Document o9X5pjjnQRRYENo00Ex2qdzKR

FILE NAME Rogers Corporation ROG DATE 2012 DOC ROG026 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Legal - Defendant Rogers Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Admission Interrogatories and Requests for Production STATE OF CONNECTICUT IN RE BRIDGEPORT ASBESTOS \ LITIGATION DOCKET NO 11-6023127 SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT ERICK LAGERBERG and MARSHA ) LAGERBERG Neue! Plaintiffs Neo VS. Nee! Smet ) ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL et al Neem! Defendants Nee Neo? C DEFO ENR DAP NTO RROOR G GEEA RRSST CCOOI RRPPO OORRAN ATTII' OONNS ''SS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Defendant Rogers Corporation Rogers Corp. or Responding Defendant individually and by counsel and pursuant to the Connecticut Rules of Civil Procedure hereby responds to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission Interrogatories and Request for Production as follows PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Rogers Corp.'s Responses to each of these Requests for Admission Interrogatories and Requests for Production incorporates this Preliminary Statement a The information supplied in these Responses is not based solely upon the knowledge of the executing party but includes substantial information assembled by and within the knowledge of the party's authorized agents representatives and unless privileged attorneys Because much of the information is of or relates to events of many years ago it is difficult if not impossible for Responding Defendant to retrieve or reconstruct some of the requested information Many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which Plaintiff's discovery relate are deceased or are otherwise unavailable to Responding Defendant and investigations to date indicate that some information in documents which might relate to matters inquired into by Plaintiff's discovery may have been destroyed Responding Defendant is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate or confirm the absence of such information or documents and Responding Defendant is also engaged in a continuing investigation with respect to the matters inquired into by Plaintiff's discovery Therefore Responding Defendant reserves the right to amend these responses if new or more accurate information becomes available or errors are discovered Furthermore these responses are given without prejudice to Responding Defendant's right to rely on at trial subsequently discovered information or on information inadvertently omitted from these responses as a result of mistake error or oversight b The word usage and sentence structure is that of the attorneys who in fact prepared these Answers and does not purport to be the exact language of the executing party c The Requests for Admission Interrogatories and Requests for Production have been interpreted and answered in accordance with the Connecticut Rules of Civil Procedure and plain English usage and to the extent not specifically challenged by objection the definitions and instructions of same were included d R_ogers Corp. further objects to these Requests for Admission Interrogatories and Requests for Production as Responding Defendant has not been provided with sufficient information by Plaintiff to enable it to respond fully to these discovery requests The Plaintiff has not identified with specificity the product allegedly manufactured by Rogers Corp. which Plaintiff claims were a substantial causative factor in producing her alleged asbestos disease e The Responses are limited to those matters not subject to the attorney privilege and to those matters that do not constitute attorney work product f Rogers Corp. will answer to the best of its knowledge information and belief reserving the right to supplement these Responses once it has obtained additional information g Rogers Corp. objects to these Requests for Admission Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the extent they imply that Rogers Corp. was under a duty to provide warnings for its products or that any products manufactured by it would expose workers to harmful dust levels h In responding to these Requests for Admission Interrogatories and Requests for Production Responding Defendant does not concede the relevancy materiality or admissibility of any information sought by the discovery requests or any Responses thereto The Responses are made subject to and without waiver of any questions or objections as to the competency relevancy materiality privilege or admissibility of evidence documents or information referred to herein or the subject matter thereof in any proceeding including trial GENERAL OBJECTIONS Responding Defendant makes the following additional General Objections to these Requests for Admission Interrogatories and Requests for Production GENERAL OBJECTION NO 1 Responding Defendant objects to these Requests for Admission Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the extent that they seek information subject to the attorney privilege or which constitutes protected work product GENERAL OBJECTION NO 2 Responding Defendant objects to each discovery request to the extent that it calls for proprietary and confidential business information and as such is protected from disclosure as trade secret information Responding Defendant's Responses to these Requests for Admission Interrogatories and Requests for Production are made without waiver of any such privilege or protection against disclosure GENERAL OBJECTION NO 3 These Requests for Admission Interrogatories and Requests for Production are not product specific and as such Responding Defendant objects GENERAL OBJECTION NO 4 Responding Defendant objects to any definition within these Requests for Admission Interrogatories and Requests for Production that purports to include entities other than Rogers Corp. which is the entity named in the above captioned litigation Each of the following Responses to Requests for Admission are limited in scope as described in the Preliminary Statement Similarly Responding Defendant objects to any discovery request that encompasses products not at issue in this litigation REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 1. With reference to the attached Exhibit 1 admit that Rogers is Source 4 referenced throughout the document but particularly described at the bottom of page 1223 and onto page 1224 Response to Request No. 1 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as burdensome vague ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant can neither admit nor deny this Request for Admission as it was not the author of the referenced publication 2 Admit that Rogers utilized