Document peXg04YJvQRxVOD361kdvKN7a

CAUSE NO. CC-00-06630-E PHILLIP EDWARD LAKE, JR., ET AL. VS. GAF CORPORATION, ET AL. IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO: Plaintiff, Phillip Edward Lake, Jr., by and through his attorney of record, D. Leanne Jackson, Baron & Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219. COMES NOW, Defendant Union Carbide Corporation and makes and serves this its Objections and~Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Production and Request for Admissions. Respectfully submitted, DeHAY & ELLIS TON, L.L.P. 3500 Bank of America Plaza 901 Main Street Dallas, TX 75202 (214)210-2400 (214) 210-2500 (telecopier) vGARY D. ELLISTON (ate Bar No. 06584700 PA^L E. HAMILTON State Bar No. 08838800 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify, that on this date, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production was forwarded via certified mail, retum-receipt-requested to counsel for Plaintiff, D. Leanne Jackson, Baron & -2- GENERAL OBJECTION Union Carbide objects to Plaintiffs' entire set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for admission to the extent that they call for information about Union Carbide facilities or premises where the plaintiffs never worked. Over the course of its business. Union Carbide owned or operated a numerous amount of locations and premises. Ascertaining plant and employee practices for each Union Carbide facility or premises, even during a specified time frame, would be unduly burdensome, if possible at all. Moreover, the nature of the processes and work conducted at Carbide's various plants and facilities differed considerably, and information relating to another plant or facility is not necessarily relevant. OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS OBJECTION NO. 1: Union Carbide objects to the instructions and definitions supplied by Plaintiffs with regard to these Interrogatories on the grounds that the definitions are overly broad, vague and often inconsistent with the normal common usage and meaning of such words. As a result, these definitions constitute an unreasonable expansion of the Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission themselves. Union Carbide has therefore responded to this discovery consistently with the common understanding of the language used in the Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission. -3- DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS OBJECTION NO. 2: Union Carbide objects to Plaintiffs' definitions and instructions to the extent those definitions and instructions request Union Carbide to make any inquiry beyond that which is required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or to the extent they seek to include documents not within Union Carbide's custody or control. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS OBJECTION NO. 3: Union Carbide objects to the term "facility" as defined because it renders these Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission over broad and not reasonably limited to matters which are relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or to the discovery of matters which are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Because Union Carbide has, over the years, owned or operated a variety of locations and premises, and because it appears that Plaintiffs claims against Union Carbide are based on his alleged presence at Union Carbide's Institute facility, answers contained herein pertain to solely to Union Carbide's Institute facility. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS OBJECTION NO. 4: Union Carbide objects to the term "Time Period at Issue" as defined because it renders these Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission over broad and not reasonably limited to matters which are relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or to the discovery of matters which are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. According to Plaintiffs work history, he was allegedly present on the premises of the Institute Facility during -4- the years 1977-79 and 1981, therefore to the extent possible, all plant specific information shall apply solely to the relevant years at issue as defined by Plaintiff s most recently amended work history. -5- UNION CARBIDE'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories, or who assisted in identifying, locating or retrieving documents responsive to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, identify such person and include the length of time employed by Defendant or other employer, and a year-by-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held. ANSWER: KDW TO INSERT ANSWER PRIOR TO FILING INTERROGATORY NO. 2: As to each of the 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: According to the best information currently available, Union Carbide's knowledge concerning the potential health hazards which, in some cases, have possibly been associated with excessive exposure to asbestos fiber inhalation developed gradually and as a result, it is impossible to state precisely when and how this information was ultimately acquired. Union Carbide is aware that the following sources of asbestos related information contributed to Union Carbide's knowledge of the potential hazards of excessive asbestos exposure: Union Carbide's participation in various trade association conferences and meetings, the development of OSHA and other government related information and programs in regard to asbestos, general and scientific published literature throughout the years, and corporate research, reports and memoranda developed by or for Union -6- Carbide employees. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please list all trade organizations, trade associations and any other industry-wide groups to which you belong(ed) (specifically including but not limited to the following groups: American Hygiene 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 which information or documents relating to asbestos was discussed, disseminated, or published (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. if any individuals employed by Defendant or representing Defendant were members of committees or subcommittees of any 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: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad and is not reasonably limited to a specific time period, or for that matter, a particular plant or premises and as such, this Interrogatory as drafted, constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is vague and unduly burdensome, and the oppressive, time consuming and costly nature of this burden, to the extent that responsive information and/or documentation exists, substantially outweighs the probative value of any of the information sought -7- by this Interrogatory. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Over the years, Union Carbide was a member and/or participated in the following organizations: The Industrial Health Association: Based upon the best information currently available, Union Carbide was a member of this organization during the 60's and 70's. The Asbestos Information Association of North America: Based upon the best information currently available, Union Carbide was a member of this organization during the 70's. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: Union Carbide states that based upon the best information currently available, the dates surrounding Union Carbide's membership and/or participation in the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygiene are unknown at this time. The American Industrial Hygiene Association: Based upon the best information currently available, Union Carbide may have participated in this organization during the late 60's and 70's. The National Safety Council: Based upon the best information currently available. Union Carbide may have participated in this organization at some point in time during the 50's, 60's. The Industrial Hygiene Foundation: Based upon the best information currently available. Union Carbide was a member of this organization during the 50's and 60's. American Petroleum Institute: Based on the best information currently available, Union Carbide was at some point in time a member of this organization, but the exact dates of membership are currently unknown. Union Carbide further states that it will make all responsive documents pertaining to Union Carbide's membership and/or participation in the various trade associations referenced above available to the requesting party for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. -8- INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify Defendant's employees or former employees or representatives who attended any proceedings, symposia, or conferences of a scientific or medical or technical nature at which information or documents relating to asbestos was discussed, disseminated, or published, (including, by way of example, 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) and specifically including but not limited to the Seventh Saranac Symposium, 1952, and/or New York Academy of Sciences, 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: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and the time consuming, oppressive nature of this burden substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it has not been reasonably limited in time, scope or subject matter and as such, this Interrogatory constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K- Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429,430 (Tex. 1996). Furthermore, as a result of Plaintiff s failure to even attempt to limit this Interrogatory to the relevant years at issue in a manner consistent with Plaintiffs work history sheet, Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that, as drafted, this Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and to the extent that this Interrogatory seeks information beyond the scope of discovery. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify each company from which you acquired asbestos-containing products used at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the years Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., has indicated he worked at Defendant's Premises At Issue and include in your response a. a description of each asbestos-containing product acquired and b. the dates each asbestos-containing product was acquired. -9- ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it seeks information beyond the scope of discovery. Union Carbide discontinued the use of asbestos-containing products in the early 1970's and according to his work history, Phillip Lake, Sr., did not work on any Union Carbide premises until 1977, therefore any discovery requests which purport to seek information concerning the asbestos-containing products used or acquired by Union Carbide prior to 1977 are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it has not been reasonably limited in time or scope, and as such, this Interrogatory constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Subject to its objections. Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide did not acquire or use any asbestos-containing products during the years at issue. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If any 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 of each 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: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope, and as such, this Interrogatory, as drafted, constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Union Carbide has -10- not been provided with sufficient information regarding Phillip Lake's work history, to enable Union Carbide to accurately respond to this Interrogatory. Therefore, without additional information, Union Carbide states that the time consuming, costly nature of this burden of production, substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Subject thereto. Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide maintains a repository of asbestos related documents, including those documents pertaining to the abatement of asbestos during the relevant years at issue. Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Interrogatory may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge of facts relevant to 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 of asbestos-containing products to which Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., was exposed or facts disputing the identification or location of such product or type of products. ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to the overly broad nature of this Interrogatory, on grounds that over twenty years have passed since plaintiff allegedly worked on a Union Carbide premises, therefore, Union Carbide is unable to state with specificity each and every person having knowledge of facts relevant to this case. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Please refer to Union Carbide's Response to Plaintiffs Rule 194 Request for Disclosure on -11- file in Dallas County. Additionally, Union Carbide states that the following individuals may have some knowledge of facts relevant to this case: 1. Mark J. Harmata-Materials Manager; 2. Matthew W. White-Purchasing Agent; 3. Manhar Patel-Industrial Hygienist; and 4. Hank Karawan-Plant Manager (1975-85). 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, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as being employed by you or having been employed by you whose duties and/or responsibilities included interface or liaison 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", "company engineers", "project superintendents", "purchasing agents", or job descriptions of a similar nature) and specifically include those whose duties and responsibilities included the following: a. contractors entering into contracts or purchase orders (including specifications) with such 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 for work done by such contractors. ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad, in that it -12- has not been limited to the relevant years at issue, nor has it been confined to the subject matter made the underlying basis for this lawsuit, and as such this Interrogatory constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is unduly burdensome. Union Carbide has not been provided with sufficient information regarding Phillip Lake's work history, to enable Union Carbide to accurately respond to this Interrogatory. Therefore, without additional information, Union Carbide states that the time consuming, costly nature of this burden of production, substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 7, contained herein. Union Carbide states that the discovery process, as well as Union Carbide's own investigation into this matter remain on-going. Union Carbide has not concluded its examination of the Union Carbide files which might contain some information or documentation pertinent to the full breadth of this overly broad Interrogatory. In addition, Union Carbide maintains a repository of asbestos related documents, including those documents pertaining to the possible identification of asbestos-containing products during the relevant years at issue. Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Interrogatory may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. -13- 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, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as being or having acted in a medical, safety, or industrial hygiene advisory capacity (regardless of job 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 of whether they worked directly on Defendant's Premises At Issue, and identify such individuals as affiliated with the corporate headquarters of Defendant.) ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad, additionally it would be unduly burdensome, in light of the plaintiffs failure to provide sufficiently specific information concerning Mr. Lake's work history at Union Carbide, for Union Carbide to identify each and every person involved with industrial hygiene or occupational medicine. Furthermore, Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it has not been reasonably limited in time or scope, nor has it been confined to the subject matter made the underlying basis for this lawsuit, and as such, this Interrogatory constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide Corporation may presently lack the availability of complete responsive information to this Interrogatory, the discovery processes and Union Carbide's own investigation into this matter remains ongoing. Union Carbide Corporation therefore reserves its right to supplement this response if Union Carbide obtains any additional pertinent information. -14- Union Carbide's Medical Department was formally organized in 1939. Prior to that date, Union Carbide and Union Carbide facilities consulted physicians as appropriate and as needed. The medical directors at Union Carbide have included the following individuals for the years respectively indicated below: (1) Girard Cranch [1938-1945] (4) (2) Thomas Nale [1945-1963] Kenneth Square, PA (5) (3) John J. Welsh [1963-1978] (6) 45-25 Douglaston Parkway, Douglaston, NY 11383 Thomas A. Lincoln [1978-1985] Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Medical Sections, Oak Ridge, TN 37830 T. Guy Fortney [1985-1989] Jean B. Case [1989-Present] Old Ridgebury Road, Danbury, CT 06817 The present duties of Union Carbide's medical director include coordination of all of Union Carbide's medical programs, including employee physical examination programs; recommendations with respect to medical policies, standards and procedures; and administration of medical services at Union Carbide's corporate headquarters, a corporate epidemiology program, a medical program for employees traveling overseas and an alcoholism prevention and treatment program. The medical director reports to the corporate Vice President in charge of Union Carbide's Community and Employee Health, Safety and Environmental Protection Department. Union Carbide has led the industry with its concern for industrial hygiene, and Union Carbide industrial hygienists have been pioneers in their field. In 1919, less than two years after Union Carbide was created, the National Carbon Company division hired Dr. Girard Cranch as its Medical Director. In that capacity, Dr. Cranch developed and launched health and hygiene programs which -15- were paragons for the industry. In 1937, Dr. Cranch was appointed Manager of the new corporate-wide Industrial Toxicology Department. One year later, he also took on the responsibility of Corporate Medical Director. In those capacities, he was instrumental in establishing the Mellon Institute Chemical-Hygiene Fellowship, which is renowned for its toxicological studies. Upon Dr. Cranch's retirement in 1948, the medical and industrial hygiene functions were divided. Oliver Stam succeeded Dr. Cranch as a corporate level industrial hygienist. In 1953, Mr. Stam was succeeded by Paul McDaniel. Upon Mr. McDaniel's retirement, Marvin Huffman served Manger of Risk Assessment Group.. Mr. Timothy J. Cawley has served in that capacity from 1995 until 1998. Since 1998, Mr. Roy Myers has served as Manager of Risk Assessment Group. In addition, in the early 1960s Drs. Carl Demehl and K. S. Lane of Union Carbide 's Medical Department were given the corporate positions of Director and Assistant Director of Toxicology, respectively. For an extensive period of time, all major Union Carbide facilities employ an industrial hygienist and industrial hygiene staff on the premises. Industrial Hygienists report, ultimately, to the Vice President for Health, Safety, and Environment, who is also responsible for establishing corporate HS&E standards and for assessing business group performance against those standards and applicable governmental requirements. Presently, Ron J. Cottle serves as Vice President Health, Safety and Environment. Union Carbide's various divisional employ Industrial Hygienist for their respective facilities and premises. Ronald Van Mynen currently serves as Vice President in care of Union Carbides' Health , Safety and Environmental Dept, which is primarily responsible for establishing corporate HS & EP standards, and for assessing business groups performance against those standards and -16- applicable governmental requirements. During the period of the Calidria business, Dr. Harrison Rhodes, and industrial hygienist, supervised Union Carbide's dust count program. Union Carbide's various divisions employ Industrial Hygienists for their respective facilities and premises. C. C. Smith currently serves as Vice President in charge of Union Carbide's Community and Employee Health, Safety and Environmental Protection Department which is primarily responsible for establishing corporate HS&EP standards and for assessing business group performance against those standards and applicable governmental requirements. Persons thus far identified as having performed industrial hygiene functions at the South Charleston, West Virginia, plant include the following: 1. Everett Adkins; 2. Roger Burke; 3. J.D. Cavendar (1950s); 4. Robert W. Cope (1952-1956); 5. Charlie Fry; 6. Margin Huffman; 7. Manhar a. Patel; 8. Newton H. Ketcham (1949-1960); 9. Robert W. Norton (1950s); 10. Robert Peele, deceased (1961-1973); 11. B.L. Murray, deceased (1967); 12. Fred Williams; 13. Harold Frazier; -17- 14. Paul McDaniels; 15. Richard Sexton, deceased (05/01/48-04/01/82); 16. Wesley J. Vinson; 17. Harland Vorhees; 18. Harvey H. Warwick (1965); 19. B.B. Wood; 20. Wiliam C. Young. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify all warnings given by Defendant, if any, to anyone at Defendant's Premises At Issue (including the Plaintiff) regarding the hazards of asbestos 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 d. state whether your have ever published, written, edited, or distributed any other printed materials, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging, advertising, signs, statements, or other materials containing any warnings of the possibility of injury from the use or exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, andfsic] ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is vague and overly broad. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it has not been reasonably limited to a particular Union Carbide premises or facility, and as a result this Interrogatory, as drafted, constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that improperly seeks the discovery of all -18- factual assertions and a marshaling of proof supporting Union Carbide's contentions and as a result, this Interrogatory is inconsistent with Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide's knowledge concerning health hazards possibly associated with excessive exposure to asbestos fiber inhalation developed gradually and at some point in time during the early 70's, acting in accordance with the utmost concern for the safety of its own and contractor employees, Union Carbide began posting cautionary warning signs to advise workers of the presence of asbestos and/or asbestos containing materials. Union Carbide believes that these general cautionary warning signs were posted at various locations within the Institute facility in accordance with OSHA guidelines. The specific locations of these signs and dates and length of time these signs were posted is currently unknown. In addition to cautionary warning signs, Union Carbide disseminated health and safety information regarding the most current industrial and government knowledge of the potential adverse health effects which could possibly be associated with excessive inhalation of asbestos fibers, all in an effort to actively insure that employees and contractors were well advised on ways to avoid the potential harm which could result from excessive exposure to asbestos dust. Union Carbide, as well as, the numerous amounts of contractors which have been present at the Institute facility over the years, utilized various safety procedures which were enforced by the respective companies for the benefit of their own employees. According to the best information currently available, Union Carbide developed industrial hygiene and occupational health programs and policies which were implemented by Union Carbide and enforced by each of the respective contractors for the protection of all plant workers. Over the years, these policies and programs have been revised and expanded in order to accurately reflect the most current and accurate -19- industrial knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If Defendant has or had or maintained in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health or human beings, please identify 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: Union Carbide objects to the overly broad nature of this Interrogatory on grounds that it has not been reasonably limited in time or geographic scope, and as such this Interrogatory constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is unduly burdensome, and the time consuming and costly nature of this burden, substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that as drafted, this Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide has previously made all responsive, non-privileged documents within its possession available to the requesting party for inspection and duplication. If Union Carbide has access to information relating to who received, maintained, reviewed or disseminated such materials, it is reflected on those documents. Union Carbide maintains a repository of asbestos related documents. Any documents responsive to this request, or containing responsive information, still accessible to Union Carbide would be contained in Union Carbide's repository of asbestos-related -20- documents and material. Mrs. Virginia M. Ruszczyk, a legal assistant, with Kelley Drye and Warren, LLP, serves as the Custodian of Documents for the Repository. Upon plaintiffs request. Union Carbide will make its Repository available to plaintiffs for review and replication at a suitable time and place. The following is a responsive listing of books, studies, and limited issue reports which have at some point in time been collected in Union Carbide's corporate library in Danbury. Additional material may be also kept at more or other libraries: 1. Acrylamide - Exposure to N1 OSH - STD. 2. Agricultural Products - Emergency Response Plan - Union Carbide. 3. Agricultural Products - 1983 Chemical Guide. 4. Albanes (C5-C8) Exposure to N10SH. 5. Allyl Chloride - Exposure to N10SH STD. 6. American Hospital Association. Guide to Health Call Fiedl-1985. 7. The Apocalyptics - Edith Effron 8. Asbestos Standard 9. Benyl Chloride - Exposure to NI10SH STD. 10. Benzoyl Perioxide - Exposure to N10SH STD. 11. British Journals of Industrial Medicine 2/86. 12. Carlon Black - Exposure to N10SH STD. 13. Carbaryl - Exposure to N1 OSH STD. 14. Carlon Disulfide: EHC10. 15. Carlon Disulfide: Exposure to N10SH STD. 16. Carciongins, First Annual Report on (July, 1980, Vol. 1, Vol. 11, Dept, of Health and Human Services. 17. Chemical Hazards of the Workplace, Hughes Proctor. 18. Chloraprene, Exposure to N10SH STD. 19. Clinical Diagnosis - by lab methods - Henry & Davidsohn 20. Clinical Handbook of Economic Poisons (Emergency Information and Treatment). 21. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. Gasoline, Smitt & Hodge. 22. Clinical Symposia - CIBA. 23. Cobalt - Criteria for Controlling Occupational Exposure to N10SH STD. 24. Cobalt-Exposure to N1 OSH STD. 25. Contact Directory (UNION CARBIDE Chemicals & Plastics). 26. Corporate Medical Department - Background Information -UNION CARBIDE. 27. Dinitro-Ortho-Cresol - Exposure to N10SH STD. 28. Directory - U.S. Based Agencies involved in International Health Assistance - National Counsel for Int'l Health. 29. Directory of Medical Specialists - 22d Edition - (1985-86) (Marquis, Who's Who). -21- 30. Disability Prevention: The Global Challenge - Wilson. 31. Diseases of the Heart (1, 111) Freidburg - 3d Edition. 32. Doctors of Medicine - Directory of Sept. 1985 - Div. of Health Related Boards. 33. Drug Abuse Program, Developing an Occupation. 34. Electronics Division - Occupational Health Manual. 35. Emergency Cardiac Care - Huszar. 36. Emergency Care (Course Planning Guide) Murray, Grant 37. Emergency Medicine, Attos of Rosen & Steinbach. 38. Employees Handbook - UNION CARBIDE. 39. Employee Health (Linde Shea) Linde Dive., UNION CARBIDE. 40. Environmental Affairs Manual - UNION CARBIDE. 41. Ether Oxide, Health Assessment Document for 42. Ethyl Oxide Worker Safety Issues (Rep. #83-2). 43. Ethylene Dibromide - Exposure to N10SH STD. 44. Ethylene Dichloride (1,2 Dichlordtrhane) Exposure to N10SH STD. 45. Ethylene Oxide Sterilization - Exposure to N10SH STD. 46. Ethylene Oxide Std. 47. Ethylene Oxide Sterilization - In Hospital. 48. Ethylene Oxide Worker Safety Issues. 49. Eveready Battery - Engineering Data. 50. Exposure to Mutagenic & Reproductive Hazards - Arthur Bloom, M.D. 51. Exposure Standard - UNION CARBIDE. 52. Follow-up of Cancer (Physicians Handbook) (2d Edition - 1983). 53. Foodlome Disease & Food Safety - American Medical Association - 198 1. 54. Fractures & Dislocations, Management of, Vols. I & II, 3d Edition - Connolly. 55. Grain, Dust, Fire, Explosion - Exposure toNOSH STD. 56. Guide to evaluation of Permanent Impairment - 2d Edition - American Medical Association. 57. Howard Medical School Health Letter (1985-86). 58. Health Effects Review Board (Toxicology). 59. Health Fitness Center - Emergency Procedure (UNION CARBIDE Manual). 60. Health & Safety Manual - UNION CARBIDE. 61. Hearing Loss (2d Edition) - Drs. J. Sataloff and R. T. Sataloff and L. A Vassalo, M.S. 62. The Heart, J. Willis Hurst. 63. Help Manuals - UNION CARBIDE. 64. Hearing - Conservation & Noise Central Manual - UNION CARBIDE. 65. Home & Auto Products Division - Occupational Health Manual - UNION CARBIDE. 66. How to Choose a Medical Specialty. Anita Taylor. 67. Industrial Toxicology - Fairhall. 68. Industrial Toxicology - Hamilton & Hardy. 69. Industrial Toxicology - Plunhett. 70. Injured Patient, Management of - Norman & Males. 71. Internal Medical Alert - 1986. 72. International Travel Policies - UNION CARBIDE. -22- 73. Kidney or Electrolytes - Norman Deane, M.D. 74. Loss of Hearing Claims - Background of - UNION CARBIDE. 75. Lung Disorders, Occupational - Parker -2d Edition. 76. Material Safety Data Sheets (Linde, Catalysts, Carbon Products, Battery, Home & Auto, Chemicals & Plastics, UMETCO, etc.). 77. Medical Benefits. 78. Medical Letter. 79. Medical Letter (1981 - Vol. 23) 80. Mobile Coronary Care (Fundamentals of Rose & Rose. 81. Medical Dictionary 82. Medical Policies, Procedures & Guidelines - UNION CARBIDE. 83. Metals Division - Occupational Health Manual 84. Mions Annual - 1985 85. Mutagenicity Test Procedures - Author/Editor B.J. Kilbey 86. New England Journal of Medicine - 7/85, 5/85, 12/85, 11/85, 7/85, 10/85, 6/85. 87. Neurologic Exam De Jong. 88. N10SH -Current Intelligence Bulletin (Reprints 1/1 8, 1975-1977). 89. N10SH - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. 90. Nitrogen Oxides - Exposure to N10SH STD. 91. Nitroglycerin & Ethylene Glycol Dinitrate - Exposure to N10SH STD. 92. Nursing - Standing Orders & Procedure - UNION CARBIDE. 93. Occupational Health - 2 (Approaches To) 94. Occupational Health/Medicine Manuals - UNION CARBIDE. 95. Occupational Lung Diseases - Margon & Seaton. 96. Occupational Medicine - State of the art reviews R.N. Adams, M.D. - Editor. 97. OSHA Hazard Communication. 98. OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazard. 99. Patty's Industrial & Hygiene Toxicology (3d Edition) Clayton, Vol's 1, 2A, 2B, 2C. 100. Permanent Impairment - Guide to Evaluation - 2d Edition American Medical Association. 101. Phenol-Exposure To-N1 OSH STD. 102. Physicians Desk Reference - 1986. 103. Phosphorus & Phosphine in Air - Exposure to N10SH Std. 104. Physicians Directory of Consultative Service (Yale). 105. Polychlorinated Bisphenyls (PCB's) Exposure To N10SH -STD. 106. Preventive Medicine (5/86). 107. Proctology, A method of - Macleod. 108. Product Safety/Liability Manual - UNION CARBIDE. 109. Public Health Code - 1980 - State of Connecticut. 110. Public Health & Preventive Medicine - 11th Edition - Lost, J.M. 111. Radionuclide Contamination, Management of -. 112. Red Book (1982) Representative of Committee on Infectious Disease - American Academy ofPed. 113. Refined Petroleum Solvents - Exposure to NOSH STD. -23- 114. Reproductive System, Effects of Toxic Chemicals on American Medical Association - 1985. 115. Respiratory Disease, American Revolution of - (Volume 13 1, April 1985). 116. Respiratory Disease - Emergency Treatment of Acute Stinger. 117. Safety, Health & Accident Prevention Procedures (Basic Guide) UNION CARBIDE. 118. Safety, Health & Loss Control Manual - UNION CARBIDE. 119. Safety, Health & Related Affairs Technical Manual - UNION CARBIDE. 120. Safety Manual - UNION CARBIDE. 121. Site Visit Reports (Books 1-4 - By Division - UNION CARBIDE). 122. Sudden Coronary Death - NY Academy of Science - Volume 382. 123. Sulfur Oxides & Related Particulates - 1978 - Environmental Effects of 124. The 36 Hour Day - Mac/Robbins. 125. Tetrachlorethan - Exposure to - N10SH STD. 126. Tolioine - Exposure to N10SH STD. 127. Toxic Substance Control (Source Book) Center for Compliance Information. 128. Toxicology Assessment & Advisory Committee (Vols. 1-4). 129. Toxicology & Biochemistry of Aromatic Hydrocarbone, H.VV. Gerarde. 130. Trauma Patient, Initial Management of - Frey. 131. Tropical Medicine - 5th Edition - Hunter/Swartzwelder/Clyde. 132. Tropical Medicine, New Developments is National Council for Health. 133. Vanadium - Exposure to N10SH STD. 134. Word Processing Manual - UNION CARBIDE. 135. Waste Anesthetic Gases & Vapors - Exposure to - N10SH STD. 136. The Journal of the Society of Occupational Medicine. 137. The Lancet 138. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 139. The New England Journal of Medicine. 