Document mqyw5zwgD2exDJy5GO61183kd

1 1 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONOGALIA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA 3 IN RE: MON MASS II 4 5 Examination Before Trial, held at the Law Offices 6 of WOODS, OVIATT, GILMAN, STURMAN & CLARKE, LLP, 44 Exchange 7 Street, Rochester, New York on January 14, 1998, commencing 8 at 9 o'clock a.m. 9 10 EXAMINATION OF: Roy Whittaker 11 APPEARANCES: 12 13 14 HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN, P.C. Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff 221 West Lexington, Suite 400 Independence, Missouri 64051 BY: STEVEN E. CRICK, ESQ. 15 GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH 1 6 Appearing on behalf of Garlock, Inc. and Anchor Packing 1 7 Packard Building, 17th Floor 111 South 15th Street 18 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 BY: BERNARD L. LEVINTHAL, ESQ. 19 20 KOROWSKI LAW FIRM 21 Appearing Via Telephone on behalf of A.W. Chesterton 22 12 Park Place Professional Center Swansea, Illinois 62226 23 BY: CURTIS BAILEY, ESQ. 24 25 REPORTED BY: DEBORAH A. BONALLE, CSR W,Ji.... . &eportinq ^Service > O t Sq(fuat'e> J/J3>uui$i<lakinny i\rn hosier. I lew IJorli 14614 4 1 2 few years. In all honesty, I forget the date 3 off the top of my head. As a result of some 4 cases that we were involved in, I think that 5 your firm was handling, Garlock contacted 6 McCrone in Chicago and requested, I believe, 7 even by way of subpoena, that they supply 8 Garlock with any and all documents relating to 9 Garlock and Anchor that they had in their i n possession, and that's what I have now 11 produced for you. 12 Just as an aside, I don't think that 1 3 there's anything in there that you don't 1 4 already have, but I will leave that up to you 1 5 to determine. They're divided up according to 16 McCrone's file numbers and the indices that 1 7 you see in there were generated by McCrone, 18 not by Garlock. 19 MR. CRICK: Are you saying that all 20 these documents were given to us during our 21 other case? 22 MR. LEVINTHAL: No, I don't know if 23 they were given to you during your other case 24 or not. When I say you -- I know that as of 25 today I think you have it all in your Wultown i\'f7orliny Service 7oi me.i -.Sc^uare l\.oihe\ier, ijew \Jorh 14614 6 1 2 and McCrone that includes how Garlock actually 3 received the materials. 4 MR. CRICK: Can you just point that 5 specific letter out to me. 6 (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) 7 MR. LEVINTHAL: Let me just see the 8 others a second so I can verify a file 9 number. 1 0 (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) 1 1 MR. LEVINTHAL: Yeah. If you look at 12 correspondence that begins with the first page 1 3 and continue, you will see it's dated. That's 1 4 the correspondence going back and forth 1 5 requesting -- 16 MR. CRICK: Can you point out the 1 7 letter that sends this file for me, please. 18 (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) 19 MR. LEVINTHAL: All right. There is 20 no -- hold on a second. I don't see a letter 21 that actually serves as a quote-unquote 22 transmittal letter. What is in here is -- do 23 you have some Post-its? I will mark a 24 couple. 25 (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) VUtown f'^eportincj Sere ici lOI DitneS k',,Jw>Ur. mire BuiHuu, \Jort< 14614 7 1 2 MR. LEVINTHAL: There's a letter dated 3 August 14, 1995 from counsel for Garlock to 4 Laurie Bain, Vice President and General 5 Manager of McCrone Environmental Services 6 indicating that there was to be a meeting 7 scheduled for Friday, August 18th, 1995 -- and 8 I'm quoting now -- "The purpose of our meeting 9 is to confirm that we have received all 1 0 materials in McCrone's files relating to 1 1 consulting services performed for Garlock, 1 2 Inc., Anchor Packing or Coltec Industries." 1 3 There is likewise -- there are also 1 4 letters between McCrone and Garlock or counsel 1 5 for Garlock in August prior to the 14th and 16 subsequent to the 14th of 1995 discussing the 1 7 course -- going back and forth discussing the 18 course of searching for the documents, but 19 apparently there never was a quote-unquote 20 cover letter saying "Enclosed please find the 21 documents." 22 So the answer to the question you asked 23 a while ago, at this point it would appear 24 that as of the time of that last case, if it's 25 the Michigan case you're talking about, we did MJtown i^eporliny Service "Of T^imes ^r^acire f\<niie.ster. f'few IJork 14614 8 1 2 not -- Garlock did not in fact have these 3 documents in its possession. I believe it was 4 as a result of allegations made by 5 Mr. Hatfield in the course of that case that 6 Garlock even set about to retrieve the 7 documents. 8 (WHEREUPON DEPOSITION EXHIBITS 1 THROUGH 6 9 WERE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 1 0 MR. CRICK: Before we begin, have you 1 1 filed your pro hoc application in this case? 12 MR. LEVINTHAL: Yes, as far as I know 1 3 it's been granted. It certainly was filed. I 1 4 was told that it had been granted months ago. 1 5 It was filed back in late November, early 1 6 December. So as far as I know, it was granted 1 7 among a whole stack of them at the beginning 18 of December. 19 MR. CRICK: I'm not sure we received 20 that application. 21 ROY WHITTAKER, 22 called herein as a witness, having first been duly 23 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 24 EXAMINATION BY MR. CRICK: 25 Q. Mr. Whittaker, would you please state your name and WiJtown f^eportinq Service 7Of ^(fuare i'^tuiu'ster, ! lew IJorL 14614 10 i 1 ROY WHITTAKER BY MR. CRICK 2 MR. CRICK: Well, I will check our 3 correspondence file on that because I don't 4 think it was Mr. Whittaker who was listed, 5 but -- 6 MR. LEVINTHAL: Okay. That was handled 7 by local counsel. I was led to believe that 8 he had been noticed, but as I said, you are 9 taking this deposition and there would be no 1 0 one other than him. 1 1 And, by the way, I never received a 1 2 copy of your pro hoc for West Virginia. 1 3 MR. CRICK: That would have been a 1 4 couple of years ago. 1 5 MR. LEVINTHAL: A couple years ago for 16 these cases? 1 7 MR. CRICK: Probably in June of '86. 18 MR. LEVINTHAL: '86? 19 MR. CRICK: May of '86 before the MDL 20 action. 21 MR. LEVINTHAL: Oh, well, if you want 22 to talk about that, I have been pro hoc'd in 23 West Virginia numerous times. 24 MR. CRICK: I mean in this case. 25 MR. LEVINTHAL: In this case you were Wultown Reportlti(j jS*ervu ~() I Himes tjtiare $uifdintf /sat kesler. i jew XJork i 4 0 / 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ! Q. 9j 10 i A. 1 1 Q. 1 2 A. 13 Q. 1 4 A. 15 Q. 1 6 A. 1 7 Q. 18 A. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK pro hoc'd in 1986? MR. CRICK: Because it was sent up to mdl . MR. LEVINTHAL: Okay. MR. CRICK: This case has a history. EXAMINATION BY MR. CRICK CONTINUING. Mr. Whittaker, it's my understanding you retired from Garlock in 1996? That's correct. You started there in 1953? Yes. So you worked for Garlock a period of about 43 years? Yes. You are a consultantfor Garlock now? Yes. What sort ofconsulting work do you do? Well, a lot of my time is spent on engineering projects. Garlock is a company that is -- always wants to expand their business, and to give you a couple examples, they're looking at manufacturing in the Far East and I have spent about three weeks there and I was more recently in -- prior to that, I was in Europe, spent some time there and then I worked with the Engineering Department at Garlock on testing of I i Wuhown i^eportirnu9f- JO I llimeS -_Ssquare BJdinc, kU<, }}ew 'tjorh 1 2 3 Q. 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 A. 1 0 Q. 1 1 A. I 2 q. 13 A. 14 Q. 1 5 A. 16 Q. 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 A. 20 Q. 21 A. 22 Q. 23 A. 24 Q. 25 A. 12 ROY WHITTAKER BY MR. CRICK products and developing products. Garlock is an international company, isn't it? Yes, it is. You have North American offices in Palmyra, New York; is that right? Yes. Sodus, New York? Yes. Did I say that right? Sodus reports to Palmyra. s-o-d-u-s? Yes. Garlock has a plant in Mexico? Yes. Toronto, Canada? Yes. Dusseldorf, Germany? Yes. Sherbrooke, Quebec? Yes. Australia? Yes. Great Britain? Yes. 7 ikhown importuuj Meruit JO ! iJitnei -Sejuare $uiMiny LL L^. 'thu, IJorh 14614 1 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 A. 7 Q. 8 A. 9 10 1 1 Q. I 2 A. 13 Q. 14 1 5 A. 16 1 7 Q. 1 8 A. 19 Q. 20 A. 21 Q. 22 23 A. 24 25 Q. 13 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK And you're looking to start a plant in the Far East now? It's a possibility. And another plant inEurope? It's a possibility. Are there other Garlock plants? No, anything else reports directly to Palmyra such as the mechanical seal -- or the spiral wound gasket group in Houston. That reports to Palmyra. So there's another plant in Houston, Texas? Yes. Are there any other plants besides the ones we have listed? Yes. There's a recent one in Arkansas that they purchased, which again reports to Palmyra. What city in Arkansas? I can't recall the city right now. Any other plants anywhere in the world? No. How many of those plants today, sir, manufacture a product that contains asbestos? Two. Mexico and Palmyra both manufactured compressed asbestos gasketing material. Those are the only plants that manufacturer any type of Wultown i^eport'tnq Service JO I fJ'tmes Square l^aildiny IL, 1 /< , l)o,l f46f4 1 2 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 8 A. 9 10 1 1 Q. 1 2 A. 1 3 Q. 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 16 A. 1 7 Q. 18 19 A. 20 21 22 Q. 23 24 A. 25 Q. 14 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK product today that contains asbestos; is that what your testimony is? Yes. Now, it was only about two or three years ago that the plant in Mexico was still manufacturing asbestos product; isn't that correct? I thought I just said Mexico. MR. LEVINTHAL: He just told you they are still doing it. You said Palmyra -- Palmyra and Mexico. Besides the compressed sheets? No, all compressed sheet. How about in Canada? No. Everything is non-asbestos in Canada. When did you stop manufacturing asbestos products in Canada? I believe it was when we moved the sheeters and manufacturing equipment from Toronto to Palmyra, and that had to be approximately ten years ago. Now, Garlock was acquired by Colt Industries; is that right? Yes . And that's the company that made the Colt firearms? I Vhdtou n i^eporting Servit M)\ Climes r^uare /^uifdinq tin Liter. Vew tftU 146 14 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 5 Q. 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 A. 10 Q 1 1 A. 1 2 Q13 14 15 16 17 18 A. 19 20 21 Q. 22 23 A. 24 25 15 ROY WHITTAKER BY MR. CRICK Yes. And the company now is called Garlock, Inc.? MR. LEVINTHAL: Which company? Which is the company -- who is the parent company today? The corporation that owns Garlock is Coltec Industries. C-o-l-t-e-c? Yes. And Garlock, Inc. is a subsidiary of Coltec? Yes. List for me, sir, the products that Garlock manufactured that contained asbestos, by generic type. MR. LEVINTHAL: Are you confining this to any time period? MR. CRICK: No. MR. LEVINTHAL: Okay. Compressed asbestos gasketing, compression packing, expansion joint, hydraulic packing, spiral wound gasketing and cloth fabric. When did Garlock cease manufacturing cloth with asbestos? That product is manufactured in Quebec and I believe they ceased manufacturing cloth approximately three to five years ago; asbestos cloth. i / jiJlown Importing Service 501 iJimeJ Square fO'iuliltnif 'ih.,, 1J,,J, 14/5 14 1 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 6 7 Q. 8 A. 9 Q. 10 1 1 A. 1 2 Q. 1 3 A. 14 1 5 Q. 16 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 20 A. 21 22 23 Q. 24 25 A. 16 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK When did they start manufacturing cloth with asbestos in it? Well, it was being manufactured in Palmyra at the time I went there in 1953. I don't know when exactly they started manufacturing asbestos cloth. Garlock began as a company in 1897; is that correct? That is correct. And at that time in 1897, Garlock began manufacturing asbestos-containing products? Yes. Do you know if that included cloth? I don't believe it was cloth. I believe it was hydraulic packing and then after that was gasketing. At least by the time that you came to Garlock in 1953, Garlock was making asbestos-containing cloth? Yes. And it continued makingasbestos-containing cloth in the United States until approximately what year? I can't tell you the exact year, but it was the mid 1970s, and that was transferred to the plant in Quebec. And it continued manufacturing asbestoscontaining cloth in Quebec until about three year ago? Roughly three to five years. I can't tell exactly when V/u/lown l^eportintj Sen'ice 701 ~S>(^uare I^uifdiruj l\ut lcs/er. l Jew JJorb 14614 1 2 3 Q. 4 5 A. 6 7 8 9 10 ijQ. 1 1 A. 1 2 Q. 13 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 16 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 A. 20 21 22 23 Q. 24 25 A. 17 ROY WHITTAKER BY MR. CRICK they ceased manufacturing. During what years did Garlock make asbestos-containing spiral wound gaskets? Garlock, over the years, has been in and out of that business and I can't tell you exactly what years that was. I think most recently it was some 10 or 12 years ago and when the manufacturing was still in Toronto before it was moved. You lost me there. Before it was moved? Moved to Houston or to another location. Okay. 10 to 12 years ago, Garlock was making asbestos-containing spiral wound gasketing? Yes, I believe they were. Do you know when it started making asbestos-containing spiral wound gasketing? No, I do not. It was making it before youarrived in 1953, I take it? I can't say when theystarted makingspiral wound gasketing. I don't know because I didn't get involved in it until probably the late '60s, '70s, something like that. And at least by that time, Garlock was making asbestos-containing spiral wound gasketing? Yes. Vlultown l^eportincj Service _~0 I Slimes -Square I3ui(<hnt} i<?o(leifer. Jew \forh 146 / 4 1 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 A. 7 Q. 8 9 A. 10 11 12 13 1 4 Q. 1 5 A. 16 Q. 17 18 A. 19 Q. 20 21 A. 22 Q. 23 A. 24 25 18 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Tell me again the year that Garlock stopped making spiral wound gasketing with asbestos? As I said before, I believe it was 10 to 12 years ago. Around 1985? Sometime around that time frame. Were spiral wound gaskets containing asbestos ever sold with a warning? I don't recall because, again, it was done outside of Palmyra and I've got to believe that when we started labeling gasketing in Palmyra, because Toronto reported to Palmyra at that time, they probably started labeling at the same time. Around 1977? Yes. But you don't know as for a fact today whether or not spiral wound gaskets were actually sold with a warning? I can't say for sure. Did Garlock sell asbestos-containing cloth with any kind of warning at any time? On the packaging or -- Any kind of warning, sir. Again, that was done out of Sherbrooke and I can't say for sure, but I believe there was a warning put on the packaging. VliJtou'ti Importing. Service 50 I TJhneJ Lo<>, t^uare 1Jn.i tar, fa 1 2 Q. 3 A. 4 Q. 5 6 A. 7 Q. 8 9 A. 10 Q. 1 1 A. 12 Q. 1 3 A. 14 1 5 Q. 16 1 7 A. 18 19 Q. 20 21 A. 22 Q. 23 A. 24 Q. 25 20 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Could have been later? I can't say. That was not something that you were directly involved with? No, because it was in Quebec. The compressed asbestos gaskets, they were manufactured in Palmyra? Yes. Beginning in what year? In around the early 1900s. And continuing even today? Compressed asbestos gasketing is still manufactured today. What warning is provided with compressed asbestos gaskets today? It's a warning that's taken from the Federal Register andplaced on_the gasketing material itself. And when did Garlock begin placing a warning on compressed asbestos gaskets? In 1977. Has that warning ever changed? No, it has not. , Were you involved in the decision to place a warning on compressed asbestos gaskets? 