Document qamw3wp6eJ7eN021rYXwE4ZpE

FILE NAME Kubota KUB DATE 2010 DOC KUB027 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Legal - Defendant Kubota's Responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Admission Set One Thomas C. Corless State Bar No. 100614 Aide C. Ontiveros State Bar No. 169629 WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 555 S. Flower Street Suite 2900 Los Angeles California 90071 4 Telephone 213 443-5100 Facsimile 213 443-5101 5 Attorneys for Defendant KUBOTA CORPORATION 6 ECEIVE MAR 17 17 2010 By _______- _ 7 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 RHODA EVANS and BOBBY EVANS ) Unlimited Civil Case 11 ) Plaintiffs ) Case No BC 418867 Judge Conrad R. Aragon Dept. 49 12 13 14 A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE 15 Defendants ) 29 ) 16 __) Action Filed July 2009 17 PROPOUNDING PARTIES RHODA EVANS AND BOBBY EVANS 18 RESPONDING PARTY KUBOTA CORPORATION 19 SET NO ONE 20 Defendant KUBOTA CORPORATION Defendant or KUBOTA hereby responds 21 to Plaintiffs Rhoda Evans and Bobby Evans Plaintiffs Request for Admissions Set No. as 22 follows 23 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 24 25 These responses are made solely for the purpose of and in relation to this action Each 26 answer is given subject to all appropriate objections including but not limited to objections 27 concerning competency relevancy materiality propriety and admissibility which would require 28 the exclusion of any statement contained herein where made by a witness present and testifying $$$ 1 TO AINITICES DEQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE reserved and may be interposed at the 1 in court All such objections and grounds therefore are || 2 time of trial has not fully completed its investigation of It should be noted that this responding party 3 completed its discovery in this matter and has not 4 the facts relating to this case has not yet fully contained herein are based only upon such for trial All of the answers preparation 5 || completed its known to this which are presently available to and specifically 6 information and documents to such responding and disclose only those contentions which presently occur 7 responding party discovery independent investigation legal research and It is anticipated that further || 8 party add meaning to the known facts as well as establish 9 || analysis will supply additional facts lead to substantial and legal contentions all of which may 10 entirely entirely new factual conclusions from the contentions herein set forth 11 || additions to changes in and variations cement pipe in 1975 and during the As Responding Party ceased the sale of asbestos 12 have left the employ of the asbestos 13 || ensuing 35 years potentially knowledgeable witnesses 14 of Kubota Corporation or have become deceased and through standard cement pipe division || have been destroyed i 15 company record destruction policies potentially responsive documents lacks sufficient information and belief to respond to man should be noted that Responding Party are made on behalf of Kubota Corporation onl of the requests for admissions These responses 18 during the time asbestos cement pipe was exported to th with regard to information existing || 19 20 || United States to Kubota Corporation's right 21 The following responses are given without prejudice 24 discovered facts which this responding party may la 22 produce evidence of any subsequently and all answers her reserves the right to change any recall Kubota Corporation accordingly ascertained analyses are made legal research is completed : as additional facts are 25 contentions are made || 26 faith effort to supply as much fac The answers contained herein are made in a good 27 specification of legal contentions as is presently known but shoul 28 information and as much FOR ADMISSION SET ONE RESPONSES PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS no way be to the prejudice of Kubota Corporation in relation to further discovery research or 2 any answers to herein no admission of any nature whatsoever is to be implied or inferred The 3 fact that any request for admission herein has been partially answered should not be taken as an 4 admission to the entire request or that such answer constitutes evidence of any facts thus set 5 forth or assumed All answers must be construed as given on the basis of present recollection 6 Any request for admission deemed as continuing is objected to as oppressive over burdensome 7 improper and not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2033 et seq and will not be regarded as continuing in nature RESPONSES PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 1 11 Admit that on approximately June 29 2005 you made an announcement regarding the 12 occurrence of many occupational victims of asbestos as well as the victims of asbestos dust from 13 environmental exposure around the Kanzaki plant 14 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 1 15 terms 16 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the many 17 occupational victims of asbestos and victims of asbestos dust is overly broad irrelevant and 18 is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request is 19 propounded to oppress and harass KUBOTA 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 2 21 Admit that approximately 75 former workers of the Kanzaki Plant developed 22 a mesothelioma as result of their exposure to the plant's containing products and have 23 24 died as a result of this fatal disease 25 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 2 26 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the terms former 27 workers of the Kansaki Plant and containing products is overly broad irrelevant and 28 $$ $$$ 3 RESPONSES TO DI INTIEES REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request is propounded merely to oppress and harass KUBOTA In addition the request and its accompanying Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 calls for information that invades the privacy 4 privilege of third parties and their families 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 3 6 Admit that you have compensated the surviving families of deceased workers of the Kanzaki Plant who developed mesothelioma as a result of their exposure to the plant's asbestos- containing products 10 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 3 11 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the terms surviving 12 families deceased workers of the Kanzaki Plant and containing products is overly 13 broad irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 14 The request is propounded merely to oppress and harass KUBOTA In addition the request and 15 No. 17.1 calls for information that invades the privacy 16 its accompanying Form Interrogatory 17 privilege of third parties and their families Should KUBOTA be ordered to respond to this 18 said order will force KUBOTA to breach its