Document nkVxq1emjyrzwRXEJ0VOo7rLw

CHARLIE BETHEL, ET AL. NO. 96-06238-A :7.'"g^'7 2 HIAWTIFFS | - :ixmn ( RR-2i2a IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs, VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION; ET AL Defendants. 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION TO: CHARLIE BETHEL, by and through his counsel of record, Peter A. Kraus, Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. Pursuant to Rules 120a, 166b and 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company ("ICRC") hereby files its Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories Subject to and Without Waiving Special Appearance to Present Motion Objecting to Jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted, BROWN MCCARROLL & lKS HARTLINE, a Registered Linited Liabilit Partnership By: nneth S. Wall State Bar No. 20756790 2727 Allen Parkway 1300 Wortham Tower Houston, Texas 77019 (713) 529-3110 FAX (713) 525-6295 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing document has been forwarded via certified mail, return receipt requested to counsel for Plaintiffs on this 14th day ofMarch, 1997, and made available to all other counsel ofrecord. A f, Kenn > DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUilOMM.1 18457.93901 Pag* 3 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS Subject to and without waving its current or any future special appearances, ICRC makes this preliminary statement and objections: ICRC currently has special appearance motions pending in various cases in Dallas County, Texas. Each of these cases involve numerous Plaintiffs who are residents of states other than Texas. Each and every objection, response or matter contained in these responses and answers is made strictly subject to and without waiving any pending special appearance motion. To the extent that ICRC is named and served as a party in future cases in Dallas County, these responses shall also be subject to and without waiving any future special appearance motions. ICRC expressly objects to each and every discovery request to the extent that it seeks any information in those cases wherein a special appearance is pending for the reason that such discovery requests are not related to any special appearance motion or likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in a special appearance hearing. ICRC does not own or control any railroad track in Texas. ICRC will provide substantive responses to those requests related to jurisdictional issues as they relate to those Plaintiffs who have sued ICRC. However, ICRC objects to each and every discovery request and/or interrogatory to the extent that it is unrestricted as to subject, time and geography on the grounds that such requests/interrogatories are unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably related to the discovery of jurisdictional evidence related to such claims. DETENUANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUslOOCM.! 18457.92901 Pag 3 n. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. ICRC objects to these interrogatories in their entirety for the reason that such interrogatories were not in the master set of discovery. Plaintiffs have neither sought nor obtained leave of court to serve this Defendant with discovery other than the master discovery previously approved by Dallas County. ICRC objects to this unilateral attempt by Plaintiffs to circumvent the procedures set forth by the Master Asbestos Judge in Dallas County. However, because Defendant has filed a Special Appearance contesting jurisdiction over it by this Texas Court, Defendant will provide substantive responses to those interrogatories which are jurisdictional in nature. 2. ICRC further objects to each and every discovery request, interrogatory and request for admission to the extent that they require ICRC to search through all corporate documents on the ground that such interrogatories are clearly overly broad, unduly burdensome, exceptionally expensive, and not reasonably related to the discovery of evidence relevant to the claims of Plaintiffs claiming injury arising out of alleged exposure while employed by ICRC in Texas. 3. ICRC further objects to those interrogatories as a whole, since they seek matters which are privileged under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Texas Rules of Civil Evidence, including, but not limited to, information and matters precluded by the attomey/client privilege, attomey/work product exemption and the party communications privilege. 4. ICRC further objects to the definitions set forth at the beginning of Plaintiffs' interrogatories as an improper attempt to give meanings to ordinary English words that are contrary to their accepted meanings and which render the interrogatories ambiguous, overly broad and/or unduly burdensome to answer. 5. ICRC further objects to Plaintiffs* interrogatories as vague since the are not limited to the time and location when and where Plaintiffs were allegedly employed by ICRC. 6. ICRC expressly incorporates each and every general objection and preliminary statement into its response to each interrogatory, subject to and without waiving its specii appearance motion objecting to jurisdiction. DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUslOMM.1 18457.92901 Pat4 iigjgaiRROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Stale the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of all positions, titles, or jobs held while working for Defendant of each person who supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: Charles Garrett, Risk Manager Illinois Central Railroad Co. 2921 Horn Lake Road Memphis, Tennessee 38109 Employment Tenure: In excess of 20 years INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State the full and proper business name and address of the Defendant. State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the address of your principal place of business, the name and address of the person or entity authorized to accept service of process on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas, maintained a registered agent in Texas, engaged in business in Texas or recruited or hired employees in Texas. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and preliminary and general objections, and without waiving same: Illinois Central Railroad Company is a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware. Its principal place of business is 455 North Cityffont Plaza Drive, Chicago, IL 60611-5504. It has no person or entity authorized to accept service of process in Texas and is not required to do so. It has never held a Certificate of Authority to do business in Texas and is not required to do so. ICRC has not engaged in business in Texas and has not recruited or hired employees in Texas. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: With regard to each policy of liability insurance intended to provide coverage to Defendant, its agents and/or employees for the liability in connection with the allegations such as those delineated in Plaintiffs Original and Amended Petitions including, but not limited to, all primary and excess policies covering the Defendant for such liability, state the name and address of each carrier. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of DCTENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUslOMM.1 1S4S7.92MI Pf*5 Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State whether you contend that the Plaintiff has done anything or tailed to do anything that constitutes contributory negligence. If so, please describe the basis of your contention and what evidence exists to support that contention. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State whether you contend that the Plaintiff has done or failed to do anything that constitutes a failure to mitigate damages. If so, please describe the basis of your contention and what evidence exists to support that contention. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUitMCM.1 1MS7.9390I Pa INTERROGATORY NO. 6: List each and every place of work and job assignment of the Plaintiff which he held during his employment with Defendant and describe in detail the duties involved in each of the job assignments. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Describe in detail how asbestos containing products were used by railroad workers on Defendant's railroad(s) during the period of Plaintiffs employment by Defendant. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe in detail where asbestos containing products were used by railroad workers on Defendant's railroad(s) during the period of Plaintiffs employment by Defendant. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S ORJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOttlttiM.1 1MS7.92901 p*,.7 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: If you have alleged in your answer that Plaintiffs injuries and/or damages were caused by some other injury, disease or condition, either pre-existing or unrelated to and arising after or in conjunction with the Plaintiffs exposure to asbestos- containing products, please describe in detail such pre-existing or subsequent disease, injury or condition. For each alleged other injury, disease or condition, identify all evidence upon which you base this contention. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/ctient privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please state the name of each and every person having knowledge of facts relevant to this action including most recent address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant's agents, including, but not limited to: A. Identification of asbestos-containing products or type of products to which Plaintiff was exposed or facts disputing the identification of these products; B. Plaintiffs damages, injuries and/or facts disputing Plaintiffs damages and/or injuries; C. The negligence of any person or entity, other than Defendant, which Defendant contends was a cause of Plaintiffs injuries and/or damages; and D. Each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed answer. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTQtROGATORlES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUtltMM.1 1S4S7.9290! P** I to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex* R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify documents or things, including x-rays, MCI's, CT-scans or other materials, which will be used at time of trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify the names and addresses of all individuals Defendant may call as an expert witness(es) at trial, and for each individual, please state: A. The subject matter on which the witness is expected to testify, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, the substance of the facts and opinions to which the witness intends to testify on the Defendant's behalf and a summary of the grounds for each opinion, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case; B. All factual observations, test results, supporting data, learned treatise (books, general articles, texts or other publications) and opinions which the witness has generated, been provided, intends to use, and/or may use to support his/her opinions and conclusions relative to the case whereupon which the witness has or will base his/her testimony in this matter, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case. The identity, address and job classification of each consulting expert whose opinions or data have been referred to and/or relied upon by the expert witness, and the complete title and author of each learned treatise referred to and/or relied DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUtlftMM.! 18457.92MI upon by the witness for information and/or corroborating his/her opinions regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit; C. Whether any person identified in subparagraph B above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify each such document or report, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group; D. Identify all documents or other materials, including but not limited to x-rays, pathology, CT-scans, you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph B above, specific as to each individual Plaintiffs case, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group; E. Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph B above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify all persons, entities, agencies or others, whether governmental (state or federal) or private, who participated in any investigation of the claims made the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state whether Defendant or any successor or predecessor was ever a member of the Railroad Claims Registry, and if so, please state the years Defendant was a member; the years of attendance at and involvement in the Railroad Claims Registry Meetings; the name, job classification, address and telephone number of each and every DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUiltMM.1 18457.93M1 Pf l agent and/or representative and/or employee of Defendant attending each and every Railroad Claims Registry Meeting and the year that agent and/or representative and/or employee of Defendant attended the meeting; and the location of the Railroad Claims Registry Meeting for each year attended by Defendant. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please state whether Defendant or any successor or predecessor ever attended or sent an agent on its behalf to any of the Association of American Railroads and American Railway Association meetings from 1930 to the present, and if so, please state the years of attendance; the location of the meeting; the name, address, job classification and telephone number of each and every agent and/or employee and/or representative of Defendant attending each and every Association of American Railroads and American Railway Association meeting and the exact year of attendance. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. DOTODANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUslOMM.! 18457.9290} INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Before 1980, did Defendant receive notice that any individual who at any time was employed by the Defendant claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, state: A. The name and address of each claimant; B. The date of notice of each claim; C. A description of the claim; D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained by each claimant; E. The name and address of each attorney who represented each individual making a claim; F. The style and court number of each claim; G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment; H. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Before 1980, did Defendant receive notice that any individual who at any time was employed by any Railroad claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, state: A. The name and address of each claimant; B. The date of notice of each claim; DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION BOUtlMM.I 1MS7.92901 Pf* 12 C. A description of the claim; D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained by each claimant; E. The name and address of each attorney who represented each individual making a claim; F. The style and court number of each claim; G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment; H. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Has Defendant at any time published, distributed or displayed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, warning signs or statements, packaging or other written material of any kind or character containing any warning concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products and/or exposure to airijome asbestos? If so, state: A. The exact wording of each warning statement and a description of the material upon which the warning was printed; B. TTie method(s) used to distribute the materials to persons likely to use the asbestos-containing products or likely to be exposed to airborne asbestos; C. The date each warning was first issued or distributed; DCTENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUtlOMM.1 18457.93901 P**tJS D. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning statements and/or written materials; E. The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof; F. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, i.e., the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Did Defendant install, replace, use, repair, assemble, transport or store, either as an original appurtenance of the railroad or placed in/on the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad, any asbestos-containing products during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant? If so, identify: A. By name and number each of Defendant's railroad(s), whether operating or in railyards, upon which the asbestos-containing produces) were installed, repaired, used, stored or transported during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant; B. The particular type of asbestos-containing product(s); C. The trade or brand name of each of the asbestos-containing products; D. The years during which each named asbestos product was applied, stored, used, repaired, installed or transported either as an original appurtenance of the railroad or placed on/in the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad(s); E. The dates of any removal or abatement of such asbestos-containing products, from Defendant's railroad(s). ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth DQENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUtlOMM.1 18457.92901 Ptf* 14 seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Did any entities or persons at Defendant's direction, whether direct or indirect, including but not limited to contractors and subcontractors install, replace, use, repair, assemble, transport or store, either as an original appurtenance of the railroad or placed in/on the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad, any asbestos- containing products during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant? If so, identify: A. By name and number each of Defendant's railroad(s), whether operating or in railyards, upon which the asbestos-containing product(s) were installed, repaired, used, stored or transported during the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant; B. The particular type of asbestos-containing product(s); C. The trade or brand name of each of the asbestos-containing products; D. The years during which each named asbestos product was applied, stored, used, repaired, installed or transported either as an original appurtenance of the railroad or placed on/in the railroad in conjunction with repairs or alterations to the railroad(s); E. The dates of any removal or abatement of such asbestos-containing products, from Defendant's railroad(s). ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOVilOMM.t 18457.92901 Pa** |5 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: If the answer to any portion of the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative and/or if any asbestos-containing products are identified in response to such interrogatory, state the following as to each identified product: A. The name(s) of the railroad workers repairing, replacing or using each asbestoscontaining product on Defendant's railroad(s) during Plaintiffs period of employment by Defendant; B. A description of die physical appearance of each of the named asbestos-containing products; C. A detailed description of the uses of the named asbestos-containing products; D. A detailed description of the areas on Defendant's railroad where such asbestos- containing products were installed, replaced or used. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 16<&)(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdiction^ contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUilOOfM.1 18457.92901 PU Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Has Defendant or any other entity at the direction of Defendant, contracted with another entity for the acquisition, ordering, purchasing, supplying or distributing of asbestos-containing products, at any time prior to or during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant? If so, identify: A. Each of Defendant's railroad components by name and number for which the asbestos-containing products were ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant; B. The particular type of asbestos-containing products acquired; C. The trade or brand name of each of those asbestos-containing products ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; D. The years such asbestos-containing products were acquired, ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed by Defendant; E. The dates of any removal or abatement of asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUtIOMM.1 1MS7.92M1 Paf 17 !?iiaRROGATQRY NO. 23: If your answer to any portion of the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, or if any asbestos-containing products are identified in response to that interrogatory, state the following as to each product: A. The name(s) of the company(ies), entity(ies), manufacturer(s) from which the asbestos-containing products were acquired, ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; B. The date(s) each asbestos-containing product was ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed; C. A description of the physical appearance of each of the named asbestos-containing products; D. A detailed description of the uses of the named asbestos-containing products; E. Identify the last year that Defendant ordered, purchased, supplied or distributed each identified asbestos-containing product. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State whether Defendant maintained from 1950 through the present copies of invoices, shipping receipts, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the purchase or acquisition of asbestos-containing products. If so, state: A. the location of such documents; B. The name and address of the custodian of the documents; DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION BOUtlOMM.1 18457.92901 Pf 18 C. The format in which the documents are kept, microfiche, etc; D. In what form the documents can be accessed. hard copy, microfilm, ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Identify all persons, including name, address and telephone number, who provided and/or conducted or were responsible for conducting any type of safety training, during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ, P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdiction^ contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOIMM6M.1 18457.92901 Pa 19 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: At any time prior to 1980 did Defendant or anyone at the direction of Defendant conduct an investigation, survey or other process to identify the primary emission sources of airborne asbestos fibers and/or to assess and/or sample for the detection of, the quantity of, or threshold limit value of airborne asbestos fibers in relation to Defendant's railroad? If so, please identify with particularity the entity and/or persons conducting such investigation(s), survey(s) or test(s) the dates conducted and the results. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. DBTOfPANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUIOM94.I 18457.92901 P*20 INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Did Defendant ever arrange for any labor agency, insurance company, government agency, inspectors or anyone from your company to go into any of Defendant's railway car(s) and/or engine(s) and/or locomotive(s) and/or roundhouses and/or shops to take dust level counts related to asbestos dust? If so, identify with particularity the party(ies) conducting such procedure(s), the dates conducted, the purpose of such procedure(s), and all results of such procedure(s). ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Did Defendant obtain facts, knowledge or information from any industry, insurance company, governmental agency, union, and/or any other entity regarding the potential health effects and/or health hazards created for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust? If so, please list all sources of such information and the dates received. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. I66b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUtltMM.1 IU57.9ZMt Fat* 21 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: List each person who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians (including those physicians who would have been responsible for conducting physicals, evaluations or screenings of Defendant's employees) and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals who has had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of airborne asbestos dust. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. I66b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. DEFENDANT HUNOIS CENTRAL RAUtOAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUilMMO 18457.92*01 P*22 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so, state: A. The name of each such publication; B. The date of publication and the names of the author and published (if any); C. The date received by Defendant; D. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. DSENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S ORIECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTQtROGATORlES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION O&JECTING TO JURISDICTION HOlhlOMM.) 18457.92901 INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Has Defendant at any time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of airborne asbestos? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such association or organization; B. The dates during which Defendant member; C. The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations; D. Whether any of those publications are still in your possession, and if so: 1. A description of the publications, including the date; 2. The current location of such publications; 3. The custodian of such publications; 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: As to the disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESCTT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUIOMM.1 184S7.92901 Pat* 34 B. How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease; C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease; D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form; F. Who is the custodian of such information; G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers alone or in conjunction with second hand smoke. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: As to the disease lung cancer, state: A. The date on which Defendant first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure; DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOU10MM.1 1MS7.92991 P*25 C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form; F. Who is the custodian of such information; G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdiction^ contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A. The date on which Defendant first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers; C. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos; DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUtIMfM.! 1M57.92991 D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form; G. Who is the custodian of such information; H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: As to gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer and/or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant first learned that such diseases were caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans; B. What cancers has the Defendant become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers; C. The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation; DEfliNDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS* FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUilOOCM.1 1MS7.92991 P*27 D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; E. What information was disseminated with Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form; G. Who is the custodian of such informadon. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks informadon and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. I66b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks informadon which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO, 36: Did Defendant maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? If so, for each such set of minutes, state: A. The dates of each such meeting; B. The general subject matter discussed at each meeting; C. Who was in attendance at each meeting; D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained; E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format; DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITUOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUtIOMM.1 18457.92901 P^28 F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Does Defendant intend to call a company representative as a witness at the trial of this case? If so, list: A. The name, address, and job title of each company representative who may be called; B. A summary of the testimony expected to be given by each such witness; C. List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiff(s) in that case. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION IIOUtlOO*94.t 18457.92901 Pa29 privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Does your company have, or has it ever had, a Medical Department or Medical Section? If so, state: A. the year such Medical Department or Section was established; B. Whether or not such Medical Department or Section has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department or Section year by year, beginning with the first year of its existence and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department or Section. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUiIOOfM.1 18457.92*01 Pa*30 and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Please state whether written warnings were placed at any locations adjacent to or near asbestos in place on Defendant's railroad(s), at anytime from 1930 to the present If so, please describe with specificity such signs, including size, color, wording, etc. Additionally, please state the number of such signs that were installed and indicate the specific location of each such sign and the dates such sign was at that location. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdiction^ contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY! NO. 40: Department? If so, state: Does your company have, or has it ever had, a Safety DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS* FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESORT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION nOUtlOMM.I 18457.92901 Pa** 31 A. The year such Safety Department was established; B. Whether or not such Safety Department has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Safety Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Safety Director or Safety Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Safety Department. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Please state whether a medical monitoring program, medical examination program or other medical surveillance was provided to your employees and specifically to Plaintiff. If so, please indicate what records of such program, examination or surveillance concerning Plaintiff exist at this time, including but not limited to, reports, x-rays and medical notes. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' flRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION BOIHIOM94.1 18457.92901 pat* 32 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Please state whether Defendant has at any time provided safety equipment to the Plaintiff and/or the railroad workers of Defendant present at any time during Plaintiffs employment by Defendant for protection against the inhalation of airborne asbestos dust, including but not limited to masks, respirators, other breathing devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, etc. For each such item of equipment, please indicate when such item was first provided, under what circumstances, and the name, address and telephone number of the person most knowledgeable concerning such provision. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. DETPTOANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PIAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUillMM.1 IM57.92M1 P^ 33 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Please state whether Defendant ever agreed by contract, agreement, negotiation, collective bargaining or otherwise, to provide masks to Plaintiff and other crew members and/or employees of Defendant working with or around asbestos products. If so, please state verbatim the specific agreement or contract and/or other document by which Defendant agreed to provide such masks. Include the date the agreement was entered into, the period of time covered by the agreement and the parties to the agreement. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Please state the precise state and/or federal regulations, laws, statutes, or other authority pertaining to industrial hygiene or worker safety and health that governed, regulated, controlled and/or were applicable to airborne asbestos exposure in your operations and/or in relation to Defendant's railroad. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S O&JECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTSIROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUtIOMM.1 18457.92*01 P*34 communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Please describe each and every occasion during the past thirty years when any regulatory agency or other governing body inspected Defendant's railroad to ascertain whether health and safety regulations were being followed or adhered to, including the date of such inspection and/or meeting, the results, and whether a written report was produced. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUilWMM.! 18437.92*01 Pat* 33 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: Please state whether any asbestos-containing products in place or in use on Defendant's railroad, has been removed or abated at any time from 1965 to the present. If so, please answer the following: A. List each and every abatement company or other contractor involved with the removal of asbestos, including address and telephone number, dates of such removal, and whether a contract for such removal exists; B. Indicate the total amount in dollars spent by Defendant to abate or remove asbestos from the railroads; C. State whether any "removal plan" or organized written criteria or other document related to asbestos removal on the railroad(s) was ever prepared by Defendant; D. State whether corporate documents discussing or relating generally to the removal of asbestos are in existence and, if so, where they are maintained; E. State precise dates and locations when and where such removal or abatement took place for each railroad. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. DEFENDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUttMCM.1 18457.92901 Pt*34 INTERROGATORY NO. 47: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant was first advised of such limits or concentrations; B. The name of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice; C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same. Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Please state whether and when Defendant received a copy of the Fleischer/Drinker Report published in 1945/1946. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdictional contacts, if any, with the State of Texas DEFENDANT ILUNOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUilOOfM.1 18457.93401 P*37 and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Please describe all actions taken by Defendant to comply with the Boiler Inspection Act, previously 45 U.S.C. 23 during the past thirty-five (35) years, now designated at 49 U.S.C. 20701, et seq. ANSWER: Subject to Defendant's special appearance and without waiving same, Defendant hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections. Defendant further objects to answering this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad and because of its breadth seeks information and matters privileged pursuant to the mental impression and work product privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(a); consulting expert privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b); the witness statement exemption, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(c); the party communications privilege, Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(d); and the lawyer/client privilege, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Defendant's jurisdiction^ contacts, if any, with the State of Texas and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery while Defendant has a Special Appearance motion pending. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it does not limit itself to a reasonable time period as related to the issues in this case, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, burdensome, harassing and would require an unreasonable amount of time and expense on the part of Defendant to compile. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as requiring more than 30 answers, in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. DEFBfDANT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SUBJECT TO AND WITHOUT WAIVING SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO PRESENT MOTION OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION HOUtiOMM.1 18457.92901 Pa 3S