11licltou n Importing Service >0 1 ~Jinies Square /^uifciiruf /Cj( ii< \h`r, } jeiv IJuiL 1 2 A. 3 ;| Q. 4 5 A. 6 7 8 9 10 Q. 11 12 13 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 16 17 18 A. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. 25 21 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK No, I was not. Were you told the reason for placing a warning on compressed asbestos gaskets? No, I was not told the reason. I believe it was put on there because of the -- as a courtesy to our end user to tell them that there was asbestos in the product and to make sure it didn't get mixed with a non-asbestos product. To give them the opportunity to take precautions from being exposed to any respirable asbestos fibers? MK. lkvinthai,: Object to the form. You can answer it. Whatever the end user decided to do with that product. Is there any reason you can think of to place a warning other than giving the end use the opportunity to protect himself from exposure to asbestos fibers? Well, the product we are talking about is an encapsulated product, so there is not a concern about that, but because it contained asbestos, it was just done -- we probably will notify them that there was -- if there was a health concern that there was asbestos fiber. Now, Garlock has removed asbestos from all of its products except for the compressed asbestos gaskets, 11j'ultown inij Service 101 J ^uare huibliruj /<d.tJcJ, 146 I 4 1 2 3 A. 4 Q. 5 6 7 8 A. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Q. 20 21 22 A. 23 24 Q. 25 22 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK correct? That is correct. And one of the reasons for removing asbestos was the potential health hazard from breathing asbestos fibers? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. You can answer it. I worked with the asbestos products for years as a Director of Engineering and the main purpose as far as I'm concerned why we did it is because as time went on since the non-asbestos products started in the late '70s, early '80s, there's been a great demand increase in having product such as gasketing and packing having tighter, better sealability. There's a big concern in the industry of emissions from the valves and flanges and as a result with non-asbestos products, we were able to develop a product that was ten times better for sealability in the industry. So the gaskets manufactured today are actually better than the gaskets that you were manufacturing with asbestos? They are better in the area of sealability, which that is what a gasket has got to do. And one of the considerations, in addition, was the potential health hazard from breathing asbestos fibers VUtown Importing ~S>ervit JO f llimes (jucire Hocfte.iier. Hew tjorb 146 14 1 2 3 4 5 A. 6 7 Q. 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 A. 15 16 17 18 19 20 Q. 21 22 A. 23 24 Q. 25 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 23 from those products; isn't that correct? MR. LEVINTHAL: Object to the form. Go ahead. You can answer it. Those products are considered safe. They're encapsulated products. I have to move to strike your response. Let me ask it again. One of the considerations that Garlock gave to removing asbestos from the products was the potential health hazard from breathing asbestos fibers; is that correct? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. Go ahead. They removed the asbestos in some cases because there are people in the industry that's concerned about it and those that are concerned about it, then there were other products that came along when the materials were available to develop the new products so they would use an alternative to asbestos product. So some people were concerned about the health hazards of asbestos in Garlock gaskets? Some people in the industry, yes, were concerned about the health concerns of asbestos. Health concerns of persons in the industry about asbestos is not something that only came to the Wultown Importing Service ~Of T^itties ^r^ucire /<i< J. sLr. 'll * IJorl / 'l6 / 7 1 2 3 A. 4 i| Q. 5 6 A. 7 || Q. 8 9 A. 10 1 1 Q. 12 13 A. 1 4 Q. 15 16 1 7 A. 18 19 Q. 20 A. 21 22 Q. 23 24 A. 25 24 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK attention of Garlock in 1977, is it? Restate that question, please. Garlock became aware of concerns about asbestos in the industry prior to 1977, didn't it? Yes. You know that Garlock was a founding member of the Asbestos Textile Institute in the 1940s? They were a member at various times of that association. And they were one of the founding members in the 1940s; you're aware of that, aren't you? Yes. You're also aware that as a result of theVera Clemons' personal injury claim that Garlock dropped its membership in the ATI? As a result of that? That's new to me. I'm not aware of that. You haven't been provided with those documents? I was never made aware that they dropped their membership because of that reason. What was the relationship betweenits drop in membership in the ATI and the Vera Clemons' claim? I do not know. MR. LEVINTHAL: I'm going to object to 7 Huhown i^eportincj. Service JO I iJimeJ S>r^uare k<,, iu sier. i Jew J^Jorh 14014 1 2 A. 3 4 5 6 Q. 7 8 9 10 1 1 A. 1 2 Q. 13 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 16 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 20 A. 21 Q. 22 23 24 A. 25 Q. ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 26 I don't recall -- like I said, they belonged to it and then they dropped out, I think, in around the '40s or something like that or later and then went back in again for a while, but I can't tell you the years. Just so the record is clear, you are aware that the Vera Clemons' claim that I have been mentioning with you was a claim brought by the family of a woman who worked at Garlock who contracted an asbestos disease; you understand that, don't you? Yes, I do. And that claim was brought in the early 1950s; do you understand that? Yes. Do you understand that Mr. Houten------ did I say that name correctly -- Yes. -- Mr. Houten was a member of the ATI on behalf of Garlock; you understand that, don't you? Yes. You know that in themid 1950s Mr. Houtenattended meetings of the Asbestos Textile Institute in which asbestos health hazards were discussed? Yes. Now, despiteMr. Houten's presence at those meetings of 7diown importing. Service JO I 3tries ~S<jiuire I*>uifdirty /Cut fester, f jew jjorh i 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q. 1 7 A. 18 19 20 A. 21 Q. 22 23 24 A. 25 Q. 27 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK the ATI and the Vera Clemons' claim, Garlock did not put a warning on its asbestos-containing products at that time, did it? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. If you want to rephrase it, he might be better able to answer it. You're suggesting that there are connections between events that there were no connection to. If you have something you want to show him to substantiate that and ask questions, that's fine, but I object to the form in which you're asking the questions. He can go ahead and answer it, if he's able to. Please answer the question, sir. Restate your question. MR. CRICK: Would you pleasereadthat. (Whereupon the reporter read back the last question.) No. Vera Clemons is not the only asbestos personal injury claim of a Garlock employee that's been brought against Garlock, is it? No. How many Workers' Compensation claims have been brought 11iicllnit n Importing u JO I l)imes -S', iidre fjitihkny /\<h iwifer, /jew jjorh / 4 6 / 4 1 2 3 4 A. 5 6 Q. 7 A. 8 Q. 9 A. 10 11 1 2 Q. 13 A. 1 4 Q. 15 16 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 20 A. 21 Q. 22 A. 23 24 25 Q. 28 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK against Garlock in which employees allege that they had an asbestos disease? I guess the only ones I can think of are probably six or seven. Would you please name those. I can't name all the people. Have you reviewed their claim files? No, I have not reviewed their claim files. I have seen in the past the list of the people, but that's about the extent of my attention or review of the files. uid you know any of those individuals? Yes, I did. So to the best of your memory, there have been only six or seven Workers' Compensation claims brought against Garlock raising an allegation of asbestos disease? Yes. And I will ask you one last time, can you name any of those claims besides Vera Clemons? Yeah. A Harold Beadle. Can you spell that last name? B-e-a-d-l-e. Geez, I can picture the people. I can't think of the names right now. I can't think of the names right now. When was Mr. Deadle's Workers' Compensation -- 'l ljicitown Reportinc^ Service .>01 iJimeS Square Snildituj ISLjt*,, '/IJo.l 146 14 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 A. 10 1 1 Q. 12 13 14 15 1 6 A. 1 7 Q. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. 29 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK It's Beadle with a B. B, sorry. B-e-a-d-l-e? Yes. When did Mr. Beadle file his Workers' Compensation claim? I don't recall the time frame. Do you remember the decade? I would say it was probably the '50s or '60s. I can't say for sure. He brought his claim in the '50s or '60s? MR. LEVINTHAL: If you are not sure -- if you are not sure, you're not sure. If you know, tell him. If you are not sure, don't guess. I'm not sure. To the best of your -- your best estimate, it would have been in the '50s or '60s? MR. LEVINTHAL: No, you're asking for his best guess and I'm not going to let him do that. If you feel certain you know a decade, go ahead and tell him. If you are not sure, you're not sure. I'm not sure. W-Jtown /d\e,porrlttinSe, _~0 / Himes ^Stjuare IHuiftlintj (ester. I Jew tjark 14614 1 2 Q. 3 A. 4 Q. 5 A. 6 7 8 Q. 9 A. 1 0 Q. 11 1 2 A. 1 3 Q. 1 4 A. 15 1 6 Q. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q. 24 A. 25 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 30 You knew Mr. Beadle? Yes, he worked for me at one time. When did he work for you? It had to be in the '50s. Let's see. Excuse me. I take that back. It could have been in the '60s when I was in Quality Control. Has Mr. Beadle passed away? Not to my knowledge. Was it during the time that Mr. Beadle was working for you that he filed his Workers' Compensation claim? That, I don't know. What did Mr. Beadle do at Garlock? He -- at the time he worked for me, he was a Quality Control inspector. You probably have some understanding of how Mr. Beadle was exposed to asbestos fibers. Can you explain that to us? MR. LEVINTHAL: Object to the form. Why don't you first ask him if he has some knowledge how he was exposed to asbestos fibers. You can answer the question, sir. I have no knowledge of how or what caused his health problem. I do know that as an inspector in Quality Illicitown l^eportincj Service .30 I iJimeS ^fjuare l^uitdiiuf /sot /teller, Hew tjort, 14614 1 2 3 4 Q. 5 6 A. 7 Q. 8 9 A. 10 1 1 Q. 12 1 3 A. 14 1 5 Q. 16 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 20 21 22 23 Q. 24 A. 25 Q. 31 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Control, they had to roll from department to department to inspect products. So he would have been exposed to Chrysotile asbestos at the Palmyra plant? Yes. And would he have been exposed to Crocidolite asbestos at the Palmyra plant? No, he would not, because I don't think he ever got -- worked around those products. To the best of your knowledge, his only exposure to asbestos was to Chrysotile? Yes. That's because the Crocidolite only represented about 2 percent of our entire product line. And do you know what asbestos disease Mr. Beadle claims that he has? No, I don't. Do you know if he had cancer? MR. LEVINTHAL: He just told you he didn't know what disease he had. Don't start fishing. I'm not going to let you do this. He doesn't know what disease he had. Do you know if he has cancer, sir? No, I do not. Besides Vera Clemons and Mr. Beadle, can you now think >Utown ^eportinc^ Service .TO / llinieJ S><jiuir'e I Jew 146 14 1 2 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 8 9 10 11 A. 1 2 Q, 13 14 15 1 6 A. 1 7 Q. 18 19 20 A. 21 22 23 24 25 32 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK of any other individuals who filed Workers' Compensation claims against Garlock? No. It's my understanding, sir, that you have a 40-plus year history at Garlock and that during your career, you have had the opportunity to review Garlock files to locate tests that Garlock may have performed on the release of asbestos fibers from its gasket products; is that correct? To some extent, I have seen a few, yes. It's my understanding, sir -- correct me please if I'm wrong -- that the first tests that Garlock performed to determine whether or not its gasket products released asbestos when used were performed in the 1980s? Again, I can't tell you the time frame. What's the first test that you recall Garlock performed to determine whether or not its asbestos gaskets released asbestos when used? There was a time I was asked to get some material -- some gasketing -- compressed asbestos gasketing like Style 900 and to have available the testing lab which is our functional test lab which reported to me at the time and a person that could set up and run tests because there's some tests that they wanted to have VUtoa n i^eportinej. s. .101 Zlimes ~S>fjucifV /^uifdiny ySot /tester, IJew %Jof4t 14(5 14 1 2 3 Q. 4 5 6 A. 7 Q. 8 A. 9 Q. 10 11 A. 12 1 3 Q. