by Mr. Logie were published in an AMA publication in September 1955. As with the documents produced by Mr. Logie, the documents produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation have not been found as part of this defendant's records. The foregoing documents indicate that during the time in which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products, its products contained a relatively small proportion of asbestos when compared to other asbestos-containing products in use during and prior to the same period of time. It appears that this defendant's employees at its asbestos product manufacturing plants were xrayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disease, although in the course of their employment they were exposed to the raw materials of this defendant's products as well as the dust of the finished product. Furthermore, these documents indicate that there were no worker's compensation claims filed by its employees for asbestos-related diseases. 14 It was this defendant's understanding of the state of medical and industrial hygiene knowledge that exposure to asbestos in excessive amounts over a prolonged period of time (years), in the conditions typically experienced in factories, workshops, and possibly mines and mills could lead to the potential hazard of contracting a disease known as asbestosis. However, the state of medical and industrial hygiene knowledge was also to the effect that there was a safe level (threshold limit value) of asbestos to which a person could be exposed without risk of injury. This defendant was aware of the threshold limit value for asbestos as published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in the 1940's and 1950's through publications by the Industrial Hygiene Foundation, ACGIH and from the above referenced "Logie" and "OCF" documents. In addition, it appears that an employee of this defendant subscribed to and received the Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology which contained in January 1946 an article published by the Navy entitled, "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels," by Fleischer, Viles, Gade and Drinker. This article stated that persons who worked as insulators in shipyards were not exposed and did not work in conditions similar to those experienced in factories, workshops, mines and mills, and were not exposed to levels of asbestos above the recognized safe limits. Therefore, the article concluded that such persons were not engaged in a hazardous occupation. From the foregoing papers, reports and articles, this defendant had no reason to believe that exposure to its asbestos-containing products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm to users. This defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery and the case warrant. This defendant has reason to believe that plaintiffs' counsel is in possession 15 of a substantial library of asbestos-related literature 'containing articles that defendant may wish to rely upon. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks the production of documents, such documents, as outlined in this response, have not been found as part of this defendant's records and, to the extent that this defendant is in possession of copies of documents, it possesses copies only of documents collected in preparation for litigation. This defendant objects to producing the same. The documents are available from their proper source. Q. 17. known as lung cancer? Is there a disease or disease process A. 17. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. Further, this defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks an expert medical opinion which this defendant is not qualified to render. Q. 18. Can lung cancer be caused by exposure to asbestos? A. 18. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. This defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the term caused is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant further objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between cancer and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of time defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, defendant is informed and 16 believes that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason to believe .hat the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting cancer. Q. 19. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, when did Defendant first learn that lung cancer can be caused by exposure to asbestos? No. 18. A. 19. Refer to objection to Interrogatory Q. 20. Does exposure to asbestos increase the incidence of lung cancer? A. 20. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. This defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the phrase "increase the incidence" is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant further objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between cancer and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of time defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason to believe that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting cancer. Q. 21. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state when Defendant first 17 learned that exposure to asbestos increased the incidence of lung cancer. No. 20. A. 21. Refer to objection to Interrogatory Q. 22. known as mesothelioma? Is there a disease or disease process A. 22. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. Further, this defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks an expert medical opinion which this defendant is not qualified to render. Q. 23. exposure to asbestos? Can mesothelioma be caused by A. 23. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. This defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the term ''caused" is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant further objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between mesothelioma and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of time defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason to believe that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting mesothelioma. 18 Q. 24. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, when did Defendant first learn that mesothelioma can be caused by exposure to asbestos? No. 23 A. 24. Refer to objection to Interrogatory Q. 25. Does exposure to asbestos increase the incidence of mesothelioma? A. 25. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. This defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the term "increase the incidence" is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant further objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between mesothelioma and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of time defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason to believe that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting mesothelioma. Q. 26. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state when Defendant first learned that exposure to asbestos increased the incidence of mesothelioma. 19 NO. 25. A. 26 Refer to objection to Interrogatory Q. 27. Is there a disease or disease process known as cancer of the gastrointestinal tract? A. 27. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. Further, this defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks an expert medical opinion which this defendant is not qualified to render. Q. 28. Can cancer of the gastrointestinal tract be caused by exposure to asbestos? A. 28. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. This defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the term "caused" is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant further objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between cancer and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of time defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason to believe that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting cancer. 20 Q. 29. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, when A'id Defendant first learn that cancer of the gastrointestinal tract can be caused by exposure to asbestos? No. 28. A. 29. Refer to objection to Interrogatory Q. 30. Does exposure to asbestos increase the incidence of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract: A. 30. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. This defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the phrase "increase the incidence" is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant further objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between cancer and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of time defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason to believe that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting cancer. Q. 31. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state when Defendant first learned that exposure to asbestos increased the incidence of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract. 21 No. 30. A. 31 Refer to objection to `rrterrogatory Q. 32. List the following information for each claim brought against Defendant by a present or former employee of Defendant or the spouse or child of a deceased such employee alleging a disease or condition of ill-being caused by asbestos: (a) the name and address of the person alleged to be diseased or in a condition of ill-being; of ill-being began; (b) when the alleged disease or condition (c) the circumstances under which the employee is alleged to have come into contact with asbestos; (d) whether the person is represented by an attorney, and if so, the name and address of his attorney; (e) the agency where the claim was filed, the docket number of the claim and the date the claim was filed. A. 32. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, during the period in which this defendant engaged in the manufacture of its asbestos-containing products, it received no workers' compensation claims for any asbestos-related disease. Q. 33. List the following information for each claim, not identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, brought against Defendant by a present or former 22 employee of Defendant or the spouse or child of a deceased employee, alleging a disease or condition of ill-being cau sd by asbestos or an asbestos containing product sold by Defendant: * a) the name and address of the person alleged to be diseased or in a condition of ill-being; of ill-being began; b) when the alleged disease or condition c) the circumstances under which the employee is alleged to have come into contact with asbestos sold by you; d) whether the person is represented by an attorney, and if so, the name and address of his attorney; e) the agency where the claim was filed, the docket number of the claim, and the date the claim was filed. A. 33. Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 32. Q. 34. List the following information for each claim or report, not identified in you answer to any preceding interrogatory, alleging a disease or condition of ill- being caused by asbestos or an asbestos containing product sold by Defendant: a) the name and address of the person alleged to'be diseased or in a condition of illbeing; b) when the alleged disease or condition of ill-being began; c) the circumstances under which the employee is alleged to have come into contact with asbestos sold by you; d) whether the person is represented by an attorney, and if so, the name and address of his attorney; e) the agency where the claim was filed; the docket number of the agency where the 23 claim was filed, the docket number of the claim and the date the claim was filed. A. 34. Refer to answer'to Interrogatory No. 32. Q. 35. List the following information regarding each document (as defined in Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(1) authored by an employee of Defendant in the course of his employment, dealing in whole or in part with the consequences of exposure to asbestos: (a) name, title or other means of identification of the document; (b) name, position at time document authored, and current address, position and employer of each author of the document; (c) date prepared or published; (d) the name and address of the entity responsible for its publication and/or distribution; (e) if available in typewritten or printed form, the number of pages. A. 35. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. Further, this defendant objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work-product privilege. Q. 36. When did Defendant first sell asbestos or products containing asbestos? 24 A. 36 Owens-Illinois Glass Company began limited pilot plant operations involving the production of "Kaylo" asbestos-containing products in 1943. It began the manufacture of commercial quantities of "Kaylo" asbestos- containing products in about 1948 and continued such manufacture until about April 30, 1958. Q. 37. Do Defendant still sell asbestos or products containing asbestos? If not, when did Defendant stop selling? A. 37. No. This defendant ceased all involvement in the asbestos-containing product business in 1958. Q. 38. List the following information about each different type (as opposed to different sizes of the same type) of asbestos containing building and/or insulation product manufactured or sold by Defendant: (a) brand or trade name; (b) description; (c) uses Defendant recommended of it; (d) asbestos content; (e) dates of manufacture and/or sale. A. 38. (a) Kaylo. (b) This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. It believes that Kaylo and Kaylo-20 were premolded, light density rigid products, and were manufactured in two forms, block and pipe covering. Kaylo roof deck and door core were made of a heavy density material in block form. Kaylo was white or off-white in color, and Kaylo-20 was pinkish in color. 25 (c) The asbestos-containing products manufactured by this defendant were intended to be used for industrial high temperature thermal insulation such as pipe covering and block insulation, and to increase fireproofing and fire protection and for insulation through use as a roof deck or fireproof material or door core material. (d) This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products in 1958. Its investigation as to the composition of each such product, including the type of asbestos contained therein (i.e., amosite or chrysotile) and the quantitative percentage of asbestos, is continuing, although this defendant now believes that this defendant's commercially produced asbestos-containing products were hydrous calcium silicates containing between 13% and approximately 20% asbestos. Chryso tile asbestos was the primary type apparently used. Amosite was incorporated to a lesser extent. For some periods of time, light density pipe covering and block insulation contained only chrysotile asbestos. Roof deck and door core contained both chrysotile and amosite asbestos. (e) Owens-Illinois Glass Company began limited pilot plant operations involving the production of "Kaylo" asbestos-containing products in 1943. It began the manufacture of commercial quantities of "Kaylo" asbestoscontaining products in about 1948, and began the manufacture of commercial quantities of "Kaylo-20" in or after mid-1955, and continued such manufacture until about April 30, 1958. This defendant's manufacturing plants were located in Berlin, New Jersey and Sayreville, New Jersey. The Berlin plant was in operation from approximately 1943 until on or about April 30, 1958. The Sayreville plant was in operation from February 1948 until about April 30, 1953. 26 Q. 39. Has Defendant, at any time since it began selling asbestos or asbestos containing products, issued a warning concerning the consequences of exposure to asbestos, which warning was intended by Defendant to reach those persons who would breath or ingest asbestos or asbestos containing products during their distribution and/or use? If so, state as to each such warning: (a) the language of the warning; (b) date first issued or distributed; (c) date last issued or distributed; distribution used; (d) the method of communication or (e) The name, position at that time, and current address, position and employer of each person ordering or recommending the warning. A. 39. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. However, it does not appear that any warning concerning asbestos was given in that it does not appear that this defendant had reason to believe that the use of its products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm. Q. 40. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in affirmative, state the following as to the first information Defendant received that exposure to asbestos caused disease: a) e.q.. orally, in writing; the form in which it was received, b) if orally, the name and address of the person from whom received; 27 c) if the information was received in witten form, give the author, title of the document, and date of the. document; d) the name and address of the employee or employees who received the information; e) briefly describe the information. A. 40. Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 39. Q. 41. If your answer to the second preceding interrogatory was affirmative, list the name and address of each employee who was responsible to investigate whether: a) the warnings were reaching the persons who were breathing and/or ingesting the asbestos from the asbestos containing products; b) the warnings were being read by the persons who were breathing and/or ingesting the asbestos from the asbestos containing products; c) the warnings were being understood by the persons who were breathing and/or ingesting the asbestos from the asbestos containing products; d) the warnings were being heeded by the persons who were breathing, and/or ingesting the asbestos from the asbestos containing products. Nos. 39 & 40. A. 41. Refer to answers to Interrogatory Q. 42. Did Defendant ever have one or more employees who routinely performed the task of sawing asbestos containing pipecovering? If so, state the following: 28 a) the name and address of each plant at which the ocess was conducted, and the inclusive period of years durii g which the process was conducted, at that plant; b) the number of employees who performed the task for one year or more; c) the name and address of each employee who performed the task for one year or more at one of Defendant's plants and who was known by Defendant to be free of asbestos disease 25 years or more after having first performed the task for at least one year. A. 42. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestoscontaining products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. This defendant has never formed nor maintained a group or groups known as "contract units," such "contract units" being a division or group within or maintained by the corporation which, inter alia, engaged in the actual installation of insulation products containing asbestos at job sites. Q. 43. List the following information regarding each worker or group of workers who, as of 1960, had used asbestos building or insulation containing products for 25 years or more and were known by Defendant to be free of asbestos disease: a) current name and address; b) asbestos product usage; location(s) and inclusive dates of c) date(s) of the examination(s) which revealed the worker to be free of asbestos disease. 29 A. 43. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 44. List the following information regarding each instance where an employee of Defendant testified (at deposition or trial) in asbestos disease litigation: a) name of employee/ b) date and place testimony was given; c) first named plaintiff and defendant, case number and court in which pending; d) name and address of reporter; testimony. e) whether you have a transcript of the A. 44. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant is aware that the following present or former employees have testified at trial or by deposition in asbestos-related litigation: Edward C. Ames: 10/8/79, 1/10/80, 2/12/81, 3/26/81 and 10/7/81. Robert Grim: 9/6 & 7/84 (trial), 10/11/84 (trial), 7/1/87 (trial), 12/12/90 (trial), 1/31/91 (trial), 10/23/91 (trial), and 1/13/92 (trial). Richard L. Grimmie: 7/10/79, 10/24/79 (trial), and 10/29/79 (trial). David Innis: 9/27/83. William Justice: 7/11/79 and 5/3/82. John Pershing: 7/26/79. 30 John Rhoerls: 7/11/79. June Welter: 7/11/79. Everett Shuman: 4/26/79, 6/12/79, 7/15/80, 8/19/80, and 3/4/81. Willis G. Hazard: 2/11/81, 3/27/81, 12/14/81, and 1/27/82. Richard R. Beck: 4/1/81. Samuel F. Schillaci: 4/7/81, 7/31/81 (trial), 11/9/81 (trial), 11/17/81 (trial), 4/26-27/82, 6/4/84, 8/28/84, 9/6/84, 11/14/84, 2/5/85, 3/4/85 (trial), 4/30/85, 12/19/85 (trial), 10/8/86, 4/10/87 (trial), 6/25/87 (trial), 11/ 4/87 (trial), 1/20/88, 9/20/88 (trial), 10/15/88 (trial), 11/14/88 (trial), 11/22/88 (tr ial), 11/29/88 (trial), 12/8/88 (trial), 12/15/88 (trial), 3/14/89, 3/21/89, 3/28/89 (trial), 5/9/89 (trial), 6/15/89, 6/30/89 (trial), 7/7/89 (trial), 7/27/89, 8/18/89 (trial), 11/2/89 (trial), 11/6/89, 11/16/89 (trial), 11/17/89 (trial), 1/9/90 (trial), 1/31/90 (trial), 2/23/90 (trial), 3/14/90, 4/17-18/90, 4/24/90, 5/16/90 (trial), 5/24/90 (trial), 5/30/90 (trial), 6/8/90 (trial), 6/12 /90 (trial), 6/20/90 (trial), 6/21/90 (trial), 6/29/90 (trial), 7/17/90 (trial), 7/19/90 (trial), 8/30/90 (trial), 10/11/90 (trial), 10/17/90, 11/20/90 (trial), 11/28/90 (trial), 12/11/90 (trial), 12/19/90 (trial), 1/24/91 (trial), 2/1/91 (trial), 2/22/91 (trial), 2/27/91, 3/8/91 (trial), 4/25/91 (trial), 4/26/91 (trial), 5/20/91 (trial), 6/13/91 (trial), 8/2/91 (trial), 8/8/91 (trial), 9/30/91 (trial), 10/8/91 (trial), 10/25/91 (trial), 10/30/91 (trial), 10/31/91 (trial), 11/4/91 (trial), 11/7/91 (trial), 11/13/91 (trial), 1/23/92 (trial), 1/28-29/92 (trial), 2/24/92 (trial), 12/15/92 (trial), 3/11/93 (trial), 3/12/93 (trial), and 3/19/93 (trial). George N. Bates, M.D.: 4/6/81. Thomas A. Meehan, Esq.: 8/3/81 (trial), 11/9/81 (trial), 12/15/83, 1/16/84, 8/28/84, 6/4/84, and 11/13/84. 