Document omKarB7bEyDZXBeJRqLxnjzmw

NO. 00-004978-F ALBERT JOSEPH BOBB; JAMES RICHARD DAVIS; ARNULFO M. GUERRA; JERRY KINSEL; and IVORY STAFFORD, V. GAF CORPORATION, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JAMES RICHARD DAVIS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO: PlaintiffJames Richard Davis, by and through his attorneys ofrecord, Holly J. Huart, Stephanie A. Finch, Baron &Budd, P.C., The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219. Pursuant to the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure, attached are Defendant Pharmacia Corporation's, formerlyknown as Monsanto Company, objections and responses to PlaintiffJames Richard Davis' First Set ofInterrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission Propounded on Premises Defendant Monsanto Company (f/k/a Monsanto Chemical Company). Respectfully submitted, ELLIS, CARSTARPHEN, DOUGHERTY & GOLDENTHAL P.C. State Bar No. 06575050 Douglas B. Dougherty State Bar No. 06031560 720 N. Post Oak, Suite 330 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 647-6800 (713) 647-6884 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i 'rP I hereby-certify that on the ^ day ofJune, 2001, a copy ofthe foregoing was sent by United States certified mail/retum receipt requested and/or regular United States mail to all known counsel of record, as follows. Sephanie A. Finch Baron & Budd, P.C. The Centrum 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 G. JoeuEllis K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -2 Exhibit "1" I. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS, AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS 1. Defendant objects to InstructionNo. 1 seeking to require a particularmanner of production ofresponsive documents on the grounds that it incorrectlystates what is require by the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and improperly seeks to impose an obligation beyond, ormore restrictive than that allowed under those rules. Defendant will comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in responding. 2. Defendant objects to Definition No. 1, attempting to define "Defendant", "you", `"your" and "your company" to include legally separate and distinct corporate entities who are not parties to this case on the grounds that such is overlybroad, undulyburdensome, harassing, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and goes beyond the scope ofdiscoveryunder the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Defendant objects to DefinitionNo. 2, attempting to define "document", etc. to include matters outside the scope ofdiscoveryunder the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure, specifically attempting to require production ofmaterials that are not within the Defendant's possession, custody or control, on the grounds that such is beyond the scope ofdiscovery and the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure, overly broad, undulyburdensome, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. 4. Defendant objects to DefinitionNo. 16 attempting to define the term "identify" with regard to a document to the extent such definition seeks to limit Defendant's right to identify a document by simply producing it, on die grounds that such seeks to impose obligations beyond the scope ofdiscovery, amounts to multiple interrogatories and subparts, is unduly burdensome and harassing. 5. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Interrogatories, specifically enumerated interrogatories nos. 1 through 20, including all subparts, in their entirety on the grounds that the number ofinterrogatories, counting discrete subparts, exceeds the allowable number under Rule 190.3(b)(3), Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. II. GENERAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS REGARDING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS In response to Plaintiffs requests for documents and Plaintiffs interrogatories in response to which K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\jMonsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -3- Defendant has referred to documents which may contain responsive information, subject to and without waiving the objections states herein, Defendant further responds that documents responsive to Plaintiffs requests were previously copied and provided to Plaintiffs counsel at their request in a prior separate action. Still subject to and without waivingDefendanfs objections, additional documents which may be responsive to some ofPlaintiffs Discoveryrequests are available for inspection andwill be made available at the offices ofDefendant's counsel at a mutually agreeable time upon reasonable request. Furthermore, subject to and without waiving Defendant's obj ections, as further documents that maybe responsive to Plaintiffs Discovery are obtained, if any, such will likewise be made available for inspection. III. ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.3, you are hereby advised that material or information which may be responsive is privileged, and has been withheld from this response on that basis. The privileged materials and information covered by this Assertion ofPrivileged Documents relate to each and every request for production in this litigation. The material and information withheldpursuant to this Assertion ofPrivileged Documents includes: (a) confidential communications made for the purpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services for the client between the client or a representative ofthe client and the client's lawyers or representatives of the lawyers; (b) confidential communications made for the purpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services for the client between the client's lawyers or lawyers' representatives; (c) confidential communications made forthe purpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services for the client by the client or a representative ofthe client, or the client's lawyers or the lawyers ' representatives, to a lawyer or a representative ofa lawyer representing anotherparty in an action that was pending at that time, and concerning a matter of common interest therein; (d) confidential communications made for the purpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services for the client between representatives ofthe client or between the client and a representative of the client; (e) confidential communications made for the purpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services for the client among lawyers and their representatives representing the same client; (f) returns or reports required by law to be made; K:\SoIutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -4- (g) trade secrets owned bythe client or other information ofa confidential and/orproprietarynature or which otherwise may be the proper subject of a request for confidentiality and/or protective order; (h) privileged communications to or from lawyers or lawyers' representatives which were created or made from the point at which the client consulted a lawyer in the defense of claims that one or more individuals were injured as the result ofexposure to asbestos fibers on a premises owned by Monsanto, otherthan in this particular lawsuit, and which communications concern litigation and claims other than the claims in this particular lawsuit; (i) privileged documents oflawyers or lawyers' representatives which were created ormade from the point at which the client consulted a lawyer in the defense of claims that one ormore individuals were injured as the result ofexposure to asbestos fibers on a premises owned by Monsanto, other than in this particular lawsuit, and which documents concern litigation and claims otherthan the claims in this particular lawsuit; (j) material prepared, ormental impressions developed, in anticipation oflitigation, including other litigation as described above, or for trial (including othertrials besides this case) by or for the client or the client's representatives, including the client's attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, employees, or agents; (k) communications made in anticipation oflitigation, including other litigation as described above, or for trial (including other trials besides this case) between a client and the client's representatives, or among the client's representatives, including the client's attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, employees, or agents; (l) work products ofan attorney or an attorney's representatives that contain the attorney's or the attorney's representative's mental impressions, opinions, conclusions or legal theories in this lawsuit, and in other lawsuits,-both pending and resolved, in which it has been alleged that one ormore individuals were injured as the result of exposure to asbestos fibers on a premises owned by Monsanto. For a description ofthe material and information withheldpursuant to this Assertion ofPrivileged Documents, a list ofprivileged documents is available upon appropriate request from Defendants' counsel of record. Finally, depending on the resolution ofthe General and Specific Objections made in this response, additional documents may also be withheld from discovery based upon this Assertion ofPrivileged Documents. In such event, Defendant will supplement the list of privileged documents. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -5- IV. DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories, orwho assisted in identifying, locating orretrieving documents responsive to Plaintiffs Requests forProduction, identify such person and include the length oftime employedby Defendant or other employer, and a yearby-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held. ANSWER: Responses to these interrogatories are based upon Defendant's corporate knowledge. As such, information responsive to some or all ofthese interrogatories has been accumulated over aperiod oftime and specific sources ofparticular information cannot be determined. These responses were prepared based upon available information by both outside legal counsel and in-house legal staff INTERROGATORY NO. 2: As to each ofthe following, please state the first year you first became aware, what you learned, and how Defendant learned that humans who inhale asbestos fibers can contract a. asbestosis b. lung cancer c. mesothelioma ANSWER: Defendant objects on the grounds thatthis interrogatoryis vague and overlybroad. Subject to and without waiving its objection, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant states that Monsanto has always diligently attempted to keep abreast ofthe published medical literature pertaining to asbestos-related diseases. This type ofinformation, and knowledge thereof, develops graduallyover time and is constantly evolving. Additionally, it is difficult, ifnot impossible, for anycorporate entityto pinpointwhen it "became aware" ofanyparticular issue; and Defendant is presently unable to state when Monsanto first became aware ofany suspected linkbetween asbestos exposure and anyphysical ailments. Moreover, Defendant, cannot agree with the premise that there is a causal connection between asbestos exposure and physical ailments without first knowing the details regardingthe specific ailment involved, the nature, duration and K:\SoIutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -6- intensity ofany alleged exposure, as well as the medical and workhistory ofanyspecific individual inwhom a causal connection between asbestos exposure and such ailments is alleged. More detailed information concerning when and by what means Monsanto may have become aware ofasbestos-related diseases is not within the personal knowledge ofcurrent employees ofDefendants, but some ofthis information may be obtained from a review of the documents which will be produced. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please list all trade organizations, trade associations and anyother industry-wide groups to which you belong(ed) (specificallyincludingbutnot limitedto the following groups: AmericanHygiene Foundation, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Chemical Manufacturer's Association, American Chemical Council, American Petroleum Institute, Texas Chemical Council, Ohio Safety Congress, National Safety Council, Asbestos Information Association, Industrial Medical Association) in whichinformation or documents relating to asbestos was discussed, disseminated, orpublished (including, but not limited to, the effects of exposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations at risk). As to each such group, please state: a. the inclusive dates of your membership and b. identify Defendant's employees or former employees or representatives who attended any of the meetings held by each organization, and c. the meetings they attended, and d. ifany individuals employed by Defendant or representing Defendant were members of committees or subcommittees ofany such organizations (such as, e.g., a medical advisory committee or legal committee), identify the committee or subcommittee on which such individual served and the position occupied on the committee, if applicable. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant to this claims orparties in this case, is notreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is not reasonably limited in scope to any relevant time frame, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard`s Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996). Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and non-specific in that the particular organizations inquired about cannot reasonably be identified. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant states that at this time it has no knowledge ofmembership in any such organization. Defendant further states that Monsanto has had a policy of paying for association K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -7- memberships for its professional employees. Gathering information on these individual memberships, committee memberships and specific meetings attended overthe last 50+ years is impossible. However, Defendant has found that individuals withinMonsanto's organization maintained the following memberships, but is not stating that the following organizations and/or associations actually published or disseminated documents or information relating to asbestos: Industrial Hygiene Foundation, member 1937-1954 Chemical Manufacturer's Association, current member and member ofthe Manufacturing Chemists Association since 1910 American Petroleum Institute, member 1955-1986 Texas Chemical Council, member (dates unknown) National Safety Council, member (dates unknown) Industrial Medical Association, member (dates unknown) National Safety Council, member since 1916 American Industrial Hygiene Association, member since 1957 American Congress ofGovernmental and Industrial Hygienists, member (dates unknown) GulfCoast Section ofAmerican Industrial Hygiene Association, member (dates unknown) Texas Safety Association, member (dates unknown) Texas Public Health Association, member (dates unknown) American Academy of Occupational Medicine, member (dates unknown) American Academy of Occupational Hygiene, member (dates unknown) Texas Chemical Council, member (dates unknown) American Medical Association, member (dates unknown) INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify Defendant's employees or former employees or representativeswho attended any proceedings, symposia, or conferences ofa scientific or medical or technical nature at which information or documents relating to asbestos was discussed, disseminated, orpublished (including, bywayofexample, the effects ofexposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals orhumans, populations at risk) and specifically including but not limited to the Seventh Saranac Symposium, 1952, and/orNew York Academy ofSciences, October 1964, and for each such individual, state the proceedings, symposia, or conferences attended and to whom within your corporate organization information concerning attendance at such proceedings, symposia, or conferences were reported, either verbally or in documentary form. ANSWER: Defendant objects to his interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing, and is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -8- and is not reasonably limited imscope as to any relevant time frame. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that gathering information on individual conferences attended by employees over the last 5 0+ years is impossible; however, information responsive to this request maybe contained within the documents which have been orwill be produced and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify each company from which you acquired asbestos-containing products used at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the years Plaintiffhas indicated he worked atDefendant's Premises at Issue and include in your response a description of each asbestos-containing product acquired and the dates each asbestos-containing product was acquired. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the grounds and to the extent that this interrogatory is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the parties or issues inthis case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited in time, is not limited to the asbestos-containing products used in units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked, and is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plaintiff allegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that, based upon the information available to it at this time, asbestos was present in a number ofmaterials used in and around its Texas facilities, including gaskets, packing, floor tiles, transit board, roofing materials, siding, and pipe and vessel insulation. Inasmuch as insulation containing asbestos was the only available insulating material foruse in certain applications at industrial plants such as Defendant's Texas facilities prior to the 1970's, Defendant generally used asbestos-containing insulation products in units where pipes and vessels required such insulation materials. Defendant believes that asbestos-containing insulation materials mayhavebeen used orinstalled at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. More detailed information concerning the dates when and locations where asbestos-containing products were used orinstalled in Defendant's Texas facilities is not known at the present time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifother responsive information becomes available. However, some ofthis information maybe derived or ascertained from an examination ofthe documents ofthis Defendant, which have been or will be made available to Plaintiffs in this case. Detailed information concerning trade or common names ofasbestos-containing products present in the Defendant's Texas facilities is either K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -9 unavailable at this time or maybe ascertained from the answer below or from documents which have been or will be produced in this case or from testimony of former employees or workers who worked on Defendant's Premises in Texas. Based upon the information which is available to it at this time, however, Defendant believes that Johns Manville and Owens-Coming were manufacturers ofsome ofthe insulation products that were present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. Defendant believes thatthe following were makers or distributors ofasbestos-containing materials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities: J. T. Thorpe (insulation materials); Lion Oil (Nokorode, a water-proofing mastic); GulfSupply (gaskets); Lamons (gaskets); Marine Petro (gaskets); John Crane (gaskets); Texas Marine (gaskets); Triplex (gaskets); and Flexitallic (gaskets). Defendant does not know, and is unable at this time to identify with anyreasonable degree ofaccuracy, the distributors ofotherpossible asbestos-containing materials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. More detailed information concerning the product names, what suchproducts were used for, sellers and/or manufacturers, locations where installed, when purchased and persons and entities who mayhave installed asbestos-containing products present in Defendant's Texas facilities is unavailable at this time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifother responsive information becomes available. However, some ofthis information maybe derived or ascertained from an examination ofthe documents ofthis Defendant which have been orwill be made available to Plaintiffs in this case and theburden ofsuch is substantially the same forPlaintiff as for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Ifany asbestos-containing materials located or formerly located at Defendant's Premises at Issue have been removed, encapsulated, or otherwise abated at any time, a. Identify each person or company that performed such abatement services; b. State the dates and locations within Defendant's Premises At Issue ofeach abatement procedure; and c. Describe what asbestos-containing materials were abated d. State how such asbestos-containing waste was stored at Defendant's Premises At Issue prior to disposal and how it was disposed of. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the claims in this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because itis not limited in time, orunits or areas within a facilitywhere Plaintiffallegedlyworked, is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plaintiffallegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery'.Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -10- Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant states that, in line with Defendant's corporate policy, its plants began the systematic removal ofasbestos-containing material in the 1970s. Removal was accomplished as asbestos-containing insulation materials had to be replaced on each pipe or vessel in each unit ofDefendant's facility. Where removal was inappropriate, Defendant encapsulated those materials and such were maintained in this encapsulated condition eitherby steel piping, paint or duct tape and, as such, were in a non-friable state. Further, information responsive to this request maybe ascertained from the documents that have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeveryperson known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge offacts relevantto this case concerning Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to the identification or location in your premises ofasbestos-containing products to which Plaintiffwas exposed or facts disputing the identification or location of such product or type of products. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory and the phrase "known to you, your agents, or contractors" to the extent it requires a response as to matters not specific to this particular defendant but as to other separate entities and would require this defendant to speculate as to the matters inquired of. Defendant further objects on the ground that this interrogatory is the subject ofa Request forDisclosure. Subj ect to and without waiving fee foregoing objections, Defendant states feat discovery and investigation offacts is ongoing. Defendant does not know that Plaintiffwas ever present orworked on its premises, the work he may have performed, what location he performed anywork, or fee exact details existing at the time Plaintiff was allegedly on Defendant's Premises. Further, Defendant refers Plaintiffto Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: With respect to Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeveryperson known to you, your agents, or contractors as being employed by you orhaving been employed by you whose duties and/orresponsibilities included interface or liaison with Plaintiffs employer or other contractors who installed, removed, maintained, repaired or replaced asbestos-containing products (including foremen or supervisors or Plaintiff) on Defendant's Premises at Issue (regardless ofjob title, including but not limited to "plant engineers," "project engineers," "project superintendents," "purchasing agents" orjob descriptions ofa similar nature) and specifically include those whose duties and responsibilities included the following: K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -11 a. entering into contracts orpurchase orders (including specifications) with such contractors b. allowing such contractors access to Defendant's Premises at Issue, c. overseeing or supervising or observing or monitoring such contractor activities or addressing any contractor questions or concerns relating to the work being performed d. providing or approving asbestos-containing materials to be used by such contractors e. inspecting or approving work done by such contractors or authorizing payment forwork done by such contractors. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory and the phrase "known to you, your agents, or contractors" to the extent it requires a response as to matters not specific to this particular defendant but as to other separate entities and would require this defendant to speculate as to the matters inquired of. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the claims in this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence; it is not limited or specific enough as to time, orunits or areas within a facility where Plaintiff allegedly worked, is not limited to the specific types ofproducts ormaterials with which or around which Plaintiffallegedlyworked and/or to whichPlaintiffwas allegedly exposed. Subject to and withoutwaiving the foregoing, Defendant responds that some ofthis information maybe obtained from the documents which have orwill be produced to Plaintiffs' counsel and the burden ofascertaining such is substantiallythe same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: If you have or have had an industrial hygiene or safety or medical department, please a. state the year such department was established, and whether it was established on the corporate level or at Defendant's Premises At Issue or both and b. with respect to Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeveryperson known to you, your agents, or contractors as being or having acted in a medical, safety, or industrial hygiene advisory capacity (regardless ofjob title), specifically including, but not limited to, physicians, medical directors, medical personnel, nurses, safety engineers or managers and industrial hygienists. (You should include in your answer those persons on a corporate level, regardless ofwhether they worked directly on Defendants' Premises if theyhad such responsibilities forworkers on Defendant's Premises At Issue, and identify such individuals as affiliated with the corporate headquarters of Defendant.) K:\Solutia\BobbVDiscovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.vvpd -12- ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, undulyburdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppressive and onerous. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant responds as follows: a. Defendant has operated a corporate medical department, which included industrial hygiene, since at least 1946. b. Jack Wheeler (deceased) Corporate industrial hygiene director 1947-1974 Jack T. Garrett (deceased) Corporate industrial hygiene director 1974-1985 Provided industrial hygiene services to Texas Cityplant from 1950s-1970s or 1980s Carl Bohl Corporate industrial hygienist 1966-1991 Bruce Eley Corporate industrial hygiene manager 1971-1987 John E. Fox Texas City industrial hygiene supervisor late 1950s -1985 Dr. R. Emmet Kelly (deceased) Corporate medical director (1946-1974) Dr. George Roush Corporate medical director (1975-1988) INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify all warnings given byDefendant, ifany, to anyone at Defendant's Premises At Issue (including the Plaintiff) regarding the hazards ofasbestos and the dangers inherent in the inhalation of asbestos fibers, and please include in your response: a. to whom these warnings were given (and specifically state if Plaintiff was among them), b. when they were given, if ever, and c. in what manner they were given (e.g. written pamphlets, signs posted, oral/group meeting, individual discussions, etc.) and K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -13 - d. state whether you have ever published, written, edited, or distributed any otherprinted materials, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging, advertising, signs, statements, or othermaterials containing anywarnings ofthe possibilityofinjury from the use or exposure to asbestos-containing products, and e. state whether any ofthe foregoing warnings were in Spanish or any other language besides English. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at a Monsanto facility or anyreasonable time period and is not limited to the specific unit or units where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant does not know that Plaintiff was everpresent or worked on its premises, the work he may have performed, what location heperformed any work, or the exact details existing at the time Plaintiff was allegedly on Defendant's Premises. However, althoughDefendant has no record ofanycommunications directlywith Plaintiff, Defendant states that it provided a safe workplace and appropriate safety information to workers on its premises at all relevant times. It is Defendant's position that Plaintiff, and all otherpersons at Defendant's facility, were not exposed to asbestos at levels then thought to be hazardous. The existence, nature and extent ofthe safetyinformation known by and available to, and the precautions taken for and by, Monsanto's employees and its contractors would have depended on the year when the work was performed, the type ofwork done, the location ofthe work performed, the particular contractor involved, the particular employee involved, the anticipated level ofairborne particles, the terms ofthe contractbetween Monsanto andthe contractor, and other factors. Generally, Monsanto's policies and safety measures evolved overthe years along with the increase in knowledge ofthe risks associated with exposures to dust and asbestos and Monsanto always attempted to stay abreast of pertinent information and comply with or exceed the minimum requirements for safetyfor all workers on its premises. Monsanto held regular impromptu safety meetings where appropriate safe work practices and the potential hazards ofmanyproducts and processes were discussed. However, it is not possible to state the first time awarning was given about the hazards ofasbestos exposure. Further, responsive information maybe obtained from documents which have been or will be produced in this case and the burden ofascertaining such is substantiallythe same forPlaintiffas it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: IfDefendant has or had or maintained in its possession anybooks, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials ofany kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings, please identify K.:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery .wpd -14- a. the individuals who received, maintained, reviewed and disseminated the information contained in such written materials, b. identify the written materials received, and c. state how and why these materials came into Defendant's possession. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is undulyburdensome, oppressive, harassing, overlybroad, and not reasonably limited to anyrelevant time frame or location. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the information sought maybe ascertainable from Defendant's records which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. There is no greater burden on the Plaintiffto obtain the information requested from those documents than it is for Defendant to do so. Additionally, due to the passage oftime and the passing offormer employees who mayhave knowledge relevant to this interrogatory, it is virtuallyimpossibleto know the individuals who received, maintained, reviewed or disseminated the information contained in suchwritten materials orwhen, how and whythese materials came into Defendant's possession. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please describe in detail yourmanufacturing or industrial use ofanyasbestos or asbestos-containing products at Defendant's Premises At Issue. Please include in your response a. the type of asbestos fiber used, b. from whom you purchased the asbestos fiber used, c. a description of the process in which the asbestos was used. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the grounds and to the extent that this interrogatory is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, seeks information that is notrelevant ormaterial to the parties or issues in this case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited in time, is not limited to the asbestos-containing products used in units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked, and is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plaintiff allegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that, based upon the information available to it at this time, asbestos was present in a number ofmaterials used in and around its Texas facilities, including gaskets, packing, floor tiles, transit board, roofing materials, siding, and pipe and vessel insulation. Inasmuch as insulation containing asbestos was the only available insulating material for use in certain applications at industrial plants such as Defendant's Texas facilities prior to the 1970's, Defendant generally used asbestos-containing insulation products in units where pipes and vessels required K:'SolutiaVBobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -15- such insulation materials. Defendant believes that asbestos-containing insulation materials mayhave been used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. More detailed information concerning the dates when and locations where asbestos-containingproducts wereused orinstalled in Defendant's Texas facilities is not known at the present time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifotherresponsive information becomes available. However, some ofthis information maybe derived or ascertained from an examination ofthe documents ofthis Defendant, which have been or will be made available to Plaintiffs in this case. Detailed information concerning trade or common names ofasbestos-containingproducts present in the Defendant's Texas facilities is either unavailable at this time or maybe ascertained from the answer below or from documents whichhave been or will be produced in this case or from testimony of former employees or workers who worked on Defendant's Premises in Texas. Based upon the information which is available to it at this time, however, Defendant believes that Johns Manville and Owens-Coming were manufacturers ofsome ofthe insulation products that were present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. Defendant believes that the following were makers or distributors ofasbestos-containing materials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities: J. T. Thorpe (insulation materials); Lion Oil (Nokorode, a water-proofing mastic); GulfSupply (gaskets); Lamons (gaskets); Marine Petro (gaskets); John Crane (gaskets); Texas Marine (gaskets); Triplex (gaskets); and Flexitallic (gaskets). Defendant does not know, and is unable at this time to identifywith anyreasonable degree ofaccuracy, the distributors ofother possible asbestos-containing materials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. More detailed information concerning theproductnames, what such products were used for, sellers and/or manufacturers, locations where installed, when purchased and persons and entities who may have installed asbestos-containing products present in Defendant's Texas facilities is unavailable at this time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifother responsive information becomes available. However, some ofthis information may be derived or ascertained from an examination ofthe documents ofthis Defendant which have been or will be made available to Plaintiffs in this case and the burden ofsuch is substantiallythe same forPlaintiff as for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify by name and location each plant, facility, location, or premises owned, operated, or controlled by you in which asbestos-containing products were assembled, stored, used, prepared for use, installed, or fabricated during the Time Period At Issue. For each plant, facility, location, orpremises listed as responsive to the above request, specify a. the functional dates for each plant, facility, location, or premises and b. the period during which asbestos-containing materials were stored, used, prepared foruse, installed or fabricated. K.\Solutia\Bobb\Discoveiy\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -16 ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties inthis case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveiyofadmissible evidence, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one ormore ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-MartCorp. v. Sanderson, 937S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996), and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/orto the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed and is not limited to areas or units where Plaintiffallegedlyworked. Subject to and withoutwaivingthe foregoing objections, with regard to Defendants' Texas facilities, please see responses to interrogatories nos. 5 and 12. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: For anyofDefendant's Premises At Issue, during the Time Period At Issue, ifyou, your affiliates, subsidiaries, orpredecessors), arranged for any ofyour employees, labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors, industrial hygienists, or any otherparty, whether directly employed by you or otherwise, to count or measure quantity, quality or threshold limit values or concentrations ofasbestos dust or particles or other dust at any ofyour plants, facilities, locations, orpremises where asbestos or asbestos-containing products were used, assembled, installed, or removed, please describe such tests and indicate a. the results obtained, b. by whom such tests were performed and c. identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofevery person known to you, your agents, or contractors as the person most knowledgeable concerning such tests and their results. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory is broad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, includingonormoreof Loftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing obj ections. Defendant responds as follows. Dust monitoring and air sampling were conducted at Defendant's Texas plants and laboratory analyses ofair K:\SoIutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -17- samples were performed. Defendant purchased a Bausch & Lomb dust counter in 1947 for the purposes ofair sampling to determine working conditions at its facilities. In lateryears, a phase contrastmicroscope and an electron microscope were purchased and similar analyses were done. Air sampling, monitoring, and industrial hygiene programs increased in the later years along with the increased indications in the published literature regarding the potential health risks from long-term exposure to given levels ofairborne particles, including asbestos, and the publication ofgovernmental guidelines regarding airborne particles, including asbestos. Industrial hygienists at Monsanto's Texas facilities and Monsanto's corporate industrial hygienists would have collected the dust samples priorto the early 1970's. Samples would have been sent to outside laboratories for analysis using particle counting methods. Starting in the early 1970's, when asbestos fibers wouldbe counted usingphase contrast lightmicroscopy, samples were sent to Monsanto's physical science center at its John F. Queenyplant for analysis. The results ofthe monitoring and sampling performed always revealed safe and acceptable levels ofairborne particles at Defendant's facilities. Further, to the extent the information can be ascertained from Defendant's documents in this case, Defendant refers Plaintiff to those documents pursuant to TRCP 197.2(c). INTERROGATORY NO. 15: For the Time Period At Issue, ifyou provided or caused to be provided any safety equipment or medical programs (including, but not limited to, masks, respirators, other breathing devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, area air filtration systems, and area exhaust systems or barriers or enclosures or medical monitoring program, medical examination program, or other medical or safety program) to employees, contractors, or invitees at any ofyourplants, facilities, locations, or premises where asbestos and asbestos-containing products were manufactured, used, assembled, installed, or removed, please indicate a. when such was first provided to your employees, contractors, and/or invitees and to whom, b. under what circumstances such were provided, and c. state whether you conducted safety meetings discussing the hazards ofasbestos with employees, contractors, or invitees at any ofDefendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, and if so, when and what was discussed, and d. identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofevery person known to you, your agents, or contractors as the person most knowledgeable concerning such equipment and programs and their provision. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad, undulyburdensome, overreaching and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not limited to the specific units or areas where Plainti ffallegedly worked or any reasonable scope of locations. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd -18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that, generally. Defendant's policies and safetymeasures have evolved over the years alongwith the increase in knowledge ofsuspected dust and asbestos inhalation hazards. The contractors hired by Defendant held themselves out to be experienced and competent contractors familiar with the work involved, the risks attendant thereto, the safety equipment necessary for the work to be performed, and the regulations and standards governing the performance oftheir work. Defendant's contractors also were required by contract to complywith all applicable laws and regulations relating to dust and airborne asbestos. As such. Defendant relied on those contractors to provide the requisite and appropriate guidance, safety measure and safety equipment when working with and around asbestos-containing materials. Defendant is unable at this time to provide anymore reasonably detailed answer to this interrogatory, which spans several decades in time, because the existence, nature and extent ofprecautions taken orto be taken, and the equipment issued or to be issued, would depend upon the year when anywork involving asbestos-containingmaterials was performed, the type of work performed, the location where the work was performed, the particular contractor or employee involved, the anticipated level ofairborneparticulates, the terms ofthe contract between Defendant and the contractor, and other factors. Defendant can state, however, based upon information available to it at this time, since before it acquired its first plant in Texas from the United States Government in 1946, it recommended dust masks and made them available to workers on its premises who worked in dusty conditions. By no later that 1950, Defendant provided respirators approved by the U.S. Bureau ofMines and later, NIOSH, to persons working in dusty conditions. Later, Defendant further increased its safety and industrial hygiene programs and personnel along with increased emphasis and warnings concerning dust and asbestos-containing materials. Further, to the extent such are considered responsive. Defendant further states that during relevant times it required periodic medical exams and chest x-rays for its workers, and also, in the 1960's, Dr. Emmett Kelly, corporate medical director, surveyed for the incidence ofcertain illnesses in its employees in connection with potential exposures to asbestos. See also responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 14. Should more specific information responsive to this interrogatory be discovered, this answerwill be supplemented in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. For further response, responsive information may be obtained from documents which have been or will be-produced to Plaintiffs counsel in this case and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state for each ofDefendant's Premises At Issue, all relevant State and Federal regulations, laws, statute, mandates, or other authoritypertaining to industrial hygiene, safety, and health ofwhich you were aware during the Time Period At Issue that governed, controlled, or applied to exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containingproducts, abatement or removal ofasbestos-containingproducts, and transportation of asbestos containing waste from such removal or abatement activities. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory is overlybroad, K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -19- unduly burdensome, overreaching and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not limited to the specific units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked or any reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive information may be obtained from documents which have been orwill be produced to Plaintiffs counsel in this case and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same forPlaintiffas it is forDefendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: For any ofDefendant's Premises At Issue, detail every occasion during the Time Period At Issue when any state, federal, or local regulatory agency, commission, or other examiner inspected or visited any ofyourplants, facilities, locations, orpremises where asbestos and asbestos-containing products were used, manufactured, assembled, installed, or removed to ascertain whether you were in compliance with relevant state, federal, or local health and safety regulations. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad, undulyburdensome, overreaching and is notreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not limited to the specific units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked or any reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive information maybe obtained from documents which have been orwill be produced to Plaintiffs counsel in this case and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same forPlaintiffas it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: If, before 1980, you had received notice that any individual or individuals had claimed for alleged injury against you resulting from exposure to asbestos, state for each: a. The name and address of the claimant b. ( A description of the claim c. The name and address of the attorney representing such claimant. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. K:\SoIutia\Bobb\DiscoverytMonsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -20- 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). Additionally, Defendant objects on the grounds that such request is not reasonably limited or specific as to anyrelevant time, facility, orunit where plaintiffallegedly worked or any other relevant location. Subject to andwithoutwaiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that to the best ofits current knowledge, the first claim ofthis type inquired ofwas a worker's compensation claim filed by aworker in its Springfield, Massachusetts plant alleging some type of asbestos-related injury on August 15,1979. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Ifyou contend that you did not own or operate or control the Defendants' Premises during the Time Period At Issue, or ifyou contend you are not liable in the capacity alleged in the most recentpetition, describe in detail the facts supporting your contention and include a detailed corporate historyofDefendant and its ownership, sale, acquisition, or divestiture or anyofDefendant's Premises AtIssue and anyrelevant mergers, acquisitions, consolidation, or other events ofsimilarnature that you believe bear on the issue of ownership, control, assumption ofliabilities for acts occurring on Defendant's Premises AtIssue during the Time Period At Issue and identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofevery person known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge of facts relevant to this issue. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Subj ect to these objections, with regard to ownership and operation ofthe plant at issue, Defendant states that based upon the Time Period At Issue i.e. 1969-1975,1977-1979 and 1981-1983, this interrogatory is not applicable. With regard to the issue of"control," Defendant acknowledges that it had the right in general terms to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant, to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines, order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports, but denies that it had the right to control the means, methods, and details of independent contractors' work. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Ifyou contend that venue is not proper, identify bymunicipality and countythe location you contend is yourprincipal place ofbusiness within this state for purposes ofvenue, as well as your next three most significant business locations within this state. Ifyou do not contend that any ofyour locations are a principal place ofbusiness, identifyup to four ofyour places ofbusiness where yourhighest level decision makers within this state work. ANSWER: As to that portion ofthis interrogatoryinquiring ofDefendant's "next three most significant business K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discoveiy\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -21 - locations," Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and goes beyond the permissible scope ofdiscoveryunder the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Defendant has filed a motion to transfer venue denying the county ofsuit is a proper county for venue purposes and it is Plaintiffs' burden to establish proper venue. Discoveryis ongoing and Defendant will supplement this response as may be appropriate. V. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all ordering, sales, and shipping documents pertaining to the purchase or acquisition of asbestos-containing products for use at Defendant's Premises at Issue at any time. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to the claim made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the relevant time period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility, is not limited to areas orunits within Defendant's plantwherePlaintiffallegedlyworked or to the specific materials to which Plaintiff alleges he was exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents that relate to abatement ofasbestos or asbestos-containingmaterials at Defendant's Premises At Issue and transportation of asbestos-containing waste. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad, undulyburdensome, over reaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant ormaterial to the claims in this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not limited in time, is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffs allegedlyworked, is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plaintiffallegedlyworked and/or to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed. Subjectto and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -22- responds that documents responsive to this request maybe included in the documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all records identifying contractors and/or the employees ofcontractors who were on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to gate records, sign-in logs, visitor's logs, identification badge or "brassing" procedures, fingerprinting, orother documents of a similar nature. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiffworked at aMonsanto facilityor anyreasonable timeperiod and is not limited to any reasonable scope oflocations. Subj ect to the foregoing obj ections, documents which may be responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all records pertaining to the methods and manner ofidentification ofindividuals entering and/or leaving Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at aMonsanto facility, or any reasonable time period, and is not limited to anyreasonable scope oflocations. Subject to the foregoing objections, no such records are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce the contract and work progress documents pertaining to the contractors who performed services at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including, but not limited to, invitations to bid, requests forproposals, bids, proposals, statements ofscope ofwork, work orders, specifications, blueprints, plans, acceptances, contracts, amendments, addenda, change orders, inspection reports, work logs or contractor logs, including but not limited to all ofthe contractor documents referring to work to be done, underway, or completed by Plaintiffs employer at Defendant's Premises At K:'SoIutia\Bobb\Discover>'\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -23- Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, undulyburdensome, over reaching, seeks information that is not relevant or material to Plaintiffs claims, is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is not limited to anyreasonable scope oflocations or the specific area that Plaintiffallegedlyworked or anyreasonable scope oftype ofcontractor or type of workbeingperformed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents which maybe responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents reflectingpayments made to Plaintiffs employer forwork contracted to do at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to authorizations for payment, invoices, bills, check requests, requisitions, canceled checks, or other documents of a similar nature reflecting payment for services rendered by Plaintiffs employer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, onerous, not limited to the specific time period Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility or any reasonable time frame, seeks documents which are not relevant to material to the claims made by Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, concerns contracts forwork whichPlaintiffis not alleging could expose a worker to asbestos or in areas orunits of the plant where Plaintiffdid not allege to have worked and is not reasonably limited to any relevant time frame or scope of locations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all photographs or videographic depictions or films depicting the use ofany safety precautions (such as containment areas, warning signs, etc.) taken to protect bystanders from the hazards ofairborne asbestos resulting from the use ofasbestos-containingproducts at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at a Monsanto facility, or any reasonable K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -24- time period, is not limited to any reasonable scope oflocations. Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing, documents which may be responsive to this request have been orwill be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents containing anywarnings concerningthe possibility ofinjuryresulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to the claims made by the Plaintiff, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and because it is not limited to any reasonable time frame or to documents that may have been posted at, issued by or at, circulated by or at, or maintained by or at Defendant's Texas facilities or Defendant's corporate headquarters to workers at Defendant's Texas facilities. Defendant further objects to anyrequirement, as aresult ofthe ambiguity attendant to the term "warnings" in this request, to review the entire company files and employee's files and library ofpublications it has for documents responsive to this request on the grounds that such a request is onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden on Defendant to search for, gather and produce the requested documents is far greater than anyreasonable probative value those documents would possess for Plaintiffin this case. Subject and limited to the foregoing, and without waiving the objections, responsive documents have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all photographs ofwarning signs or warning statements which are or have been in place at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLojtinv. Martin, 776S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), DillardDept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-Mart Corp v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or anyrelevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's K:\So!utia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -25- plant where Plaintiffallegedlyworked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents that relate to any inspections by any regulatory agency for the purpose ofascertaining whether health or safetyregulations were being followed or adhered to at any of your plants. This request specifically seeks any and all such documentation referring to dust hazards, including but not limited to asbestos in your plants. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is notreasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), DillardDept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-Mart Corp v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas orunits within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedlyworked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products and Texas facilities, have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: In the event that Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts or measurements ofany ofits plant or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, please produce any documents, memoranda, or otherwritings that in anywayreflect the results ofsuch studies or counts and actions taken as a result of such counts or studies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claim made by the Plaintiffand is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited in scope to Defendant's Texas facilities or the relevant time period when Plaintiffallegedlyworked atDefendant's facility, is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked or to the specific materials to which Plaintiffalleges he was exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and subj ect to the stated limitations, documents responsive to this request K:V3olutia\Bobb\Discovcry\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -26- relating to Defendant's Texas facilities have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents relating to inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company orhired byyour company, that included the taking ormeasuring of "dust counts." RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. V. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-Mart Corp. V. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or anyrelevant time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products and Texas facilities, have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents that indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to any requirement, as a result ofthis request, to review all ofits files and employee's files and the library ofpublications ithas and its employees mayhave for documents responsive to this request on the grounds that such a request in onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden on Defendant to search for, locate and produce responsive documents wouldbe undulyburdensome, onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden would far outweigh any reasonable probative value that any responsive documents mayprovide to the Plaintiffs in this case. Subj ect to and without waiving any ofits objections, responsive documents which Defendant has assembled as aresult ofprior document searches have already been produced to Plaintiffs counsel. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -27- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents supporting the legal theories and factual bases ofyour defenses set forth in your response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure under Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure 194.2, subparagraph (c). RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it invades the attorney workproduct exemption and attorney-clientprivilege. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, global, lacks the specificity required for a proper document request, and seeks to require the marshaling of evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Ifyou contend that Plaintiffwas not exposed to asbestos dust at Defendant's Premises At Issue, please produce the documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and seeks and would require production ofattorneyworkproduct and information protected bythe attorney-clientprivilege. Subject to and without waving the foregoing objections, defendant states that discovery and investigation offacts is ongoing and Defendant will supplement this response should more information be discovered. Defendant does not know thatPlaintiffwas everpresent or worked on its premises, the work he may have performed, what location he performed any work, or the exact details existing at the time Plaintiffwas allegedly on Defendant's premises. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request may be contained within the documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents used, referred to or relied upon in answering any Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and lacks the specificity required ofa proper document request. Subject to this objection. Defendant is unable to specifically identify such requested documents. However, documents containing some ofthe information supplied have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. K:\Solutia\Bobb'Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -28- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce any and all documents and other tangible things which refer to the document retention (and/or destruction) policy of Defendant, including the following: a. Any document retention and/or destruction policies forDefendant that pertain to documents and records, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. b. Any record retention and/or destruction, dumping, orpurgingpolicies forDefendant thatpertain to documents and records created, maintained or stored by electronic and/or magnetic means, including but not limited to records that have been microfilmed, microfiched, imaged, scanned, or stored on tapes, disks, diskettes, CD-rom, databases, etc. or on orwithin anycomputer hardware, backup system, download system, file dumping or other system ofinformation management, whether on-site or off-site, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited to anyreasonable orrelevant time frame, is overly broad, and to the extent it calls for the production ofmaterial protected from discovery under the attorney client privilege or work-product exemption. Subject to the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Please produce all documents, including but not limited to lists, inventories, indices, databases or printouts thereof, archives, storage inventories, logs, or other search aids that refer or relate to the existence, extent, type, organization, filing system, method of access or retrieval, and/or location of Defendant's documents (maintained or stored on-site or off-site) pertaining to any ofthe subj ect matter areas of Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous (Defendant cannot determine what documents are being sought), is overbroad, not limited to anyreasonable time period or subject matter, and to the extent it calls for production ofmaterial protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product exemption. K:\SoIutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -29 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce all books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials ofanykind or character that were received by you and that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, overlybroad, and not reasonably limited to any relevant time frame or location. Subjectto the foregoing objections, documents ofthe type requested have been orwill be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Pleaseproduce all documents that reflect, indicate or in anywayrelate to communications between you and anymanufacturer ofasbestos-containingproducts concerning orrelated to the asbestos contained in such products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to leadto the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), DillardDept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-Mart Corp v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or anyrelevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to the and without waiving the foregoing obj ections, responsive documents have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please produce all documents in your possession disseminated or published by any trade association that contain information relating to the hazards ofasbestos and all documents which refer to such documents and any documents pertaining to meetings ofsuch trade associations that were attended by any of your employees or representatives. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -30- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), DillardDept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-Mart Corp v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d429(Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/orto the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, while Defendant knows ofno such documents responsive to this request within its possession, custody or control, ifthere were any such documents theywouldbe contained in the documents whichhave been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce all of Defendant's safety meeting minutes that refer to the dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad and is not reasonably limited to any relevant time frame or location. Subject to and without waiving any ofits objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Please produce all documents related to the installation of asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overlybroad and is notreasonable limited to anyrelevant time frame and the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked. Subject to and without waiving any ofits obj ections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Please produce all documents related to the medical condition ofPlaintiffat any time during his K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -31- work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. This request specificallyincludes any and all x-rays, x-rayreports, medical notes and/or medical records ofany kind, annual physical forms, and any records relating to Plaintiffs health. RESPONSE: No such documents are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents related to Plaintiff, including but not limited to Plaintiffs work performance and/or personnel records at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: No such documents are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Please produce all documents that reflect or depict in anyway the layout ofDefendant's Premises AtIssue, including the location and dimensions ofall buildings and the location and placement ofasbestoscontaining products, and specificallyincluding all photographs, plats, maps, diagrams, blueprints, drawings, specifications or other architectural renderings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 931S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -32- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Please produce all demonstrative aids Defendant plans to use at trial in this matter. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require themarshaling ofevidence, seeks information protected bythe attorney client and/orwork product privileges and exemptions. Furthermore, this request is premature at this time; defendant has not yet determined which, if any, documents it will use at the time of trial. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Please produce all photographs ofasbestos products in place or asbestos-containing materials being installed, maintained, removed, replaced, repaired, or manipulated in any way at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevantto the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995),Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Please produce all documents relating to any individuals' claimed injury as a result ofexposure to asbestos at any facility ofDefendant, including, but not limited to, workers' compensation claims and any documentation going to or received from any insurance carrier pertaining to such claims, and any documentation pertaining to the disposition of such claims. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -33 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity, is undulyburdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, inviolation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Please produce all documents that in any way reflect corporate minutes, corporate records, departmental meetings or discussions, ormeetings with agents orcontractors that in anyway discuss, note, or table a discussion ofthe hazards ofasbestos orpotential hazards ofasbestos. The documents sought in this request include those produced and/or maintained at a corporate level by those responsible for supervising or advising personnel at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, lacks the requisite specificity for a properrequest, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard 'sDept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or anyrelevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Please produce all documents of corporate, board of directors, Defendant Premises representatives, departmental persons, task force, or other meetings ofmembers ofDefendant from 1940 until the last year ofthe Time Period At Issue that contain discussion orinformation concerning asbestos, asbestos-related health hazards, or asbestos-containing products. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -34- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, lacks the requisite specificity for aproperrequest, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W.2d491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-MartCorp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed orthe specific time period Plaintiffwas allegedlyonDefendant's premises. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Please produce all documents which will be used at the time oftrial, including all potential exhibits and those documents which may be used to cross-examine other witnesses or in rebuttal, and which you contend are relevant to anyofDefendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's most recently filed Answer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence, seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege and invades the attorney work product exemption. Furthermore, this request is premature at this time; Defendant has not yet determined which, if any, documents it will use at the time of trial. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Please produce documents between Defendant and any ofits worker's compensation insurance carriers or anyother insurance carriers regarding the hazards ofasbestos and asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to this claims made by the Plaintiffand is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent such documents are protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges and exemptions. Without waiving its obj ections, however, Defendant is not aware at this time ofany documents in its possession, custody or control that are responsive to this request. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -35- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Please produce documents between Defendant and any ofits insurance carriers relating to any inspections carried out by the insurance carrier in which asbestos or dust in general was mentioned, RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to this claims made by the Plaintiffand is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent such documents are protectedbythe attorney-client or work productprivileges and exemptions. Without waiving its objections, however, Defendant is not aware at this time ofany documents in its possession, custody or control that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Please produce a copy ofall regulations, orders, rales and/orpolicies which have been used relating to the safety of the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, unclear, overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claim made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the relevant time period when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility, is not limited to areas or units withinDefendant's facihtywhere Plaintiffallegedlyworked orto the specific materials to which Plaintiffalleges he was exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Please produce all documents which contain complaints by employees of Defendant at the Defendant's Premises At Issue regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims madeby the Plaintiffand K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -36- is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent such documents are protectedby the attorney-client orwork productprivileges and exemptions. Subject to and without waiving these objections, documents which maybe responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products, have been or will beproduced to Plaintiff5 s counsel and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce all documents which contain complaints byUnion representatives ofDefendant's Premises At Issue regarding safety conditions and workplace conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made bythe Plaintiffand is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent suchdocuments are protected bythe attorney-client orwork product privileges and exemptions. Subject to and without waiving these objections, documents which maybe responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products, have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce all documents, organizational charts orrosters which identifythe members ofthe management at the Defendant5 s Premises At Issue and their areas ofresponsibility during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to the claims made bythe Plaintiffand is notreasonablycalculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Please produce all documents which evidence Defendant5s net worth, including, but not limited to. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -3 7 all "10-K" forms filed for the last five (5) years. RESPONSE. Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad, overreaching and because Defendant is apublicly traded company and the documents requested are public records and available to the general public. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that documents other than Defendant's 10-K forms and/or annual report for the current year would be duplicative, redundant, cumulative, overlybroad, undulyburdensome, overreaching, onerous, oppressive and harassing. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce its Annual Reports for the requested years and its most current Form 10-K. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Please produce all documents which evidence Defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale, or transfer of ownership or liabilities relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: If you contend that you are not liable for any dangerous condition or activity taking place at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please produce all title documents supporting this contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and seeks and would require production ofattorney work product and information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendant further objects to the request and the phrase "the title documents" on the grounds that such is vague and fails to K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -38- identify the documents sought. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Ifyou contend that you did not own or control the facilities) during anyportion ofthe TimePeriod At Issue, please produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the purchase, sale, acquisitions, merger, or divestment ofcorporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment ofthe facility(ies); such documentation to include, byway ofexample and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 1 OK reports or other state or federal agency filings or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits ofyour corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require themarshaling ofevidence and seeks and would require production ofattorney work product and informationprotected bythe attorney-client privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing,based upon the TimePeriodAtlssuei.e. 1969-1975,1977-1979 and 1981-1983, this interrogatory is not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Ifyou contend that you have not been sued in the proper capacity as set forth in Plaintiffs latest petition, produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the history ofDefendant and any relevant purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment ofcorporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment ofthe facility(ies); such documentation to include, byway ofexample and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 1 OK reports or other state or federal agency filings, or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits ofyourcorporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and seeks and would require production of attorney work product and information protected by the attorney-client privilege. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -39- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44. Please produce all indemnity agreements, assignments ofliability, subrogation agreements and other similar documents relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue and liabilities arising from said ownership. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one ormore ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 931S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Ifyou contend Defendant' s Premises At Issue was asbestos-free during the Time Period At Issue, please produce all documents which support your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and seeks and would require production ofattorneywork product and information protected by the attorney-clientprivilege. Subject to andwithout waiving the foregoing. Defendant states that based upon Plaintiffs definition ofthe years at issue, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Ifyou contend that some or all ofDefendant's Premises AtIssue are asbestos-free, please produce all documents, including but not limited to, specifications, blue prints and drawings supporting your contention. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery, ivpd -40- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and seeks and would require production ofattorneywork product and information protected bythe attorney-clientprivilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant states that based upon Plaintiff s definition ofthe years at issue, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Please produce all documents relating to yourmanufacturing ofany asbestos or asbestos-containing products, orproducts to which any amount ofasbestos was added, for use at any ofDefendanfs facilities or for sale to others. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one ormore ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W, 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995),Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas orunits within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Please produce all documents relating to your use ofany asbestos containing materials, asbestos containing products or tools with which asbestos is used, for anyprocess takingplace at any ofDefendanf s facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -41 and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and / or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or anyrelevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedlyworked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Please produce all documents relating to your use, manipulation or handling ofasbestos in any industrial processes at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995),Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: Please produce all marketing and advertising materials related in anywayto your manufacturing ofasbestos or asbestos-containing materials or your use ofasbestos or asbestos-containing materials in your industrial processes. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. K.:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto`s responses to discovery.wpd -42 Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant' s plant where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Please produce all documents relating to boilers at Defendant's Premises At Issue. This request includes owner manuals, maintenance manuals, purchase orders and invoices. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatoiyon the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995),Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52. Please produce all documents relating to any audits you conducted or caused to be conducted at Defendant's Premises At Issue in order to review some aspect ofDefendant's safety program. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one ormore ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any K:'Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -43- relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: Please produce all documents provided by you to otherplants or facilities relating to safety in the industry, audit procedures ormeans to eliminate dust exposure, including, but not limited to asbestos dust, at industrial facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is vague, overlybroad, undulyburdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more of Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909S.W. 2d491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-MartCorp. v. Sanderson, 937S.W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Please produce depositions and trial transcripts ofyour current or former employees or other corporate representatives taken in anymatter involving an alleged injury or claimed property damage due to asbestos or insurance coverage for claims related to asbestos injury or property damage. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is vague, overly broad, undulyburdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more of Loftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). K:\SoIutia\BobbM3iscovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -44- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Please produce exhibit lists produced to you by any other counsel for plaintiffin other cases involved claim of injury or property damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is vague, overlybroad, undulyburdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more of Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). Subject to an without waiving the foregoing objections, atthis time, no such documents are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Please produce all correspondence from you to Plaintiffs employer and from Plaintiffs employer to you during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague since Plaintiffs employer has not been identified, overlybroad and not reasonably limited to anyreasonable scope oftime, location, subject matter or a specific location or the specific time period Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, no such documents are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in any way any decision or discussion related to the cessation of the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products in any of your facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad, undulyburdensome, vague and not reasonably limited in scope as to time, location, type ofproduct, or type ofwork. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant responds that documents responsive to this request may be included in the documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiff s counsel and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -45 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in any way any catalog or index or subscriptions or holdings ofany library or otherresearch repository ofDefendant containing magazines, journals, books, publications or otherdocuments relating to asbestos (including but not limited to, the effects of exposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations at risk, etc.) RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request onthe grounds that it is vague and ambiguous (Defendant cannot determine what documents are being sought), is overbroad, not limited to anyreasonable time period or subject matter, and to the extent it calls for production ofmaterial protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product exemption. Defendant objects to anyrequirement, as aresult ofthis request, to review all ofits files and employee's files and the library ofpublications ithas and its employees may have for documents responsive to this request on the grounds that such a request in onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden on Defendant to search for, locate and produce responsive documents would be unduly burdensome, onerous, oppressive andharassing and the burden would far outweigh any reasonable probative value that any responsive documents mayprovide to the Plaintiffs in this case. Subject to and without waiving any ofits obj ections, responsive documents which Defendant has assembled as a result ofprior document searches have already been produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Please produce all inventory, stock-on-hand, warehouse or other documents pertaining to asbestos-containing products that were stored, maintained, stockpiled, or keptby Defendant for use at any facility of Defendant, including Defendant's Premises At Issue, at any time. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, anyrelevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's facility where Plaintiff allegedly worked. K.:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -46- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Please produce any letters, affidavits, orstipulations concerning authenticityofany ofDefendant's documents provided by you in any other case involving claim ofinjury orproperty damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatoryon the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). VI. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND FURTHER REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, and/or machinery requiring the use ofasbestos or asbestos-containing products were utilized on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containinginsulation materials were used orinstalled atDefendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e. 1969-1975,1977-1979 and 1981-1983. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. K:\Solutia\Bobb'Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -47- RESPONSE: Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that plaintiffwas everpresent on Defendant's premises. Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e. 1969-1975,1977-1979 and 1981-1983. To the extent any other portion of this request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Ifyour response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support yourresponse, including any documents whichyou believe support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence, seeks and would require production of attorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that you have no airmonitoring for asbestos taken on Defendant's Premises AtIssue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad and not limited to any unit or area within the facility where Plaintiffallegedly worked or any otherreasonable scope oflocations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62 (sic) : Admit that results ofair monitoring for asbestos taken on Defendant's Premises AtIssue during the Time Period At Issue indicate Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.\vpd -48- RESPONSE: Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that plaintiffwas everpresent onDefendant's Premises. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, the remainder of this request is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Ifyourresponse to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which supportyour response, including any documents which youbelieve support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence, and to the extent it seeks and would require production ofattorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited in time to the specific period in time when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facility or any other reasonable time frame, or a specific facility or area within the facility Plaintiffallegedly worked or any other reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds thatbased on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that Defendant's employees were working with asbestos-containing materials atDefendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containinginsulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined "timeperiod at issue," i.e. 1969-1975,1977-1979 and 1981-1983. To the extent any other portion of this request has not been addressed, same is denied. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -49 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that contractors were working with asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed atDefendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containingproducts were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e. 1969-1975,1977-1979 and 1981-1983.Tothe extent any other portion of this request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Defendant was aware ofthe presence ofasbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant admits that it was aware ofthe presence ofand/or the use ofcertain asbestos products during certain portions fo plaintiffs defined "time period at issue". Defendant denies that asbestos-containingproducts were utilized throughout the defined "timeperiod at issue," i.e. 1969-1975,1977-1979 and 1981-1983. To the extent anyportion ofthe request has not been addressed, then same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Defendant was aware ofthe use ofasbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed atDefendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant admits that it was aware ofthe presence ofand/or K:\SoIutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -50- the use ofcertain asbestos products during certain portions fo plaintiffs defined "time period at issue". Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue,"i.e. 1969-1975,1977-1979and 1981-1983. To the extent anyportion ofthe request has not been addressed, then same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that you did notpost awarning, caution orhazard signs concerning asbestos atDefendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subj ect to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that you did not post a warning, caution or hazard signs in Spanish concerning asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE. Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that you specified the use ofasbestos-containingmaterials atDefendant's Premises At Issue prior to or during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -51- utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e. 1969-1975,1977-1979 and 1981-1983. To the extent any other portion of this request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1950s. RESPONSE: Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1960s. RESPONSE: Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1970s. RESPONSE. Defendant admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulationproducts foruse at its facilities in 1972. Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art guidelines and principals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos containing materials in place in a non-fiiable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was most likely some amount of asbestos containing material still present at Defendant's Premises. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -52' REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1980s. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Defendant admits that, consistentwith governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art guidelines and principals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos containingmaterials in place in a non-fiiable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was most likely some amount of asbestos containing material still present at Defendant's Premises. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use atDefendant's Premises At Issue in the 1990s. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, beyond the specific time frame when Plaintiff allegedlyworked at Defendant's facility, and beyond the Plaintiffs own defined "timeperiod at issue" i.e. 1969-1975,1977-1979 and 1981-1983. Subjectto and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any asbestos-containing products are still being specified, installed or applied at Defendant's Premises and admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Although Defendant sold the facility inquired about to Sterling Chemicals in 1986, Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art guidelines and principals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos-containingmaterials in place in anon-fiiable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it byremoval, at the time inquired ofthere was probably some amount ofasbestos-containing material still physically present at such facility. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that you did not provide to contractors working at Defendant's Premises At Issue health and safetyprocedures relating to the use ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery'Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd -53 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedlydone by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that you did notprovide to contractors working at Defendant's Premises At Issue health and safetyprocedures in Spanish relating to the use ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited orspecific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that you did not conduct with contractors health and safety meetings relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that you did not conduct with contractors health and safety meetings in Spanish relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery-wpd -54' REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that you did not take any steps to protect contractor employees from exposure to asbestos on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor involved, areas or units where Plaintiffallegedlyworked and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: Ifyour response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support yourresponse, including any documents which you believe support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and to the extent it seeks and would require production ofattorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections documents responsive to this request may be contained within the documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that asbestos is still in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request as overly broad, beyond the specific time frame when Plaintiff allegedlyworked at Defendant's facility, and beyond the Plaintiff's own defined "time period at issue" i.e. 1969-1975,1977-1979 and 1981-1983. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any asbestos-containing products are still being specified, installed or applied at Defendant's Premises and admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Although Defendant sold the facilityinquired about to Sterling Chemicals in 1986, Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art K:'Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd '55 guidelines and principals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos-containing materials in place in anon-friable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it byremoval, at the time inquired ofthere was probablysome amount ofasbestos-containing material still physically present at such facility. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that asbestos is still in place at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request as overlybroad, beyond the specific time frame when Plaintiff allegedlyworked atDefendant's facility, andbeyond the Plaintiffs own defined "time period at issue" i.e. 1969-1975,1977-1979 and 1981-1983. Subjectto and without waivingthe foregoing,Defendant denies that anyasbestos-containingproducts are still being specified, installed or applied at Defendant's Premises and admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Although Defendant sold the facility inquired about to Sterling Chemicals in 1986, Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art guidelines and principals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos-containing materials in place in a non-friable and encapsulated staterather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was probably some amount ofasbestos-containing material still physically present at such facility. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that the United States government has contracted with Defendant forwork at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad and is not reasonably limited in scope as to time, or type ofactivity. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that the United States government paid Defendant more than $ 10,000 for the work it contracted with Defendant for work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,wpd "5 6- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad and is not reasonably limited in scope as to time, or type ofactivity. Subjecttoandwithoutwaivingtheforegoingobjections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that Defendant owned Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that it owned its Texas City facility during the Time Period At Issue, i.e. 19691975, 1977-1979 and 1981-1983. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that Defendant operated Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Subj ect to these objections, Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform theirwork in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details ofthe independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admit that you did not conduct air monitoring for the presence ofasbestos dust during the time period in question. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -57- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad, not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiffor any other reasonable scope of time and location. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, you did not conduct airmonitoring tests for levels of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit that you were aware that business invitees at Defendant's Premises At Issue did not understand English. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, persons inquired of, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that you did not take any steps to ascertain whether business invitees at Defendant's Premises At Issue understood English. RESPONSE. Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, persons inquired of, location and the type ofwork allegedly doneby Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. K:'Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd "58- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that you did not to provide safety orientations to contractor employees prior to their commencing work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited orspecific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that you did not to provide safety orientations in Spanish to contractor employees prior to their commencing work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to remove asbestos-containing materials from Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to replace asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -59- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subjectto these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35. Admit that youhired or contracted with Plaintiffs employerto install asbestos-containingmaterials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to maintain asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the informationknown or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to do new construction work at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.vvpd -60- Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known oreasily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38. Admit that you hired Plaintiffs employer to do "turnaround" work at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admit that you communicated with Plaintiffs employer concerning the work to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what isbeing asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects as overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft andDefendant relied on them and their employees to perform theirwork in a safe and efficient manner oftheirchoosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admit that you instructed Plaintiffs employer concerning the work to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. K:VSoIutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery,ivpd -61 ~ RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects as overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendantto admit or denythat Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform theirwork in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: Admit that you instructed Plaintiffs employer concerning how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects as overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedlydone byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit ordeny that Plaintiffwas everon defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform theirwork in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that ithad the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that you showed Plaintiffs employer how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -62 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects as overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: Admit that your specifications indicated to Plaintiffs employerhow thework was to performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits ownplant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: Ifyour response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any document showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. _63K:\Solutia\Bobb'>Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence, and to the extent it seeks and would require production of attorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited in time to the specific period in time when Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility or any other reasonable time frame, or a specific facility or area within the facility Plaintiffallegedly worked or any other reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendantresponds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admit that your specifications indicated to Plaintiffs employerwhat materials were to be used in performing the work on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what specifications are being referred to, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these obj ections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit ordenythatPlaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports, and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details ofthe independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: Ifyour response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support yourresponse, including any documents which you believe support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovety\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -64- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence, and to the extent it seeks and would require production of attorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited in time to the specific period in time when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant' s facility or any otherreasonable time frame, or a specific facility or area within the facility Plaintiffallegedly worked or any other reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendantresponds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer or supervisor when to start work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas everon defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manneroftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer or supervisor when to stop work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery'Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -65- general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer what materials to use when doing the work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that ithad the general right to orderwork stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer in what order the work should be done. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subj ect to these objections. Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. K:\Solutia\BobbYDiscovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -66- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employerthe deadline bywhich the work onDefendanfs Premises At issue was to be completed. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendantto admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admit that you had the power to correct the work performed by the employees ofPlaintiff s employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -67' REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: Admit that you had the power to requirethat the work performed by the employees ofPlaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue be redone to your satisfaction. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or denythat Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and overseethe condition ofits ownplant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: Admit that you had thepowerto stop the workperformedbythe employees ofPlaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subj ect to these objections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficientto enable Defendant to admit or denythat Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits thatit had the general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheirchoosing. Defendant denies that it had the rightto control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: Admit that you observed the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -68 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had thepower, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits ownplant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it hadthe general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that ithad the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: Admit that you inspected the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subj ect to these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general rightto orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: Admit that you approved the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -69- objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheirchoosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: Admit that you retained the powerto control all phases ofworkbeingperformed bythe employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny that Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discovery\Monsanto's responses to discovery.wpd -70- CORPORATE VERIFICATION STATE OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS Karen L. Knopf, being duly sworn, deposes and states that she is Assistant Secretary of Solutia Inc., that she verifies the foregoing answers to interrogatories contained within "DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JAMES RICHARD DAVIS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORlES,REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUESTSFOR ADMISSION" (in Cause No. 00-004978-F,Albert Joseph Bobb, etal vs. GAFCorporation, et al; in the l I6,h Judicial Districr Court of Dallas County, Texas) for and on behalf of Pharmacia Corporation, formerly known as Monsanto Company, and is duly authorized to do so; that some or all ofthe facts and matters set forth therein are not within the personal knowledge ofthe deponent; that the facts and matters set forth therein have been assembled by authorized agents ofPharmacia Corporation, formerly known as Monsanto Company; and that deponent is informed that the facts and matters set forth therein are true. Karen L. Knopf Assistant Secretary, Solutia Inc. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this a^dav of "NOTARY SEAL" Julia a. Fortney, Notary Public St. Charles County, State of Missouri My Commission Expires 6/23/2001 Notary Pub 2001. M:\CCMAJL DOCUMENTS\MONSANTO.DOC CAUSE NO. 00-004978-F ALBERT JOSEPH BOBB; JAMES RICHARD DAVIS; ARNULFO M. GUERRA; JERRY KINSEL; and IVORY STAFFORD VS. GAFCORPORATION, ETAL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY I hereby certify that on the^jPday of June, 2001, a true and correct copy of the following documents were sent to counsel for Plaintiffs, HollyJ. Huart, Stephanie A. Finch, BARON&BUDD, P.C., The Centrum, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219, byU.S. Certified Mail, return receipt requested, and to all other known counsel of record by regular U.S. Mail: 1. Defendant Pharmacia Corporation's, formerlyknown as Monsanto Company, Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Disclosure Under Rule 194; and, 2. Defendant Pharmacia Corporation's, formerlyknown as Monsanto Company, Objections and Responses to PlaintiffJames Richard Davis' First Set oflnterrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission. Respectfully submitted. ELLIS, CARSTARPHEN, DOUGHERTY & GOLDENTHAL, P.C. I G. Joe Ellis State Bar No. 06575050 Douglas B. Dougherty State Bar No. 06031560 720 N. Post Oak, Suite 330 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 647-6800 (713) 647-6884 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY K:\Solutia\Bobb\Discoveiy\CWD.vvpd -2-