Document r66ZjEnD876ymM4Yde40pnmpJ

QUINTO TIJERINA GAF CORP., ET AL PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT MON-377 CAUSE NO. 00CV1037 . IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS 212th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE UNDER RULE 194 TO: Plaintiffs, by and through theirattorneys ofrecord, Elizabeth Schick, Lou Thompson and Stephanie Finch, Baron& Budd, The Centrum, Suite 1100,3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219. Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 194, Defendant Pharmacia Corporation, formerlyknown as Monsanto Company (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant") serves this Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Disclosure. (a) The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit. Answer: Defendant's correct name is Pharmacia Corporation. Pharmacia Corporation was formerlyknown as Monsanto Company. Defendant has no personal knowledge regarding the correct names of other parties to this suit. (b) The name, address and telephone number of any potential parties. Answer: Unknown at this time. (c) The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases ofthe responding party's claims ordefenses. Answer: Discovery is not complete at this time and Defendant is still inthe process ofdeveloping the facts in the case as well as its legal theories. However, at this time, Defendant's defense is based upon the following legal theories: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses a. The plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he does not suffer from an asbestos-related disease. b. Defendantisnotresponsibleforanyallegedasbestos-relatedinjuiyclaimedbythe Plaintiffbecause, to the extent the Plaintiffwas ever on a premises owned by Monsanto, he was not exposed to asbestos fibers in sufficient concentration and for sufficient duration to have caused or contributed to the development ofany asbestos-related disease. Therefore, exposure to asbestos on apremises owned by Monsanto was neither a cause in fact nor aproximate cause ofthe Plaintiffs alleged injuries. c. Defendant was never an employer ofthe Plaintiffs. Asbestos manufacturers or insulation contractors, not Defendant, supplied the asbestos-containingproducts usedonMonsanto'spremises. Monsanto'spremises were simply one ofmany job sites at which Plaintiffworked. As such, Defendant owed no legal duty toward Plaintiff and cannot be liable under a theory of negligence or gross negligence. d. Because Defendant did not manufacture or supply the asbestos-containing products to which Plaintiff claims exposure. Defendant cannotbe liable under a theory of strict products liability. e. Based on the state of knowledge existing during the relevant time period. Defendant reasonablybelieved thatworkers on its premises were not exposedto unsafe levels ofasbestos fibers. Furthermore, at all relevant times Monsanto acted K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 2 reasonably, met or exceeded the appropriate standard of care for the circumstances and, therefore, was not negligent. f. To the extent Plaintiff has suffered damages, such damages were causedby the acts, conduct or omissions ofpersons or entities other than Defendant and over whom Defendant has/had no control. g. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches and by the statute of limitations. (d) The amount and any method of calculating economic damages. Answer: N/A. (e) The name, address and telephone number ofpersons having knowledge ofrelevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the case. Answer: Based on the pleadings and discovery served by Plaintiffs, at this time Defendant responds as follows, but reserves the right to amend the following as discoveryprogresses and the facts ofthe case develop: Dr. R. Emmet Kelly (now deceased) By prior deposition and/or trial testimony in: Schmidt, et al. v. AC&S, et al.; No. D-145,280; 136th Judicial District Court ofJefferson County, Texas Major, et al. v,, ALCO Standard Corp., et al; No. 93-CV-315; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Bush, et al. v. Appalachian Power Co., et al; No. 91-C-157, Putnam County, Texas Smith, etal. v. Monsanto Company, et al.;C.A. No. 2 91-0524; U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston Corporate medical doctor 1946-1974 Dr. George Roush (now deceased) 10 Babler Lane St. Louis, MO 63124 (314) 997-2234 Corporate medical doctor 1975-1988 K:\SoIutia\TijerinaVDiscoveryresponses 3 Dr. Barry R. D. Friedlander Exxon BioMedical Sciences Mettlers Road CN 2350 East Milstone, NJ 08875 Corporate medical doctor 1988-1994 Messrs. Kelly, Roush and Friedlander were corporate medical doctors and are expected to have knowledge ofDefendant's corporate medical practices, procedures, and policies, as well as the general knowledge of corporate medical directors. Dr. Jay W. O'Bryant Beeler-Manske Clinic 818 5th Street North Texas City, Texas 77590 (409) 948-8521 Dr. O'Bryant is a physician who was engaged and consulted by Defendant relating to medical matters at Monsanto's Texas City plant from 1946 until 1986. Dr. James Rau 1203 South Hill Alvin, Texas 77511 (713) 331-3591 Dr. William McDaniel 400 Hillje Street Alvin, Texas 77511 (713)331-3591 Drs. Rau andMcDaniel are physicians who were engaged and consultedbyDefendants' Chocolate Bayou plant in Alvin, Texas relating to medical matters at the Chocolate Bayou plant from 1962 until 1988. Dr. William Gaffey 11269 Pineside Drive St. Louis, Missouri 63146 " Dr. Gaffeywas corporate epidemiologydirector from 1979 until 1989 at Defendant's headquarters in St. Louis, MO. K:\SoIutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 4 Elmer Wheeler (deceased) Jack T. Garrett (deceased) By prior deposition testimony in: Schmidt, etal. v.AC&S, et al.; No. D-145,280; 136th Judicial District Court ofJefferson County, Texas Carl Bohl 455 Wildewood Parkway Ballwin, Missouri 63011 Bruce W. Eley Solutia, Inc. 575 Maryville Centre Drive, 6 North St. Louis, Missouri 63141 John L. Henshaw Solutia, Inc. 575 Maryville Centre Drive St. Louis, Missouri 63141 Paul Easterday c/o Pharmacia Corporation 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167 Messrs. Wheeler, Garrett, and Henshaw are former directors ofDefendant's corporate industrial hygiene department in St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Wheeler served in that capacity from 1947until 1974;heisnow deceased. Mr. Garrett served inthat capacity from 1974 until 1985. Mr. Henshaw served in that capacity from 1985 until 1991. Mr. Easterday has served as the director in charge of Defendant's corporate industrial hygiene department from 1991 until the present date. Mr. Eley served as a senior industrial hygienist and amanager ofindustrial hygiene in Defendant's corporateheadquarters in St. Louis, Missouri from 1971 until 1987. Mr. Bohl served as an industrial hygienist in Defendant's corporate headquarters from 1966 to 1991 and is believed to have occasionally visited Monsanto's Texas facilities. Messrs. Wheeler, Garrett, Henshaw, Easterday, Bohl and Eley are expected to have knowledge ofDefendant's corporate-wide industrial hygiene practices and policies. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 5 John E. Fox HC64 Box 605 16065 W. U.S. Hwy. 290 Harper, Texas 78631-9407 (210) 669-2744 Dan Campbell Route 1, Box 218 Mt. Enterprise, Texas 75681 (903) 822-3837 Mr. Fox and Mr. Campbell provided industrial hygiene services at Monsanto's Texas Cityplant. Mr. Fox provided those services from the late 1950's until 1985 and Mr. Campbell served as the plant industrial hygienist from 1985 until August 1986, when the Texas Cityplantwas soldto Sterling Chemicals. Further, Mr. Garrett (see above) provided industrial hygiene services for the Texas Cityplant from the 1950's until the 1970's or 1980's. Messrs. Fox, Garrett and Campbell are expected to have knowledge of the industrial hygiene policies and practices at the Texas City plant. Donald L. Meade c/o Pharmacia Corporation FM Road 2917 (Mortenson Road) Alvin, Texas 77512 James C. Edwards 2418 Bay Crest Houston, Texas 77058 (713)333-5134 Jacqueline Gaul Peterson c/o Pharmacia Corporation 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167 Frank J. Bryant c/o Pharmacia Corporation FM Road 2917 (Mortensen Road) Alvin, Texas 77512 Mr. Meade, Mr. Edwards and Ms. Peterson were industrial hygienists at Defendant's Chocolate Bayou plant in Alvin, Texas. Mr. Biyant is the current industrial hygienist intheplant. Mr. Meade served in that capacity from 1977 until 1979. Mr. Edwards served in that capacity from 1980 until 1981. Ms. Peterson served in that capacity from 1982 until 1986. Mr. Bryant has served in that capacity since 1986. Prior K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 6 to 1977, industrial hygiene services at the Chocolate Bayou Plant were provided by Mr. Garrett (see above) and Mr. Fox (see above). Mr. Meade, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Peterson, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Bryant are expected to have knowledge ofthe industrial hygiene practices and policies at Defendant's Chocolate Bayou Plant. Harry Lundin (address and telephone number unknown) George Gorbell 456 Hill Trail St. Louis, Missouri 63011 (314) 256-0585 Russell Miller 17 Taylor Woods St. Louis, Missouri 63122 (314) 821-6747 Ray Witter 12746 Spruce Pond Road St. Louis, Missouri 63131 (314) 567-4124 Vincent Boyen 14592 White Birch Valley Lane St. Louis, Missouri 63017 Messrs. Lundin, Gorbell, Miller, Witter andBoyen are former corporate safetydepartment directors. Mr. Lundin served in that capacityfrom 1942 until 1946. Mr. Gorbell served in that capacity from 1947 until 1965. Mr. Miller served in that capacity from 1965 until 1978. Mr. Witter served in that capacity from 1978until 1986. Mr. Boyen served in that capacity from 1986 until 1991. These gentlemen are expected to have knowledge of Defendant's corporate safety practices, policies and procedures. W. B. Stallings (address and telephone number unknown) Safety Director 1947-1956 Charles Gilmore 3409 Nottingham Drive College Station, Texas 77845 (409) 696-1905 Safety Director 1956-1975 K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 7 John Arnold Glass 1908 16th Street North Texas City, Texas 77590 (409) 945-2986 Safety Director 1975-1984 Robert Hammann 816 24th Avenue North Texas City, Texas 77590 Safety Director 1984-1985 John Wilbeck Route 4,249 Pecan Estates Angleton, Texas 77515 Safety Director 1985 Jacqueline Gaul Peterson c/o Defendant Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167 Safety Director 1985-1986 These individuals are former safetydepartment and/or lossprevention departmentpersonnel at Monsanto's Texas City plant in Texas City, Texas. They are expected to have knowledge ofthe safetypractices, policies and procedures in place at the Texas City Plant. Albert James Fiske (address and telephone number unknown) Safety Department 1961-1963 George F. Korkmas 405 Riverside Drive Alvin, Texas 77511 281-331-3405 Safety Department 1963-1966 James L. Kilby 239 Heather Cress Dr. Chesterfield, Missouri 63017 314-469-3164 Safety Department 1966-1968 K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses 8 Willard W. Vamado 3711 Canary Grass Lne. Houston, Texas 77059 281-461-4188 Safety Department 1968-1969 Francis H. Dupre 15 Spring Lake Court St. Charles, Missouri 63303 636-922-0786 Safety Department 1969-1970 and 1975-1978 Douglas K. Stephens 1116 Deats Road Dickinson, Texas 77536 281-337-2330 Safety Department 1970-1971 Charles H. McComb 412 Carriage Creek Lne. Friendswood, Texas 77546 281-992-1695 Safety Department 1971-1973 James C. Edwards 2418 Bay Crest Houston, Texas 77058 281-333-5134 Safety Department 1973-1975 Stephen L. Nevarez (Address and telephone number unknown) Safety Department 1978-1979 K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 9 Donald A. McKee Route 1, Box 150 Manvel, Texas 77578 Safety Department 1979-1980 John C. Usrey 403 Riverside Dr. Alvin, Texas 77511 Safety Department 1980-1984 G. John Wilbeck Route 4,249 Pecan Estates Angleton, Texas 77515 Safety Department 1984-1994 These individuals are former or current safety department personnel and directors for Defendant's Chocolate Bayou Plant in Alvin, Texas. They are expected to have knowledge ofthe policies, safety practices and procedures in place at Defendants' Chocolate Bayou Plant. John Tissue Route 1, Box 366 Somerville, TX 77879 Mr. Tissueworkedinthepurchasing departments ofDefendant's Texas CityPlant, Chocolate BayouPlant, and a former subsidiary, Lion Oil Company from the late 1950's until the late 1980's. As such, Mr. Tissue is expected to have knowledge concerning Defendant's purchasingpractices and policies, includingthe purchaseofasbestos-containingmaterials,relatingtoDefendant'sTexasCityPlant,ChocolateBayouPlant and the former Lion Oil Company facilities in El Dorado, Arkansas. Vernon Mapes 4280 Lakewood Livingston, Texas 77351 (409) 967-0030' Sherman M. Jones 4114 South Acres Drive Houston, Texas 77047 ------ Bill Bums (believed to be deceased) (address and telephone number unknown) K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 10 J. B. Thrash P. O. Box 151 Apple Springs, Texas 75926 (409) 831-2950 John Elliott 3814 South Fairview Orange, Texas 77630 (409) 886-8302 AJ. Bourgeois 1025 24th Avenue North Texas City, Texas 77590 (409) 945-2489 L. W. Bryant Address Unknown E. M. Wheeler Address Unknown D. H. Chapman Address Unknown W. R. Merrill Address Unknown B. L. Vines Address Unknown William Bean 2214 21st Avenue N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Doyle Beard 2221 23rd Street N. Santa Fe, Texas 77517 409/327-7854 Clarence J. Cyr 2022 Evergreen Lane La Marque, Texas 77568 K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 11 Glenn O. Eirdman Address Unknown Robert F. Frankavich P.O. Box 1024 Texas City, Texas 77592 Raymond F. Guidry, Jr. P.O. Box Drawer 3489 Texas City, Texas 77592 Daniel J. Hogan, IE 2707 22nd Avenue N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Billy Joe Howard c/o Shirley Howard, P.O.A. P.O. Box 666 Santa Fe, Texas 77510 Robert Lee 7211 Mallard Texas City, TX 77590 Robert R. Long 421 24th Ave. N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Donald E. Lonsford Address Unknown Joe Don Lowe, 14108 German Road Bucyrus, MO 65444 Albert Allen McClintock Address Unknown Jimmy C. Overturf 4010 AvenueE Santa Fe, Texas 77510 409/925-1110 K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 12 Joe H. Skipper 118 20th Avenue, N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Edward L. Smith 510 21st Avenue N. Texas City, Texas 77590 Timothy P. Spencer Box 289 Arcadia, Texas 77517 409/925-6160 Clarence W. Trahan 2709 19th Avenue N. Texas City, Texas 77590 These gentlemen were, or are believed to have been, insulation installers and/or foremen at Monsanto's Texas Cityplant. As such, they are believed to have knowledge ofthe insulationproducts used, as well as the installation practices, procedures, andpolicies ofMonsanto regardingthe installation ofinsulation, and the use and availability ofsafety equipment and the safety practices ofemployees who may have installed insulation products at the Texas City Plant. Gordon Dillon 2718 Fairfield Ave. Texas City, Texas 77590 (409) 948-3750 Mr. Dillon was a safety inspector at Monsanto's Texas City plant. Defendant will continue to supplement in accordance with the Tex. R. Civ. P. Also, Defendant presumes that Plaintiff has knowledge of facts relevant to his claims against Defendant. (f) Testifying expert witness information. Answer: Defendantherebydesignates the followingpersons who maybe called as expertwitnesses and(l) who has beenretained byDefendant and/orother Defendants in this cause, or(2) who mayprovide testimony in the nature ofexpert oropinion type testimony despite the fact that they are not "retained experts". K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 13 1. Dr. John Craighead Department of Pathology University of Vermont College of Medicine Burlington, Vermont 05405 (802) 425-3480 Dr. Craighead is amedical doctor and pathologist and may testify concerning the state of medical knowledge, at relevant points in time, regarding the effects of exposure to asbestos. 2. Mr. John A. Pendergrass 6700 Milkhouse Court Mobile, Alabama 36695 Mr. Pendergrass is an industrial hygienist and maytestify concerning industrypractice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times, and maytestifyconcerning the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels ofexposure to asbestos. 3. J. LeRoy Balzer, Ph.D. 408 Horse Trail Ct. Alamo, California 94556 Dr. Balzer is an industrial hygienist and may testify concerning industry practice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times, and maytestify concerning the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels ofexposure to asbestos. 4. , B. K. Kwon, M.S.P.H. 601 Montrose Rd., Suite 509 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Kwon is an industrial hygienist and may testify concerning industry practice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevanttimes, andmaytestifyconcerning the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels ofexposure to asbestos. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 14 5. Mr. Lawrence R. Birkner, CIH, CSP 2026 El Monte Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 (805) 494-8173 Mr. Birkner is an industrial hygienist and may testify concerning industry practice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times, and maytestify concerning the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels ofexposure to asbestos. 6. James T. Knorpp, PE, CSP 2149 Misty's Run Keller, TX (817) 379-0840 Mr. Knorpp is a safetyprofessional and professional engineer andmaytestifyconcerning his education, training and experience, as well as his factual observations and mental impressions and opinions and the basis forthem, in the following areas: the creation, role and significance of OSHA, and relevant rules and regulations, concerning asbestos products in the work place; the process of establishing, historical development, and significance ofmaximum allowable concentrations, permissibleexposure limits, threshold limit values, regulatory standards, and similar concepts, in general and specificallywith regard to asbestos at relevant times and the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels of exposure to asbestos; employer's responsibility for employee/worker work site conditions and safety, including the employer's role in connectionwith OSHA. Mr. Knorpp may also testifyregarding matters in response to testimony of Plaintiffs' experts. 7. Dr. Mark R. Wick, M.D.,FCAP University of Virginia Health System Department of Pathology Box 214 O.M.S. Building, Room 2882 Charlottesville, VA 22908 (804) 924-9038 Dr. Wick is amedical doctor andpathologist and may testify concerning his education, training and experience, as well as his factual observations and mental impressions and opinions andthe basis therefor, inthe following areas: historical developments regarding asbestos utilization; medical aspects of asbestos-related diseases; state of the art in medicine and state ofmedical knowledge, atrelevant points in time, concerning asbestos K:\SoIutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 15 and asbestos exposure and the effects thereof; relevant medical and scientific literature; the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose asbestos-related diseases; the relative risk, as well as reasonablyperceived risk during relevant periods oftime, from various levels ofpotential exposure to asbestos, as well as particular type ofasbestos fiber involved; existence ofa dose-response relationship and the concept of threshold levels for asbestos-related diseases; and the rate ofoccurrence or incidence ofcertain diseases in givenpopulations. Dr. Wick mayalso review Plaintiffs medical records and mayalso review, examine and/or analyze pathologymaterial, including tissue samples and/orblocks and/orslides, and may opine as to the appropriate diagnosis ofPlaintiffs alleged disease as well as their etiology. Dr. Wick may also testifyregarding matters in response to testimony ofPlaintiffs experts. 8. Dr. William L. Dyson, Ph.D, CIH Workplace Hygiene, L.L.C. 1022 Jefferson Road P.O.Box 49176 Greensboro, NC 27410-1642 Dr. Dyson is an industrial hygienist and may testify concerning industry practice and standards, state of the art of industrial hygiene, and state of knowledge concerning exposure to asbestos and effects thereofat relevant times, and maytestifyconcerning the reasonableness ofreliance upon established acceptable and safe levels ofexposure to asbestos. 9. Dr. Patrick N. Conoley, M.D. Kelsey Seybold Clinic 6624 Fannin, Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77030 Dr. Conoleyis an M.D. anda"B" reader, who maytestify conceminghis review ofofthe radiographs and CT scans ofPlaintiffin this case and the significance ofvarious x-ray findings on the radiographs ofPlaintiff. 10. Dr. Peter J. Barrett, M.D. 10 Martin's Lane Hingham, MA 24043 (617) 749-5876 -- Dr. Barrett is an M.D., is board certified in diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine and has been a "B" reader from NIOSH since 1984. Dr. Barrett maytestify concerning the significance ofasbestos related abnormalities andneoplastic disease based uponhis review ofthe radiographs ofPlaintiffas to thepresence or absence ofradiographic abnormalities related to asbestos and the significance of same. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveiyresponses 16 11. Dr. Gail D. Stockman 703 East Marshall Avenue, Suite 4002 Longview, Texas 75601 (903)753-0787 Dr. Stockman may testify regarding the pulmonary diseases and illnesses alleged by Plaintiff. More specifically, Dr. Stockman may testify regarding specific medical complaints and historyofPlaintiffs and whetherthose alleged diseases or illnesses could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Stockman may address issues regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffin the future due to Plaintiffs alleged exposure to materials from the premises ofDefendant. Dr. Stockmanmayoffertestimony inresponse to anyreports ortestimonyoffered byPlaintiffs experts. 12. Mr. Kim Bloom, M.D. 6550 Fannin, Suite 2403 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 790-6250 Dr. Bloom is a specialist in pulmonarydiseases and a certified B-reader. He maytestify regarding specific medical complaints andhistoryofPlaintiffandwhetherthose complaints could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Bloom may also testifyregarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffinthe future and the effects ofthe alleged illnesses and diseases on Plaintiffin the past and in the future. Dr. Bloom mayalso offer testimonyin response to thereports ortestimonyoffered by Plaintiff's experts. 13. Robert M. Ross, M.D. 6550 Fannin Street, Suite 2403 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 383-6100 (phone) ,(713) 383-6103 (fax) Dr. Ross is a specialist in pulmonary diseases and a certified B-reader. He may testify regarding specific medical complaints andhistoryofPlaintiffandwhetherthose complaints could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Ross may also testifyregarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffin the future and the effects ofthe alleged illnesses and diseases onPlaintiffinthe past and inthe future. Dr. Ross may also offer testimony in response to the reports or testimonyoffered by Plaintiff's experts. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses 17 14. Venessa Ann Holland, M.D., MPH, P.A. Environmental Pulmonary Consultants 7515 S. Main Street, Suite 670 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 799-2224 (Telephone) (713) 799-2225 (Facsimile) Dr. Holland maytestifyregardingthepulmonary diseases and illnesses allegedby Plaintiff. More specifically, Dr. Holland may testify regarding specific medical complaints and historyofPlaintiffand whether those alleged diseases or illnesses could be or were caused by any alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Holland may address issues regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffin the future due to Plaintiffs alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Holland may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs experts. 15. Scott G. Donaldson, M.D., F.C.C.P Pulmonary/Critical Care 375 Municipal Drive, Suite 218 Richardson, Texas 75080 (972) 680-0666 (972) 680-2499 (fax) Dr. Donaldson maytestify regarding the pulmonary diseases and illnesses alleged by Plaintiff. More specifically. Dr. Donaldson may testify regarding specific medical complaints and bistoiyofPlaintiffandwhetherthose alleged diseases orillnesses couldbe orwere causedbyany alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Donaldson mayaddress issues regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffinthe future due to Plaintiffs alleged exposure to materials from the premises of Defendant. Dr. Donaldson may offer testimony in response to any reports or testimony offered by Plaintiffs experts. 16. Kathryn A. Hale, M.D. 6550 Fannin Street Smith Tower, Suite 1236 Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 790-2076 (Telephone) (713) 790-3648 (Facsimile) ------ Dr. Hale is a specialist in pulmonary diseases and maytestifyregarding the pulmonary diseases and illnesses allegedbyPlaintiff More specifically, Dr. Halemaytestifyregarding specific medical complaints and history ofPlaintiffand whetherthose alleged diseases or illnesses couldbe orwere caused by any alleged exposure to materials from thepremises K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 18 of Defendant. Dr. Hale may address issues regarding alleged medical risks to Plaintiffin the future due to Plaintiffs alleged exposure to materials from the premises of this Defendant. Dr. Hale may offer testimonyin response to anyreports or testimony offered by Plaintiff s experts. Defendant also designates the following witnesses to testifythrough theirdeposition and/or trial testimony from other cases: 1. Dr. Emmett Kelly testified bydeposition, and at trial, in the case ofRita Mae Schmidt, et al. v. A.C. &S., etal.;No. D-145,280; In the District Court ofJefferson County, Texas; 136th Judicial District. Dr. Kelly's testimony, both at trial, and on deposition, is designated here only to the extent that he gave expert or opinion type testimony in that deposition. 2. Mr. Jack T. Garrett in the case ofRita Mae Schmidt, et al. v. A.C. & S., et al.; No. D145,280; In the District Court ofJefferson County, Texas; 136th Judicial District. Mr. Garrett's deposition testimony is designated here onlyto the extent that he gave expert or opinion type testimony in that deposition. 3. Joe Shrode in the case ofClaude J. Tomplait v. Combustion Engineering, et al.; U.S. District Court forthe EasternDistrict ofTexas, Beaumont Division; and/or in Samuel R. Porter v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al., also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofTexas, Beaumont Division, and/orMr. Shrode's deposition testimony in the Clarence Borel trial, also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 4. Dr. CorwinHinshaw,expertregardingstateofthemedicalart,inthecasesofJimmieL. Vaughan v. Johns-Manville, CA-3-01-0070-F, USDA, N.D. Tex; Antonio Mendoza, et al v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al., CA.-2-80-006, USDC, N.D. Tex; In Re: Related Asbestos Cases, C-83-6251-RFP, USDC, N.D. Calif. Defendant also designates any and all expert witnesses designated herein by Plaintiffs. Defendant also designates any and all expert witnesses designated herein by other Defendants, (g) Any discoverable indemnity and insuring agreements. Answer: Defendant's insuring agreements are voluminous and are contained in approximately31 three-ring notebookbinders located atthe headquarters offices ofDefendants in St Louis, Missouri. Thosebinders willbe made available to Plaintifis inthe St. Louis, Missouri area at a mutually agreed upon time. Other responsive agreements willbe made available to Plaintiffs at the offices ofcounsel forDefendant at amutually agreed upon time. Please contact Defendant's counsel to arrange an agreeable date and time. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 19 (h) Any discoverable settlement agreements. Answer: None that this Defendant has been made aware of at this time. (i) Any discoverable witness statements. Answer: Defendant will make available to Plaintiffcopies ofstatements and testimony relevant to the subject matter of the case from persons with knowledge of relevant facts. This production will occur at counsel forDefendant's office at a mutually agreed-upon time and date. Please contact Defendant's counsel to arrange an agreeable date and time. (j) Medical records and bills relating to the injuries and damages asserted by Plaintiff. Answer: See Answer to subpart (k) below. (k) Medical records and bills obtained byDefendant by virtue ofan authorization furnished bythe requesting party. Answer: These records are fairlyvoluminous and, therefore, theywill bemade available to Plaintiffs forinspection and copying at the offices ofcounsel forDefendant at amutuallyagreeable time. Please contact counsel forDefendant to arrange a date and time to inspect and copy such records. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses 20 Respectfully submitted, ELLIS, CARSTARPHEN, DOUGHERTY & GOLDENTHAL P.C. State Bar No. 03906700 G. Joe Ellis State Bar No. 06575050 Douglas B. Dougherty State Bar No. 06031560 720 N. Post Oak, Suite 330 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 647-6800 (713) 647-6884 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the {> "Say of^me/2001, a copy ofthe foregoing was sent byUnited States certified mail/retum receipt requested and/or regularUnited States mail to all known counsel of record, as follows. Elizabeth Schick Lou Thompson Stephanie Finch Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses 21 QUINTO TIJERINA GAF CORP., ET AL CAUSE NO. 00CV1037 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS 212th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF QUINTO TIJERINA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO: Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys of record, Elizabeth Schick, Lou Thompson and Stephanie Finch, Baron& Budd, The Centrum, Suite 1100,3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219. Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, attached are Defendant Pharmacia Corporation's, formerlyknown as Monsanto Company, objections and responses to PlaintiffQuinto H. Tijerina's First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission Propounded on Premises Defendant Monsanto Company (f/k/a Monsanto Chemical Company). K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses Respectfully submitted, ELLIS, CARSTARPHEN, DOUGHERTY & GOLDENTHAL P.C. G. Joe Ellis State Bar No. 06575050 Douglas B. Dougherty State Bar No. 06031560 720 N. Post Oak, Suite 330 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 647-6800 (713) 647-6884 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the ____ , 2001, a copy of the foregoing was sent by United States certified mail/retum receipt requested and/or regular United States mail to all known counsel of record, as follows. Elizabeth Schick Lou Thompson Stephanie Finch Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 K:\SoIutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -2- Exhibit "1" I. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS, AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS 1. Defendant objects to InstructionNo. 1 seekingto require aparticularmanner of production ofresponsive documents onthe grounds that it incorrectlystates what is require bythe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and improperly seeks to impose an obligation beyond, or more restrictive than that allowed under those rules. Defendant will comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in responding. 2. Defendant objects to DefinitionNo. 1, attempting to define "Defendant", "you", "your" and "your company" to include legally separate and distinct corporate entities who are not parties to this case on the grounds that such is overlybroad, undulyburdensome, harassing, not relevant andnot reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and goes beyond the scope ofdiscoveryunder the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Defendant objects to Definition No. 2, attempting to define "document", etc. to include matters outside the scope ofdiscovery underthe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure, specifically attempting to require production ofmaterials that are not within the Defendant's possession, custodyor control, on the grounds that such is beyond the scope ofdiscovery and the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure, overly broad, undulyburdensome, harassing, and not reasonably calculatedto leadto the discovery ofadmissible evidence. 4. DefendantobjectstoDefinitionNo. 16 attempting to define the term "identify" withregard to a document to the extent such definition seeks to limitDefendant's right to identifya documentbysimply producing it, onthe grounds that such seeks to impose obligations beyond the scope ofdiscovery, amounts to multiple interrogatories and subparts, is unduly burdensome and harassing. 5. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, specifically enumeratedinterrogatories nos. 1 through 20, including all subparts, in their entirety on the grounds that the number ofinterrogatories, counting discrete subparts, exceeds the allowable numberunder Rule 190.3(b)(3), Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. II. GENERAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS REGARDING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS In response to Plaintiffs requests fordocuments andPlaintiff's interrogatories inresponse to which K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses -3- Defendant has referred to documents which may contain responsive information, subject to and without waiving the objections states herein. Defendant further responds that documents responsive to Plaintiffs requests were previously copied and provided to Plaintiffs counsel at their request in aprior separate action. Still subject to and without waiving Defendant's objections, additional documents which maybe responsive to some ofPlaintiffs Discoveryrequests are available for inspection and will be made available at the offices ofDefendant's counsel at amutually agreeable time upon reasonablerequest. Furthermore, subject to and without waiving Defendant's obj ections, as further documents that maybe responsive to Plaintiffs Discovery are obtained, if any, such will likewise be made available for inspection. III. ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P.193.3, you are herebyadvised that material or informationwhich may be responsive is privileged, and has been withheld from this response on that basis. The privileged materials and information covered bythis Assertion ofPrivileged Documents relate to each and every request for production in this litigation. The material and informationwithheldpursuantto this Assertion ofPrivilegedDocuments includes: (a) confidential communications made forthe purpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services forthe clientbetween the client or a representative ofthe client and the client's lawyers or representatives of the lawyers; (b) confidential communications made forthepurpose offacilitating therendition ofprofessional legal services for the client between the client's lawyers or lawyers' representatives; (c) confidential communications made forthepurpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services for the client bythe client or a representative ofthe client, or the client's lawyers or the lawyers' representatives, to a lawyer or arepresentative ofa lawyerrepresenting anotherparty in an action that was pending at that time, and concerning a matter of common interest therein; (d) confidential communications made forthe purpose offacilitating the rendition ofprofessional legal services forthe client between representatives ofthe client orbetween the client and arepresentative of the client; (e) confidential communications made forthe purpose offacilitatingthe rendition ofprofessional legal services for the client among lawyers and their representatives representing the same client; (f) returns or reports required by law to be made; K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -4- (g) trade secrets owned bythe client or other information ofa confidential and/or proprietarynature or which otherwise may be the proper subject of a request for confidentiality and/or protective order; (h) privileged communications to or from lawyers or lawyers' representatives whichwere created or made from the point at which the client consulted a lawyer in the defense of claims that one ormore individuals were injured as the result ofexposure to asbestos fibers on a premises owned byMonsanto, other than in this particular lawsuit, and which communications concern litigation and claims other than the claims in this particular lawsuit; (i) privileged documents oflawyers or lawyers' representatives which were created or made from the point at which the client consulted a lawyer in the defense of claims that one ormore individuals were injured as the result ofexposure to asbestos fibers on a premises owned byMonsanto, otherthan in this particularlawsuit, and whichdocuments concern litigation and claims otherthan the claims in this particular lawsuit; (j) material prepared, ormental impressions developed, in anticipation oflitigation, including other litigation as described above, or for trial (including othertrials besides this case) by or for the client orthe client's representatives, including the client's attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, employees, or agents; (k) communications made in anticipation oflitigation, including otherlitigation as described above, or for trial (including other trials besides this case) between a client and the client's representatives, or among the client's representatives, including the client's attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, employees, or agents; (l) work products ofan attorneyor an attorney's representatives that contain the attorney's orthe attorney's representative's mental impressions, opinions, conclusions or legal theories inthis lawsuit, and in otherlawsuits, bothpending andresolved, inwhich ithas been allegedthatone ormore individuals were injured as the result of exposure to asbestos fibers on a premises owned by Monsanto. Foradescription ofthe material and information withheld pursuant to this Assertion ofPrivileged Documents, a list ofprivileged documents is available upon appropriate request fromDefendants' counsel of record. Finally, depending onthe resolution ofthe General and Specific Objections made in this response, additional documents may also be withheld from discovery based upon this Assertion ofPrivileged Documents. In such event. Defendant will supplement the list ofprivileged documents. K:\SolutiaVTijerina\Discoveryresponses -5- IV. DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories, orwho assisted in identifying, locating orretrieving documents responsive to Plaintiffs Requests forProduction, identify suchperson andinclude the length oftime employedbyDefendant or otheremployer, andayearby-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held. ANSWER: Responses to these interrogatories are based upon Defendant's corporate knowledge. As such, information responsive to some or all ofthese interrogatories has been accumulated overaperiod oftime and specific sources ofparticular information cannot be determined. These responses were prepared based upon available information by both outside legal counsel and in-house legal staff INTERROGATORY NO. 2: As to each ofthe following, please state the first year you first became aware, what you learned, and how Defendant learned that humans who inhale asbestos fibers can contract a. asbestosis 2. lung cancer 3. mesothelioma ANSWER: , Defendant objects onthe grounds that this interrogatory is vague and overlybroad. Subject to and withoutwaiving its objection, Defendantresponds as follows: Defendant states that Monsanto has always diligently attempted to keep abreast ofthe published medical literature pertaining to asbestos-related diseases. This type ofinformation, and knowledge thereof, develops gradually overtime and is constantly evolving. Additionally, it is difficult, ifnot impossible, for anycorporate entityto pinpointwhenit "became aware" ofanyparticular issue, and Defendant is presentlyunable to state when Monsanto first became aware ofanysuspected linkbetween asbestos exposure and anyphysical ailments. Moreover, Defendant, cannot agree with the premise that there is a causal connection between asbestos exposure andphysical ailments without first knowing the details regarding the specific ailment involved, thenature, duration and K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -6- intensityofany alleged exposure, as well as the medical and workhistoryofanyspecific individual inwhom a causal connection between asbestos exposure and such ailments is alleged. More detailed information concerning when and bywhat means Monsanto mayhave become aware ofasbestos-related diseases is not within the personal knowledge ofcurrent employees ofDefendants, but some ofthis information may be obtained from a review of the documents which will be produced. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please list all trade organizations, trade associations and anyother industry-wide groups to which you belong(ed) (specifically includingbut not limited to the following groups: AmericanHygiene Foundation, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Chemical Manufacturer's Association, American Chemical Council, American Petroleum Institute, Texas Chemical Council, Ohio SafetyCongress, National SafetyCouncil, Asbestos Information Association, Industrial Medical Association) in which information or documents relating to asbestos was discussed, disseminated, orpublished (including, but not limited to, the effects of exposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals orhumans, populations at risk). As to each such group, please state: a. the inclusive dates of your membership and b. identifyDefendant's employees or former employees orrepresentatives who attended any of the meetings held by each organization, and c. the meetings they attended, and d. ifanyindividuals employed byDefendant orrepresenting Defendant were members of committees or subcommittees ofany such organizations (such as, e.g., a medical advisory committee or legal committee), identifythe committee or subcommittee onwhich such individual served and the position occupied on the committee, if applicable. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks informationthat is not relevant to this claims orparties in this case, is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is not reasonably limited in. scope to anyrelevant time frame, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d766 (Tex. 1996),-Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall,909S.W.2d491 (Tex. 1995),and/orK-MartCorp. v. Sanderson,9ZlS.W.2d429 (Tex. 1996). Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and non-specific in that the particular organizations inquired about cannotreasonablybeidentified. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant states that atthis time it has no knowledge ofmembership in any such organization. Defendant further states that Monsanto has had a policy of paying for association memberships for its professional employees. Gathering information on these individual memberships, K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses -7- committee memberships and specific meetings attended over the last 50+ years is impossible. However, Defendant has foundthat individuals withinMonsanto's organizationmaintained the following memberships, but is not stating that the following organizations and/or associations actuallypublished or disseminated documents or information relating to asbestos: Industrial Hygiene Foundation, member 1937-1954 American Chemistry Council (formerly Chemical Manufacturer's Association and Manufacturing Chemists Association), member since 1910 American Petroleum Institute, member 1955-1986 Texas Chemical Council, member (dates unknown) National Safety Council, member (dates unknown) Industrial Medical Association, member (dates unknown) National Safety Council, member since 1916 American Industrial Hygiene Association, member since 1957 American Congress ofGovernmental and Industrial Hygienists, member (dates unknown) GulfCoast Section ofAmerican Industrial Hygiene Association, member(dates unknown) Texas Safety Association, member (dates unknown) Texas Public Health Association, member (dates unknown) American Academy of Occupational Medicine, member (dates unknown) American Academy of Occupational Hygiene, member (dates unknown) Texas Chemical Council, member (dates unknown) American Medical Association, member (dates unknown) INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identifyDefendant's employees or former employees or representatives who attended any proceedings, symposia, or conferences ofa scientific ormedical ortechnical nature atwhich information ordocuments relatingto asbestos was discussed, disseminated, orpublished (including bywayofexample, the effects ofexposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations atrisk) and specificallyincluding butnot limitedto the Seventh Saranac Symposium, 1952, and/orNewYork Academy ofSciences, October 1964, and for each such individual, state theproceedings, symposia, orconferences attended and to whom within your corporate organization information concerning attendance at such proceedings, symposia, or conferences were reported, either verbally or in documentary form. ANSWER: Defendant objects to his interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome andharassing and is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and is not reasonablylimited in scope as to anyrelevant time frame. Subj ect to andwithout waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that gathering information on individual conferences attendedby K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses -8- employees over the last 50+ years is impossible; however, information responsive to this request maybe contained within the documents which have been or will be produced and the burden ofascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify each company from which you acquired asbestos-containing products used at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the years Plaintiffhas indicated he worked at Defendant's Premises at Issue and include in your response a description of each asbestos-containing product acquired and the dates each asbestos-containing product was acquired. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the grounds and to the extent that this interrogatoryis overlybroad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, seeks information that is not relevant ormaterial to theparties or issues in this case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited in time, is not limitedto the asbestos-containing products used in units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked, and is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials withwhich or around which Plaintiff allegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that, based upon the information available to it at this time, asbestos was present in anumber ofmaterials used in and around its Texas facilities, including gaskets, packing, floortiles, transit board, roofingmaterials, siding, and pipe and vessel insulation. Inasmuch as insulationcontaining asbestos was the onlyavailable insulatingmaterial for use in certain applications at industrial plants such as Defendant's Texas facilities prior to the 1970's, Defendant generallyused asbestos-containing insulationproducts in units wherepipes andvessels required such insulationmaterials.Defendantbelievesthat asbestos-containing insulationmaterials mayhavebeen used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, atwhichtimeDefendant ceasedpurchasing such asbestos-cpntaining insulationproducts. Asbestos containinggaskets mayhavebeenused after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. More detailed information concerning the dates when and locations where asbestos-containing products were used orinstalledinDefendant's Texas facilities is not known at the present time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance withtheTexas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifotherresponsive informationbecomes availaBIe.-However, some ofthis information maybe derived or ascertained from an examinationofthe documents ofthis Defendant, whichhave been orwillbe made available to Plaintiffs in this case. Detailed information concerning trade orcommon names ofasbestos-containing products present in the Defendant's Texas facilities is either unavailable atthis time ormaybe ascertained from the answerbelow or from documents whichhavebeen or will be produced in this case or from testimony of former employees or workers who worked on Defendant's Premises in Texas. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -9- Based upon the information which is available to it at this time, however, Defendantbelieves that Johns Manville and Owens-Coming were manufacturers ofsome ofthe insulation products that were present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. Defendant believes that the following were makers or distributors ofasbestos-containingmaterials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities: J. T. Thorpe (insulation materials); Lion Oil (Nokorode, awater-proofing mastic); GulfSupply (gaskets); Lamons (gaskets); Marine Petro (gaskets); John Crane (gaskets); Texas Marine (gaskets); Triplex (gaskets); and Flexitallic (gaskets). Defendant does not know, and is unable at this time to identifywith any reasonable degree ofaccuracy, the distributors ofother possible asbestos-containingmaterials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. More detailed information concerning theproductnames, what suchproducts were used for, sellers and/or manufacturers, locations where installed, whenpurchased andpersons and entities who mayhave installed asbestos-containing products present in Defendant's Texas facilities is unavailable at this time and this Defendantwill supplement this response in accordancewiththe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifotherresponsive informationbecomes available. However, some ofthis information maybe derived or ascertained from an examination ofthe documents ofthisDefendant which have been orwill be made available to Plaintiffs in this case andthe burden ofsuch is substantiallythe same forPlaintiff as for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Ifany asbestos-containing materials located or formerly located atDefendant's Premises at Issue have been removed, encapsulated, or otherwise abated at any time, a. Identify each person or company that performed such abatement services; b. State the dates and locations within Defendant's Premises At Issue ofeach abatement procedure; and c. Describe what asbestos-containing materials were abated d. State how such asbestos-containing waste was stored at Defendant's Premises At Issue prior to disposal and how it was disposed of. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the claims in this lawsuit, and is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence because it is not limited in time, orunits orareas within a facilitywhere Plaintiffallegedlyworked, is not limited to the specific types ofproducts ormaterials withwhich or aroundwhich Plaintiffallegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant states that, in line with Defendant's corporate policy, its plants began the systematic removal ofasbestos-containingmaterial in the 1970s. Removal was accomplished as asbestos-containing insulation materials had to be replaced on each pipe K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses -10- or vessel in each unit ofDefendant's facility. Where removal was inappropriate, Defendant encapsulated those materials and such were maintained in this encapsulated condition either by steel piping, paint or duct tape and, as such, were in a non-ffiable state. Further, information responsive to this request may be ascertained from the documents that have been orwill be produced to Plaintiffs counsel and the burden of ascertaining this information is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeveryperson known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge offacts relevant to this case concerning Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limitedto the identification orlocation in your premises ofasbestos-containing products to which Plaintiffwas exposed or facts disputing the identification or location of such product or type of products. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory and thephrase "known to you, your agents, or contractors" to the extent it requires a response as to matters not specific to this particular defendant but as to other separate entities and wouldrequire this defendant to speculate as to the matters inquired of. Defendant further objects on the ground that this interrogatoryis the subject ofa Request forDisclosure. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that discovery and investigationoffacts is ongoing. Defendant does not know that Plaintiffwas everpresent orworked on its premises, the workhe mayhaveperformed, what locationheperformed anywork, orthe exact details existing atthetimePlaintiff was allegedlyon Defendant's Premises. Further, Defendant refers Plaintiffto Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Request for Disclosure. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Withrespect to Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeveryperson known to you, your agents, or contractors as being employed byyou orhavingbeen employedbyyouwhose duties and/orresponsibilities included interface or liaison with Plaintiffs employer or other contractors who installed, removed, maintained, repaired or replaced asbestos-containing products (including foremen or supervisors or Plaintiff) on Defendant's Premises at Issue (regardless ofjob title, including but nOFlimited to "plant engineers," "project engineers," "project superintendents," "purchasing agents" orjob descriptions ofa similar nature) and specifically include those whose duties and responsibilities included the following: a. entering into contracts orpurchase orders (including specifications) with suchcontractors b. allowing such contractors access to Defendant's Premises at Issue, c. overseeing or supervising or observing or monitoring such contractor activities or K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -11- 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: Defendant objects to this interrogatory and thephrase "known to you, your agents, or contractors" to the extent it requires a response as to matters not specific to this particular defendant but as to other separate entities and would require this defendant to speculate as to the matters inquired of. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant or material to the claims in this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence; it is not limited or specific enough as to time, or units or areas within a facilitywhere Plaintiff allegedlyworked, is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials withwhichor around which Plaintiffallegedlyworked and/or to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed. Subjectto andwithoutwaiving the foregoing. Defendantresponds that some ofthis informationmaybe obtained fromthe documentswhich have orwill be produced to Plaintiffs' counsel andthe burden ofascertaining such is substantiallythe same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: If you have or have had an industrial hygiene or safety or medical department, please a. state the year such department was established, and whether it was established on the corporate level or at Defendant's Premises At Issue or both and b. with respect to Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please identifyand state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeveryperson known to you, your agents, or contractors as being or having acted in a medical, safety, or industrial hygiene advisory capacity (regardless ofjob title), specifically including, but not limited to, physicians, medical directors, medical personnel, nurses, safety engineers or managers and industrial hygienists. (You should include in your answerthose persons on a corporate level, regardless ofwhethertheyworked directlyonDefendants' Premises if theyhad such responsibilities forworkers onDefendant's Premises At Issue, and identify such individuals as affiliated with the corporate headquarters of Defendant.) ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overlybroad, undulyburdensome, over-reaching, harassing, oppressive and onerous. Subject to and without waiving its objections. Defendant responds as follows: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -12- a. Defendant has operated a corporate medical department, which included industrial hygiene, since at least 1946. b. Jack Wheeler (deceased) Corporate industrial hygiene director 1947-1974 Jack T. Garrett (deceased) Corporate industrial hygiene director 1974-1985 Provided industrial hygiene services to Texas City plant from 1950s-1970s or 1980s Carl Bohl Corporate industrial hygienist 1966-1991 Bruce Eley Corporate industrial hygiene manager 1971-1987 John E. Fox Texas City industrial hygiene supervisor late 1950s -1985 Dr. R. Emmet Kelly (deceased) Corporate medical director (1946-1974) Dr. George Roush Corporate medical director (1975-1988) Dr. Barry Friedlander Corporate medical director (1988-1994) INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identifyall warnings givenbyDefendant, ifany, to anyone atDefendant's Premises At Issue (including the Plaintiff) regarding the hazards ofasbestos and the dangers inherent inthe 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. inwhatmannertheywere given (e.g. writtenpamphlets, signs posted, oral/group meeting, individual discussions, etc.) and d. state whether you have everpublished, written, edited, ordistributedanyotherprinted materials, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging, advertising, signs, K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -13- statements, or other materials containing anywarnings ofthepossibilityofinjury from the use or exposure to asbestos-containing products, and e. state whether any ofthe foregoing warnings were in Spanish or any other language besides English. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiffallegedlyworked at aMonsanto facilityor anyreasonable time period and is not limited to the specific unit or units where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Subject to andwithout waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant does not know that Plaintiffwas ever present or worked on its premises, the work he may have performed, what location he performed any work, or the exact details existing at the time Plaintiffwas allegedly on Defendant's Premises. However, although Defendant has no record ofany communications directlywithPlaintiff, Defendant states that it provided a safe workplace and appropriate safetyinformation to workers on its premises at all relevant times. It is Defendant's position that Plaintiff, and all otherpersons atDefendant's facility, werenot exposed to asbestos at levels then thought to be hazardous. The existence, nature and extent of the safety information knownby and available to, and the precautions taken for and by, Monsanto's employees and its contractors would have depended on the year when the work was performed, the type ofwork done, the location ofthe workperformed, theparticular contractorinvolved, the particular employee involved, the anticipated level ofairborne particles, the terms ofthe contract between Monsanto and the contractor, and other factors. Generally, Monsanto's policies and safetymeasures evolved overthe years along with the increase in knowledge ofthe risks associated with exposures to dust and asbestos and Monsanto always attempted to stay abreast ofpertinent information and comply with or exceed the minimum requirements for safety for all workers onits premises. Monsanto held regular impromptu safetymeetings where appropriate safe workpractices and the potential hazards ofmanyproducts andprocesses were discussed. However, it is not possible to state the first time a warning was given about the hazards of asbestos exposure. Further, responsive informationmaybe obtained from documents whichhavebeen orwill beproduced inthis case and the burden ofascertaining such is substantiallythe same forPlaintiffas it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: IfDefendant has or had ormaintained in its possession anybooks, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials ofanykind or characterthat would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health ofhuman 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 K:\SoIutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -14- c. state how and why these materials came into Defendant's possession. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is undulyburdensome, oppressive, harassing, overlybroad, and not reasonably limited to anyrelevant time frame or location. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the information sought maybe ascertainable from Defendant's records which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. There is no greater burden on the Plaintiffto obtain the information requested from those documents than it is for Defendant to do so. Additionally, due to the passage oftime and the passing offormer employees who mayhave knowledge relevant to this interrogatory, it is virtually impossible to know the individuals who received, maintained, reviewed or disseminated the information contained in such written materials orwhen, how and whythese materials came into Defendant's possession. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please describe indetail yourmanufacturingorindustrial use ofany 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: Defendant objects onthe grounds and to the extent that this interrogatory is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, over-reaching, seeks informationthat is not relevant ormaterialto theparties or issues in this case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited in time, is not limitedto the asbestos-containing products used inunits or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked, and is not limited to the specific types ofproducts ormaterials withwhich or around which PJaintiff allegedly worked and/or to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that, based upon the information available to it at this time, asbestos was present in anumber ofmaterials used in and around its Texas facilities, includinggaskets, packing, floor tiles, transitboard, roofingmaterials,"siding, andpipe and vessel insulation. Inasmuch as insulation containing asbestos was the only available insulatingmaterial foruse in certain applications at industrial plants such as Defendant's Texas facilities prior to the 1970's, Defendant generallyused asbestos-containing insulationproducts in units wherepipes andvessels required such insulation materials. Defendantbelieves that asbestos-containing insulationmaterials mayhavebeen used orinstalled at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at whichtime Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulationproducts. Asbestos containing gaskets mayhavebeenused after 1972 K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -15- while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. More detailed information concerning the dates when and locations where asbestos-containing products were used or installed in Defendant's Texas facilities is not known at the present time and this Defendant will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifother responsive information becomes available. However, some ofthis information may be derived or ascertained from an examination ofthe documents ofthis Defendant, which have been orwill be made available to Plaintiffs in this case. Detailed information concerning trade or common names ofasbestos-containing products present in the Defendant's Texas facilities is either unavailable at this time or maybe ascertained from the answerbelow or from documents which have been or will be produced in this case or from testimony of former employees or workers who worked on Defendant's Premises in Texas. Based upon the information which is available to it at this time, however. Defendant believes that Johns Manville and Owens-Coming were manufacturers ofsome ofthe insulation products that were present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. Defendant believes that the following were makers or distributors ofasbestos-containing materialspresentin and around Defendant's Texas facilities: J. T. Thorpe (insulation materials); Lion Oil (Nokorode, a water-proofing mastic); GulfSupply (gaskets); Lamons (gaskets); Marine Petro (gaskets); John Crane (gaskets); Texas Marine (gaskets); Triplex (gaskets); and Flexitallic (gaskets). Defendant does not know, andis unable at this time to identify with anyreasonable degree ofaccuracy, the distributors ofotherpossible asbestos-containingmaterials present in and around Defendant's Texas facilities. More detailed information concerning the productnames, what suchproducts were used for, sellers and/ormanufacturers, locations where installed, when purchased andpersons and entities who mayhave installed asbestos-containing products present inDefendant's Texas facilities is unavailable at this time and this Defendant will supplementthis responsein accordancewith the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure ifotherresponsive information becomes available. However, someofthis information maybe derived or ascertained from an examination ofthe documents ofthis Defendant whichhavebeen orwill bemade available to Plaintiffs in this case andtheburden ofsuchis substantiallythe same forPlaintiff as for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify,by name and location each plant, facility, location, or premises owned, operated, or controlled byyou in which asbestos-containing products were assembled, stored, used, prepared foruse, installed, or fabricated duringdie Time Period At Issue. For eachplant, facility, location, orpremises listed as responsive to the above request, specify a. the functional dates for each plant, facility, location, or premises and b. theperiodduringwhich asbestos-containingmaterials were stored, used, prepared foruse, installed or fabricated. ANSWER: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -16- Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is notreasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996), and because it is not reasonablylimited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed and is not limited to areas or units where Plaintiffallegedly worked and to the extent that it is not limited to the specific time period Plaintiffallegedlyworked atDefendant's facility. Subject to andwithout waiving the foregoing objections, with regard to Defendant's Texas facilities, please see responses to Interrogatories 5 and 12. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: For anyofDefendant's Premises At Issue, duringthe Time Period At Issue, ifyou, youraffiliates, subsidiaries, orpredecessors), arranged foranyofyour employees, labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors, industrial hygienists, or anyotherparty, whether directly employed byyou or otherwise, to count ormeasure quantity, qualityorthreshold limit values or concentrations ofasbestos dust orparticles orother dust at anyofyourplants, facilities, locations, orpremises where asbestos or asbestos-containing products were used, assembled, installed, or removed, please describe such tests and indicate a. the results obtained, b. by whom such tests were performed and c. identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeverypersonknown to you, your agents, or contractors as the person most knowledgeable concerning such tests and their results. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory is broad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is not relevantto the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including on ormore ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995%Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendantresponds as follows. Dust monitoring and air samplingwere conducted at Defendant's Texas plants and laboratory analyses ofair samples were performed. Defendantpurchased aBausch & Lomb dust counterin 1947 forthe purposes K:\SoIutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -17- ofair sampling to determine working conditions at its facilities. In later years, aphase contrastmicroscope and an electron microscope were purchased and similar analyses were done. Air sampling, monitoring, and industrial hygiene programs increased in the later years along with the increased indications in the published literature regarding the potential health risks from long-term exposure to given levels ofairborne particles, including asbestos, and the publication ofgovernmental guidelines regarding airborne particles, including asbestos. Industrial hygienists at Monsanto's Texas facilities andMonsanto's corporate industrial hygienists would have collected the dust samples prior to the early 1970's. Samples would have been sent to outside laboratories for analysis using particle counting methods. Starting in the early 1970's, when asbestos fibers wouldbe counted usingphase contrast light microscopy, samples were sent to Monsanto's physical science center at its JohnF. Queenyplant for analysis. The results ofthe monitoring and sampling performed always revealed safe and acceptable levels ofairborne particles at Defendant's facilities. Further, to the extent the information can be ascertained from Defendant's documents in this case, Defendant refers Plaintiff to those documents pursuant to TRCP 197.2(c). INTERROGATORY NO. 15: For the Time Period At Issue, ifyou provided or caused to be provided any safety equipment or medical programs (including, but not limited to, masks, respirators, otherbreathing devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, area air filtration systems, and area exhaust systems orbarriers or enclosures ormedical monitoringprogram, medical examination program, or other medical or safetyprogram) to employees, contractors, or invitees at anyofyourplants, facilities, locations, orpremises where asbestos and asbestos-containing products were manufactured, used, assembled, installed, or removed, please indicate a. when such was first provided to your employees, contractors, and/or invitees and to whom, b. under what circumstances such were provided, and c. state whether you conducted safety meetings discussing the hazards ofasbestos with employees, contractors, or invitees at anyofDefendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, and if so, when and what was discussed, and d. ^identify and state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeverypersonknown to you, your agents, or contractors as the person most knowledgeable concerning such equipment and programs and their provision. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatoryon the grounds that this interrogatory is overlybroad, undulyburdensome, overreaching and is not reasonablycalculatedto lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence because it is not limited to the specific units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked or any reasonable scope oflocations and to the extent that it is not limited to the specific time period Plaintiff allegedly worked at Defendant's facility. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -18- Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant states that, generally, Defendant's policies and safetymeasures have evolved over the years along with the increase in knowledge ofsuspected dust and asbestos inhalation hazards. The contractors hired byDefendant held themselves out to be experienced and competent contractors familiar with the work involved, the risks attendant thereto, the safety equipment necessary for the work to be performed, and the regulations and standards governing the performance oftheir work. Defendant's contractors also were required by contract to complywith all applicable laws and regulations relating to dust and airborne asbestos. As such, Defendant relied on those contractors to provide the requisite and appropriate guidance, safetymeasure and safety equipment when working with and around asbestos-containing materials. Defendant is unable at this time to provide anymore reasonablydetailed answerto this interrogatory, which spans several decades intime, because the existence, nature and extent ofprecautions taken or to be taken, and the equipment issued or to be issued, would depend upon the year when anywork involving asbestos-containing materials was performed, the type ofwork performed, the location where the work was performed, the particular contractor or employee involved, the anticipated level ofairborne particulates, the terms ofthe contract between Defendant and the contractor, and other factors. Defendant can state, however, based upon information available to it at this time, sincebefore it acquired its first plant in Texas from the United States Government in 1946, it recommended dustmasks and madethem available to workers on itspremises who worked in dustyconditions. Byno later that 1950, Defendantprovided respirators approvedbythe U.S. Bureau ofMines and later, NIOSH, to persons working in dusty conditions. Later, Defendant further increasedits safety and industrial hygieneprograms andpersonnel along with increased emphasis and warnings concerning dust and asbestos-containing materials. Further, to the extent such are considered responsive. Defendant further states that during relevant times it required periodic medical exams andchest x-rays for its workers, and also, inthe 1960's, Dr. Emmett Kelly, corporate medical director, surveyed for the incidence ofcertain illnesses in its employees in connection withpotential exposures to asbestos. See also response to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 14. Should more specific information responsive to this interrogatorybe discovered, this answerwill be supplemented in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. For further response, responsive informationmaybe obtained from documents whichhave been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel in this case and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state for each ofDefendant's PremisesAt Issue, all relevant State and Federal regulations, laws, statute, mandates, orother authoritypertaining to industrial hygiene, safety, and health ofwhich you were aware duringthe Time PeriodAt Issue that governed, controlled, or applied to exposure to asbestos orasbestos-containing products, abatement orremoval ofasbestos-containingproducts, andtransportation of asbestos containing waste from such removal or abatement activities. ANSWER: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -19- Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad, undulyburdensome, overreaching and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not limited to the specific area where Plaintiffallegedly worked or anyreasonable scope oflocations and to the extent that it is not limited to the specific time period Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility. Subject to andwithout waiving the foregoing objections, responsive information maybe obtained from documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel inthis case and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: For any ofDefendant's Premises At Issue, detail every occasion during the Time Period At Issue when any state, federal, or local regulatory agency, commission, orother examiner inspected orvisited any ofyourplants, facilities, locations, or premises where asbestos and asbestos-containing products were used, manufactured, assembled, installed, orremovedto ascertain whetheryou were in compliancewith relevant state, federal, or local health and safety regulations. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory is overlybroad, undulyburdensome, overreaching and is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence because it is not limited to the specific units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked or any reasonable scope oflocations and to the extent that it is not limited to the specific time period Plaintiff allegedly worked at Defendant's facility. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive information maybe obtained fromdocuments whichhave been orwillbeproduced to Plaintiff's counsel in this case and the burden ofascertaining such is substantiallythe same forPlaintiffas it is for Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: If, before 1980, you had receivednotice that anyindividual orindividuals had claimed for alleged injury against you resulting from exposure to asbestos, state for each: a. The name and address of the claimant b. A description of the claim c. The name and address of the attorney representing such claimant. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overly broad, overreaching, onerous, oppressive, harassing, seeks information that is notrelevant to theclaims orparties K:\SoIutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -20- in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one ormore ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). Additionally, Defendant objects on the grounds that such request is not reasonablylimited orspecific as to anyrelevant time, facility, orunit where plaintiffallegedlyworked or anyother relevant location. Subject to and withoutwaiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that to the best ofits current knowledge, the first claim ofthis type inquired ofwas a worker's compensation claim filed by aworker in its Springfield, Massachusetts plant alleging some type of asbestos-related injury on August 15,1979. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Ifyou contend that you did not own or operate or control the Defendants' Premises during the Time Period At Issue, or ifyou contend you arenot liable in the capacityalleged in the mostrecentpetition, describe in detail the facts supporting yourcontentionand include adetailed corporatehistoryofDefendant and its ownership, sale, acquisition, or divestiture oranyofDefendant's Premises At Issue andanyrelevant mergers, acquisitions, consolidation, orother events ofsimilar nature that you believebear onthe issue of ownership, control, assumption ofliabilities for acts occurring onDefendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue and identifyand state the experience and qualifications, ifapplicable, ofeveryperson known to you, your agents, or contractors as having knowledge of facts relevant to this issue. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatoryon the grounds that it is overlybroad, undulyburdensome, harassing, vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Defendant further objects to the defined "time period at issue" as overly broad and vague mand non-specific. Subject to and without waiving these objections, with regard to ownership and operation ofthe plant at issue, with regard to the Time Period At Issue i.e. 1945-1989, Defendant states that itpurchasedthe Texas CityPlant fromtheU.S. Government in 1946 and sold it to Sterling Chemicals, Inc. on August 11986. Withregard to the issue of"control," Defendant acknowledges that it had the right in general terms to manage and overseethe condition ofits ownplant, to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines, order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports, but denies that it had the right to control the means, methods, and details of independent contractors' work. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Ifyou contend that venue is notproper, identifybymunicipalityand countythe locationyoucontend is yourprincipal place ofbusiness within this state forpurposes ofvenue, as well as yournext three most K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -21- significant business locations within this state. Ifyou do not contend that any ofyour locations are a principal place ofbusiness, identify up to four ofyour places ofbusiness where yourhighest level decision makers within this state work. ANSWER: As to thatportion ofthis interrogatoryinquiring ofDefendant's "next three most significantbusiness locations," Defendant objects to this interrogatoryon the grounds that it is overlybroad, seeks information and/or documents not relevant and/or material in this cause, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and goes beyond the permissible scope ofdiscovery under the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant has filed amotion to transfervenue denying the countyofsuit is aproper county for venue purposes and it is Plaintiffs' burden to establishpropervenue. Discovery is ongoing and Defendant will supplement this response as maybe appropriate. V. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Pleaseproduce all ordering, sales, and shipping documents pertainingto the purchase or acquisition of asbestos-containing products for use at Defendant's Premises at Issue at any time. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to the claimmade bythe Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the relevant time period when Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility, is not limitedto areas Qrunits withinDefendant's plantwhere Plaintiffallegedlyworked orto the specific materials to which Plaintiffalleges he was exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Pleaseproduce all documents that relate to abatementofasbestos or asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue and transportation of asbestos-containing waste. RESPONSE. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -22- Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad, undulyburdensome, over reaching, harassing, oppressive, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant ormaterial to the claims in this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not limited in time, is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffs allegedlyworked, is not limited to the specific types ofproducts or materials with which or around which Plaintiffallegedlyworked and/or to whichPlaintiffwas allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that documents responsive to this request maybe included in the documents whichhavebeen or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all records identifying contractors and/or the employees ofcontractors who were on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to gate records, sign-in logs, visitor's logs, identification badge or "brassing" procedures, fingerprinting, orother documents of a similar nature. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, and notreasonablycalculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period whenPlaintiffworked at aMonsanto facilityor anyreasonable timeperiod and is not limited to anyreasonable scope oflocations. Subj ect to the foregoing objections, documents which may be responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4. Please produce all records pertainingto the methods andmannerofidentification ofindividuals entering and/or leaving Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, is not limited intime to the period whenPlaintiffallegedly worked at aMonsanto facility, or anyreasonable timeperiod, and is not limitedto anyreasonable scope oflocations. Subjectto the foregoing objections, no such records are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: K:\SoIutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses -23- Please produce the contract and work progress documents pertaining to the contractors who performed services at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including, but not limited to, invitations to bid, requests forproposals, bids, proposals, statements ofscope ofwork, work orders, specifications, blueprints, plans, acceptances, contracts, amendments, addenda, change orders, inspection reports, work logs or contractor logs, includingbut not limited to all ofthe contractor documents referring to work to be done, underway, or completed byPlaintiffs employer at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad, undulyburdensome, over reaching, seeks information that is not relevant ormaterial to Plaintiffs claims, is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is not limited to anyreasonable scope oflocations or the specific area that Plaintiffallegedly worked or anyreasonable scope oftype ofcontractor or type of workbeingperformed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents whichmaybe responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Pleaseproduce all documents reflectingpaymentsmade to Plaintiffs employer forworkcontracted to do at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, including but not limited to authorizations for payment, invoices, bills, check requests, requisitions, canceled checks, or other documents of a similar nature reflecting payment for services rendered by Plaintiffs employer. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, onerous, not limited to the specific time period Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility or anyreasonable time frame, seeks documents which are not relevant to material to the claims made byPlaintiff, is not reasonablycalculated to leadto the discoveryofadmissible evidence, concerns contracts forworkwhich Plaintiffis not alleging could expose a worker to asbestos or in areas or units of the plant where Plaintiffdid not allege to have worked and is not reasonably limitedto anyrelevant time frame or scope of locations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce allphotographs orvideographic depictions or films depicting the use ofany safety precautions (such as containment areas, warning signs, etc.) takento protectbystanders from the hazards K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -24- ofairborne asbestos resulting from the use ofasbestos-containing products at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, and not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, is not limited in time to the period when Plaintiffallegedlyworked at a Monsanto facility, or anyreasonable time period, is not limited to any reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, documents which maybe responsive to this request have been orwill be produced to Plaintiff's counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8. Pleaseproduce all documents containing anywarnings concerning thepossibilityofinjuryresulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which arenotrelevant ormaterial to the claims made by the Plaintiff, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and because it is not limited to anyreasonabletime frame or to documents that mayhave been posted at, issued by or at, circulated by or at, or maintained by or at Defendant's Texas facilities or Defendant's corporate headquarters to workers atDefendant's Texas facilities. Defendant furtherobjects to anyrequirement, as aresult ofthe ambiguityattendantto the term "warnings" in this request, to review the entire company files and employee's files and library ofpublications it has for documents responsive to this request on the grounds that such arequest is onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden on Defendant to search for, gather and produce the requested documents is far greaterthan anyreasonable probative value those documents would possess for Plaintiffin this case. Subject and limited to the foregoing, and withoutwaiving the objections, responsive documents have been orwillbeproduced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: ------ Please produce all photographs ofwarning signs orwarning statements which are orhavebeen in place at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -25- Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to the claims made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), DillardDept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-Mart Corpv. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedlyworked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents that relate to any inspections by any regulatory agency for the purpose ofascertaining whether health or safetyregulations were being followed or adhered to at anyof your plants. This request specifically seeks any and all such documentation referring to dust hazards, including but not limited to asbestos in your plants. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to the claims madebythe Plaintiff, is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, inviolation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d813 (Tex. 1995), DillardDept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-MartCorpv. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d429(Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonablylimited in scope to a specific facility and/orto the types ofmaterials to whichPlaintiff was allegedly exposed or anyrelevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plantwherePlaintiffallegedlyworked. Subjectto andwithoutwaiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products and Texas facilities, havebeen orwill be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: In the event that Defendantperformed orhad performed anydust level counts ormeasurements ofany ofits plant or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, please produce any documents, memoranda, or otherwritings that in anywayreflect the results ofsuch studies orcounts and actions taken as a result of such counts or studies. RESPONSE: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -26- Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claim made bythe Plaintiffand is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because it is not reasonably limited in scope to Defendant's Texas facilities or the relevant time periodwhen Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility, is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked or to the specific materials to which Plaintiffalleges he was exposed. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and subject to the stated limitations, documents responsive to this request relating to Defendant's Texas facilities have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents relating to inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your companyorhiredbyyour company, that included the taking or measuring of "dust counts." RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to the claims madebythe Plaintiff, is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, inviolation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. V. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-Mart Corp. V. Sanderson, 937 S.W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facilityand/orto the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or anyrelevanttimeperiod. Subjectto andwithout waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products and Texas facilities, have been or will be produced to Plaintiff's counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents that indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, canbe hazardous to the health ofhuman beings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to any requirement, as a result ofthis request, to review all ofits files and employee's files andthe library ofpublications ithas and its employees mayhave for documentsresponsive to this request on the grounds that such arequest in onerous, oppressive and harassing and theburden on Defendantto search for, locate andproduce responsive documents wouldbe undulyburdensome, onerous, K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses -27- oppressive and harassing and the burden would far outweigh any reasonable probative value that any responsive documents mayprovide to the Plaintiffs in this case. Subject to and without waiving anyofits objections, responsive documents which Defendant has assembled as a result ofprior document searches have already been produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents supporting the legal theories and factual bases ofyour defenses set forth in your response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure under Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure 194.2, subparagraph (c). RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request onthe grounds and to the extentthat it invades the attorneywoikproduct exemption and attorney-clientprivilege. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, global, lacks the specificity required for a proper document request, and seeks to require the marshaling of evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Ifyou contend that Plaintiffwas not exposed to asbestos dust at Defendant's Premises At Issue, please produce the documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and seeks andwouldrequireproduction ofattorneywoikproduct and informationprotectedbythe attomey-clientprivilege. Subjectto andwithout wavingthe foregoing objections, defendant states that discovery and investigation offacts is ongoing and Defendantwill supplementthisresponse shouldmore informationbe discovered. Defendant does notknow that Plaintiffwas everpresent orworked on its premises, the workhe mayhave performed, what location he performed anywork, or the exact details existing at the time Plaintiffwas allegedly on Defendant's premises. Subject to andwithoutwaiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request may be contained within the documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiff's counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents used, referred to or relied upon in answering any Interrogatories. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses -28- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and lacks the specificity required of a proper document request. Subject to this objection, Defendant is unable to specificallyidentify such requested documents. However, documents containing some ofthe information supplied have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. 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 ofDefendant, including the following: a. Any document retention and/or destructionpolicies forDefendant that pertain to documents and records, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. b. Anyrecord retention and/ordestruction, dumping, orpurging policies forDefendant thatpertain to documents and records created, maintained or stored by electronic and/or magnetic means, includingbut not limited to records thathave been microfilmed, microfiched, imaged, scanned, or stored ontapes, disks, diskettes, CD-rom, databases, etc. oron orwithin anycomputerhardware, backup system, download system, file dumping or other system ofinformation management, whether on-site or off-site, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions or anyother superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request onthe grounds that it is not limitedto anyreasonable orrelevant time frame, is overlybroad, andto the extent it calls forthe productionofmaterialprotected from discovery under the attorney client privilege or work-product exemption. Subject to the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: -- Please produce all documents, includingbut not limitedto 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 ofaccess or retrieval, and/or location of Defendant's documents (maintained or stored on-site or off-site) pertainingto any ofthe subjectmatter areas of Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -29- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous (Defendant cannot determine what documents are being sought), is overbroad, not limited to anyreasonable time period or subject matter, and to the extent it calls for production of material protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product exemption. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce all books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials ofanykind or character that were receivedbyyou and that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, canbe hazardous to the health of human beings. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, overlybroad, and not reasonably limited to anyrelevant time frame or location. Subjectto the foregoing objections, documents ofthe type requested have been orwillbeproducedto Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Pleaseproduce all documents that reflect, indicate or in anywayrelate to communications between you and anymanufacturerofasbestos-containingproducts concerning orrelatedto the asbestos contained in such products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which arenotrelevant ormaterial to the claims made bythe Plaintiff, is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, inviolation ofLofiin v. Martin, 776S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), DillardDept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-Mart Corp v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonablylimited in scope to a specific facility and/orto the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed oranyrelevant time period and is not limited to areas orunits within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to the andwithout waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents have been or will be produced to Plaintiff's counsel. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -30- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please produce all documents in your possession disseminated or published by any trade association that contain information relating to the hazards ofasbestos and all documents which refer to such documents and any documents pertaining to meetings ofsuch trade associations that were attended by any of your employees or representatives. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to the claims made bythe Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), DillardDept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d491 (Tex. 1995), md/orK-Mart Corp v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d429(Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facilityand/orto the types ofmaterials to whichPlaintiff was allegedly exposed or any relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, while Defendant knows ofno such documents responsive to this requestwithin its possession, custodyorcontrol, iftherewere anysuch documents theywould be contained inthe documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce all of Defendant's safety meeting minutes that refer to the dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request onthe grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overlybroad and is not reasonablylimited to anyrelevant time frame or location. Subject to and without waiving anyofits objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Please produce all documents related to the installation of asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -31- Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overlybroad and is not reasonable limited to anyrelevant time frame and the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked. Subject to and without waiving any ofits objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Please produce all documents related to the medical condition ofPlaintiffat anytime during his work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. This request specifically includes any and all x-rays, x-rayreports, medical notes and/or medical records ofany kind, annual physical forms, and any records relating to Plaintiffs health. RESPONSE: No such documents are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents related to Plaintiff, includingbut not limited to Plaintiffs work performance and/or personnel records at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: No such documents are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Please produce all documents that reflect ordepict in anywaythe layout ofDefendant's Premises At Issue, includingthe location and dimensions ofall buildings andthe location andplacementofasbestoscontainingproducts, and specificallyincluding allphotographs, plats, maps, diagrams, blueprints, drawings, specifications or other architectural renderings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory onthe grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks informationthat is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one ormore ofLoftin v. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -32- Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d813 (Tex. \995),Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Please produce all demonstrative aids Defendant plans to use at trial in this matter. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require themarshaling ofevidence, seeks informationprotectedbythe attorneyclient and/orwork product privileges and exemptions. Furthermore, this request is premature at this time; defendant has not yet determined which, if any, documents it will use at the time of trial. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Please produce all photographs ofasbestos products in place or asbestos-containingmaterials being installed, maintained, removed, replaced, repaired, or manipulated in anyway at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatoryon the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks informationthat is not relevantto the claims orparties in this case, is notreasonablycalculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one ormore ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. \99S),Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedlyexposed or any relevant timeperiod and is not limited to areas orunits within Defendant's plantwhere Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses -33- Please produce all documents relating to any individuals' claimed injury as aresult ofexposure to asbestos at any facility ofDefendant, including, but not limited to, workers' compensation claims and any documentation going to or received from any insurance carrier pertaining to such claims, and any documentation pertaining to the disposition of such claims. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, lacks the requisite specificity, is unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims made bythe Plaintiff, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 829 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Please produce all documents that in any way reflect corporate minutes, corporate records, departmental meetings or discussions, ormeetings with agents orcontractors that in anywaydiscuss, note, ortable a discussion ofthe hazards ofasbestos or potential hazards ofasbestos. The documents sought in this request include those produced and/or maintained at a corporate level by those responsible for supervising or advising personnel at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory onthe grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevantto the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, lacks the requisite specificity for aproper request, and is an impermissible fishing expedition inviolationof Texas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d429 (Tex. 1996) andbecause it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or anyrelevant time period and is not limited to areas orunits within Defendant's plant where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Please produce all documents of corporate, board of directors, Defendant Premises representatives, departmental persons, task force, or othermeetings ofmembers ofDefendant from 1940 until the last yearofthe Time Period At Issue that contain discussion or information concerning asbestos, K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -34- asbestos-related health hazards, or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, lacks the requisite specificity for aproper request, and is an impermissible fishing expeditionin violation of Texas law, including one or more oiLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedlyexposed orthe specific timeperiod Plaintiffwas allegedlyonDefendant's premises. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Pleaseproduce all documents whichwillbe used at the time oftrial, including allpotential exhibits and those documents whichmaybe used to cross-examine other witnesses or in rebuttal, andwhich you contend are relevant to anyofDefendant's enumerated defenses inDefendant's mostrecentlyfiledAnswer. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require themarshaling ofevidence, seeks informationprotectedbythe attorney clientprivilege andinvades the attorneyworkproduct exemption. Furthermore, this request is premature at this time; Defendant has not yet determined which, if any, documents it will use at the time of trial. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33. Please produce documents between Defendant and any ofits worker's compensation insurance carriers or anyother insurance carriers regarding thehazards ofasbestos and asbestos-containingproducts. RESPONSE: ------ Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are notrelevant ormaterial to this claims madebythe Plaintiffand is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence. Defendant furtherobjects to the extent suchdocuments areprotectedbythe attorney-client orworkproductprivileges and exemptions. Without waiving its objections, however, Defendant is not aware at this time ofany documents in its K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses -35- possession, custody or control that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Please produce documents between Defendant and any ofits insurance carriers relating to any inspections carried out by the insurance carrier in which asbestos or dust in general was mentioned. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to this claims madebythe Plaintiffand is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent such documents are protected bythe attorney-client orwork product privileges and exemptions. Without waiving its objections, however, Defendant is not aware at this time ofany documents in its possession, custody or control that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Pleaseproduce acopyofall regulations, orders, mles and/orpolicies whichhave beenusedrelating to the safety of the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, unclear, overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to the claim made by the Plaintiff, is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the relevant time period whenPlaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility, is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's facilitywherePlaintiffallegedlyworked orto the specific materials to whichPlaintiffalleges he was exposed. Subj ect to andwithoutwaiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Please produce all documents which contain complaints by employees of Defendant at the Defendant's Premises At Issue regarding safetyconditions and workplace conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -36- Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant or material to the claims madebythe Plaintiffand is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent such documents are protected bythe attorney-client or work productprivileges and exemptions. Subject to and without waiving these objections, documents which may be responsive to this request, limited to relating to asbestos products, have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce all documents which contain complaints byUnionrepresentatives ofDefendant's Premises At Issue regarding safety conditions andworkplace conditions at the Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which are not relevant ormaterial to the claims madebythe Plaintiffand is notreasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent such documents areprotectedbythe attorney-client orworkproductprivileges and exemptions. Subj ect to and withoutwaiving these objections, documents which maybe responsive to this request, limitedto relatingto asbestos products, havebeen orwill be produced to Plaintiffs counsel and theburden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce all documents, organizational charts orrosters which identifythe members ofthe management at the Defendant's Premises At Issue and their areas ofresponsibilityduringthe Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, seeks documents which arenotrelevant or material to the claims madehythe Plaintiffand is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subjectto andwithout waiving the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -37- Please produce all documents which evidence Defendant's net worth, including, butnot limited to, all "10-K" forms filed for the last five (5) years. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad, overreaching andbecause Defendant is apublicly traded company and the documents requested are public records and available to the general public. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that documents other than Defendant's 10-K forms and/or annual report for the current year would be duplicative, redundant, cumulative, overlybroad, undulyburdensome, overreaching, onerous, oppressive andharassing. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce its Annual Reports for the requested years and its most current Form 10-K. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Please produce all documents which evidence Defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale, or transfer of ownership or liabilities relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatoryon the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is notreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc.,v. Sanderson 898 S.W. 2d813(Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v.Moye, 898 S.W.2d766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-MartCorp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: If you contend that you are not liable for any dangerous condition or activity taking place at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue, please produce all title documents supporting this contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and seeks andwouldrequireproduction ofattorney work product and information protected bythe attorney-clientprivilege. Defendant further objects to the request and the phrase "the title documents" on the grounds that such is vague and fails to K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -38- identify the documents sought. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Ifyou contend that you did not own or control the facilities) during anyportion ofthe Time Period At Issue, please produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the purchase, sale, acquisitions, merger, or divestment ofcorporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment ofthe facility(ies); such documentation to include, by way ofexample and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 1 OKreports orother state or federal agency filings or deposition, trial testimonyor affidavits ofyour corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and seeks andwouldrequireproduction ofattorneyworkproduct and informationprotected bythe attomey-clientprivilege. Subjectto andwithout waiving the foregoing, based upon the Time Period At Issue i.e. 1945-1989, defendant responds that it purchased the Texas City facilityfrom the U.S. Government in 1946 and sold it to Sterling Chemicals on August 1,1986 and unless Plaintiffalleges he was present and exposed on such site prior to or afterthat time, then this interrogatory is not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Ifyou contend that you have notbeen sued in the proper capacity as set forth inPlaintiffs latest petition, produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentationpertaining to the history ofDefendant and anyrelevantpurchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment ofcorporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or othercorporate entities orassets that includedthe purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment ofthe facilities); such documentation to include, byway ofexample and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 1 OK reports orother state or federal agencyfilings, ordeposition, trial testimonyoraffidavits ofyourcorporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and seeks andwould requireproduction of attorney work product and information protected by the attorney-client privilege. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -39- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Pleaseproduce all indemnityagreements, assignments ofliability, subrogation agreements andother similar documents relating to Defendant's Premises At Issue and liabilities arising from said ownership. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatoryon the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevanttimeperiod, and is not limitedto areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Ifyou contend Defendant's Premises At Issue was asbestos-free during the TimePeriodAt Issue, please produce all documents which support your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and seeks andwouldrequireproduction ofattomeywoikproductandinformationprotectedbytheattomey-clientprivilege.Subjectto and without waiving the foregoing. Defendant states that based upon Plaintiff's definition ofthe years at issue, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Ifyou contend that some or all ofDefendant's Premises At Issue are asbestos-free, pleaseproduce all documents, including but not limited to, specifications, blue prints and drawings supporting your contention. RESPONSE: K:\SolutiaVTijerina\Discoveryresponses -40- Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and seeks and would require production ofattorneywork product and information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant states that based upon Plaintiff s definition ofthe years at issue, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Please produce all documents relating to yourmanufacturing ofany asbestos or asbestos-containing products, or products to which anyamount ofasbestos was added, for use at any ofDefendant's facilities or for sale to others. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatoryonthe grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is notrelevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/orto the types ofmaterials to whichPlaintiffwas allegedlyexposed or anyrelevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedlyworked. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Please produce all documents relating to youruse ofany asbestos containing materials, asbestos containingproducts ortools withwhich asbestos is used, for anyprocess takingplace at anyofDefendanfs facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatoryon the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks informationthat is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one ormore ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995),Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -41- 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and / or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedlyexposed or any relevant time period and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing objections, documents responsive to this request have been or will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Please produce all documents relating to your use, manipulation or handling ofasbestos in any industrial processes at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas orunits within Defendant's plant where Plaintiffallegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: Please produce all marketing and advertising materials related in anywayto yourmanufacturing ofasbestos or asbestos-containing materials or youruse ofasbestos or asbestos-containingmaterials in your industrial processes. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatoryon the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one ormore ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able SupplyCo. v.Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v.Hall,909 S.W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/orto the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -42- allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Please produce all documents relating to boilers at Defendant's Premises At Issue. This request includes owner manuals, maintenance manuals, purchase orders and invoices. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more oiLoftin v, Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995),Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-MartCorp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant timeperiod, and is not limitedto areas orunits withinDefendant's plantwherePlaintiffallegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Please produce all documents relating to any audits you conductedor caused to be conducted at Defendant's Premises At Issue in order to review some aspect ofDefendant's safety program. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatoryon the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims orparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more oiLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995),and/or K-MartCorp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996)andbecauseitis not reasonably limited in scope to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed or any relevant timeperiod and is not limited to areas or units withinDefendant's plantwhere Plaintiffallegedly worked. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -43- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: Please produce all documents provided by you to otherplants 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: Defendant objects to this interrogatoryon the grounds and to the extent it is vague, overlybroad, undulyburdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks informationthat is notrelevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one ormore of Loftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/orK-MartCorp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is notreasonably limited in scope to a specific facility and/or to the types ofmaterials to which Plaintiffwas allegedly exposed, any relevant time period, and is not limited to areas or units within Defendant's plant where Plaintiff allegedly worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Please produce depositions and trial transcripts ofyour current or former employees or other corporate representatives taken in anymatter involving an alleged injuryorclaimedpropertydamage due to asbestos or insurance coverage for claims related to asbestos injury or property damage. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatoryon the grounds and to the extent it is vague, overlybroad, undulyburdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is notrelevant to the claims onparties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more of Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Please produce exhibit lists produced to you by any other counsel for plaintiffin other cases involved claim of injury or property damage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. K:\Soiutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -44- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is vague, overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one or more of Loftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). Subjectto an without waiving the foregoing objections, at this time, no such documents are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Please produce all correspondence from you to Plaintiffs employer and from Plaintiffs employer to you during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague since Plaintiffs employerhas not been identified, overlybroad and not reasonablylimited to anyreasonable scope oftime, location, subject matteror a specific location orthe specifictimeperiodPlaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, no such documents are known to exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in any way any decision or discussion related to the cessation of the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products in any ofyour facilities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad, undulyburdensome, vague and not reasonablylimited in scope as to time, location, type ofproduct, ortype ofwork. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing. Defendant responds that documents responsive to this request maybe included in the documents which have been or will be produced to Plaintiffs counsefandthe burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Please produce all documents that indicate or reference in any way any catalog or index or K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -45- subscriptions or holdings ofany libraryor other research repositoryofDefendant containing magazines, joumals, books, publications or other documents relating to asbestos (includingbut not limited to, the effects of exposure to asbestos, industrial hygiene measures relating to asbestos dust, and medical information or research relating to asbestos or its effects on animals or humans, populations at risk, etc.) RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous (Defendant cannot determine what documents are being sought), is overbroad, not limited to anyreasonable time period or subject matter, and to the extent it calls for production ofmaterial protected from disclosure by the attorney-clientprivilege and/orwork-product exemption. Defendant objects to anyrequirement, as aresult ofthis request, to review all ofits files and employee's files and the libraryofpublications it has and its employees may have for documents responsive to this request on the grounds that such a request in onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden on Defendant to search for, locate and produce responsive documents would be undulyburdensome, onerous, oppressive and harassing and the burden would far outweigh any reasonable probative value that anyresponsive documents mayprovide to the Plaintiffs in this case. Subject to and without waiving anyofits objections, responsive documents which Defendant has assembled as a result ofpriordocument searches have alreadybeenproduced to Plaintiffs counsel. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Please produce all inventory, stock-on-hand, warehouse or other documents pertaining to asbestos-containingproducts that were stored, maintained, stockpiled, orkeptbyDefendant foruse at any facility of Defendant, including Defendant's Premises At Issue, at any time. RESPONSE: Defendantobjects to this interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonablycalculatedto lead to the discoveryofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one ormore ofLoftin v. Martin, 116 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995),Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996) and because it is not reasonably limited in scope to a specific facilityand/orthe types ofmaterials to whichPlaintiffwas allegedlyexposed, anyrelevant time period, and is not limited to areas orunits withinDefendant's facility where Plaintiff allegedly worked. K:\SoIutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -46- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Please produce any letters, affidavits, or stipulations concerning authenticityofanyofDefendant's documents provided byyou in anyothercase involving claim ofinjuryorpropertydamage alleged to have been caused by asbestos exposure. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatoryon the grounds and to the extent it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome, overreaching, oppressive, harassing, onerous, seeks informationthat is not relevantto the claims or parties in this case, is not reasonablycalculatedto lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and is an impermissible fishing expedition in violation ofTexas law, including one ormore ofLoftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145 (Tex. 1989), Texaco, Inc., v. Sanderson 898 S. W. 2d 813 (Tex. 1995), Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W. 2d 766 (Tex. 1996), Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1995), and/or K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S. W. 2d 429 (Tex. 1996). VL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND FURTHER REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admitthat asbestos-containingproducts, asbestos-containing frictionproducts, and/ormachinery requiring the use ofasbestos or asbestos-containingproducts were utilized on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containinginsulationmaterialswereused orinstalled atDefendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containingproducts were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e.1945-1989. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos atDefendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. K:\SoIutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -47- RESPONSE: Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendantto admit or deny that plaintiffwas everpresent onDefendant's premises. Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulation materials were used or installed at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined"time period at issue," i.e. 1945-1989. To the extent anyotherportion ofthis request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Ifyour response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support yourresponse, including anydocuments which youbelieve support adenial ofthe foregoing admission or any documents showingwhat reasonable inquiryyou undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request onthe grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence, seeks and wouldrequire production of attorneywork product and information protected by attorneyclientprivilege. Subject to the foregoing objections. Defendant responds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 3: Admit that you have no airmonitoring for asbestos takenonDefendant's PremisesAt Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad andnot limitedto anyunit or area within the facilitywhere Plaintiffallegedlyworked or any otherreasonable scope oflocations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62 (sic): Admitthat results ofairmonitoring forasbestos taken onDefendant's Premises At Issue duringthe K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -48- Time Period At Issue indicate Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or denythat plaintiffwas everpresent on Defendant's Premises. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, the remainder of this request is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63. Ifyourresponse to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support yourresponse, including anydocuments which you believe support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiryyou undertook in connectionwith your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to requirethe marshaling ofevidence, and to the extent it seeks and would require production of attorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited in time to the specific period in time when Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facilityor anyotherreasonable time frame, or a specific facility or area within the facility Plaintiffallegedly worked or any other reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and withoutwaivingthe foregoing objections, Defendant responds thatbased onthe referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: AdmitthatDefendant's employees wereworking withasbestos-containingmaterials atDefendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containinginsulationmaterialswere used orinstalled at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containingproducts were utilized throughoutthe defined "time period at issue," i.e.1945-1989. To the extent anyotherportionofthis request has not been addressed, same is denied. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -49- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that contractors were working with asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulationmaterials were used orinstalled at Defendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e.1945-1989. To the extent anyotherportion ofthis request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Defendantwas aware ofthe presence ofasbestos-containing products onDefendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that asbestos-containing insulationmaterials wereused orinstalled atDefendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attemptedto secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant admits that itwas aware ofthe presence ofand/or the use ofcertain asbestos products during certain portions fo plaintiffs defined "time period at issue". Defendantdenies that asbestos-containingproducts were utilizedthroughoutthe defined "timeperiod at issue," i.e. 1945-1989. To the extent any portion ofthe request has not been addressed, then same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Defendant was aware ofthe use ofasbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendantadmits that asbestos-containinginsulationmaterials wereused orinstalled atDefendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -50- insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant admits that it was aware ofthe presence ofand/or the use ofcertain asbestos products during certain portions fo plaintiffs defined "time period at issue". Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughout the defined "time period at issue," i.e. 1945-1989. To the extent any portion ofthe request has not been addressed, then same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that you did not post awarning, caution or hazard signs concerning asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwoik allegedlydone byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that you did not post a warning, caution orhazard signs in Spanish concerning asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, location and thetype ofworkallegedlydonebyPlaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the informationknownoreasilyobtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit thatyou specified the use ofasbestos-containing materials atDefendant'-sPremises At Issue prior to or during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE. Defendantadmits that asbestos-containinginsulationmaterials were used orinstalled atDefendant's Texas facilities up until 1972, at which time Defendant ceased purchasing such asbestos-containing K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -51- insulation products. Asbestos containing gaskets may have been used after 1972 while Defendant attempted to secure an acceptable substitute. Defendant denies that asbestos-containing products were utilized throughoutthe defined "time period at issue," i.e. 1945-1989. To the extent any otherportionofthis request has not been addressed, same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1950s. RESPONSE: Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1960s. RESPONSE: Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1970s. RESPONSE: , Defendant admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulationproducts foruse at its facilities in 1972. Defendant admits that, consistentwith governmentalregulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe artguidelines andprincipals, allrecognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos containing materials inplace in anon-friable and encapsulated state ratherthan to disturb itbyremoval, at the time inquired ofthere was most likelysome amount of asbestos containing material still present at Defendant's Premises. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -52- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1980s. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulationproducts for use at its facilities in 1972. Defendant admits that, consistent with governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art guidelines andprincipals, allrecognizingthat in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos containingmaterials inplace in a non-friable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was most likelysome amount of asbestos containing material still present at Defendant's Premises. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue in the 1990s. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overlybroad, beyond the specific time frame when Plaintiff allegedlyworked at Defendant's facility, and beyond the Plaintiff s own defined "timeperiod at issue" i.e.1945-1989. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any asbestoscontainingproducts are still being specified, installed or applied at Defendant's Premises and admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Although Defendantsoldthe facilityinquired about to Sterling Chemicals in 1986, Defendant admits that, consistent with governmentalregulations and standards, as well as current industrialhygiene state ofthe art guidelines andprincipals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos-containingmaterials in place in a non-friable and encapsulated staterather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was probably some amount ofasbestos-containingmaterial still physically present at such facility. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admitthat you did notprovide to contractors working atDefendant's Premises At Issue health and safetyprocedures relating to the use ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue duringthe Time Period At Issue. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -53- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overly broad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that you didnotprovide to contractors working at Defendant's Premises At Issuehealthand safetyprocedures in Spanish relating to the use ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedlydonebyPlaintiff Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that you did not conduct with contractors health and safetymeetingsrelatingto the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited orspecific enough as to time, contractor, location andthe type ofwork allegedlydone byPlaintiff Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that you did not conduct with contractors health and safetymeetings in Spanish relating to the use of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited orspecific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedlydonebyPlaintiff. Subjectto these objections, this request is denied. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -54- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20. Admit that you did not take any steps to protect contractor employees from exposure to asbestos on Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractorinvolved, areas or units where Plaintiffallegedlyworked and the type of work allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: Ifyour response to the foregoingrequest is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support yourresponse, including anydocuments whichyoubelieve support adenial ofthe foregoing admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection withyour inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that.it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence and to the extent it seeks and would requireproduction ofattorneyworkproduct andinformationprotectedbyattorneyclientprivilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections documents responsive to this requestmaybe contained within the documents which have been or will be produced to PlaintifFs counsel and the burden of ascertaining such is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it is for Defendant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that asbestos is still in use at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendantobjects to this request as overlybroad, beyond the specific time frame whenPlaintiff allegedlyworked atDefendant's facility, andbeyondthe Plaintiff's own defined "timeperiod at issue" i.e. 1945-1989. SubjecttoandwithoutwaivingtheforegoingjDefendantdeniesthatanyasbestos-containing products are still being specified, installed or applied at Defendant's Premises and admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containinginsulationproducts foruse at its facilities in 1972. AlthoughDefendantsold the facility inquired about to Sterling Chemicals in 1986, Defendant admits that, consistent with K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -55- governmental regulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art guidelines and principals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos-containing materials in place in a non-friable and encapsulated state rather than to disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was probably some amount ofasbestos-containing material still physically present at such facility. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that asbestos is still in place at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overlybroad, beyond the specific time frame when Plaintiff allegedlyworked at Defendant's facility, and beyond the Plaintiffs own defined "timeperiod at issue" i.e.1945-1989. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any asbestoscontainingproducts are still being specified, installed or applied at Defendant's Premises and admits that it ceased purchasing asbestos-containing insulation products for use at its facilities in 1972. Although Defendant sold the facilityinquired aboutto Sterling Chemicals in 1986, Defendant admits that, consistent with governmentalregulations and standards, as well as current industrial hygiene state ofthe art guidelines and principals, all recognizing that in certain instances it is most appropriate and less hazardous to keep asbestos-containingmaterials in place in anon-friable and encapsulated state ratherthanto disturb it by removal, at the time inquired ofthere was probablysome amount ofasbestos-containingmaterial still physically present at such facility. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23. Admit that the United States government has contracted withDefendant forwork atDefendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objectsto this request onthe grounds that it is overlybroad and is notreasonably limited in scope as to time, or type ofactivity. Subject to and without waiving the foregoingobjections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses -56- Admit that the United States government paid Defendant more than $10,000 for the work it contracted with Defendant for work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and is not reasonablylimited in scope as to time, or type ofactivity. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that Defendant owned Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant admitsthat itpurchasedthe Texas City facilityfrom the U.S. Government in 1946 and sold it to Sterling Chemicals on August 1,1986. Defendant denies that it owned its Texas City facility during the entire period defined as the Time Period At Issue, i.e.1945-1989. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that Defendant operated Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclearas to what is being asked. Subjectto these objections, Defendant admits that itpurchased the Texas Cityfacilityfrom theU.S. Governmentin 1946 andsolditto Sterling Chemicals on August 1,1986. Defendantdenies that it owned its Texas City facility during the entire period defined as the Time Period At Issue, i.e.1945-1989. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms to manage and oversee the conditionofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect theprogress ofthe work and to receive reportsand admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft andDefendantrelied onthem and their employees to performtheirwork in a safe and efficientmanner oftheir choosing. Defendantdenies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -57- Admit that you did not conduct air monitoring for the presence ofasbestos dust during the time period in question. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad, not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedlydonebyPlaintiffor anyother reasonable scope of time and location. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admitthat during the Time Period At Issue, you did not conduct airmonitoring tests for levels of asbestos at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedlydonebyPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit that you were aware that business invitees at Defendant's Premises At Issue did not understand English. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, persons inquiredof, location andthe type ofwork allegedlydone by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that you did not take any steps to ascertain whether business invitees at Defendant's Premises At Issue understood English. RESPONSE: K:\SoIutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -58- Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, persons inquired of, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that you did not to provide safety orientations to contractor employees prior to their commencing work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedlydonebyPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that you did not to provide safetyorientations in Spanish to contractor employees prior to their commencing work at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad since it is not limited or specific enough as to time, contractor, location and the type ofwork allegedlydonebyPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, this request is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to remove asbestos-containing materials from Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendantobjects to this request onthe grounds that itis vague and overlybroadandis not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked and the type ofwork allegedly donebyPlaintiff. Subjectto these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the informationknownoreasily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: K:\SoIutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -59- Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to replace asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: Admit that you hired orcontractedwith Plaintiffs employerto install asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked and the type ofwork allegedlydone byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information knownor easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employerto maintain asbestos-containing materials at Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request onthe grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked and the type ofwork allegedlydone byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonableinquiry, the informationknownoreasily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Admit that you hired or contracted with Plaintiffs employer to do new construction work at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -60- RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the type ofwork allegedlydone byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Admit that you hired Plaintiffs employer to do "turnaround" work at Defendant's Premises At Issue during the Time Period At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and is not limited to the units or areas where Plaintiffallegedlyworked and the type ofwork allegedlydone byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonableinquiry, theinformationknownor easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admit that you communicated with Plaintiff's employerconcerning the work to beperformed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclearas to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects as overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedlydonebyPlaintiff. Subjectto these objections. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficientto enable Defendantto admit ordenythat Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purportedto be experts in theircraft and Defendant relied onthem and their employeesto perform theirwork in a safe and efficient maimer oftheirchoosing. Defendant denies that it had therightto control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -61- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admitthat you instructed Plaintiff's employer concerning the work to be performedon Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects as overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofworkallegedlydone byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit ordenythat Plaintiffwas everon defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in theircraft and Defendant relied onthem andtheiremployees to perform theirwork in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendantdenies that ithad the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: Admitthat you instructed Plaintiffs employerconcerninghow the work was to be performedon Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects as overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, locationandthetypeofwoikallegedlydonebyPlaintiff. Subjecttotheseobjections,Defendantstatesthat afterreasonable inquiry, the informationavailable is insufficientto enableDefendantto admit ordenythat Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft andDefendant relied on them andtheir employeesto performtheirwork in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the rightto control themeans, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -62- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that you showed Plaintiffs employer how the work was to be performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what is being asked. Furthermore, Defendant objects as overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedlydoneby Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendantto admit ordenythat Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspecttheprogress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in theircraft and Defendant relied onthem and theiremployees to perform theirwork in a safeand efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendantdenies that it had the rightto control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: Admit thatyourspecifications indicatedto Plaintiff's employerhow the workwas to performed on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedlydone byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficientto enable Defendantto admit ordeny that Plaintiffwas everon defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the conditionofits ownplant. Defendantadmits that it had the rightto require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that ithadthe generalright to orderwork stoppedorresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purportedto be experts in their craft andDefendantrelied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manneroftheirchoosing. Defendantdenies that ithadthe rightto control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -63- Ifyour response to the foregoing request is anything other than "admit," produce all documents which support your response, including any documents which you believe support a denial ofthe foregoing admission or any document showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connection with your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence, and to the extent it seeks and would require production of attorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited in time to the specific period in time when Plaintiffallegedlyworked at Defendant's facility or any other reasonable time frame, or a specific facility or area within the facility Plaintiffallegedlyworked or any other reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendantresponds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admit that yourspecifications indicated to Plaintiffs employerwhat materials were to be used in performing the work on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unclear as to what specifications are being referred to, overly broad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedlydoneby Plaintiff. Subjectto these objections, Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information availableis insufficientto enableDefendant to admitordenythatPlaintiff was ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the rightto require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports, and admits thatthese independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied onthem and their employees to perform theirwork in a safe and efficient manner of their choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details ofthe independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66. Ifyourresponse to the foregoing request is anything otherthan "admit," produce all documents which supportyourresponse, including anydocuments which you believe support adenial ofthe foregoing K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discovery responses -64- admission or any documents showing what reasonable inquiry you undertook in connectionwith your inability to admit or deny the foregoing request. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overlybroad, lacks the requisite specificity, seeks to require the marshaling ofevidence, and to the extent it seeks and would require production ofattorney work product and information protected by attorney client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited in time to the specific period in time when Plaintiffallegedly worked at Defendant's facilityor anyother reasonable time frame, or a specific facility or area within the facility Plaintiffallegedly worked or any other reasonable scope of locations. Subject to and withoutwaiving the foregoing objections, Defendantresponds that based on the referenced response, this request is not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer or supervisor when to start work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location andthe type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that afterreasonableinquiry, the informationavailableis insufficientto enable Defendant to admit or denythat Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that ithad the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that ithadthe general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft andDefendant relied onthem andtheir employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendantdenies that ithad the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer or supervisor when to stop work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these K:\SoIutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -65- objections, Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition of its own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to order work stopped or resumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in theircraft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer what materials to use when doing the work. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficientto enable Defendantto admit or denythat Plaintiffwas everon defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits ownplant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and theiremployees to complywith federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it hadthe generalrightto orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient maimer oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to controlthe means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer in what order the work should be done. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information availableis insufficientto enable Defendantto admit or denythat Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the rightto require independent contractors andtheir employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that it had thegeneral right to orderwork stopped orresumed. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -66- to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manneroftheirchoosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: Admit that you told Plaintiffs employer the deadline bywhich the work on Defendant's Premises At Issue was to be completed. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficientto enable Defendant to admit or denythat Plaintiffwas everon defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendantadmits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that ithad the general rightto orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts intheir craft and Defendantrelied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficientmanner oftheirchoosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admit that you had the power to correct the work performed by the employees ofPlaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad andnot limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or denythat Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that ithad the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits ownplant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect theprogress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independentcontractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -67- work in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: Admit that you had the powerto require that the workperformed by the employees ofPlaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue be redone to your satisfaction. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or denythat Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits own plant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that it had the generalright to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receivereports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft andDefendantrelied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficientmanneroftheirchoosing. Defendant denies that ithad the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: Admitthat youhadthepowerto stop theworkperformedbythe employees ofPlaintifFs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficientto enable Defendantto admit or denythatPlaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits ownplant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendantadmits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect theprogress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in theircraft and Defendantrelied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficient manneroftheir choosing. Defendant denies that ithadtheright to controlthe means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -68- Admit that you observed the work performed by the employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections. Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or denythat Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits ownplant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to comply with federal laws and general safety guidelines. Defendant admits that it had the generalright to order work stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform thenwork in a safe and efficientmanner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that ithad the rightto control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: Admit that you inspected the work performed by the employees ofPlaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done byPlaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the informationavailable is insufficientto enable Defendantto admit or denythat Plaintiffwas everon defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had thepower, in general terms, to manageandoverseetheconditionofitsownplant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and theiremployees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that ithad the general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform thenwork in a safe and efficient manner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had theright to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -69- Admit that you approved the work performed by the employees of Plaintiff s employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that afterreasonable inquiry, the information available is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or denythat Plaintiffwas ever on defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had the power, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits ownplant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that ithad the general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in theircraft and Defendant relied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficientmanneroftheirchoosing. Defendant denies that it had the right to control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: Admitthat you retained the powerto control all phases ofworkbeingperformedbythe employees of Plaintiffs employer on Defendant's Premises At Issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overlybroad and not limited or specific enough as to time, location and the type ofwork allegedly done by Plaintiff. Subject to these objections, Defendantstates that afterreasonableinquiry, the information available is insufficientto enable Defendant to admit or denythatPlaintiffwas everon defendant's premises. Defendant admits that it had thepower, in general terms, to manage and oversee the condition ofits ownplant. Defendant admits that it had the right to require independent contractors and their employees to complywith federal laws and general safetyguidelines. Defendant admits that it had the general right to orderwork stopped orresumed, to inspect the progress ofthe work and to receive reports and admits that these independent contractors purported to be experts in their craft and Defendantrelied on them and their employees to perform their work in a safe and efficientmanner oftheir choosing. Defendant denies that it had the rightto control the means, methods and details of the independent contractor's work. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -70- 07/10/01 09:21 FAX 2148907475 GEN RE MAIN FAX IfO 003 CORPORATE VERIFICATION STATE OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS Karen L. Knopf, being duly sworn, deposes and states that she is Assistant Secretary of Solutia Inc., that she verifies the foregoing answers to interrogatories contained within" DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF QUINTO H. TIJERINA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION" (in Cause No. Q0CV1037, Quinto H. Tijerina v. GAF Carp., et al; in the 212' Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas) for and on behalf of Pharmacia Corporation, formerly known as Monsanto Company, and is duly authorized to do so; that some or all of the facts and matters set forth therein are not within the personal knowledge of the deponent; that the facts and matters set forth therein have been assembled by authorized agents of Pharmacia Corporation, formerly known as Monsanto Company; and that deponent is informed that the facts and matters set forth therein are true. Karen L. Knopf w Assistant Secretary, Solutia Inc. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on K:\Soiuda\TijerinBMDi3covcry responses RECEIVED TIME JUL.10, 10:15AM j-u/ui ua:^ fAA ^i4oau/4/o (jhM Kh MAI iS hAA. 141002 G. Joe Ellis Ellis, Carstarphen, Dougherty & Goldenthal P.C. A Professional Corporation 720 N. POST Oak, STE. 330 Houston, Texas 77024 PHONE: 713.647.6800 FAX: 713.647.6884 asSlecdjawcnm July 9,2001 Stephanie Finch Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 VIA FACSIMILE - (214) 520-1181 Re: Cause No. 00CV1037; Quinto Tijerina, et al. v. GAF Corp., et al.; hi the 212th Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas. Dear Stephanie: In connection with the captioned case, please find enclosed the signed verification page for DefendantPhannaciaCorporation's, formerlyknown as Monstanto Company, Objections andResponses to Plaintiff Quinto Tijerina's First Set ofInterrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admissionwhichweprovidedto you lastweek. Please file this with the originalresponses. Ifyou have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, GJE:js Enclosure RECEIVED TIME JULIO. 10:15AM 7/10/01 09:21 FAX 2148907475 GEN RE MAIN FAX Ellis, Carstarphen, Dougherty & Goldenthal P.C. 720 N. Post Oak, Ste. 330 Houston, Texas 77024 713.647.6800 713.647.6884 (Facsimile) @001 8 FAX From: G. Joe Ellis Date: July 10.2001 Client/Matter No: 22454-2B5-Tijerina No. of pages including fax cover page: Original will NOT follow ^Original will follow via: OTJ. S. Mail U Overnight Delivery Other TO: Stephanie Finch OF: Baron & Budd FAX NO.: 214.520.1181 MESSAGE: Please see attached. Confidentiality Notice: This facsimile transmission (and/or the documents accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for the return ofthe documents. Ifanyproblems occur during the transmission ofthisfacsimile, Please call 713.647.6800 as soon as possible. RECEIVED TIME JUL.10. 10:15AM CAUSE NO. 00CV1037 QUINTO TIJERINA GAF CORP., ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS 212th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY, CERTIFICATE OF FILING CERTAIN DISCOVERY TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Defendant PharmaciaCorporation, formerlyknown as Monsanto Company, and files this Certificate ofFilingofCertain Discoveryin the captioned case andwould show the Court that the following discovery has been served upon the attorney for the Plaintiffs on July 5,2001: 1. Defendant Pharmacia Corporation's, FormerlyKnown as Monsanto Company, Objections andResponses to PlaintiffQuinto Tijerina's First Set oflntenogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission; and, 2. Defendant Pharmacia Corporation's, FormerlyKnown as Monsanto Company, Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Disclosure Under Rule 194. K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses Respectfully submitted. ELLIS, CARSTARPHEN, DOUGHERTY & GOLDENTHAL P.C. By: /v Edward M. Carstarphen State Bar No. 03906700 G. Joe Ellis State Bar No. 06575050 Lawrence E. Goldenthal State Bar No. 08089508 720 N. Post Oak, Suite 330 Houston, Texas 77024 Telephone: 713.647.6800 Facsimile: 713.647.6884 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT PHARMACIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MONSANTO COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Iherebycertifythat atrue and correct copyofthe above and foregoingwas served upon all known counsel ofrecord byregularmail and upon Plaintiffs' counsel ofrecord on this , 2001 by certified mail, return receipt requested as follows: Elizabeth Schick Lou Thompson Stephanie Finch Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 K:\Solutia\Tijerina\Discoveryresponses -2- G. Joe Ellis JUL.09.GU3/'9397 Ellis, Carstarphen, Dougherty & Goldenthal P.C. a Professional Corporation 720 N. Post Oak, Ste. 330 Houston, Texas 77024 PHONE: 713.647.6800 FAX: 713.647.6884 simeakkwcom July 5,2001 Evelyn Wells Robison Galveston County District Clerk 404 Courthouse 722 Moody Avenue Galveston, Texas 77550 Re: Cause No. 00CV1037; Quinto Tijerina, etal. v. GAF Corp., etal.; In the 212th Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas. Dear Sir: Enclosed for filing in the captioned case is the original and one copy ofDefendant Pharmacia Corporation's, formerly known as Monsanto Company, Certificate of Filing of Certain Discovery. Please file stamp the enclosed copyofthis letter and return to me in the enclosed, self-addressed and stamped envelope. By copy of this letter, all known counsel have been served with a copy of such instrument. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ix&v&r' Aj. G. Joe Ellis GJE:js Enclosure cc: As Per Certificate of Service