31 Effective April 3r*`, 1958, this defendant sold its asbestos-containing product manufacturing division to OwensCorning Fiberglas Corporation. At that time certain employees who worked in the division, some of whom ard mentioned above, transferred to Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation. These individuals have been deposed with regard to asbestos-related litigation involving Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation. This defendant objects to the production of copies of the transcripts of these depositions on the basis that said transcripts are filed with various courts around the country, they are therefore matters of public record, and therefore plaintiffs have equal access to such documents. Defendant reserves the right to advance additional arguments against the production of such documents if and when plaintiffs file a request for production. Q. 45. List the following information regarding each instance where an individual whom you had listed, retained or called as an expert witness testified (at deposition or trial) in asbestos disease litigation: (a) name of employee; (b) date and place testimony was given; (c) first named plaintiff and defendant, case number and court in which pending; (d) name and address of reporter; testimony. (e) whether you have a transcript of the A. 45. This defendant objects to revealing the name of any expert whom it has consulted, except as to employment for testimony at trial on the grounds of: (a) the work product privilege; (b) attorney-client privilege; (c) the 32 interrogatory seeks information which is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of adm: sible evidence. Q. 46. List the name and address of all international unions and local unions which have represented employees of Defendant while the employees where using asbestos containing products or were being exposed to asbestos, and indicate the address of the plant or group of employees represented and the date of such representation. A. 46. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 47. Did any of the unions listed in your answer to the previous interrogatory ever instruct, advise or caution your employees on the safe handling of asbestos or precautions to be taken when working in airborne asbestos? If so, please state for each instruction, advice or warning: a) the name and address of the union and person instructing, advising or warning your employees; b) the method and content of the instruction, advice or warning; or warning; c) the dates of the instruction, advice d) whether the union ever promulgated, recommended or bargained for any regulations, standards or guidelines concerning the safe handling of asbestos or precautions to be taken when working in airborne asbestos. A. 47. Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 46. 33 Q. 48. Did Defendant sell, ship or deliver any asbestos containing products to any of the sites on Exhibit A? If so, state the following: or delivered; a) the type and quantity sold, shipped b) the date; c) describe or attach the documents evidencing such sale or shipment. A. 48. This defendant has found no records indicating that it sold, distributed, or otherwise supplied insulation products containing asbestos to any of the work sites on Exhibit A. Q. 49. List the following information regarding each instance known to Defendant where an individual has testified (at deposition or trial) that a product manufactured or sold by Defendant was present or used at any of the sites on Exhibit A (in lieu of providing the answers to the following, you may provide a transcript of the testimony and Plaintiff's lawyer will pay your charges for providing the same) a) name and address of witness; b) first named plaintiff, case number, and court in which case is pending; c) date of testimony; d) name and address of reporter; testimony. e) whether you have a transcript of the A. 49. Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 48. 34 Q. 50. On what date did Defendant first become aware that asbestosis was a compensable occupational disease under a State Worker's Compensation Act? (Source: GAF'S Int. 53 in Reed. 83 L 68). A. 50. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 51. Please describe the date, place and circumstances under which Defendant first became aware that any adverse effects of exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing materials may be cumulative in nature and that continued exposure to such materials by one suffering from asbestosis or related illnesses might have a significant adverse effect upon the extent and severity of such illness. In addition, please state: a) the specific identity of each source of information providing or leading to such awareness; and b) any change in Defendant's behavior, work rules, etc., precipitated by such awareness. (Source: GAF's Int. 54 in Reed. 83 L 68). A. 51. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not 35 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 52. Did Defendant ever suggest or recommend that persons using or exposed to the dust from Defendant's asbestos containing products might or should use any device to reduce exposure to, or inhalation of, asbestos dust or fibers? If so, please state for each and every such suggestion or recommendation: a) date, time and place when each such suggestion or recommendation was made; b) identify each person present when such suggestion or recommendation was made to or received by Plaintiff; c) identify each person receiving same or similar suggestion or recommendation; e) whether such suggestions or recommendation was written or oral, and 1) if written, please identify in detail each such writing; 2) if oral, identify all persons involved and details as to the manner in which each such suggestion or recommendation was presented; f) type, make and model of each device referred to in each such suggestion or recommendation. (Source: GAF's Int. 58 in Reed. 83 L 68). 36 A. 52 This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958 and does not have any records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer this interrogatory. During May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information relating to the substance of this interrogatory. This defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies constitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this defendant has not copied. They are available through Winne, Banta, Rizzi, Hetherington & Basralian, 25 E. Salem Street, Hackensack, New Jersey. This defendant also has reason to believe that plaintiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. Other documents possibly relating to this interrogatory may have been produced by Owens- Corning Fiberglas Corporation in the asbestos litigation. Those documents found at Saranac Lake and at Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation and elsewhere, indicate that during the period of time when Owens-Illinois was in the business of manufacturing asbestos-containing products, the state of government, industrial hygiene and medical community knowledge was that there was a recognized safe exposure level for asbestos dust and that persons installing insulation were not exposed to excessive or hazardous levels of asbestos dust. The foregoing documents also indicate that Kaylo plant employees were x-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disease; that this defendant made appropriate efforts to provide ventilation and to control the emissions of all dust emitted 37 during the manufacturing process within recognized safe levels of exposure, including the use of respirators in some instances, dust collection equipment and other devices as necessary; and that therefore during the period in which this defendant was in the business of manufacturing Kaylo it had no reason to believe that the foreseeable use of Kaylo would create a hazard to users. The documents produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation indicate that the September, 1955 publication in the A.M.A. Archives of Industrial Health was a publication of inhalation experiments. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks the production of documents, such documents, as outlined in this response, have not been found as part of this defendant's records and, to the extent that this defendant is in possession of copies of documents, it possesses copies only of documents collected in preparation for litigation. This defendant objects to producing the same. The documents are available from their proper source. Q. 53. Identify all documents of which you have knowledge, including but not limited to medical articles, medical journals, case reports, textbooks, abstracts, or synopses, which you believe relate to your "state-of-the-art" defense. (Source: GAF's Int. 89 in Reed. 83 L 68). A. 53. The documents which this defendant intends to rely upon at trial are not known at the present time. This defendant reserves the right to designate documents to be used at trial at a later date. As a partial listing, however, the following materials may be relied upon: "A Study of Asbestosis in the Asbestos Textile Industry," Dreessen, W.C. (1938); an article published in the Transactions of the Eleventh Annual Meeting, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, November 7, 1946 by J. J. Bloomfield; "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels," Fleischer, Drinker, et al., 38 (1946); "Asbestos Exposure During Naval Vessel Overhaul," Marr, William T. (1964); "Prevalence of Chronic Respiratory Disease," Ferris, B. G., Jr. (1971); "Asbestosis and Bronchogenic Carcinoma," Isselbacher, K. J. (1953); Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Volumes 132 and 330; and the Threshold Limit Values promulgated by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists for the years 1946 through 1958. Q. 54. List the name and present address of all persons who have been a director in Defendant from the date of its incorporation to the present and list the dates during which the person was a director. A. 54. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. Q. 55. List the name and current address of each person who has held any of the following offices in Defendant from the date of its incorporation to the present and also list the office held and the inclusive date during which the office was held: President, Vice-President; Secretary; and Treasurer. A. 55. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. 39 Q. 56. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 213(a), identify and give the location of those persons, not previously disclosed, having knowledge of fapts relevant to how or why the occurrence described in the Complaint took place. A. 56. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all of the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory at this time. g. 57. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 213(e), identify and give the location of those persons, not previously disclosed, having knowledge of facts relevant to the nature and extent of Plaintiff's injury. A. 57. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all of the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory at this time. 40 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF LUCAS ) )SS: ) A. H. SMITH, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is an Assistant Secretary of Owens-Illinois, Inc., a defendant herein; that as such he is authorized to make an Affidavit on its behalf; and that the facts set forth in the foregoing DEFENDANT, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. 8 If. ~SJ2L A. H. SMITH