Document mpgd8oyjbZ96Bga6M875rzVKd

IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS, PERSONAL INJURY AND WRONGFUL DEATH CASES FILED BY BARON & BUDD, P.C. IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS NO. 87-15627 FREDDIE A. MITCHEM AND THELMA MITCHEM; BETTY GOODRUM AND CARL GOODRUM; L0N20 COLEMAN; JAMES B. WHITE AND BEATRICE WHITE, Plaintiffs, Versus ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. Defendants. s ss s s ss sS $ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS X16TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 87-11673-F GRACIE MOTT, Individually and Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of RAYMOND MOTT, Deceasedl and JESSIE LANE, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of EDWARD C. LANE, JR., Deceased, Plaintiffs, Versus ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., Defendants. $ $ $ S S $ $ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1 NO. 88-4323-F PAT DEMPSEY CREEL, SR. AND ANNIE CREEL, Plaintiffs, Versus ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., Defendants. S IN THE DISTRICT COURT Or s ss ss DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS s s s s 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 88-9447-F FRANCIS P. HOLT, JR., Plaintiff, Versus H.K. PORTER COMPANY, INC., ET AL., Defendants. S IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ssss DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS s s s s 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Page 2 NO. 88-14404-F SARAH ELIZABETH MORRIS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of HENRY-B. MORRIS, Deceased; ARTHUR W. TERKEURST and EULA MAE TERKEURST; DREW W. P ARISH and VIVAN E. PARISH; WILLIE WILSON, GEORGE M. LANIER, and FRANK MUNLIN, Plaintiffs, Versus FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants. $ s ss s s ss s S $ ss$ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 88 9876-F JOSEPH CROSTIC and MARIANNE CROSTIC; WILLIAM STANLEY; DONALD MOTLEY and VIRGINIA MOTLEY; and LUTHER OWENS, JR. and SANDRA OWENS, Plaintiffs, Versus OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION; ET AL Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT s $ s $ s OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS s s . 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Page 3 NO. 89-5927-F JAMES ALFRED ARNOLD and MARY ARNOLD; SAMUEL J. CAUSEY and ARLENE CAUSEY, THURMAN J. SPRAYBERRY and BETTY SPRAYBERRY; ROBERT L. WYATT and WANDA WYATT, and CLIFFORD RAY COUCH and CHERRY COUCH, Plaintiffs, Versus FIBREBOARD CORPORTION, ET AL., Defendants. 5 $ S S IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, T E X A. S 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 89-08200-F MARLES TURNER, Individully and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of LAWRENCE TURNER (Deceased) THOMAS IVEY DOROUGH and CAROLYN DOROUGH, Plaintiffs, Versus ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., Defendants. 5 $ S S $ s $s $s $ $ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Page 4 NO. 89-8836-F ERNEST M. HOOVER, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Versus H.K. PORTER COMPANY, INC., ET AL., Defendants. S IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF s sss DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS s s s ss 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 89-10233-F ANNIE BELL WALKER, Individually $ and as Personal Representative 5 of the Heirs and Estate of $ ELLIS WALKER, SR., Deceased, WILMER RAY KELLY and ELSIE JEANETTE KELLY; CARLOS DAVISON; RUBY STRINGFELLOW, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of $ WILLIE C. STRINGFELLOW, SR.; Deceased, and RICHARD CARROLL, jj Plaintiffs, vs. $ $ S $ FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, et al, Defendants. $ s IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Page 5 NO. 89-10294-F HELEN GRACE BOOKER and ELZY M. BOOKER; MALCOLM RAY HARRISON and ADELL T. HARRISON; OLLIE HERMAN LEE and JULIA LEE; THOMAS FRANKLIN MOODY and BEATRICE MARIE MOODY; MURRAY HILL, Individually and as Personals Representative of the Heirs and Estate Of EMANUEL C. YOUNG, Deceased, Plaintiffs, S Versus S FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, et al, S S Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 89-11174-F JOHN C. GOSNEY, SR., Plaintiff, vs. H.K. PORTER COMPANY, INC et al., Defendants. S IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Ss s DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS s s s s 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 89-11197-F LAWRENCE BRASWELL, Plaintiff, vs. H.K. PORTER COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants. $ $ $ $ S $ $ $ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Page 6 NO. 90-448-F WILLIAM T. LINDSEY and S SHIRLEY LINDSEY; JEANETTE JOLLIFF Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of WINFIELD H. JOLLIFF, Deceased; TOMMIE LOO WADE, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of JIMMIE E. WADE, Deceased; DEWEY HOWELL and SONJA HOWELL; HOWARD BARLOW and ELLEN BARLOW, Plaintiffs, versus FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, et al. Defendants. S s s s s s s s s s s IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT KEENE CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES INTRODUCTION Keene Corporation ("Keene") has never mined asbestos, nor manufactured, processed, fabricated, routinely sold, distributed, or otherwise placed into