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK conducted by McCrone Industries. And that's the first test that you're aware of that Garlock commissioned to study whether or not its gaskets released asbestos when used? That's the first and only test that I'm aware of. And that was in 1985? I'm not sure of that. You have reviewed those records in preparation for your deposition today, I take it? I did, but I have got to say that I didn't look at the date on them, so I can't say. Okay. MR. LEVINTHAL: Let me just say for the record, Steve, Mr. Whittaker is testifying to the extent of his knowledge. You have been provided over the years -- eons ago you have been provided with a report, I believe, of Carl Mangold, I believe -- MR. CRICK: Please don't coach Mr. Whittaker. Please don't coach him. MR. LEVINTHAL: I'm not coaching him. MR. CRICK: I don't need you to tell me what evidence I have. MR. LEVINTHAL: That's fine. Mr. VUtown ^eportincj. Service -() I iJitnei i'^ochestet', I lew IJorh 146! 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q. 23 24 A. 25 Q. 34 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Whittaker has already given his testimony. It's in the record. It is what it is. This will nut change his recollection. This is not coaching. MR. CRICK: Please refrain from telling me the evidence. MR. LEVINTHAL: No, I want to make sure that this record doesn't come out twisted. MR. CRICK: Now, if we need to get someone on the phone to monitor the deposition we will, but I don't want you coaching and telling us what the evidence is. MR. LEVINTHAL: I am not coaching. I am not telling you what the evidence is. I want this record to come out straight and not twisted. MR. CRICK: No. That's not the way I'm interpreting this. MR. LEVINTHAL: Go ahead. Why don't you continue. Now, your lawyer has mentioned tests by Carl Mangold. Are you familiar with those tests? Yes, I am. And you were familiar with those tests when they 7IhJtown ^eportincj Se, TO/ iJimes --Square /AMintf i'^oihc.iter. /Jew ?JorL /46/4 1 2 3 A. 4 5 6 Q. 7 8 A. 9 Q. 10 11 12 1 3 A. 14 15 16 17 18 19 Q. 20 21 A. 22 Q. 23 24 A. 25 35 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK occurred? No. I'm only familiar with them knowing that they had taken place. I have not reviewed those tests, but yes, I overlooked and admit that, about Carl Mangold. You started your work in Quality Control in Garlock in what year? In '66. Quality Control is the department that ensures that the products that are leaving the plant meet the proper specifications and are appropriate and safe for the end user to use; is that correct? You were right except for that Quality Control has nothing to do with whether the product is safe for the end user. Their responsible to monitor the specification, whether it's Garlock or customer specification, and test it and inspect it to those specifications. So Garlock assumed no responsibility for the safety of its products once it left the plant? I did not say that. What responsibility did Garlock acknowledge for its products when the product left the plant, sir? The safety of any product at Garlock is designed or built into the product at the time that engineering lliultou n huj ^Service .701 Hitru?J d^ejuare /duildincf. Wru, 146 14 1 2 3 4 Q. 5 6 7 A. 8 9 10 11 1 2 Q. 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 36 develops the product through manufacturing and follow up testing in-house and in the field. So Garlock attempts to test its products before they are manufactured and sold to make sure that they are safe for the end user? Yes. And when we're talking about safety, I'm talking about whether the gaskets -- I'm using gaskets as an example, whether it's strong enough, it's got enough stability so under temperature and pressure it doesn't fail and blowout, such things as that. And so despite the Vera Clemons, the Beadle and the other asbestos Workers' Compensation claims, despite Garlock's membership in the Asbestos Textile Industry, Garlock did not see fit to test Its products for the release of asbestos fibers until 1985? MR. LEVINTHAL: Object. To the best of your knowledge? MR. LEVINTHAL: Object to form. I'm not going to allow him to answer it in this form. If you want to rephrase it, that's fine. You're being argumentative and you're structuring the question so that there's some connection between all of this, which there is not. And if you want to just ask him prior to I/licltou'n ^eeppoortina 50 / IJunej -Stjuare ItUj /vnt iu'.sler. /}etv 'Ljortt /46 /4 1 2 3 4 5 Q. 6 7 8 9 1 0 A. 11 12 13 1 4 A. 15 16 I7 18 Q. 19 20 21 A. 22 Q. 23 24 25 37 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK a date did they test or did they not, that's fine, but I will -- it's improper form and I will not allow him to answer it in that form. You can answer the question, sir. He can make his objections and then the judge will rule on them later. MR. LEVINTHAL: All right. Go ahead. Answer it. I will argue it to the judge later. Restate the question. MR. CRICK: Would you read that, please. (Whereupon the reporter read back the last question.) Garlock products, when they leave the plant, we feel that they're safe. They're encapsulated products, and when they are encapsulated products, then we feel that they are safe for the end user. I'm going to move to strike your response and ask you if you would just respond to the question that I asked. That's the best I can respond to. You did not test your products for the release of asbestos fibers until 1985, correct? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. Go ahead. You can answer it. Vlultown I'^eportiny ^ervic ~0 / ^JimeS Square ifckruj / /l^ntlester. Jew 2forh 14 6 4 1 2 A. 3 4 Q. 5 6 7 8 9 A. 1 0 Q. 11 1 2 A. 13 1 4 Q. 1 5 A. 16 1 7 Q. 18 19 A. 20 21 22 23 Q. 24 25 A. 38 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK I'm not sure exactly when that started, when they first started that test, but I guess that's true. Nuw, if a test was going to be performed in-house by Garlock, it would have been performed through the Quality Control Department, correct? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. Go ahead. You can answer. What tests are you talking about? Tests to determine whether or not their products released asbestos fibers. No. It would never have been done by the Quality Control Department. Which department would perform those tests? It would be the .Industrial Relations Department, in particular, the Safety Department. And was it the Industrial Relations and the Safety Department that oversaw the McCrone test in 1985? No, I don't know who oversaw those tests in 1985 because, like I said, the only part I took place on there was to supply the material and the facilities available and a person available to run the test. Kurt Salomon was the Safety Director in 1985, wasn't he? Yes, I believe he was. vuown l\eporting +S>eruu ~() t Zlimes S)Cfuare J3uifdinq ester. I'Jew Jjorb f 46 14 1 2 Q. 3 A. 4 Q. 5 6 7 A. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Where is Mr. Salomon today? He's still at Garlock. Do you know why you were designated as the person to appear for the deposition today concerning the McCrone tests and not Mr. Salomon? Because everything that I'm familiar with regarding the McCrone tests, Kurt Salomon was not part of that either. MR. LEVINTHAL: I would also like the record to be clear that Mr. Whittaker was not designated as the Garlock witness with respect to the McCrone test solely. Mr. Whittaker -- just a second, Mr. Whittaker was designated as the corporate designee who is in the best position to discuss all the corporate issues including the McCrone test and he's also the corporate designee that Garlock will be calling at trial if a corporate designee is called at trial. MR. CRICK: That is absolutely not true. We specifically asked for the person from Garlock most knowledgeable about the McCrone test. MR. LEVINTHAL: I think you better look 7lldtown iZepc Aim Se, ~()t iJ'tmei Ssqquuaarree J/S^'uuttiidditnruj Modejter. }]eiv \jorit /-46/4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q. 17 18 19 20 A. 21 Q. 22 23 A. 24 Q. 25 40 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK at your deposition notice then. All I did is -- you asked that documents be produced relative to the McCrone studies. I will tell you that it is our best judgment that Mr. Whittaker is the best corporate representative to speak to the McCrone tests to the extent that there is any. MR. CRICK: We would like to depose Mr. Salomon. MR. LEVINTHAL: Well, you can make your request. l will tell you right now that it's not going to happen in this trial. MR. CRICK: Well, we will take that up tomorrow. You did not have any direct conversations with Mr. Hatfield or anyone from McCrone, did you? MR. LEVINTHAL: Object to the form. You can answer. No, I did not. You know that Mr. Salomon did have direct conversations with the McCrone people, don't you? No, I don't believe he did. All right. You didn't have any direct role in the Mangold studies, I take it? Wu/lou>n porting Service .>0/ iJimeS fjuare $uidiruj 'Ih,., lJnJ, tA 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 5 jj A. 6 Q. 7 8 A. 9 Q. 10 11 A. 1 2 Q. 13 14 A. 1 5 Q. 16 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 20 A. 21 Q. 22 23 24 25 41 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK No. You didn'tlearn of thosestudies until youwere involved in the asbestos litigation; is that right? True. You learned ofthose studies from thelawyers for Garlock? True. In fact, the Mangold studies were commissioned by lawyers for Garlock; isn't that right? Yes. They weren't commissioned by the Safety Department, were they? No. They weren't even provided to you until you were involved in depositions for lawsuits; correct? Correct. Do you know whether or not those Mangold studies were provided to Mr. Salomon outside of litigation? No, I don't believe they were. So the only test that you know of ever atGarlock in which gaskets were studied to determine whether or not they released asbestos fibers when used were performed by McCrone Environmental? MR. LEVINTHAL: You mean specifically VbJlown porting Service _) () / iJitnei <fU(ire IS\tifdin(j Uh yjetv 'LJori 14614 1 2 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 A. 7 Q. 8 A. 9 Q. 10 11 A. 1 2 Q. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Q. 21 22 23 24 25 42 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK at Garlock; is that what you're asking him? MR. CRICK: Yes. Yes . Now, you' re not an industrial hygienist? No. Of course you're not a medical doctor, correct? Correct. You have never had any specific training in asbestos monitoring or asbestos disease, have you? No. You would rely on others to provide you information about asbestos and the propensity of a product to release fibers? MR. LEVINTHAL: Wait, wait. Object to the form. Rely on information from others for what purpose? MR. CRICK: Okay. I will rephrase the question. You don't profess to have any expertise in the properties of asbestos fibers, do you? MR. LEVINTHAL: I object to the form. The properties of asbestos fibers relative to what; for what purpose? MR. CRICK: Any purpose. y /luhutin porting Service 50 f Himt>5 Hf^uare Huifdiruj i'dinleiter. Hew l^orL /46/4 1 2 A. 3 4 5 j| Q. 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 11 12 A. 13 Q. 14 1 5 A. 16 1 7 Q. 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. 24 Q. 25 43 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Well, yes, as to asbestos fibers as far as their capability to be manufactured for products such as compressed gasketing, packings. You do have a certain expertise in use of asbestos in a product, correct? Yes. Whether or not that product when used may release respirable asbestos fibers, you have never had any coursework or specific training in that subject, have you? No. You have never had any training in taking an air sample, have you? No, because they are outside of my responsibilities in Quality Control or Engineering. All right. So you would have to rely on others to provide you information concerning measurements of asbestos that may be released from a product? MR. LEVINTHAL: Rely on the information for what purpose? I object to the form. MR. CRICK: Any purpose. No. No, that's not correct. Let me reask the question then. niijtown l^eportiny Service "01 iJimeS S>(^uare I^uiLiiruj ie.ifer, }]eu> %jot4t /46/4 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 A. 5 ;j Q. 6 7 8 A. 9 Q. 10 11 12 13 A. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Q. 22 23 A. 24 Q. 25 44 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Okay. You're not trained to take air samples? No. If you wanted to learnwhether or not your products were releasing asbestos, you couldn't perform those tests yourself? No. Who at Garlock was proficient and had the training necessary to take samples or to perform tests to determine whether or not Garlock products released asbestos fibers? Thepeople at Garlockwould test for fiber in the work area as far as processing and the concern of the workers. The people at Garlock would not test the product -- the finished product for fiber release. It was mainly because we felt they were encapsulated material. The testing that would be done by Kurt Salomon or anybody like that, again, like I said, would be for the processability of that product. And Mr. Salomon did perform tests like that; is that correct? I believe he has done some testing. And other Safety Directors have performed tests in Garlock plants to determine the level of asbestos in WiJtoU n ^eporlincj Serc'ice 30 I llimei jSCfuarv J^uilthnc^ ^ 14614 1 2 3 A. 4 Q. 5 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 A. 1 0 Q. 11 1 2 A. 13 Q. 14 A. 1 5 Q. 16 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 20 21 A. 22 23 24 Q. 25 45 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK the plant near Garlock workers; is that correct? Restate that, please. There have been other Safety Directors that supervised area sampling tests in Garlock plants to measure asbestos fibers, correct? Garlock safety? Yes, sir. I'm not aware of any. The only tests you are aware of are those performed by Mr. Salomon? Yes. He became Safety Director in 1985? Sometime in that time frame. And do you know why air samples were not taken in the plant prior to 1985, sir? no, I do not. Do you know why Garlock did not hire a consultant prior to 1985 to conduct fiber release tests on Garlock asbestos-containing gaskets? No. I can't answer that. Again, that would be outside of -- no, I can't. I have no reason -- don't have that information. With regard to the McCrone Environmental tests, you indicated that you coordinated obtaining the gaskets 'll lullown orlinej Service 701 llimes Square J3adding Idm Stester, / jew jjorlt /46 /4 1 2 3 A. 4 5 Q. 6 A. 7 8 Q. 9 1 0 A. 11 1 2 Q13 14 A. 1 5 Q 16 A. 1 7 Q. 18 A. 19 Q. 20 21 22 23 A. 24 25 Q- ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 46 for the test; is that correct? I coordinated getting the material -- the sheet material for the test. Where did you get the sheet material? It would come from the gasket shop or the Manufacturing Department. So this was newly manufactured gasket material that was used in the McCrone test? Well, probably recently new. It would be from the stock that we have available at the time. Did you select Mccrone Environmental to perform the test? No, I did not. Who selected McCrone? I do not know. You know who McCrone Environmental is, don't you? Yes. McCrone Environmental is one of the leading laboratories in the world; isn't that right? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. Go ahead. Answer it, if you know. I don't know whether they are a leading laboratory in the world or not. What is it you know of McCrone Laboratories? muiown porting ^eruit JO I iJimes ~S(juare Jjuifdiru} 1JU f46 /// 1 2 A. 3 4 5 Q. 6 7 8 9 1 0 A. 11 1 2 Q. 13 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 16 17 18 19 20 A. 21 22 Q. 23 24 25 47 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Very little, other than they were -- they ran some tests, to the best of my knowledge, this one time on gasketing in our testing laboratory. And it was represented to you when McCrone came to Palmyra to perform these tests that they were capable and proficient and experts in the field of asbestos? MR. LEVINTHAL: Object to the form. Go ahead and answer it. That would be outside of my responsibility at the time to make that type of decision. You didn't question "why is Garlock hiring McCrone instead of some other laboratory"? No. You just accepted that they were experts in the field and participated in the test to the extent you were asked? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. Go ahead and answer it. I did my part that I was asked, to get the material, supply the man and to be able to run the test. Do you have any reason to believe that Garlock would hire anyone other than a foremost expert in that science to perform these tests? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. VMou-n Reportincj. 101 flimes Square J^uifcttiruj bfjiiejtf'r. Hew 'LJork 1 2 3 A. 4 5 6 7 8 9 Q. in 11 12 A. 13 Q. 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 1 6 A. 1 7 Q. 1 8 A. 19 20 Q. 21 A. 22 23 Q. 24 A. 25 Q. 48 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Go ahead and answer it. Well, I can only respond to any testing we do on products other than fiber release or whatever, other types of tests on products, that we try to select a laboratory in the United States that, yes, is a -- has very good capability, then we can be assured of our results. You have no reason to believe today that Garlock selected anyone different than that when it picked McCrone? No. What role did Kurt Salomon play in this test? I think -- what test are you talking about? The McCrone test, sir. I'm going to repeat what I said a few minutes ago -- Please do. -- that I do not believe he played any role in this test. Have you spoken with Mr. Salomon about this test? No, I have not, but I have not seen or heard of his name or seen his name anyplace regarding this test. Who directly participated in this test besides you? A laboratory technician. Who was the laboratory technician? I Wultown porting Servit .101 Climes Square /^uifidinq (Rochester, j jeiv 'IJork !40!4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q. 19 A. 20 Q. 21 22 A. 23 Q 24 25 A. 49 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Richard Cirulli. Where is Mr. Cirulli today? He's still employed in the same lab at Garlock. And when you say he's a lab technician, what does Mr. Cirulli do as a lab technician? The only thing -- just like in this particular test, the only thing he would do is to see that the gaskets were cut, that -- he would have -- if there are flanges, for instance, to run a steam test or whatever test that they're going to run with the flanges, that they see that the gasket was actually bolted into the flange under regular conditions and that the test was started up and run, and he would just then at a time when they would decide to stop the test, that would be his responsibility, to stop the test and then tear the flanges down. When you say "tear the flanges down," what do you mean? Unbolt the flanges and pull the gasket out. So Mr. Cirulli was one of the persons who monitored removing gaskets from the flanges? Yes. Was he the only person from Garlock who removed gaskets from the flanges for the McCrone study? Yes. V lullown I'Keportincj Meruit .701 TJimeJ -~S(jtu:tre J3ui$diny l3c Lu<h-r. lJoti 146 I a 1 2 Q. 3 A. 4 Q. 5 6 A. 7 8 Q. 9 A. 10 Q. 11 1 2 A. 1 3 Q. 14 15 16 17 18 Q. 19 A. 20 Q. 21 22 23 24 25 Q. 50 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK And Mr. Cirulli is still at Garlock today? Yes. Mr. Cirulli wore one of the personal air monitors that was later examined under the microscope, correct? I'm not there doing the tests, so I cannot be sure how it was set up or how it was run. So you didn't see the test? I know I did notsee the test. You just supplied the material and that was the end of your responsibility? Material, the lab and the person. And then you saw the report that was written at or about the time that it was completed? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. Is that a question or are you telling him he saw the report? That's a question, sir. Is that correct? Yes. Now, you are aware of the fact that this test at Palmyra was not the first time that Garlock hired McCrone to do work? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. Go ahead and answer. That's right? Wuh<m n J<?eporting Service ~() I fj;tne.i cjttare $uifding /<L heiter. i Jew 1fork 146 f 4 1 2 J A. 3 jj Q. 4 5 6 7 8 Q. 9 A. 1 0 Q. 1 1 A. 1 2 Q. 13 A. 1 4 Q. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Q. 22 23 A. 24 25 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 51 It's the only time that I'm familiar with. So your lawyers didn't tell you that Gar lock hired McCrone in November of ' 84 to do bulk analysis of Garlock gasket material? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. Go ahead and answer. Did they? Yes, I amaware ofthat. When did you become aware of that fact, sir? I can't say. Fairly recent, I guess. Did your lawyers tell you about that? Yes. And why did your lawyers feel it was important to tell you that Garlock hired McCrone in 1984? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. Don't answer that. I will not allow him to answer a question where you're asking him what went on in somebody else's mind and their motivation for doing something. What were the circumstances in which you were told about McCrone's 1984 work for Garlock? It's when we -- it's one time when we were reviewing the McCrone test we talked about a few minutes ago and that was all part of the same discussion. /d!-11 jhltown Se, eportiruj Service .70/ 3rneS ~S<fUOre KMirujf Is.ocle.ifer, lieu/ IJorL 146 14 1 2 Q. 3 A. 4 Q. 5 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 1 1 A. 12 1 3 Q. 1 4 A. 15 16 Q. 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 A. 20 21 22 23 A. 24 25 Q. 52 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK That was just in the last few months? Yes. You have brought with you a group of documents that I would like you to identify on the record. What is Exhibit No. 2, sir? Exhibit No. 2 is titled "McCrone File, File No. 2562." And what is contained in that document, sir? It appears to be a series of letters concerning work that McCrone performed for Garlock; is that right? Yes, it's letters back and forth between McCrone and Garlock legal counsel. Who was Bernard Reuben? He was with the Coltec staff in New York City at the time. He was a lawyer for Coltec? Yes. And did he have a direct role in the McCrone tests? He had some -- MR. LEVINTHAL: You're not going to find it in there. It's in one of the other files. I believe he did, but I can't say for sure. I would have to look at the other files. Was he the person who hired McCrone? VUtown f^eporting Sen.Ice JO I SlimeJ Jjfjuare SSuifdinq Idm heiter. } jew jjorlt 146 f 4 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 A. 5 6 Q. 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 11 12 1 3 A. 14 15 16 Q. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK I don't know who hired McCrone. Who is Mr. Goldfein? He's Gariock legal counsel in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Mr. Levinthal's partner? He's all part of the same law firm. Why did Gariock have its outside lawyers involved in the McCrone test? MR. LEVINTHAL: I'm going to object to the question. Go ahead and answer, if you know. Well, I believe they were going to be part of any litigation that would be taking place in the future and they had them get involved in the tests. So Gariock was interested in finding test results that would support its position in the asbestos litigation; is that your understanding? MR. LEVINTHAL: Object to the form. Come on, you know that's not a fair question. You're trying to put words in his mouth to suggest that Gariock shopped around to find experts that would support whatever its position wanted to be. If you want to ask him if he knows why they got the counsel involved, Witltou n Importing Servic 701 llimei _!uare EuMr,,, 7L., 1JJ. 14614 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q. 7 A. 8 9 10 A. 1 1 Q. 12 1 3 A. 14 Q. 1 5 A. 1 6 Q. 1 7 A. 18 19 Q. 20 A. 21 22 Q. 23 A. 24 Q. 25 A. 54 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK that's fine, but I object to the form of the question. Now go ahead and answer it. My record is preserved. We'll argue it if we need to. Do you need her to read the question back? Yes. MR. CRICK: Would you do that, please. (Whereupon the reporter read back the last question.) Yes. Was Mr. Reuben present during the work that McCrone performed at Palmyra? No, I don't think he was. Who is Mr. diBuono? He -- he's another staff member of Colt Industries. When you say a "staff member," was hea lawyer? I don't know what his background was. I'm not that familiar with him. What was his position at that time? I don't know. I believe he was in some connection with Industrial Relations, but I'm not sure about that. Would that have been in the New York office? Yes. In the Palmyra office? New York office. 1 / liJlown l^eportincf Service >() / 2limeJ -S.juti/v kLL i/^r. \lew IJorh 146 f 4 1 2 Q. 3 A. 4 Q. 5 A. 6 Q. 7 A. 8 Q. 9 A. 1 0 Q. 1 1 A. 12 Q. 13 A. 14 1 5 Q. 16 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 A. 20 Q. 21 A. 22 Q. 23 A. 24 Q. 25 A. ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 55 New York City office? City office. Mr. L.D. Retting, R-e-t-t-i-n-g; who is that person? I do not know. Richard Watson; who was he? He was a paralegal at Garlock Palmyra. Did he also work in patents? Yes. Did he actually hold any patents? Yes, he did. What patents did Mr. Watson hold? That was a long time ago. I don't now remember what they were. The general type of products, do you know what type of patents he held? No, I do not. Were those patents that he assigned to Garlock? Yes. Where is Mr. Watson today? He's retired and lives in Palmyra. Do you know when Mr. Watson retired? Three years ago. What was Mr. Watson's role in the McCronestudies? I believe he was the one that actually asked me to have vu,own i^eporting ~Servu 50} clones Square JjfuiOdinq /six iejfer, / jew Tjorh / 46 / 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 Q. 11 12 13 1 4 Q. 1 5 A. 16 Q. 17 18 19 20 21 A. 22 Q. 23 24 A. 25 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 56 the lab available and material available. MR. CRICK: I want to take a two minute break. (Whereupon the Examination Before Trial recessed at 10:20 a.m.) (Whereupon the Examination Before Trial reconvened at 10:25 a.m.) (Whereupon the reporter read back the last question.) Let me hand you Exhibit No. 3. Can you tell me what is in this group of documents marked Exhibit 3? MR. LEVINTHAL: Do you want him to identify it first, the file number? Just identify it for us. It's McCrone file ME-1322. And McCrone file ME-1322 concerns McCrone's analysis of bulk sample material for Garlock in November of 1984; is that right? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. Go ahead and answer it. Yes, it does. And you just learned of that fact in the last few months, that McCrone had actually done that work? In the last few months -- I was aware of McCrone prior to that, but of seeing the data and so forth on lllultoii<ti l^eportincj. Service ~>() I iJirneS ~S>e^uare J3u.i$ilitu} f^ot hesier, f Jew 1. Jorh / 4 6 / 4 1 2 3 Q. 4 5 6 A. 7 Q. 8 9 10 A. 1 1 Q. 12 1 3 A. 1 4 Q. 15 16 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 20 A. 21 22 23 24 Q. 25 57 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK McCrone, yes, it was just in the last -- recently. Let me ask a better question. You just learned in the last few months that McCrone did some 1984 work? Yes. Until the last few months, the only McCrone work that you were familiar with for Garlock was the 1985 studies on the release of asbestos fibers from gasket material? Yes. With regard to Exhibit 3, do you know why Garlock asked McCrone to do bulk sample analysis on that material? No, I don't know the reason behind it. It's myunderstanding-- and you cantell me if I'm wrong -- that the material that was analyzed came from a ship called "The GYPSIE"; is that correct? Yes. Do you know why Garlock was interested in having samples analyzed from The GYPSIE? No. I don't know what -- the real reason for that. Garlock has always analyzed products from the end user to see how the gasket has functioned and see the condition of the gasket after use. Did you see the gaskets that were sent to McCrone that was part of this 1984 test? 'I / /idtown l^eportinty -Service ~()t ijimeJ ^Si'juare fj^tii ftlintj ki.Liter, l/etv 'IJorh 14014 1 2 ii A. 3 Q. 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 A. 1 1 Q. 12 1 3 A. 14 1 5 Q. 16 17 18 A. 19 Q. 20 A. 21 22 Q. 23 A. 24 25 Q. 58 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK No, I did not. Do you know if Garlock still has those gaskets? No, I do not. Do you know who those gaskets were provided to after McCrone did its analysis? No. They were provided to Carl Mangold, weren't they? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the form. I don't know for sure. Let me hand you Exhibit No. 4. Can you tell me what that document is, sir? The title is "McCrone File, ME-1537 Study at Palmyra, New York (1985)." And that file concerns McCrone'a work in 1985 on the release of asbestos fibers from Garlock gaskets, does it not? Yes. And did this file come from Garlock'sfile cabinet? This is our functional test laboratoryreports in some cases. Where do you keep those reports at, sir? We have a rec retention policy at Garlock and these records are kept for seven years and then destroyed. Do you still have your copy of McCrone's 1985 report? / / jijlott n Importing Bernice ~(i I Ui/neJ Square /lu- :/< r. /Jew l^Jork 14614 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 5 6 A. 7 Q. 8 A. 9 1 0 Q. 11 A. 12 1 3 Q. 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 16 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 20 21 A. 22 Q. 23 24 25 A. ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 59 I never had a copy of my own. You indicated that you read a copy of that report at or about the time that it was written in 1985. Who provided that copy to you? That I read it in 1985? That's what you testified earlier. Okay. I don't know who provided that report. That was a long time ago. I don't know. Were you asked to read that report by someone? No. I guess they just gave it to me to look at at that time. What did you do with your copy? I did not keep a copy. Did you talk about that study with Mr. Salomon after the work was completed? No, Idid not. Now, in 1985 when the McCrone testing was performed, Garlock was still making asbestos-containing gaskets, wasn't it? Yes. And infact, the products that were tested were products that came from the stock that was intended for sale to the public? Yes. Wultown i^eportiny Ser,i, 'in%~() I iJimei uuure $uifdi Moil*.tier, /Jew JJurit 14614 1 2 Q. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A. 21 Q. 22 A. 23 24 Q. 25 A. 60 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Now, at the time of the tests, were you familiar, sir, with what the current OSHA permissible exposure level was for asbestos fibers? Yes, I was kept aware of what the exposure level was at the various years and as they changed over the years. And you were kept apprised of that because it was important to know whether or not you were exposing people to a level of asbestos that exceeded the permissible exposure level? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the form. I -- to the best of my knowledge, I was made aware of it just through general meetings and not for any specific purpose. Just in general conversation; like they would talk about the sports or the weather, people at Garlock talked about the permissible exposure level of asbestos; is that what you're saying? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the form. Yes. What was the permissible exposure level in 1985, sir? I don't remember exactly. I know there was more changes, but I don't recall. What is the permissible exposure level today? .2 --.02 --.2. HjiJtuwn l'\pporlintf Venice >() 1 iJitnel StfUcire L?.. 'Ih,,, 1J,,J, las, i a 1 2 Q. 3 A. 4 Q. 5 A. 6 Q. 7 8 9 A. 10 1 1 Q. 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 20 A. 21 Q. 22 23 A. 24 Q. 25 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 61 IS it .2? Yeah, .1 or .2. Do you know when it became .2? No, I don't remember. Do you know when it firstbecame pronounced that OSHA was going to reduce the permissible exposure level to .2? No. I think it was the early 1900s, but I can't say for sure what year. Now, from reviewing those files that are included in Exhibit 3, we know that in February 1985 McCrone submitted a Technical Proposal for Air Sample Collection and the Analysis by Phase Contrast and Transmission Electron Microscopy. Do you see that document in those files? And I will show it to you. Yes. And that study was commissioned by Colt Industries which was the parent of Garlock, correct? Yes. ColtIndustries was also at that time the parent of Anchor Packing, correct? Yes. , Anchor Packingalso manufactured asbestos-containing gaskets, correct? VhJLown i^eportinif. .TO/ llimeS ^cjtiare ISuibliruj /vji /tester, / Jew %jorh 14 fj / 4 1 2 A. 3 Q 4 A. 5 6 Q. 7 8 A. 9 Q. 1 0 A. 11 Q. 12 13 A. 1 4 Q. 15 16 17 A. 18 Q. 19 20 21 A. 22 Q. 23 24 25 62 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK No, they did not manufacture them. What product did Anchor Packing manufacture? They only purchased products like gasketing packings and turned around and sold it. So Anchor Packing sold asbestos-containing gaskets such as those manufactured by Garlock? Yes. Anchor Packing sold Garlock gaskets, correct? In some cases. And Anchor Packing simply rebranded Garlock gaskets to say Anchor; correct? I'm not sure what they did with -- as far as branding. In any event, in February 1985, McCrone submitted a Technical Proposal to Colt Industries to perform air sample collection on Garlock gaskets; is that correct? Yes. And you know that Colt Industries and Garlock accepted that proposal and in fact retained McCrone to do that study, correct? Yes. And we know from reviewing the records that on March 3rd, 1985 Richard Hatfield from McCrone along with Martin Bennett and Herman Kitt came to Palmyra for a week to perform the first part of that test? I 7 Dultown l\eporting ^Service 501 llhnes ^Square IS*uifdinq /Cm tu'.ster. /Jew 'IJorh / 4 6 / 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A. 10 Q. 11 12 13 14 1 5 Q. 1 6 A. 17 Q. 18 19 20 A. 21 Q. 22 A. 23 Q. 24 25 A. ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 63 MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the form. Steve, come on. You're reading a narrative. This is not cross-examination. It's a discovery deposition. You're reading a narrative into the record and I object to form. Go ahead. Restate the question, please. It's true, isn't it, sir, that on March 3rd, 1985 Richard Hatfield, Martin Bennett and Herman Kitt from McCrone came to Palmyra to begin those tests? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the form. Go ahead. If you need to look at the documents, that's fine. You said March 1985? March 3rd, 1985. And I'll show you some documents that are included in your Exhibit 3 which are their time slips. Yes. Does that refresh Yes. yourrecollection? And inMarch of1985 those three gentleman came to Palmyra to begin the tests on Garlock gaskets? Yes. 7 Ikltown f'separlincj. ~Servict 50 ! iJ'ttneS (juare J3u.ilJ.inc} l^oclester. 1 lew IJorh 14614 1 2 Q. 3 4 5 6 A. 7 Q. 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 A. 14 Q 15 1 6 A. 17 Q18 19 20 21 22 23 A. 24 25 Q. ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 64 And they stayed for about one week and studied the gaskets that you had provided to them, correct? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the form. Go ahead. Yes. Now, we know from the records that during that first trip to Palmyra about 45 air samples were taken and you understand that those were -- those as a result were included in their ultimate report which you read? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to form. Go ahead. I don't know how many samples offhand were taken. But you do know that they recorded their work in that report from June of 1985? Yes. And we know that McCrone came back to Palmyra on or about April 4th for another week of testing and measuring asbestos levels from Garlock gaskets, correct? MR. LEVINTHAL: Object to the form. Go ahead. I'm only aware of the one time they came to Garlock to run the tests. Okay. And you can look through those files that you Wultown l^eportin^ S* jo i Dities Syuatv. /BJ>uuJildliiny he.stor, 1 Jew Jjorh 14 6 / 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A. 11 Q. 12 13 14 1 5 Q. 16 17 18 A. 19 Q. 20 21 22 23 A. 24 Q. 25 65 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK produced and it will reflect records of McCrone at Palmyra in April of '85 and maybe that will refresh your memory. MR. LEVINTHAL: I will agree with you, Steve, that the documents will speak for themselves and if they indicate there were two trips, then that's fine. (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) I don't see that one in this pile. Can I see your file, please. (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) (WHEREUPON DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 4-A WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) Let me hand you Exhibit 4--A, which, I believe, is the McCrone report of June 3, 1985. Is that the report we have been discussing this morning? Yes. Is if you turn to theback at yourownfunctional test laboratory sheets, you will see that there are some samples from March and some samples from April 1985. Do you see that? Yes. Doesthat refresh yourrecollection that somesamples were taken in March and some samples were taken in / !/u//,,,,,, i'^eportiny Servii >() I iJimes -Si',ittire /<t iiesier, V-u. yu 14614 1 2 3 A. 4 Q. 5 6 A. 7 8 Q. 9 10 1 1 A. 1 2 Q. 1 3 A. 1 4 Q. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK April? Yes. And did you provide the gasket materials for both of those visits? I supplied the gaskets material for one test. Whether the material was used on two tests, I do not know. Okay. If you would turn to the fifth page of that exhibit, up at the top it begins "Definition of the Variables Studied"; do see that? Yes. Down at the bottom on the section called "Removal" Yes. -- it indicates that that part of the study involved measuring the potential worker exposure during the process of removing asbestos gaskets that have been in use in an industrial situation to represent this potential exposure. "Garlock gaskets styles 900, 7021 and 604 were removed from steam and water lines on two water chillers and from steam lines on a test stand. Activities included opening flanges, prying gaskets from flanges, utilizing a putty knife and wire brushing the flange surfaces." Did you provide the gasket material for that portion of the McCrone study? Service f^ojxester, fjew Ljorh /46/4 1 2 A. 3 4 5 Q. 6 7 8 9 A. 1 0 Q. 1 1 A. 12 13 Q. 1 4 A. 1 5 U. 16 1 7 A. 18 Q. 19 20 A. 21 Q. 22 23 A. 24 Q. 25 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 67 The material that came from the chillers, I would not have supplied that material. I don't know -- that came through the Maintenance Department. The report indicates that the gaskets were put on flanges by persons at Garlock and subjected to steam heat for a certain number of hours prior to the test. Who would have participated in that work for Garlock? You're looking at the functional test lab report? Yes. That part -- which has nothing to do with the chillers, that would have been done by the lab technician. That would have been Mr.Cirulli? Yes. So you were not directly involved in that portion of the McCrone study? No. Your involvement concerned the new gasket material; correct? That's correct. Now, if you would look in thereport or inthe Exhibit No. 4, you will see a March 13, 1985 letter -- March 13th. -- from RichardWatson at Garlock to RichardHatfield at McCrone. VliJtown Ree,porlinq. SSeer,vice ~oi hmeJ H(^uare fj^uifthny l<.oiiiej1er, }Jeiv tjorb 14614 1 2 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 A. 7 Q. 8 A. 9 Q. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A. 20 21 Q. 22 A. 23 Q 24 A. 25 Q. ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 68 MR. LEVINTHAL: That's it (indicating). Yes. Have you ever seen that letter before, sir? Yes. When did you see that letter? Recently. Okay. It indicates that -- I will just read it. "During the course of last week's visit to Palmyra by you and your two field representatives, it was arranged that I would forward to your facility six sets of test flanges containing a variety of Garlock asbestos-containing gaskets. The six sets of flanges were forwarded today via UPS and I would anticipate that you will receive them early next week." Are you familiar with this delivery of flanges to McCrone in the middle of March, 1985? Yes. These were submitted to determine whether or not the gaskets were going to stick or not to the flanges. And did you submit those flanges to Mr. Hatfield? No, I did not. Who sent those? I believe it must have been Richard Watson. Who selected the flanges to be sent to Mr. Hatfield? / /iultoivn ^eportiny -Service ~0f _S(fuare fJinif UnL-jtrr. y,,,l 14614 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 || A. 5 Q. 6 A. 7 Q. 8 9 A. 10 Q. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Q. 21 22 23 24 A. 25 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK I have no idea who selected them. Do you know where the flanges came from? No, I do not. 69 Do we need to ask Mr. Watson those questions? I don' t know. Did you have any direct role in the study that's the subject of this March 13, 1985 letter? No, I did not. You understand that McCrone Environmental actually did the analysis that's the subject of this letter, don't you? MR. LEVINTHAL: Wait. Objection. The subject of -- I see. You're asking him if they ever did the test -- the analysis that is referred to in this letter; is what you're asking him? MR. CRICK: I will rephrase it and ask a better question. You do know, don't you, Mr. Whittaker, that McCrone Environmental did the work that was requested by Mr. Watson in this March 13, 1985 letter? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the form. There is nothing indicated in this that they did the testing. It was a request for them to do the testing. } I iiiilown nif \inqJO / Uimei Sftuare I-Jmlth Aw-tt iu>ifer, JJew JJorh 14614 1 2 3 4 5 A. 6 7 Q. 8 9 1 0 Q. 11 1 2 A. 13 14 15 16 Q. 17 18 A. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Excuse me. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I'm looking at the wrong thing. (Whereupon thexe was a bi~ief pause in the proceeding.) Yes. These were just submitted. This letter just indicated that they were submitted for testing. And would you look at the documents that are attached to that letter. Can I see that, please. (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) What is it that is attached to that March 13 letter, sir? That's the standard form that's used by the test lab to determine date, time run, torque, the steam that was applied to the test fixtures, the temperature, if there was any leakage rate and the number of hours run. Okay. And that's for the gaskets that were sent to McCrone with this March 13, 1985 letter? I would assume so because they were attached to the letter. MR. LEVINTHAL: Well, don't assume. Is there something on that that indicates that -- if Mr. Crick will let you take a look at that again. You're not here to assume. You're here to answer what you know and you don't know. j | I!l V/iJton n porting Service JO I iJimeS Square !$ui$dinq Idothester. I Jew ?Jorh /46 /4 1 2 3 4 5 A. 6 7 Q. 8 9 1 0 Q. 11 1 2 A. 13 14 15 1 6 Q. 17 18 A. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Excuse me. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I'm looking at the wrong thing. (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) Yes. These were just submitted. This letter just indicated that they were submitted for testing. And would you look at the documents that are attached to that letter, can I see that, please. (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) What is it that is attached to that March 13 letter, sir? That's the standard form that's used by the test lab to determine date, time run, torque, the steam that was applied to the test fixtures, the temperature, if there was any leakage rate and the number of hours run. Okay. And that's for the gaskets that were sent to McCrone with this March 13, 1985 letter? I would assume so because they were attached to the letter. MR. LEVINTHAL: Well, don't assume. Is there something on that that indicates that -- if Mr. Crick will let you take a look at that again. You're not here to assume. You're here to answer what you know and you don't know. Vluhown Reporting. Service .7Of lluneJ '$uifdinq ld*>cfu\i(vr, ) jew 'IJorh (4(5/4 1 2 Q. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q. 17 18 19 A. 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK You're doing just fine. Can I see that? MR. LEVINTHAL: Can I have that back, please? MR. CRICK: In a minute. MR. LEVINTHAL: You're about to look at something else. Let me take a look at that. I'll give it right back. MR. CRICK: I'm not going to let you coach him. MR. LEVINTHAL: I'm not going to coach him. I just wanted to look at something. I will take out my own copy. (WHEREUPON DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 4-B WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) We have marked as Exhibit 4-B the March 13, 1985 letter. And again so we are clear, you didn't have any direct role in that project? No, I did not. (WHEREUPON DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 4-C WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) MR. LEVINTHAL: Now, 4-B, just so I'm clear, is just the letter or do you want -- MR. CRICK: It was all attached. MR. LEVINTHAL: Because they're not Illicitown l^eportiny Service 30! ll'tmeS S(fUitre l^uifchny Ww f 46 i 4 1 2 3 4 5 Q. 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Q. 21 A. 22 Q. 23 A. 24 Q. 25 72 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK stapled together; they are clipped together. So we'll leave them clipped together. There you go. The samples that were sent to Mr. Hatfield on or about March 13th, do you know where they came from? No, I do not. Okay. Let me hand you Exhibit 4-C, which is the analysis concerning those samples. Have you ever seen that document before? Can I see that, sir. MR. LEVINTHAL: Here, take a look at that. Now, I'm going to object to your testimony that this is the analysis concerning those samples. If you want to explore that through questioning him, that's fine, but I object to your simply testifying for the record that that's what this document 4-C is. (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) Have you seen that document before, sir? Yes, I have. When did youfirst see that document? Recently. I don't see that document in any of this group of documents. Did you bring a copy of that document with '! I Jicltown itlcf ^ervu >01 jliniej ^ijuare f3uiidinq `iU 1J..L 146 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Q. 21 A. 22 23 24 25 Q. 73 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK you? MR. LEVINTHAL: If there -- wait a second. Wait a second. I don't want any tricks here. The only documents that were in Garlock's position was what was produced to you today. Now, if you have produced this document from some other source, you can let him know that, okay, but if this document was not in the group that was produced to you today, then it was not in Garlock's possession. Now, the record should reflect that there are documents spread out all over the table in addition to documents that you have brought out from your briefcase earlier on and if you are producing this from some other source, I think you need to let him know that. Where did you see this document at first, sir? I don't recall where I saw it, but I have seen -- I'm most certain I have seen this document because it opines taking a flange out and removing the gaskets and wire brushing it at that time. Okay. Did you see it in or about 1985? i / liJtown f^eportintj -Serf u TO / ThmeJ -Square ISuililinif Mu kiK'tier, 1 2 A. 3 4 Q. 5 6 A. 7 Q. 8 9 A. 1 0 Q. 11 1 2 A. 13 1 4 Q. 15 16 1 7 A. 18 1 9 Q. 20 21 Q. 22 23 24 25 A. 74 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK I don't recall. I just told you I don't recall when I saw this document. You do recall that Mr. Hatfield performed this work in 1985? He performed work in 1985? This work which is marked as 4-C, you do recall that he performed that work in 1985? Mr. Hatfield's name doesn't appear on this anyplace. Well, using Mr. Hatfield in the generic sense of McCrone Environmental. I don't know whether he did or not because his name -- it does not appear on here. I will rephrase the question. You do know that McCrone Environmental performed this analysis in 1985 at the request of Garlock? These tests were conducted in 1985. I don't know who requested the tests. Okay. Can I see that, please. (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) This indicates that the date of the air sampling field forms are from March 22 through March 25 of 1985, don't they? Actually, March 19 through March 25 of 1985; is that correct? There's one in here that's February 26th, 1985. nuown i^eportincj Service JO ! jJimeJ Cfiiare J3tuidinq !<<><. hosier, / few 'hjorh f Qb 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q. 7 8 A. 9 Q. 1 0 A. 1 1 Q. 1 2 A. 13 1 4 Q. 15 16 A. 17 Q. 18 19 A. 20 Q. 21 A. 22 Q. 23 A. 24 Q. 25 75 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK MR. CRICK: Can I see Exhibit 3, please? Can you hand me this stack -- I'm sorry, Exhibit 4. (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) The document dated February of '85, that was the job setup sheet, the last of the -- What date? You had made a reference to the February date. Yeah. Is that the last sheet, the job setup sheet? I guess it's called -- yeah, it's called a job setup sheet. The actual air sampling field forms are all dated for the week of March 19, 1995? 19th and 25th, yes. And were you provided with the results of this test in 1985, sir? No, I was not. Who received these results from Garlock? I do not know. We would need to ask Mr. Watson that question? I guess so. I don't know. And today do you know why these results were not included in a formal written report by McCrone? 7 ikitoa n Importing Serv 'u JO I l)i.mvi S>tf,uare EdtLf kijwiter. Hew U<A 14614 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 A. 1 2 Q. 1 3 A. 1 4 Q. 15 16 A. 17 Q18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. 25 76 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK No, I do not. You see that the analysis of these samples include samples with results over the current permissible exposure level, don't you? MR. LEVINTHAL: Well, objection. That's not the purpose for which he's been presented as an expert in that area, but having said that, go ahead. You can answer the question. Over the current level? Yes, sir. Yes. Has Garlock ever provided these results to any of its buyers of gasket materials? I'm not aware of any. Has Garlock. ever advised any of its buyers of gasket materials that it had commissioned a testing lab to test whether or not its gaskets released asbestos fibers and those tests showed results in excess of the current permissible exposure level? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the form. Go ahead and answer it, if you can. I'm not aware of any because, again, our gasket materials are encapsulated and we feel they are safe / / i'ultown Reporting Service ~tO f SlimeJ Square BJhcl*tnq ISl. J.r-, fjru IJrrL I '16 I4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 Q. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A. 19 20 21 Q. 22 23 A. 24 Q. 25 77 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK for the end user. I have to move to strike that answer. If you could just answer the question that I asked you, I would appreciate it. MR. CRICK: could you read that question back, please. MR. LEVINTHAL: In the first portion of that answer, I think he answered your question. Your counsel is allowed to ask you questions later or at trial if he wants to, but for these purposes, if you would just answer the question that I ask without the narrative, I would appreciate it. MR. CRICK: Could you read that question again, please. (Whereupon the reporter read back the last question.) I will answer it this way: It would be outside of my responsibility of anything I had to do at Garlock and so I'm not aware of any. You have never made such a disclosure to anyone outside of Garlock, have you? No, I have not. If you were an end user of Garlock gasket materials, would you like to know that the manufacturer had tested Vlultou n l^eportincj Service .7Of Slimes -Square Huifckruf i\(n hesfer, /Jew 'LJork / 46 / 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 Q13 14 15 16 17 1 8 A. 19 Q. 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK the release of those products and found results in excess of the permissible exposure level? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the form and to the question. It's not what he's here for. Go ahead and answer it. I -- if they had a reasonable amount of experience with the gasketing, whether cutting it, installing or removing such as like I have had, then I would feel confident that I did not need that information. You're not an expert in asbestos disease, are you? MR. LEVINTHAL: Oh, come on, Steve. You asked him that about two hours ago. Your answer kind of implies that you have some kind of expertise in asbestos hazards. You don't have any expertise in asbestos hazards, do you? No. And outside of the McCrone studies, you don't even know of any studies on Garlock gaskets taken during the normal course of business for Garlock concerning the release of asbestos fibers from Garlock gaskets, do you? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the form. No. VUou n Reportinq Service 30 f lltmes ~StfUare f^othesler, 1 Jew 'Lforh i46t4 1 2 J Q. 3 4 5 6 A. 7 8 Q. 9 10 11 12 1 3 A. 14 1 5 Q. 16 17 18 19 Q. 20 A. 21 22 Q. 23 24 25 A. 79 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK And if those studies showed that these gaskets released fibers in excess of the permissible exposure limits, you don't think that's something that the buyer or user of the gaskets should have? Just about all results that I have seen have always fallen within any allowable limits. Sir, the only test that you know of that Garlock commissioned were the McCrone studies. Don't you think that the results of the McCrone studies -- all of them should be made available to the users of Garlock gasket materials? That would not be my decision to make, for them to be made aware of this type of information. Whose responsibility is it at Garlock to decide what buyers should and should not be allowed to see? MR. LEVINTHAL: Are you asking him today or at any time or at some certain time? Well, say in 1985. I would say that that decision would be the Marketing Manager, Vice President of Marketing. So the person in charge of sales would decide whether or not buyers should be allowed to see test results on the hazards of their products? Well, I would say it would be his level or higher. 11jiJloa n l*^eportiny -Se _S~() I fJimpj <^uare JH^tuI lfdjitnny Alt lu i Jpw tJorh 14614 1 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. 80 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Because that's an important decision to make, wouldn't you agree? Yes. And to your knowledge today, Garlock never disclosed these McCrone studies to anyone outside of Garlock, did they? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. Which McCrone studies are you talking about? MR. CRICK: We'll get to that in a second. MR. LEVINTHAL: You know full well that at least in the course of litigation that there were -- MR. CRICK: Don't coach. MR. LEVINTHAL: I am not coaching. MR. CRICK: You are coaching. MR. LEVINTHAL: I'm not coaching because you know full well that these results were disclosed in the course of litigation. Now, if you want to specify -- which tests are you talking about; the phantom tests you folks have been chasing or are you talking about the tests that have been disseminated? Sir, outside of lawsuits, Garlock has not disclosed the 7 _iiuhoirn l^eportinnfyg Service jo i T)ittwA ^SJqtjuuaarree B/^uuiCitidinimj /?.. 74... y*J. 14614 1 2 3 A. !I 4 ij Q. 5 6 7 8 Q. 9 10 11 1 2 A. 13 1 4 Q. 15 16 17 18 19 A. 20 21 22 Q. 23 24 A. 25 81 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Garlock studies to anyone, have they? Not to my knowledge. And to your knowledge, the report that's marked as Exhibit 4-C has never been disclosed to anyone period by Garlock? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. Is that correct? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the characterization of 4-C as a report. Go ahead and answer the question. I can't answer that. I'm not aware of who would make that decision to disclose that information. With regard to the gaskets that were studied and written up in the June 3, 1985 report which we have marked as Exhibit 4-A, you know that Garlock persons removed gaskets from flanges and were monitored, correct? Again, I was not part of the test, but part of the technician's instructions were to install and remove the gasket materials when requested. And some gaskets removed easily and some were difficult to remove; correct? In this report, I don't -- (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) VliJtoun Reportinej. ^ervii ~() I ^JimeS _S<juare 'J3ui$J.iny (Rochester, /]tnv XJorit /46/4 1 2 3 4 Q 5 6 A. 7 Q. 8 9 10 A. 1 1 Q. 12 13 14 15 16 A. 17 Q18 19 A. 20 Q. 21 A. 22 23 24 Q. 25 82 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK (Whereupon the reporter read back the last question.) Yes, some stuck slightly to the flange. Some gaskets had to be removed with a wire brush, correct? Yes. Now, especially with regard to the Type 604 gaskets, there were difficulties in removing that product from the flanges, weren't there? Yes, there was some difficulties. In fact, if you look at Table IV, you will see that there were three samples analyzed that concerned the Style 604 gasket. One was so full of dust that it couldn't even be analyzed, correct; do you see the samples marked "TH"? Yes. Down below you see "TH" means "too heavily loaded," so there's no results there; correct? Well, what does "too heavily loaded" mean? You don't know what "too heavily loaded" means? To me, if you talk about the gasket being installed and too heavily loaded, meaning the gasket was torqued and placed too heavily. As it relates to this report, you don't know what "too heavily loaded" means? Wuhown l^eportincj S>ervu joi /neJ fjuare Idatiding, i'dtn ho sier. / Jew ljorh 146 /4 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 5 A. 6 Q. 7 8 A. 9 Q. 10 11 1 2 A. 1 3 Q. 14 1 5 A. 16 Q. 17 18 19 A. 20 Q. 21 22 23 24 A. 25 83 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK No, I do not. And the next samples concerning the 604 gasket shows results of .24 fibers per cc? Yes. And that's over the current permissible exposure level, isn't it? As you said, current, but not 1985. Mr. Whittaker, you have been active in defense of Oarlock personal injury suits since as early as 1987; is that correct? Yes. And in 1987 you gave your first deposition in an asbestos personal injury case; is that correct? Yes. And it was about that time that you began reviewing Garlock interrogatory answers provided in asbestos cases, correct? Yes. And you know that in 1987 when you became involved in the litigation, that Garlock filed interrogatory answers asking it to identify all fiber release tests, don't you? I don't recall. I would have to look at the interrogatories again. 11 jicllown l^eporliruf Service .70 / Zjinies -'S'fjUart> L'ui ///at., i^utheiter. !]ew I^Jorh 14614 1 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 8 A. 9 Q. 10 11 12 13 A. 1 4 Q. 15 1 6 A. 1 7 Q. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. 25 84 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK You have reviewed Garlock interrogatory answers as early as 1987, I believe you just stated? Yes. And you know that interrogatories are another form of sworn testimony that's to be provided to litigants in the case; correct? Yes. And I'm looking at a set of interrogatories from a case captioned Edward Etter versus Garlock. Inc, served June 4, 1987. These interrogatories were signed and sworn to by a Donald O'Keefe. Do you know Mr. O'Keefe? No, I do not. The answers indicate that he's the Assistant Secretary fur Garlock, Inc. You don't know that gentleman? No, I do not. The response to Interrogatory No. 34 of that set asked whether or not Garlock has ever had any of its gaskets studied to determine the release of asbestos fibers from those materials. And I will show that to you and I want to ask you, sir, do these interrogatories filed in 1987 identify the McCrone studies? (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) Here's the question: Here's the Answer, does the answer to Interrogatory No. 34, sir, disclose the VUlown Importing ~^ervu 50 / iJitnes Square JSuiLknif /\oi llf.lter. }]ew 'IJarh (46t4 1 2 3 A. 4 Q. 5 A. 6 Q. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A. 1 7 Q. 18 19 A. 20 Q. 21 22 A. 23 Q. 24 A. 25 85 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK McCrone studies? I do not see the word McCrone. Anywhere in Interrogatory 34, do you? Not that I saw so far. Interrogatory No. 42 asks "Please state whether defendant, defendant's predecessors or defendant's subsidiaries ever conducted or caused to be conducted any tests on any of their or anyone else's asbestos-containing products to determine potential or likely asbestos exposure levels during conditions of intended use of the product." Look at Interrogatory Answer 42 and Garlock's answer and, sir, please tell me, is the McCrone report listed in that answer? No. And do you see at the back of these answers that Mr. O'Keefe swore to the truth of those answers? Yes. And those answers were false, weren't they? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. I can't say whether they are false or not. It doesn't list the McCrone study, does it? NO. MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. He's not a 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q. 7 8 9 A. 1 0 Q. 11 12 13 14 1b 16 17 18 19 20 Q. 21 22 23 24 A. 25 Q. 86 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK legal expert and he's not here to testify as to what responsibility there is in including or not including information in interrogatory answers. You know the difference between true and false, don't you? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. Yes. Now, if Garlock swore that those were the only tests that had been performed on Garlock gaskets and didn't include the McCrone study, that answer would be false, wouldn't it? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. You know full well, Mr. Crick, that there are certain requirements in disclosing information in interrogatory answers when things are done for purposes of litigation. MR. CRICK: I see. Do you see any objection in this response, sir, or any disclosure that there's any sort of work product that's being excluded from that answer? (Whereupon there .was a brief pause in the proceeding.) No. So the question asks what tests have been performed and VUown l^epontincf. -Se'eriice T <?01 1-^/imeJ__jqt (dockviler, f]ew XJort* 14614 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 11 12 13 A. 14 1 5 Q. 1 6 A. 17 Q. 18 19 A. 20 Q. 21 22 A. 23 Q. 24 25 A. 87 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK the answer purports to report all of the tests that have been performed on Garlock gaskets, doesn't it? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. Objection to the form. And I make the same objection with respect to knowledge of legal issues. I do not see anything. You brought with you two depositions that were given by you in other cases; one from the ABATE case that you gave in 1993, another one from the Judy case that you gave in 1991. Did you review those depositions before you came here today? Yes. They were given to me just as a general -- to refresh my memory. Did you review any other deposition transcripts? Just prior to today, no. You were under oath when you gave these depositions, weren't you? Yes. You're under oath today. You understand what that oath means, don't you? Yes. You have given other depositions in which you were under oath; correct? Yes. 11lii/town f^eporlinq Service 30 I 1'Jimei Cfiiare l^uildintj 'll;* IJU 14614 1 2 Q. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 Q. 13 14 15 16 17 18 A. 19 20 Q. 21 22 23 24 25 A. 88 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Mr. Whittaker, you have given a lot of testimony today about your role in the McCrone studies. You know that that's completely the opposite of what you have testified to in the past, isn't it? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. Objection. If you want to show him a transcript where he has been asked questions about his role in the McCrone studies and he's given answers to the contrary to what he's given here today, then you go ahead and you do that. Prior to today, sir, you disavowed any knowledge of this McCrone study, didn't you? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. Unless you want to show him specifically where he -- MR. CRICK: He can answer the question. At the time of the depositions, I was not aware of the McCrone studies. Sir, you have testified all day that you were involved in the McCrone studies, that you supplied the material for the McCrone studies, that you read the 1985 report when it was drafted. Are you changing all those answers? No, I'm not changing my answers. I'm so saying I vuown i^eportincj. Service .~() f d\^uare /jduifdituf 'ih*- y<,J* J46ta 1 2 3 4 5 Q. 6 7 A. 8 9 Q. 10 11 A. 12 13 Q. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q. 23 A. 24 Q. 25 A. 89 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK supplied material period, supplied the lab period, supplied a person period, but I was not involved in the studies. But you read the report in 1985, the June 3rd, 1985 report. You read it in 1985, didn't you? I don't recall that I read it in 1985. I saw that one sheet in 1985. That wasn't part of a report. And you know that McCrone came to your plant in 1985 specifically to do tests on Garlock gaskets; correct? I was not -- a test on gaskets, but I was not given any details for the purpose of the test. You have already testified today that you saw the report marked 4-B and you read it at about that time. Are you changing your answer now? MR. LEVINTHAL: I'm going to object to your mischaracterization of the testimony. Today's record will speak for itself, but I don't believe he testified he read the report. He testified he read a sheet which you had shown him. Sir -- That's true. I testified today to that one sheet. Which sheet? Well, I have got to find it now. VliJfoun f^eportincj S)erv 'u JO f llitnes Square J3uiLkncj ten he$ier, '1lew IJorb 146 14 1 2 |jQ. 3 4 A. 5 || Q. 6 A. 7 8 9 1u 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 90 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Let me ask you point blank again, when did you see this -- This -- -- the 1985 June 3rd report written by McCrone? I believe that one here -- if you're referring to 1985, this one here was recent (indicating). This one here, I believe I have seen sometime past (indicating). MR. LEVINTHAL: All right. And I'm going to ask that the reporter, if she'3 able to go back to that question -- I'm sorry if that's an unreasonable request, but I need to make sure that this record is clean. MR. CRICK: I don't have any idea what you just said. You're testifying -- MR. LEVINTHAL: I'm talking about going back to the original time in the deposition that you asked him that question. That's what I'm talking about. (Whereupon an off-the-record discussion was held.) MR. LEVINTHAL: If that's an unreasonable request, then I won't insist that you do that. When the transcript comes back, it will probably be a lot easier for us to find it earlier on in the transcript and we Illicitown Importing. epo , C.701 Dimei ^Ifpiare K>,uiuiinq I'lot.lvslvv, /feu/ ijork /46/4 1 2 3 Q. 4 5 6 7 8 Q. 9 A. 10 11 Q. 1 2 A. 13 Q. 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 16 17 18 A. 19 Q. 20 21 22 A. 23 Q. 24 25 A. 91 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK can deal with it at that time. There's no dispute, though,that you indicated earlier that you read that at aboutthe time that that report was written, that June of '85 one? MR. LEVINTHAL: No, I object. He just told you that he didn't. You read this one, the March of '85 report? I saw this, because I recognized this particular sheet from sometime past. Around 1985? Probably around 1985. Okay. Where I saw it and so forth, I don't recall. What you're looking at is the document out of 4-C called "Air Sampling Field Form, Sample 1-047" which shows a fiber concentration of .45 fibers per cc? Yes. Do you recall giving a deposition, sir, in a case called Gwenda McDonald versus Union Pacific Railroad in December 1994? Yes. That was a case that was down in Cameron County, Texas; do you remember that? Yes. 7Huhown i^eportlncj JO! Zlirnes Square /'>.<>< It'.iivr, 'Hew lfori 14614 1 2 Q. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A. 11 12 13 Q. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 92 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK You had a lengthy deposition in that case and you were asked this on page 48: "In 1994, sir, other than testing done by Dr. Mangold or at Dr. Mangold's direction, do you recall having seen any other test results dealing with asbestos fiber release of Garlock products?" Answer: No." Do you recall giving that sworn testimony in 1994? Yes, but all the reports I have seen at Garlock over the years for testing and so forth, it's very easy to forget one little simple test like this. And you were asked again at page 73: Question, "Other than the items that we have enumerated now two or three times, the Mangold documents, the Mangold videotapes and what might be contained in the catalogues, have you ever seen any written communication, whether it be a memoranda, test results, any type of written communication which seeks to measure, quantify or describe the asbestos fiber released, if any, during the application or removal of an asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by Garlock? Answer: No. Question: Okay. To your knowledge, have any such VhJtown I'^eportiny Service MU mes -Sffttare Hew 'Ijorh f 46 f 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 1 0 A. 1 1 Q. 12 1 3 A. 14 Q. 15 16 17 18 A. 19 Q. 20 21 A. 22 23 Q. 24 25 93 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK documents ever existed that you might have been aware of? Answer: No. I have not been made aware of that." Do you recall giving that testimony in December of 1994? Yes. You were represented in that deposition by an attorney named William Mahoney; is that right? Yes. Mr. Mahoney is with the law firm called Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney; is that correct? Yes, in Chicago. You are aware, aren't you, that just four months prior to that deposition in August of '94, Garlock was involved in an asbestos property damage trial in Detroit, Michigan; are you aware of that? No. I am not aware of that one. You didn't know that Garlock was a defendant in a trial in Michigan in 1994? I'm not aware of all these trials that are relating to Garlock. You didn't know that Mr. Mahoney's partner Ed McCambridge represented Garlock in a property damage trial just four months prior to your deposition in the 11 jicltown l^eportincj Service .TO / iJitnei Square I^itl/u'l/vr. I Jvur %Jurb 14614 1 2 3 A. 4 5 Q. 6 7 8 9 A. 10 Q. 11 12 13 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q. 23 24 25 Q. 94 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK McDonald case? I might have been aware of it at the time, but I'm not aware of it now. I forgot. And you should know that, don't you, or did Mr. Mahoney tell you that the McCrone study specifically came up during that trial just four months earlier; did he tell you that? I don't recall that. And when you sat there and gave that testimony in December of 1994 with Mr. Mahoney sitting right beside you, did he tell you "Don't forget the McCrone study"? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. I don't recall that. He let you sit there and give false testimony; isn't that right? MR. levinthal: objection. Don't answer that. And I object to any conversation between Mr. Whittaker as Garlock's corporate designee and his counsel. He didn't correct your testimony, did he? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. That report will speak for itself. Did he? V/ultown l^eportincf ^ervii JO I Uimei J^fjuare /<u 7/L l/orh 14614 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 a. 5 Q. 6 7 A. 8 9 Q. 10 11 12 1 3 A. 1 4 Q. 15 16 A. 1 7 Q. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK I don't know whether he did or not. You didn't correct your testimony, did you? no . You didn't serve a correction sheet later saying "I forgot to mention the McCrone study," did you? I don't have the opportunity every time to have that correction sheet. Well, you gave another deposition in 1996, just last year, in the case of Richard B. Jackson versus Owens-Cornina Fiberalas Corp. in Harris County, Texas; do you remember that? Yes. You were asked about fiber release tests again there, weren't you? Probably. Do you remember this question: "And as you sit here today, are you aware right up to the present time of any testing that the Garlock Corporation had done either in-house or by outside sources of any of the dry asbestos products and materials of the Garlock Corporation? Answer: Garlock has contracted an individual like Carl Mangold to do that testing and it was outside of my responsibility to -- I'm not familiar with what Vluliown Reportincj Service 101 flimeJ Sfjuure / jew \jorh 14614 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q. 8 A. 9 Q. 10 11 12 13 14 I5 16 Q. 1 7 A. 1 8 Q. 19 20 21 Q. 22 A. 23 Q. 24 25 A. ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 96 tests have taken place." Do you remember giving that testimony, sir? MR. LEVINTHAL: I'm going to object to that because you're talking about different products than are at issue here. Do you remember that testimony, sir? Yes, I do. And that attorney was asking you to describe any tests that Garlock ha3 performed on its products and you didn't mention the McCrone study, did you? MR. LEVINTHAL: No, I object to the characterization as to any tests that were performed on dry asbestos products. That is not what Mccrone tested. You didn't identify the McCrone test, though, did you? No, I did not. In fact, in your 1994 deposition, sir, you have changed your testimony there concerning fiber release testing? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the form. Do you remember that? I don't; the details. Apparently you testified in 1987 that you recalled tests. Do you remember giving that testimony in 1987? Yes, I do, and at a time later, I corrected that. 7 n-jtown i^eportlncj. ^ervii ~0 I iJitnei ^Stjuare 'Hew IjoA 14614 1 2 Q. 3 4 5 6 Q. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK Because you decided that there were no tests? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection. Ask him why. I object to the form in which you're asking it. I'm going to read you from page 242 of the McDonald deposition. Question, by Mr. Morrison, who is reading from page 63 of your deposition in the Sheltus case, Question: "Do you recall being asked" reads Mr. Morrison, Question: During any of the years that you have been employed by Garlock, do you know if its laboratories have performed any tests to determine whether or not asbestos fibers are liberated when compressed asbestos sheets are cut? Answer: Garlock laboratories did not take that test. It would be a test conducted by our Health and Safety Department. Question: In the McDonald case? Right, but I did not say any tests had been conducted" -- excuse me. This is your answer to that question, Answer: "Right, but I did not say any tests had been conducted. I said it would have been if they were conducted. Question: Okay. And Safety and Health was Wultown i^eporting Serv'u .~()f i'dothe J (^uare I^uildiruj f jeiv 'tjorh /46/4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A. 23 Q. 24 25 A. 98 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK separate from the functional lab? Answer: Yes. Question: And is it your testimony here today that Safety and Health did not perform any such fiber release tests? Answer: Not to the best of my knowledge. Question: Do you know if your knowledge would have gotten any better or worse from 1987 to the present? Answer: No. Question: Do you recall being asked in the Sheltus deposition under oath "Question: All right, sir, on page 63 do you know if the Safety and Health Department ever conducted that particular type of test" and you answered 'yes'." Answer: i answered yes? Yes. Answer: I found out later no, that I didn't." You didn't mention the McCrone studies at that time, did you? No, I did not. Until today, you have never testified about the McCrone studies, have you? No. 'J /jultuwn f^eportintj Service 30 f ThmeJ -Stjuare Ait (tester, (jew (Jorlt 14614 1 2 Q. 3 4 5 A. 6 Q. 7 8 A. 9 Q. 10 1 1 A. 12 Q. 13 14 1 5 A. 16 17 18 19 20 A. 21 22 23 24 25 99 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK You have been given repeated opportunities at depositions to describe tests that have been performed by Garlock on its gaskets, haven't you? Yes. And the primary tests that you have disclosed at deposition have been those of Dr. Mangold; correct? Yes. Which you have already disclosed to us today were performed at the request of the lawyers; correct? Yes. The tests that were commissioned by Garlock itself, the McCrone tests, you have never disclosed prior to today, have you? No. MR. CRICK: I don't have any other questions. MR. LEVINTHAL: Just one question. EXAMINATION BY MR. LEVINTHAL: Mr. Whittaker, the last question you were just asked, Mr. Crick characterized the McCrone studies as having been commissioned by Garlock itself. Do you know if the McCrone studies in '85 were commissioned by Garlock itself or if Garlock legal counsel was also involved in the commission of those studies? / / j'ultoivn l^eportintf jS^ervit .301 iJimei ^>Cfuare ifjimj hviier. 'Ijew loot'll 146 f 4 1 2 3 4 5 Q. 6 A. 7 Q. 8 9 10 A. 11 Q. 12 13 A. 14 15 16 17 18 Q. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. LEVINTHAL MR. CRICK: I object to the form of the question. That's sort of a distinction without a difference. You can answer it. The legal counsel was part of that commission. Okay. And do you know whether or not the McCrone studies were commissioned in 1985 for the purpose of the asbestos litigation? No, I Okay. were? They release on the product in application. MR. LEVINTHAL: I have nothinq more. MR. CRICK: I have two more. EXAMINATION BY MR. CRICK: Mr. Whittaker, if it's true that the McCrone studies were commissioned for asbestos litigation then doesn't that mean that as of today, Garlock has never commissioned a testing laboratory to determine whether or not its gaskets release asbestos fibers when used? MR. LEVINTHAL: Well, objection to the form. Go ahead. 'I/lullown l^efyortincj Service .7Of llimeS -Square HoJ.e.iter. 'Hew IJork 146!4 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 5 6 7 Q. 8 9 10 1 1 A. 12 13 1 4 Q. 15 A. 1 6 Q. 1 7 a. 18 Q. 19 A. 20 Q. 21 A. 22 Q. 23 A. 24 25 Q. 101 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK I'm not aware of any other studies. I have one last thing I need to show you. (Whereupon an off--the--record discussion was held.) (WHEREUPON DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 7 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) Let me show you Exhibit No. 7 which is a document called Garlock Mechanical Packing, and it's signed down at the bottom by R.E. Manning dated 5/14/84. Do you know what this is? It appears to be some tests that were conducted in various locations in the plant on asbestos products and on Gylon products. Have you seen this document before today? Just recently. In the last few weeks? Yes. You didn't see it in 1984 when it was written? No, I did not. Who is Mr. Manning? I don't remember. He was a Garlock employee? No, I don't think he was a Garlock employee. He might have been a -- I don't know. I don't recall the name. Exhibit No. 6 and Exhibit No. 5, can you tell us what 'iljicltown l^eportincf Service JO 1 Uimei j3uildintj Iducheiler. /letv Jarl) 14614 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A. 16 Q. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK those files are, sir? Exhibit No. 5 is titled "McCrone Anchor Packing Studies ME No. 2970." Exhibit No. 6 is titled "McCrone File ME-5583." So apparently Colt was satisfied enough with McCrone's work that it hired McCrone again in 1986 and again in 1988 to perform additional work, correct? MR. LEVINTHAL: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Objection to the form. And let him look through that because that's not correct. We can go off the record if you want. (Whereupon an off-the-record discussion was held.) (Whereupon there was a brief pause in the proceeding.) Ask the question again. It appears from Exhibits 5 and Exhibit 6 that Colt, the parent of Garlock and Anchor, was satisfied enough with the work that it retained McCrone aqain in subsequent years to do additional tests and to provide additional consultation; is that correct? MR. LEVINTHAL: Objection to the form. There were additional tests run on Anchor Packing material, yes. Additional tests were run. MR. CRICK: I don't have any other questions. ! !jultoLL'n f^eporttnej. Service 30 t iJimes ^>CjUare /v heifer. 'I)ew 'IJot'h f 46 f 4 103 1 ROY WHITTAKER - BY MR. CRICK 2 (Whereupon an off-the-record discussion was held.) 3 (Whereupon the Examination Before Trial adjourned at 4 11:52 a.m.) 5 *** 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 vu,own f^eportiny ^et ~oi Di I Square Builhln`l i/W.l\o, l)r } Jew JJorh 14614 104 1j !i 2 WITNESS CERTIFICATION 3 4 I, ROY L. WHITTAKER, do hereby certify that I 5 have read the transcript of my testimony taken under oath on 6 January 14, 1998; that the transcript is a true, complete, 7 and correct record of what was asked, answered, and said 8 during the Deposition; and that the answers on the record as 9 given by me are true and correct, except for anything duly 10 noted on the attached errata sheet. 11 12 13 14 ROY L. WHITTAKER 15 16 Subscribed and sworn to before me 17 this day of 18 19 20 21 NOTARY PUBLIC 22 23 My commission expires: 24 25 VUtoun ^ejjortincj -^ervu ~01 S><^uum Lejter, )Jew /46/4 105 1 2 STENOGRAPHER'S CERTIFICATION 3 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF MONROE ) 4 5 I, DEBORAH A. BONALLE, being a Certified Shorthand 6 Reporter in the County of Monroe, State of New York, do 7 hereby certify that I reported in Stenotype Shorthand the 8 Deposition of ROY L. WHITTAKER, held on January 14, 1998, in 9 the matter of MON MASS II; that the witness was duly sworn; 1 0 and that the foregoing pages numbered 1 through 105 were 1 1 typed under my direction and control, and constitute a true, 12 accurate, and correct record of those Stenotype Shorthand 13 notes. 1 4 I further certify that I am neither attorney or I 5 counsel for any of the parties, nor a relative or employe of 16 any attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor 17 financially interested in the outcome of the action. 18 19 20 DEBORAH A. BONALLE, CSR 21 22 Dated at Rochester, New York 23 this 15th day of January, 1998 24 25 / / jidtown /<de.porting. Se, Service llimes Square i</ut ln>sit>r, I lew 'LJorh incf