Document nkDGZ2w73YqJrBnn42LkqyZpa

DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF BOULDER COLORADO Court 1776 6th St. address: P.O. Box 4249 Boulder, CO 80306-4249 A ACOURT JSE ONLY IN RE: ASBESTOS CASES Case No. 198S CV2000 Attorneys for Defendant: Name(s): Mary Price Birk# 10415 Ronald L. Hellbusch, #26094 Address: Baker & Hostetler LLP 303 E. 17th Ave., #1100 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone Number: 303-861-0600 Fax Number: 303-861-7805 Division: A2 DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' DIS :OVERYTO UNION CARBIDE (040316) GENERAL OBJECTIONS Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide") objects to Plaintiffs' Request for Production on the following grounds, which are hereby incorporated by referenc: in Union Carbide's responses to the individual Request for Production below: GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 1 Union Carbide states that trial preparation and factual investigation are o:ingoing. Union Carbide's response to this Request for Production is based on information knowi i to Union Carbide at this time. Union Carbide reserves the right, however to make referen :ie at the trial or at any hearing in this action to facts and documents not identified in this respons , the existence i or relevance of which is later discovered by it or its counsel. By this reservation, Union Carbide does not in any way assume a continuing responsibility to update its response to his Request for Production, and specifically objects to the Request for Production to the extent tHiat it seeks to impose any such continuing obligation upon Union Carbide to the extent not reqt:ired by Colorado law. To the extent the information contained herein differs in any res]pbct from any prior responses to discovery, these responses shall be deemed to update and supe rsede such prior responses. GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 2; Union Carbide objects to Plaintiffs' Request for Production in its entirety |on the grounds that it is not reasonably framed in terms of the facts and subject matter of the priefcent action, with the result that Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what information relevant to the present case, if any, may be deemed to fall within the scope of this Request for Production as phrased. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request for Production to th^ extent that it seeks the production of information not relevant to any matter at issue in this litigiation. GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 3: Union Carbide objects to this Request for Production insofar as it would Require the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work prodjict doctrine. GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 4: Union Carbide acquired mineral rights to its Coalinga mine in 1958. Fro;Jn 1958 until late 1963, Union Carbide developed its mining and milling processes. From late 19^3 until June 30, 1985, Union Carbide mined and sold a unique tremolite-free short fiber chrysotf asbestos initially known as "Union Carbide Asbestos" and then under the trade name "Cajidria" (some distributors marketed Calidria under other trade names). Throughout the time th|ait Union 2- - Carbide was in the asbestos business, and particularly from 1963 to 1965, sales ere relatively small. Even as Union Carbide attempted to develop business, Union Carbide remiained a relatively small participant with its focus, due to the unique nature of Calidria, 04 developing applications suitable for the unique fiber. All responses to this Request for Prod^ction refer to Calidria asbestos only, unless otherwise stated. Union Carbide objects to this R<.dquest for Production to the extent that it refers to any product other than Calidria asbestos GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 5: Union Carbide objects to this Request for Production to the extent that it alls for information about Union Carbide employees or premises, or policies pertaining tb Union Carbide employees or premises that are unrelated to the claims in this litigation on the gnounds that such requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to eadtothe discovery of admissible evidence. GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 6: Union Carbide objects to this Request for Production to the extent that it seeks information contained in documents that are available to Plaintiffs' counsel in th s repository of Calidria-related documents (the "repository") maintained by Union Carbide's co insel. This repository is supplemented as additional documents are identified and has been supplemented in the past year. Upon request, a visit to the repository by Plaintiffs' counsel can b<; arranged at a mutually convenient time. The burden of determining the responses to these Re< [uest for Production is equally as demanding on Plaintiffs' counsel as it is on Union Carbi de. The burden on Union Carbide is enhanced because many of the events and circumstances thi t appear to be at issue took place approximately 40 years ago. With the passage of time, complet; records may no 3- - longer exist, relevant witnesses with firsthand knowledge are now deceased, me nories have faded, and any attempt to recreate history often presents an insurmountable chall ;nge and an undue burden. DISCOVERY REQUEST 1. Please provide the entirety of the document that meets the following desc -iption: TITLE: MINERALOGY AND PETROLOGY OF THE NEW IDRIA DI! STRICT, CALIFORNIA; AUTHOR: Robert Griffin Coleman, Ph.D., 1957 Stanford University; FURTHER DESCRIPTION: Doctoral Dissertation Series, Publication No.: 21, 566. RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY REQUEST See General Objections Nos. 1-7. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide respohds as follows: To the extent that the document responsive to this Request is in the possepision of Union Carbide, it is located in the repository maintained by Union Carbide's counsel, fpon request, a Svisit to the repository by Plaintiffs' counsel can be arranged at a mutually conve: ient time. AS TO OBJECTIONS AND DEFENSES Duly executed signature on file at tfye office of Baker & Hostetler LLP lary Price Birk, Esq. #10415 Ronald L. Heljbusch, Esq. #260194 BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Union Carbide Corporation 4- -