Document jgZnj0j0ywDGmVM4m2qKa3MkQ

237-2180 #011488 . ( IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION WILLIAM R. CHATTMAN VS. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AI. C.A. No. H-87-1007 DEFENDANT * S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF1S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, THE BENDIX CORPORATION {See Introductory Statement herein), defendant in the above styled and number ed cause and makes this their responses and objections to plaintiff's request for production, and would respond as follows: INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT On December 21, 1982, ALLIED CORPORATION acquired more than 50% of the voting stock of THE BENDIX CORPORATION. On January 31, 1983, ALLIED CORPORATION became the sole common t stockholder of THE BENDIX CORPORATION. On April 1, 1985, THE BENDIX CORPORATION was merged into ALLIED CORPORATION and ceased to exist as a legal entity. On September 30, 1987, ALLIED CORPORATION was merged into ALLIED-SIGNAL INC. and ceased to exist as a legal entity. ( THE BENDIX CORPORATION was incorporated in the State of Delaware and maintained its principal place of business in the State of Michigan. ALLIED CORPORATION was incorporated in the State of New York and maintained its principal place of-business in the State of New Jersey. ALLIED-SIGNAL INC. is incorporated in the State of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in the State of New Jersey. ALLIED-SIGNAL INC. is the successor in interest to ALLIED CORPORATION which, in turn, was the successor in interest to THE BENDIX CORPORATION. The Automotive Sector of ALLIED-SIGNAL INC. is the business unit with ALLIEDSIGNAL INC. which continues the "BENDIX" friction product lines. The following responses and objections to plaintiff's request for production are based upon information supplied by employees of THE BENDIX CORPORATION or documents in the possession of THE BENDIX CORPORATION through March 31, 1985. The responses and objections also reflect information or documents acquired by or known to employees of the Automo tive Sector of ALLIED CORPORATION from April 1, 1985, through September 29, 1987, as well as information or documents acquired or known to employees of the Automotive Sector of ALLIED-SIGNAL INC. on and after September 30, 1987. -2- ( In its responses and objections this party will be identified as "ALLIED-SIGNAL" with the understanding that such term refers to: (a) THE BENDIX CORPORATION prior to April 1, 1985; (b) the Automotive Sector of ALLIED CORPORA TION from April 1, 1985, to September 29, 1987? and (c) the Automotive Sector of ALLIED-SIGNAL INC. on and after September 30, 1987. As the context of particular questions may require, the friction products manufactured by ALLIEDSIGNAL and its predecessors will be described by reference to their registered trademark, "BENDIX." -3- c RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS 1. The Canadian Health Department report of May 30, 1949, wherein asbestos or asbestos-related diseases was discussed in whole or in part. RESPONSE: See Item No. 1 attached hereto. 2. Copies of all correspondence from Mr. E.A. Martin, director of purchases, to Canadian Johns Manville Company, Ltd., Johns Manville and other suppliers of asbestos to this defendant wherein asbestos, asbestos products, asbestos diseases, or the consequences of asbestos exposure are discussed in whole or in part. RESPONSE: See Item No. 2 attached hereto. 3. Copies of all corporate memos prepared by Mr. E.A. Martin, director of purchases, wherein asbestos-related diseases are discussed in whole or in part. RESPONSE: See Item No. 3 attached hereto. 4. Copies of all memos, correspondence and reports of this defendants safety directors wherein asbestos-related diseases or the health effects of asbestos exposure are discussed in whole or in part. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to request for production no. 4 for the following reasons: (1) the request is overly broad and general in that said request is in no form or fashion restricted by time. The request is in no form or fashion restricted to the type and kind of alleged exposure that the plain tiff experienced; (2) the request is non-specific and general in that the term "safety directors" is undefined; and (3) to the extent that this request might deal with documents relating to conditions in Allied-Signal*s friction material manufacturing facilities, it seeks information that is irrele vant and immaterial to any issue in this suit and is not likely to lead to such information for the reason there is no evidence that the plaintiff was ever employed by this defendant or that the plaintiff has ever worked in such a manufacturing facility. -4- ( 5. Copies of this defendant's annual reports for the years 1950 to 1975. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to request for production no. 5 for the following reasons: (1) the request seeks information which is not relevant or materi al to any issue in the lawsuit and is not calcu lated to lead to such matters; and (2) such documents are public records and available to the plaintiff. 6. Copies of all of this defendant's record retention policies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to request for production no. 6 for the following reasons: (1) such request is overly broad and general in that [a] it is unlimited in time and [b] it is unlimited in subject matter. Defendant consists of more than one business unit and keeps more than one type of record {that is, personnel, payroll, sales, tax, financial records, etc.); (2) since the request is not limited to any business unit that might have any function relating to asbestos and is not limited to records regarding asbestos, said request seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in the suit and is not likely to lead to same; and (3) the request seeks information for purely prejudicial reasons. 7. A list of the names and addresses of any and all custodians of this defendant's corporate records regarding asbestos or asbestos litigation. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to request for production no. 7 for the following reasons: (1) the request is overly broad and general in that it is not restricted to the custodians of records regarding "asbestos" which might be relevant or material to any issue in this lawsuit. Obviously, some records would not be relevant or material. Without specificityr the request is simply too broad; (2) the request improperly seeks informa tion privileged as communications between attorney and client and/or information protected by the attorney work product doctrine; and (3) this defendant has no such list and, therefore, the request improperly calls for the creation of a document. -5- r 8. A complete listing of all names of individuals who participated in responding to this request for produc tion, their address, title and employer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to request for production no. 8 for the following reason: Defendant has no such document and, therefore, the request improp erly calls for the creation of a document. 9. Copies of all reports to or prepared for this defendant by its own medical doctors or consultants, or outside medical consultants, wherein asbestos diseases, or the diagnosing of asbestos diseases is discussed in whole or in part. This request is for reports prepared specifically for Bendix Corporation and does not relate to the individual medical reports prepared on specific claimants who have filed suit against this defendant. This request is for the period of time from 1970 to the present time. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to request for production no. 9 for the following reasons: (1) the request is overly broad and general. The request is not restricted to persons who have experienced the type and kind of exposure experienced by the plaintiff herein? (2) the request seeks informa tion which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in the lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to same? and (3) to the extent that this request calls for the production of data concerning persons employed by Allied-Signal's friction material manufacturing facilities, it seeks information irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in the lawsuit and information not calculated to lead to same for the reason that there is no evidence that the plaintiff was ever employed by this defendant or present at this defendant's facilities or that the plaintiff was exposed at any facility manufacturing asbestos-containing products. 