chrysotile asbestos in its manufacturing process in its plant in Rogers CT Response to Request No. 2 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific product location or time and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence By way of further answer and without waiver of the foregoing objections and subject thereto Responding Defendant states that some of its products manufactured at its Rogers CT facility utilized chrysotile asbestos as an ingredient 3 Admit that Rogers utilized crocidolite asbestos in its manufacturing process in its plant in Rogers CT Response to Request No. 3 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific product location or time and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence By way of further answer and without waiver of the foregoing objections and subject thereto Responding Defendant states that some of its products manufactured at its Rogers CT facility utilized crocidolite asbestos as an ingredient 4 Admit that the Rogers plant in Rogers CT emitted chrysotile asbestos fibers into the ambient air outside the plant Response to Request No. 4 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead ~ to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects that this Request prematurely calls for expert testimony Responding Defendant can neither admit nor deny this Request 5 Admit that the Rogers plant in Rogers CT emitted crocidolite asbestos fibers into the ambient air outside the plant Response to Request No. 5 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects that this Request prematurely calls for expert testimony Responding Defendant can neither admit nor deny this Request 6 Admit that the Rogers plant in Rogers CT utilized asbestos every year between 1950 and 1980 inclusive Response to Request No. 6 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific product location or time and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to the term asbestos as used in this request as it is vague and overbroad Without waiver of the foregoing objections and subject thereto Responding Defendant admits that asbestos was utilized in the manufacture of certain products beginning in 1950 and continuing to 1983/1984 However as to what fiber type and what quantities were utilized during which years investigation is ongoing Responding Defendant reserves the right to supplement its response hereto 7 Admit that the Rogers plant in Rogers CT purchased asbestos fiber or asbestos- containing materials from each of the following entities a North American Asbestos Corporation b Manville Corporation Special Materials Inc d Hollingsworth & Vose e Associated Mineral Corporation AG f Union Carbide Corporation g Cassiar Asbestos Corporation Ltd Canadian Mines Response to Request No. 7 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific product location or time and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving the above objections and subject thereto Responding Defendant states Admitted in part denied in part Rogers Corp. has purchased asbestos from the following Associated Mineral Corporation North America Asbestos Corporation Special Materials Inc. Johns Manville and Union Carbide By way of further answer investigation is ongoing 8. Admit that the Rogers plant in Rogers CT purchased a product called Paperbestos from Hollingsworth & Vose Response to Request No. 8 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as burdensome vague ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving the above objections and subject thereto Responding Defendant states that after reasonable investigation one purchase order for 44,000 lbs of Paperbestos 5 from Hollingsworth & Vose dated 5/11/78 has been located INTERROGATORIES 1. Please state the name title and business address of the person answering these interrogatories Response to Interrogatory No. 1 Robert M. Soffer Vice President and Secretary P.O. Box 188 ~ Rogers Corporation One Technology Drive Rogers CT 06263-0188 2 With reference to the attached Exhibit 1 please state whether the Rogers plant in Rogers CT is Source 4 as referenced in the article Response to Interrogatory No. 2 See Objection and Response to Plaintiff's Request for Admission # 3. With reference to the attached Exhibit 1 please state with specificity what if any interaction Rogers had with the article authors Bruckman and Rubino and what if any information or documents Rogers provided to the authors Response to Interrogatory No. 3 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as burdensome vague ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiving the above objections and subject thereto Responding Defendant states that after a reasonable investigation it is without information regarding any contact or information provided to the article authors regarding the drafting of the article 4. Please state with specificity whether Rogers has ever conducted or directed a party to conduct any air testing of the ambient air outside of the Rogers plant in Rogers CT or in the surrounding towns for the presence of asbestos and if so please state with specificity what the results were Response to Interrogatory No. 4 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as burdensome vague ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiver of the foregoing objections and subject thereto Responding Defendant states See Objection and Response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents 5 Please state with specificity whether Rogers has ever conducted or directed a party to conduct any air testing of the air inside the Rogers plant in Rogers CT for the presence of asbestos and if so please state with specificity what the results were Response to Interrogatory No. 5 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as burdensome vague ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Without waiver of the foregoing objections and subject thereto Responding Defendant states See Objection and Response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents 6 Please state with specificity whether Rogers ever provided any warnings cautions or notices of any kind to the residents or municipal government of Rogers CT or any of the surrounding towns regarding potential asbestos emissions from the Rogers plant Response to Interrogatory No. 6 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague overly broad burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they imply that Rogers Corp. was under a duty to provide warnings for its products or that any products manufactured by it would expose workers or others to harmful dust levels Responding Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific location or time