Document oMBkLVed4yLLjEvqDkMpa0JLX

NO. D153133 EARL E. FASKE; FRANKLIN D. BLACKWELL; PEDRO ESPINOSA; CARROL LEWIS SNOWDEN; JIMMIE KESS STRINGER; LAURENCE LEROY THEISS; JEFFRIE WHITE; and THOMAS WHITELEY, SR.; Plaintiffs, vs. OWENS-CORNING F1BERGLAS CORPORATION, et ah, Defendants. tf $ f IN THE DISTRICT COURT JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 136TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S OB3ECT1QNS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'-S-RFOUFST FOR ADMISSIONS TO; Laurence Leroy Theiss. Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys of record, Kimberly Castles, Saron & Budd, The Centrum, 3102 Oaklawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. Pursuant to Rules 166b and 169 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Union Pacific Railroad Company (Improperly named as Missouri Pacific Railroad Company), Defendant herein, hereby submits its Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit or deny that asbestos-containing products were in general use aboard Defendant's railroad during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records, Defendant has not been able to locate any information which would indicate when, or if, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit or deny that Defendant ordered, purchased or otherwise acquired asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE; Defendant admits this request. REQUEST FOR AOMI551QN NO. 3: Admit or deny that Defendant used or implemented on Defendant's railroad, asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant admits this request. REQUEST FO^ ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit or deny that Defendant's cars, engines and/or locomotives which Plaintiff worked on or around were unreasonably dangerous and unfit because of the presence of and/or use of asbestos-containing products. PD$:6447.1 292-qof OP/9l d 609-i 9290929812 mmC Sd13Hd:IUOJd 06 = 91 26-H-dW ii :iilh . - .1.. . 1.11 RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records, Defendant has not been able to locate any information which would indicate when, or if, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUE5T FOR ADMISSION NO, 5: Admit or deny that Plaintiff was a railroad worker, as that term is generally understood, during his employment with Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records. Defendant has not been able to locate any information which would indicate when, or if. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR ApMISSION NO. 6: Admit or deny that Plaintiff, in the course and scope of his work as a railroad worker and/or employee of Defendant, worked on and/or around Defendant's railroad, railway cars, engines and/or locomotives, shops, roundhouses, and transfer sheds where asbestos, and asbestos containing products were present. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records. Defendant has not been able to locate any information which would indicate when, or if, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST_F_QR ADMISSIQN_NQ. 7: Admit or deny that Defendant was aware during the periods of time Plaintiff worked for Defendant that airborne asbestos dust created a potential health hazard to those who breathed such dust. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records, Defendant has not been able to locate any information which would indicate when, or if. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant or which job sites and/or facilities at which Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit or deny that Plaintiff was employed by .Defendant or by a predecessor-in-interest of Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records, Defendant has not been able to locate any Information which would Indicate when, or if, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. ROUEST_FQR AOMISSIQMNQ. 9: Admit or deny that Plaintiff worked on and/or around Defendant's railroad in areas where asbestos-containing products were installed, used, prepared for use, replaced or repaired, stored or loaded, unloaded or transported. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records, Defendant has not been able to locate any information which would indicate when, or if, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit or deny that Defendant did not distribute any literature or warnings of any kind to its employees during the period of time Plaintiff worked for Defendant regarding the potential health hazards to those who breathe airborne asbestos dust. RESPONSE-. Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unlimited in scope and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records, Defendant has not been able to locate any information which would indicate when, or if. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit or deny that asbestos-containing products were placed on or used in the conduct of Defendant's railroad during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant including the following asbestos-containing products: PD5:64467.1 2 292-qof Qfr/ild 809-1 9S909Z9SU mmc $dl3Hd = "iJd 18 = 91 26-H-dW 1 a. any asbestos-containing product and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products and/or materials b. asbestos tiles c. asbestos millboard d. asbestos friction products e. asbestos pipecovering f. asbestos gaskets g- asbestos joint compound h. asbestos cement 1. asbestos block j- asbestos packing k. boilers 1. brake shoes m. brake linings n. clutch linings 0. firebrick p. refractorie&Zcastables q- turbines RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unlimited in scope and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records. Defendant has not been able to locate any information which would indicate when, or if. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit or deny that Defendant engaged in no abatement programs for the removal of asbestos at any time since 1965. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit or deny that Defendant was aware of the presence of and/or use of asbestos-containing products at the Railroad during the time period Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE; Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records, Defendant has not been able to locate any information which would indicate when, or if, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit or deny that Defendant became aware of the potential health hazards of airborne asbestos during the time periods in which Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records, Defendant has not been able to locate any information which would indicate when, or if, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO^_15: Admit or deny that Defendant did not continuously provide face masks to railroad employees working with or around asbestos from 1945 to the present for the purpose of protecting these employees from inhaling asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit or deny that during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, it was foreseeable that asbestos-containing products on Defendant's railroad would or could be removed, stripped, replaced or repaired at some time after installation. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records, Defendant has not been able to locate any information which would indicate when, or if, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit or deny that during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the Boiler Inspection Act, formerly 4S U.S.C. 23; and restated at 49 U.S.C. 20701 etseq. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. PD5;64467,l 3 292-qor Op/8 I d 608-1 9S90929SU mmC Sdl3Hd:UIOid 18=91 26-*l-aW A ; 11_/i. w ............... REQUEST FQR ADM1551QN NO. 18: Admit or deny that Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant within three (3) years of the date of discovering his asbestos-related condition or the existence of any asbestos-related causes of action. RESPONSE Defendant denies this Request because, after a thorough search of its records. Defendant Hat not been able to locate any information which would indicate when, or if, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, T9: Admit or deny that Defendant is liable for Plaintiff's asbestos related illness. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NQ. 2Q: Admit or deny that Defendant knew or had reason to know that the asbestos [was] in use on its railroad since the 1930's. RESPONSE: Defendant admits this Request. REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit or deny that Defendant consciously decided not to warn its employees of the dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit or deny that asbestos is still in use and/or in place on Defendants railroad. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NQ. 23: Admit or deny that Defendant no longer uses asbestos on its railroad. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR admission NO. 24: Admit or deny that Defendant acquired knowledge, during the 1930's of the Alton Railroad's responses to the Illinois Occupational Diseases Act. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request that it acquired knowledge In the 1930's. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit or deny that Defendant was a member of the National Claims Registry which reported information regarding injuries claims of railroad workers. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. 4 292-qof OP/Sl d 609-1 9S909296U SVSNnO $dl3Hd:UJ0Jd 15:91 ii-n-m Respectfully submitted, PHELPS DUN8AR \"N 1 J V^ BV LA W*V- t\- /V_.,, Deborah A. Newman Texas Bar No. 01237257 3040 Post Oak Bouievard Suite 900 Houston, TX 77056 (713) 626-1386 FAX (713) 626-1388 J THOMPSON COBURN `Signed by permission ihBy. L't^ry. Allan McD. Goodloe, jr.* Missouri Bar No. 23983 One Mercantile Center St. Louis, Missouri 63101 (314)552-6000 FAX (314) 552-7000 Attorneys for Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions has been sent via Federal Express and Facsimile to Kimberly A. Castles, Baron & Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100sDalla$, Texas 75219-4281 and via First Class Mail to ail parties of record on attached service list, this fay of March, 1997. .o PD5:6447.1 5 292-qop 07/02 d 609-1 9690929612 aVflNnO Sdl3Hds"-*d 26=91 26-71-dW