Document nm3r8ayyVoRvOD5kXRLveNE8m

IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED OR TO BE FILED IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 191st JUDICIAL DISTRICT CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES <ji r AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS m \ >4 S o To: Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel of record, Russfcll ^SfeBudd, Baron & Budd, The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite lld$, Dallas, Tefes 75219. S "* Subject to and without waiver of any Special Appearances filed to contest and object to personal jurisdiction, CSR Limited files its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories (the "Interrogatories") and to Plaintiffs' Master Requests for Production (the "Requests for Production") to Defendants and respectfully shows as follows: L PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiffs* Interrogatories and Requests for Production seek information regarding CSR Limited's "asbestos-containing products." CSR Limited, however, did not manufacture, sell, distribute, market, or supply any "asbestos-containing products" either in the United States nor to any customer located in the United States. Rather, CSR Limited served as a sales agent for a subsidiary which mined and milled raw asbestos fiber, some of which was shipped from Australia for delivery (usually under the terms FOB or in the nature of FOB) to non-CSR Limited related entities in the United States for a limited time prior CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 1 to 1967. The sales were all made in Australia. CSR Limited objects to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production because, to the extent that they request information regarding "asbestos-containing products", they are inapplicable to CSR Limited. In addition, CSR Limited objects to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production because they seek information regarding "asbestos-containing products" without any meaningful time or geographical limitations without any connection to claims asserted by any Plaintiff against CSR Limited. To the extent that the Interrogatories or Requests for Production call for information relating to any asbestos or asbestos products mined, sold, and distributed either outside the United States and/or after 1966, CSR Limited objects to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production and to providing information regarding any sales activity which it may have had outside the United States as irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b. Unless otherwise stated in a specific response, these responses are limited to information regarding sales of asbestos fiber prior to 1967 that were consigned for delivery to certain ports in the United States. 2. The information sought by the Interrogatories and Requests for Production concern events that occurred several decades ago. Moreover, CSR Limited has not completed investigation of the facts related to Plaintiffs* claims, has not completed discovery in any pending action against it in Dallas County, Texas, and has not completed preparation for any trial that might be held in CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 2 Dallas County, Texas. All responses to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production are based on information presently known to CSR Limited and are given without prejudice to CSR Limited's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts. 3. CSR Limited objects to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Production to the extent it seeks information regardless of geographical limitation. CSR Limited is an Australian corporation, and information concerning CSR Limited's activities in Australia and elsewhere outside the United States that have nothing to do with Plaintiffs* purported causes of action are neither relevant to Plaintiffs* claims nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the burden and expense of requiring CSR Limited to produce such information clearly outweighs any likelihood that the information requested will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. CSR Limited objects to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Production to the extent that it seeks information concerning activities beyond the time period relevant to Plaintiffs* claims. Nevertheless, CSR Limited is responding to them with respect to the entire time period for which CSR Limited acted as sales agent for its subsidiary with respect to sales of raw asbestos fiber that was consigned for delivery to the United States. In addition, CSR Limited objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information relating to CSR Limited activities after 1966, which was the last year in which raw asbestos fiber sold by CSR Limited was consigned for delivery to the United CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 3 States. Information relating to CSR Limited activities after 1966 is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, requiring CSR Limited to produce such information would impose an undue burden and hardship upon CSR Limited. 5. CSR Limited objects to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the extent that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, oppressive, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that they request information not related to the specific claims of any Plaintiff in Dallas County, Texas asbestos litigation who has asserted claims against CSR Limited. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b. 6. CSR Limited notes that it has a pending special appearance seeking to dismiss Dallas County, Texas asbestos litigation currently asserted against it on the basis that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over CSR Limited. CSR Limited's objections and responses to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production are expressly made subject to and without waiver of any personal jurisdiction arguments. 7. CSR Limited objects to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the extent that they seek information protected by the attorneyclient communication privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the party communication privilege, the joint defense privilege, any other applicable privilege or exemption from discovery or for which CSR Limited has contractual or fiduciary obligations, whether express or implied, to maintain as confidential. See CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 4 Tex.R.Cic.Evid.503; Tex.R.Civ.P.166b. CSR Limited further objects to the production of documents or the provision of information which may have come into its hands in the conduct of litigation and which is subject to an implied undertaking as to confidentiality pursuant to the decisions of Harman v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1983) 1 AC 280 or Ainsworth v. Hanrahan (1991) 25 NSWLR 155. 8. CSR Limited objects to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the extent that they seek information which is proprietary or constitutes "trade secret" information. 9. CSR Limited objects to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the extent that they seek to impose obligations upon CSR Limited beyond those contained in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. CSR Limited objects to the length, repetitiveness, and scope of the Interrogatories and Requests for Production. There are 64 interrogatories, most of which have numerous sub-parts. In addition, none of the Interrogatories or Requests for Production are limited to information regarding products to which any Plaintiff asserting claims against CSR Limited allege exposure. Rather, the Interrogatories and Requests for Production seek information without any reasonable limitation. CSR Limited therefore objects to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production because they seek information that is irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and because they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 5 oppressive. See Tex.R.Civ.P 166b. 11. CSR Limited objects to definition 1 of the Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the extent that it defines "Defendant" "You", "Your company", "Predecessors", and "Subsidiaries" to include entities that are legally separate and distinct from CSR Limited. CSR Limited objects