10. The complete files of this defendant's own employees who have filed claims or lawsuits against this defen dant for asbestos-related diseases between the years 1955 and 1975. This request is for this defendant's own employees working in the manufacturing facilities of this defendant. -6- ( RESPONSE: Defendant objects to request for production no. 10 for the following reasons: (1) this request seeks information that is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in the suit and is not likely to lead to same for the reason that the request is not restricted to the types and kinds of persons with employment the same as the plain tiff herein? (2) the request is overly broad and general for the same reason? (3) the request is further irrelevant and immaterial, for the plain tiff has never been employed by this defendant or present in this defendants facilities, or' accord ing to the evidence, worked in manufacturing facilities. However, in the spirit of coopera tion, defendant would state that it has no such documents. 11. Complete copies of all documents furnished to ICF, Incorporated since 1985 regarding the survey of asbes tos processors. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to request for production no. 11 for the following reasons: (1) documents were submitted to ICF, Incorporated pursuant to regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. In accordance with those same regula tions, all such documents and data produced . are confidential business information. Therefore, such matters are not discoverable? and (2) the request seeks information that is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in the lawsuit, as the type and kinds of information accumulated involve manufacturing facilities at which the plaintiff has never worked, location used by Allied-Signal for disposal of process waste, number of personnel employed at manufacturing facilities, gas tempera tures at exhaust system outlets, the longitude and latitude of manufacturing facilities and other totally irrelevant subjects. 12. A complete copy of this defendant's products catalogued for the years 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1985. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to request for production no. 12 for the following reasons: (1) the request is overly broad and general in that it is not restricted to asbestos-containing products? (2) for the same reason, it seeks information that is -7- ( irrelevant an*3 immaterial to any issue in the suit and is not likely to lead to same; and (3) since this defendant has manufactured thousands of different products since 1950, the request is overly broad and general. 13. A complete list of names, addresses and employer of all persons who, between the years 1966 to the present time have participated or have knowledge of the shredding of documents that were in the custody or control of this defendant. This request is addressed to documents which relate in whole or in part to asbestos or asbestos-related diseases. RESPONSEj Defendant objects to request for production no. 13 for the following reasons: (1) this request, since it uses the term "shredding of documents" is asked for purely prejudicial rea sons . For that reason alone, the request should be stricken; (2) the request seeks information which is completely irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in the lawsuit and is not likely to lead to same; and (3) no such list exists and, there fore , the request improperly calls for the crea tion of a document. However, in the spirit of cooperation, defendant would say that it has never intentionally destroyed any document with the purpose of avoiding its discovery in litigation. Further, defendant's employees have been instruct ed not to destroy or discard such documents. 14. A complete listing of all trade associations to which this defendant was a member between the years 1940 and 1975. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to request for production No. 14 for the following reasons: (1) the request is overly broad and general in that it is not re stricted to trade associations which might in any form or fashion deal with asbestos-containing products; (2) the request for the same reasons seeks information that is irrelevant and immateri al to any issue in the lawsuit and is not -8- ( calculated to lead to same? and (3) no such list exists and, therefore, the request improperly calls for the creation of a document. Respectfully submitted VINSON & elk: / J&knny Van Winkle S-tSte Bar No. 20462500 1001 Fannin, Suite 3114 Houston, Texas 77002-6760 (713) 651-2130 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, ALLIED-SIGNAL INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Danny Van Winkle, certify that I have this 3rd day of February, 1988, sent by certified mail or messenger, return receipt requested, a true and correct copy of the foregoing response to plaintiff's request for production to counsel for plaintiff and by regular mail to counsel for all co-defendants. -9- ' CUZBrc, lisy. 24th;:-.1949.;;A;v-": * v. '/' - v. * s i,\f IV- *.. ** r' . i y '* '*1 ' `V *-<. - * " * * "' V houtarA " *\ ' . .. Ass,'tto Mine/i-knager;..' / . ** **- ' ` , 7W " -i * Canadian* Johns^Manville Co.'