and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence By way of further objection Responding Defendant objects hereto as this interrogatory seeks discovery of information and materials beyond the permissible scope of discovery Without waiving the above objections and subject thereto Responding Defendant states that it became generally aware of the hazards associated with asbestos in the early 1970s through various media outlets however Defendant does not recall when if at all it received information linking asbestos exposure to any specific disease REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1 Please produce complete color copies of any and all documents relied on in answering the preceding interrogatories Response to Request No. 1 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad unduly burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific time location or product and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case Responding Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney privilege or which constitutes protected work product By way of further objection Responding Defendant objects hereto as this Request seeks discovery of information and materials beyond the permissible scope of discovery Responding Defendant further responds that investigation is ongoing and any and all documents responsive to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents will be produced by Rogers Corp. at a mutually convenient time at the offices of the National Coordinating Counsel or other location to be determined 2 Please produce complete color copies of any and all documents relied on in answering the preceding requests for admission Response to Request No. 2 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad unduly burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific time location or product and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case Responding Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney privilege or which constitutes protected work product By way of further objection Responding Defendant objects hereto as this Request seeks discovery of information and materials beyond the permissible scope of discovery Responding Defendant further responds that investigation is ongoing and any and all documents responsive to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents will be produced by Rogers Corp. at a mutually convenient time at the offices of the National Coordinating Counsel or other location to be determined 3 Please produce complete color copies of any and all documents pertaining to the defendant's production sale supply distribution and purchase of containing products Response to Request No. 3 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad unduly burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific time location or product and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case Responding Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney privilege or which constitutes protected work product By way of further objection Responding Defendant objects hereto as this Request seeks discovery of information and materials beyond the permissible scope of discovery Responding Defendant further responds that investigation is ongoing and any and all documents responsive to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents will be produced by Rogers Corp. at a mutually convenient time at the offices of the National Coordinating Counsel or other location to be determined 4 Please produce complete color copies of any and all documents pertaining to any and all of the subjects addressed in the preceding interrogatories Response to Request No. 4 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad unduly burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific time location or product and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case Responding Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney privilege or which constitutes protected work product By way of further objection Responding Defendant | objects hereto as this Request seeks discovery of information and materials beyond the permissible scope of discovery Responding Defendant further responds that investigation is ongoing and any and all documents responsive to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents will be produced by Rogers Corp. at a mutually convenient time at the offices of the National Coordinating Counsel or other location to be determined 5. . Please produce complete color copies of any and all documents pertaining to any and all of the subjects addressed in the preceding requests for admission Response to Request No. 5 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad unduly burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific time location or product and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case Responding Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney privilege or which constitutes protected work product By way of further objection Responding Defendant objects hereto as this Request seeks discovery of information and materials beyond the permissible scope of discovery Responding Defendant further responds that investigation is ongoing and any and all documents responsive to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents will be produced by Rogers Corp. at a mutually convenient time at the offices of the National Coordinating Counsel or other location to be determined 6 Please produce complete color copies of any and all material safety data sheets pertaining to any and all containing products obtained by the defendant and sold by the defendant Response to Request No. 6 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad unduly burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific time location or product and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case Responding Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney privilege or which constitutes protected work product By way of further objection Responding Defendant objects hereto as this Request seeks discovery of information and materials beyond the permissible scope of discovery Responding Defendant further responds that investigation is ongoing and any and all documents responsive to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents will be produced by Rogers Corp. at a mutually convenient time at the offices of the National Coordinating Counsel or other location to be determined 7 Please produce complete color copies of any and all testing or analytical reports pertaining to asbestos testing of the defendant's products Response to Request No. 7 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad unduly burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific time location or product and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case Responding Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney privilege or which constitutes protected work product By way of further objection Responding Defendant objects hereto as this Request seeks discovery of information and materials beyond the permissible scope of discovery Responding Defendant further responds that investigation is ongoing and any and all documents responsive to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents will be produced by Rogers Corp. at a mutually convenient time at the offices of the National Coordinating Counsel or other location to be determined 8 Please produce complete color copies of any and all catalogs advertisements brochures or other documents that show or list any containing products Response to Request No. 8 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad unduly burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific time location or product and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case Responding Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney privilege or which constitutes protected work product By way of further objection Responding Defendant objects hereto as this Request seeks discovery of information and materials beyond the permissible scope of discovery Responding Defendant further responds that investigation is ongoing and any and all documents responsive to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents will be produced by Rogers Corp. at a mutually convenient time at the offices of the National Coordinating Counsel or other location to be determined 9 Please produce complete color copy of Erick Lagerberg's personnel file Response to Request No. 9 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney privilege or which constitutes protected work product By way of further objection Responding Defendant objects hereto as this Request seeks discovery of information and materials beyond the permissible scope of discovery Responding Defendant further responds that investigation is ongoing and any and all documents responsive to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents will be produced by Rogers Corp. at a mutually convenient time at the offices of the National Coordinating Counsel or other location to be determined 10 Please produce complete color copy of Marsha Lagerberg's personnel file Response to Request No. 10 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney privilege or which constitutes protected work product By way of further objection Responding Defendant objects hereto as this Request seeks discovery of information and materials beyond the permissible scope of discovery Responding Defendant further responds that investigation is ongoing and any and all documents responsive to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents will be produced by Rogers Corp. at a mutually convenient time at the offices of the National Coordinating Counsel or other location to be determined 11. Please produce complete color copies of any and all documents or records pertaining to the article attached as Exhibit , including but not limited to any and all documents or records that Rogers Corporation provided to or received from the authors Response to Request No. 11 See Preliminary Statement and General Objections Responding Defendant objects to this Request as vague overly broad unduly burdensome ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not sufficiently limited to a specific time location or product and thus seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to the present case Responding Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney privilege or which constitutes protected work product By way of further objection Responding Defendant objects hereto as this Request seeks discovery of information and materials beyond the permissible scope of discovery Responding Defendant further responds that investigation is ongoing and any and all documents responsive to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents will be produced by Rogers Corp. at a mutually convenient time at the offices of the National Coordinating Counsel or other location to be determined The Defendant ROGERS CORPORATION Dated February9 2012 Chark ChMaornke Pierce Davis & Perritano LLP 90 Canal Street Boston MA 02114 617 350-0950 Juris No 420348 . CERTIFICATION I Charles K. Mone hereby certify that a true copy of the above document electronically via mail to the following Plaintiff's counsel and Defense Liaison counsweals served Christopher Meisenkothen Esquire Early Lucarelli Sweeney & Meisenkothen LLC 265 Church Street P. O. Box 1866 New Haven CT 06508-1866 John J. Robinson Esquire McCarter & English LLP City Place 1 185 Asylum Street Hartford CT 06103 February February February and was served electronically via ctasbestos@listserve.com 9 , 2012 on each attorney of record on -- --, Charles K. Mone VERIFICATION OF ROBERT M. SOFFER STATE OF CONNECTICUT COUNTY OF WINDHAM ) ) ss Rogers Connecticut COMES NOW ROBERT M. SOFFER who after being first duly sworn deposes and states under penalty ofperjury as follows 1 - am employed by Rogers Corporation as Vice President and Secretary I am over eighteen years of age have never been convicted of a felony and am competent and authorized in all respects to make this verification I make this verification with the assistance and advice of counsel and other representatives of Rogers Corporation My business address is Rogers Corporation P.O. Box 188 One Technology Drive Rogers CT 06263-0188 I am authorized to sign this verification to the foregoing Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories in the matter of Erick Lagerberg et al v Armstrong International et al in the Superior Court J.D. of Fairfield at Bridgeport Connecticut : While I do not have personal knowledge of all the facts recited in the Responses to Interrogatories they were prepared at my direction and are true to the best of my knowledge information and belief subject to inadvertent errors and limited by information not in possession or undiscovered Consequently defendant reserves the right to make any changes in the Responses if it appears at any time that omissions or errors have been made therein or that more accurate information is available FURTHER AFFIANT SAYTH NAUGHT RoberMt. Soffer Vice President and Secretary Rogers Corporation SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me by the Affiant on this 7th day of February 2012 Ance Tetreault : Notary Public | . My Commission expires June 30 2014