confidentiality contract with third parties request 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 4 20 Admit that residents of Amagasaki City Japan developed fatal mesothelioma during and 21 after the years the Kanzaki Plant produced containing products as a result of exposure 22 to the Kanzaki Plant's containing products 23 24 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 4 25 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the terms residents of 26 Amagasaki City Japan Kanzaki Plant and containing products is overly broad 27 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The 28 $$ 4 DESPONSES PI AINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE request is propounded merely to oppress and harass KUBOTA In addition the request and its accompanying Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 calls for information that invades the privacy privilege of third parties REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 5 Admit that from 1962 through 1975 approximately 240,000 tons of asbestos was used at the Kanzaki Plant in the production of asbestos water pipes and building material RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 5 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the terms Kanzaki 10 Plant and asbestos water pipes and building material With regard to the years 1962 to 11 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER 12 AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead 13 to the discovery of admissible evidence The request is propounded merely to oppress and harass 14 KUBOTA 15 16 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 17 Deny 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 6 19 Admit that from 1962 through 1975 YOU were informed and had documentation 20 regarding the HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH ASBESTOS EXPOSURE and ASBESTOS 21 CONTAINING MATERIAL 22 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 6 23 24 Objection This request is compound with regard to the terms from 1962 to 1975 and 25 and ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL The request is vague and ambiguous with 26 regard to the term documentation and the term ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL 27 With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS 28 5 DESDONSES TO INT^ FESREQUESTS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request is propounded merely to oppress and harass KUBOTA 4 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 5 Through the passage of time and demise of its employees KUBOTA is unable to more 6 completely respond to this interrogatory but shortly before its enactment KUBOTA became aware of a 1960 Japanese Pneumoconiosis Act that addressed pneumoconiosis and asbestosis resulting from long term exposures to asbestos at manufacturing facilities but not lung cancer or 10 mesothelioma and on that basis admits the request KUBOTA believes it first learned of 11 asbestos related cancer and mesothelioma hazards shortly before promulgation of the 1975 12 Japanese Ordinance on Prevention of Hazards Caused by Specific Chemical Substances and on 13 this basis denies the request 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 7 15 16 Admit that from 1962 through 1975 precautionary equipment was available to YOU to 17 protect YOUR employees from HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO 18 ASBESTOS 19 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 7 20 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the term precautionary 21 equipment With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with 22 LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and 23 24 irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The 25 request is propounded merely to oppress and harass KUBOTA 26 228 228 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows Admit 6 am rs DE BE DITIETO DITIETO DEQUESTS DEQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 8 Admit that YOU did not offer protective respiratory equipment to employees at all of your asbestos cement pipe manufacturing facilities form 1962 through 1975 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 8 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the term protective respiratory equipment With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 10 admissible evidence The request is propounded merely to oppress and harass KUBOTA 11 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 12 Deny 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 9 14 Admit that YOU did not provide consumers of your produced containing 15 16 products any WARNINGS about the HAZARDS RELATED TO ASBESTOS EXPOSURE with 17 the ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU SOLD at any time from 1962 through 1975 18 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 9 19 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the terms consumers 22 asbestos containing products and ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL With regard to 22 the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES 22 23 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is 24 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request is 25 propounded merely to oppress and harass KUBOTA 26 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 27 Deny 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 10 2 Admit that YOU did not provide WARNINGS on any packaging or product itself 3 associated with ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU provided to consumers of your 4 produced containing products from 1962 through 1975 5 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 10 6 7 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the term asbestos + 8 containing products With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment 9 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 10 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 11 The request is propounded merely to oppress and harass KUBOTA 12 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 13 Admit 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 11 15 16 Admit that YOU did not provide any WARNINGS about the HAZARDS RELATED TO 17 ASBESTOS EXPOSURE with the ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU SOLD to 18 VOSS at any time from 1962 through 1975 19 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 11 20 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the term ASBESTOS 21 CONTAINING MATERIAL With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans 22 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is 23 employment 24 overly broad and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 25 admissible evidence The request is propounded merely to oppress and harass KUBOTA 26 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 27 Deny 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 12 2 Admit that