140. Occupational Hazards 141. Occupational Health & Safety 142. Preventive Medicine - American Health Foundation. 143. The Medical Letter - On Drugs & Therapeutics. 144. N1 OSH - Technical Reports. 145. N10SH - Research Reports. 146. N10SH - Criteria Reports. 147. N1 OSH - Survey Reports. 148. N1 OSH - Health Safety Guides. 149. N10SH - Self-Evaluation Reports. 150. Electric Power Research Institute Studies. 151. Jarc Monograph Series. 152. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement Series. The following is a sample subscription list, containing some possibly pertinent periodicals which the library subscribed to in 1976. If information for other years or other particular information is -24- specifically requested. Union Carbide will attempt to locate such information and provide it to the plaintiff. Sample Subscription List A. 1. Ch. E. Journal A.I.M.E. Society of Mining Engineers Transactions Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. - Earth Sciences Section Acta Metallurgica Air Pollution Control Association Journal Aluminum and Supplement in English American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin American Ceramic Society Bulletin American Ceramic Society Journal American Chemical Society Journal American Journal of Science American Mineralogist Analyst Analytica Chimica Acta Analytical Chemistry Applied Spectroscopy Archiv fur das Eisenhuttenwesen Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Proceedings Australian Institute of Metals Journal Australian Mining Automotive Engineer British Ceramic Society Transactions Canadian Chemical Processing Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly Canadian Mineralogist Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin Canadian Mining Journal Cast Metals Research Journal Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering Progress Chemical Engineering Science Chemical Geology Chemical Instrumentation Chemical Reviews Chem Tech -25- Chemistry and Industry Clays and Clay Minerals Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology Economic Geology Electrochemical Society Journal Energy Pipeline and Systems Engineering Engineering and Mining Journal Environmental Science and Technology Foundry Foundry Trade Journal Fuel Geochemistry International Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Giessereiforschung Harvard Business Review High Temperature Indian Institute of Metals Transactions Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Fundamentals Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Process Design and Development Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Product Research and Development Industrial Heating Industrial Laboratory Industrial Minerals Inorganic Chemistry Inorganic Materials Institute of Metals Journal Institution of Mining and Metallurgy A. Mining Industry Institution of Mining and Metallurgy B. Applied Earth Science Institution of Mining and Metallurgy C. Mineral Processing & Extractive Metallurgy Instrumentation Technology Internet Bulletin International Chemical Engineering International Journal of Mineral Processing International Journal of Powder Metallurgy International Metallurgical Reviews Iron and Steel International Iron and Steel Engineer Iron and Steel Institute Journal Iron and Steel Institute of Japan Transactions Ironmaking and Steelmaking (formerly ISI Journal) Journal du Four Electrique Journal of Analytical Chemistry, USSR -26- Journal of Applied Chemisty and Biotechnology Journal of Applied Chemistry, USSR Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics Journal of Colloid and Interface Science Journal of Geochemical Exploration Journal of Geology Journal of High Temperature Science Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry Journal of Materials Science Journal of Metals Journal of Petrology Journal of Physical Chemistry Journal of Scientific Instruments Journal of Scientific Instruments Journal of Steel Castings Res. Journal of the Less Common Metals Journal of Thermal Analysis International Light Metal Age Materials Engineering Materials Research Bulletin Metal Bulletin, London Metal Progress Metal Science Journal Metallography, An International Journal Metallurgia and Metal Forming Metallurgical Transactions Metallurgist Metallurgist and Materials Technology Metals and Materials Metals Technology (London) Mineralium Deposita Microscope Mineralogical Magazine Mineralogical Record Minerals Processing Minerals Science and Engineer Mines Magazine Mining Congress Journal Mining Engineering Mining Magazine Modem Castings NIM - National Institute for Metallurgy Nature New Scientist Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift -27- Oil and Gas Journal Oxidation of Metals Physics of Metals and Metallography Platinum Metals Review Powder Metallurgy Powder Metallurgy, International Processing Refractories Remote Sensing of Environment Research Management Review of Scientific Instruments Rocks and Minerals Russian Castings Production Russian Chemical Reviews Russian Journal of Inorganic Chemistry Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry Russian Metallurgy (Metally) Scandinavian Journal of Metallurgy Science Scientific American Separation Science Simulation Skillings' Mining Review South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Spectrochimica Acta Stahl und Eisen Steel in the USSR Talanta TAPPI Thermochimica Acta Thirty-three Magazine of Metals Producing Tsvetnye metally (in English) Vacuum Water and Wastes Engineering Welding Engineer World Mining X-Ray Spectrometry Zeitschrift fur metallkunde -28- INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please describe in detail your manufacturing or industrial use of any asbestos 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: According to the work history of Phillip Lake, Sr., the alleged relevant years at issue are 1977-1979, and 1981, and Union Carbide discontinued the use or purchase of asbestos-containing products in the early 70's, therefore there is no information which exists, that would be responsive to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify by name and location of 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, or premises 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 for use, installed or fabricated. ANSWER: Union Carbide no longer manufacturers, produces, or sells any asbestos or asbestos- containing products. According to the best information presently available to Union Carbide, the aforementioned products were manufactured at the following locations: Calidria - King City. California: This product was never manufactured in any of Union Carbide's current or former facilities other than King City, CA. Union Carbide, therefore, objects to plaintiffs' interrogatories insofar as they request information pertaining to Calidria asbestos as burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the -29- discovery of admissible evidence. Bakelite - Bound Brook. New Jersey: The version of Bakelite that contained asbestos was never manufactured in any of Union Carbide's current or former facilities other than Bound Brook, NJ. Union Carbide, therefore, objects to plaintiffs' interrogatories insofar as they request information pertaining to Bakelite as burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. UDEL Polvsulfone - Marietta. Ohio or Bound Brook. New Jersey: This product was never manufactured in any of Union Carbide's current or former facilities other than Marietta, Ohio or Bound Brook, NJ. Union Carbide, therefore, objects to plaintiffs' interrogatories insofar as they request information pertaining to LTDEL Polysulfone as burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Acetylene Cylinders - Speedway, Indiana: This product was never manufactured in any of Union Carbide's current or former facilities other than Speedway, Indiana. Union Carbide, therefore, objects to plaintiffs' interrogatories insofar as they request information pertaining to acetylene cylinders as burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TRE-HOLD - California or Pennsylvania (originally made by a company acquired by Union Carbide): This product was never manufactured in any of Union Carbide's current or former facilities other than California or Pennsylvania. Union Carbide, therefore, objects to plaintiffs' interrogatories insofar as they request information pertaining to TRE-HOLD as burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. -30- Automotive Radiator Products - Whiting. Indiana. Texas Citv. Texas. Torrence. California, or Lake River Terminal. Illinois: Steel Scarfer Machine - Piscatawav. New Jersey: This product was never manufactured in any of Union Carbide's current or former facilities other than Piscataway, NJ. Union Carbide, therefore, objects to plaintiffs' interrogatories insofar as they request information pertaining to the steel scarfer machine as burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Polyethylene and Polystyrene Products Possible Containing Asbestos - Bound Brook. New Jersey: These products were never manufactured in any of Union Carbide's current or former facilities other than Bound Brook, NJ, except possibly for experimental or other limited purposes not relevant to this action (see below). Union Carbide objects to responding further, with respect to the possible use of small quantities of asbestos in experimental laboratories or pilot plants. Such information is irrelevant to this action inasmuch as the plaintiff s decedent does not allege that they worked in or around any such facilities. Moreover, it would be unduly burdensome, if not virtually impossible, for Union Carbide to respond with respect to all such laboratory or pilot plant facilities. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: For any Defendant's Premises at Issue, during the Time Period At Issue, if you, your affiliates, subsidiaries, or predecessor(s), arranged for any of your employees, labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors, industrial hygienists, or any other party, whether directly employed by you or otherwise, to count or measure quantity, quality or threshold limit values or concentrations of asbestos dust or particles or other dust at any of your plants, facilities, locations, or premises where asbestos or asbestos-containing products were used, assembled, installed, or removed, please describe such tests and indicate -31- a. the results obtained, b. by whom such tests were performed and c. identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as the person most knowledgeable concerning such tests and their results. ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad, in that it has not been limited to the relevant years at issue, nor has it been confined to the subject matter made the underlying basis for this lawsuit, and as such this Interrogatory constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is unduly burdensome. Union Carbide has not been provided with sufficient information regarding Phillip Lake's work history, to enable Union Carbide to accurately respond to this Interrogatory. Therefore, without additional information. Union Carbide states that the time consuming, costly nature of this burden of production, substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that the discovery process, as well as Union Carbide's own investigation into this matter remain on-going. Union Carbide has not concluded its examination of the Union Carbide files which might contain some information or documentation pertinent to the full breadth of this overly broad Interrogatory. In addition. Union Carbide maintains a repository of asbestos related documents, including those documents pertaining to the dust studies and asbestos monitoring conducted during the relevant years at issue. Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the -32- full breadth of this overly broad Interrogatory may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: For the Time Period At Issue, if you provided or caused to be provided any safety equipment or medical programs (including, but not limited to, masks, respirators, other breathing devices, protective clothings, 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 of your plants, 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 of asbestos with employees, contractors, or invitees at any of Defendant'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, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as the person most knowledgeable concerning such equipment and programs and their provision. ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad and is not reasonably limited to a specific time period, or for that matter, to a particular plant or premises and as such, this Interrogatory as drafted, constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is vague and unduly burdensome, and the oppressive, time consuming and costly nature of this burden, to the extent that responsive information and/or -33- documentation exists, substantially outweighs the probative value of any of the information sought by this Interrogatory. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that according to the best information which is currently available. Filter type respirators have, at least as far back as the 1940's, been available to Carbide employees upon request or as required for specific tasks where conditions were identifiably dusty. However the use of such respirators has depended upon individual working conditions. Since the early seventies, and in accordance with all of the applicable government, state and industrial standards, the Institute Plant, West Virginia, maintained numerous safety policies in regard to the usage of masks, protective clothings, protective gloves, area air filtration systems, and area exhaust systems or barriers or enclosures or respiratory devices for protection against exposure to asbestos dust. In addition, the contractors that worked on the premises of the Institute Plant, West Virginia during the years at issue, were obligated to provide safety equipment to their own employees in a manner consistent with Federal, State and plant guidelines. The imposition and the acceptance of this obligation, on the part of the contractors, to adhere to the applicable safety guidelines was considered a condition precedent to Union Carbide's decision to accept any of the various contractors proposals or bids which had been submitted for consideration. Over the years, Union Carbide has continued to modify and improve its policies and procedures pertaining to respiratory protection in a conscious effort to strictly adhere to the guidelines and other industrial safety standards of all state, federal and industrial regulations. Union Carbide states that throughout the 50's and 60's, various models and types of respiratory protection were made available to both Union Carbide employees, in addition to various contractors over the years depending on the negotiated terms of the applicable purchase order. Union Carbide states that until the early 1970's, the use of respiratory protection was -34- voluntary. In 1972, use of respirators became mandatory, and was made available to Union Carbide's employees as part of its general safety and health program. Therefore, n the early 1970's, following the inception of OSHA and the creation of federally mandated asbestos related guidelines, Union Carbide implemented various programs which required the following: (1) that specific respiratory protective devices will be designated for variable exposure levels; (2) that specific respiratory protection programs will be provided in accordance with the American National Standards Practice for Respiratory Protection; and (3) that all respiratory protection provided should meet the standards set out by all of the applicable provisions of both the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the standards set forth by the various U.S. Bureau of Mines schedules of approved respiratory protection. Additionally, Union Carbide in compliance with the standards set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, maintained numerous policies in regard to asbestos, requiring that all employees use company issued coveralls, underclothes and socks, which were to be laundered by daily by Union Carbide, and that all employees be required to take compulsory showering at the end of their workday or shift. Theses policies set forth the mandate that employees were forbidden to take the plant issued coveralls from the premises of the Institute plant. The policies, as well as additional responsive information, can be located in the repository for asbestos related documents. The repository will be made available to the requesting party for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. In regard to medical examinations, around 1950, Union Carbide instituted a program whereby chest x-rays were made available to the employees at the company's expense. This was originally accomplished as part of a periodic physical examination offered on a voluntary basis to all -35- employees by the plant medical department. In December 1969, the x-rays were continued as a component of Multiphasic Health Screening, offered to all employees, again on a voluntary basis, every two years. Pursuant to OSHA, in the early 1970's, Union Carbide implemented a program to identify employees who had been or were being exposed to asbestos. Any employee so identified was provided an annual asbestos review. Such review consisted of the following: a. An asbestos survey questionnaire to be completed; b. A chest x-ray was taken; and c. A physical examination was conducted, which included an EKG, blood work up and urine analysis. As a result of this review, if an asbestos-related disease was diagnosed, the employee was so informed. In certain circumstances, the employee may have been referred to a pulmonary specialist of his/her choice for further examination. Any documentation concerning the monitoring of the medical condition of employees at the Institute Plant would be maintained in the medical records of an individual and would have to be specifically requested and an appropriate release executed. Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 14, contained herein. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state for each of Defendant's Premises At Issue, all relevant State and Federal regulations, laws, statutes, mandates, or other authority pertaining to industrial hygiene, safety, and health of which you were aware during the Time Period At Issue that governed, controlled, or applied to exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, abatement or removal of asbestos-containing products, and transportation of asbestos containing waste from such removal or abatement activities. -36- ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to his Interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and the time-consuming nature of this burden, in light of plaintiffs failure to even attempt to limit the scope of this discovery, substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that the various types of information sought to be discovered are a matter of public record, and as such these materials are as equally available to the requesting party as to the responding party. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide maintains a repository of asbestos related documents, including those documents pertaining all relevant State and Federal regulations, laws, statutes, mandates, or other authority pertaining to industrial hygiene, safety, and health to the purchase of asbestos products. Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Interrogatory may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: For any of Defendant'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 of your plants, facilities, locations, or premises 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: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad in that it has not been reasonably limited in time or geographic scope, nor has this Interrogatory been confined -37- to the subject-matter made the basis of this lawsuit, and as such this Interrogatory constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is unduly burdensome, and the timeconsuming, costly nature of the burden entailed in identifying responsive information for this Interrogatory, on behalf of all of Union Carbide's facilities without any existing limitation in time or scope, substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that the various types of information sought to be discovered are a matter of public record, and as such these materials are as equally available to the requesting party as to the responding party. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide does maintain a log of each and every government inspection which has taken place over the past thirty years, and therefore will be unable to thoroughly respond to the full breadth of this overly broad Interrogatory. Union Carbide states that it maintains a repository of asbestos related documents, including those documents pertaining all relevant State and Federal inspections for compliance with all of the applicable asbestos standards. Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Interrogatory may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. -38- INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify every individual ever employed by Defendant who has made or presented a Worker's Compensation or other claim for personal injury or death resulting from inhalation of asbestos. Include in your response the date of any such claims and a description of the injury alleged. ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and the oppressive, time consuming and costly nature of this burden of production, to the extent that responsive information and/or documentation exists, substantially outweighs the probative value of any of the information sought by this Interrogatory. Additionally, Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it assumes facts which are not in evidence. Subject thereto Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that it does not know the year in which the first workers compensation claim for an asbestos related disease was filed. Union Carbide does not make the contention that it knows each person, that has ever worked on each and every Union Carbide premises. Therefore, based on all of the best information currently available. Union Carbide cannot specify the amount, if any, of workers compensation asbestos related claims which may have been filed over the years. Union Carbide states that it is attempting to search for the existence of Union Carbide workers compensation records to the extent that such records exist, and will supplement this answer upon the receipt of any additional relevant information. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: If you contend that you did not own or operate or control the Defendants' Premises during the Time Period At Issue, or if you contend you are not liable in the capacity alleged in the most recent petition, describe in detail the facts supporting your contention and include a detailed corporate history of Defendant and its ownership, sale, acquisition, or divestiture or any of Defendant's Premises at Issue and any relevant mergers, acquisitions, consolidation, or other events -39- of similar nature that you believe bear on the issue of ownership, control, or assumption of liabilities for acts occurring on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue and identify and state the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of every person known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge of facts relevant to this issue. ANSWER: Union Carbide does not make such a contention at this time. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Please identify by name each individual employed by Defendant as a purchasing agent at the Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period at Issue. ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad in that it has not been limited in time or scope, nor has it been confined to the subject matter made the underlying basis for this lawsuit. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 7, contained herein. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please identify by name each individual that worked as a store room clerk or worker at the Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and the time consuming, oppressive nature of this burden substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it has not been reasonably limited in time, scope or subject matter and as such, this Interrogatory constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K- -40- Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Please identify each and every contractor involved in installing, distributing, abating, or removal of asbestos-containing products at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. Please include in your response a. the full name and address of the contractor performing the work, b. the dates the work was performed, c. the location in the plant where the work was performed, d. a description of the work performed. ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and the time consuming, oppressive nature of this burden substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it has not been reasonably limited in time, scope or subject matter and as such, this Interrogatory constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K- Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Please refer to Union Carbide's Response to Request for Production No. 2, contained herein. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Do you contend that Defendant specifically warned Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., about the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is repetitious and -41- duplicative of numerous prior requests for information. Additionally, Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad and improperly seeks the discovery of all factual assertions and a marshaling of proof supporting Union Carbide's contentions and as a result, this Interrogatory is inconsistent with Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Union Carbide also objects on grounds that this Interrogatory is vague and calls for speculation. Further, Union Carbide has not been provided sufficient information about the Plaintiffs work history as it pertains to Union Carbide's Institute Plant to enable Union Carbide to make a determination as to whether or not Plaintiff would have been specifically warned. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11, 15, and 16, including all of the objections set forth therein. -42- UNION CARBIDE'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S 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: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is overly broad in that it has not been reasonably limited in time or scope, nor, for that matter has this Request been confined to the subject matter made the underlying basis for this lawsuit, and as such, this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it is unduly burdensome, and the time consuming, costly nature of locating, much less producing each and every purchase order for asbestos, substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide maintains a repository of asbestos related documents, including those documents pertaining to the purchase of asbestos products. Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiff s request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. -43- REQUEST FOR PROD! JCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents that relate to abatement of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue and transportation of asbestos-containing waste. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is overly broad in that it has not been reasonably limited in time or scope, nor, for that matter has this Request been confined to the subject matter made the underlying basis for this lawsuit, and as such, this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it is unduly burdensome, and the time consuming, costly nature of locating, much less producing each and every document relating to the abatement of asbestos, substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Subject thereto. Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide maintains a repository of asbestos related documents, including those documents pertaining to the abatement of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials. Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all records identifying contractors and/or the employees of contractors 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, or other documents of a similar nature. -44- RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that it is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of the subject matter made the basis of this lawsuit, and as such is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that as phrased, this Request is unduly burdensome, and the costly, timeconsuming burden of production substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that the discovery process as well as Union Carbide's own investigation into this matter remains on going. Union Carbide is diligently attempting to conclude its examination of the Institute Plant business records for the years 1977-79 and 1981, and to the extent that responsive and non-privileged documentation and/or other materials containing information pertinent to the full breadth of this Request are discovered, said documents and/or materials will be made available for inspection and copying by the requesting party at a mutually agreeable place and time. Additionally, Union Carbide maintains a repository of asbestos related documents, including those documents pertaining to the abatement of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials. Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiff s request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. -45- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all records pertaining to the methods and manner of identification of individuals entering and/or leaving Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Response to Request for Production No. 3, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce the contract and work progress documents pertaining to the contractors identified in Interrogatory No. 22 who performed services at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including, but not limited to, invitations to bid, requests for proposals, bids, proposals, statements of scope of work, work orders, specifications, blueprints, plans, acceptances, contracts, amendments, addenda, change orders, inspection reports, work logs or contractor logs. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 22, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce all documents, memoranda, and/or other writings that in any way reflect a removal plan or organized written criteria or schedule for the removal of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Response to Request for Production No. 3, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all photographs or videographic depictions or films depicting the use of any safety precautions (such as containment areas, warning signs, etc.) taken to protect bystanders from the hazards of airborne asbestos resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products at -46- Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 10, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for infomation. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 10, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all photographs of warning 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: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for infomation. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 10, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents that relate to any inspections by any regulatory agency for the purpose of ascertaining whether health or safety regulations 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. -47- RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 17, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: In the event that Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts or measurements of any of its plants or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, please produce any documents, memoranda, or other writings that in any way reflect the results of such studies or counts and actions taken as a result of such counts or studies. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 14, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents relating to inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company or hired by your company, that included the taking or measuring of "dust counts". RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 14, including all of the objections set forth therein. 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: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 11, including all of the objections set forth therein. -48- REQUEST FOR PROD! ICTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents supporting the legal theories and factual bases of your defenses set forth in your response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194.2, subparagraph (c). RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that per agreement with the Plaintiffs, no Rule 194 formal disclosure requests were exchanged between Union Carbide and Plaintiffs with the exception of witness lists. Such lists are on file in Dallas County. Furthermore, Union Carbide objects to this request because it is over broad and seeks all documents relating to its contentions and not specific documents. In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, (Tex. 1998). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. IS: If you contend that Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., was not exposed to asbestos dust at Defendant's Premises At Issue, please produce the documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent it contains an interrogatory and as such is not a true Request for Production as defined by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Union Carbide further objects to this request because it is vague and does not describe specific documents or specific categories of documents to which Union Carbide might respond. In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex 1998). In addition. Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad and improperly seeks the discovery of all factual assertions and a marshaling of proof supporting Union Carbide's contentions and as a result, this Request is inconsistent with Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 15, including all of the -49- objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:[sic] If you contend that Plaintiff was not exposed to asbestos dust brought home on the body and clothes of Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., from Defendant's Premises At Issue, please produce the documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent it contains an interrogatory and as such is not a true Request for Production as defined by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Union Carbide further objects to this request because it is vague and does not describe specific documents or specific categories of documents to which Union Carbide might respond. In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex 1998). In addition. Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad and improperly seeks the discovery of all factual assertions and a marshaling of proof supporting Union Carbide's contentions and as a result, this Request is inconsistent with Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 15, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents used, referred to or relied upon in answering Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is unduly burdensome and overly broad and does not seek specific items or categories of documents. In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1998). -50- 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 for Defendant 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, or purging policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records created, maintained or stored by electronic and/or magnetic means, including but not limited to records that have been microfdmed, mocrofiched, imaged, scanned, or stored on tapes, disks, diskettes, CD-rom, databases, etc. or on or within any computer hardware, backup system, download system, file dumping or other system of information 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: Union Carbide states that the discovery process and Union Carbide's own investigation into this matter remain on-going. Upon the completion of the discovery process Union Carbide will make all responsive documents and/or materials which exist and can be located, available to the requesting party for copying and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. Sales and other business records are under the control of either counsel for Union Carbide, or Mrs. Virginia M. Ruszczyk, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, 101 Park Avenue, 31st Floor, New York, New York 10178. 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 of the subject -51- matter areas of Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this request on grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and the time consuming, oppressive nature of this Request, to the extent that responsive information exists and can be located, substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sough should discovery be allowed. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide maintains a repository of documents and other material containing information pertaining to asbestos or asbestos products in accordance with the most advanced state-of-the-art industrial practices. All material or documents responsive to this request, or containing information responsive to this request, still accessible to Union Carbide would be contained in the office and Repository or the aforesaid files. Upon plaintiffs request. Union Carbide will make its Repository (not including privileged information) available to the plaintiffs for review and replication at a suitable time and place. Any existing indices for documents related to Union Carbide's Institute Plant have been reviewed for relevance and have been incorporated into Union Carbide's Repository referred to above, or included as exhibits to these responses. Specific indices of particular files previously maintained by officials or employees in the course of their business have been collected and incorporated into the Repository along with the files to which the indices respectively refer. According to the best information currently available, there exists no indices specifically pertaining to documents relevant to use of asbestos in the Institute plant. No master index for the Repository described above has been created. Union Carbide attorneys or legal assistants reviewed and logged in material as it was obtained and added to the Repository. Such logs, however, are privileged as attorney work product. -52- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce all books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind 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: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 11 and Union Carbide's Response to Request for Production No. 13, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Please produce all documents that reflect, indicate or in any way relate to communications between you and any manufacturer of asbestos-containing products concerning or related to the asbestos contained in such products. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is vague, unduly burdensome and overly broad to the extent that it seeks information which has not been limited in time, scope or for that matter, to a particular facility or premises. Union Carbide further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of the subject matter made the basis of this lawsuit and as such is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that the discovery process as well as Union Carbide's own investigation into this matter remain on going. Union Carbide is diligently attempting to conclude its examination of the Institute Plant's business records pertaining to asbestos, and to the extent that responsive and -53- non-privileged documentation and/or other materials containing information pertinent to the full breadth of this Request are discovered, said documents and/or materials will be made available to the Plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. Additionally, Union Carbide maintains a repository of asbestos related documents, including those documents pertaining to any possible communications between the manufacturers of asbestos containing products and asbestos. Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. 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 of asbestos and all documents which refer to such documents and any documents pertaining to meetings of such trade associations that were attended by any of your employees or representatives. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that it is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of the subject matter made the basis of this lawsuit, and as such is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that as phrased, this Request is unduly burdensome, and the costly, time-consuming burden of production -54- substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide maintains a repository of asbestos related documents, including those documents pertaining to any possible communications between the manufacturers of asbestos containing products and asbestos. Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR~PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce all of Defendant's safety meeting minutes that refer to the dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that it is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of the subject matter made the basis of this lawsuit, and as such is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that as phrased, this Request is unduly burdensome, and the costly, time-consuming burden of production substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that according to the best information currently available, there are no -55- documents which exist, that might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. Union Carbide maintains a repository of asbestos related documents. Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request. Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Please produce all documents related to the installation of asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that it is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429,430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of the subject matter made the basis of this lawsuit, and as such is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that as phrased, this Request is unduly burdensome, and the costly, time-consuming burden of production substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Union Carbide further objects to this request because it is vague and does not describe specific documents or specific categories of documents to which Union Carbide might respond. In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex 1998). Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of -56- this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Produce all safety manuals and/or safety handbooks provided to Defendant's employees during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide will make all responsive documents pertaining to the years 1977-79 and 1981, available to the requesting party for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR/PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents related to Plaintiff s father, Phillip Lake, Sr., including but not limited to Phillip Lake, Sr.'s work performance and/or personnel records. RESPONSE: To the extent that any responsive documentation exist and can be located, they will be made available to the requesting party for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Please produce all documents that reflect or depict in any way the layout of Defendant's Premises At Issue, including the location and dimensions of all buildings and the location and placement of asbestos-containing products, and specifically including all photographs, plats, maps, diagrams, blueprints, drawings, specifications or other architectural renderings. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that it is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. -57- 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of the subject matter made the basis of this lawsuit, and as such is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that as phrased, this Request is unduly burdensome, and the costly, time-consuming burden of production substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiff s request. Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Please produce all demonstrative aids Defendant plans to use at trial in this matter. RESPONSE: Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that as phrased, this Request is unduly burdensome, and the costly, time-consuming burden of production substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Union Carbide further objects to this request because it is vague and does not describe specific documents or specific categories of documents to which Union Carbide might respond. In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex 1998). -58- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Please produce all photographs of asbestos 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: Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that it is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of the subject matter made the basis of this lawsuit, and as such is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that as phrased, this Request is unduly burdensome, and the costly, time-consuming burden of production substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request. Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Please produce all documents relating to any individuals' claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos at any facility of Defendant, 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. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that it is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union -59- Carbide further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of the subject matter made the basis of this lawsuit, and to the extent that it has not been limited in time, scope or for that matter, a particular facility, contractor or premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Please produce all documents that in any way reflect corporate minutes, corporate records, departmental meetings or discussions, or meetings with agents or contractors that in any way discuss, note, or table a discussion of the hazards of asbestos or potential health hazards of asbestos. 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: Please refer to Union Carbide's Response to Request for Production No. 22, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR^PRODUCTION NO. 31: Please produce all documents of corporate, board of directors. Defendant Premises representatives, departmental persons, task force, or other meetings of members of Defendant from 1940 until the last year of the Time Period At Issue that contain discussions or information concerning asbestos, asbestos-related health hazards, or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to the duplicative and repetitious nature of this Request. Subject thereto, please refer to Union Carbide's Response to Request for Production No. 22, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Please produce all documents which will be used at the time of trial, 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 any of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's most recently filed Answer. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this request because it is inappropriate because it seeks the -60- invasive disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of Union Carbide's legal counsel. Texas Tech Univ. Health Sciences Car. V. Schooled, 828 S.W.2d 502, 504 (Tex. App. - El Paso 1992, orig. proceeding). Union Carbide further objects to this request for any documents supporting its allegations and contentions as over broad. In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1998). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Please produce documents between Defendant and any of its workers' compensation insurance carriers or any other insurance carriers regarding the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that it is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of the subject matter made the basis of this lawsuit, and to the extent that it has not been limited in time, scope or for that matter, to a particular facility or premises, and as such is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: It is unknown to Union Carbide at this time whether or not documents which may be responsive to full breadth of this overly broad request, exist and can be located through a reasonably diligent review of the Institute Plant's business records pertaining to asbestos. Therefore, if said documents exist and can be located, upon Plaintiff s request, copies of such documentation and/or other materials will be made available at a suitable time and place for inspection, review and copying -61- at Plaintiff s expense at a mutually agreeable place and time. Additionally, Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiff s request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Please produce documents between Defendant and any of its insurance carriers relating to any inspections carried out by the insurance carrier in which asbestos or dust in general was mentioned. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's.Response to Request for Production No. 33, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Please produce a copy of all regulations, orders, rules and/or policies which have been used relating to the safety of the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 16, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODIJCTION NO. 36: Please produce all documents which contain complaints by employees of Defendant at Defendant's Premises at Issue regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that it is overly broad and constitutes -62- an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of the subject matter made the basis of this lawsuit, and to the extent that it has not been limited in time, scope or for that matter, to a particular facility or premises, and as such is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce all documents which contain complaints by Union representatives of Defendant's Premises At Issue regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: None. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce all documents, organizational charts or rosters which identify the members of the management at the Defendant's Premises At Issue and their areas of responsibility during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: To the extent that such documentation exists and can be located, it will be made available to the requesting party for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. -63- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Please produce all documents which evidence Defendant's net worth, including, but not limited to, all "10-K" forms filed for the last five (5) years. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that it is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent that it is unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Upon Plaintiffs request, copies of such documentation and/or other materials will be made available at a suitable time and place for inspection, review and copying at Plaintiffs expense at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Please produce all documents which evidence Defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale, or transfer of ownership or of liabilities relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: To the extent said documents exist and can be located, upon Plaintiffs request, copies of such documentation and/or other materials will be made available at a suitable time and place for inspection, review and copying at Plaintiffs expense at a mutually agreeable place and time. 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: Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent it contains an interrogatory and as such is not a true Request for Production as defined by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil -64- Procedure. Union Carbide further objects to this request because it is vague and does not describe specific documents or specific categories of documents to which Union Carbide might respond. In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex 1998). In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad and improperly seeks the discovery of all factual assertions and a marshaling of proof supporting Union Carbide's contentions and as a result, this Request is inconsistent with Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Please refer to Union Carbide's Aaiswers to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 15, including all of the objections set forth therein. RF.OI JEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: If you contend that you did not own or control the facility(ies) during any portion of the Time Period At Issue, please produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of the facility(ies); such documentation to include, by way of example and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 10K reports or other state or federal agency fdings, or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits of your corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Union Carbide does not make such a contention at this time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: If you contend that you have not been sued in the proper capacity as set forth in Plaintiff s latest petition, produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the history of Defendant and any relevant purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger or divestment of the facility(ies); such documentation to include, by way of example and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 10K. reports or other state or federal agency filings, or deposition, trial testimony or -65- affidavits of your corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: As it concerns this lawsuit, Union Carbide does not contend that it has not been sued in the proper capacity. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Please produce all indemnity agreements, assignments of liability, subrogation agreements and other similar documents relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue and liabilities arising from said ownership. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is vague, overly broad, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: If you contend Defendant's Premises At Issue was asbestos-free during the Time Period At Issue, please produce all documents which support your contention. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent it contains an interrogatory and as such is not a true Request for Production as defined by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Union Carbide further objects to this request because it is vague and does not describe specific documents or specific categories of documents to which Union Carbide might respond. In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex 1998). In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad and improperly seeks the discovery of all factual assertions and a marshaling of proof supporting Union Carbide's contentions and as a result, this Request is inconsistent with Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide does not make such a contention at this time. -66- / REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: If you contend that some or all of Defendant's Premises At Issue are asbestos-free, please produce all documents, including but not limited to, specifications, blue prints and drawings supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Response to Request for Production No. 45, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Please produce all documents relating to your manufacturing of any asbestos or asbestos-containing products, or products to which any amount of asbestos was added, for use at any of Defendant's facilities or for sale to others. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 13, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Please produce all documents relating to your use of any asbestos containing materials, asbestos containing products or tools with which asbestos is used, for any process taking place at any of Defendant's facilities. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that as drafted this Request is vague, confusing and unintelligible. Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that it is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent that it is unduly burdensome and the burden entailed, in light of Plaintiffs failure to state with any degree of specificity the particular types of documents sought to be discovered, forcing Union Carbide to speculate as to what information might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request, -67- substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought, should discovery be allowed. Furthermore, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Please produce all documents relating to your use, manipulation or handling of asbestos in any industrial processes at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Response to Request for Production No. 48, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: Please produce all marketing and advertising materials related in any way to your manufacturing of asbestos or asbestos containing materials or your use of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials in your industrial process. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it seeks the discovery of information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide states that according to plaintiffs alleged work history, plaintiff has not claimed that he was exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by Union Carbide, and therefore, any information which might be responsive to this Request is irrelevant to this lawsuit. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide discontinued the use of asbestos-containing products in the early seventies and therefore, no such information exists for the relative time period involved in this lawsuit. -68- 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: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is overly broad in that it has not been limited in time or scope, nor has this Request been limited to the subject-matter made the underlying basis for this lawsuit, and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it is unduly burdensome, and the burden of producing each and every document pertaining to any of the numerous boilers contained on Union Carbide's premises, in light of the fact that plaintiff has not even claimed to have worked on or around boilers, substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiff s request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. 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 of Defendant's safety program. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. -69- Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: Please produce all documents provided by you to other plants or facilities relating to safety in the industry, audit procedures or means to eliminate dust exposure, including, but not limited to asbestos dust, at industrial facilities. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is overly broad in that it has not been limited in time or scope, nor has this Request been limited to the subject-matter made the underlying basis for this lawsuit, and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it is unduly burdensome, and the burden of producing each and every document pertaining to safety, substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. -70- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Please produce depositions and trial transcripts of your current or former employees or other corporate representatives taken in any matter involving an alleged injury or claimed property damage due to asbestos or insurance coverage for claims related to asbestos injury or property damage. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is overly broad in that it has not been limited in time or scope, nor has this Request been limited to the subject-matter made the underlying basis for this lawsuit, and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it is unduly burdensome, and the burden of producing each and every deposition and trial transcript current or former employees or other corporate representatives, substantially outweighs the probative value of the information sought should discovery be allowed. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide was first named in 1972 in a law suit involving allegations of injury from exposure to asbestos. Since then, Union Carbide has been named in thousands of such cases. Accordingly, plaintiffs frequently dismiss Union Carbide from such law suits as plaintiffs discover the facts and focus on true culprits. Union Carbide also from time to time settles cases for nominal amounts to avoid cost of discovery or litigation. In the history of the litigation, few cases (probably less than a couple of dozen) have raised specific allegations of injury from exposure to Bakelite products. No depositions or trials have placed Bakelite products at issue. Union Carbide does maintain a computer data base listing of all asbestos cases, alphabetically listed. Upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make that listing available to plaintiff for review and replication at a suitable time and place. -71- Union Carbide has presently identified the following testimony offered in asbestos-related law suits by Union Carbide employees: 1) Bert K. Barton A) James W. Manisto v. American Brake Block Corporation, et al.. District Court, First Judicial District, Dakota County, Minneapolis, Minnesota, NO. C-5-881008, January 26, 1989. B) Robert P. Pavne. Josephine Stala as Administratrix of the Estate of Stanley Stala v. dvocate Mines, et al., Supreme Court of N.Y. Law Div., Middlesex County, Doc. No. L-l 0917-85, October 27, 1988. 2) Mvron Bennett A) Keith Edwin Gibson v. Armstrong World Industries. Inc., et al.. U.S.D.C. District of Colorado, Consolidated Civil Action No. 83 -K- 1 756; Civil Action No. 84K-912, May 18, 1987. 3) Newell Bolton A) -- Russell Allen v. American Petrofina. et al.. District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, File No. B-126,986, January 11-12, 1993. 4) Carl IJ. Demehl. M.D. A) John Worm v. Rubicon Chemicals. Inc., et al.. U.S.D.C., District of Minnesota, 4th Division, St. Paul, Minnesota, No. 4-81-748, October 21, 1982. B) Flenry Garry v. Union Carbide Corporation, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, Civil No. LR-C-83-921, February 11 1985. C) Arthur A. Frehse v. Anchor Packing Company et a]., Sixth Judicial District, County of Carlton, State of Minnesota, March 10th, 1989. 5) Thomas J. Hall. M.D. A) James W. Manisto v. American Brake Block Corporation, et al., District Court, First Judicial District, Dakota County, Minneapolis, Minnesota, NO. C-5-881008, January 10, 1989. 6) Dr. Rov E. Jovner -72- A) Creed T. Erwin v. Clemco Industries. Inc.. U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Texas (Beaumont Division), Civil Action No. B-86-1780-A, November 23, 1987. 7) Newton H. Ketcham A) State of West Virginia. Circuit Court of Mongolia County, West Virginia, File No. 86-C-458, November 8, 1991. B) Russell Allen, et al v. American Petrofina. et al.. District Court of Jefferson County Texas, File No. B-126,986, December 8-10, 1992. C) Pauline Adams v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours. District Court of Jefferson County Texas, Cause No. D-l26,445, March 15, 1994. 8) Edward J. Kleber A) James W, Manisto v. American Brake Block. District of Minnesota - Dakota County 1st Judicial District, File No. C5-88-1008, February 13, 1989. 9) Dr. Hilton C. Lewinsohn A) Marion B. Soignet v. Montello. et al District Court for the Eastern District of -- Texas, File No. B-86-1193, March 9,1989. B) Conwed Corporation v. Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company Inc.. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 5-92-88, February 15, 1994 C) Conwed Corporation v. Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company.. Inc.. US District Court Fifth Division, District of Minnesota, October 18, 1994. D) Chicago Board of Education v. A.C.S. Inc.. Circuit Court' of Cook County, Illinois, County Department Law Division, File No. 92-L-9934, October 5, 1995. 10) Paul McDaniel A) Conwed v. Union Carbide Corporation. USDC, Eastern District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, File No. MDL-875, September 2, 1993. 11) John L. Myers A) Lester Rice v. Union Carbide Corporation. U.S.D.C., District of South Carolina, Civil Action No. 81-977-9, April 9, 1982. B) Simon DeWard v. Johns-Manville. et al.. Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Civil Action No. C-298717 (and related cases), August 30, 1984. -73- C) Bobby R. Sanford v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. et al.. Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, No. G-82-325, September 4, 1986. D) Shirlev Tate v. Certain-Teed Corp.. et al.. District Court, 46th Judicial District, Hardeman County, Texas, No. 7591. E) Shirlev Tate v. 3 M Corporation, et al. District Court, 94th Judicial District, Nueces County, Texas, No. 85-1559-C, July 27, 1987. F) Union Carbide Asbestos Removal Litigation Pennsylvania Cases, Bridgeport, Connecticut, April 28, 1988. G) James W, Manisto v. American Brake Block District Court, First Judicial District, State of Minnesota, County of Dakota, File No. C-5-88-1008, January 6, 1989. H) Estate of Leonard Martin. Sr., v. Union Carbide Corporation. Circuit Court, County of Alger, State of Michigan, Case No. 93-2429-No., August 30, 1995. I) Bobbie Jean Dean v. Anchor Packing. District Court, 270th Judicial District, Harrison County Texas, Cause No. 97-57627, [insert date] J) Richard Ahrendt v. ABEX. Inc.. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, Civil Action No. 95-3895 & Related Cases, January 25, 1995. 12) William Douglas Neal A) Conwed v. Union Carbide Corporation. USDC, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, File No. MDL-875, November 8 & 20, 1996 13) Thomas Norris A) James Manisto v. American Brake Block. Minnesota District Court, Dakota County 1st Judicial District, File No. C5-88-1008, January 16, 1989. 14) Robert E. Peele A) Asbestos Cases Huntington, West Virginia, September 9-10, 1981. B) Asbestos Cases Southern District of Georgia, October 7, 1981. -74- C) Freda K. Knight v. Union Carbide Corporation. U.S.D.C. Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington, W.VA., Civil Action No. 84-3425, May 22, 1987. D) Abate, et al v. A.C.S. Inc.. Circuit Court for Baltimore County, State of Maryland, Consolidation File No. 89-236704, July 9, 1991. E) Asbestos Cases. All Courts situated in the State of Ohio, January 26, 1990. F) Atkins v. Owens Coming Fiberglas. USDC - Western District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 90-0058-R, December 6, 1990. G) Asbestos Cases. USDC - Eastern District of Virginia, (Newport News and Norfolk Division), Docket No. C/P 77-1-N, September 26, 1980. H) Novle Aldridge v. Appalachian Power Co.. Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia, Civil Action No. 91-C-463, April 30, 1992. I) Lucette Alida Nelson v. Johns-Mansville Sales. USDC - District Court of Arizona, File No. CIV. 80-148 (TUC) (RMB), April 6, 1983. 15) Harrison B. Rhodes. PhD. A) Marion B. Soignet v. Montello. Inc., et al., U. S.D. C. for Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, B-86-1193-CA, January 19, 1989. B) June Greer. Individually, and as Exec, of the Estate of John Lee Greer. U. S.D.C. for Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Civil Action No. CV 86-2882, August 10, 1989. C) Conwed Corporation v. Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics. USDC - District of Minnesota, 5th Division, October 12, 1994. 16) Richard J. Sexton. M.D. A) Freda K. Knight v. Union Carbide Corporation. U.S.D.C. Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington, W.Va., Civil Action No. 84-3425, May 14, 1987. 17) Howard Stephens A) Keith Edwin Gibson v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C. District of Colorado, Consolidated Civil Action No. 83-K-1756; Civil Action No. 84-K-912, May 18, 1987. -75- 18) William Paul Woods A) Keith Edwin Gibson v. Armstrong World Industries. Inc., et al.. U. S.D. C. District of Colorado, Consolidated Civil Action No. 83-K-1756; Civil Action No. 84-K-912, May 18, 1987. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Please produce exhibit lists produced to you by any other counsel for plaintiff in other cases involving claim of injury or property damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: 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: Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in any w ay the catalog or index or subscriptions or holdings of any library or other research repository of Defendant containing magazines, journals, books, publications or other documents relating to asbestos (including, but not limited to, the effects of exposure t 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.). -76- RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answer to Interrogatory No. 11, including all of the objections set forth therein. Additionally, Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Please produce all inventory, stock-on-hand, warehouse or other documents pertaining to asbestos-containing products that were stored, maintained, stockpiled, or kept by Defendant for use at any facility of Defendant, including Defendant's Premises At Issue, at any time. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request to the extent it is overly broad and is not reasonably limited to a specific time period, or for that matter, to a particular plant or premises and as such, this Request as drafted, constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is vague and unduly burdensome, and the oppressive, time consuming and costly nature of this burden, to the extent that responsive information and/or documentation exists, substantially outweighs the probative value of any of the information sought by this Interrogatory. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the -77- repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiff s request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Please produce any letters, affidavits, or stipulations concerning authenticity of any Defendant's documents provided to you in any other case involving claim of injury or property damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Produce any and all safety guidelines, specifications and/or other documents provided to Defendant and/or its employees by any contractors working at Defendant's Premises at the same time as Defendant's employees, including Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., which refer, relate or mention the hazards of asbestos, the existence or location of asbestos-containing materials and/or procedures to follow in the event that work is to be performed in the vicinity of asbestos-containing materials. RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the -78- full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Produce any and all safety guidelines, specifications and/or other documents from any source that were provided to Defendant's employees, including Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., which refer or relate or mention the hazards of asbestos, the existence or location of asbestos-containing materials and/or procedures to follow in the even[sic] that work is to be performed by Defendant's employees in the vicinity of asbestos-containing materials. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it overly broad. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request. Union Carbide will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: Produce any and all documents, including invoices, shipping receipts, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature related to the purchase of respirators, -79- protective clothing, containment materials, or other protective devices for use by Defendant's employees who were to be working in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products during the course and scope of their employment duties. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide states that any information which might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad Request may be derived from the records contained in the repository. Therefore, the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the responding party. Union Carbide states that upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide_will make its repository available to plaintiff for inspection and duplication at a mutually agreeable place and time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Produce all documents which reflect any discussion concerning the exercise of control over or monitoring the use of respirators, protective clothing or other protective equipment by Defendant's employees, including Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., while such employees were performing their duties within the course and scope of their employment at Defendant's Premises during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this request because it is inappropriate because it seeks the invasive disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of Union Carbide's legal counsel. Texas Tech Univ. Health Sciences Car. V. Schooled, 828 S.W.2d 502, 504 (Tex. App. - El Paso 1992, orig. proceeding). Union Carbide further objects to this request for any documents supporting its allegations and contentions as over broad. In re -80- American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1998). Union Carbide objects to this request to the extent that improperly seeks the discovery of all factual assertions and a marshaling of proof supporting Union Carbide's contentions and as a result, this Interrogatory is inconsistent with Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. -81- UNION CARBIDE'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 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 of asbestos or asbestos-containing products were utilized on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide admits generally that certain types of asbestos-containing products were used on certain portions of Union Carbide's premises during certain periods of time over the years. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., was exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to the use of the term "exposed" on grounds that it is unclear and undefined. Defendant can neither admit nor deny this Request with specificity because the Defendant has made a reasonable inquiry, but the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny as to whether or not Phillip Lake, Sr. was actually exposed to asbestos. Subject thereto, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: If your 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 of the foregoing admission or any documents showing was reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result. Union Carbide is called upon to -82- speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that you have no air monitoring results for asbestos taken on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that during the time Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., was employed by Defendant, it was foreseeable that asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises would or could be removed, stripped, replaced or repaired at some time after installation. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that results of the air monitoring for asbestos taken on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue indicate Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., was exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue: RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to the use of the term "exposed" on grounds that it is unclear and undefined. Defendant can neither admit nor deny this Request with specificity because the Defendant has made a reasonable inquiry, but the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny as to whether or not Phillip Lake, Sr. was actually exposed to asbestos. Subject thereto and as a result of plaintiffs failure to specify where decedent might have worked, Union Carbide is unable to ascertain the specific dust monitoring results for the particular area or areas in which the decedent might have worked. Subject thereto, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: If your 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 of the foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you -83- undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Defendant's employees were working with asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issued during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to the use of the terms "working with" on grounds that they are unclear and undefined. Union Carbide further objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad and seeks information beyond the scope of discovery. Union Carbide states that during the relevant time period, this Union Carbide premises employed over 2000 individuals, some of whom, from time to time, in various portions of the plant, worked with asbestoscontaining products. Therefore, Union Carbide states that this Request is admitted as those employees, who from time to time worked with asbestos containing products in various portions of the plant and denied to those employees who never work with asbestos-containing materials. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that contractors were working with asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to the use of the terms "working with" on grounds that they are unclear and undefined. Subject thereto, Union Carbide states that this poorly worded, overly broad, ambiguous Request is admitted to some, but not all, contractors, working in some, but not all, portions of the plant where some asbestos-containing materials might be located, that have encountered and/or utilized asbestos-containing materials. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that Defendant was aware of the presence of asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. -84- RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that this Request is admitted as to some, but not all, portions of the premises which, at some point in time Union Carbide was generally aware of the presence of asbestos-containing materials. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that Defendant was aware of the use of asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to the use of the term "use" on grounds that it is overly broad, vague and undefined. Subject thereto, Union Carbide states that this Request is admitted as to some, but not all, portions of the premises which, at some point in time Union Carbide was generally aware of the use of asbestos-containing products. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that you did not post a warning, caution or hazard signs concerning asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Denied. R EOl JEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that you specified the use of asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue prior to or during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is undefined and unintelligible. Union Carbide further objects on grounds that the overly broad nature of this Request renders it meaningless as to those issues which are relevant to this lawsuit, and as a result this Request seeks information beyond the scope of discovery. Subject thereto, Union Carbide states that as to some, but not all, parts of the plant, during some of the relevant time period at issue, this Request is admitted. -85- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1960s. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1970s. RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that it began the discontinuation of the use or acquisition of asbestos containing products in the early 1970's. Subject thereto, admitted as to some time during the early 70's. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1980s. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that the use of the term "use" is vague, unclear and undefined. Subject thereto, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1990s. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that the use of the term "use" is vague, unclear and undefined. Subject thereto, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1972. RESPONSE: Admitted. -86- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1973. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1974. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1975^ RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1976. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1977. RESPONSE: Admitted. -87- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1978. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1979. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1980. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that you did not provide to contractors working at Defendant's Premises At Issue health and safety procedures relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: 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: Denied. -88- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admit that asbestos is still in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that a reasonable inquiry has been made, but that the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny. Subject thereto, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admit that asbestos is still in place at Defendant's Premises at Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that according to the best information currently available, small amounts of asbestos-containing products may still be in place at the premises at issue. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit that Defendant owned Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. _ RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that Defendant operated Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that you did not conduct air monitoring for the presence of asbestos dust during the time period in question. RESPONSE: Denied. -89- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, you did not conduct air monitoring tests for levels of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that you did not provide safety orientations to contractor employees prior to their commencing work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admit that Plaintiff s father, Phillip Lake, Sr., removed asbestos-containing materials from Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that it has made a reasonable inquiry, but that the information known or easily obtainable regarding the scope of Phillip Lake's job responsibilities is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny this Request with specificity. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: Admit that Plaintiff s father, Phillip Lake, Sr. was employed by Defendant or by a predecessor-in-interest of Defendant and worked on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that it has made a reasonable inquiry, but that the information known or easily obtainable regarding Phillip Lake's alleged employment at Union Carbide is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny this Request with specificity. Subject thereto, denied. -90- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Response to Request for Admission No. 35, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: Admit that Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., worked at Defendant's Premises in areas where asbestos-containing products were installed, used, prepared for use, replaced or repaired, stored or loaded, unloaded or transported. RESPONSE Union Carbide states that it has made a reasonable inquiry, but that the information known or easily obtainable regarding Phillip Lake's alleged employment at Union Carbide is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny this Request with specificity. Subject thereto, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67: If you fail to unequivocally admit the foregoing request, produce all documents that support your response. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Response to Request for Admission No. 36, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Admit that Defendant was negligent in the installation, maintenance, removal and/or abatement of asbestos at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68: If you fail to unequivocally admit the foregoing request, produce all documents that support your response. -91- RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Admit that Defendant consciously decided not to warn its employees of the dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admit that you did not protect Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., from exposure to asbestos fibers on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69: If you fail to unequivocally admit the foregoing request, produce all documents that support your response. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is overly broad and vague to the extent that it seeks the production of all documents supporting Union Carbide's good faith contentions and the various documents and other materials underlying the basis for said contentions without describing with reasonable particularity the documents and items sought to be produced or inspected in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is repetitious and duplicative, and as a result it is oppressive and harassing. Subject thereto, Union Carbide responds as follows: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 15, including all of the objections set forth therein. -92- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admit that Plaintiffs exposure to asbestos dust brought home from Defendant's Premises on Phillip Lake, Sr.'s clothes and person was a substantial contributing factor in causing Plaintiffs asbestos-related injury. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: If you fail to unequivocally admit the foregoing request, produce all documents that support your response. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds thatjt fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: Admit that you did not provide and require the use of the following special clothing by Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr.: coveralls or similar whole body clothing. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 15, including all of the objections set forth therein. -93- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that you did not provide and require the use of the following special clothing by Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr.: head coverings. RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that a reasonable inquiry has been made, but that the information known or easily obtainable regarding the work history of Phillip Lake, Sr. is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny. Subject thereto, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 15, including all of the objections set forth therein. RF.Ol JEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: Admit that you did not provide and require the use of the following special clothing by Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr.: gloves. RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that a reasonable inquiry has been made, but that the information known or easily obtainable regarding the work history of Phillip Lake, Sr. is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny. Subject thereto, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 15, including all of the objections set forth therein. -94- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admit that you did not provide and require the use of the following special clothing by Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr.: foot coverings. RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that a reasonable inquiry has been made, but that the information known or easily obtainable regarding the work history of Phillip Lake, Sr. is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny. Subject thereto, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 15, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that you did not undertake the laundering of Phillip Lake, Sr.'s work clothing worn during your employ. RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that a reasonable inquiry has been made, but that the information known or easily obtainable regarding the work history of Phillip Lake, Sr. is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny. Subject thereto, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 15, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that Phillip Lake, Sr., in the course and scope of his work as an employee of Defendant, worked around Defendant's employees who were using and/or applying asbestos-containing products. -95- RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that a reasonable inquiry has been made, but that the information known or easily obtainable regarding the work history of Phillip Lake, Sr. is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny. Subject thereto, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has failed to specify with reasonable particularity the types of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject thereto. Union Carbide responds as follows: Please refer to Union Carbide's Response to Request for Admission No. 46, contained herein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: Admit that you did not require your employees to handle, mix, apply, remove, cut or score asbestos-containing products in a wet state to prevent emission of airborne asbestos fibers at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue where asbestos-containing materials were being used and/or removed. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 15, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: Admit that during the time period Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr., worked at Defendant's Premises, Defendant was aware that it's workers would transport asbestos dust to their household via their clothes and person. -96- RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR PRODIJCTION NO. 78: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition. Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: Admit that during the time period Plaintiffs father, Phillip Lake, Sr. worked at Defendant's Premises, it was reasonably foreseeable that it's workers would transport asbestos dust to their household via their clothes and their person. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admit that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos dust from Defendant's Premises At Issue that was brought home on the clothes and body of his father, Phillip Lake, Sr. RESPONSE: Denied. -97- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is overly broad and vague to the extent that it seeks the production of all documents supporting Union Carbide's good faith contentions and the various documents and other materials underlying the basis for said contentions without describing with reasonable particularity the documents and items sought to be produced or inspected in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is repetitious and duplicative, and as a result it is oppressive and harassing. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue Defendant was aware that household exposure to asbestos dust created a potential health hazard to those who breathed such dust. RESPONSE: Union Carbide admits that it gradually gained knowledge that under certain circumstances, workers with heavy enough exposure to asbestos fibers, might take home enough dust from asbestos fibers to create a potential health hazard to those who breathed such dust. REOI JEST FOR PRODIJCTION NO. 81: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result. Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. -98- RF.Ot JF.ST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant did not warn its employees of the health hazards associated with household exposure to asbestos dust. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Please refer to Union Carbide's Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 15, including all of the objections set forth therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant had the power to control Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Admitted as to Union Carbide's operations and employees, and denied as to operations and employees of independent contractors. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant had the power to manage Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Admitted as to Union Carbide's operations and employees, and denied as to operations and employees of independent contractors. -99- RF.OI JEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it is overly broad and vague to the extent that it seeks the production of all documents supporting Union Carbide's good faith contentions and the various documents and other matenals underlying the basis for said contentions without describing with reasonable particularity the documents and items sought to be produced or inspected in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is repetitious and duplicative, and as a result it is oppressive and harassing. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant had the power to direct the use or condition of Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Admitted as to Union Carbide's operations and employees, and denied as to operations andemployees of independent contractors. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 85: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it is overly broad and vague to the extent that it seeks the production of all documents supporting Union Carbide's good faith contentions and the various documents and other materials underlying the basis for said contentions without describing with reasonable particularity the documents and items sought to be produced or inspected in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is repetitious and duplicative, and as a result it is oppressive and harassing. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant had the power to superintend the use or conditions of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objets to this request as vague in that the terms "superintended", -100- "use" and "conditions" are unclear and undefined. Union Carbide further objects to this Request to the extent that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. Subject thereto, as phrased, and according to Union Carbide's understanding of "superintend," admitted as to generally having the power to supervise the use of Union Carbide's premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition. Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant had the power to restrict the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of Plaintiff s Request for Admission No. 56, contained herein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 87: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly -101- broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant had the power to regulate the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of Plaintiff s Request for Admission No. 56, contained herein. REOI JEST FOR PRODIICTION NO. 88: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. -102- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant had the power to govern the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of Plaintiffs Request for Admission No. 56, contained herein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 90: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds thatjt fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant had the power to oversee the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of Plaintiff s Request for Admission No. 56, contained herein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 91: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in -103- time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant had the power to administer the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of Plaintiff s Request for Admission No. 56, contained herein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 92: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant had the power to manage the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of Plaintiff s Request for Admission No. 56, contained herein. -104- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 93: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant controlled Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of Plaintiff s Request for Admission No. 56, contained herein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 94: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. -105- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant restricted the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of Plaintiff s Request for Admission No. 56, contained herein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant regulated the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of Plaintiff s Request for Admission No. 56, contained herein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 95: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result. Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66: Admit that during the Time Period At Issue, Defendant oversaw the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of Plaintiff s Request for Admission No. 56, contained herein. -106- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 96: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it has not been limited in time or scope and as such this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. K-Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1996). Union Carbide further objects to this Request on grounds that it fails to identify with any degree of reasonable particularity the types or categories of documents sought to be discovered in a manner consistent with the meaning of Rule 196 if the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result, Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what type of documentation might be responsive to the full breadth of this overly broad request. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this Request on grounds that it is duplicative and repetitious of numerous prior requests for information. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 67: Admit that Defendant had control over the manner in which Phillip Lake, Sr. performed his work. RESPONSE: Union Carbide states that it has made a reasonable inquiry, but that the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny this request with specificity. Subject thereto, admitted if Phillip Lake, Sr. was an employee of Union Carbide, otherwise denied if Phillip Lake, Sr. was employed by an independent contractor. -107- R L i S L E OEHAY. JR < : 922 1991) oAhy c ELLiSTON DAVID W CROWE MELD BAILEY CHRISTOPHER P MANNING PAUL E HAMILTON KATHRYN HERMES W SCOTT BERRY L AUR A E KUGLER TODD J SUDDlESON MELINDA S. HUFF BRENT M KARREN THOMAS W BURCH. Ill WRITER'S DIRECT DiAL .2 1 41 2 1 0-2486 DeHay & Elliston, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS 3500 BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA 901 MAIN STREET DALLAS, TEXAS 75202-3736 (2 14) 2 1 0-2400 FACSIMILE (214) 210-2500 JUN. u 5.01 it) HEATHER A BERNER CHARLENE R. ECHOLS JASON W FATHEREE MARCO D. FLORES WILLIAM A FYNES S SHAYNE GARDNER JAMES B GREER TROY D HELLING STEVEN K HOLCOMB TANDY V JOURET EDWARD A KALA8US. JR MELISSA M. LEON JEFFREY M MAROSZ MISTI D MOSTELLER TODD D, OGDEN ROBERT B PADGETT BLAIR M. PARTLOW TODD H RAMSEY JUSTIN H. ROY CYNTHIA L SCHULER TINA M STAMPS JACK A. WALTERS, Ml BRIAN R WESLEY BERNARD E ZWILLENBERG June 4, 2001 D. Leanne Jackson Baron & Budd 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 Re: Cause No. Cc-00-06630-E; Phillip Edward Lake, Jr., et al. vs1. GAF Corporation, et al.\ In the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas. Dear Ms. Jackson: Enclosed please find a copy of the original of Defendant Union Carbide Corporation's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Production and Request for Admissions. In accordance with applicable state and local rules of civil procedure, we are retaining the original in lieu of its filing. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call at any time. Very truly yours, /kjt Ends.