Document kYXV74Xa8OoYzQNdQZyY7bvO

NO. 2000-7S7 IGNACIO SERAFIN, ET AL VS. CHEVRON U.S.A. 3NC. IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO: IGNACIO SERAFIN, by and through his attorney of record, Jennifer Kinder, BARON & BXJDD, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281, NOW CONIES CHEVRON U.S. A INC,, Defendant herein, and makes and files this its Amended Response to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, Respectfully submitted, STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON, BISSELL & LEDYARD, L.L.P. David W, Ledyard State Bar No. 12109400 Michael T. Bridwell State Bar No. 02979600 14th Floor, San Jacinto Building Beaumont, Texas 77701-3255 (409)981-1000 FAX(409)981-1010 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, CHEVRON U.S.A, INC, 23526/148241/PAGE 1 OBJECTIONS A, OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY 1, Defendant objects to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production in their entirety because they were served at a time in direct contravention of Standing Order No. 1 for asbestos litigation in the District Courts and County Courts at Law of El Paso County, Texas. Plaintiff served the subject discoveiy on or about June 24, 1999 at a time when Standing Order No. 1 prohibited such interrogatories being served and responses being required without leave of court after hearing. See paragraph No., 14 of Standing Order No. 1, 2, Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for production as they are overly broad, over burdensome and harassing given that Plaintiffhas not yet adequately specified the work history ofIgnacio Seraftn. Specifically, Defendant would show that Standing Order No. 1 includes master discovery propounded to the Plaintiffwhich provides that the Plaintiffis to detail the applicable employment history including the dates when the- Plaintiff or decedent worked for each employer, the location and description of each job site where Plaintiff or decedent was employed, the dates the Plaintiffor decedent worked at each such job site, the wage rate for each job site where asbestos exposure is claimed, each job site where the Plaintiffclaims the Plaintiffor decedent was exposed to asbestos, the dates when it is claimed Plaintiffor decedent was exposed to asbestos and the name, business address, home address, relationship to Plaintiffand present occupation ofeach and every witness that has knowledge of feet relevant to any time that Plaintiffclaims that the Plaintiff or decedent was exposed to asbestos containing products. The information provided by Plaintiff did not (and still does not) comport with the requirements of Standing Order No. 1 and accordingly, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to establish presence of the Plaintiff or decedent on Defendant's premises such that discovery to Defendant is justified, 3, Defendant objects to the whole ofPlaintiffs discoveiy requests as being so overly broad and over burdensome that Plaintiff s discovery constitutes harassment. This suit involves a person employed by a finite number ofemployers at a finite number oflocations during specific years (albeit yet unidentified specifically by Plaintiffs), Plaintiffs claim is that Plaintiffor decedent was exposed to asbestos containing products onDefendant's premises during the course and scope of his employment with various known employers. Plaintiff should be seeking production of records and information relevant to issues raised by that particular feet situation. Plaintiffs attempts to expand discovery to include information regarding irrelevant time periods and irrelevant materials produced at irrelevant locations by irrelevant persons or entities constitutes an impermissible abuse of the discovery rules and general misuse of the laws of the State of Texas. 23526/148241/PAGE 3 B. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS DEFINITIONS 1, Defendant objects to Plaintiff's definition ofthe terms "Defendant", "you", "your", and (<your company". To the extent the terms can be read to refer to Defendant's attorneys, any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any ofthese terms necessarily invades the work product privilege in violation ofRule 192,5 ofthe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and Rule 503 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, To the extent the terms are defined to include predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries ofpredecessors, and/or affiliates, as well as present and former officers, directors, agents, employees and other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of the corporate defendant, any interrogatory or request for production utilizing these terms is so overly broad, and over burdensome as to make any request or interrogatory utilizing the term virtually impossible to answer, Further, to the extent the definition is defined to include any merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries ofpredecessors, and/or affiliates, any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any of these terms is necessarily overly broad, over burdensome, and calls for material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to Plaintiff's apparent attemptto placeuponDefendantthe burden to seek information from former officers, directors, agents and employees over whom Defendant no longer has dominion or control. Any interrogatory or requestfor production utilizing any ofthese terms is a "fishing expedition" in violation of Texas law as concerns discovery, 2, Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "document", "documents", "written materials", or "printed matters" as the definition ofthose terms renders any interrogatory or request for production utilizing any ofthese terms overly broad, over burdensome, harassing, and reduces any such interrogatory or request for production to a "fishing expedition" in violation of Texas law concerning discovery. Defendant further objects to the definition of these terms as calling for the production of material or information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, Defendant further objects to the definition ofthese terms to the extent it purports to include an obligation to locate and produce information or documentation which is no longer in the possession or control ofthis Defendant or from entities who are not parties to this cause of action. 