commerce thermal insulation or acoustical products containing asbestos. A former subsidiary of Keene, Keene Building Products Corporation ("KBPC"), and KBPC's corporate predecessors, Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Inc. ("BEH"), a Pennsylvania corporation, Ehret Magnesia Manufacturing Company ("Ehret"), a Pennsylvania corporation, and Baldwin-Hill Company ("B-H"), a New Jersey corporation, did at one time manufacture and sell thermal insulation or acoustical products containing asbestos. Keene Page 7 expressly denies that it is the successor to the unknown and unforeseen contingent tort, contractual, or other liabilities of KBPC, BEH, and BEH's corporate predecessors. Keene was formed in 1967 and acquired substantially all of the stock of BEH in 1968. BEH became a subsidiary of Keene. BEH resulted from a 1959 merger of Ehret and B-H. In 1970, BEH was merged, and its business was transferred, into another Keene subsidiary, KBPC. KBPC, BEH, and BEH's corporate predecessors manufactured and sold insulation products, including some thermal insulation and acoustical products containing asbestos. None of the companies was ever in the business of mining, milling, distributing, or importing raw asbestos fiber. During the 1960's, BEH commenced efforts to eliminate asbestos from its products. By 1972, all asbestos was removed from the thermal insulation and acoustical products manufactured by KBPC which contained it. KBPC ceased to be a Keene subsidiary in 1974 and some assets of KBPC were transferred to Keene and the remainder of the assets remained in KBPC whose stock was sold to a third party. Documents generated after that date are not relevant to this lawsuit. The information provided in these responses is based upon knowledge obtained through a review of Keene's documents and records and through a review of existing documents and records of KBPC, BEH, and BEH's corporate predecessors. Many of the events which may be relevant to the issues in this lawsuit occurred prior to Keene's purchase of the stock of Page 8 BEH. In addit ion, much of the information being sought by plaintiff involves events which occurred decades prior to the commencement of this suit. Many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which plaintiff's discovery relates are deceased or are otherwise unavailable to Keene, and investigations to date indicate that at least some of the documents which r-iate to the matters inquired about were discarded in the regular course of business prior to commencement of the asbestos personal injury litigation. Furthermore, no single individual can now be found who is aware of all facts relevant to this litigation. Information must be assimilated from those records which still exist and from former employees of companies other than Keene. Accordingly, Keene can only relay this information; it cannot attest to the accuracy or truthfulness of such responses. Information of this nature is being supplied because it may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For these reasons, the information being provided in these responses may be incomplete. Keene is engaged in a continuing investigation into the subject matter sought by this discovery, and its responses are based upon this investigation. Keene cannot exclude the possibility that its continued investigation may at some future time reveal more complete information, or even information which indicates that an answer which is now being supplied is incorrect. Keene reserves the right to supplement these responses at a future date if additional Page 9 information is discovered. Unless the context requires a contrary interpretation, the terms "defendant," "you," or "your" as used herein- refer to KBPC, BEH, and BEH's corporate predecessors only, and are not intended to include or refer to Keene alone or in part. Answers referring to the manufacture, distribution, purchase, or sale of thermal insulation or acoustical products containing asbestos or any activities related thereto are based upon acts of KBPC, BEH, and BEH's corporate predecessors. To the extent that the information contained herein differs in any respect from any prior response to discovery, these responses shall be deemed to update and supersede such prior response in any and all cases. This introduction is explicitly incorporated into each of the responses hereinafter provided. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Keene generally objects to these interrogatories as being unduly burdensome, harassing, oppressive, vexatious, boilerplate, overly broad as to time, scope, or location, vague, lacking in particularity, and repetitious. The use of the words "any," "all," "each," or "every" is overly broad and objected to. Objection is made to the extent these interrogatories assume the truth of facts not proven or facts not in evidence. Objection is made to these interrogatories on the grounds that they seek information which is not relevant or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery Page 10 of admissible evidence. Objection is also made to these interroga tories to the extent that they seek information or materials which have been gathered or prepared in the course of the asbestos litigation, or which are otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or by any other applicable privilege. Keene also objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek confidential, trade secret, or other proprietary information