Document mm8z0oL9eJmKxp233D9MqnBOk
HO. 93-05856-K
DALE BRUCE EDZN6ER aad BEVERLY E. EDINGER,
Plaintiffs,
versus KEENE CORPORATION, et al..
Defendants.
S IN THE DISTRICT COURT
s
5 5 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
5 5 5
S 192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEPENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY'B ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES
To:
Beverly E. Edinger, Individually and as Personal Representa tive of the Heirs and Estate of Dale Bruce Edinger, Deceased, by and through her attorney of record, Mr. Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd, P.C., The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1100, Dallas, TX 75219.
COMES NOW, UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, Defendant in the
above-entitled and numbered cause, and files the attached Answers
and Objections to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories.
t
. Respectfully submitted,
DeHAY & ELLISTON, L.L.P. 1500 Maxus Energy Tower 717 North Harwood Street Dallas, Texas 75201-6508 Telephone: (214) 953-5454 Telefax : (214) 953-5455
DAVID W. CROWE State Bar No. 05164250
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY
DEF1NPANT,S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES F:\ASB3\USGE0INGER.R06
PAGE 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and
foregoing document has been forwarded to counsel for Plaintiffs,
Hr. Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd, P.C., The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn
Ave., Ste. 1100, Dallas, TX 75219, by Certified Mail, return
receipt requested. on this /X dav qS
, 1994.
DAVID W. CROWE
DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES F:\ASB3\USGEDZNGER.ROG
PAGE 2
PREFATORY STATEMENT United States Gypsum Company (hereinafter "U.s. Gypsum") has, to the best of its abilities, gathered non-privileged documents into a document repository for inspection by plaintiffs' counsel in response to requests for production served in asbestos litigation. These documents provide information that supplements and expands upon that provided in these answers to Interrogatories. Accordingly, by way of further response to these Interrogatories, U. S. Gypsum hereby offers to make available these documents at a mutually convenient time at its offices at 125 S. Franklin Street, Chicago, Illinois. In giving its responses to Interrogatories as to asbestos-
containing products, U. s. Gypsum refers to products containing
commercial asbestos as part of their formulation and to the type of commercial asbestos used as part of the formulation.
OBJECTIONS U. S. Gypsum objects to the manner in which plaintiff has defined U. S. Gypsum to the extent that plaintiff purports to include in its definition of U. S. Gypsum predecessors-in-interest, subsidiaries, and successors-in-interest of the corporate defendant. In that U. S. Gypsum Company is the named defendant, this definition is overly broad and would require U. S. Gypsum to engage in unduly burdensome research, divulge privileged information and produce privileged documents. This defendant. United States Gypsum Company, responds to these Interrogatories on behalf of itself.
DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES F:\ASB3\USGEDXNGER.R0G
PACE 3
U. S. Gypsum further objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek information or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product rule and to the extent they seek trial preparation or expert materials or documents.
Finally, U. S. Gypsum objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they ask for "identification" of voluminous documents on the ground that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As set forth infra. U. S. Gypsum will produce documents which are the proper subjects of an appropriate document request.
ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1;
For each document listed below, please answer whether such document is a true and correct duplicate of a genuine and authentic document?
EXHIBIT NO.
DESCRIPTION
a) USG112
Memo 7/2/70 Kipp to Hogan
b) USG115
Memo 12/2/70 L.A. Tobey to P. Kipp
C) USG125
Memo 6/2/72 Roger Gillette to D.S. McVicker with attached articles from Wall Street Journal
d) USG126
Memo 6/14/72 C.P. Kipp to A.J. Watt, Dr. J. Zabor, A.R. Rump and Gramer
e) USG137 f) USG139
Letter 7/31/73 Selikoff to Ehrmann
Memo 8/17/73 K.S. Freeman to J.N Walker
DEFENDANT/S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES F:\ASB3\USGEDINGER.ROG
PAGE 4
ANSWER:
a) USG 112: This defendant admits that this document is genuine, authentic, and an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company.
b) USG 115: This defendant admits that this document is genuine, authentic, and an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company.
c) USG 125: This exhibit contains copies of two documents which will be responded to separately.
With respect to the memo dated June 2, 1972, this defendant responds: This defendant admits that this document is genuine, authentic, and an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company.