3, Defendant objects to Plaintiff's definition of the words "meeting" or "meetings" as any interrogatory or request for production utilizing those terms is overly broad, and over burdensome in that it purports to require documentation or information concerning any casual or coincidental meeting. 4, Defendant objects to Plaintiff's definition of the terms "potential health hazards" or "health hazards" in that any interrogatory or request for production utilizing these terms is vague and ambiguous in that issues exist and minds differ with respect to impairments or disabilities and their associations with exposures to asbestos dust and fibers, if any, INTERROGATORIES 23526/148241/PAGE 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatory state the name, address, job title, length oftime employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant. ANSWER: In addition to ail previous objections which are incorporated herein. Defendant specifically objects to this interrogatory as it invades the work product privilege embodies in Rule 192,5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 503 ofthe Texas Rules of Evidence, Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes `Svork product" as that term is defined in the Rules ofCivil Procedure, Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. Without waiving the foregoing, the interrogatories to which this question applies are, for the most part, interrogatories to which no one person has a precise answer, Interrogatories inquiring about expert witnesses and settlement agreements are answered by counsel. Most of the remaining questions require that a conclusion be reached from looking at documents or talking to various and sundry people, both within this Defendant's organization and without. Answers given to these interrogatories are based on the best information which is available to counsel upon reasonable inquiry, at the time the answers are given. Defendant's answers are accordingly based upon the best information which is available to Defendant and Defendant's counsel upon reasonably inquiry. The interrogatories are being executed by H, P. Walker, Chevron U.S.A, Inc., P, 0, Box 7643, San Francisco, California 94120-7643, INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Have you ever been convicted or cited for of any offense (criminal, misdemeanor or felony any violation of federal or state regulations (including but not limited to, OSHA or other regulatory bodies), or country or city ordinances? If so, please list each offense and/or citation, identify court or the administrative body in which the case was filed and the date the conviction, citation violation was issued, ANSWER: .. . . . In addition to all previous objections which are incorporated herein, Defendant specifically objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and impossible to answer, given the definition of"you". Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as calling for information which is irrelevant, 23526/148241/PAGE 5 Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, we have not found any instance where the El Paso facility has been cited by OSHA for any asbestos-related incident. If further information is located, this response will be supplemented, INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please state whether a medical monitoring program, medical examination program or other medical surveillance program ("program") was provided to workers at Defendant's Premises. If: programs were offered, please describe these programs in detail; specify in your response to whom such programs were offered (i.e. contractor employees and Defendant employees); describe the dates that the aforementioned programs were in place; and state what documents concerning the describe programs exist, ANSWER: .. .. . In addition to all previous objections which are incorporated herein, Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period, Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information which may be confidential, privileged or private to other persons who are otherwise protected from disclosure. Without waiving the foregoing, the El Paso Refinery used outside contractor physicians for employee physicals and medical services with support fromthe corporate medical department in San Francisco. The refinery is not believed to have conducted such programs on contractor employees during the applicable periods. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located, INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please state the years during which Defendant Operated a medical department and identify persons who directed, headed or supervised said department and state the years of their service in capacity. ANSWER: 23526/148241/PAGE 6 In addition to all previous objections which are incorporated herein, Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous given Plaintiffs definition of the term ''^Defendant", Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the interrogatory is not limited to the applicable time periods (which have yet to be provided by Plaintiffs) nor in scope to the premises made the basis ofthis action. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, the El Paso Refinery did not maintain a medical department between 1940 and 1977. The El Paso Refinery used outside contractor physicians during this time. A corporate medical department in California was available to consult with the safety engineers at each facility. The corporate medical director in the 40's, 50's and 60's was Dr. Lee Curtis (now deceased), Dr, Gordon Richmond was the corporate medical director from 1970 up tol975. From 1980 to 1983, Dr, R.E, Swencicki (now deceased) shared the position with Dr, William T, Kelly (February 1980 to June 1980) and with Dr, Samuel N, Bacon (June 1980 to October 1983), Dr, Swencicki held the medical director position from then until 1995, From 1995 to present, the corporate medical director is Dr, T, L, Bridge, 575 Market, San Francisco, California 94105-2856. INTERROGATORY MO. 5: Have you ever provided safety equipment to persons working on Defendant's Premises? If so, please list the safety equipment provided and indicate when the equipment was first provided, to whom the equipment was provided and underwhat circumstances the equipment was provided. Further, identify the person with the most knowledge of your "safety equipment" policies. 