YOU did not provide WARNINGS on any packaging or product itself 3 associated with ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU provided to VOSS at any time 4 from 1962 through 1975 5 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 12 6 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the term ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is 10 overly broad and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 11 admissible evidence The request is propounded merely to oppress and harass KUBOTA 12 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 13 Admit - 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 13 15 Admit that YOU did not provide any WARNINGS about the HAZARDS RELATED TO 16 17 ASBESTOS EXPOSURE with the ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU SOLD to the 18 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 1975 19 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.13 : 20 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the terms HAZARDS 21 RELATED TO ASBESTOS EXPOSURE and ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL 22 With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELESANGELES 23 24 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is 25 26 27 28 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA sold any asbestos containing material to the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER at any time from 1962 to 1975 9 TT ITILES DEQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows At this point the Defendant is unaware of any sales of its product to the Los Angeles 3 Department of Water and Power and therefore cannot admit or deny the request and on that basis 4 denies it 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 14 6 Admit that YOU did not provide WARNINGS on any packaging or product itself 7 associated with ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL YOU provided to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 1975 10 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 14 11 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the terms HAZARDS 12 RELATED TO ASBESTOS EXPOSURE and ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL 13 With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES 14 15 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is 16 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request assumes 17 facts not in evidence that KUBOTA sold any asbestos containing material to the LOS 18 ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER at any time from 1962 to 1975 19 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 20 At this point the Defendant is unaware of any sales of its product to the Los Angeles 21 Department of Water and Power and therefore cannot admit or deny the request and on that basis 22 denies it 23 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 15 25 Admit that YOU were aware of the asbestos fiber release that occurred when 26 ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS YOU manufactured and supplied to VOSS were cut 27 with a power saw at any time from 1962 through 1975 28 10 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 15 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the terms ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL cut and power saw With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to 6 the discovery of admissible evidence The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA 8 and VOSS supplied any asbestos containing material to the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT 9 OF WATER AND POWER at any time from 1962 to 1975 10 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 11 Admit 12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 16 13 Admit that YOU SOLD KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE to VOSS from 1962 14 15 through 1975 16 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 16 17 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment 18 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 19 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 20 The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 21 containing material to the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER at any 22 23 time from 1962 to 1975 24 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 25 Admit 26 /// N 28 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 17 Admit that YOU knew VOSS SOLD KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE in Los Angeles County from 1962 through 1975 4 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 17 5 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment 6 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 7 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 10 containing material to the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER at any 11 time from 1962 to 1975 12 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 13 Admit however Voss did obtain asbestos cement pipe from other manufacturers 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 18 15 16 Admit that you had an exclusive distribution agreement with VOSS under which VOSS 17 SOLD KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE in California from 1962 through 1975 18 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 18 19 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment 22 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 22 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 22 23 The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 24 containing material to the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER at any 25 time from 1962 to 1975 26 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 27 Admit however Voss did obtain asbestos cement pipe from other manufacturers 28 12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 19 Admit that you had an exclusive distribution agreement with VOSS under which VOSS SOLD KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE in Los Angeles County from 1962 through 1975 4 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.19 : 5 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment 6 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 7 8 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 9 The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 10 containing material to the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER at any 11 time from 1962 to 1975 12 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 13 Admit however Voss did obtain asbestos cement pipe from other manufacturers 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 20 15 16 Admit KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE was supplied to VOSS without any 17 printed warnings affixed to the pipe from 1962 through 1975 18 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 20 with 19 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous regard to the terms printed 20 warnings and affixed is overly broad With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby 21 22 Evans employment with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this 23 request is overly broad and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 24 admissible evidence The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS 25 supplied any asbestos containing material to the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER 26 AND POWER at any time from 1962 to 1975 27 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 28 13 Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 21 Admit KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE was supplied to VOSS without any 4 printed warning materials from 1962 through 1975 5 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 21 6 7 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous with regard to the term printed warning 8 materials is overly broad With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans 9 employment with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is 10 overly broad and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 11 admissible evidence The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS 12 supplied any asbestos containing material to the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER 13 AND POWER at any time from 1962 to 1975 14 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 15 16 Admit 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 22 18 Admit that between the years 1962 and 1975 YOU knew of the HAZARDS 19 ASSOCIATED WITH ASBESTOS EXPOSURE 20 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 22 21 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment 22 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 23 24 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 25 26 27 28 The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos containing material to the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER at any time from 1962 to 1975 14 FOTO FOTO DI ADITICES ADITICES ADITICES DEQUESTS DEQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMISSION SET ONE Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 2 Through the passage of time and demise of its employees KUBOTA is unable to more 3 completely respond to this interrogatory but shortly before its enactment KUBOTA became 4 aware of a 1960 Japanese Pneumoconiosis Act that addressed pneumoconiosis and asbestosis 5 resulting from long term exposures to asbestos at manufacturing facilities but not lung cancer or 6 mesothelioma and on that basis admits the request KUBOTA believes it first learned of asbestos related cancer and mesothelioma hazards shortly before promulgation of the 1975 Japanese Ordinance on Prevention of Hazards Caused by Specific Chemical Substances and on 10 this basis denies the request 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 23 12 Admit that KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE that YOU SOLD TO VOSS 13 CONTAINED CROCIDILITE from 1962 through 1975 14 15 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 23 16 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment 17 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 18 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 19 The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 20 containing material to the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER at any 21 time from 1962 to 1975 22 23 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 24 Admit 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 24 26 Admit that VOSS stamped KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE with a large logo 27 consisted of Voss on a triangle and Kubota underneath the triangle from 1962 through 1975 28 15 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 24 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 6 containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 7 8 1975 9 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 10 Deny 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 25 12 Admit that YOU did not warn users of KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE to use 13 RESPIRATORY PROTECTION when working with KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE 14 15 from 1962 through 1975 16 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 25 17 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms users and working 18 With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES 19 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is 20 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request assumes 21 facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos containing material to 22 23 the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 1975 24 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 25 Deny N REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 26 N Admit that YOU did not warn users of KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE to use 16 RESPIRATORY PROTECTION when cutting KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE from 1962 through 1975 3 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 26 4 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms users and cutting 5 6 With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES 7 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos containing material to 10 the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 1975 11 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 12 Deny 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 27 14 15 Admit that YOU did not tell VOSS to warn users of KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT 16 PIPE to use RESPIRATORY PROTECTION when working with KUBOTA ASBESTOS 17 CEMENT PIPE from 1962 through 1975 18 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 27 19 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms users and working 20 With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES 21 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is 22 23 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request assumes 24 facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos containing material to 25 the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 1975 26 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 27 Deny 28 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 28 2 Admit that YOU did not tell VOSS to warn users of KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT 3 PIPE to use RESPIRATORY PROTECTION when cutting KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT 4 PIPE from 1962 through 1975 5 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 28 6 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms users and cutting 7 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and 10 irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The 11 request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 12 containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 13 1975 14 15 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 16 Deny 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 29 18 Admit that YOU did not require VOSS to warn users of KUBOTA ASBESTOS 19 CEMENT PIPE to use RESPIRATORY PROTECTION when working with KUBOTA 20 ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE from 1962 through 1975 21 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 29 22 23 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms users and working 24 With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES 25 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is 26 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request calls for a 27 legal conclusion and assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any 28 asbestos containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 1975 3 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows Deny REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 30 6 Admit that YOU did not require VOSS to warn users of KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE to use RESPIRATORY PROTECTION when cutting KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE from 1962 through 1975 10 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 30 11 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms users and cutting 12 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS 13 ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and 14 15 irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The 16 request calls for a legal conclusion and assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and 17 VOSS supplied any asbestos containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and 18 Power at any time from 1962 to 1975 19 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 20 Deny 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 31 22 23 Admit that YOU did not know the SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTION VOSS used to 24 distribute KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE in Los Angeles County California from 1962 25 through 1975 22 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 31 22 Objection vague ambiguous and unintelligible as to the phrase system of 28 19 transportation and with regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 1975 7 8 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 9 Admit although KUBOTA did have general knowledge of the distribution system i.e. 10 transport by truck from port to yard and then from the yard to Voss customers 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 32 12 Admit that YOU do not know the WORKSITES where VOSS distributed KUBOTA 13 ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE from 1962 through 1975 14 15 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 32 16 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment 17 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 18 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 19 The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 20 containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 21 1975 22 22225 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follow 22225 Admit 22225 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 33 22225 Admit that KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE that YOU SOLD TO VOSS 27 CONTAINED CROCIDILITE from 1962 through 1975 28 20 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 33 2 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment 3 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 4 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 5 6 The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 7 containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 8 1975 9 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 10 Admit 11 REQUEST FOR A^ MISSIONNO 34 12 Admit that YOU did not warn VOSS of the HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH 13 ASBESTOS EXPOSURE from 1962 through 1975 14 15 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 34 16 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment 17 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 18 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 19 The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 20 containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 21 1975 2225 2225 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 2225 Deny 2225 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 35 26 Admit that YOU knew that consumers were cutting KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT 27 PIPE with power saws from 1962 through 1975 28 21 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 35 " " 2 Objection This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms consumers cutting 3 and power saws With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 5 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 6 7 The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 1975 10 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 11 Admit that KUBOTA knew that consumers like Voss would require various persons to 12 perform occasional cutting of pipes outdoors in small quantities 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 36 14 Admit that from 1962 through 1975 YOU knew that when consumers cut KUBOTA 15 16 ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE with power saws that asbestos fiber would be released into the air 17 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 36 18 " " Objection This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms consumers cut and 19 power saws With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with 20 LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and 21 irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The 22 23 request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 24 containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 25 1975 26 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 27 Admit 28 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 37 Admit that printed warnings regarding asbestos dust were on bags of JOHNS- MANVILLE asbestos fiber you were supplied by TOKYO KOGYO BOEKI SHOKAI for the production of KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE from 1962 through 1975 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 37 6 7 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment 8 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 9 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 10 The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 11 containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 12 1975 13 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 14 15 Deny 