Document mqLXLrn2EvyrBGnv6jBZ6XmgB

No. A153112 DONALD WOODROW DEVINE, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, etal., Defendants. . IN THE DISTRICT COURT JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 58TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF THOMAS BARIA'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION TO: THOMAS BARIA, by and through his counsel ofrecord, Kimberly Shauck, Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. Pursuant to Rules 120a, 166b and 169 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company ("ICRRCo.") hereby files its Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Thomas Baria's Request for Admission, Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting to Jurisdiction. i By. ThomasrTRC^PPieters GUNDLACH, LEE, EGGMANN, BOYLE & ROESSLER 5000 West Main Street, P.O. Box 23560 Belleville, IL 62223-0560 Telephone: (618)277-9000 Scott P. Hazen BROWN McCARROLL & OAKS HARTLINE 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75201-6929 (214) 999-6100 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ILLINOIS CENTRAL CORPORATION and ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY I. PREL] 1311C ARY STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS Subject to and without waiving its current or any future special appearances, ICRRCo. makes this preliminary statement and these objections: ICRRCo. currently has a special appearance motion pending in a case in Dallas County, Texas. That case involves a plaintiff who is a resident ofa state other than Texas. Each and every objection, response or matter contained in these responses and answers is made strictly subject to and without waiving any pending special appearance motion. To the extent that ICRRCo. is named and served as a party in future cases in Texas, these responses shall also be subject to and without waiving any future special appearance motions. ICRRCo. expressly objects to each and every discovery request to the extent that it seeks any information in those cases wherein a special appearance is pending for the reason that such discovery requests are not related to any special appearance motion or likely to lead to the discovery of. evidence admissible in a special appearance hearing. ICRRCo. does not own or control any railroad track in Texas. ICRRCo. will provide substantive responses to those requests related tojurisdictional issues as they relate to those Plaintiffs who have sued ICRRCo. However, ICRRCo. objects to each and every discovery request and/or interrogatory to the extent that it is unrestricted as to subject, time and geography on the grounds that such requests/interrogatories are unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably related to the discovery ofjurisdictional evidence related to such claims. -2- n. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. ICRRCo. further objects to each and every discovery request, interrogatory and request for admission to the extent that they require ICRRCo. to search through all corporate documents on the ground that such requests are clearly overly board, unduly burdensome, exceptionally expensive, and not reasonably related to the discovery of evidence relevant to the claims ofPlaintiffs claiming injury arising out ofalleged exposure while employed by ICRRCo. 2. ICRRCo. further objects to those requests as a whole, since they seek matters which are privileged under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Texas Rules of Civil Evidence, including, but not limited to, information and matters precluded by the attomey/client privilege, attomey/work product exemption and the party communications privilege. 3. ICRRCo. further objects to the definitions set forth at the beginning of Plaintiffs' requests as an improper attempt to give meanings to ordinary English words that are contrary to their accepted meanings and which render the requests ambiguous, overly broad and/or unduly, burdensome to answer. 4. ICRRCo. further objects to Plaintiffs' requests as vague since they are not limited to the time and location when and where Plaintiffs were allegedly employed by ICRRCo.. 5. ICRRCo. expressly incorporates each and every general objection and preliminary statement into its response to each interrogatory, subject to and without waiving its special appearance motion objecting to jurisdiction. 6. ICRRCo. objects to any request relating to any topic other thanjurisdiction, as it has a special appearance on file in this matter and inquiries beyond tire issue ofjurisdiction are unduly burdensome on defendant in that it has insufficient contacts with Texas. -3- RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 1: Admit or deny that asbestos-containing products were in general use aboard Defendant's railroad during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits1' that at some time during Mr. Baria's employment with Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railway Company between 1955 and 1972 or Illinois Central Railroad Company between 1972 and 1986, asbestoscontaining products were used on Defendant's railroad. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit or deny that Defendant transported, ordered, purchased or otherwise acquired asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections, Defendant admits Request for Admission No. 2 to the extent it is limited to some period of time between 1955 and 1986. -4- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit or deny that Defendant used or implemented on Defendant's railroad, asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits Request for Admission No. 3 to the extent it is limited to some period of time between 1955 and 1986. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit or deny that Defendant's cars, engines and/or, locomotives which Plaintiffworked on or around were unreasonably dangerous and unfit becauseof the presence of and/or use ofasbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objection. Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 4. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admitor deny that Plaintiffwas a railroad worker, as that term is generally understood, during his employment with Defendant RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. -5- Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, ifany, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits Request for Admission No. 5. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit or deny that Plaintiff, in the course and scope of his work as a railroad worker and/or employee of Defendant, worked on and/or around Defendant's railroad, railway cars, engines and/or locomotives, shops, roundhouses, and transfer sheds where asbestos, and asbestos containing products were present RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is* irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections, and to the extent "or around" implies close proximity. Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 6. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit or deny that Defendant was aware during the periods oftime Plaintiffworked for Defendant that airborne asbestos dust created a potential health hazard to those who breathed such dust RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, ifany, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. -6- Subject to and without waiving Defendants' previously filed objections. Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 7. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit or deny that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant or by a predecessor-in-interest ofDefendant RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately.. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits Request'for Admission No. 8. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit or deny that Plaintiffworked on and/or around Defendant's railroad in areas where asbestos-containing products were installed, used, prepared for use, replaced or repaired, stored or loaded, unloaded or transported. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections, Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 9 to the extent it is limited to some time period between 1955 and 1986. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit or deny that Defendant did not distribute any literature or warnings of any kind to its employees during the period oftime Plaintiff worked for Defendant regarding the potential health hazards to those who breathe airborne asbestos dust -7- RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 10. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit or deny that asbestos-containing products were placed on or used in the conduct of Defendant's railroad during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant including the following asbestos-containing products: a. any asbestos-containing product and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products and/or materials b. asbestos tiles c. asbestos millboard d. asbestos friction products e. asbestos pipecovering f. asbestos gaskets g. asbestos joint compound h. asbestos cement i. asbestos block j. asbestos packing k. boilers l. brake shoes m. brake linings n. clutch linings o. firebrick p. refractories/castables q. turbines RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. -8- Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits some ofthe above products were placed on or used on the GulfMobile & Ohio Railway Company or Illinois Central Railroad Company at some time between 1955 and 1986. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit or deny that Defendant engaged in no abatement programs for the removal of asbestos at any time since 1965. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant deniesRequest for Admission No. 12. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit or deny that Defendant was aware of the presence of and/or use of asbestos-containing products at the Railroad during the time period Plaintiffwas employed by Defendant RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits its Request for Admission No. 13 to the extent it is limited to some time period between 1955 and 1986: -9- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit or deny that Defendant became aware of the potential health hazards ofairborne asbestos during the time periods in which Plaintiffwas employed by Defendant RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNQ. IS: Admit or deny that Defendant did not continuouslyprovide face masks to railroad employees working with or around asbestos from 1945 to the present for the purpose ofprotecting these employees from inhaling asbestos. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, ifany, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant denies that it did not provide masks to its employees and refers Plaintiff to the deposition testimony of Charles Bethel regarding same. -10- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit or deny that during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, it was foreseeable that asbestos-containing products on Defendant's railroad would or could be removed, stripped, replaced or repaired at some time after installation. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant admits Request for Admission No. 16 to the extent it is limited to some time period between 1955 and 1986. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit or deny that during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the Boiler Inspection Act, formerly 45 U.S.C. 23; and restated at 49 U.S.C. 20701 et seq. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit or deny that Plaintifffiled suit against Defendant within three (3) years ofthe date ofdiscovering his asbestos-related condition or the existence ofany asbestos-related causes of action. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to -11- this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant denies Plaintiff suffers any asbestos related health conditions, and, alternatively, denies Plaintiff filed his action within three years of suffering shortness ofbreath symptoms. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: asbestos related illness. Admit or deny that Defendant is liable for Plaintiff's RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible, to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant denies Plaintiffhas an asbestos related illness and denies that it is liable to Plaintifffor any illness. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit or deny that Defendant knew or had reason to know that the asbestos was in use on its railroads since the 1930's. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State ofTexas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. -12- Subjectto and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant denies Request for Admission No.20, as the Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railway Company, the entity which allegedly employed Plaintiff between 1955 and 1986, did not exist in the 1930's. Defendant continues to object to knowledge ofIllinois Central Railroad Company prior to 1972 as irrelevant REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit or deny that Defendant consciously decided not to warn its employees ofthe dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Subject to and without waiving Defendant's previously filed objections. Defendant denies Request for Admission No. 21. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: place on Defendant's railroad. Admit or deny that asbestos is still in use and/or in RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. -Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: on its railroad. " Admit or deny that Defendant no longer uses asbestos ~ RESPONSE: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to -13-' this request in that it is vague, unclear and contains compound requests which render it impossible to ascertain how to respond accurately. Defendant further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Respectfully Submitted, R. Peters .ACH, LEE, EGGMANN, BOYLE aESSLER est Main Street, P.O. Box 23560 Belleville, IL 62223-0560 Telephone: (618)277-9000 Fax:(618)277-4594 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendant ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY -14- No. A153112 DONALD WOODROW DEVINE, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, etal.. Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 58TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT VERIFICATION BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared CHARLES G. GARRETT, who after being sworn, stated upon his oath that he is the Risk Manager of Illinois Central Railroad Company and as such is authorized to verify Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Thomas Baria's Request for Admissions Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting to. Jurisdiction, and states that he has read and understands the same, and that all statements contained in the aforementioned supplemental responses are within his personal knowledge and are true and correct. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY BY CHARLES G. GARRETT Risk Manager SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this to certify which witness may hand and seal of office. Notary Public in and for the State of ~ZL* Notary Expiration Date o No. A153112 DONALD WOODROW DEVINE, et al. Plaintiffs. vs. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, etal.. Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 58TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy of the foregoing Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company's Supplemental Responses and Objections to PlaintiffThomas Baria's Request for Admissions Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting- to Jurisdiction was forwarded to the below-listed via Federal Express on January 28,1998: Ms. Kimberly Shauck Baron & Budd, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 \ GUNDLACH, LEE, EGGMANN, BOYLE & ROESSLER 5000 West Main St, Box 23560 Belleville, IL 62223-0560 (618)277-9000 (618) 277-4594 FAX