With respect to the articles titled "Job Safety Unit Sets Tough Rules for '76 On Plants' Asbestos" and "Tiny Asbestos Fibers Pose a Health Threat To Workers and Public", this defendant responds: This defendant admits that this document is genuine, authentic, and an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company. This defendant admits receipt as of 6/2/72.
d) USG 126: This defendant admits that this document is genuine, authentic, and an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company.
e) USG 137: This defendant admits that this document is an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company. United States Gypsum Company has made reasonable inquiry and the information known or readily obtainable by it is insufficient to enable it to either admit or deny that this document is genuine, authentic, a business record, that it was made in the course of a regularly conducted business activity or that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the document or that this document was made at or near the time of the event.
f) USG 139: This defendant admits that this document is genuine, authentic, and an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
For each document listed below, please answer whether such document was kept and/or generated in the regular course of a regularly conducted business activity of any United States Gypsum Company Entity by an employee or representative of any United
DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES F:\ASB3\USGEDINGER.ROG
PAGE 5
States Gypsum Company Entity with knowledge of the act, event, condition or opinion recorded.
EXHIBIT NO.
DESCRIPTION
a) USG112 b) USG115 C) USG125
Memo 7/2/70 Kipp to Hogan
Memo 12/2/70 L.A. Tobey to P. Kipp
Memo 6/2/72 Roger Gillette to D.S. McVicker with attached articles from Wall Street Journal
d) USG126
Memo 6/14/72 C.P. Kipp to A.J. Watt, Dr. J. Zabor, A.R. Rump and Gramer
e) USG137
Letter 7/31/73 Selikoff to Ehrmann
f) USG139
Memo 8/17/73 K.S. Freeman to J;N. Walker
ANSWER;
a) USG 112: United States Gypsum Company admits that this document was prepared by or at the direction of United States Gypsum Company, that the document was made at or near the time of the event and that it was made in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the document. United States Gypsum Company denies that all statements made in the document were made by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge, and United States Gypsum Company therefore denies that this document is a business record and reserves the right to object to the admission into evidence of such document as hearsay.
b) USG 115: United States Gypsum Company admits that this document was prepared by or at the direction of United States Gypsum Company, that the document was made at or near the time of the event and that it was made in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the document. United States Gypsum Company denies that all statements made in the document were made by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge, and United States Gypsum Company therefore denies that this document is a business record and reserves the right to object to the admission into evidence of such document as hearsay.
c) USG 125: This exhibit contains copies of two documents which will be responded to separately.
DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES F:\ASB3\USGEDINGER.R0G
PAGE 6
With respect to the memo dated June 2, 1972, this defendant responds: United States Gypsum Company admits that this document was prepared by or at the direction of United States Gypsum Company, that the document was made at or near the time of the event and that it was made in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the document. United States Gypsum Company denies that all statements made in the document were made by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge, and United States Gypsum Company therefore denies that this document is a business record and reserves the right to object to the admission into evidence of such document as hearsay.
With respect to the articles titled "Job Safety Unit Sets Tough Rules for '76 On Plants' Asbestos" and "Tiny Asbestos Fibers Pose a Health Threat To Workers and Public", this defendant responds: United States Gypsum Company denies that this document is a business record of United States Gypsum Company or that it was prepared by or at the direction of United States Gypsum. This defendant admits receipt as of 6/2/72.
d) USG 126: United States Gypsum Company admits that this document was prepared by or at the direction of United States Gypsum Company, that the document was made at or near the time of the event and that it was made in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the document. United States Gypsum Company denies that all statements made in the document were made by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge, and United States Gypsum Company therefore denies that this document is a business record and reserves the right to object to the admission into evidence of such document as hearsay.
e) USG 137: United States Gypsum Company denies that this document was prepared by or at the direction of United States Gypsum Company.
f) USG 139: United States Gypsum Company admits that this document was prepared by or at the direction of United States Gypsum Company, that the document was made at or near the time of the event and that it was made in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the document. United States Gypsum Company denies that all statements made in the document were made by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge, and United States Gypsum Company therefore denies that this document is a business record and reserves the right to object to the admission into evidence of such document as hearsay.
DEFENDANT * S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES F:\ASB3\USGEDINGER.ROG
PAGE 7
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
For each document listed below, please answer whether such document was found in your files in such a condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity.