to this definition, to the extent it seeks to impose upon CSR Limited the burden of responding to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production not only with respect to its own activities, but all of those of every CSR Limited subsidiaiy. These subsidiaries are separate, independent entities, and information in their files is not within the possession, custody or control of CSR Limited within the meaning of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, with the exception of the single Australian subsidiary for which CSR Limited acted as sales agent in connection with sales of raw fiber for a limited period of time, the activities of these subsidiaries are wholly irrelevant to Plaintiffs* claims, and information concerning them is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, requiring CSR Limited to produce such information would impose an undue burden and hardship upon CSR Limited with no resulting benefit to any party. See Tex.R.Civ.P 166b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and the fact that the Interrogatories and Requests for Production seek information concerning "asbestos-containing products", CSR Limited is providing relevant information concerning CSR Limited's activities as sales agent for the sale of raw asbestos fiber mined by its Australian subsidiary. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 6 12. CSR Limited objects to definition 2 of the Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the extent that it defines "document", "documents", "written materials", and "printed matter" to include materials that (1) "are now or were formerly in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendant (including documents at any time in the possession, custody or control of their subsidiaries whether domestic or international, or merged or acquired predecessors);" or (2) "are known or believed to be responsive ... regardless of who now has or formerly had custody, possession or control." This definition is overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and it seeks to impose obligations upon the responding party not contained in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure because it would require the responding party to provide information regarding materials that may not currently exist or materials that are not now or may never have been in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party or that relate to legally separate and distinct entities. See Tex.R.Civ.P 166b. 13. CSR Limited objects to definition 6 of the Interrogatories and Requests for Production that define "product containing asbestos fibers", "asbestoscontaining products", "asbestos products", and "asbestos materials", and "product" to the extent that it pertains to products not relevant to CSR Limited or any claims asserted against CSR Limited in Dallas County, Texas asbestos litigation because it renders the Interrogatories and Requests for Production overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, oppressive, irrelevant, immaterial, and not CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 7 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b. n. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES CSR Limited incorporates the foregoing Preliminary Statement and General Objections into its response to each of the following Interrogatories. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited provides the following responses to the Interrogatories. INTERROGATORY NO. Is State the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant of each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. RESPONSE: Edwin Anthony Smith; CSR Limited; Level 24, 1 O'Connell Street, Sydney 2000 Australia; Manager Group Financial Reporting; over 24 years; Chemical engineer, accountant, computer operations, accounting computer systems and technical computer systems, manager share registry, risk management and chief accountant's department. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your correct 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. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 8 RESPONSE: Yes; CSR Limited; New South Wales, Australia; Level 24, 1 O'Connell Street, Sydney 2000 Australia; the Company Secretary; No. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale of material containing asbestos fibers? If so, identify the location of the mine(s), the years of its operation, the type of asbestos mined and whether you sold any asbestos to any Defendants in the Dallas County asbestos litigation. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers that it did not engage in the mining and subsequent sale of "material containing asbestos fibers." Rather, it acted as the disclosed sales agent for raw asbestos fiber mined and milled by a subsidiary. The mine was located at Wittenoom, Western Australia and was in operation from 1943 until 1966, although the first shipment of raw asbestos fiber mined and milled by the subsidiary from the Wittenoom mine and consigned by CSR Limited as sales agent did not reach the United States until 1949. The raw asbestos fiber mined by CSR Limited's subsidiary was croddohte. CSR Limited objects to the last portion of this Interrogatory because the term "Defendants in the Dallas County asbestos litigation,, is vague and ambiguous and seeks to impose a duty or obligation upon CSR Limited to determine the identity of any defendant in any asbestos litigation ever filed in the past, currently pending or to be filed in the future in Dallas CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 9 County, Texas, which is not required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time manufactured or sold. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers that it did not manufacture or sell any "product containing asbestos fibers" in or to the United States. See also response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time marketed or sold. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers that it did not market or sell any "product containing asbestos fibers" in or to the United States. See also response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If the answer to one or more of the last three interrogatories is in the affirmative or lists any products, state as to each named product the following: A As to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 10 B. The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each product mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold. D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market. E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage of asbestos put in each product. F. The date each of the products was removed from the market and no longer sold or distributed and the reason or reasons therefor. G. The date asbestos was removed from such products, if ever, and the reasons therefor. H. A description of the physical appearance of each of the named products. I. A detailed description of the intended uses of the named products. J. Identify the last year that you sold each asbestos containing product. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers as follows: CSR Limited did not manufacture, sell or distribute any "products" containing asbestos in or to the United States. See also response to Interrogatory No 3. INTERROGATORY NO, 7: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the design, preparation, or introduction into the market of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 still exist? If so, state: CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 11 A. A description of each such document. * B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where the documents are currently located. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous and to the extent that it is overbroad, harassing, oppressive, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Tex. R. CIV. P. 166b. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers as follows: CSR Limited did not manufacture or sell any asbestos-containing product in the United States. See also response to Interrogatory No 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Before distributing, selling, or placing the products listed in your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 into the streams of commerce, were any tests conducted to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products tested and the date of each test. B. The name, address, and job title of each person conducting the tests or involved with conducting the tests. C. The results of the tests. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 12 because it assumes a disputed legal conclusion with the phrase "placing the products listed in your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 into the streams of commerce." Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited responds that it never manufactured or placed any asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce to or in the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the testing of the products referred to in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: Not applicable. See response to Interrogatory No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Did Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies make any design changes or modifications as a result of those tests described in responses to Interrogatory No. 8? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The trade names of the products changed. B. The nature of the changes made and the date of such changes or modifications. C. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having caused a change to be made, or having made a change or modification. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 13 RESPONSE; CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: Not applicable. See response to Interrogatory No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: After releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use of or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: A The names of the products tested and the dates of such tests. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests. C. The results of those tests. D. Whether, as a result of the tests, any products were removed from the market. E. The names of all products removed from the market as a result of these tests. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because the phrase "releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public" is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers that it never manufactured or placed any asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce of or to the United States. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the potential health hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A The name of each product. B. A description of each document and how it relates to each product. C. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited further objects to this Interrogatory because it is not reasonably limited to claims asserted against CSR Limited by any of the Plaintiffs and because CSR Limited never manufactured or sold any asbestos-containing products in the United States. Thus, this Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, oppressive, irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Tex. R. ClV. P. 166b. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes. as a result of the tests discussed in your response to Interrogatories No. 8 or 11? If the answer is affirmative, state: A The names of the products changed or modified. B. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having made a change or modification. C. The nature of the hazard or defect which resulted in such change or CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 15 modification. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: Not applicable. See responses to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 11. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material or any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of the asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatoiy No. 6? If so, state: A The names of each relevant product. B. The exact wording of each warning statement on each printed material. C. A description of the printed material other than the warning statement. D. The method used to distribute the warning to persons likely to use the product. E. The date each warning was first issued, distributed, or placed on packaging. F. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning. G. The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof. H. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, i.e., the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 16 RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is argumentative and implies a legal duty to warn. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers that it never manufactured, sold or distributed any "asbestos containing products" in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Before 1970, had you received notice that any individual or individuals, other than those Plaintiffs who have hied personal injury actions in Dallas County, Texas, is or are claiming or has or have claimed an injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company or any of its predecessors or subsidiaries before 1970? 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. E. The name and address of each attorney who represents 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. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 17 because it is neither limited to claims asserted against CSR Limited by any Plaintiff in Dallas County, Texas litigation nor limited in any reasonable manner and, thus, is immaterial, irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive. See TEX. R. Civ. P. 166b. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Were your asbestos products distributed, marketed, packaged, labelled and/or sold by companies other than your own? If the answer is affirmative, list the names and addresses of each of those companies, and the products in question. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers that it did not design, manufacture, package, label, market, distribute or sell any "asbestos products" in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Did you or any of your predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries have any distributors or sales representatives of asbestos products in the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia? If so, state: A The name and address of each such distributor or sales representatives. B. The years in which such company or person distributed, marketed, or sold your products. C. What products were distributed, marketed, or sold and in what years. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 18 though fully set out herein. Subject to and withoutrwaiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: List each employee (including only physicians and/or hygienists) 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 and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals and who has, had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of asbestos. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this interrogatory because it is vague, harassing, oppressive, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 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 publisher (if any). C. The date received by Defendant, if known. D. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 19 though fully set out herein. CSE Limited further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence, overbroad, harassing, and oppressive. See Tex. R. ClV. P. 166b. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected from discoveiy by the attorney-client communication privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the party communications privilege, the joint defense privilege, the consulting expert privilege or any other applicable privilege or exemption from discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 503; Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiaiy or predecessor companies 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 asbestos comprised of other manufacturers, miners, marketers, and/or sellers of asbestos products? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such association or organization. B. The dates during which Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors were members. 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. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 20 4. The method or manner iirwhich such publications are maintained. RESPONSE: GSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. GSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166b. CSR Limited further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for information exclusively within the possession, custody or control of third-parties, such as a description of any documents ever "published, written, or disseminated" by organizations not related to CSR Limited. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited is not nor ever has been a member of any organization concerned with the promotion or use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products in the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products listed in your answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 were manufactured, assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing, specifying which plants produced each item, the dates each plant is or was in operation, and the time span during which each named item was produced or manufactured. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not manufacture or sell any asbestos- containing products in or to the United States. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes of marketing or advertising products containing asbestos? If so, state: A The name, address, and job title of each person or entity who prepared such materials. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials and their present location. C. The date the materials were prepared. D. The media used to disseminate the sales materials. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not manufacture, design, market, label, distribute or sell "products containing asbestos" in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Have any written or printed materials or instructions of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents indicating how asbestos products should be used and maintained? If so, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person who prepared such materials or instructions or assisted in their preparation. B. The name, address and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials or instructions and their present location. C. The dates of distribution or use and the manner in which such materials or instructions were distributed to purchasers of Defendant's products or those of its subsidiaries or predecessors. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 22 D. The year each such written material or instruction was prepared and disclosed to potential consumers. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claims made by Plaintiffs in these cases? If so, list the name of each insurance carrier, the amount of initial coverage, amount of coverage remaining at the present time, and the effective dates of each policy, (If properly answered, this Interrogatory need not be supplemented as to the remaining amount of coverage). RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it calls for a legal or expert conclusion as to whether insurance policies would cover claims made by Plaintiffs in Dallas County, Texas asbestos litigation. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: Discovery is continuing. This answer will be supplemented should relevant policies of insurance be found to exist. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: As to the disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 23 C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease and/or 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 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. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it is argumentative and calls for medical expert opinion. In addition, this Interrogatory is not limited to Plaintiffs' claims and, thus, is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited is not aware of a connection, per se, between asbestos and asbestosis. CSR Limited further answers that it is generally aware of a connection between the medical condition described as asbestosis and the inhalation of asbestos fibers in concentrations over certain levels and over an extended period of time. CSR Limited has no knowledge, information or belief as to when it first became aware of such connection. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: As to the disease lung cancer, state: CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 24 A* The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure. 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. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it is argumentative and calls for medical expert opinion. In addition, this Interrogatory is not limited to Plaintiffs' claims and, thus, is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited is not aware of a connection, per se, between asbestos and lung cancer. CSR Limited further answers that it is generally aware of a suggestion in the medical literature of a connection between the medical condition described as lung cancer as a complication of asbestosis. CSR Limited has no knowledge, information or belief as to when it first became CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 25 aware of such a suggested connection. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: As to pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques, state: A The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. 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 Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it is argumentative and calls for medical expert opinion. In addition, this Interrogatory is not limited to Plaintiffs' claims and, thus, is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR is not aware of a connection, per se, between asbestos and pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques. CSR Limited further answers that it is generally aware of a connection between the medication conditions sometimes described as pleural disease, pleural thickening CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 26 or pleural plaques and the inhalation of asbestos fibers in concentrations over certain levels and over an extended period of time. CSR Limited has no knowledge, information or belief as to when it first became aware of such connection. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. 6. 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. 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. RESPONSE: GSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 27 because it is argumentative and calls for medical expert opinion. In addition, this Interrogatory is not limited to Plaintiffs' claims and, thus, is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited is not aware of a connection, per se, between asbestos and mesothelioma. CSR Limited further answers that it is generally aware of the suggestion in the medical literature of a connection between the medical condition described as mesothelioma and the inhalation of asbestos fibers in concentrations over certain levels and over an extended period of time. CSR Limited has no knowledge, information, or belief as to when it first became aware of such connection. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: As to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer, state: A The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such diseases were caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. 6. What cancers has the Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor 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. 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. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 28 G. Who is the custodian of such information. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it is argumentative and calls for medical expert opinion. In addition, this Interrogatory is not limited to Plaintiffs' claims and, thus, is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers that, subject to its answer to Interrogatory No 26, it is not now nor has ever been aware that asbestos and exposure to asbestos can or does cause types of cancer other than lung cancer. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Does Defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactured or designed so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or exposed to them? If the answer is affirmative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys on which this answer is based. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 29 RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it is argumentative and calls for expert opinion. In addition, this Interrogatory is not limited to claims asserted against CSR Limited by any Plaintiffs, to the products to which those Plaintiffs allege exposure or to any products with which CSR Limited is related and, thus, is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b. INTERROGATORY NO* 31: Describe in detail the types of packages or packaging which Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies used for asbestos material or products, listing the dates each type of package was used, a physical description of each type of package, and providing a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: the raw asbestos fiber sold by CSR Limited as sales agent was packaged in jute bags. Through 1957, the bags of asbestos fiber sold by CSR Limited as sales agent were approximately 87 pounds each. After 1957, the bags of asbestos fiber sold by CSR Limited as sales agent were approximately 100 pounds each. The markings on the bags were those mandated by the laws of the CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 30 country to which the fiber was consigned for delivery. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos materials or asbestos products? If so, state, as to each such agreement: A. The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products. B. The trade name affixed to those products. C. The periods of time covered by each such agreement. D. The volume, in dollar amount, of each transaction. E. The initial purchaser of the products. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: List the name and address of each company from which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor purchased materials or asbestos products which Defendant sold or distributed in any form, stating the form of the materials, the dates of such purchases, and the ultimate disposal of such materials. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information regarding any "material" purchased from any other company because it is completely overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 31 oppressive, irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See TEX. R. ClV. P. 166b. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: None. See also response to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Does Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessor currently have possession of any writings or contracts on those rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to Interrogatory No. 32? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person having custody of each of those documents and their current location. B. A brief description of each such document, including the dates and the parties signatory. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Prior to 1968, did any person file a claim against a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he/she contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers? If so, provide: A A list of the claims, including each claimant's name, address and the date each claim was filed, and including the caption and jurisdiction of the claim. B. The disease alleged in each such claim. C. A brief summaxy of the disposition of each such claim. D. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the ' records pertaining to each such claim. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 32 RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, harassing, oppressive, unduly burdensome, and seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors 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. F. whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is not limited to Plaintiffs' claims and, thus, is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 33 and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: the relevant parts of the minutes of CSR Limited and of its subsidiary will be produced by way of discovery at a mutually convenient time and location. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Do you or any of your subsidiaries, including foreign business entities, currently manufacture any products containing asbestos? If so, state: A. As to each product, whether such product is mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold. B. The names and addresses of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each of those products. C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market. E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product. F. A description of the physical appearance of each product and its packaging. G. A detailed description of the intended uses of each of the named products. H. Whether there are any warning labels on said products or containers regarding potential asbestos-related health hazards. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: No. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 34 INTERROGATORY NO. 38: State whether you or any of your predecessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies of invoices, shipping documents, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the mining, manufacture, marketing, sale or distribution of asbestos products. If so, state: A. The location of such documents. B. The name and address of the custodian of the documents. C. The format in which the documents are kept, i.e., hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. D. In what form the documents can be accessed, i.e., by state, by product, etc., and if by product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not manufacture or sell any asbestos- containing product in the United States. With respect to documents regarding sales by CSR Limited as sales agent of raw fiber in Australia consigned for delivery to certain ports in the United States, CSR Limited answers: Yes. The consignment notes recording the consignment of raw asbestos fiber by CSR Limited as sales agent are held by the CSR subsidiary. CSR further answers as follows: A. 1 O'Connell Street, Sydney, Australia B. Edwin Anthony Smith, a director of Midalco Pty Limited, 1 O'Connell Street, Sydney, Australia CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 35 C. Hard copy D. The consignment notes are kept in number order. That order is chronologically based upon the date of consignment. INTERROGATORY NO. 39: May you call company representatives as witnesses at the trial of any of these cases? 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 Plaintiffs in that case. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tex. R. CiV. P. 166b. CSR Limited further objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks disclosure of CSR Limited's trial strategy and information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product exemption. See TEX. R. Civ. EVID. 503; TEX. R. Civ. P. 166b. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited has not yet determined the witnesses whom it may call to testify at trial, if it is not dismissed from any asbestos-related actions prior to that time. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 36 INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Have Defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed, or contracted or supplied products containing asbestos? If so, for each such entity, state: A. Full and correct name; B. Principal place of business; C. State of incorporation; D. Date of acquisition by Defendant; E. Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in the State of Texas; RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatoiy because it is not limited in time or geography or to the claims asserted against CSR Limited by any of the Plaintiffs and seeks information regarding entities that are legally separate and distinct from CSR Limited and are not parties to this litigation. Therefore, the Interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, oppressive, irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Tex. R. ClV. P. 166b. . INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Was each of your asbestos products generally expected to reach, or packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? If not, with respect to any such product, explain in what way the Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 37 RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that the terms "consumer" and "user" are not defined and are vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not manufacture, design, package, label, sell or distribute any "asbestos products" in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: For each asbestos-containing product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6, identify all foreseeable users such as insulators, helpers, pipefitters, welders, machinists, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, boilermakers, shipwrights and riggers, etc. of any of Defendant's asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for pure speculation and guesswork. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because the term "foreseeable" is either vague and ambiguous or seeks a legal conclusion under American law. CSR Limited further objects to this Interrogatory because it is not limited in time or geography and is not limited or related to Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and, thus, is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Tex. R. ClV. P. 166b. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, sell or distribute any CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 38 "asbestos-containing product" in or to the United States. See also response to Interrogatory No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Based upon the material contents of your asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, can such products be generally applied without liberating asbestos fibers into the air? A. If there is a different answer concerning different products manufactured, sold, distributed, or used by your company, then specify the different products by precise manufacturer's name and popular name. B. If there is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in which a particular product was used, then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you are referring to and year involved. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminaiy Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for an expert opinion and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, sell or distribute any "asbestos containing product" in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Was it a foreseeable use of your asbestos-containing products that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced at some time after installation? RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 39 extent that it calls for an expert opinion and is vague and ambiguous. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requests CSR Limited to provide a legal conclusion under American law. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, distribute or sell any "asbestos-containing products" in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Before 1970, did you or your subsidiaries or predecessors ever arrange for any labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company to go to job sites where your products were being used or installed to make or take dust level counts? If so, state when this procedure started, the puipose of such procedures, and all results of such procedures. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is overbroad and harassing. See Tex. R. ClV. P. 166b. CSR Limited further objects to this Interrogatory because the phrase "dust level counts" and the term "products" are unlimited, vague and ambiguous, and, to the extent that it seeks information regarding testing for airborne materials other than asbestos dust or fibers or products that do not contain asbestos, it is irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. See TEX. R. Civ. P. 166b. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 40 answers: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, distribute or sell any asbestos-containing "products" in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: If Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad and harassing. See TEX. R. ClV. P. 166b. CSR Limited further objects to this Interrogatory because the phrase "dust level counts" is unlimited, vague and ambiguous, and, to the extent that it seeks information regarding testing for airborne materials other than asbestos dust or fibers, it is irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b. INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Has your company or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies designed to assist in minimizing or eliminating the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use of your company's products? If so, give the following: A Name of the person or firm conducting such studies; B. The date the studies began and the date they were completed; C. Any publication or other written dissemination of the results of the studies; CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 41 D. The nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad and harassing. CSR Limited further objects to this Interrogatory because it is unlimited in time and scope, the phrase "dust level counts" is vague and ambiguous and because it seeks information regarding testing for airborne materials other than asbestos dust or fibers or to products other than products containing asbestos. Therefore, the Interrogatoiy is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See TEX. R. Civ. P. 166b. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, distribute or sell any "products" containing asbestos in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Does your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessors or subsidiaries ever had, a Research Department? If so, give the year such Research Department was established, and whether or not such Research Department has operated continuously since being established. State also: A. The amount of time and money expended each year on research concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products? B. What percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessors spend on research concerning the health effects of asbestos? CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 42 C. State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities or such Research Department RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it relates to items or products not containing asbestos and is unlimited in time and scope and not related or limited to any Plaintiff's claims asserted against CSR Limited because it is overbroad, harassing, oppressive, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See TEX. R. ClV. P. 166b. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, sell or distribute any "asbestos containing product9 in or to the United States. CSR Limited did not have a research department which was concerned with research into any aspects of CSR Limited's role as sales agent for raw asbestos fiber. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Does your company have, or has it ever had, or have your predecessors or subsidiaries ever had, a Medical Department? If so, state: A The year such Medical Department was established; B. Whether or not such Medical Department has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Medical Director or Medical Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 43 D. State the duties and responsibilities ofsuch Medical Department. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it relates to items or products not containing asbestos and is unlimited in time and scope and not related or limited to any Plaintiffs claims asserted against CSR Limited because it is overbroad, harassing, oppressive, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Tex. R. ClV. P. 166b. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers with respect to asbestos fiber sold by CSR Limited as sales agent that was consigned for delivery to certain ports in the United States: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Did your company or its predecessors or subsidiaries ever place any warning directly on any of its asbestos-containing product or on their packaging. If so, identify the produces) and year said warning was first applied. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, distribute or sell any "asbestos-containing product" in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Did your company or its predecessors or subsidiaries ever stamp or place the name of the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any of its CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 44 asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the name brand names of such products, a description of such stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, distribute or sell any "asbestos-containing products" in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Has your company, or your predecessors or subsidiaries, ever devised a research plan to develop, or actually developed or had developed, a product which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for one or more of your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date that such research plan was begun and when such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, distribute or sell any "asbestos-containing products" in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Did your company or its predecessors or subsidiaries ever recall any products containing asbestos from the market or stream of commerce? If so, state: A All details of such recall; B. The name of the product recalled, including the reason for the recall and the names and current addresses of those individuals who determined that it should take place; C. The dates of recall; CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 45 D. The purpose for the recall. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it implies a duty to recall, which does not exist under Texas law. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it implies that CSR Limited placed "asbestos-containing products" into the stream of commerce of the United States, which it did not. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, distribute or sell any "asbestos-containing products" in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Before 1970, did you ever manufacture or sell products which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date such asbestos-free products were first placed on the market. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, distribute or sell "asbestos-containing products" in or to the United States. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Have any products you identified in your response to Interrogatory Nos. 52 and 54 not performed as intended? Please list all such products that have not performed as intended. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 46 RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, distribute or sell "products" containing asbestos in or to the United States. See also answers to Interrogatory Nos. 52 and 54. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Did your company or its predecessors or subsidiaries ever make, order, or arrange for any industrial hygiene surveys regarding asbestos or asbestoscontaining dust? If so, give the date of such surveys and state who, or what entity, was responsible for completion of such surveys. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers with respect to asbestos fiber sold by CSR Limited as sales agent that was consigned for delivery to certain ports in the United States: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 57: 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 or any predecessors or subsidiaries were 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. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 47 RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it is irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to or related to alleged claims by any Plaintiff against CSR Limited. CSR Limited further objects to this Interrogatory because it implies that any standards promulgated by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in some unspecified way applied to the sale of raw asbestos fiber mined and milled in Australia which was sold in Australia and consigned for delivery to certain ports in the United States. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Were the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory No. 57 for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone? RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. See also response to Interrogatory No. 57. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: State in detail what tests, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing your asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 48 though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory because it implies and assumes that "threshold limit values" promulgated in the United States applies to asbestos fiber mined, milled or sold in Australia. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers as follows: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, distribute or sell any "asbestos-containing products" in or to the United States. See response to Interrogatory No. 57. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Please state the following with respect to each expert witness you that you may call during trial of these cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you will call, including: (a) The name, address, and job classification of each such expert witness; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion; (d) Whether any person identified in subparagraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify each such document or report; (e) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above; (f) 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 (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 49 though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See TEX. R. ClV. P. 166b. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected from discovery by the attorney-client communication privilege, attorney work product doctrine, party communication privilege, consulting expert exemption, joint defense privilege, or any other applicable privilege or exemption from discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. EVID. 503; Tex. R. ClV. P. 166b. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited has not yet determined the expert or lay witnesses whom it may call to testify at trial, if it is not dismissed from any asbestos-related actions prior to that time. CSR Limited reserves the right, if necessary, to call, among others, any of the following expert witnesses at trial: a. Any witness identified, listed, or designated as an expert by any other party, live or by deposition; b. Any treating or examining physician for the Plaintiffs (including any physician involved in the independent medical examination of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs* decedents or involved in review of the Plaintiffs* or Plaintiffs' decedents medical records or pathology), live or by deposition; c. Any physician or medical practitioner who has examined, treated, conducted, analyzed, or cared for any tests (including, but not limited to, pulmonary function tests, x-rays and other radiological studies) on CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 50 Plaintiffs or on Plaintiffs' decedents, live or by deposition; d. Any physician or medical practitioner who has seen, reviewed, studied, or examined any records, tissues, or fluids of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' decedent, live or by deposition; e. Any custodian of all applicable medical records of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' decedents, live or by deposition; f. Any expert witness necessary for rebuttal of Plaintiffs' case, live or by deposition. INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge of facts relevant to these cases involving, but not limited to: (a) identification of asbestos-containing products to which each and every individual Plaintiff, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, allegedly was exposed or facts disputing the identification of asbestos-containing products in this case. (b) Each and every individual Plaintiff's, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged damages, injuries and/or facts disputing each and every Plaintiffs alleged damages and/or injuries; (c) the negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of each and every individual Plaintiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged injuries and/or damages; (d) each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed Answer in each of these cases. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 51 though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks information protected from discovery by the attorney-client communication privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the party communication privilege, the joint-defense privilege and/or any other applicable privilege or exemption from discovery. See TEX. R. ClV. Evid. 503; Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b. CSR Limited further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of discovery permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requests information exclusively within the Plaintiffs' or other third parties' possession, custody, or control. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information regarding Plaintiffs who have not asserted claims against CSR Limited. With respect to facts specific to individual Plaintiffs' allegations, CSR Limited answers that information regarding persons who have knowledge of such facts is exclusively within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiffs, is not known to CSR Limited, and discovery of those facts is not complete. INTERROGATORY NO, 62: Please identify documents 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. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as' CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 52 though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks information protected from discovery by the attorney-client communication privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the party communication privilege, the joint-defense privilege and/or any other applicable privilege or exemption from discovery. See TEX. R. ClV. EVID. 503; TEX. R. ClV. P. 166b. CSR Limited further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to answer. See Tex. R. ClV. P. 166b. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited has not yet determined the documents that it may use at trial, if it is not dismissed from any asbestos-related actions prior to that time. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessor-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels", published in January, 1946 in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene Toxicology, and authored by W. Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al ("the Fleischer-Drinker Report")? a. Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; b. please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Fleischer-Drinker" study prior to 1968; c. please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; d. please identify the name(s) and addresses) of any person(s) who can verify your above response; e. did Defendant ever rely on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 53 the workplace without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; f. if so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 63(a) above; g. if your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above? RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks information protected from discovery by the attorney-client communication privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the party communication privilege, the joint-defense privilege and/or any other applicable privilege or exemption from discovery. See TEX. R. ClV. EVID. 503; Tex. R. ClV. P. 166b. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited has no knowledge, information or belief as to when, if ever, it became aware of the article entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels". INTERROGATORY NO. 64: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Study of Asbestos in the Asbestos Textile Industry", published in 1938 in Public Health Bill, No. 241, U.S. Public Health Service and authored by W.C. Dreessen ("the Dreessen Report")? a. Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 54 b. please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Dreessen" study prior to 1968; c. please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; d. please identify the name(s) and addresses) of any person(s) who can verify your above response; e. did Defendant ever rely on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; f. if so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory 63(a) above; g. if your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above? CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 55 RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks information protected from discovery by the attorney-client communication privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the party communication privilege, the joint-defense privilege and/or any other applicable privilege or exemption from discovery. See TEX. R. ClV. EVID. 503; TEX. R. ClV. P. 166b. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited answers: CSR Limited has no knowledge, information or belief as to when, if ever, it became aware of the article entitled "A Study of Asbestos in the Asbestos Textile Industry". HL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION CSR Limited incorporates the foregoing Preliminary Statement and General Objections into its response to each of the Requests for Production. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited provides the following responses to the Requests for Production. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce a true and correct copy of each photograph of each asbestoscontaining product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 4. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 56 RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. Subject to and without waiver of those objections, CSR Limited responds: CSR Limited did not design, manufacture, package, label, distribute or sell any "asbestos-containing product" in or to the United States. See also response to Interrogatory No. 4. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce any diagrams or schematics indicating, stating or detailing the existence of any of your subsidiaries, predecessors, or divisions as defined on Page 1 of these Interrogatories and Request for Production. RESPONSE: CSR incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set out herein. CSR Limited also objects to this Request for Production to the extent that it seeks documents equally available to the Plaintiffs as to CSR Limited. CSR Limited also objects to this Request for Production because it is irrelevant, immaterial, overbroad, harassing, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks admissions or information regarding entities which have no relationship to asbestos or asbestoscontaining products or to any of Plaintiffs' alleged injuries or claims against CSR Limited and regarding entities that are legally separate and distinct from CSR Limited and are not parties to this action. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b. CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 57 Respectfully submitted, Beth L. Fancsali State Bar No. 06800400 HAYNES AND BOONE, L.L.P. 3100 NationsBank Plaza 901 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75202-3789 Telephone: (214)651-5000 Telecopier: (214) 651-5940 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CSR LIMITED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been sent to Plaintiffs' counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rides of Civil Procedure on this day of ______, 1995. d-0211884.01 (8dh- ?eunMli Beth L. Fancsali CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 58 VERIFICATION " COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES Edwin Anthony Smith, the Manager Group Financial Reporting for CSR Limited, being duly sworn, says that he has read the foregoing Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendants (the "Interrogatory Responses "), that he is authorized to sign the Interrogatory Responses, that some of the matters stated in the Interrogatory Responses are not necessarily within his personal knowledge, but that there is not an officer or employee of CSR Limited who has personal knowledge of all such matters, and that the facts stated in the Interrogatory Responses were assembled by authorized personnel through a review of CSR Limited documents and are true and correct. Edwin Anthony Smith SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME at Sydney, New South Wales, Australia on 1 June 1995,1995. (PERSONALIZED SEAL) d-0197712.01 CSR LIMITED'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS