Document gbpY5gkwO8xapOXKJMMDqaaYQ

4 D 2523 MKW/mke ( IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS McLEAN COUNTY .ESTOL L. REED and VIRGINIA REED, I : Plaintiffs, vs. EMPIRE ACE INSULATION MFG. CORP., et al., Defendants. ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES NOW COMES the defendant, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., by HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER ALLEN, its attorneys, and for answer to the interrogatories previously pro pounded to it by the plaintiffs, ESTOL L. REED and VIRGINIA REED, states as j follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 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? ANSWER: This Defendant.objects to this interrogatory on the basis that jit is irrelevant, argumentative and not reasonably calculated to lead to the ^discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the above objection, yes. i j INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Is the defendant, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., a corpora tion? If so, state: a. The exact corporate name. The state of incorporation. c. The name and address and position within defendant of the per son providing sworn answers to these interrogatories. hEYL ROYSTER VOELKER ALLEN .*L COA*0***'0 AT,AT LAW $U<*C 600 jC"T*40N 6ANA 6JILCHNG PCOfl'A ILLINOIS 6'602 1906* 6T6 0*00 j! | ANSWER: Yes. 3. 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. The address of the \ FEB G 1985 4 D 2523 MKW/mke C r ' principal place of business is One SeaGate, Toledo, Ohio i 42666. b. See answer to 2(a) above. c. Philip M. Rice, Assistant Secretary of Owens-Illinois, Inc., One SeaGate, Toledo, Ohio 43666 (4l9) 247-0949. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Has anyone obtained from any person a statement !l (whether oral or written, signed or unsigned) concerning the matters involved il in this case? If so, state as to each statement: !i | a. The name and last known address of the person making the I; statement. b. When, where and by whom the statement was taken. . c. Is there any tangible preservation of the statement, such as a document signed by the person making the statement, a tape-re- i cording, a transcript or a memorandum purporting to reflect i what was said? | d. If your answer to (c) is affirmative, state the name and adI dress of the person having possession of the tangible preservaj tion of the statement. | ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that jit attempts to discovery information furnished as trial preparation material jto its attorneys or other representatives. Without waiving the above object tion, this Defendant states that this case has only recently begun and Defeni! ^ jidant has not engaged in sufficient discovery to answer this interrogatory. It reserves the right to supplement its answer should discovery warrant. Defenj jdant further states that the only documents or types of information described in this interrogatory which it may have are plaintiffs' deposition transcripts and such medical records as plaintiff may have provided to Defendant's lIIi counsel. ;i i INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Has any private firm or company adjustor been di rected to investigate the occurrence or ask questions of persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the case? If so, state the full name and ad- MEYL. OYSTE VOCLKER allen mo< CO*0**r<ON ATTORNEYS AT LAM SUitf *oo jcrrc*90 *" u|lo<**g PCOBIA 'LLiNO'S >e02 l)Oti 0*00 dress of each firm or adjustor. , -2- ,4 D 2523 hKW/mke ( ( , ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds of ;j the work product privilege and the attorney-client privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Do you have any information regarding plaintiff's !! physical condition other than that information furnished you by plaintiff's 11 jjcounsel? If so, state the nature of that information, the name and address of !iits source, and if documentary in nature, who now has each. j ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog atory No. 3. ii || INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Were any photos taken of Estol Reed? If so, state the total number of photos, the date of each photo, and who has each. i j ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog- i latory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Were you named or covered under any policy of lia bility insurance, effective on the date of the occurrence, which may be con- ;trued to provide coverage for any claim stated in the complaint? [ to each policy, state: If so, as-- a. The name of the company. b. The policy number. | c. The effective period. i I d. The maximum liability limits for: 1. injury to any one person, i 2. aggregate personal injury limits. ! e. What amounts, if any, have previously been paid under the poli- i! cy which in the opinion of the carrier reduces the coverage i available. i! [I f. Whether the carrier denied coverage or tendered a defense under a reservation of rights. 'j I g. Whether the policy contains any first party medical pay or dis- I ability coverage, and, if so, describe the coverage. MCYL. OOYSTCR. voelker ALLEN MtO*.. OMAC COK^ORATlOM ATTORNEYS at law Su'Tl BOO jtrrc*BO Bamk #uh.0<O PCOR<* iLLiNO'S '602 isomi fl?B 0*00 ! ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this -3- 4 D 2523 :|MKW/mke 'i f r litigation and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evi dence. Without waiving the above objections, this Defendant responds that the status of its liability coverage by its insurer, Aetna, with regard to actions H' Drought against this Defendant allegedly resulting from the use of asbestosij containing products has not yet been resolved and is unclear at this time. I j INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Which, if any, of the carriers listed in your an swer to the preceding interrogatory are providing a defense to this suit? i| ;i ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog- (| atory No. 7. I ! INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify those expert witnesses (as defined in Su preme Court Rule 220(a)(a)) from whom you may offer opinion testimony at tri ll al, 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. c. His conclusions and opinions and the bases therefore. 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. jl II f. The name of the first plaintiff, first defendant, the court in j which filed and the cause number for every cause in which such ! expert has testified, whether at deposition or trial, and the i date of his testimony. ' ANSWER: Dr. David Main, Urbana, Illinois. The report has previously i been furnished to plaintiff's attorney. We have not retained any other expert || Witness at this time, but reserve the right to do so. 11 I! INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Has defendant ever had one or more persons whose HrrL.ROYSTER.voclkcr FALLEN or CO*OAAT'* ATTohNCTS AT law SU'^C oo ^crrcmso** uu.O'hG ecoR'A. ILLINOIS 6*602 i30 '-0*00 primary responsibility included looking after or monitoring the health of de*| -4- 4 D 2523 MKW/mke I1 f fendant's employees, such as a medical director? ( If so, state the following as to each person who has held this position: :l | a. The name and address of the person.' | b. The name of the position he or she held. jj c. The dates during which he or she held the position. il ij d. The address of his or her office during the time he or she held !; the position. i e. State whether there was a written job description for that poj sition at that time. ; f. If there was a written job description, set forth the words of ! the description or attached a copy hereto. ii ANSWER: 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. 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-Il- ! linois, Inc. The individual in this position develops, organizes, introduces nd 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 re!i Sponsible for the quality of medical services at Owens-Illinois locations, i INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Has defendant ever directed or contributed money toward a study of the effects of asbestos exposure upon the health of some or i| all of its employees? If so, state tlie following as to each such study: 1 a. The description or title of the study. ;i b. The dates during which it was made. HEYL. ROYSTER VOELKER ft ALLEN SAt CO**aT.on A. ,-mCYSATLAW SulTf *oo jCrrc*90K *** uu.0'**0 PEORIA ILLINOIS >602 IJOSI 0400 !l c. The location or locations of the plants at which the employees were employed. d. The number of employees studied. -5- .,4 D 2523 jMKW/mke f r e. Brief description of the study. ii f. Whether any of the results were reported into written form, and if so, who now has a copy of the report. 'j i ANSWER: Insofar as this interrogatory pertains to asbestos-containing ! products other than Kaylo, this Defendant states that it ceased the manufac l|ture, sale and distribution of asbetos-containing products in 1958 and does !| not have any records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer jthis interrogatory, nor can it locate any present employees with knowledge ^thereof. i I Insofar as this interrogatory pertains to its own asbestos-containing product, Kaylo, this Defendant states that it ceased the manufacture, sale and jpistribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958 and does not have any '{records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer this inter rogatory. During May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an jiemployee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experi ments conducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected dur ing Kaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain ! information relating to the substance of this interrogatory. The employee, Mr. Logie, had no personal knowledge about the course or conduct of any such 1, experiments, the preparation of papers and reports he produced, or the reten- !i tion or completeness of those papers and reports. Therefore, he could not authenticate these papers and reports. This Defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence al- !j though it has searched for and continues to search for them. !i I This Defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and re MCYL. ftOVSTER VOEL*E *Q \ AULEN C0**0*TiON ATTORNEYS AT LAW SU'TC 600 jtrrcSOm |n tu.LOiNO