or materials. Keene further objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they improperly call for a legal, medical, or scientific opinion or conclusion which Keene is not qualified to render. To the extent these interrogatories seek information regarding health risks to individuals who worked at plants where thermal insulation or acoustical products containing asbestos were manufactured, Keene objects on the ground that such information is not relevant or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See, e.q., Wesley Theological Seminary v. U.S. Gypsum, 876 F.2d 119 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Lohrmann v. PittsburghComing Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1164-1165 (4th Cir. 1986); Catasaqua Area School District v. Raymark Industries, 662 F. Supp. 64 (E.D. Pa. 1987); Smith v. Celotex, 564 A.2d 209 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 1989); and Martin ,v. Johns-Manville Corp., 508 Pa. 154, 175, 494 A.2d 1088, 1099 (1985). Keene further objects to these interrogatories to the extent they seek medical records or other privileged personnel Page 11 information, and Keene will not provide such information absent an appropriate waiver of the applicable privilege. Keene does net concede that any of its answers, to these interrogatories are or will be admissible evidence at a trial of this action, and Keene does not waive any objection, on any ground, whether or not asserted herein, to the use of any such answer at trial. These General Objections are explicitly incorporated into each of the responses hereinafter provided. 1. Has Keene ever shown Dr. Corwin Hinshaw any internal memoranda or corporate documents that mention or discuss the Defendant's knowledge of the hazards of asbestos before 1983? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 1: No. 2. At any prior to 1983, has Dr. Corwin Hinshaw ever spoken with any corporate official or employee of Keene regarding the hazards of asbestos? If your answer to this Interrogatory is yes, please state when such conversation occurred, state who was present or spoke with Dr. Hinshaw, and describe what was discussed. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 2: No. 3. of Keene: Please state whether Joseph Saville was an employee a) If you answer to this Interrogatory is yes, please list all positions and job titles that Mr. Saville held and the name of names of Keene entitles he worked for. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 3: According to an unsigned correspondence, it appears that Joseph Saville was employed as Manager, Customer Services, Keene Insulation Division Page 12 as of February 9, 1976. This is the only information available to Keene at this time. 4. Please describe the dates that Mr. Saville worked for Keene and the job titles that he held for each of those dates. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 4: answer to interrogatory No. 3. Keene states see 5. Has Keene ever sold asbestos-containing products overseas? If so, please state the dates that asbestos-containing materials were sold outside the United States. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 5: Keene's current knowledge. Not to the best of 6. Has Keene ever sold asbestos-containing products outside the continental United States without a warning substantially similar to the following example: "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. INHALATION OF ASBESTOS IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. IF DUST IS CREATED WHEN THIS PRODUCT IS HANDLED, AVOID BREATHING THE DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTILATION CONTROL IS NOT POSSIBLE, WEAR RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY U.S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMONCONIOSIS PRODUCING DUST." ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 6: Keene's current knowledge. Not to the best of 7. Has Keen [sic] ever sold asbestos-containing products ouside [sic] the continental United States without a warning on the hazards of asbestos exposure? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 7: Keene's current knowledge. Not to the best of Page 13 8. Has Keane ever sold asbestos containing products outside the continental United States without warning since 1972? ANSV/ER TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 8: Keene's current knowledge. Not to the best of Page 14 STATE OF NEW YORK ) : ss . : COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) HOWARD A- MILEAF, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Keene Corporation. The foregoing is verified on behalf of Keene Corporation. The matters stated therein are not within his personal knowledge and have been prepared pursuant to his directions from information and records available to said corporation. He believes the foregoing to be true. /ySworn to before me this day of NANCY Notary Public, Stcte c: .Nov; vcr!; No 24-C8':033 Quc'.ifit-i ;r; Kir.ji Cvuoty Commission Expire;,Sept.OS. is ! ATCHLEY, RUSSELL, WALDROP and HLAVINKA 1710 Moores Lane - P.O. Box Texarkana, TX 75505-5517 903/792-8246 Fax: 903/792-5801 5517 State Bar No. 04073800 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDENT KEENE CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby and foregoi on this the certify that a true and correct copy of the above has been forwarded to all known counsel of record day of _________________ , 1991. M J //DDeermnn: is Chambers I