EXHIBIT NO.
pESpRIPTION
a) USG112
Memo 7/2/70 Kipp to Hogan
b) USG115
Memo 12/2/70 L.A. Tobey to P. Kipp
c) USG125
Memo 6/2/72 Roger Gillette to D.S. McVicker with attached articles from Wall Street Journal
d) USG126
Memo 6/14/72 C.P. Kipp to A.J. Watt, Dr. J. Zabor, A.R. Rump and Gramer
e) USG137
Letter 7/31/73 Selikoff to Ehrmann
f) USG139
Memo 8/17/73 K.S. Freeman to J.N. Walker
ANSWER;
a) USG 112: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to "in such a condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity." Without waiving this objection, this defendant admits that this document is an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company.
b) USG 115: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to "in such a condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity." Without waiving this objection, this defendant admits that this document is an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company.
c) USG 125: This exhibit contains copies of two documents which will be responded to separately.
With respect to the memo dated June 2, 1972, this defendant responds: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to "in such a condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity." Without waiving this objection, this defendant admits that this document is an accurate
DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES F:\ASB3\USGEDINGER.R0G
PAGE 8
copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company.
With respect to the articles titled "Job Safety Unit Sets Tough Rules for '76 On Plants' Asbestos" and "Tiny Asbestos Fibers Pose a Health Threat To Workers and Public", this defendant responds: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to "in such a condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity." Without waiving this objection, this defendant admits that this document is an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company. This defendant admits receipt as of 6/2/72.
d) USG 126: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to "in such a condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity." Without waiving this objection, this defendant admits that this document is an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company.
e) USG 137: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to "in such a condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity." Without waiving this objection, this defendant admits that this document is an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company.
f) USG 139: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to "in such a condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity." Without waiving this objection, this defendant admits that this document is an accurate copy of a document found within the files maintained by United States Gypsum Company.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: .
Has United States Gypsum Company stipulated or agreed to the authenticity of any of the documents referenced in Interrogatory No. 1 with any person prior to the date of these Interrogatories?
answer:
a) USG 112: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, irrelevant, immaterial, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of its objections, U.S. Gypsum responds that it has not stipulated or agreed in this action to the authenticity of this document.
b) USG 115: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, irrelevant, immaterial, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of its
DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES F:\ASB3\USGEDINGER.R0G
PAGE 9
objections, U. S. Gypsum responds that it has not stipulated or agreed in this action to the authenticity of this document.
c) USG 125: This exhibit contains copies of two documents which will be responded to separately.
With respect to the memo dated June 2, 1972, this defendant responds: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, irrelevant, immaterial, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of its objections, U. S. Gypsum responds that it has not stipulated or agreed in this action to the authenticity of this document.
With respect to the articles titled "Job Safety Unit Sets
Tough Rules for '76 On Plants' Asbestos" and "Tiny Asbestos Fibers
Pose a Health Threat To Workers and Public", this defendant
responds: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, irrelevant,
immaterial, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Without waiver of its
objections, U. S. Gypsum responds that it has not stipulated or
agreed in this section to the authenticity of this document.
d) USG 126: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, irrelevant, immaterial, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of its objections, U. S. Gypsum responds that it has not stipulated or agreed in this action to the authenticity of this document.
e) USG 137: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, irrelevant, immaterial, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of its objections, U. S. Gypsum responds that it has not stipulated or agreed in this action to the authenticity of this document.
f) USG 139: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad, irrelevant, immaterial, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of its objections, U. S. Gypsum responds that it has not stipulated or agreed in this action to the authenticity of this document.
DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES F:\ASB3\USGEDINGER.R0G
PAGE 10
STATE OF ILLINOIS ) )
COUNTY OF COOK
SS
VERIFICATION
I, F. M. Poremski, declare:
I an the Director, Financial & Accounting Services, of
United States Gypsum Company, one of the above named
defendants, and am authorized to make this verification for and
on behalf of said company;
I have read the foregoing Answers, Objections, and other
Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and am informed and
believe that the same is true and on that ground allege that
the matters therein stated are true.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing
is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed
on .
lin Chicago, Illinois.
F. M. Poremski
Subscribed this //2T.
and day
sworn^to of
bbeefore me :___, 1994.
otary Public