PEOlA ILLINOIS 6'602 IM*I 6*6 0*00 ports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies constitute only a portion :I 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 -6- 4 D 2523 MKV/mke ( I of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. ( Other documents possibly relating to this interrogatory may have been produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation. , i Those documents found at Saranac Lake and at Owens-Corning Fiberglas Cor poration and elsewhere, indicating that during the period of time when Owens- Illinois was in the business of manufacturing asbestos-containing products, ithose products contained a relatively small proportion of asbestos. The inha- lation of asbestos dust in excessive amounts over a prolonged period of time (years), under certain conditions, could lead to the potential hazard where ^exposures were in excess of recognized safe limits, that plant workers were not exposed to levels above the recognized safe limits, that users were not i |exposed to dust levels above the recognized safe limits, that Kaylo plant em- '! ployees were X-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disiI ease, 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 foreseei/ able use of Kaylo would create a hazard to users. i 1 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 ! lI this Defendant's records and, to the extent that this Defendant is in posses- f| sion of copies of documents, it possesses copies only of documents collected il in preparation for litigation. This Defendant objects to producing the same. [j the documents are available from their proper source. ;! INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Have there been any studies of the effect of as- i bestos exposure upon the health of any of defendant's employees? If so, state: HYL. ROYSTER VOELKER ft ALLEN ! ATTORNEYS at law Suite soo _itrrsO* R**** U'lO'MG PCQQiA ILLINOIS 0i6O2 30*1 6'* 0*00 a. The description or title of the study. b. The dates during which it was made. -7- 4 D 2523 HKW/mke i! c. r 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. f. Whether any of the results were reported into written form, and if so, who now has a copy of the report. ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog atory No. 11. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Is there a disease or disease process known as asbestosis? j ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that 'I jit is an improper form of discovery in that Plaintiff is in effect submitting I a disguised Request for Admission. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Is asbestosis caused by exposure to asbestos? ANSWER: During the period of time in which this Defendant engaged in the nanufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products, it was / this Defendant's understanding that the inhalation of asbestos dust in exces sive amounts over a prolonged period of time (years), under certain condi tions, 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 ii|i excessive amounts of asbestos. ii !| INTERROGATORY NO. 15: If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is J in the affirmative, when did defendant first learn that asbestosis was caused hYL. ROYSTER. vOELKER S ALLEN COB*OAAT>ON ATTORNEYS at law SUlTf *00 jerreasON AND *U'CC"*G *EO'A 'LLINOiS '60Z >30*' ** 0*00 by exposure to asbestos? ! ANSWER: This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found -8- 4 D 2523 toKW/mke r r information in his records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatoij ry. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this interroga tory is continuing. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: ;i flung cancer? Is there a disease or disease process known as |{ ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog- 'i jjatory No. 13. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Can lung cancer be caused by exposure to asbestos? |! | ANSWER: This Defendant objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a "causal connection" between j Cancer and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of |time Defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. With out waiving its objections, Defendant is informed and believes that at no time I prior to 1958 was there reason to believe that the medical and scientific comLunity accepted that there was a "causal connection" established between expo- ! / 'sure to asbestos and a risk of contracting cancer. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is jin the affirmative, when did defendant first learn that lung cancer can be paused by exposure to asbestos? ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this liti- II gation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible i| evidence except as it relates to the period of time Defendant ceased the manu!j facture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, De l fendant is informed and believe that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason :to believe that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a HEYU ROYSTER VOCLKER allen 0 nal CO*0ATiO ATTORNETS aT SU'TC oo JgrrCMSON lAND BWWO'MC PEORIA ILLINOIS <60* 0*00 "causal connection" established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting any asbestos-induced carcinoma. -9- 4 D 2523 MKW/mke ( ( ' INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Does exposure to asbestos increase the incidence of lung cancer? ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrbgatory on the ground that it is not limited to the period of time pertinent to this litigation. This defendant further objects on the basis that this interrogatory calls for a i[ pedical and scientific opinion which this Defendant is not qualified to give. j INTERROGATORY NO. 20: If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is \ in the affirmative, state when defendant first learned that exposure to asbes- r ,i tos increased the incidence of lung cancer. 'I ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog atory No. 19. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Is there a disease or disease process known as Jnesothelioma? ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog atory No. 13. | | INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Can mesothelioma be caused by exposure to | asbestos? j ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that ! jits present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a caus al connection between mesothelioma and asbestos was first accepted by medical i! science after the period of time Defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, Defendant is :'li informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason to be lieve that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of con tracting mesothelioma. HCYL. ROASTER. VOELKEB amort ALLEN l C0*Oation ATTuhnEvS AT LAW eoo jCrrc*SOM l*H> au<lO'MG EOtA ILLINOIS |0* 1300) CMOO `j '! -10- 4 D 2523 ( 'MKW/mke Ii !j INTERROGATORY NO. 23: ( 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? :i * ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that ;i it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this liti- 1 jgation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible {evidence except as it relates to the period of time within which this Defen- !! dant manufactured its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objections, Defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 II ilwas there any reason to believe that there was a causal relationship estab- 1 lished between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting mesothelioma, j INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Does exposure to asbestos increase the incidence |of mesothelioma? ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog- itory No. 19. ii INTERROGATORY NO. 25: If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is |in the affirmative, state when defendant first learned that exposure to asbes tos increased the incidence of mesothelioma. i! ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrogj jatory No. 24. i j INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Is there a disease or disease process known as cancer of the gastrointestinal tract? ili j ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog atory No. 13. i INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Does exposure to asbestos cause cancer of the gas MEYL. ROYSTER VOELKER ALLEN *mo co*oi*tioi attorneys at law suite eoo jCrrc*SO* ftAM* SutcD'NG PEOR'A ILLINOIS 6'602 ISO*' ?* 0*00 trointestinal tract? i ANSWER: This Defendant objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between -11- 4 D 2523 MKW/mke ( c other diseases of the lungs and gastrointestinal area and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of time Defendant ceased the man ufacture 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 'i there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting other diseases of the lungs and cancer of the gastrointes tinal tract. ;! INTERROGATORY NO. 28: If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is ;! In the affirmative, when did defendant first learn that exposure to asbestos i ;i caused cancer of the gastrointestinal tract? | ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that ;jit seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this liti gation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible j jevidence except as it relates to the period of time within which this Defen dant manufactured its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above Objections, Defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 Iras there any reason to believe that there was a causal relationship estab- li lished between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting cancer of the gastrointestinal tract. i| INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Does exposure to asbestos increase the incidence !l of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract? I ! ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog- \( 4 atory No. 19. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is HCYL. ROYSTER VOELKER &allcn 0"*L C0*0**Tl0N ATTORNEYS at law Suite 600 Sank SuilO'no PEORIA 'LUNOIS 6<602 <>omi ooe in the affirmative, state when defendant first learned that exposure to asbestos increased the incidence of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract. -12- 4 D 2523 MKW/mke ( ( ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrogatory No. 29. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: List the following information for each claim brought against defendant by a present or former contract-unit employee of defendant or the spouse or child of a deceased such employee alleging a dis ease or condition of ill-being caused by asbestos: j a. The name and address of the person alleged to be diseased or in | a condition of ill-being. 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. 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. | ANSWER: This Defendant has never formed nor maintained a group or groups (cnown as "contract units," such "contract units" being a division or group i within or maintained by the corporation which, inter alia, engaged in the ac!j jjtual installation of insulation products containing asbestos at job sites. i | INTERROGATORY NO. 32: List the following information for each claim, not j 'identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, brought against de- il jjfendant by a present or former employee of defendant or the spouse or child of [a deceased employee alleging a disease or condition of ill-being caused by asbestos: i 1 a. 1 ij b. c. MCYL. ROYSTER. VOELHER ALLCN mor>. -aw CO"*AViON ATTOBNE^S AT tAW su,Tt eoo wCrrtmsOx Bam*. uh.O'nG PCOBIA ILLINOIS 01602 ,30** 0400 d. The name and address of,the person alleged to be diseased or in a condition of ill-being. When the alleged disease or condition of ill-being began. The circumstances under which the employee is alleged to have come into contact with asbestos. Whether the person is represented by an attorney, and if so, the name and address of his attorney. -13- 4 D 2523 MKW/mke f c e. The agency where the claim was filed, the docket number of the claim and the date the claim was filed. ;l ANSWER: During the period in which this Defendant engaged in the manu facture of its asbestos-containing products, it received no Workers' Compensa tion claims for any asbestos-related disease. ;| INTERROGATORY NO. 33: List the following information regarding each doc ument (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 :l the consequences of exposure to asbestos: i; t a. Name, title or other means of identification of the document. I b. Name, position at time document authored, and current address, position and employer of each author of the document. ; c. Date prepared or published. i d. The name and address of the entity responsible for its publica tion and/or distribution. i e. If available in typewritten or printed form, the number of | pages. ^ ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that jjit seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litiu gation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible ij evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this Defen dant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos- j Containing products. Without waiving the above objection, during May, 1979, i various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Insti tute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories :j at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manufacturing pro cess. These papers and reports may contain information relating to the sub stance of this interrogatory. This Defendant has not been able to find these hEYl. ROYSTER. VOEUKtR U.CN OAO'CS 0OO**t'ON attorneys AT law JUlTC too trriHOx Iank 9u<cO*C -'EOR'A ILLINOIS 6*602 13091 A?9 0400 papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. -14- 4 D 2523 MKW/mke ( ( (j This Defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and re ports 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 at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 1 Chase Manhatten Pla- i za, New York, New York. This Defendant also has reason to believe that PlainI] tiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. Other documents possibly relating to this interrogatory may have been produced by !i Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation in the asbestos litigation. '! The documents produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation indicate :i 'l that the September, 1955, publication in the A.M.A. Archives of Industrial I Health was a publication of inhalation experiments. !j INTERROGATORY NO. 34: List all international unions and local unions i !t#hich have represented employees of defendant while the employees were using asbestos containing products or were being exposed from asbestos products. ; ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that jit seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this liti gation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible jevidence. Without waiving the above objection, this Defendant ceased the man ufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This ij defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this interrogatory is continuing. :i INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Did any of the unions listed in your answer to the I previous interrogatory ever instruct, advise or caution your, employees on the ME^L. OVSTR VOELKER 0 ft ALLEN *<. CO**OMTiON A1 . <NE*5 AT LAW Su'TC 400 jCfH^SO* SANK Uu.D'MG PCOR'A ILLINOIS 6*602 , 30*1 0*00 safe handling of asbestos? i i If so, please state fore each instruction, advice or warning: i a. The name and address of the union and person instruction, ad vising or warning your employees. -15- 4 D 2523 MKW/mke ( c ! b. The method and content of the instruction, advice or warning. c. The dates of the instruction, advice or warning. d. Whether your employees took any action based on this instruc tion, advice or warning. e. Whether the union ever promulgated, recommended or bargained for any regulations, standards, or guidelines concerning the ,j safe handling of asbestos. ! ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog atory No. 34. ; INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Did defendant sell, ship or deliver any asbestos containing products to any of the sites on Exhibit A on or before January 1, 1982? If so, state the following: l! a. The type and quantity sold, shipped or delivered, b. The date. ! c. Describe or attach the documents evidencing such sale or shipment. ANSWER: This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant states that it has no jjrecords indicating that it sold, shipped or delivered any asbestos-containing 'i products to any of the sites on Exhibit A. i; 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 37: List the following information regarding each in|\ stance where an individual has testified (at deposition or trial) that a prod!! uct manufactured or sold by defendant was present or used at any of the sites l! '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). mEyl. ROYSTER. vOCLKER & ALLEN ONAL CO*OftAT>ON * ORNEYS AT LAW SU'TC SOO lANK U'lO'NG PEORIA illinO'S 6i602 ISO*' 0-00 a. Name and address of witness. b. First named plaintiff, number, and court in which case is pending. Date of testimony. -16- 4 D 2523 MKW/mke ( ( ! d. Name and address of reporter. e. Whether you have a transcript of the testimony. j ; ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog atory No. 36. ;j INTERROGATORY NO. 38: On what date did defendant first become aware that jasbestosis was a compensable occupational disease under a State Workers' Com- 'pensation Act? (Source: GAF's Int. 53 in Reed, 83 L 68). I ! ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that ii it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this liti gation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible ii |i evidence. Defendant further states that it is vague, ambiguous and unintel- 'i ligible. Without waiving the above objection, Defendant states that it has i 'not found any information in his records sufficient to enable it to answer jthis interrogatory. Its investigation is continuing. | INTERROGATORY NO. 39: 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 *1 that continued exposure to such materials by one suffering from asbestosis or ;i related illnesses might have a significant adverse effect upon the extent and Ii 'severity of such illness. In addition, please state: |j a. The specific identity of each source of information providing ;; or leading to such awareness. ! b. Any change in defendant's behavior, work rules, etc., precipi! tated by such awareness. (Source: GAF's Int. 54 in Reed, 83 L ! 68). ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this liti HEYL. ROASTER vOELKER ft ALLEN * CO*OA*Y.ON ATTORNEYS at law su-Tt eoo uCrrC*90N Sana IU'LO'hG PEORIA ILDNO'S e<60 too gation 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 -17- 4 D 2523 MKW/mke ( ( Defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos- containing products. Defendant further objects on the basis that this inter rogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving the above objections, this Defendant is informed and believes that in 1958 and jbefore and for some years after, 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. ! I INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Did defendant ever suggest or recommend that per sons using or exposed to the dust from defendant's asbestos containing prod- nets 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 sugges tion or recommendation: | a. Date, time and place when each such suggestion or recommenda tion was made. j b. Identify each person present when such suggestion or recommen: dation was made to or received by plaintiff. ! c. Identify each person receiving same or similar suggestion or recommendation. | d. Exact wording and content of such suggestion or recommendation. ! | e. Whether such suggestions or recommendations was written or | oral, and [j 1. If written please identify in detail each such writing, j 2. If oral, identify all persons involved and details as to i! the manner in which each such suggestion or recommendation was presented. II l! f. Type, make and model of each device referred to in each such j suggestion or recommendation. (Source: GAF's Int. 58 in Reed, |! 