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 38 17 Admit that YOU SOLD KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE to VOSS from 1962 18 through 1975 19 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 38 20 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment 21 22 with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad 23 and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 24 The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 25 containing material to the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER at any 26 time from 1962 to 1975. Asked and answered at Request for Admission No. 16 27 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 28 Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 39 2 Admit that YOU knew VOSS SOLD KUBOTA ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE in Los 4 Angeles county from 1962 through 1975 5 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 39 6 7 Objection With regard to the years 1962 to 1967 prior to Bobby Evans employment with LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER this request is overly broad and irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 10 The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS supplied any asbestos 11 containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at any time from 1962 to 12 1975. Asked and answered at Request No. 17 13 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows 14 Admit 15 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 40 17 Admit that Rhoda Evans has mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure 18 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 40 19 Deny 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 41 21 Admit that YOU contributed to Rhoda Evans mesothelioma 22 23 RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 41 24 Objection The request assumes facts not in evidence that KUBOTA and VOSS 25 supplied any asbestos containing material to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at 26 any time from 1962 to 1975 27 /// 88 24 Without waiving these objections Defendant responds as follows Deny Dated March 15 2010 WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP S See Ontivero C. 6 See C. Corless 7 Aide C. Ontiveros Attorneys for Defendant 8 KUBOTA CORPORATION So 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25 1 VERIFICATION 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I have read the foregoing DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES 4 TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET NO ONE ) and know its contents 5 I am Masahiko Uchino Legal Department for KUBOTA CORPORATION a party to 6 this action entitled Rhoda Evans v A. W. Chesterton et al LASC Case No. BC 418867 and am 7 authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf and I make this verification for that 9 reason I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the 10 foregoing document are true 11 Executed on March 15 2010 at Osaka Japan 12 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 13 foregoing is true and correct 14 15 16 Signature 17 18 2019 20 2221 2222 NN NNNN NN 2625 2827 26 DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE 872371.1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1013a CCP 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 4 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles State of California I am over the of 18 and not a party to the within action my business address is 555 South Flower Street age 29th Floor 5 Los Angeles California 90071 6 On March 15 2010 I caused the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT KUBOTA CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET ONE to be served on the interested parties in this action by placing a true 8 copy thereof enclosed in seal envelopes addressed as follows 9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST X 1010 BY FACSIMILE I caused said document to be telephonically transmitted to each addressee's telecopier Fax number as noted on Proof of Service List AND 1122 1154 16 1176 [ 18 18 222 2 [ 2222 I BY MAIL caused such envelope fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at Los Angeles California I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence or mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles California in the ordinary course of business I am aware that on motion of the party served service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date on postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit BY OVERNIGHT EXPRESSI caused said document to be picked up by U.S. Federal Express Services for overnight delivery to the offices of the addressees listed on the Service List BY HAND DELIVERY SERVICE I caused said document to be pliesrtsonally delivered by a attorney service to the addressee as noted on the Service 2222 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct 22 2222 Executed on March 15 2010 Los Angeles California 25 3232 2828 Irene Bue Bue Guzman BuelnaBuelna 1 PROOF PROOF OF SERVICE SERVICE LIST 1 RHODA EVANS et al v KUBOTA CORPORATION CORPORATION et al 2 Case No BC418867 Our File No 00495.06997 3 Jeffrey A. Kaiser Esq 4 T. Scott Hames Esq LEVIN SIMES KAISER & GORNICK LLP 5 44 Montgomery Street 36th Floor San Francisco California 94104 _ Attorneys for Plaintiffs RHODA EVANS and BOBBY EVANS Tel 415 646-7160 - Fax 415 981-1270 6 ORIGINAL K Gates LLP 8 Four Embarcadero Center Suite 1200 San Francisco CA 94111 Attorneys for Crane Co. Individually & as successor to Chapman Valve Co. 9 COPY Tel 415 882-8200 - Fax 415 882-8220 1210 12 1515 17 117 8 19 19 220 1 22 2223 2244 25 2625 2287 Corinne Orquiola Esq LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 221 North Figueroa Street Suite 1200 Los Angeles CA 90012 COPY William J. Sayers Esq Farah S. Nicol Esq Mary McKelvey Esq MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP 300 S. Grand Avenue Suite 1400 Los Angeles CA 90071 COPY Carmen A. Trutanich Esq Pamela L. McFarlane Esq Eskel Solomon Esq 111 North Hope Street Suite 340 P.O. Box 51111 Los Angeles CA 90051 COPY R. Gregory Amudson Esq Seymour B. Everett Esq WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN 5000 Birch Street Suite 8500 Newport Beach CA 92660 COPY Attorneys for Advocate Mines Limited Tel 213 250-1800 - Fax 213 580-7942 orquiola@lbbslaw.com Attorneys for Certain Corporation Tel 213 688-1000 - Fax 213 243-6330 mmckelvey@mckennalong.com Attorneys for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Tel 213 367-4640-4534 367-4640-4534 - Fax 213 367-4588 Maggie Flores - Secretary Pamela.mcfarlane@ladwp.com Eskel.solomon@ladwp.com Associated Counsel for City of Los Angeles Acting by and through the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles Tel 949 757-4500 - Fax gamudson@wshblaw.com severett@wshblaw.com 949 757-4550 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 PROOF OF SERVICE SERVICE