< Limited/ '*.* ;V*M'*7. \*t>. ' --*>*'; *. i Dear Sir: *' ; V 7 '* . ..'..?>>*; * .' 7. <. * t f . A# ; 1 . '/V.' " :V Vj' ' ' 7' ,v,, ;/*_ A t ' -c < *.*' -/ \ . * At your request'/ I have taken-cognizance -diV-tbe*-various * i.. *; :- ':-.,'V.v>A. ;.v w / :, : v *' -*7; : articles in seme nowsraners an3.dealing vdthvtjtg question of*the* - -4 ;; v*.* > = ..* '>' *t!/ V- V* r '---5 > / - '--< ' ' v. -. ; . nr:*tftlit7 from" tuberculosis in the. ascesto'i mining district-.- : _ '* . ` - " -l^r-" `..v** . It'is cry pleasure, ar.d duty I believe/ ttfgive my-bpinios- J . i' 7,-. find relative cormsnts on this matter. ` However*'bnd in'the very .first v/ .^V ' T ' f-`Vl.VT - *`t i 'v.. ''v '7".- v . * `.I .* V A ,r"fc< I wish to emohnnise- the. stand L desire to' hold' : that I shall ' *, ' ; ' ,... -. *' z< ' ilc^0 Ccaner.ts, to the statictical*aspect 'of the:--problea`-only/ . . 7 . >. ..... . -rfi- `tf-; ../ .. *. V.*-**...-** .;. ?' -Tr*'r-i` ' 77,-In thc tcccm.onyiir^ tablo,; which .will be 'pf great asistance '' / - , *> ", *vl* ' .'V. .**.' - ` the follcuine -studj*. I have ccnpiled the crude".totals 'of'deaths ...: - * -s . V' . .1'.' . .V- ^ ... . .'.-.U'; ' 0 \ .fc>* .. . -\~i . ... -.** . ' -4- ^v -rr . , . . . . v -r . y.r.-.^Vv'.- . '-yh'*t:'`is .th.c ir* the- th*r urban c-ar.tre.s7 W 7\ ^ ;:l-'Asbestne'Y 5 deaths fr-m T.B. a.jr.inrt 4 emc-ir, 4 r.ccid*r.t3 * ,.'2.' T ' * . ' . ** ; A' ' r.ni 13 heart dis-nscs. " Val3;-yfiqld : JL*5 T.5., 1~ cruxer, 6 \ccld_r.t3, 34 h-sarf. *7. //>*. *' ' .. St.i-yncintht 15,77 concur, 7 lecid-nts, 63 h^art. 7- r^Y* * ; . . '** *' , \ . r. - ' .% jenquiur^ '* . 32,'T.B., ? cr.c- :, 13 accidents, 14 heart, etc. /.y ' : > 7"^ * ; _} * .After.all, c'x.pr.rir.g the mrvlity -*f th-s-i cities f;r *' .O. *.;. S ' 7- tuharculb ais ->nly,. Jpr.qui-rj # r-.gisV'rs :' 32 c'irtha, Chiccutir.i : 24; St.Hyc.slntha and Valieyfieid t 15 -?"1 eh agv.r.ct the .79 in Thetf-ri- ' . ' - , - * *.7 Mlr.es .arc the 5 ir. Asbestos. * Is there such -n ;xtrr. ordinary prevr.lar.ee v. * ' "'f tubercular!: in th.-; Asr, rt- s Minir.r district? I-thir.k that s-sw . e/ '. ^ther cities register as enny, if nvt c .ttha fr:n tuberculosis *' , ' ' * ' ,,and the.'crr.cluei-'n e*res t* the mind ;'Why should *r*ly the situation ' rf Thetf-.rd-I-iinca b.; "publicized" 7 w . *; r*'As'stated in th^ beginning, I h*ve c^nfir.-d the nb*v-- c^mvents ` T"/*a ,r. .% ^ .. .... / '*** 5*5* t*7 the ^statistical data Rly<?.'vi'th th?. heps that this r.a7 be *f agsistance tq.nll. SV.'tistlca era vary isp^rttnt but thir value is derived fras > * . # v'tho ,r-bj^ctivsff whichhas in aind. . .... * ,,, *?.&* very truly, . .-IVN -.; ' ? -m- . v : : h&.v':7"?7- r-7. M ' - A ; * W_fc< .. . ,t> 774if  ? ' v-> * * .' \ . ^ '- ''^AliOTISXa'^" i' :.1943 10... 5. ,,'\r 6- ' 7^ 3,:>'*'35 23 12 A Wy.7 ,'$ !:*1.."`r;ar 13 24,;..; A 14. w,-4t - * i2T*i'. 2 ^as*v.18 .- - .32. 13 .-20: -V. - 14 '.V .V,-** *1* .0' '4' ..* 2..' 0l?'A:-'* 0 2 ^-6 ; ' 3 ' 3 ' . 3 ... 2 ' 1 .< * 4 v. 3 ' 6 5 . 1. W''.<7 :-.4 ' : 1 -4- * 4 2 , 2. \ J -7 :-3 :*- 4. 2 '2t * ic v. 9' 4" . * *4. v-':V C` X.(l 13 14 n ** .'23* , 'io . - -,4 W-V'v 13:-*: 10. .*11` 9\ '> ; '2 W. 43 29 14 *:V ic . 12 * . S 7. 1 40 25 15 ( September 12, 1966 Mr. Noel Hendry Canadian Johns Manville Asbestos, Quebec Canada Co. Ltd. Dear Noel Just to be sure you have a copy, an article that appeared in Chemical Week magazine is inclosed. So that you'll know that Asbestos is not the only contaminate?'?, a second article from O.P. & D Reporter assess a share of the blame on trees. My answer to the problem is: if you have enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products why not die from it. There's got to be some cause. EAMsMAC ENC: Director Of Purchases E. A. Martin ITEM 2- ( a* 3T0UK A. t.jow *. iuu j. acm ASMSTCS UMlCb Boport Oct.,10. 1966 A copy a pigs 7* Cbealetl Beeb muipi ct October 8, 1984, 4isolate* a couple mi latter* eafatiag tbs article appearing im tbm mb periodical Sept. 10* 1966. Tbia Mf belp to *wlat tbs ftu the* vaaaroueo* bp Dr* fellkoti'a atlgoatlo re port an **&ung Cancer irm Aibuto", Tb# hrcbstlot Departatat baa a file an tbe entice subject including the c-- Health Departseat report at Dap 00* 1949* vbem tba eidtject vm previously Incite*. I* A* Dertia