83 L 68). ; ANSWER: This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of ij asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found informa tion in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Its HEYL. ROYSTER. VOELKER aclEN o n*i C0S0*T'0*< ATTORNEYS at law Suite too uerrCRSOM AMD BUU-OiNO PEOR'A ILLINOIS '02 00*1 A' 0*00 investigation into the subject matter referred to in this interrogatory is continuing. -18- 4 D 2523 MKW/mke r r INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Identify all documents of which you have knowl edge, including but not limited to medical articles, medical journals, case reports, text books, abstracts, or synopses, which you believe relate to your "state-of-the-art" defense. (Source: GAF's Int. 89 in Reed, 83 L 68). ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that ::it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome and unintelligible. Defen dant further objects on the basis that such documents are protected from dis- !l covery by the attorney work product and attorney client privileges. Without i waiving the above objection, if Plaintiff is seeking documents which Defendant !i intends to rely on at trial, then Defendant states that the documents which |f 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 i trial at a later date. As a partial listing, however, the following materials nay be relied upon: "A Study of Asbestosis in the Asbestos Textile Industry," jDreessen, W.C. (1938); an article published in the transactions of the Elev ijenth Annual Meeting, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, November 7, 1946, by J. J. ploomfield; "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Construction Naval M Vessels," Fleischer, Drinker, et al., (1946); "Asbestos Exposure During Naval vessel Overhaul," Marr, William T. (1964); "Prevalence of Chronic Respiratory ii Itisease," Ferris, B. G., Jr. (1971); "Asbestosis and Bronchogenic Carcinoma," i 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 Con ference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists for the years 1946 through 1958. :j i INTERROGATORY NO. 42: In Defendant's Third Affirmative. Defense to the Amended Complaint in Reed, 83 L 68, defendant states that the plaintiff "was not using the products complained of in a proper manner." During the decade HCVL. ftOYSTCR. VOCLKCR a au.cn rO*AL CO*0>UTlON attorneys at law SU'Tt 600 jirrmon 1AM 6u>lO'NQ PE0**A ILLINOIS '602 J06I 6'6 0400 of the 1950's, were there in effect within defendant, or at the site where employees of defendant were using or working near asbestos containing products -19- 4 D 2523 MKW/mke ( ( manufactured or sold by defendant, any rules, regulations or other require ments concerning the safe and proper manner of using asbestos containing prodj ucts manufactured or sold by defendant? If yes, please state for each rule, ij regulation or other requirement: i :! a. The name, number or otherwise identify the rule, regulation or jl other requirement. i b. When the rule, regulation or other requirement was promulgated, j c. The content of the rule, regulation or other requirement d. Whether defendant fully enforced the rule, regulation or other requirement e. If defendant did not fully enforce the rule, regulation or oth er requirement, why not? ANSWER: 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 con ducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the | IjCaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information jrelating to the substance of this interrogatory. The employee, Mr. Logie, had ko personal knowledge about the course or conduct of any such experiments, the [preparation of papers and reports he produced, or the retention or complete ness of those papers and reports. Therefore, he could not authenticate these {papers and reports. This Defendant has not been able to find these papers and |[reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for i land continues to search for them. I This Defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and re HtYL. ROTSTCR. voclkcr * ALLEN aO COAO*TiOM AT , _ <NETS AT LA* suitc eoo jtrrtASOM |awh auiLOiNO PEORIA ILLINOIS eiftOE <)0i ' 0400 ports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies constitute only a portion i! of a larger volume of papers and reports which this Defendant has not copied. -20- 4 D 2523 ( ( |MKW/mke i ,jThis Defendant also has reason to believe that Plaintiffs' counsel has copies ii of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. Other documents possibly relating to jthis interrogatory may have been produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation. Ij !j To the extent that this interrogatory seeks the production of documents, jjsuch documents, as outlined in this response, have not been found as part of jlthis Defendant's record and, to the extent that this Defendant is in posses sion of copies of documents, it possesses copies only of documents collected `jin preparation for litigation. This Defendant objects to producing same. The (documents are available from their proper source. j The above documents which have been located in places other than Owens- I Illinois, Inc. indicate that this Defendant took appropriate measures to pro vide ventilation and to maintain within recognized safe levels of exposure the amissions of all dust created during the manufacturing process, including the pse of dust collection equipment, respirators in certain instances, and other devices and measures as deemed necessary. Such documents also indicate that I {plant workers received periodic chest X-rays pursuant to established company policy, and that such X-rays and related health evaluations showed no asbestos-related plant workers disease. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: In Defendant's Third Affirmative Defense to the Amended Complaint in Reed, 83 L 68, defendant states that the plaintiff "was l^iot using the products complained of in a proper manner." During the decade l| iof the 1960's, were there in effect within defendant, or at the site where employees of defendant were using or working near asbestos containing products J manufactured or sold by defendant, any rules, regulations or other require heyl. aoystcr voclkcr ' ALLEN coo"*t'Om ATTORNC^S at law suits oo jcrrcosoM aamh uilO'no PCORia ILLINOIS 4*602 (AOi 0400 ments concerning the safe and proper manner of using asbestos containing prod- ji ucts manufactured or sold by defendant? If yes, please state for each rule, :i regulation or other requirement: -21- 4 D 2523 ,MKW/mke r r a. The name, number or otherwise identify the rule, regulation or other requirement. b. When the rule, regulation or other requirement was promulgated. * c. The content of the rule, regulation or other requirement d. Whether defendant fully enforced the rule, regulation or other requirement e. If defendant did not fully enforce the rule, regulation or oth er requirement, why not? ANSWER: N/A. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribu tion of asbestos-containing products in 1958. It does not now, and it has not since that time, manufactured, sold or distributed any asbestos-containing ; products. |j INTERROGATORY NO. 44: In Defendant's Third Affirmative Defense to the Amended Complaint in Reed, 83 L 68, defendant states that the plaintiff "was 'Lot using the products complained of in a proper manner." During the decade |of the 1970's, were there in effect within defendant, or at the site where {{employees of defendant were using or working near asbestos containing products |nanufactured or sold by defendant, any rules, regulations or other require- l| l| bents concerning the safe and proper manner of using asbestos containing prod ucts manufactured or sold by defendant? If yes, please state for each rule, j {regulation or other requirement: ; a. The name, number or otherwise identify the rule, regulation or | other requirement. j b. When the rule, regulation or other requirement was promulgated. c. The content of the rule, regulation or other requirement :i |] d. Whether defendant fully enforced the rule, regulation or other requirement HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER S ALLEN K. ^ONAi. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SU'TE too jtrrc*%o* tM u>lO'*o eiPEORIA ILLINOIS 02 00*i 0*00 e. If defendant did not fully enforce the rule, regulation or oth er requirement, why not? ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog atory No. 43. -22- 4 D 2523 HKW/mke ij | INTERROGATORY NO. 45: ( Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 213(e), identify fi and give the location of those persons, not previously disclosed, having knowledge of facts relevant to how or why the occurrence described in the com plaint took place. i j ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks |information immune from discovery by the attorney work product privilege. 'Without waiving the above objection, this Defendant states that since this i| lease has just recently begun, Defendant has not engaged in sufficient discov:i ery to answer this interrogatory and the only such persons as those identified [j through discovery in this case. i j INTERROGATORY NO. 46: 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. ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrog atory No. 45. j I I i I I hCYL. ROYSTER. VOELKER a ALLEN > OHAk CORPORATION attorneys at law SUITE too JEFFERSON amb tuiLDiNO PEOR'A ILLINOIS eiOOZ 00*1 0400 -23- (( AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF LUCAS ) ) ) SS ! PHILIP M. RICE, 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 made an Affidavit on its behalf; and that the facts set forth in the foregoing ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES, in the above captioned case are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. PHILIP M. RICE -- .Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1985 7 day of / NOTARY /PUBLIC" ^ BEVERLY A. McNEAR Notary Puttie -- State of Ohio My CommJaeion Expires Jan. 29,1990 The undersigned certlflea that a copy of the foregoing Irwtrw me t was served upon the attorney# of record of all parties to the abr va c_.:j ty enclosing the same in an envelope addressed to such a-.-.v - .a at their business addreaa es disclosed by the 4 D 2523 Reed, Estol (( ATTORNEY SERVICE LIST James Walker James Walker, Ltd. 207 W. Jefferson Street P. 0. Box 3455 Bloomington, IL 61702 Jackson R. Hutton 16 West Madison Street Danville, IL 61832 Katten, Muchin, ZavlJ, Pearl & Galler 525 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606 Lloyd E. Williams, Jr. Jacobs, Williams & Montgomery Suite 3500 20 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606