23526/148241/PAGE 7 ANSWER; In addition to ail previous objections which are incorporated herein. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and over burdensome given Plaintiff's definition ofthe terms "you" and "your". Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, over burdensome and calling for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence given that the term "safety equipment' is no where defined and necessarily therefore includes equipment which is in no way relevant to Plaintiffs claims. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to any applicable unit, work site or to contractors, Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, on information and belief it is not our policy to provide such equipment to contractor employees. Specifically, we believe the contracts with contractors required contractors to provide their own safety equipment, However, based on information presently available, it appears that ifa contractor determined he was without a piece ofsafety equipment, the refinery would provide the contractor with access to whatever equipment it had available. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please list all asbestos-containing products ("products") used at Defendant's Premises. State what these products were used for, from whom these products were purchased, where the products were installed, and the specific persons or contractors who installed these products. Further, indicate the first year each specific asbestos-containing product was no longer purchased installed on Defendant's Premises, .answer: ~ .\ /. In addition to all previous objections which are incorporated herein. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, over burdensome and harassing in that it is not limited in scope nor to any applicable time period. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as calling for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Without waiving any ofthe foregoing, we have located a number ofpurchase orders, invoices 23526/148241/PAGE 8 and work orders from the El Paso facility which contain information regarding the use or purchase of such products. (Some ofthe documents produced may not reflect actual use of such products because we may have located and produced information received from manufacturers and suppliers from whom we purchased no products,) Please refer to our response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production No. 19 provided in Cause No. 98-133 8; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Coming, et al; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No, 2 and to documents which have been provided to Plaintiffs counsel in this case by supplement. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located, INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please state whether any asbestos-containing products in place or in use at Defendant's Premises have been abated at any tin, I!'so, please list each person or company involved with the abatement ofasbestos, including address and telephone number, and state the dates and particular locations of each abatement procedure, ANSWER: Without waiving any previous objection, insulation was replaced with non-asbestos insulation when insulation was replaced with non-asbestos insulation incident to some other work or repair in the 1970s. Records located to date indicate that the refinery began to specify calcium silicate or asbestos free insulation in the early 1970s. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do you contend that Defendant, Defendant's representatives, insurance carriers and/oragents performed any measurements and/or studies prior to 1970 to determine the quantity ofasbestos fibers in the air at the Chevron facility? Ifthe answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every feet which supports this contention, ANSWER: In addition to all previous objections which are incorporated herein. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is impossible to answer given the definition of "you" and "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. 23526/148241/PAGE 9 Without waiving the foregoing, this information is presently unknown. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. INTERROGATORY NO. 9; State in detail what tests have been conducted with regard to the quantity, quality threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while us working with or around, or installing asbestos-containing products in any ofyour facilities. Please state where and when these tests were conducted, by whom these tests were conducted, and results of any such test. '" ANSWER: In addition to all previous objections which are incorporated herein. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and over burdensome, especially given the definition of the term <`your", Defendant has not undertaken to conduct historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all '`merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request, Without waiving any foregoing objections, please refer to documents produced to Plaintiffs counsel by Defendant in this case or in prior cases. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Have you ever had a policy requiring workers on Defendant's premises to use respirators? (If so, please state when this policy was implemented; describe this policy in detail; state to whom it applied (i.e. Defendant employees and contractor employees); and describe what types and tn names of respirators were required by you. 23526/148241/PAGE 10 ANSWER: In addition to ail previous objections which are incorporated herein. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and calling for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, Without waiving the foregoing. Chevron would have expected its contractors to take all reasonable precautions, including the use of respiratory protection, whenever the contractor deemed it necessary and appropriate. In addition, the refinery required contractors to abide by all applicable laws and regulations during the applicable time periods which necessarily would have included any requirements imposed by 0 SHA. Further, please referto documents produced to Plaintiffs counsel by Defendant in this case, INTERROGATORY NO. II: Do you contend that at no time during the time frame between 1948-1990, Defendant did have the right to advise or, if necessary, control the activities of employees of contractors, work on the premises ofthe Chevron facility, who were engaged in activities which could be potentially hazardous to either themselves or CHEVRON U.S. A., INC. employees? If the answer is anything other than "no1', identify each and every fact which supports this contention, ANSWER- In addition to all previous objections which are incorporated herein. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and argumentative, Without waivingthe foregoing, Chevron retained independent contractors to perform various activities on the premises of the Chevron facility because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details ofthe work was left to their expertise, Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Chevron anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractors' employer, INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Have you everwarned workers onDefendant's Premises ofthe hazards ofasbestos-containing products? Ifso, describe in detail the methods ofsuch warnings, who you warned and when. Please include in your response a description of any written warnings relating to the hazards of asbestos in place at Defendant's Premises and state when the written warnings installed, how many were installed, and whether they have been removed. 23526/148241/PAGE 11 ANSWER: In addition to all previous objections which are incorporated herein. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, over burdensome, vague, harassing and it calls for information which is neither relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is especially vague and harassing given Plaintiffs definitions of the term "you". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this Without waiving the foregoing objections, we have not yet been able to identify what specific information, if any, was posted or disseminated at Defendant's El Paso Refineiy during the applicable periods, Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please state the year you first learned that persons could suffer physical injury through the inhalation of asbestos fibers and how Defendant became aware of the existence of asbestos hazards, Further, please identify any documents that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings, ANSWER: _____ . . .. . . .. . In addition to all previous objections which are incorporated herein, Defendant objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and over burdensome, especially given the definition of the term "your", Defendant has not undertaken to conduct historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request, Without waiving any foregoing objections, please refer to documents produced to Plaintiffs counsel by Defendant in this case or in prior cases. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. 23526/148241/PAGE 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: If Defendant has ever been a member of any trade organization that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of asbestos, state the names of such organizations and list the dates of membership. MSWR: In addition to all previous objections which are incorporated herein. Defendant further objects to the purported burden ofthis interrogatory to search all materials ever published by any of these trade organizations for any specific information. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing. Defendant has been a member of the American Petroleum Institute from 1949 to the present and the National Safety Counsel from 1949 to present. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify every individual ever employed at Defendant's facilities who has made or presented a Worker's Compensation or other claim for personal injury or death resulting from inhalation asbestos. Please include in your response the date ofany such claims and a description ofthe injury alleged, ANSWER: . ... V . Inadditionto all previous objections which are incorporated herein. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and over burdensome. Defendant objects to this interrogatory insofar as it is potentially violative of the rights of privacy of other individuals making such claims, ifany. To the extent the interrogatory seeks information about lawsuits, such records are public and the information is equally available to Plaintiffs or their counsel. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. 23526/148241/PAGE 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Do you contend that Defendant specifically warned Plaintiff about the hazards of asbestoscontaining products? Ifthe answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every which supports this contention. ANSWER: Whether Plaintiff ever saw or heard any warning on Defendant's premises is unknown. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: ............................... Please identify the date when Defendant first provided any Warnings to its own employees regarding the potential health hazards of asbestos. ANSWER . In addition to all previous objections which are incorporated herein. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and over burdensome given Plaintiffs definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of ail "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, this interrogatory is incapable of being fully and reliably answered because Defendant is a corporation comprised of many individuals, all ofwhose personal knowledge regarding asbestos would be impossible to ascertain, Due to the size of Defendant's business and the number ofdecades over which it has operated with the attendant personnel changes, it is impossible to determine when or how any one employee first appreciated any potential health hazard of asbestos and provided any warning to another employee, 23526/148241/PAGE 14